Talk:Hera

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

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

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sexist bias adding this, as this is no longer fact and hasn't been for some time, and the only citations are old and out of date to the new research and evidence discovered about the earlier matriarchies not only in Greece and elsewhere.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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry I don't follow, what doesn't assert that? Paul August ☎ 10:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

Eris, daughter of Hera

Paul August and Michael Aurel keep reverting any reference to Eris being Hera’s daughter on account of it being “allegorical genealogy” meanwhile, to defend that claim, they have to ignore any secondary source which DOES call her the daughter of Hera (such as various encyclopedias).

Also, the Eris article they refer to to explain what “allegorical genealogy” means says “allegorical(?)” because the scholar who *did* refer to allegorical genealogy was saying that ALL genealogies given to Eris are allegorical. Her being a sister of Ares, AND her being a daughter of Nyx, were described as equally allegorical. So by that logic we should also remove the part in Eris’ article which calls Nyx her mother, but that doesn’t seem to be happening.

Please either come up with different sources to support your claims, or stop messing with the page. Floreditor (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Floreditor: To go in order, I initially reverted an edit re-adding Eris to the list of children in the infobox. At that point in time, the claim in the article was:

She appears in Homer's Iliad Book IV, equated with Enyo as the sister of Ares and so presumably the daughter of Zeus and Hera. Alternatively, Hesiod refers to Eris as the daughter of Nyx in both Works and Days and Theogony.

This passage was uncited. Here is the relevant passage from the Iliad (in the revised version of Murray's translation):

And the Trojans were urged on by Ares, and the Achaeans by flashing-eyed Athene, and Terror, and Rout, and Strife who rages incessantly, sister and comrade of man-slaying Ares

Without any secondary sourcing, the claim in the aritcle was, fairly uncontroversially I think, WP:SYNTH. We can't take a passage which calls Eris the sister of Ares, and assume that because Ares is elsewhere called the son of Zeus and Hera, this means that Eris is also a child of Zeus and Hera.

A few days later, you added Eris back to the list of children in the infobox, accompanied by the following note:

According to Miate, Liana, “World History Encyclopedia”[1], ‘In the “Iliad”[2], Homer mentions her as being the sister of Ares, making her the child of Zeus and Hera’ Quintus Smyrnaeus, Fall of Troy 10. 51, makes use of the same phrasing as Homer. (the two links – which the quote template doesn't seem to like – were and )

Paul August then reverted your edit on the basis that claims in the infobox should, at a minimum, already be discussed in the article. To quote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, [t]he purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article.

As to the substance of your addition, the issue is that World History Encyclopedia isn't a WP:RS. It isn't written by any sort of authoritative scholar on the subject, it doesn't properly cite its sources, and its bibliography includes works by individuals such as Stephen Fry and Robert Graves. The site's reliability has also been discussed at WP:RSN, where the general view was that it isn't an appropriate source to cite. Reliable, scholarly works don't seem to view this passage as indicating that she is a daughter of Zeus and Hera – or, at the very least, they don't feel a need to mention as much – and this should be enough to indicate that we shouldn't do so either.

Also, to address the specific point about this being an "allegorical" genealogy, the point isn't that allegorical genealogies should be omitted altogether, but that extrapolating further relationships based upon such a genealogical connection is especially problematic. Also, Nünlist (who is the one who calls both genealogies "allegorical") isn't the only scholar who seems to think that the genealogical relationship in this passage shouldn't be taken too literally; see also Gantz on the line (as cited at Eris), and the LIMC, which goes out of its way to put "brother" in quotation marks. I would imagine that this has to do with the fact that the earliest personified abstractions are first attested in epic poetry, where they sometimes aren't fully personified, with such figures only becoming more "fleshed out" in the later tradition.

Hopefully this clears things up. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually really appreciate you taking the time to write this up. Thank you! Floreditor (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that this parentage has been added back (and added at Eris (mythology), as well). Relevant discussion can be found at Talk:Eris (mythology)#Daughter of Zeus and Hera. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I apparently forgot to follow up on that discussion and remove the parentage here. I've now done so. I don't think Eris should be listed in the infobox (as it is for key facts about Hera, per MOS:IBP), and while she could perhaps still be listed in the "Children" section, we would need to do so with appropriate nuance, nuance which isn't currently present. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The Etymology of Hera

The etymology section is fine on its own for the most part, though I think it currently undersells the prominence of ancient thought surrounding Hera’s name meaning “air.”

Plutarch did relate it, yes, though Plato (who’s referenced a line earlier) also did. And there were many, many ancient philosophers who aligned with it. I mainly note this because it seemed to influence Hera’s role in poetry overtime (Orphic hymn to Hera; Dionysiaca; and ancient interpretations of Homer, like Theagenes and the Stoics), so I think it’s important to hammer home how often ancient people described her/her name this way.

Though, I’m not as well versed on scholarly secondary sources on the matter, which is why I made the discussion here. Does anyone know of any which emphasize the prominence of this belief? I don’t want to make a claim based only on original research. Floreditor (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Floreditor: I would agree with adding more about Hera's association with air. Perhaps such information would work best as part of a discussion of her role in philosophical and other interpretative literature. If you're after secondary sources on the topic, the commentaries on the Orphic Hymn to Hera in Gabriela Ricciardelli's Inni orfici (pp. 302–304) and Apostolos Athanassakis and Benjamin Wolkow's The Orphic Hymns (p. 108) might be good starting points. Marie-Christine Fayant's Hymnes Orphiques probably also discusses this (I don't have access to the section which has her commentary). Brill's New Pauly, s.v. Hera, even has a few sentences on the topic. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Hera Henioche

I wanted to suggest a potentially controversial change to the article, after reading Albert Schachter’s “Acheloos to Hera” (1981) on the various cult activities throughout Boeotia. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43768566

According to him on page 241, the original text of Pausanias on Hera-Henioche is *not* associating her with Zeus-Basileus, but novelly with Demeter-Europa.

”There is another peculiarity of this passage. Pausanias' words are θύει… ὁ κατιών… Διὶ ἐπίκλησιν Βασιλεῖ καὶ Ἥρᾳ τε Ηνιόχῃ καὶ Δήμητρι ἦν ἐπονομάζοντες Εὐρώπην. One is so accustomed to the idea of Zeus and Hera being grouped together that it is easy to overlook that what Pausanias seems to be saying is not "he sacrifices to Zeus Basileus and Hera Henioche, and Demeter…Europe", but rather "he sacrifices to Zeus Basileus, and he sacrifices to Hera Henioche and Demeter…Europe". The conjunctions τε and καὶ seem to link Hera Henioche and Demeter Europe together as a pair. The inference is that at Lebadeia, Hera may have been associated in worship with Demeter. Why this should be so is not immediately apparent. Perhaps it is just Pausanias, being less than crystal clear.”

Hence I think Hera the Charioteer would be better suited to Hera’s section describing her warlike qualities, and divorced from how the current article attaches her to Zeus.

Schachter also quotes N. Yalouris (1950) as saying “die Schutzgöttin der Schar und der böotischen Wagenlenker” ([hence she is] the patron goddess of the troop and the Boeotian charioteers) supporting an attribution of this epithet into Hera’s warlike character (though Schachter argues that Yalouris went “further than the evidence will allow,” but admits he did have some evidence, he just disagreed with how far Yalouris took it).

Not sure if I needed to type all this out, but I wanted approval/community agreement before making a change like this. Floreditor (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Given what Schachter says, I agree that we shouldn't include the epithet Henioche in a section titled "Consort of Zeus". Feel free to move it into a different section. I'd go further and argue that we shouldn't be attempting to classify all of a major god's epithets by function or type; alphabetical ordering seems preferable to me. (I also think that the list should probably be turned into a separate list article at some point, though we don't need to rush into that.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Those changes represent a definite improvement. I've looked more closely at Schachter, though, and it seems to me that he disagrees with Yalouris's conclusion. The full passage in which he quotes Yalouris is: Yalouris, Mus.Helv. 7 (1950) 78–81, makes a great deal more out of Hera Henioche than the evidence will allow. In his hands, Henioche becomes "die Schutzgöttin der Schar und der böotischen Wagenlenker". Yalouris uses disparate pieces of evidence with complete disregard of context. – Michael Aurel (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

To acknowledge that Schachter disagreed with Yalouris, I tried to qualify the statement about Hera being the patron of charioteers with “implies she may have been” to represent that suspicion.

Should we include Schachter’s disagreement in the article (maybe in an additional footnote?), or do you think Yalouris’ statement should be wholesale ignored because of Schachter’s disapproval of it?

(not sure if tone tags are necessary or commonplace here, but that was a /gen[uine] question, I’m not trying to be facetious or insincere) Floreditor (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I think both of those (include Schachter’s disagreement and wholesale ignored) are quite reasonable solutions. The only issue is that they'll make the epithet's placement in the "Warlike character" section seem odd. As I said above, I think alphabetical ordering might work better here. Using the "As an earth and fertility goddess" section as an example, I'm not convinced that epithets meaning "flowery", "cow-eyed", "doing a good service", "yoking the oxen", and "repeatedly coming" (assuming that the current translations are correct) can all be confidently classed as "earth and fertility" epithets. Generally speaking, epithets are one of those things in Greek religion that defy categorisation. If we do go for an alphabetical ordering of the list, I think using either of your solutions would work. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)