Talk:Athena

Image change

Hi I feel like the image should be File:Atena farnese, copia romana da orig. greco della cerchia fidiaca, forse Pyrrhos nel 430 ac ca., 6024, 01.JPG. It's higher quality imo and more famous.Ghost_Cacus (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

if you're going to suggest another image, please don't expect others to do the work; link to it yourself thus File:Atena farnese, copia romana da orig. greco della cerchia fidiaca, forse Pyrrhos nel 430 ac ca., 6024, 01.JPG. If you claim that it's higher quality and more famous, say why you think it's higher quality and provide some evidence that it's more famous. We don't want to spend time on this, as we have on other image changes that you've made or proposed to no avail, unless you make the effort to gain consensus. NebY (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It's more famous because it literally says it's famous on the farnese page. Ghost_Cacus (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The caption of the current image reads,

Mattei Athena at Louvre. Roman copy from the 1st century BC/AD after a Greek original of the 4th century BC attributed to Cephisodotos or Euphranor.

But then it would make sense to change the image to that of the Piraeus Athena, as that is the supposed "Greek original" of the Mattei Athena. The Mattei Athena is also said to have "stylistic anomalies" that appear "troublesome"., which would make the Mattei Athena unsuitable as the infobox image. In my opinion, however, it would be better to change it to the Athena Giustiniani, which doesn't suffer from the awkward hand gesture (from the absence of Nike or whatever it is that was supposed to be in the hand) that makes the Mattei, the Firase, and the Piraeus Athena look as if the deity is saying "welp". The Varvakeion Athena would also a far better choice than the Mattei. LittleScroll (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Athena did not get her name from Athens. She and Poseidon had a competition to be the patreon of the city in ancient times. After Athena won with her olive tree, the city was named after her. 178.115.63.234 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2023

Under children I should say annabeth chase 69.236.121.254 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

She is an invention of a piece of modern fiction, so no. – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

There is a note about Plutarch's record of an anonymous physician invoking Athena Hygieia to become inspired to cure an illness. This is not correct. According to the text cited (Life of Pericles 13.8) it is Pericles who is ill, and attributes his healing to Athena Hygieia (he's a statesman, not a physician). The entry should be changed to reflect this. 108.34.255.140 (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

@NebY I noticed that you recently removed content sourced from Herodotus, Pausanias, Pindar, and the modern historian and archaeologist Gabriel Camps regarding the mythological origins of Athena, as well as an article discussing the potential North African origins of Athena. I’d like to ask that you reconsider removing these sources for several important reasons:

1. Historical Relevance and Significance

• Herodotus, Pausanias, and Pindar are not only prominent ancient Greek historians and writers, but their works are foundational to our understanding of Greek mythology, history, and culture. Removing their testimonies undermines the representation of primary historical sources, which are invaluable when discussing mythological figures like Athena.
• The perspectives of these ancient historians have been used for centuries to provide context to classical mythology, and their inclusion adds important depth and nuance to any discussion about Athena’s origins.

2. Modern Scholarship

• Gabriel Camps is a well-regarded archaeologist and historian whose research contributes significantly to the understanding of Mediterranean and North African history. His views regarding the potential connections between Greek and North African cultures are well-supported in academic discourse. Including his work helps provide a more comprehensive view of Athena’s origins, especially since modern scholars often explore the cross-cultural influences that shaped ancient mythology.

3. Balance of Perspectives

• Wikipedia thrives on presenting a neutral point of view, meaning that multiple perspectives—especially those that are properly sourced—should be represented. By removing these references, a significant perspective that addresses potential connections between Athena’s myth and North Africa is lost, which may leave the article lacking in completeness and depth.
• It’s important to allow well-sourced content to remain, ensuring that readers have access to the full range of scholarly discourse on the subject.

4. Reliable Sources

• All of the removed sources (Herodotus, Pausanias, Pindar, and Gabriel Camps) are considered reliable and valid according to Wikipedia’s guidelines on sources. Ancient historians are primary sources for mythological discussions, and modern scholarly articles from reputable historians like Camps provide secondary analyses that help deepen our understanding of these primary sources.

5. Engagement with the Community

• Wikipedia encourages editors to work together and discuss significant content changes. I believe this removal merits discussion rather than unilateral action, especially given the importance of the sources involved.

The content you removed was supported by notable historical sources and modern scholarship. While it’s essential to establish consensus on talk pages for significant changes, the removal of well-sourced content without discussion or consensus can impact the article’s accuracy and balance Potymkin (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Pindar was not a historian, he was a poet. Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Potymkin inserted into the second sentence of the lead a claim that

"Greek historians mention that Athena has ancient Libyan origins in North Africa"

and into the start of the third paragraph of the lead a claim that

"In Greek mythology, Athena was believed to have been born in Lake Tritonis in North Africa (Modern day Algeria and Tunisia) where she is considered native to the land, in this version of the story she is the daughter of Poseidon and Tritonis a Libyan lake nymph..in another version of the story in the same source, they say that she was daughter of Poseidon and Lake Tritonis, and that, being for some reason angry at her father, she gave herself to Zeus, who made her his own daughter, on the other hand some say that she sprang from the forehead of her father Zeus in the same location in North Africa."

Potymkin also inserted Poseidon into the infobox as Athena's parent, before Zeus and Metis.

These insertions are startling to anyone familiar with Greek mythology. Exceptional claims require exceptional proof; we have none. Primary sources have been at best misread and misconstrued, and do not support the text. The one secondary source does not support the text and indeed is counter to it. These novel claims were inserted into the lead as taking priority over all other history and mythology.

Potymkin's first insertion cited James George Frazer's Pausanias and His History of Greece pp. 1-159^{(ref as provided by Potymkin)}. "1-159" is vague but it's all downloadable from the CUP and searchable; there is no mention there of Athena having North African origins.

That first insertion also quoted in footnotes two passages from Herodotus, 4.189 to the effect that it seems to Herodotus that the Greeks copied the robes and aegis of Athena from Libyan women, and 4.180 that a North African people celebrates a yearly festival of Athena, or rather "that native goddess whom we call Athena" in that translation, "the one we call Athena" in Waterfield's. Neither passage says that the Grek goddess Athena's origins are in North Africa, and Herodotus is in any case a notoriously unreliable writer.

Potymkin then cites an entry on Athena by G. Camps in the Encyclopédie Berbère^{(ref as provided by Potymkin)} which considers whether the importance of Athena in the Greek colony of Cyrene in North Africa might be explained by the existence of a Libyan goddess that the Cyrenians would have identified with Athena. It concludes that "Nît, Ashrat, Tanit, Athéna, chacune de ces déesses présente avec les autres de telles analogies qu’il est difficile de préciser leurs relations exactes" - it's difficult to be precise about their exact relationships to each other. It does not say that Herodotus or any other Greek historian mentions that Athena has origins in North Africa.

Their second insertion again cited Herodotus 4.180 concerning a North African people, which does not say that "in Greek mythology, Athena was believed to have been born in Lake Tritonis" or anything like it. Potymkin also quotes Pausanias, who found that in one image the eyes of Athene were "blue" (in Potymkin's translation; "grey-green" eyes in Peter Levi's, a more conventional translation of γλαυκοὺς), and that the legend about her eyes being that colour is Libyan.[1] For "on the other hand some say that she sprang from the forehead of her father Zeus in the same location in North Africa", Potymkin cites and quotes Pindar[2], a passage which says that Athena sprang from Zeus's head in Lerna, Greece, not North Africa.

Policies and guidelines that have been breached include:

Wikipedia:No Original Research, per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, per WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

Wikipedia:No original research, per WP:PRIMARY: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: ... in a nutshell: The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

There are other problems - e.g. the claim above that Herodotus is considered reliable, the neglect or ignorance of interpretatio Graeca, the assertions posted above that read more like the product of a LLM than a specific defence of the insertions - and maybe other editors or I will raise them, but the above should make it clear how far from acceptable these claims are and that Potymkin does not have consensus for their inclusion anywhere in the article. NebY (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

and Herodotus is in any case a notoriously unreliable writer

Here one notes POV pushing done by @NebY who picks and chooses which writers are notoriously correct or not and when. so Herodotus is wrong about athena's local North african origins but he is not wrong in other parts of the article where he is well quoted yet NebY decides where it is the case. this is a violation of wikipedia per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Herodotus is a valid authority to describe Greek mythology as he well lived during the golden age of ancient greek history.

Potymkin's first insertion cited James George Frazer's Pausanias and His History of Greece pp. 1-159[1](ref as provided by Potymkin). "1-159" is vague but it's all downloadable from the CUP and searchable; there is no mention there of Athena having North African origins.

Anyone can easily find that this is not true simply because [3] harvard source pausanias description of greece shows that Pausanias shows clearly Athena's origins from the Libyans and her related origins, including her "extraordinary" birth from Poseidon :

"{1.14.6} Looming over the Kerameikos and the portico [stoā] called the King’s Portico [Stoā Baslileios] is a temple [nāos] of Hephaistos. No wonder [thauma], I thought, that next to it stands a statue [agalma] of Athena, because I know the thing-that-is-said [logos] in-responsiveness-to [epi + dative case] Erikhthonios. And when I saw that the statue [agalma] of Athena had gray [glaukoi] eyes I made-inquiries-and-found-out [heuriskein] that the myth [mūthos] comes from the Libyans. For it has been said by the Libyans that the goddess is the daughter of Poseidon and of the [personified] lake [limnē] Tritonis, so that, for this reason, she has gray [glaukoi] eyes like Poseidon."

anyone even closely familiar with Ancient Greek Mythology could not disregard Pausanias's Descriptions of greece simply because the work of this Geographer showcases the cultural geography of ancient Greece, especially its religious sites and mythology, during which archaeology has confirmed various of his descriptions, have increased his credibility as a witness among scholars. his work is usually the only surviving literary source from antiquity, and of great interest to historians and archaeologists.

here the user clearly breaches Wikipedia:Verifiability, citations from the quotes on each source is well provided and accounted for.

For @NebY : Herodotus who lived in the era when Greek Mythology is shaped is too untrustworthy when he says Athena is north african

Pausanias comes too late to describe accurately Greek Mythology and he is wrong about confirming from a greek POV that athena being north african is wrong anyways.

NebY completely ignores modern Historian and Archeologist Gabriel camps in his archeological research and article on Athena :

Herodotus specifies that Athena was the goddess to whom the Libyans near this lake sacrificed in preference (IV, 189). It possessed, in the vicinity, a sanctuary, according to the pseudo-Scylax (110). It was also in Africa that the aegis with which the goddess is clothed was prepared for the first time (Herodotus IV, 189). But it is the account of the feast in honour of Athena among the Auses* and the Machlyes* (Herodotus, IV, 180) that constitutes the centrepiece of the dossier of the Libyan Athena.

here POV pushing by @NebY is causing a part of the article to be lost due to personal bias against Greeks claiming North african origin of their own deities. the user here attempts to teach ancient greeks their own beliefs! Potymkin (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC Athena's Lake Tritonis origin

Should the recent Edit on the native origins of Athena and her birthplace in Lake Tritonis as per Greek sources from Apollodorus of Athens, Hesiod, Pausanias' description of Delphi, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus and and research articles from Gabriel Camps and Stephen Gsell, be included as seen in this version: (17:37, 16 September 2024‎) or reverted back to the original version (current version) ?

Vote 1 : Edit is kept (Athena's birthplace in Lake Tritonis in North Africa and her early native origins) as per Potymkin

Vote 2 : Edit is removed (No mention of the lake Tritonis birth story) NebY

Potymkin (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Vote 1. Naively, content appears accurate and not unreasonably sourced. Also I'm not sure what is the motivation for the RfC. Can you say more about why you believe either the content (or its removal) might be contentious? Ford MF (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

directly above this RfC is the talk concerning the matter, NebY recently removed sourced content I added on the lake Tritonis and native origins of athena according to greek sources, The Wikipedia discussion centers around the removal of sourced content from an article about the mythological origins of Athena. The original poster Potymkin (me) argues that the content was removed without consensus, even though it cited well-known ancient sources (Diodorus, Herodotus, Pausanias, and Pindar) and modern scholars (Gabriel Camps). The discussion highlights five key points:

Historical Relevance: Ancient sources like Herodotus and Pausanias are foundational to understanding Greek mythology, and removing them undermines the discussion of Athena’s origins.

Modern Scholarship: Gabriel Camps' research provides credible insights into potential North African influences on Greek mythology, contributing to a more comprehensive perspective on Athena's origins.

Balance of Perspectives: The removal reduces the diversity of views in the article, potentially compromising Wikipedia's neutral point of view.

Reliable Sources: The removed sources are valid and respected within historical and archaeological scholarship, per Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Engagement with the Community: Significant changes should be discussed openly to ensure accuracy and consensus.

Opposing views by NebY challenge the accuracy and interpretation of these sources, arguing that primary sources like Herodotus have been misinterpreted or misconstrued. The debate also touches on Wikipedia’s guidelines around original research, neutrality, and reliable sourcing, with NebY emphasizing that exceptional claims require strong evidence and that the cited sources do not clearly support the claim of Athena’s North African origins. Potymkin (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Procedural close very limited WP:RFCBEFORE took place, and Potymkin's replies are near-entirely AI-generated text, raising clear concerns about their ability and willingness to collaborate productively on Wikipedia. Failing that, Vote 2, as the edit under discussion shows minimal understanding of key principles of Wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:RS, and a lack of desire from Potymkin to learn even when given links to the guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  First of all I am only replying here insofar as to inform you WP:NPA it is wikipedia policy as per WP:AFG to assume good faith, accusations that my replies are AI generated is serious as well as personal attacks against me for lack of desire from Potymkin to learn even when given links to the guidelines. I was the sole party to initiate talk here on this article's talk page (Talk:Athena#Removal of sourced content) on the matter in full accordance with wikipedia conflict resolution policy after sourced verifiable content was removed without discussion as per yourtheir ability and willingness to collaborate productively.

  in full accordance with protocol to establish content in this article I followed through to ask the community on their output concerning the recent removal of content from this article page. Potymkin (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  This edit is entirely AI-generated, as any detection website will tell you; please do not insult your own intelligence by pretending it is not. You now seem to be on your way to initiating an arbitration request; once again, you jump steps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  your accusations are unfounded, and violate wikipedia's policy to assume good faith. if you do not wish to contribute to the current RfC you are free to allow the wide community to contribute their opinion on the matter through RfC. an Arbitration case has been opened against you for sabotaging an ongoing RfC on the article as well as the personal attacks from your last comment. Potymkin (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I am a part of the wide community and have chosen to contribute to the RfC. Quite often on Wikipedia, people disagree with you; disagreement is not sabotage, and you should learn to deal with that fact before you end up off Wikipedia. As this is rapidly becoming a distraction to this talk page, I will not be replying further here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. Potymkin seems to be misreading the sources that they are citing. The Pausanias text is not saying that Athena comes from Lake Tritonis, but that the belief that she had grey/blue eyes is Libyan (Or, on second reading, the even less strong claim that there existed a Libyan myth which explained the fact that Athena was described as having blue/grey eyes). The Loeb translation reads But when I saw that the statue of Athena had blue eyes I found out that the legend about them is Libyan. For the Libyans have a saying that the Goddess is the daughter of Poseidon and Lake Tritonis, and for this reason has blue eyes like Poseidon. Similarly, my reading of Camps' article is not that he says that Athena came from Lake Tritonis, or that Herodotus believed that Athena came from Lake Tritonis, but that Herodotus reports that at lake Tritonis there was a festival of a goddess identified with Athena (assimilée formellement à Athéna) who Camps later in the paragraph refers to as "the Libyan Athena". At any rate, even if Camps were arguing that the Greeks believed Athena to have come from Lake Tritonis, as NebY argues above this would not be a mainstream view and it would be undue to include it, and doubly so to state it as uncontroversial fact as in Potymkin's preferred revision. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, per Caeciliusinhorto's well reasoned argument. I also agree with a procedural close --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 20:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. The edits in question do not represent the mainstream depictions of Athena in Greek mythology, and thus do not belong in the lead. A thorough article will of course represent a wider spectrum of beliefs and traditions than that, but in appropriate sections or subsections, and without synthesis of sources to support claims that are not coherently made by any of them. It is certainly appropriate to cite the claims of Greek writers, whether they are characterized as historians, geographers, mythographers, or anything else. But only for what they actually say—not for novel combinations of material, presented as though it represented widely-held views. Anything that requires interpretation must come from secondary sources. And it is always important to cite sources in context, rather than cherry-picking those sources that support specific views and omitting other, perhaps better-known accounts. I'm not going to get into the procedural aspects of this argument, except to say that I have always found NebY to be quite reasonable in editing, and willing to consider other people's viewpoints. I would hesitate to disregard his opinions without strong and unambiguous reasons, and I'm not seeing those here. P Aculeius (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)