Talk:Enyo

Roman temple of Bellona

http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/.Texts/PLATOP*/TIMELINE.html Bellona's temple vowed in 296 BCE, dedicated some years later.

Bellona and belladonna

I'd like someone with more moderating skills and a better grasp of English add a mention of the plant belladonna (Atropa belladonna) into this text. The plant was consumed by Bellona's priestesses during rites and rituals.

My sources are mostly in books that aren't in print anymore, but a search returned this link if you wish to check upon a single sentence:

http://www.alchemy-works.com/herb_belladonna.html

There's no etymological connection between Bellona and bella, as in belladonna. Consumption of the plant "during rites and rituals" is not mentioned in any Latin text. Fakelore. --Wetman 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What irony though, that war and beauty should have confoundingly similar names. 96.10.251.86 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

Why is most of this entry about Bellona and why should we add more Bellona material to it? Shouldn't we split the entry up and give Bellona her own entry?

--Stalfur 13:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the entry for Bellona (godess) is redirected to this article. In my view this should be two seperate entries which link to each other.

--Stalfur 14:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd move the whole thing, without fragmenting it and losing normal context, to Bellona (mythology), in line with many other similar articles. Enyo is a minor personication of the strife of battle in a Greek poem or two, and the editor who noted "frequently depicted as being covered in blood and carrying weapons of war" had never ever seen a Greek depiction of Enyo. --02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A separate article for Bellona was a fine idea. I miss the contrast between the two which says something about the differences between Greek and Roman cultures. A brief paragraph to this effect would be useful, both here at at Bellona. --Wetman 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Daughter of Zeus and Hera

Zeus and Hera have been added as Enyo's parents multiple times ([1] [2] [3]). This presumably comes from Quintus Smyrnaeus referring to her as "Enyo, sister of War" (as mentioned in the article). However, unless we have a modern scholarly source which takes this to mean that Enyo is the daughter of Zeus and Hera, it should not be in the article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 11:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I say this all needs a shake up. There can be clear confusion about who was the parent of who considering different poets sight different parentage and infoboxes don't really state this. Most of the time, it will say their parents according to certain sources but will not say whose sources they are. Take Dionysius for example, whose mother is generally accepted to be Semele, but other sources say it was Demeter, yet neither say who said who. Even then we have sources missing; for Aphrodite, her parentage according the Homer and Hesiod are there in the infobox but not the Orphic account that she was a daughter of Pontus and Thalassa which you do see for Persephone being the daughter of Rhea. This is the same for Eros being either a primordial god or being the son Ares and Aphrodite or the belief that that these the descriptions of two different gods of the same name. These same inconsistencies come when displaying beings' half-siblings, particularly of Zeus' children. Even Hesiod never explicitly said Poseidon is the son of Cronus and Rhea similarly to the way there is no explicit mention of Enyo being the daughter of Zeus and Hera.

My view is that the parents in accordance with Homer and Hesiod should be attributed or it should show whoever else made notable claims of who parented who, such as for Zeus' demigod children who neither Homer and Hesiod talks about the parentage of. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (tork) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the inherently problematic nature of infoboxes for conveying information which, as it does for figures from Greek mythology, varies from source to source. I agree that the addition of brackets such as "(Orphic)" or "(according to Homer)" is preferable in the case of multiple versions. However, we need to be careful that the versions we are presenting in the infobox are of considerable significance, for which, in my opinion, the frequency of mention and weight given to them by modern scholarly sources would be the best measure. A version such as Aphrodite being the daughter of Pontus and Thalassa is a good example of a parentage which should not be in the infobox – because (to my knowledge) such a version doesn't actually exist! Rather, the Orphic Hymn to the Sea calls its subject the "Mother of Kypris", who (according to the modern sources we have) is here the Titan Tethys; the Greek text itself (from what I remember) doesn't mention Thalassa herself, and I believe it was a certain modern scholar (Morand) who interpreted this as meaning that Aphrodite is the daughter of Thalassa, in which case its inclusion in the article is ok. Also, the difference between Poseidon and Enyo is a large one: numerous modern sources call Poseidon the son of Cronus and Rhea, whereas there exists no such source (to my knowledge) for the Enyo parentage – that should be our measure. Regarding the various siblings in the infoboxes of pages of Zeus's children, it's on the to-do list ;-). – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

May I ask what you would qualify as a modern source, and why you consider them reliable in comparison to differing ancient sources or why they are reliable at all? Could I just write a poem or a book and put in a genealogy that says Zeus and Hera are the parents of Enyo and that would be considered a modern source? Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel: By "modern source", I mean a book written by a modern scholar of Greek mythology. Examples would be a handbook of Greek mythology, an encyclopedia of Greek mythological figures, or a specialist work on a more specific topic. Such sources are suitable for usage on Wikipedia assuming they qualify as reliable sources, as determined by WP:RS. In some cases, it is fine to use just the ancient sources by themselves, though it is generally preferable to have modern scholarly sources cited as well where they can be found. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that we should [p]refer secondary sources, relying on them whenever possible, and that when we are using only primary sources, we should exercise caution in how we are presenting the material. Many (most?) of the errors which arise on pages to do with Greek mythology come from some kind of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of ancient sources. Hope this clarifies what I mean. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I just don't understand what is such an issue with primary sources. My personal experiences find secondary sources rather garbage in comparison as primary sources are actually reliable, unbiased and are actually made by someone who knows what they're doing. But I do give my thanks for the clarity. So where should we start the debate on how the mess on infoboxes of mythological will be cleaned up if it hasn't started already? Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that all the primary sources in Greek mythpology are written in ancient languages, which generally need interpreting by experts? And while many secondary sources on mythology such as, websites, and popular books, can be of low quality, modern scholarly sources are generally of very high quality. Paul August ☎ 20:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in a debate with you over sourcing. I'm asking him a question. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Where do we start with fixing the issue? By going to each article that has a problematic infobox and adjusting it accordingly (or, in some cases, probably removing it altogether). Or, if you think that we would benefit from having some kind of centralised discussion on the matter, you can start such a discussion. Is this what you're suggesting? I would happily participate, I would just make sure you have a clear idea of what you hope to achieve from such a discussion before starting it. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well this NebY guy seems insistent on only putting down the whole siblings when it comes to the children of Zeus while also saying there are several half-siblings as he did for Apollo but for some reason no one else of than Heracles. Either that or we could do a collapsible menu like for the various articles of the children of Gaia. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you would like me to provide a specific example of where using only primary sources has led to misinterpretation and errors, I would happily provide one. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, infoboxes are ill-suited to describing centuries of ancient religion and mythology. Observing WP:DUE does mean that much falls below the threshold for inclusion in accord with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, be it Pausanias's local variants, pseudo-Clementine's calumnies or Orphic cosmogony. NebY (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't really think of anything more to add to this discussion, but I will comment that if other editors want to continue it (and there might be value in doing so), this probably isn't the place. Talk pages are supposed to be for discussing changes to the associated article, and if input is something which is wanted, I think somewhere such as WT:CGR would be a better location, rather than the talk page for Enyo. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)