Jump to content

Talk:Demeter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Auxesia.

As Auxesia, she was the goddess of growth. I suppose someone's just fooling around with this. Auxo is one of the Horae. Any reference in literature to Auxesia? Wetman 05:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Mythica mentions it as an epithet, but doesn't cite a source. Godchecker makes the same claim. Some other non-authoritative sources also mention it. Tuf-Kat 08:00, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

LISA CAMARILLO ROCKS YO.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.191.99 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Let me place this snip here, until we can get a classical reference for either of these names, now that we have so many genuine epithets to be working on in the entry: She was sometimes referred to with the names Damia or Auxesia, as the goddess of growth. Wetman 06:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hera/Elara.

" Hera was also an alternate name for Elara, a moon of Jupiter." Was the moon ever published under this "alternative" name? (An April 1 edit) --Wetman 00:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement paragraph.

I have cleaned the paragraph Disagreement:

Reasons: the etymology of Demeter (sometimes called Deo Mater) is normally known, *dheghom *mater in indo-european meaning "mother-earth". An albanian equivalent exists: Dhe Motë. Demeter is not etymologically linked with Zeus whose name directly comes from the indo-european *dyeus, "daily sky" and the name of the indo-european god of the skies. --83.203.183.147 21:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Children

How many children other than Persephone did Demeter have? Just wondering. Pope Arnold 22:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Persephone, her own young self; with Poseidon in her archaic mare aspect, Chrysaor and Pegasus (an archaic remnant of myth); see Iachus, a doublet of Dionysus; see also Iasion, her consort in Crete, another archaic mytheme. Not Triptolemos, the grain boy of the Eleusinian mysteries. --Wetman 09:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The link to her child Arion leads to Arion the poet. Shouldn't it be Arion the mythical horse? TomDestry (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

4 seasons.

It says that Persephone returns to the underworld for 6 months. Isn't it 4 months? --Nirvalex9 20:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the dead season. The Greek calendar divided the year in three seasons, not four. --Wetman 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeds.

Number of seeds- the Persephone entry says 4. This one says 3 or 6.

The number varies in the sources. --Wetman 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Notwithstanding 83.203.183.147's original research above, the etymology as "earth-mother" has not convinced people like John Chadwick (See The Mycenaean World, p. 87.) We should not present it here as fact, and certainly not in the intro.

Also, what is the reference for the occurence of this name in the Linear B tablets, and for the etymology associating her with distribution? (On its face more plausible than "earth-mother" but we still need a ref.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I though that Persephone was her daughter by Zeus and that Despoina was her daughter by Poseidon. T@nn 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

and what alternative does Chadwick present? Demeter is obviously earthmother. Da is the Doric Ge (Earth in Greek -ancnt and modrn) and meter the mother. [1]--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Demeter godess of harvesting.

Demeter also known as Ceres to the romans Demeter is the top Earth's godess of crops, agricolture, harvestng and fertility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.25.72.9 (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Daughter of.

Demeter was the daughter of Cronus and Rhea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.25.72.9 (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The last 100 edits

The last 100 edits produced this result. Semi-protection during the school year would save lots of adult time. --Wetman (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why this was such a popular target.
BTW In the infobox, "| God_of = " currently reads "Goddess of Agriculture and wheat". In January it was "Goddess of Agriculture and Guardian of Marriage", in November "Goddess of the Harvest". This should probably be consistent with the lead section of the article. 01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC) -- User:Docu

Polis

With the New subcategory in the Greek infobox I added Demeter's Patron city as Eleusis, as the Eleusian mysteries are held there. Anyone feel free to change it, add new cities or just wipe it altogether if they disagree with it.

Just thought it would add a real life connection that always interests me. Calamitas-92 (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess." The bolded phrase had originally been wikilinked to Triple Goddess for a discussion of Graves's concept. Unfortunately, that article was later usurped to cover only the Neopagan/Wiccan deity. Triple goddess (disambiguation) now exists to mention the three possible senses: a female triple deity (Triple deities#Triple goddesses), the concept in Graves's 1948 book The White Goddess, and the Neopagan/Wiccan deity "The Triple Goddess". So I pointed this article's link there instead. Unfortunately, 98.248.33.198 redirected it to Triple deities#Triple goddesses, which does not discuss Graves's concept at all, thus missing the point of the link. Linking to a disambig page may be imperfect, yet per WP:IAR it's tolerable if it fulfills the purpose of the link. Linking to a full article which doesn't fulfill the purpose of the link is worse: it's irrelevant. Between the two, linking to the disambig page is a better choice. Undoing accordingly. No edit wars, please. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point, which is that wikilinks should point to a specific article and not a disambig page. IAR is a recourse of last resort and not a justification for failing to link to an appropriate article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Triple deities#Triple goddesses isn't the appropriate article; it doesn't discuss Graves's concept of the Triple Goddess, which had been the point of the link. Triple Goddess used to be the appropriate article; it just isn't now, for as long as it stays Wicca-centered, because Graves wasn't writing about Wicca (and Demeter long predates it). What's appropriate is something that mentions Graves's concept of the Triple Goddess without limiting the context to Wicca. Right now, only Triple goddess (disambiguation) does that. Until some other article does, that's the only one suiting the link's purpose. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with the anon that this doesn't make any sense. Don't link to disambiguation pages, please. Triple deities#Triple goddesses is the most adequate link I can make out in this context. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been overtaken by events of the past week, namely the expansion of Triple Goddess#Origins, which is where that link now points. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry. In this case, you may need to adjust the Triple Goddess hatnote. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Davémon removed the hatnote. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure my edits on other articles need to be reported here. The attention I am receiving is beginning to feel a little uncomfortable. Davémon (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor and misleading documentation, partiality

This edit not only bypasses the link discussion immediately above, and inserts an attack on Graves that is inappropriate for the setting, it's also poorly documented, citing a book of essays by title only, no editor(s) or author(s) named, let alone a publisher or date. WP:POV asks, "Who advocates the point of view? What are their arguments?" So who is denouncing Graves? The unnamed editor(s)? An unnamed essayist? Or some other unnamed person merely quoted in an unnamed essay? Well, it turns out to be two different quotes run together, and the essayist actually disagrees with them: Michael W. Pharand's "Greek Myths, White Goddess" goes on to say, "Graves's theories and conclusions, outlandish as they seemed to his contemporaries (or may appear to us), were the result of careful observation." That is, the source cited for attacks on Graves actually refutes them — but no-one would guess that from the way it was cited. Digging out of this otherwise favorable essay only the attacks it briefly alludes to, and inserting them (unnamed, unexplained, and unbalanced by any of the essay's actual favorability) into a previously neutral "According to Robert Graves, Persephone is..." is blatant POV violation and partiality. Such wrangling doesn't belong there. Since Graves's name is wikilinked, readers can go to his article and see any "Criticisms" section there — and that (or any other section discussing his ideas at length) is where criticism belongs, not in this short reference. Undoing. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see wp:GEVAL and wp:GEVAL#Characterizing_opinions_of_people.27s_work it is entirely appropriate to summarise the criticisms here, and it is completely balanced. Indeed, Graves claims are considered to be "outlandish", and the casual reader needs to be informed of that. It is totally biased and impartial to present his ideas without the proper context. Davémon (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

«... Graves claims are considered to be "outlandish"...» — The source you cite doesn't say they are outlandish, he says they seemed outlandish, past tense, "seemed to his contemporaries" (over half a century ago when they were new), and "may appear to us" (today), but that in fact they "were the result of careful observation." So he isn't making the claim you cite him for, he refers to it as only a seeming, an appearance, which he refutes. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Using mild language such as "may" does not refute the claim, it just lessens the critical blow. The reference is to the sources being cited, and the author does not refute them, but rather mediates their critique. Nontheless, I've updated the article so it names some of the experts and added more expert sources which also state Graves should not be taken seriously on matters of interpreting Greek myth. Davémon (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You've added two lines of text to a one-line sentence, in fact to a four-word dependent clause ("According to Robert Graves,..."), swamping what the sentence is actually there to say. This simply isn't the right place to insert all that argument. "Robert Graves" is wikilinked, so anyone who cares to know who he is (and doesn't already) can go to that article and read all about him. Put your criticisms there, not here. Restoring to status quo ante.
(And, for that matter, the wikilinked "Triple Goddess" in that same sentence already goes to a section where you've put your criticisms, so it was completely redundant to insert such here as well!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles stand on their own, the casual reader might not follow the links. Graves is rejected by scholarship in the field, if the article is going to contain his ideas this must be made clear. Pushing for Graves opinions to be presented as a mainstream theory would be is far from upholding WP:NPOV. Davémon (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
By your reasoning, every first mention of any name in any article must not only be wikilinked but also have a mini-bio attached to it, rather than let the wikilink do its job. We can't quote Abraham Lincoln in a one-line sentence without adding two more lines of text about modern criticisms of his motives in the Civil War? No, that's not how it works, and not how it should work. And as for "Graves is rejected by scholarship in the field", your cited source Pharand (p.183) actually says that "some classicists and scholars of comparative religion dismissed the book..., a view that persists even today." Some. Not all. And from his later remarks, apparently not Pharand himself. Your "rejected by scholarship in the field" feigns unanimity on the matter, and your text in the article is one-sided as well as ill-placed. A four-word dependent clause is not the place to insert two full lines of argument. If you're not going to trust wikilinks, then use a footnote. Which is where I'm moving it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the footnote, but the article still needs to be clear that Graves is widely considered to be psuedoscholarship (whether you accept it or not), and not present his arguments as mainstream theory. Davémon (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That argument is already covered in both the wikilink and now the footnote, and doesn't need to be repeated yet again in the text body of a four-word dependent clause. Further, the footnote shows that the source you yourself cited does not share the opinion you inserted, so again you're giving only one side of a dispute — the side your own source has rebutted. WP:POV! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Burying the mainstream academic viewpoint of Graves in a footnote isn't an option. It needs to be clear to a casual reader that the theory they are about to read is not a mainstream theory. You're totally overstating the so-called 'rebuttal' in the source.Davémon (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
"Burying"?? The criticism is covered at the wikilink, you weren't happy with that, you wanted it also in the article; now it is in the article, at length, you're still not happy, you want it repeated in the article. Is this what you're going to do in every article that mentions Graves, however briefly? WP:ADVOCACY! Especially since the source you cite to quote this opinion actually argues against it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Any article that espouses Graves theories should explain that it is not a mainstream academic opinion. wp:fringe. "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.". That is precisely what I'm asking for here. Davémon (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a one-line sentence (let alone its four-word dependent clause) constitutes "in detail"; again, by that reasoning, every article that mentions Graves at all would have to have this same lengthy argument added to it, which would be utterly unjustifiable redundancy. In any case, you have that documentation not only wikilinked in that sentence but also repeated in this article's footnote. Nothing in your cited rule says it also has to be repeated (yet again) in the text body. WP:DEADHORSE! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle_Flambé is quite right not to permit h'self to be bullied in this. Graves and the Goddess, published by the vanity press Rosemont, contains a range of studies of Graves, not all of them belittling in the least. It is fashionable among sophomores to denigrate Graves for some of the cultural politics he reads into myths. We're all well aware of this. --Wetman (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
So According to Wetman Dr. Nick Lowe of the Royal Holloway, University of London [[2]] when writing: "nuttier still are the astounding pseudo-scholarly interpretative commentaries on each section, which historicize everything in terms of Graves’s personal mythology of the White Goddess" in the Times Literary Supplement makes him a fashionable sophomore? Placing contextualising information in the body of the article is the right thing to do, hiding documentation in a footnote is clearly attempting present the information as neutral when it is infact anything but. Davémon (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
«Hiding documentation in a footnote...» — Footnotes exist to provide documentation, that's their purpose! It's not "hiding" to put documentation there! Interrupting the main text body with argumentation makes it hard to follow the narrative. The footnote mark[##] is sufficient notice that there's more to be seen, and clicking it takes the reader directly to that footnote. Wikilinks to other articles accomplish the same thing, allowing (say) a whole section on criticism to be written just once, instead of redundantly included over and over again in other articles. Use those features! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thus: "[ref] Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception.[/ref] — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The article text frames Graves' opinion as non-academic and the footnote provides additional information. Thanks for your hard work on this, I think we have a good solution! Davémon (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediterranean Winter

"But(oh my god she lives in tennessee), when Persephone returned to the underworld, the earth once again became a barren realm. The four months when the earth is barren is the season of winter, since in Greece this is when all vegetation dies. Summer, autumn, and spring by comparison have heavy rainfall and mild temperatures in which plant life flourishes."

Greece has a Mediterranean climate. According to the Wikipedia article "Climate of Greece" this means that winter is the wettest time of the year. How can the earth then be barren during this time? The climatological facts of Greece do not support this myth as a charter myth(origin of the seasons in this case).

--Psycherry 06:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The barren season referred to in the myth is summer, not winter. I've corrected it a couple of times in the last few days, it'd be great if it could stop being changed back to winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.140.69 (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The citation to "Mikalson" is likely to Jon D. Mikalson's The Sacred and Civil Calendar of the Athenian Year, 1976, which I probably ought to have read. Can we have a report of what Mikalson has said, to support this more definitively? Since the statement However ancient commentaries written by figures such as Porphyry did not understand the Myth in this way and saw Persephone's descent as connected with the autumn and winter months may be a misreading or mistranslation, the article needs to pinpoint this assertion in Porphyry. Or drop it. I haven't tagged these issues, needless to say: such a tiresome little weapon, eh.--Wetman (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have access to Mikalson's book at the moment, but there is a relevant section in Burkert's Greek Religion on p. 160, where he notes that "this account does not accord with the pattern of growth in Mediterranean lands, where the corn germinates a few weeks after the autumn sowing and then grows continuously. For this reason, Cornford and Nilsson proposed an alternative construction of the myth: Kore's descent into the underworld is the storing of the seed-corn in underground silos during the dry summer months when, in the Mediterranean climate, all vegetation is threatened with desiccation. At the time of the first autumn rains, some four months after the harvest, the seeds are taken from the subterranean keep, Kore returns, and the cycle of vegetation begins anew. This undoubtedly fits the facts much better, but the Greeks did not understand the myth in this way..." For the moment, I'll replace Mikalson with Burkert, if that's all right. I don't have anything useful to say about Porphyry right now, but maybe I'll be able to chase that down later. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. Well found, Akhilleus: Burkert is literally at hand. I should have remembered that. --Wetman (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slight mistake

During the middle of [[3]] (Titles and functions), the following is said:

"In a similar sense, she could be invoked as Thesmophoros ("giver of customs" or even "legislator") a role that links her to the even more ancient goddess Themis. This title was connected with the Thesmophoria, a festival of secret women-only rituals in Athens connected with marriage customs."

However, only four lines below, it is said that


"Demeter might also be invoked in the guise of: * Malophoros ("apple-bearer" or "sheep-bearer", Pausanias 1.44.3) * Kidaria (Pausanias 8.13.3), * Lusia ("bathing", Pausanias 8.25.8) * Thermasia ("warmth", Pausanias 2.34.6) * Kabeiraia, a pre-Greek name of uncertain meaning that links Demeter as patroness to the Kabeiroi. * Achaea, the name by which she was worshipped at Athens by the Gephyraeans who had emigrated from Boeotia.[9][10]

* Thesmophoros ("giver of customs" or even "legislator", a role that links her to the even more ancient goddess Themis. This title was connected with the Thesmophoria, a festival of secret women-only rituals in Athens connected with marriage customs.)"

This says that Demeter can not only be called [...] and Thesmophoros, but also [...] ... and Thesmophoros.

Now, either I am reading this wrong, or it is said twice. Which seems highly unnecessary, considering how 'also' is used in the meaning of 'not only [...], but also[...]' here.

Permission to edit this out? 82.168.62.246 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)



Did she marry Zeus??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplejs97 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she married him, off course. But Poseidon wasn't Demeter's consort. He just raped her, but that's no means that she is his wife.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mychele Trempetich (talk • contribs) 14:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Demeter-Poseidon

In the list of Mycenean Divinities (John Paul Adams) there is not any mention for the goddess DA-MA-TE.In the list there is the name PO-SI-DA-EIA (Wife of Poseidon),therefore it is doubtfull if PO-SI-DA-O means "master of the earth". If the da element does not mean earth,it is possible that Da-mater means "mother of Zeus" (The Minoan Great mother)-Compare Messapian Da-ma-tu-ra- and Potei-dan "Zeus of the water".94.65.249.249 (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Zagreus

Section Children in article Demeter says, Zagreus was her son. Article Zagreus says, he was son of Persephone. Article Persephone says, both is possible, but without reference. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He's the son of Persephone and Zeus (according to Orphic sources), and is never said to be the son of Demeter. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
As this article no longer asserts that Zagreus was the son of Demeter, I've removed the "contradict-other" template. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Corn? Really?

"One of her surnames is Sito (σίτος: wheat) as the giver of food or corn."

The Ancient Greeks didn't know what corn was, unless you are talking of corn in the arcane sense (small seeds of spices-- as in corned beef), which I doubt. Maize is a new world plant that was not introduced to the old world until the 1500's AD-- long after Demeter was dead!

In case anyone else was confused, the original editor was talking of corn in the British sense (any kind of grain, particularly wheat, barley, and maize).
Also, old goddesses never die. They just fade away. — LlywelynII 04:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

In Cypriot, Demeter was TA-MA-TI-RI. While I do see the possibility of mother in there, I also TA-MA (Lyc. house) and TI-RI (Myc. three). I haven't really thought of any good reasons for why Demeter would be a three-house kind of goddess, but it just makes me wonder about non-mother origins... k. da-ma-te (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that the Etymology section here has become disproportionately long and complex? There's a deal of dedicated work in evidence - perhaps more evidence than is needed, certainly in the main body of text, which is now almost unreadably intricate. Haploidavey (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Either the etymology section's been clarified, or I've just gotten used to it. But could someone with expertise in linguistics please clarify, explain and justify the offered translation of "i-da-ma-te" from Linear A? As far as I know, there's no scholarly consensus for any particular translation of any text in Linear A. If this is the case, and we're going to offer translation nevertheless, we should provide scholarly sources and caveats. Haploidavey (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me too.--Wetman (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Law of Demeter

I suggest a link be placed on top to this page. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Linear A inscriptions

There are several interpretetions of Linear A inscriptions by Peruzzi,A.Furumark (Upsala University),G.Neumannn ,Davis and Pope.They have to do with calculations (sums or deficit),plants and goddesses.Some of the interpretetions are almost clear "ku-ro",sum (from Sem.kullu),"po-to-ku-ro",total sum,"ki-ro",deficit (from Sem.) "ku-mi-na" ,cummin-cumin (from Sem.),"sa-sa-me",sesame (from Sem.),"sa-mu-ku",rosine (from ugaritic smq-m),"ko-ru",coriander,"su-pu ",probably σιπύη (Ugaritic sp?),"a-ka-ru" (probably from Sem. kl:essen),"a-du" (probably from Babyl.adu:contract).There are also many words that have their parallel in Linear B (Greek). The names of the goddesses seem to be connected with a certain place and they are oftenly accompanied by the word "a-sa-sa-ra-me" that is interpreted "mistress" from the similar Hittitic word.The names that have been interpreted are "a-ta-no","a-ta-no-wa-ja" (probably Athena?),"ku-pa-na-tu-na" (name of a place), and"i-da-ma-te" (or "no-da-ma-te"). For -damate we find an analogue structure in "Rhadamanthus".The interpretetion "mother Ida" (from the mountain Ida) is not accepted.The language was Aegean and many words seem to have been borrowed from the East.The ideograms for cereals are probably connected with the syllabic words "ku-ni-su" and "da-me".John Chadwick was uncertain for the etymology of Demeter,and some lexicons find impossible the "Mother Earth".The interpretetion "mother of barley" is also uncertain because the original word for barley was "zeai" not "deai" (Ktetzmer).I added an uncertain connection with the goddess below two interpretetions which are both uncertain.So what is the fuss?The problem is that the word da-ma-te which we believe that is derived from PIE appears in a Minoan name and it needs further investigation. Note:There is an extended bibliography in the book of F.Scachermeyer,that I mention.In the preface he says that he has studied the Minoan civilization for thirty years.Unfortunately,I don't know if it is translated in English.Mondigomo (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive responses, here and in the article text. Haploidavey (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
However, the text still doesn't address the issues clearly. Furthermore, we now seem to have, in effect, two articles. One is inserted within or above the other, with a deal of duplication between. A couple of points.
  • The introduction should summarise article content. If the article's adequately cited, the introduction doesn't need its own citations.
  • The non-integration of detailed material dis-integrates the article, making it difficult to read and navigate. Let's please consider a hypothetical "average reader", possibly of school age, who comes here seeking a lucidly written, readable account of Demeter. Could we please re-organise, elucidate and explain as we go?

Feedback on the article

This is not a nice article. Reading it was really painful. This article needs to be written in a more elegant style. The "Titles and roles" section is very ugly. It needs a decent amount of work.

The article says: "In an alternate version, Hecate rescued Persephone. In other alternative versions, Persephone was not tricked into eating the pomegranate seeds but chose to eat them herself. In the latter version it is claimed that Ascalaphus, one of Hades' gardeners, claimed to have witnessed her do so, at the moment that she was preparing to return with Hermes." Is it possible to provide sources for such "alternate versions"? ICE77 (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs more

Anthele. The Malian town had a temple of Demeter on par with Apollo's at Delphi and which with it helped form the Great Amphictyonic League that united the Hellenes. Pretty important stuff to be missing... — LlywelynII 04:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

demeter is the goddess of corn and harvest and her symbols are lion,torch,wheat,cornucopia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.135.44 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Goddess of 'hardness'?

Uh, goddess of the hardness? Should hardness be replaced with harvest?

Johnjstanton (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just another of those "editing tests" (so named when we assume good faith. Now reverted. Haploidavey (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

This edit summary made me laugh (and by the way have been watching the progress here - nice!). Did you know that the infobox isn't necessary? I wouldn't mind seeing the article with an image and no infobox - too much junk in the infobox. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I'll be bold, then. The current image should go back to the dressing-up box but alas, I've found no substitute of adequate quality. Haploidavey (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked on Commons? Or a new one can be uploaded if we don't have a good one. Adding: I had a quick look there and the description for the current image says it's Hera, so should probably be changed. Here's one of Demeter. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems a better option than the one we have, which is Hera/Juno rebuilt as Demeter. Labeling at Commons isn't always too hot; there are several images of Ceres that might be copies of Greek Demeters, a la Graeco-Roman syncretism. I guess genuine Greek Demeter statuary would be inscribed with her name, or hail from the 3rd century BC or before. Our authentic Demeters at Commons seem sadly defaced and crumbly, or not terribly well-photographed. I thought of using the vase-painting image (currently further down in the article) but another good, clean image of something authentic and reasonably intact would be great. Haploidavey (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that they're all crumbly and not great. I think the one from the vase is quite beautiful and it would work as the lead image. When I have a chance I'll dig around a bit to see whether I can find anything better and report back. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
All I can find is this bowl which maybe we can use anyway. I think the vase is nicer. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you there. I've replaced the main image with the one you linked previously. And I've done away with the infobox format entirely, partly because I don't know how to adjust image sizes within them, partly because this article had no less than four boxes of various kinds, and... um, that's it, really. I agree with you on the relative merits of the vase paintings. What we already have seems a better bet (and more gorgeous) than t'other; but on the other hand, it might be rather too myth-specific for an introductory lead-in. What d'you reckon? Haploidavey (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree - it's a gorgeous piece, but too myth specific. It's better without the infobox because it prevents people from adding stuff that's unwanted. I laughed at some of the things you pulled out. Oh and btw - the link to the bowl, links to a good website with a fairly good set of sources. I haven't been watching this too closely, only noticed the work that was going into it and happy to see it because it's one of those pages that's on my watchlist that I always think I'll get to but never do. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in this subject area, they (infoboxes) fall someplace between useless and misleading. We've managed (quite happily) to avoid them in articles on Roman religion - a far less popular area, if the visit counters are anything to go by. Haploidavey (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. We've avoided them on article relating to Germanic religion for exactly the reasons you mention. In fact, I say they should go from all mythology articles, including Greek. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Commons description: Demeter and Metanira. Detail of the belly of an Apulian red-figure hydria, ca. 340 BC.

I'm arriving late and fairly randomly to this party, but what was the gorgeous image from a Greek vase painting again? Demeter and the Eleusinian Mysteries are MUCH better and more extensively and characteristically documented on vase paintings than in sculpture, and I'd rather see a distinctively Greek image at the top rather than a "Roman copy". (Completely agree that descriptions at Commons suck. Not only are they often missing most info, so that I'm always finding great and strange examples of ancient art with no ID, but when descriptions do appear they're often inaccurate. They call war gods in Pompeiian wall painting "Ares", that kind of thing.) Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Life interrupted my reply here. The vase-image is currently under "Titles and functions"... and well, even with the unfortunate lighting flare, it's gorgeous.[citation needed] On the article in general; I see:bloodofox: has tagged it for a rewrite. Maybe I wouldn't have gone quite that far - and I wouldn't have moved the etymology section back to pride of place - but maybe that's no big deal when the article's so very thin on practices. Sourcing's a problem in mystery religions, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You're not allowed to have one of those, Davey. Life, that is. Here's the image of Demeter I would advocate for, given the strangely limited resources at Commons. She's characteristically seated, with characteristic headdress, and although it refers to a specific myth and also shows Metaneira, look at what M. is holding and compare the wall painting used at mola salsa: the triune wheat's an image of great longevity. And I'm enthralled by Demeter's benediction gesture. Kneeling was a part of the mysteries, I seem to recall, so M.'s posture is also informative. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Where did that come from? Seems bang to rights on the aforesaid three counts, yer honour. And ever so culty. Let's try it. Haploidavey (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Well-done Cynwolfe. It's very nice and I like it much better than others I've seen. Perfect with Metaneira holding the sheaf of wheat. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make the change then. Thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hm. Slight delay. I had hoped to find a source that describes the elements here, but so far no luck online. I used Kevin Clinton's book for Pluto (mythology)#In Eleusinian scenes and remember reading about this vase, but Google Books offers it only in snippets, and not preview. I'll see whether I have notes. If not, I'll just settle for a less-informative caption. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice work. And the image looks very good. Even better than I thought it would. Those two little fingers are very intriguing. Nothing to do with anyone else's two fingers, of course. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
See also Sabazios, hand of. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the infobox returned, but since it mainly provides genealogical material, it's quite unneeded with the "family tree" deeper in the article (I avert my eyes from these trees, because I've been told by Davidiad of Catalogue of Women fame that most of ours are wrong or misleading, given that there are often multiple versions of genealogies). I recognize that the Percy Jackson series treats Greek deities as one big dysfunctional family, but this infobox didn't provide anything but that stuff: no list of attributes, for instance, or major cult sites or such. I'm not against infoboxes as a digest or snapshot of information, but they're usually more trouble than they're worth. The statue, for instance, belongs to that contested category of "Roman copy", and the head and arms are Baroque restorations. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No Corn in Ancient Greece

The section entitled Demeter and Persephone includes reference to the goddess Kore as the "Greek Corn-Maiden" and the storage of corn in underground silos. This is impossible. From the Wiki article on maize (or corn), ..."corn, is a grain domesticated by indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times". Corn was imported to Europe after the colonization of the Americas. To the best of my knowledge this is correct. Therefore corn or maize could not have been part of the Greek diet, or any Eastern Hemisphere diet before 1492.

It is not clear what information sources were used by the author of this article, and how it was determined that Kore is the Greek Corn Maiden, and certainly the similarities of Kore and corn are tempting, but historically the connection is impossible. The Wiki article on Kore makes no reference to corn, and I believe this is correct.

So, I don't know what grain the Greeks were storing in the underground silos, but assuredly it was not corn. Nor was it potatoes or tobacco, which were also domesticated by Natives of the Western Hemisphere and exported to the Eastern Hemisphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianasbow (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The term "Corm Maiden" or "corn spirit" is synonymous to vegetation deity. Suggested by mythographers of the 19th and 20th centuries as a technical term. And as our article on vegetation deity states on this synonym: " " "corn" in this sense meaning grain in general". --Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I WILL ANSWER THE "CORN" QUESTION. Wheat was called "corn" in Britain up to relatively recently, so the grain referred to is a grass-seed, like wheat or barley. Early English-speaking settlers in the Americas started to use the word "corn" to refer to maize, which is where the confusion comes in. The article is not saying that she is the "maize-mother", nor Kore the "maize Maiden" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
is grain in general, at neighbor Arabic world grains-food have religious meaning too. Different grains grow at different areas. Grains were and are still important to life in general, as seeds and food. 3000 -4000 BC was this problem of surplus in agriculture,at southern Europe, maybe roots are there? Grain became food for domestic animals. squarer swastica is sing of field and sun goes along whit agriculture, and also later menaing of order, military and totality, one appearance of law. Demeter has lot of impact/ to do whit Latin and English - words like meter, determinate, weather-meteorology (?) etc. Very important thing for life (and death) in that time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.150.81.119 (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Corn in English generally means Wheat - but can also be applied to the most common grain of an area. So may apply to Barley, Oats or Rye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.28.137 (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why are the words "WOOP WOOP" in the "Myths and Legends" section? I know that it might be vandalism but I tried to edit it and take the words out but the words didn't show up so I canceled my edits and all and yet, the words are STILL there! I don't really know how to take them out so...um, can anyone tell me how that's possible and all? Just wondering. 24.155.192.88 (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The page needed to be purged, for some reason, in order to show it's latest, post-vandal version. If ever you run into that sort of situation again, you can just past ?action=purge to the end of the URL and press enter to request that the server rebuild the page.  davidiad { t } 15:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. :) 24.155.192.88 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demeter/Archive_1&oldid=1056303967"