Jump to content

Talk:Heracles

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


Change image

[edit]

I don't want the statue to be changed, but I want the image to be changed. The current one isn't good enough. It's facing to the side, so I can barely see him. I think that File:Herakles Farnese MAN Napoli Inv6001 n01.jpg will work better. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, no, it should be File:Landsdowne Herakles.jpg as the current image is Hercules, not Heracles. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Aurel Ghost_Cacus (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you have pinged me specifically, but the proposed image is not an improvement. The figure is tilted to the left, and the glare on the surface behind the statue is distracting. Also, both statues are Roman. Whether or not the newly inserted version of the Farnese Hercules is an improvement is another question. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you randomly (I needed a Greek mythology editor, so I chose you randomly). It literally says that it's an image of Hercules, not Heracles on the page. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, if you have a Greek depiction of Heracles in mind, you can suggest it here for other editors to consider; I don't feel particularly strongly on the matter. The above image was not a good one, though. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Landsdowne or Farnese? Ghost_Cacus (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former, which is, in contrast to the Farnese Hercules, not considered to be a copy of a particular Greek original. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Farnese Hercules is a copy of a Greek statue of Heracles; it's fine. It's totally irrelevant that on its rediscovery in 1546, it was called a "Hercules"; at that time and well into the nineteenth century, Latin names were used indiscriminately for both Greek and Roman gods and heroes. NebY (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Paul August ☎ 17:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favour of switching to that image. The background of the current picture, particularly the bright patch in the top right-hand corner, is distracting. The base of the statue also seems to be given undue prominence. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The current image is also too far away from the camera. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. Both would be resolved by using the image from the Farnese Hercules article: File:Herakles_Farnese_MAN_Napoli_Inv6001_n01.jpg Furius (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (I believe that was the image being suggested). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Origins? Greeks views

[edit]

Actually for Greek historians like Herodotus and Diodorus Heraclius was of Egyptian descent Damn that wasn't even mentioned in the article? 105.196.244.114 (talk) 07:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirect Herakles

Please add

{{redirect|Herakles|other uses|Herakles (disambiguation)|and|Heracles (disambiguation)}}

"Herakles" redirects here. For other uses, see Herakles (disambiguation) and Heracles (disambiguation).

-- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GrayStorm(Talk|Contributions) 22:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why isnt the pederasty brought up?

[edit]

Iolaus was his nephew and 12, correct? im not hallucinating that? i think an important tid-bit like that should atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article 47.249.2.238 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

[edit]
RESOLVED
Closing this discussion, which has gone far off topic. Talk pages are for discussing improving their associated articles. The requested edit has been made, and I don't see that any of the discussion which will follow from this point will be productive to the encyclopedia. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change all mentions of "girdle" to "war belt" or "belt".

(for more info regarding the importance of this change please refer to sources #3 and #4 in the intro paragraph to the page about Hippolyta) Morallygrace (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just "belt" - but your edit summary at the Labours of "changed girdle to belt; the proper translation is belt, the idea of hercules stealing a queen's undergarment is a mistranslation rooted in misogynistic sexual fantasy" is extremely silly, and rather ignorant! We don't know what Heracles might have worn around his waist, but I suppose "belt" will cover it ok. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the change. Reliable sources on the subject seem to think "belt" is more accurate. For instance, Timothy Gantz's Early Greek Myth says that:
For Homer the zoster is a war belt, something worn outside other clothing as part of one's defensive armor, as we see in the case of Menelaos when Pandaros wounds him in the Iliad (Il 4.132–39). Certainly it is never part of a woman's intimate apparel, and the common English translation "girdle" is grossly misleading.
In a similar vein, see Robin Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology, p. 263. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another ignoramus - I'm pretty sure the Girdle (undergarment) meaning is no older than the last century (the original OED doesn't have it), while other girdle meanings are far older, although I suppose the underwear meaning is now most common. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; are you calling Gantz an "ignoramus" for the statement he makes in his book, or me one for suggesting we should follow what he says? The comment just seems unnecessary. I see no reason to not follow what reliable sources such as Gantz and Hard state. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think their complaint is that these people are all silly for thinking that anyone was using 'girdle' to mean undergarment. They should all have been aware that this "new" meaning is only 100 years old, and thus anyone using it more than 100 years ago could not have been using it to mean 'undergarment'.
No one seems to actually disagree that 'belt' would be an acceptable change though. Given that we live in a world in which words are subject to semantic shift, what older authors intended by 'girdle' is far less important (in terms of encyclopaedias) than what current readers will understand by it. Belt is clearer. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I wasn't suggesting anyone was using "girdle" to mean "undergarment", just that modern reliable sources seem to use and prefer "belt"; I made no comment upon Morallygrace's edit summary, or their claim that "girdle" here is a mistranslation rooted in misogynistic sexual fantasy, which I agree with Johnbod seems quite clearly wrong. But as you say, no one actually seems to disagree on the actual change being requested, and so I've edited the article accordingly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will stand corrected at the archaic meaning of girdle! I do find the continued use of that translation does still have misogynistic undertones, even if we acknowledge that an earlier gender non-specific definition of girdle exists.
.
In today's English, girdle does refer to a type of shapewear typically worn by women, and translations should consider the social aspect: does this translation communicate the right concept to the people reading the translation? Do people today think of a war belt when they hear the term girdle, or would they be prompted to imagine mid-century corsetry?
.
I'm glad to know there's a reason girdle was used, but I think my misunderstanding also represents what associations the genpop has with girdles, and how misogyny-affected people (who are also unaware of the full history of the definition of girdle) might feel alienated by that choice. Morallygrace (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, whomever Johnbod meant as "ignoramus", neither Gantz, nor Hard, nor Michael Aurel is one. Nor, in my opinion, were any of those three ever under the impression that the translators of zoster thought it referred to a woman's undergarment. So not sure who here might be justly thought of as ignorant:[1]
I meant Gantz, for the quoted "grossly misleading"; it may not be the best modern translation, but it is certainly not that. User:Morallygrace clearly did think this, as their edit summary shows: "changed girdle to belt; the proper translation is belt, the idea of hercules stealing a queen's undergarment is a mistranslation rooted in misogynistic sexual fantasy". Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, semantic shifts considered, it IS a mistranslation. The general populus is not referring to the type of belt as a girdle. And it DOES call to mind a man stealing a woman's undergarments to those who are not aware of the history of girdles, which your average person is not. Please keep in mind that the piint of wikipedia is to make information more accessible. Also please keep in mind that reacting so strongly to seeing that someone is misinformed is a) not an affective way to correct them, and b) just plain childish. Any intellectual superiority you may have had by knowing more about this particular piece of history is thrown out by your choice to be insulting over something so small, as well as your inability to plainly correct the misconception and then move. on. Morallygrace (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, if you're struggling to share your disagreement without name-calling perhaps it's time to log off. Morallygrace (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, who's having trouble moving on? It was probably the gratuitous and wholly misplaced sexism of your edit summary that provoked my reaction. You may want to be more careful about that here than on your social media. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waking up and replying to the thread where I've been insulted, John. That's a normal, proportionate reaction.
My comment was hardly "gratuitous" or "sexist," I'm sorry to see that you're having such big feelings about pretty minor feedback. I will not allow people to bully and intimidate me over such a stupid thing. I hope you can figure out a way to respond to disagreements without getting so emotional in the future. Morallygrace (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ i.e. uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, unscholarly, unqualified, benighted, backward, inexperienced, unworldly, unsophisticated, unintelligent, stupid, simple, empty-headed, mindless, pig-ignorant, thick, airheaded, dense, dumb, dim, dopey, wet behind the ears, slow on the uptake, dead from the neck up, a brick short of a load, dozy, divvy, daft, not the full shilling, (as) thick as two short planks, glaikit, chowderheaded, dumb-ass, or dotish.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heracles&oldid=1254128312"