Jump to content

Talk:Hera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeHera was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 1, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ssutaria.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mfitzgerald123456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hera. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it remains a controversial claim that primitive matriarchy existed in Greece or elsewhere"

[edit]

Some clear sexist bias adding this, as this is no longer fact and hasn't been for some time, and the only citations are old and out of date to the new research and evidence discovered about the earlier matriarchies not only in Greece and elsewhere. Specifically the "or elsewhere" gives blatant evidence to the nature of adding this, diverging to not just try to stomp out the facts about it here, but everywhere in one fell swoop. If they wanted to add a counter point, they need to do so from a neutral perspective not the blatant sexist one we see here, keep it strictly to the topic, and make sure the timeline of the difference research and different evidence for both views are fully presented. But clearly the editor that added this isn't neutral or wanting all sides heard and wholesale dismisses research with no actual facts. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the cited sources, but on the surface at least they seem reliable and recent. Sources which support a counter view would be welcome. Paul August ☎ 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1970 is recent??? And you are cherry picking ignoring the bias, which a matriarchy debate should be its own topic not on this page. The line isn't neutral, the information isn't neutral and ignores other research that disagrees showing bias. If this discussion is going to be on this article it should follow neutrality rules, and provide arguments from both sides as there is plenty of research from the other side as well. Instead we get a loaded line that has a clear agenda (bias) and only one side of the debate. So either it needs to be balanced out, or removed entirely. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are the cited sources:

  • Steven Goldberg, The Inevitability of Patriarchy, (William Morrow & Company, 1973)
  • Joan Bamberger,'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society', in M Rosaldo and L Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society, (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263-280
  • Donald E. Brown, Human Universals Archived 2010-11-14 at the Wayback Machine (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 1991
  • Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule, (Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993)
  • Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future, (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001)
  • Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology, (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11
  • Encyclopædia Britannica describes this view as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system. 'Matriarchy' Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007.

As you can see, besides the two cites from the 1970s, there also five others from 1991 thru 2007, which seem recent enough to me. I don't know whether these source represent the current scholarly consensus—although the EB cite seems to indicate that they do—I would need to see other sources which represent a different view, to evaluate this. Can you provide any? Paul August ☎ 13:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address the bias of the portion what so ever, and you fail to address the outdated ones to current citations of studies. There is a clear systematic bias happening to suit one particular view rather than wikipedia's neutral stance. Hell some of the responses throughout this discussion section show pure sexist intent. Besides the repeated vandalism. And I shouldn't have to do the research for you if you are actually for the tenats of the sites, and the research is widely public. Oh right that doesn't take just a copy past as a response. It should have been part of the article when the anti-matriarchy positions were added. That portion should be removed until such time as the pro-matriarchy research is cited and added and the section complies with wiki neutrality. And I'm seriously considering upgrading this. It is clear this page can't be open to edits without blatant sexist vandalism. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above sources seem sufficient, to me, to support the statement that the "claim that primitive matriarchy existed in Greece or elsewhere" is controversial. Is it your contentions that the scholarly consensus is that matriarchy did exist in ancient Greece? And that in fact such a claim is not even controversial, i.e. there are not even any significant minority views on the subject? And that therefore what the EB article says, for example, is 180 degrees wrong? That's possible I suppose, but seems unlikely. I would need to see counter sources before I could support removal of that seemingly well-sourced statement. You're right of course, you don't have to do the research, if you don't want to, we are all volunteers here ;-) But unless someone does some more research, I doubt that the statement will be successfully removed. Paul August ☎ 11:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't assert that. It is one point of view. And there is other sources that say otherwise. You are another that wants to throw out wikipedia's neutrality I see, and it has become clear that this needs to be upgraded to in reporting to someone who follows their standards. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't follow, what doesn't assert that? Paul August ☎ 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it isn't sufficient at all in its assertions. It is completely biased and not a neutral addition. Who says it is "controversial" that is an original research claim. I removed it, and will continue to remove it until such time as someone higher up comes to review. Because until it is made neutral it is vandalism. And this page has a history of sexist vandalism. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topics of Great Goddess theories and Matriarchy in "Old Europe" are broadly rejected today, as the sources above–and many others—indicate. Nor is this a matter of "sexism"—the scholars who originally proposed these concepts saw that leaving behind this supposed Great Goddess-focused matriarchy was initially seen as a sign of how society had 'progressed' beyond 'female rule'—obvious sexism—before being embraced and reappropriated by individuals such as Gimbutas, who saw it differently. Anyway, today it's not even controversial, just by and large rejected or ignored. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not, and you cannot support that claim. That is claim solely by you, or original research which is not allowed on the site. It doesn't follow the neutrality of this site. You are another of the sexist trolls. And I will keep removing that part as long as it continues to not follow wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and original research. And have noted such on each removal for the record so when it gets escalated, they will see exactly what the sexist vandals are doing. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted to disputes since the 3 reversion rule has been violated, and not one argument to keep the text has shown how it is not an original claim or how it is neutral. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows what Wikipedia deems to be reliable sources say (WP:RS). Please find some reliable sources to back your claims. For topics such as these, think peer-reviewed material from academic sources. If no such sources exist, then we can't move forward. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold the controversial claim to the same standard then. Oh right you won't because you are part of the problem bias and non-neutral parties. Funny how you want to follow those guidelines but aren't following the 3 reversion rule. Or its rules on original research and neutrality. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the point of view of Indo-European and 'Old European' studies, I can confirm that it is generally rejected. Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis is grandiose, but her Great Goddess theory is totally unfounded. She basically extrapolated from female statuettes that 'Old Europeans' followed a matriarchal cult, which as absurd as a future archaeologist asserting that the 21th-century Western civilization was matriarchal because he/she found are a lot of representations of women in contemporary magazines. Alcaios (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It being rejected doesn't equal controversy. Lots of historical claims are rejected, later reevaluated, accepted or rejected again over and over. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the word "controversial" means? On your user talk page you write: "I have no problem with language stating it isn't a mainstream theory in neutral terms". Would you please suggest alternate language? Perhaps we can come up with language agreeable to everyone. Paul August ☎ 11:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean what you think it does. For example there are several theories on Dark Matter. Some are considered more sound than others. That doesn't make the others controversial. That is how theories work. Are we going to now add controversial to all those scientific theories that aren't considered the current primary theory then? No of course not. And it has no place here either. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a scientific approach, the claim lacks sufficient evidence to be accepted by mainstream scholarship. It remains an unproven proposition, some would say an unfounded one. I guess the controversy rests upon the fact that it has been ideologically exploited by second-wave feminists. This is clearly noticeable in Gimbutas' theory: (my summary) "there was once in Eastern Europe a pacific, egalitarian, matriarchal society that has been wiped out by the violent, hierarchical, patriarchal Indo-European society; which eventually leads to the following political proposition: matriarchy is the 'natural', 'primordial' and 'morally superior' system of organization we should thrive to reinstate." Alcaios (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That again is bais, adding in second-wave feminists (you clearly have a problem with), which has nothing to do with the theory itself being controversial. So in your own words you show it is poorly written and your own bias. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to, "However, it has not been established sufficiently that an ancient matriarchy or a cultural focus on a monotheistic Great Goddess existed among the ancient Greeks or elsewhere. The claim is generally rejected by most modern scholars as insufficiently evidenced." Keeping the citations. If you can't accept that more neutral writing of those lines, then you are fully admitting your biased positions and you have no place editing this. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again someone has violated wikipedia policy reverting this. This is fucking ridiculous that this edit was reverted to put back the false controversial claim. This is vandalism. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed change: "However, it has not been established sufficiently", seems to imply that the claim has been established, albeit insufficiently, and "The claim is generally rejected by most modern scholars as insufficiently evidenced" seems to imply that some modern scholars accept it, without given any sources which support either of your claims. Who are these modern scholars? Paul August ☎ 10:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nooooooooo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4400:FF40:2DAF:A359:155:9C0D (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Zeus then transformed back into himself and raped her. Hera, ashamed of being exploited, agreed to marriage with Zeus"

[edit]

There is no ancient myth to support this claim. Whoever wrote it in the first place did not cite any sources. I searched all of myths regarding Zeus and Hera's marriage and there was no rape in them.

"The statue of Hera is seated on a throne; it is huge, made of gold and ivory, and is a work of Polycleitus. She is wearing a crown with Graces and Seasons worked upon it, and in one hand she carries a pomegranate and in the other a sceptre. About the pomegranate I must say nothing, for its story is somewhat of a holy mystery. The presence of a cuckoo seated on the sceptre they explain by the story that when Zeus was in love with Hera in her maidenhood he changed himself into this bird, and she caught it to be her pet. This tale and similar legends about the gods I relate without believing them, but I relate them nevertheless" Pausanias, Description of Greece 2.17.4 Zeus transformed into a cuckoo, Hera kept him as a pet. There is no transformation back into himself. rape or marriage out of shame. Therefore, I removed this sentence.

Ela

[edit]

What is hera not good at 2601:148:437E:5240:0:0:0:3CAE (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starwars

[edit]

This is hers sindulla from star wars she is the captain of the ghost 😀 she is free spirited and can out run anything 73.221.32.70 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks

[edit]

Blue eyes golden hair and modestly dressed 2603:7080:5D35:4CC9:1C72:A516:2EFF:BBEE (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hera&oldid=1212547824"