Talk:Esus

Sphere of Influence

I doubt "was a god of agriculture, war and commerce" which is a lot to draw from two statues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NantonosAedui (talk • contribs) on 19 June 2005.

Agreed. I've slashed and burnt a lot of this article, but it's all so that new green shoots will have a place to grow. QuartierLatin1968 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosmerta

Removed "He was married to Rosmerta." as incorrect (Rosmerta was the female companion of Mercury, in Gaul; there are only two depictions of Esus, neither with Rosmerta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NantonosAedui (talk • contribs) on 19 June 2005.

New York City

"He is also an up and coming cultural phenomenon is the United States and can be seen in and around New York City." - Vandalism? -- 8^D BD2412^gab 20:29, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

That or advertisement. --Tydaj 22:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymological origin of the name Jesus is Semitic (ישוע), that of Zeus is Indo-European (*dyeus). I can't think how these names could be etymologically linked. Q·L·1968 ☿ 15:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It does say this the Esus-Jesus connection was conjured up by Iolo, correct? There' not much logic to that guy's though patterns.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Iolo did say it. He may not have been the very first, but I suspect he was, since he was kind of at the cutting edge of Celtic revivalist pseudo-scholarship. The link between Esus and Jesus, although commonly mooted, is specious; still more so is any link between Jesus and Zeus (which I've never even seen mentioned before). Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. But the article doesn't claim there's a link between Jesus and Zeus, does it? Just that Iolo associated Jesus with Esus, and someone else associated Esus with Zeus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand the intended meaning of "the etymological relationship between the theonyms Zeus and Jesus"? Perhaps the author meant "between Zeus and Esus on the one hand and between Jesus and Esus on the other". Cheers, Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was confused as to what we were talking about here. I now see you mean the line you removed. The Esus-Jesus connection is okay to keep as something made up by Iolo, and the Esus-Zeus connection would be okay if (a.) it was a real suggestion and (b.) it was sourced. The further leap between Jesus and Zeus is nonsense, and you were right to remove it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also in Slavic mythology a god Jesza (spelled Yesha) so with similar name to the Jesus, Esus or Zeus. 176.104.177.152 (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Esus felling a tree

• ... that the violent end of a bog body might be related to the cult of the Celtic god Esus (pictured)?

• Source: MacKillop, James (2004). "Esus, Hesus". Dictionary of Celtic Mythology (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.

MacKillop, James (2004). "Lindow Man". A Dictionary of Celtic Mythology (Online ed.). Oxford University Press.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bronx General Post Office
  • Comment: Just over 5x expansion from 3108 characters to 16259 characters.

5x expanded by Tenpop421 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

Tenpop421 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC).

• Article is eligible, QPQ checks out, and the hook seems interesting. It's citations are used in the article and confirm the hook. No evidence of copyvio. Looks good to me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Esus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tenpop421 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I already made my notes (offline), just need to find time to post them here! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to your comments! Tenpop421 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I have been unexpectedly busy in my personal life. I've gotten to some of this, but should add more to the lede and more along the lines of MTAU tomorrow. Thank you for your patience, Tenpop421 (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you again for your comments. I have attempted to get to all of them. Let me know if I've missed anything. Tenpop421 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Promoting now; thank you for this interesting article and congrats! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

General note: I think the article could do with a bit of further work towards WP:MTAU. I read it offline and had trouble to understand some sentences. Because I did it offline, I will also list minor typos here instead of editing myself (my connection is not good), hope that's ok.

• "very large number of" – "very" is unnecessary, I don't think you loose anything when removing it
  • Removed.
• The lead, and I think the article overall, lacks some basic information: Anything about distribution of the god (only in Gaul, or pan-celtic? During what time period is the good attested?
  • I've added more to each section about the distribution of Esus, and have appropriated some footnoted stuff for a paragraph about Esus's "Geographical distribution" (I've also moved around some sections, in order to make the progression of the article more logical). It's hard to talk about Esus's distribution, since so little is known about him. Hopefully the lede gives a better overview now.
• However, D. Ellis Evans points out that the proposed Italic cognate is usually explained by way of an Etruscan root. – No idea what this means
  • Elaborated
• name with PIE *esu- ("good") – What is PIE, why is it capitalized, and which language is it?
  • Replaced "PIE" with "proto-Indo-European" throughout.
• Die Komposition in gallischen Personennamen – Delete this, or at least translate ("the composition in Gallic person names")
  • Deleted
• Bernhard Maier is sceptical that all these names are theophoric. – Theophoric – explain or avoid that term.
  • Avoided
• offered each of to – can't understand
  • Fixed silly mistake
• has been much the subject of much commentary. 2 x "much"
  • Removed
• discussed below – Avoid self references per WP:self – I think, please check. There are some other instances.
  • Removed these, since they weren't altogether necessary, and WP:SELF makes good arguments against them.
• 14-37 CE – this needs a proper ndash, not a hyphen: 14–37 CE
  • Added
• attacks a tree – not sure if "attacks" is the best word here?
  • attacks > strikes at
• and Anne Ross has argued that there was such a significance associated with cranes, as well. – remove comma
  • Removed
• as well. de Vries conjectured – upper case needed after dot.
  • Added
• have led Alderik H. Blom and Andreas Hofeneder to scepticism that the god Esus is referenced here – better "to doubt rather than "to scepticism"?
  • Added
• There are only two only – only only
  • Removed
• the legend on the Paris monument and the inscription found in 1987 – Sounds as if mentioned already, but I don't remember it was? If not, it should be introduced first.
  • Reworded that paragraph
• Nice and interesting work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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.

"Hesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hesus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 2 § Hesus until a consensus is reached. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

How is this rated GA? It should be demoted.

The lede is missing major points from later paragraphs. The connection to Mars is buried. The likely domain of warfare is buried. There is a non-neutral focus on 'human sacrifice' based on Celtic enemies' perceptions; the Romans (or modern day anti Pagan Judeo-Christian morality), who (using human tribalism) naturally other the Celts, their deities and religious practices. Sacrifices were generally of criminals and were redemptive of their crimes delivering boons to the tribe, their family and paying towards the honour price of their victim and their family. If at all possible, there should be some focus on the Celtic view of why they worshipped this deity, what they expected from sacrifice, what domain the deity covered, etc. Even though the majority of knowledge comes from enemies texts; this propaganda against Celtic deity worship needs to be pointed out. If the Celtic point of view about their own deity is lacking then the reader of the article needs to be informed of this in the lede. ~2026-32048-89 (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32048-89: The connections to Mars is not in the lede because there is nothing beyond the commentary tradition to Lucan which links Esus and Mars; there is no epigraphic data or otherwise-attested connection with war which confirms or disproves this identification (unlike, the identification with Mercury, which is arguably disproved by the Trier monument). The focus is Roman because virtually all our sources for Esus are Roman, and moreover these sources are not "propaganda against Celtic deity worship" (Lucan was not writing anti-Celt propaganda, and his probable source, Posidonius, was not a propagandist either). The focus of the article reflects what little we know about Esus. If you have reliable sources with perspectives not represented in this article, I would be happy to add them. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)