![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Look this article is being ruined in that everyone with a neo-pagan/wiccan/post 1800's view of paganism is hacking this thing to death. Some of the books cited are embarrassingly bad and aren't "scholarly" works. If you want to write about the neopagan goddess called "Hecate" then by all means start a new article. This is about the Greek Goddess of that name. Nickjost ( talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I just did quite a bit of work on this article, and I went to some trouble to rely on sources that are not 'neo-pagan'. I did not get to the 'Festivals' section (which is cited with a silly neo-pagan book, and is in any case useless as a distinct section), nor did I do anything with the section on 'cross-cultural parallels' (this section is currently bad, but I feel there's justification for developing it properly- just haven't gotten to it yet). However, the rest has good content, so: would you please be more specific? Just what "neo-pagan drivel" do you refer to – precisely? I confess I am keenly interested to hear about those citations you claim are "embarrassingly bad", if they are not in those two aforementioned sections. Thank you for your encouraging post. -- Picatrix ( talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the etymology of the name Hekate/Hecate? I mostly find the meaning "she who works from afar" and variations thereof, but how was this derived? Could someone add some information about the etymology in the article? Thanks muchly. :) 67.168.59.171 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be [fem. of hekatos "far-shooting."] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hecate --nonregistered user, ButtercupSaiyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.13.186 ( talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A "citation needed" link appears at the end of this passage, however, the information is clearly cited as Ruickbie (2004). I have therefore removed this request.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.125.224 ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Who on earth confused Hecate with Trivia? I really, really want the reference work that makes that mistake. Trivia is Artemis/Diana, if she's not an independent deity. Why do I get the feeling that this article was written by a Wiccan and not a Classicist? Geogre 02:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the reference work that makes that mistake now. Thanks for using your expertise to clear up the confusion. You could have just ranted about it on the talk page without changing anything.
I myself must defer to the authority of 1911 Britannica, at least until an expert comes and corrects matters. Vivacissamamente 23:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1911 Britannica is out of date in terms of information on Hecate. Sarah Iles Johnston is considered one of the foremost modern historians of Hecate and in her two books (referenced in further readings) she traces Hecate's origins from Turkey into Greece and her development as a sorceress goddess. I changed some of the main entry to accommodate her research which she properly references in her two books. Also, I didn't erase anythign already on the page as it seemed accurate, just moved some stuff arouond.
Also what is with these references to the snake and Hecate holding one. I know of no references to snakes being scared to Hecate, and those images are probaly of Hecate holding a rope. (unsigned, but comments above added by User:Dorcia)
I have clarified that Hecate is not Trivia, among assorted other tidying-up. However, I have also come across statements such as The Romans gave Hekate the title Trivia, the Latin equivalent of the Greek Trioditis. on the otherwise careful and well-referenced theoi.com for example. -- Nantonos 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Shakespeare mentions Hecate in Macbeth ( text is here). Hecate is in Act III, Scene V and Act IV, Scene I. However, considering that Hecate's lines in these scenes do not fit in tone with the rest of the play, some people think that Shakespeare didn't actually write them, but they were inserted in later. Can someone research up on this and add it to the article? Bbhtryoink 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I am disappointed to find no treatment of Hecate's various transformations and transmissions in the middle ages and early modern times. It seems to me her influence continued, grossly distorted to be sure, but still lively and provocative, through the folkways and symbols of Europe, long after the ancient Mediterranean world that spawned her was but a distant memory. This page would be an excellent place to trace the details of her evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collardgreene ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A load of half-digested material has been dumped into this formerly careful account. I have tagged some statements for citations but it looks hopeless. -- Wetman 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Can someone pull the layout together, please? I'm bored with encountering doctrinaire troglodytes over layouts, myself, but this is just not good enough at present. I'd add a "clean-up" sticker, if I were the sticker type.-- Wetman 07:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I have pulled the contentious "Most sects that include worship of Hecate are considered cults, even by Neopagan standards. Such sects often encourage experimentation with the paranormal." and changed 'sect' to 'group' in the remaining part of that paragraph, because of NPOV. I also pulled the inflamatory "In some cases animal sacrifices have been documented, typically taking place on the last day of a month. Animal sacrifices have included the sacrifice of goats, dogs, and chickens, which has been documented by police authorities and is often mistaken with satanic practices. Animal sacrifices is considered in the United States to be animal cruelty and is subsequently illegal, regardless of religious faith." and invite whoever posted that to put it back if they have a citeable source. -- Nantonos 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I pulled out the reference to the Celtic festival of Samhain. There is no scholarly basis for that statement, and until it can be proved that there is an actual connection, I hope that will not be put up again. Also, the entire section about emblems seems to be mostly unsubstantiated. I hesitate to remove it completely, but I wouldn't mind if someone did so. Again, until it can be proved that there is an actual, documented connection between many (not all) of those emblems, then I would recommend deleting that section until further information has been discovered, complete with corroboration. Ryan 10:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This entire section needs a BIG rewrite. The role of Hekate in feminist witchcraft is completely missing, as is the association most neopagans have with her as a "Crone" goddess. Additionally, what's with the "Big Bad" associations? Wicca, particularly, doesn't have any concept of Hekate as a Goddess who can be invoked to punish those you don't like. She is mentioned as a Goddess who can be invoked to bind someone, but she is mostly considered to be Keeper of the Mysteries and analogous to the High Priestess tarot card (see Vivienne Crowley, Wicca : the Old Religion in the New Age, pp. 179-80) -- Maz
I removed "..erroneously.." and "..incorrect.." from the end of the intro statement regarding Neo-pagan belief. I think it is clear enough as it is.-- 84.92.169.252 ( talk) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"... originally a goddess of the wilderness" It's not "wilderness" if you live there. What is the thought buried in this expression, still in the opening of the article? -- Wetman 16:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"Hecate provided friendship to the goddess Persephone who was newly arrived in the Underworld. Thankful for her friendship with his grieving wife, Hades honored Hecate by making her a permanent guest in the spirit world, allowing her to come and go as she wished." I moved this here: is there any psychological interpretation in surviving myth or ritual to suggest this, or is it from Xena Warrior Princess? A myth justifying Hades displacement of Hecate would be useful. -- Wetman 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I've toned down the assertive rant to make this encyclopedic, and I've deleted the contentious supposed parallels with Virgin Mary. Material like this needs to be brought in as a report of what has been published on the subject. The survival of aspects of Hecate cult in peasant religion and Wicca does need to be reintroduced.-- Wetman 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states that yew berries (the non-poisonous arils) can cause hallucinations if prepared correctly. The source cited may be "The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants: Ethnopharmacology and Its Applications" by Christian Rätsch [1], or other books and articles by the same author (in German or English), or any of a number of books ("Plants of the Gods" [2], "Witchcraft Medicine" [3]) written in collaboration with other authors. Unfortunately, none of these books/artices/etc are searchable on Amazon.
Rätsch is an ethnopharmacologist. According to this interview, his doctorate is in "Native American cultures", not any kind of medicine or pharmacology. I point this out not as an insult to the man, but only because I have been unable to find any reliable source for the claim that yew berries can be used as hallucinogens. According to the medical information I've been able to find, even the toxic parts of the yew plants do not cause hallucinations. I have found no indication that there are any ill or unusual effects of ingesting just the arils (no seeds/leaves/etc). Even Erowid has nothing on it. Without access to the source, I have no idea what is meant by "prepared correctly", but I can't find evidence that any preparation of yew would cause hallucinations short of one that involved lacing the berries with LSD. Are there any objections to removing this claim from the article? - AdelaMae ( t - c - wpn) 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the intro section, amongst the Carians of Anatolia was "the only region where theophoric names are attested". That's obviously incorrect, as you should see if you follow the link. I don't know what was intended, but this statement needs to be either revised or removed. Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any connection anyone knows about relating Hecate to the Statue of Liberty instead of Libertas? The pictures on this page both bear a striking resemblance, or maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist and don't really think of the S of L as a "gift" in the kindest way, more like an inside joke from the French. Hecate, the goddess of crossroads, borders, city walls (New York harbor??) Shown holding a torch in the drawing, shown with a crown of spikes in the sculpture? Is anyone else seeing this? I don't see any parallels drawn on this page, the Statue of Liberty page, or Bartholdi. Anyone want to do some digging? Keeper76 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess of disconnected snippets of insight, acumen, twaddle and nonsense. I'm now trying to clean it up. Help would be appreciated if the person offering it knows what they are doing. It will take me a while to work my way down this page, given its state.
I also feel that it is necessary to bring up this "In Popular Culture" section. I feel strongly that it should be removed. These sections amount to little more than the underside of a metaphorical desk in Junior High, where people stick juvenile bits of nonsense that are as useless as they are unpleasant to encounter. What justification exists for collecting this 'material'? Do people come to this article wondering where they can find a 'breakcore artist' or comic book character named Hecate? Some of them are frankly spam. In any case, they need to disappear into the underworld... -- Picatrix ( talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this extensive footnote here. What should we do with this essay? Who are these "some"? Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia? Persiflage? Wetman ( talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC):
1."What should we do with this essay?" Whatever you like of course, though I should point out that it is a footnote. I assure you my essays are much, much longer. Persiflage?
2. "Who are these 'some'?" The some are the two parties referenced in the quote which immediately follows the statement, to wit: The Right Reverend Edward Lye of Oxford (1694-1767) and Whiter himself. Did you read the footnote? I recommend reading what you edit as it's generally considered to be a constructive first step. Minsheu and Somner (17th century) could be added to this list, as well as Johann Georg Wachter who discusses arguments for and against this etymological claim in his Glossarium Germanicum (1737).
3. "Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia?" I'm surprised that you take exception to the quoting of pre-modern material here, as the article is rife with pre-modern quotations. As I understand it Wikipedia guidelines mandate no original research, verifiable citations, and a neutral point of view. Did I miss something? I am aware of no guideline specifying that pre-modern sources cannot be used. How would such a guideline be enforced? Let us rather ask, why is it not to be extensively quoted in a footnote in a modern encyclopedia?
4. It is also worth pointing out that no 'modern' source I have been able to find even discusses this proposed etymological relationship, which is to say that I have found no source which discounts it. I'll grant that it hardly belongs in the body of the article, which is why it appeared in a footnote, with caveats. I'd welcome work on your part to identify a study which has discounted this claim.
5. I'm also surprised that you pounced on this while you seem to experience no difficulty digesting the vague, rambling and redundant nonsense about "Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches compiled by Charles Leland (1899)" which is perhaps itself a pre-modern source (though here at Wikipedia "modern" is defined as the period following the Middle Ages or beginning with the invention of the printing press). Curiouser and curiouser...
You'll forgive me, I hope, for changing the title of this section. While you might find it surprising, the title you composed is rather less gracious than one would expect after the significant work I've put into cleaning up this article. --
Picatrix (
talk)
17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Massive deletions of cited text have recently been made: thus. Editors may want to vet the value of this former text.-- Wetman ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding deletions, minor ones have been made. Much of the content was replaced (and expanded and improved, as you'll note). As for massive, there's just one:
This content has some value, particularly the first paragraph, which I can probably get around to properly citing instead of partial inline citations. The three following paragraphs are a mess of material that could just as well relate to Herodias, Hecate, Artemis or Diana in 'corrupt' survivals. I place it here so that other editors can take a look and decide what to do with it. As noted in citation-needed tags, material that cannot be verified can be challenged and deleted. Please note I've already expressed my intention to remove the in popular culture material. I'm still waiting to see if anyone objects. Finally, for the record, Wetman, I appreciate the thankless job you've been doing of keeping trash out of this article, and I'd much rather work with you in a friendly atmosphere than trade barbs. -- Picatrix ( talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Content related to the strophalos and the Chaldaean Oracles has been reinserted, in a properly cited form. It is worth observing that the previous content claimed that what is usually understood as a spinning top was described as a 'serpentine maze around a spiral' (?) and all sorts of uncited claims for the significance of this were made. So, that's that. As for the 'Aradia' material, I'm not against its mention, but we have to show that someone besides the editor associates this material with Hecate (and it's probable that someone has), as well as removing the meandering speculation that characterizes these passages. As it stands now the material belongs in the article for Diana. -- Picatrix ( talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Among other strange relics, she succeeded, after many years, in obtaining the following "Gospel," which I have in her handwriting. [...] I do not know definitely whether my informant derived a part of these traditions from written sources or oral narration, but believe it was chiefly the latter. However, there are a few wizards who copy or preserve documents relative to their art. I have not seen my collector since the "Gospel" was sent to me. I hope at some future time to be better informed."
Wikipedia:Trivia sections "Avoid creating lists with miscellaneous facts"
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles "In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers"
I realize that consensus has not been reached on the subject of "In popular culture" sections and articles across Wikipedia as a whole. However, I know that there is no guideline mandating the inclusion of an "In popular culture" section in any given article.
I would like to point out that the bald use of the name "Hecate" or a variant like "Hekarti" does not constitute the appearance of <Hecate> in popular culture. By this I mean to say that the historically attested goddess forming the subject of this encyclopedia article and the name "Hecate" would have to appear together to constitute a reference in popular culture. "Hecate is the 5th level of the Succubus, a creatable monster character class in the Disgaea games." or "Hecate is a class of destroyer in FreeSpace 2." do not meet this standard. Apologies for the puerile semiotics, but the point needs to be made.
There's also the issue of spam. Do encyclopedia readers accessing this content need to know that a 'breakcore' artist is using the name "Hecate"? How is this notable?
The majority of these references result from:
1. Confusing the subject of this article with the name of the subject ("Hecate") and;
2. Naively assuming that every marginal appearance of the name of the subject is deserving of mention or;
3. Wishing to see one's frustrated sense of agency publicly reflected in the appearance of an insignificant fact or;
4. Shamelessly wishing to promote oneself.
I have mentioned my intention to remove the "In popular culture" section of the Hecate article. I have seen no comments as regards this proposal. I have therefore removed the section. I believe this will significantly improve the quality of the article as a whole. Furthermore, removing this dangling factoid wen from the lower parts of the article might make the future addition of such irrelevant page-clutter less likely. This would be optimal. -- Picatrix ( talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the following from the 'Places' section because characterizing the moon as a 'place' rather than a celestial object seems a bit strained:
My own opinion is that it would be worthwhile to address the frequent association of Hecate with the moon, but I'm not really sure that it deserves its own section. Before contriving some solution of my own I'd like to ask if any other editors have an opinion regarding what to do with this material, which, though misplaced, is cited and useful. Perhaps we can address the subject in a discussion of late and contemporary syncretic characterizations of Hecate as distinct from the attested pre-Medieval goddess? This would give neopagans a place to put their (often but thankfully not always) poorly cited and supported content, which is bound to begin to accrete here again shortly. -- Picatrix ( talk) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've very heavily de-emphasized the 17th-19thC section of etymology for 'hex' and 'hag'; it's of historical significance, but Mr. Lye's etymological guesses of the early 18thC are about as accurate and about as scientifically valuable as phlogiston. Although, like phlogiston, it's of historical interest -- especially if there are moderns who still subscribe to that theory. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus: «get rid of "Hekat"--I've never seen this used» — Try looking for it. Imagine how many people have never heard of Zog of Albania; should that article be deleted because of their personal incredulity at such an "implausible" name? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The very first two hits in that list use "Hekat" as an alternate name for "Hecate": Donna Wilshire's Virgin, Mother, Crone (e.g. p.165 "the temple of Hekat"), and Amber K's Ritualcraft (e.g. p.502 "Hekas, Hekat, Hekate!"). How did you miss those, Akhilleus? Or were you just determined to ignore them?
Incidentally, claims of personal expertise are not citable here, Akhilleus, and certainly don't trump published secondary sources such as provided. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle Flambe, stop revert-warring. You are quite possibly over 3RR already: one more revert and I will report you for it. This is not constructive: if you have got to the level of randomly searching google books for whatever crops up, regardless of what language it's in, you clearly have nothing productive to contribute here. Moreschi ( talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that adding "Hekat" to the lead is a very clear case of according undue weight to a spelling that is rare even among Neopagans, and whose usage appears ambiguous even then. Chwolson - whose work is in Middle Eastern languages and history, and is quite possibly outdated since its 1856 publication - is clearly transliterating an Arabic word (حيقات) and then offering an interpretation of its meaning. Also, the Arabic references to the Sabians date to the early Medieval period, not the ancient period as is claimed, and the source shows us little more than how the name "Hecate" is adapted to a Semitic tongue and writing system. The spelling doesn't belong in the lead, and probably doesn't belong in the article at all. Kafka Liz ( talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
John Milton (1634), Comus, Act I, Scene 1, line 135: "Wherein thou ridest with Hecat...."
And Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, Act III, Scene 2, line 21: "Pluto's blue fire and Hecat's tree".
And Ben Jonson's The Sad Shepherd, Act II, Scene 3, line 668: "our dame Hecat". — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
See also "triple Hecat" in Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book Seven, and in "Mr. Theobald" (Lewis)'s Orestes, Act III, and in William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: "By the triple Hecat's team". It's a pity none of these appeared in the English language, or else Akhilleus would surely have seen them. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I see someone's being difficult again. The lead currently reads: Hecate ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting" or Hekate (Hekátê, Hekátē) was a popular chthonian goddess attested as early as Hesiod's Theogony... Now, I see no real point to having both (Hekátê, Hekátē) here, as these are both ways of transliterating the Greek Ἑκάτη while showing the accent and long vowel mark--both ê and ē are ways of bringing the long vowel η into the Roman alphabet. I see no real point to having a transliteration with an accent and a long mark at all--in general, this is a habit of scholarly texts and a few translations. So I took it out. User:Sizzle Flambé promptly reverted me, with the edit summary "Not a "double transliteration"; this shows the two common pronunciations Heh-kat-eh, Heh-kat-ee — as opposed to, say, Hee-kayt...." Well, this is news to me. "ê" represents "eh" and "ē" represents "ee"? I've never seen ê represent "eh", though ē is a common representation of "ee" (as in "bee" or "see"). I have, however, seen plenty of transliterations of classical Greek η as ê or ē. Perhaps Sizzle will address my personal incredulity with a source that supports his contention.
If it is felt necessary to give the pronunciation of Hecate in this article, it might be a good idea to read WP:PRONUNCIATION, which tells us to use IPA. If you want to use a dictionary-style pronunciation, it would be (hĕk'ə-tē), with slight variation depending on which dictionary's scheme you use. Notice how there's a stress mark there? That's one of the ways we can distinguish between a pronunciation guide and a transliteration. Of course, I don't think we need the pronunciation at all, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Another cite you will doubtless find rationalization to ignore. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Hecate likewise, pronounced in three syllables when in Latin, and in the same number in the Greek word Ἑκάτη, in English is universally contracted into two, by sinking the final e. Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation, by so adapting the word in Macbeth.... And the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them.
I've just reverted User:Sizzle Flambé twice; two reverts ago, my edit summary was "mostly revert; retain pronunciation from M-W; please try not to clutter up lead sentence with footnotes, it makes it virtually impossible to edit". For this I get called "disingenuous" by Sizzle, which I suppose is OK because I think exactly the same thing about him, as I said two sections up--no one claims that Shakespeare, etc. are contemporary with Chaucer, or unread, or anything like that--the claim is that Elizabethan usage is not modern English usage (or "current," if that makes you happier).
As for the footnotes, there are too many in the lead. Ideally, the lead should have no footnotes--they should be in the body of the article, which I would like to focus on sometime after we stop having idiotic arguments about the first sentence of the article. And Sizzle, if you really want to footnote every word of the lead sentence with information such as "From the Latin spelling" or quotes from Shakespeare, Milton, and Marlowe, please explain why. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we please keep this simple? I enter "Hecate" in my search box and google gives me this article. What do I need to know, and in what sequence? I don't know. I assume the wikipedia editors do, so I read the first paragraph, expecting lucidity, not complexity - and not footnotes: why should I have to read footnotes in the lead? The structure of the lead is plain ole' potted history: a taster. No side dishes required.
As to Hekat, this seems a relatively minor historical development. It should be dealt with as such (thus in sequence) in the main body of the article. Neopaganist stuff comes last - after all, that's when it happens - and again, it belongs in the main article along with any relevant and necessary footnotes.
Any contrary suggestions? Or are the article lead and content now fairly stable? Haploidavey ( talk) 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thus?: Hecate or Hekate ( /'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛk-ət/) in current standard usage, Hecat ( /'hɛk-ət/) in poetry and plays esp. 16th-18th centuries, Hekate ( /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/) or Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/) in current neopagan usage, ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...
Or thus?: Hecate, Hekate ( /'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, /'hɛk-ət/), Hecat or Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/) ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...I'd think the second choice makes the lede shorter, lists everything but leaves the exposition for a later section, "Spellings and pronunciations", to discuss the whys and wherefores.
Third choice: Hecate, Hekate, Hecat, or Hekat ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...This would move all the pronunciations down to that section, reducing lede detail further. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Footnotes indicated by "*". — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Spellings and pronunciations
In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.*
Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" ( /'hɛk-ət/),* and this spelling without the final E later appears in Ben Jonson's play The Sad Shepherd,* Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus,* William Shakespeare's plays A Midsummer Night's Dream* and Macbeth,* and John Milton's play Comus,* perhaps to fit the verse metres. Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.*
Neopagan worshippers of the goddess sometimes use the spelling Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/)* and sometimes Hekate ( /'hɛkə-teɪ/ or /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/),* perhaps emulating respectively the Shakespearean and classical pronunciations.
Spellings in the lede: that's where to list them, if not explain them. That's why both "Hecate" and "Hekate" are there, instead of only one.
Separate section: in order to take all that explanation out of the lede.
«speculation» — Anything besides the "perhaps"s that I should cite? How many cites do you want for each? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into this article (though I'll own it needs a lot more), and while I'm blissfully uninterested in the finer points of what spelling variants you all decide belong in the opening paragraph, I have to say that this strange anxiety about the inclusion of footnotes in the lead is baffling to me. What is the basis for assuming that content that was included in footnotes should be pulled and placed in the text? The whole point of a footnote is that information that might break the flow, or that would not be interesting for a general reader, can go in another place so that people who wish to explore things further, or specialists who need to track down details, have recourse to it. Nobody who reads the lead material "has to" read the footnotes. The whole point with footnotes is that you can choose whether or not to read them. Pulling the footnote content and placing it in the text is in many cases a sophomoric waste of time that also affects the readability of the article. Furthermore, breaking up content into sections such as "Possible Carian Origins" causes one to wonder why this needs its own section. I think that removal of footnotes in the lead is a sign of mediocritization (an ugly word, yes, but it corresponds to an ugly phenomenon, which can be seen operating here). If the editors willing to prune footnotes based on a hare-brained rationale holding that footnotes don't belong in lead paragraphs had actually done the work of gathering the valuable information contained in those footnotes, and had bothered to consider issues of readability far more important than whether or not footnotes are included (for example flow of concepts, conciseness in opening material, etc.) it is likely we would not have to watch this article get hacked up in significant ways while relatively insignificant issues about little-seen variant spellings are discussed pedantically as though of great import. I'll come back to cleaning this article up and dealing with the important stuff (like the cross-cultural parallels section that I didn't get a chance to deal with) as soon as I have time. -- Picatrix ( talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
«it's difficult to even see what's main text and what's footnote in there.» — A reader sees main text, with [numbers] sprinkled through it, and the footnotes all down at the bottom, no problem. Presumably editors also see that, before diving in to edit it.
«footnotes that are several sentences long» — If explaining a technical point requires several sentences, so be it. Not all technical points require main text coverage. I agree with Picatrix about concept flow, and I agree with you, Akhilleus, that not everything needs to be in the main text of the lede — which is why I had put those explanations of spelling and pronunciation into footnotes to begin with. It passes my understanding that you felt the need to delete those footnotes altogether as too trivial, yet move other footnotes (on matters at least as trivial) into main text and even as entire section; it seems a completely skewed idea of "relative weight". Being able to recognize Hecate's name as spelled and/or pronounced in Shakespeare's plays and in modern worshippers' rituals seems to me more likely to be both useful and interesting to the general reader (else one might wonder, who is that person haranguing the Three Witches?) than "possible Carian origins", yet I'm not urging the deletion of the Carian question from the article. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, with this edit I've put four simple sentences into a new section (not the lede):
Spellings and pronunciations
In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.[7]
Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" (/'hɛk-ət/),[8] and this spelling without the final E later appears in plays of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period.[9] Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.[10]
Some neopagan worshippers of the goddess pronounce the name as /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, or /'hɛk-ət/,[11] the last sometimes spelled Hekat.[12]
(wikilinks not shown) ... and accordingly removed pronunciations from the lede. Akhilleus, since your concern was solely that this didn't belong in the lede, I trust that this time you will leave it undeleted. Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The section is about her name, and the text added to it discusses how her name is shown in Elizabethan poetry and plays. Since you complained about length vs. weight, the six separate works from five different Elizabethan authors are listed in the footnote instead of main text; their names are wikilinked, the play titles are wikilinked, and the cited portions have external links to the play texts. You seem to be going back and forth between demanding that more information be added and demanding that even this much be removed. As to "neopagan material": one lone sentence, which on my screen is a single line, only states what pronunciation/spelling they use; the bulk of its raw (editing) text is footnote.
Per Cynwolfe: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to rephrase that sentence as "Hecate appears in Elizabethan poetry and plays as 'Hecat'." — with all the same footnotes? That would suggest a more general claim than I think the evidence supports. The cites and quotes show only that she appears in these specific works under that name; and in (for instance) A Midsummer Night's Dream that's all there is, just the bare mention of her name [and, well, "thrice-crowned queen"]. If you want to go find other works, perhaps with the other spellings you mentioned ("Heccat" et al.), please feel free. In the meantime, this is just a brief sentence limited to the issue of her name, which is why it is in the section on her name.
«no evidence that anyone thinks» — Cynwolfe asked you directly: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering your hostility to, and persistent deletion of, even the briefest, most basic, utterly factual details like transliterations, spellings, and pronunciations, why should anyone invest the effort to write a long section on literary analysis, and hope for better treatment?
«the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors don't establish whether a subject is important or not» — Yet you appealed to the consensus of such "personal opinions" before, as when arguing this topic didn't belong in the lede, and even when deleting the section from the article ("rv. no consensus to include this material"). So apparently only when they disagree with you do their opinions not matter.
A scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate is unlikely to lay great stress on how her name is said in English, because (1) the latter is not controversial (but Wikipedia articles aren't solely about controversies); (2) it's not concerned with what grade-school or other new readers need to know at a basic introductory level (but Wikipedia is); (3) the scholars reading at that depth presumably already know how to say and spell the English name (but Wikipedia readers might not); (4) few if any secondary sources ever state outright that "Wikipedia should cover this detail" (about any detail).
That Noah Webster discussed the Shakespeare-influenced pronunciation at some length (even more than was quoted) signifies his opinion about its importance; that those other cited secondary sources felt the need to discuss pronunciations signifies theirs. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The text in question is (as stated repeatedly) about how her name appears in the works of those Elizabethan writers. The section is about her name. Had anything beyond her name been the sentence's topic, it would have belonged in a different section. So essentially you are complaining that this addresses the section topic and not something unrelated to that topic, which is really a very strange complaint.
The secondary sources cited do discuss the pronunciation. What I've "conceded" is that "a scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate" is unlikely to do so, because it's addressed to a different readership than Wikipedia's. This gives no support to any argument that Wikipedia should not cover basic details for the reader new to the subject. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you, once again, that you have claimed the text you wrote was a response to my "invitation" to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature." Since you now acknowledge that you wrote something quite different than what I was asking for, there's no reason for me to complain on this score (unless you start claiming that you wrote the section in response to my invitation again).
The rest of my comment, of course, remains salient. Let me remind, you, too, of your edit summary " At least as WP:WEIGHTy as "Possible Carian origins"..." Now you've acknowledged that this material isn't as WP:WEIGHTy--scholarship finds the subject of Hecate's Carian origin far more interesting than the spelling and pronunciation of her name in English. And let me give you a hint: if you're basing your argument on an 1866 dictionary and a handful of modern neopagan writers, you don't have a very strong array of sources on your side. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you, once again, that the present topic, back to the creation of the talkpage sections #Hekat and #Pronunciation, has been the name of this goddess, as it is in the article section we're discussing — which includes the portrayal of her name in Elizabethan literature. If that went beyond her name, it would belong elsewhere in the article. You wanted it out of the lede, and it is out of the lede. But you have no consensus to delete it altogether from the article.
An article directed solely to scholars on the topic of possible Carian origin would not address the same topics as a Wikipedia article directed to a general readership, true. But this is the Wikipedia article directed to the general readership; it is not an article directed solely to scholars. "The spelling and pronunciation of her name in English" is relevant here. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Rather than revert once more, I've put a {{ pov-section}} tag on the "Spellings and pronunciations" section. The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight to the interest of a single wikipedia editor, rather than reflecting a widespread concern in secondary sources over the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name. A secondary problem is that the section is placing too much weight on pronunciations found in neopagan sources which aren't found in contemporary dictionaries. (See the subsection just above for more issues with the section.)
Some potential solutions:
«The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight» — easily resolved. Now combined with the previous section, "Name and etymology".
«the interest of a single wikipedia editor» — Listing variant spellings for a name that has them, and variant pronunciations likewise, shouldn't even be controversial. This isn't an archaeology or classical-history journal, where readers' basic familiarity with the name can be assumed. We need to cover what the first-time reader may not know. Deleting such basic stuff because you yourself have moved on to more advanced topics is not how to approach writing an encyclopedic article. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it appropriate for that section to remain. It is encyclopedic to mention that Shakespeare et al. did spell the name differently. However, the Milton quotation should be removed. The OED (who one would expect to take care with their sources) gives Hecat' in its quotation from Milton with the apostrophe indicating a likely poetic omission. This edition based on the performing manuscript has Hecat with a footnote that Milton himself used Hecate in his handwritten manuscript. This makes the implication in our footnote that Hecat was Milton's spelling unreliable. There is enough in the footnote without it to imply that some people did use that variant spelling.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Look this article is being ruined in that everyone with a neo-pagan/wiccan/post 1800's view of paganism is hacking this thing to death. Some of the books cited are embarrassingly bad and aren't "scholarly" works. If you want to write about the neopagan goddess called "Hecate" then by all means start a new article. This is about the Greek Goddess of that name. Nickjost ( talk) 16:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I just did quite a bit of work on this article, and I went to some trouble to rely on sources that are not 'neo-pagan'. I did not get to the 'Festivals' section (which is cited with a silly neo-pagan book, and is in any case useless as a distinct section), nor did I do anything with the section on 'cross-cultural parallels' (this section is currently bad, but I feel there's justification for developing it properly- just haven't gotten to it yet). However, the rest has good content, so: would you please be more specific? Just what "neo-pagan drivel" do you refer to – precisely? I confess I am keenly interested to hear about those citations you claim are "embarrassingly bad", if they are not in those two aforementioned sections. Thank you for your encouraging post. -- Picatrix ( talk) 18:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the etymology of the name Hekate/Hecate? I mostly find the meaning "she who works from afar" and variations thereof, but how was this derived? Could someone add some information about the etymology in the article? Thanks muchly. :) 67.168.59.171 07:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be [fem. of hekatos "far-shooting."] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Hecate --nonregistered user, ButtercupSaiyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.13.186 ( talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
A "citation needed" link appears at the end of this passage, however, the information is clearly cited as Ruickbie (2004). I have therefore removed this request.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.125.224 ( talk) 10:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Who on earth confused Hecate with Trivia? I really, really want the reference work that makes that mistake. Trivia is Artemis/Diana, if she's not an independent deity. Why do I get the feeling that this article was written by a Wiccan and not a Classicist? Geogre 02:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the reference work that makes that mistake now. Thanks for using your expertise to clear up the confusion. You could have just ranted about it on the talk page without changing anything.
I myself must defer to the authority of 1911 Britannica, at least until an expert comes and corrects matters. Vivacissamamente 23:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1911 Britannica is out of date in terms of information on Hecate. Sarah Iles Johnston is considered one of the foremost modern historians of Hecate and in her two books (referenced in further readings) she traces Hecate's origins from Turkey into Greece and her development as a sorceress goddess. I changed some of the main entry to accommodate her research which she properly references in her two books. Also, I didn't erase anythign already on the page as it seemed accurate, just moved some stuff arouond.
Also what is with these references to the snake and Hecate holding one. I know of no references to snakes being scared to Hecate, and those images are probaly of Hecate holding a rope. (unsigned, but comments above added by User:Dorcia)
I have clarified that Hecate is not Trivia, among assorted other tidying-up. However, I have also come across statements such as The Romans gave Hekate the title Trivia, the Latin equivalent of the Greek Trioditis. on the otherwise careful and well-referenced theoi.com for example. -- Nantonos 15:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Shakespeare mentions Hecate in Macbeth ( text is here). Hecate is in Act III, Scene V and Act IV, Scene I. However, considering that Hecate's lines in these scenes do not fit in tone with the rest of the play, some people think that Shakespeare didn't actually write them, but they were inserted in later. Can someone research up on this and add it to the article? Bbhtryoink 01:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I am disappointed to find no treatment of Hecate's various transformations and transmissions in the middle ages and early modern times. It seems to me her influence continued, grossly distorted to be sure, but still lively and provocative, through the folkways and symbols of Europe, long after the ancient Mediterranean world that spawned her was but a distant memory. This page would be an excellent place to trace the details of her evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collardgreene ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A load of half-digested material has been dumped into this formerly careful account. I have tagged some statements for citations but it looks hopeless. -- Wetman 22:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Can someone pull the layout together, please? I'm bored with encountering doctrinaire troglodytes over layouts, myself, but this is just not good enough at present. I'd add a "clean-up" sticker, if I were the sticker type.-- Wetman 07:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I have pulled the contentious "Most sects that include worship of Hecate are considered cults, even by Neopagan standards. Such sects often encourage experimentation with the paranormal." and changed 'sect' to 'group' in the remaining part of that paragraph, because of NPOV. I also pulled the inflamatory "In some cases animal sacrifices have been documented, typically taking place on the last day of a month. Animal sacrifices have included the sacrifice of goats, dogs, and chickens, which has been documented by police authorities and is often mistaken with satanic practices. Animal sacrifices is considered in the United States to be animal cruelty and is subsequently illegal, regardless of religious faith." and invite whoever posted that to put it back if they have a citeable source. -- Nantonos 14:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I pulled out the reference to the Celtic festival of Samhain. There is no scholarly basis for that statement, and until it can be proved that there is an actual connection, I hope that will not be put up again. Also, the entire section about emblems seems to be mostly unsubstantiated. I hesitate to remove it completely, but I wouldn't mind if someone did so. Again, until it can be proved that there is an actual, documented connection between many (not all) of those emblems, then I would recommend deleting that section until further information has been discovered, complete with corroboration. Ryan 10:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This entire section needs a BIG rewrite. The role of Hekate in feminist witchcraft is completely missing, as is the association most neopagans have with her as a "Crone" goddess. Additionally, what's with the "Big Bad" associations? Wicca, particularly, doesn't have any concept of Hekate as a Goddess who can be invoked to punish those you don't like. She is mentioned as a Goddess who can be invoked to bind someone, but she is mostly considered to be Keeper of the Mysteries and analogous to the High Priestess tarot card (see Vivienne Crowley, Wicca : the Old Religion in the New Age, pp. 179-80) -- Maz
I removed "..erroneously.." and "..incorrect.." from the end of the intro statement regarding Neo-pagan belief. I think it is clear enough as it is.-- 84.92.169.252 ( talk) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"... originally a goddess of the wilderness" It's not "wilderness" if you live there. What is the thought buried in this expression, still in the opening of the article? -- Wetman 16:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
"Hecate provided friendship to the goddess Persephone who was newly arrived in the Underworld. Thankful for her friendship with his grieving wife, Hades honored Hecate by making her a permanent guest in the spirit world, allowing her to come and go as she wished." I moved this here: is there any psychological interpretation in surviving myth or ritual to suggest this, or is it from Xena Warrior Princess? A myth justifying Hades displacement of Hecate would be useful. -- Wetman 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I've toned down the assertive rant to make this encyclopedic, and I've deleted the contentious supposed parallels with Virgin Mary. Material like this needs to be brought in as a report of what has been published on the subject. The survival of aspects of Hecate cult in peasant religion and Wicca does need to be reintroduced.-- Wetman 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states that yew berries (the non-poisonous arils) can cause hallucinations if prepared correctly. The source cited may be "The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants: Ethnopharmacology and Its Applications" by Christian Rätsch [1], or other books and articles by the same author (in German or English), or any of a number of books ("Plants of the Gods" [2], "Witchcraft Medicine" [3]) written in collaboration with other authors. Unfortunately, none of these books/artices/etc are searchable on Amazon.
Rätsch is an ethnopharmacologist. According to this interview, his doctorate is in "Native American cultures", not any kind of medicine or pharmacology. I point this out not as an insult to the man, but only because I have been unable to find any reliable source for the claim that yew berries can be used as hallucinogens. According to the medical information I've been able to find, even the toxic parts of the yew plants do not cause hallucinations. I have found no indication that there are any ill or unusual effects of ingesting just the arils (no seeds/leaves/etc). Even Erowid has nothing on it. Without access to the source, I have no idea what is meant by "prepared correctly", but I can't find evidence that any preparation of yew would cause hallucinations short of one that involved lacing the berries with LSD. Are there any objections to removing this claim from the article? - AdelaMae ( t - c - wpn) 02:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the intro section, amongst the Carians of Anatolia was "the only region where theophoric names are attested". That's obviously incorrect, as you should see if you follow the link. I don't know what was intended, but this statement needs to be either revised or removed. Fuzzypeg ☻ 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any connection anyone knows about relating Hecate to the Statue of Liberty instead of Libertas? The pictures on this page both bear a striking resemblance, or maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist and don't really think of the S of L as a "gift" in the kindest way, more like an inside joke from the French. Hecate, the goddess of crossroads, borders, city walls (New York harbor??) Shown holding a torch in the drawing, shown with a crown of spikes in the sculpture? Is anyone else seeing this? I don't see any parallels drawn on this page, the Statue of Liberty page, or Bartholdi. Anyone want to do some digging? Keeper76 21:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is a mess of disconnected snippets of insight, acumen, twaddle and nonsense. I'm now trying to clean it up. Help would be appreciated if the person offering it knows what they are doing. It will take me a while to work my way down this page, given its state.
I also feel that it is necessary to bring up this "In Popular Culture" section. I feel strongly that it should be removed. These sections amount to little more than the underside of a metaphorical desk in Junior High, where people stick juvenile bits of nonsense that are as useless as they are unpleasant to encounter. What justification exists for collecting this 'material'? Do people come to this article wondering where they can find a 'breakcore artist' or comic book character named Hecate? Some of them are frankly spam. In any case, they need to disappear into the underworld... -- Picatrix ( talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've moved this extensive footnote here. What should we do with this essay? Who are these "some"? Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia? Persiflage? Wetman ( talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC):
1."What should we do with this essay?" Whatever you like of course, though I should point out that it is a footnote. I assure you my essays are much, much longer. Persiflage?
2. "Who are these 'some'?" The some are the two parties referenced in the quote which immediately follows the statement, to wit: The Right Reverend Edward Lye of Oxford (1694-1767) and Whiter himself. Did you read the footnote? I recommend reading what you edit as it's generally considered to be a constructive first step. Minsheu and Somner (17th century) could be added to this list, as well as Johann Georg Wachter who discusses arguments for and against this etymological claim in his Glossarium Germanicum (1737).
3. "Why is Whiter's 1822 pre-modern essay to be extensively quoted in a modern encyclopedia?" I'm surprised that you take exception to the quoting of pre-modern material here, as the article is rife with pre-modern quotations. As I understand it Wikipedia guidelines mandate no original research, verifiable citations, and a neutral point of view. Did I miss something? I am aware of no guideline specifying that pre-modern sources cannot be used. How would such a guideline be enforced? Let us rather ask, why is it not to be extensively quoted in a footnote in a modern encyclopedia?
4. It is also worth pointing out that no 'modern' source I have been able to find even discusses this proposed etymological relationship, which is to say that I have found no source which discounts it. I'll grant that it hardly belongs in the body of the article, which is why it appeared in a footnote, with caveats. I'd welcome work on your part to identify a study which has discounted this claim.
5. I'm also surprised that you pounced on this while you seem to experience no difficulty digesting the vague, rambling and redundant nonsense about "Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches compiled by Charles Leland (1899)" which is perhaps itself a pre-modern source (though here at Wikipedia "modern" is defined as the period following the Middle Ages or beginning with the invention of the printing press). Curiouser and curiouser...
You'll forgive me, I hope, for changing the title of this section. While you might find it surprising, the title you composed is rather less gracious than one would expect after the significant work I've put into cleaning up this article. --
Picatrix (
talk)
17:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Massive deletions of cited text have recently been made: thus. Editors may want to vet the value of this former text.-- Wetman ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding deletions, minor ones have been made. Much of the content was replaced (and expanded and improved, as you'll note). As for massive, there's just one:
This content has some value, particularly the first paragraph, which I can probably get around to properly citing instead of partial inline citations. The three following paragraphs are a mess of material that could just as well relate to Herodias, Hecate, Artemis or Diana in 'corrupt' survivals. I place it here so that other editors can take a look and decide what to do with it. As noted in citation-needed tags, material that cannot be verified can be challenged and deleted. Please note I've already expressed my intention to remove the in popular culture material. I'm still waiting to see if anyone objects. Finally, for the record, Wetman, I appreciate the thankless job you've been doing of keeping trash out of this article, and I'd much rather work with you in a friendly atmosphere than trade barbs. -- Picatrix ( talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Content related to the strophalos and the Chaldaean Oracles has been reinserted, in a properly cited form. It is worth observing that the previous content claimed that what is usually understood as a spinning top was described as a 'serpentine maze around a spiral' (?) and all sorts of uncited claims for the significance of this were made. So, that's that. As for the 'Aradia' material, I'm not against its mention, but we have to show that someone besides the editor associates this material with Hecate (and it's probable that someone has), as well as removing the meandering speculation that characterizes these passages. As it stands now the material belongs in the article for Diana. -- Picatrix ( talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"Among other strange relics, she succeeded, after many years, in obtaining the following "Gospel," which I have in her handwriting. [...] I do not know definitely whether my informant derived a part of these traditions from written sources or oral narration, but believe it was chiefly the latter. However, there are a few wizards who copy or preserve documents relative to their art. I have not seen my collector since the "Gospel" was sent to me. I hope at some future time to be better informed."
Wikipedia:Trivia sections "Avoid creating lists with miscellaneous facts"
Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles "In popular culture" lists should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers"
I realize that consensus has not been reached on the subject of "In popular culture" sections and articles across Wikipedia as a whole. However, I know that there is no guideline mandating the inclusion of an "In popular culture" section in any given article.
I would like to point out that the bald use of the name "Hecate" or a variant like "Hekarti" does not constitute the appearance of <Hecate> in popular culture. By this I mean to say that the historically attested goddess forming the subject of this encyclopedia article and the name "Hecate" would have to appear together to constitute a reference in popular culture. "Hecate is the 5th level of the Succubus, a creatable monster character class in the Disgaea games." or "Hecate is a class of destroyer in FreeSpace 2." do not meet this standard. Apologies for the puerile semiotics, but the point needs to be made.
There's also the issue of spam. Do encyclopedia readers accessing this content need to know that a 'breakcore' artist is using the name "Hecate"? How is this notable?
The majority of these references result from:
1. Confusing the subject of this article with the name of the subject ("Hecate") and;
2. Naively assuming that every marginal appearance of the name of the subject is deserving of mention or;
3. Wishing to see one's frustrated sense of agency publicly reflected in the appearance of an insignificant fact or;
4. Shamelessly wishing to promote oneself.
I have mentioned my intention to remove the "In popular culture" section of the Hecate article. I have seen no comments as regards this proposal. I have therefore removed the section. I believe this will significantly improve the quality of the article as a whole. Furthermore, removing this dangling factoid wen from the lower parts of the article might make the future addition of such irrelevant page-clutter less likely. This would be optimal. -- Picatrix ( talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I pulled the following from the 'Places' section because characterizing the moon as a 'place' rather than a celestial object seems a bit strained:
My own opinion is that it would be worthwhile to address the frequent association of Hecate with the moon, but I'm not really sure that it deserves its own section. Before contriving some solution of my own I'd like to ask if any other editors have an opinion regarding what to do with this material, which, though misplaced, is cited and useful. Perhaps we can address the subject in a discussion of late and contemporary syncretic characterizations of Hecate as distinct from the attested pre-Medieval goddess? This would give neopagans a place to put their (often but thankfully not always) poorly cited and supported content, which is bound to begin to accrete here again shortly. -- Picatrix ( talk) 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've very heavily de-emphasized the 17th-19thC section of etymology for 'hex' and 'hag'; it's of historical significance, but Mr. Lye's etymological guesses of the early 18thC are about as accurate and about as scientifically valuable as phlogiston. Although, like phlogiston, it's of historical interest -- especially if there are moderns who still subscribe to that theory. ExOttoyuhr ( talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus: «get rid of "Hekat"--I've never seen this used» — Try looking for it. Imagine how many people have never heard of Zog of Albania; should that article be deleted because of their personal incredulity at such an "implausible" name? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The very first two hits in that list use "Hekat" as an alternate name for "Hecate": Donna Wilshire's Virgin, Mother, Crone (e.g. p.165 "the temple of Hekat"), and Amber K's Ritualcraft (e.g. p.502 "Hekas, Hekat, Hekate!"). How did you miss those, Akhilleus? Or were you just determined to ignore them?
Incidentally, claims of personal expertise are not citable here, Akhilleus, and certainly don't trump published secondary sources such as provided. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 06:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle Flambe, stop revert-warring. You are quite possibly over 3RR already: one more revert and I will report you for it. This is not constructive: if you have got to the level of randomly searching google books for whatever crops up, regardless of what language it's in, you clearly have nothing productive to contribute here. Moreschi ( talk) 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that adding "Hekat" to the lead is a very clear case of according undue weight to a spelling that is rare even among Neopagans, and whose usage appears ambiguous even then. Chwolson - whose work is in Middle Eastern languages and history, and is quite possibly outdated since its 1856 publication - is clearly transliterating an Arabic word (حيقات) and then offering an interpretation of its meaning. Also, the Arabic references to the Sabians date to the early Medieval period, not the ancient period as is claimed, and the source shows us little more than how the name "Hecate" is adapted to a Semitic tongue and writing system. The spelling doesn't belong in the lead, and probably doesn't belong in the article at all. Kafka Liz ( talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
John Milton (1634), Comus, Act I, Scene 1, line 135: "Wherein thou ridest with Hecat...."
And Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, Act III, Scene 2, line 21: "Pluto's blue fire and Hecat's tree".
And Ben Jonson's The Sad Shepherd, Act II, Scene 3, line 668: "our dame Hecat". — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
See also "triple Hecat" in Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses, Book Seven, and in "Mr. Theobald" (Lewis)'s Orestes, Act III, and in William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1, line 384: "By the triple Hecat's team". It's a pity none of these appeared in the English language, or else Akhilleus would surely have seen them. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 08:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I see someone's being difficult again. The lead currently reads: Hecate ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting" or Hekate (Hekátê, Hekátē) was a popular chthonian goddess attested as early as Hesiod's Theogony... Now, I see no real point to having both (Hekátê, Hekátē) here, as these are both ways of transliterating the Greek Ἑκάτη while showing the accent and long vowel mark--both ê and ē are ways of bringing the long vowel η into the Roman alphabet. I see no real point to having a transliteration with an accent and a long mark at all--in general, this is a habit of scholarly texts and a few translations. So I took it out. User:Sizzle Flambé promptly reverted me, with the edit summary "Not a "double transliteration"; this shows the two common pronunciations Heh-kat-eh, Heh-kat-ee — as opposed to, say, Hee-kayt...." Well, this is news to me. "ê" represents "eh" and "ē" represents "ee"? I've never seen ê represent "eh", though ē is a common representation of "ee" (as in "bee" or "see"). I have, however, seen plenty of transliterations of classical Greek η as ê or ē. Perhaps Sizzle will address my personal incredulity with a source that supports his contention.
If it is felt necessary to give the pronunciation of Hecate in this article, it might be a good idea to read WP:PRONUNCIATION, which tells us to use IPA. If you want to use a dictionary-style pronunciation, it would be (hĕk'ə-tē), with slight variation depending on which dictionary's scheme you use. Notice how there's a stress mark there? That's one of the ways we can distinguish between a pronunciation guide and a transliteration. Of course, I don't think we need the pronunciation at all, because this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Another cite you will doubtless find rationalization to ignore. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Hecate likewise, pronounced in three syllables when in Latin, and in the same number in the Greek word Ἑκάτη, in English is universally contracted into two, by sinking the final e. Shakespeare seems to have begun, as he has now confirmed, this pronunciation, by so adapting the word in Macbeth.... And the play-going world, who form no small portion of what is called the better sort of people, have followed the actors in this word; and the rest of the world have followed them.
I've just reverted User:Sizzle Flambé twice; two reverts ago, my edit summary was "mostly revert; retain pronunciation from M-W; please try not to clutter up lead sentence with footnotes, it makes it virtually impossible to edit". For this I get called "disingenuous" by Sizzle, which I suppose is OK because I think exactly the same thing about him, as I said two sections up--no one claims that Shakespeare, etc. are contemporary with Chaucer, or unread, or anything like that--the claim is that Elizabethan usage is not modern English usage (or "current," if that makes you happier).
As for the footnotes, there are too many in the lead. Ideally, the lead should have no footnotes--they should be in the body of the article, which I would like to focus on sometime after we stop having idiotic arguments about the first sentence of the article. And Sizzle, if you really want to footnote every word of the lead sentence with information such as "From the Latin spelling" or quotes from Shakespeare, Milton, and Marlowe, please explain why. --Akhilleus ( talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we please keep this simple? I enter "Hecate" in my search box and google gives me this article. What do I need to know, and in what sequence? I don't know. I assume the wikipedia editors do, so I read the first paragraph, expecting lucidity, not complexity - and not footnotes: why should I have to read footnotes in the lead? The structure of the lead is plain ole' potted history: a taster. No side dishes required.
As to Hekat, this seems a relatively minor historical development. It should be dealt with as such (thus in sequence) in the main body of the article. Neopaganist stuff comes last - after all, that's when it happens - and again, it belongs in the main article along with any relevant and necessary footnotes.
Any contrary suggestions? Or are the article lead and content now fairly stable? Haploidavey ( talk) 12:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thus?: Hecate or Hekate ( /'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛk-ət/) in current standard usage, Hecat ( /'hɛk-ət/) in poetry and plays esp. 16th-18th centuries, Hekate ( /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/) or Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/) in current neopagan usage, ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...
Or thus?: Hecate, Hekate ( /'hɛkə-tiː/, /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, /'hɛk-ət/), Hecat or Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/) ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...I'd think the second choice makes the lede shorter, lists everything but leaves the exposition for a later section, "Spellings and pronunciations", to discuss the whys and wherefores.
Third choice: Hecate, Hekate, Hecat, or Hekat ( ancient Greek Ἑκάτη, "far-shooting") was a popular chthonian Greco-Roman goddess, often associated with magic, witches, ghosts, and crossroads. ...This would move all the pronunciations down to that section, reducing lede detail further. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Footnotes indicated by "*". — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Spellings and pronunciations
In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.*
Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" ( /'hɛk-ət/),* and this spelling without the final E later appears in Ben Jonson's play The Sad Shepherd,* Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus,* William Shakespeare's plays A Midsummer Night's Dream* and Macbeth,* and John Milton's play Comus,* perhaps to fit the verse metres. Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.*
Neopagan worshippers of the goddess sometimes use the spelling Hekat ( /'hɛk-ət/)* and sometimes Hekate ( /'hɛkə-teɪ/ or /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/),* perhaps emulating respectively the Shakespearean and classical pronunciations.
Spellings in the lede: that's where to list them, if not explain them. That's why both "Hecate" and "Hekate" are there, instead of only one.
Separate section: in order to take all that explanation out of the lede.
«speculation» — Anything besides the "perhaps"s that I should cite? How many cites do you want for each? — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 02:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I put a lot of work into this article (though I'll own it needs a lot more), and while I'm blissfully uninterested in the finer points of what spelling variants you all decide belong in the opening paragraph, I have to say that this strange anxiety about the inclusion of footnotes in the lead is baffling to me. What is the basis for assuming that content that was included in footnotes should be pulled and placed in the text? The whole point of a footnote is that information that might break the flow, or that would not be interesting for a general reader, can go in another place so that people who wish to explore things further, or specialists who need to track down details, have recourse to it. Nobody who reads the lead material "has to" read the footnotes. The whole point with footnotes is that you can choose whether or not to read them. Pulling the footnote content and placing it in the text is in many cases a sophomoric waste of time that also affects the readability of the article. Furthermore, breaking up content into sections such as "Possible Carian Origins" causes one to wonder why this needs its own section. I think that removal of footnotes in the lead is a sign of mediocritization (an ugly word, yes, but it corresponds to an ugly phenomenon, which can be seen operating here). If the editors willing to prune footnotes based on a hare-brained rationale holding that footnotes don't belong in lead paragraphs had actually done the work of gathering the valuable information contained in those footnotes, and had bothered to consider issues of readability far more important than whether or not footnotes are included (for example flow of concepts, conciseness in opening material, etc.) it is likely we would not have to watch this article get hacked up in significant ways while relatively insignificant issues about little-seen variant spellings are discussed pedantically as though of great import. I'll come back to cleaning this article up and dealing with the important stuff (like the cross-cultural parallels section that I didn't get a chance to deal with) as soon as I have time. -- Picatrix ( talk) 09:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
«it's difficult to even see what's main text and what's footnote in there.» — A reader sees main text, with [numbers] sprinkled through it, and the footnotes all down at the bottom, no problem. Presumably editors also see that, before diving in to edit it.
«footnotes that are several sentences long» — If explaining a technical point requires several sentences, so be it. Not all technical points require main text coverage. I agree with Picatrix about concept flow, and I agree with you, Akhilleus, that not everything needs to be in the main text of the lede — which is why I had put those explanations of spelling and pronunciation into footnotes to begin with. It passes my understanding that you felt the need to delete those footnotes altogether as too trivial, yet move other footnotes (on matters at least as trivial) into main text and even as entire section; it seems a completely skewed idea of "relative weight". Being able to recognize Hecate's name as spelled and/or pronounced in Shakespeare's plays and in modern worshippers' rituals seems to me more likely to be both useful and interesting to the general reader (else one might wonder, who is that person haranguing the Three Witches?) than "possible Carian origins", yet I'm not urging the deletion of the Carian question from the article. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
All right, with this edit I've put four simple sentences into a new section (not the lede):
Spellings and pronunciations
In current standard usage, Hecate (the Latin spelling) or Hekate (as transliterated from Greek) is most often pronounced /'hɛkə-tiː/, though sometimes /'hɛk-ət/.[7]
Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses refers to "triple Hecat" (/'hɛk-ət/),[8] and this spelling without the final E later appears in plays of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period.[9] Noah Webster in 1866 particularly credits the influence of Shakespeare for the then-predominant pronunciation of "Hecate" without the final E.[10]
Some neopagan worshippers of the goddess pronounce the name as /'hɛkə-teɪ/, /hɛk'ɑ-teɪ/, or /'hɛk-ət/,[11] the last sometimes spelled Hekat.[12]
(wikilinks not shown) ... and accordingly removed pronunciations from the lede. Akhilleus, since your concern was solely that this didn't belong in the lede, I trust that this time you will leave it undeleted. Thank you. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The section is about her name, and the text added to it discusses how her name is shown in Elizabethan poetry and plays. Since you complained about length vs. weight, the six separate works from five different Elizabethan authors are listed in the footnote instead of main text; their names are wikilinked, the play titles are wikilinked, and the cited portions have external links to the play texts. You seem to be going back and forth between demanding that more information be added and demanding that even this much be removed. As to "neopagan material": one lone sentence, which on my screen is a single line, only states what pronunciation/spelling they use; the bulk of its raw (editing) text is footnote.
Per Cynwolfe: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 17:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you want to rephrase that sentence as "Hecate appears in Elizabethan poetry and plays as 'Hecat'." — with all the same footnotes? That would suggest a more general claim than I think the evidence supports. The cites and quotes show only that she appears in these specific works under that name; and in (for instance) A Midsummer Night's Dream that's all there is, just the bare mention of her name [and, well, "thrice-crowned queen"]. If you want to go find other works, perhaps with the other spellings you mentioned ("Heccat" et al.), please feel free. In the meantime, this is just a brief sentence limited to the issue of her name, which is why it is in the section on her name.
«no evidence that anyone thinks» — Cynwolfe asked you directly: "why can't all the other issues of naming be placed under the 'Name and etymology' section?" — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Considering your hostility to, and persistent deletion of, even the briefest, most basic, utterly factual details like transliterations, spellings, and pronunciations, why should anyone invest the effort to write a long section on literary analysis, and hope for better treatment?
«the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors don't establish whether a subject is important or not» — Yet you appealed to the consensus of such "personal opinions" before, as when arguing this topic didn't belong in the lede, and even when deleting the section from the article ("rv. no consensus to include this material"). So apparently only when they disagree with you do their opinions not matter.
A scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate is unlikely to lay great stress on how her name is said in English, because (1) the latter is not controversial (but Wikipedia articles aren't solely about controversies); (2) it's not concerned with what grade-school or other new readers need to know at a basic introductory level (but Wikipedia is); (3) the scholars reading at that depth presumably already know how to say and spell the English name (but Wikipedia readers might not); (4) few if any secondary sources ever state outright that "Wikipedia should cover this detail" (about any detail).
That Noah Webster discussed the Shakespeare-influenced pronunciation at some length (even more than was quoted) signifies his opinion about its importance; that those other cited secondary sources felt the need to discuss pronunciations signifies theirs. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 19:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The text in question is (as stated repeatedly) about how her name appears in the works of those Elizabethan writers. The section is about her name. Had anything beyond her name been the sentence's topic, it would have belonged in a different section. So essentially you are complaining that this addresses the section topic and not something unrelated to that topic, which is really a very strange complaint.
The secondary sources cited do discuss the pronunciation. What I've "conceded" is that "a scholarly article debating the importance of theophoric names as a clue to the Carian origin of Hecate" is unlikely to do so, because it's addressed to a different readership than Wikipedia's. This gives no support to any argument that Wikipedia should not cover basic details for the reader new to the subject. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you, once again, that you have claimed the text you wrote was a response to my "invitation" to write a section of the article that covers Hecate's portrayal in Elizabethan literature." Since you now acknowledge that you wrote something quite different than what I was asking for, there's no reason for me to complain on this score (unless you start claiming that you wrote the section in response to my invitation again).
The rest of my comment, of course, remains salient. Let me remind, you, too, of your edit summary " At least as WP:WEIGHTy as "Possible Carian origins"..." Now you've acknowledged that this material isn't as WP:WEIGHTy--scholarship finds the subject of Hecate's Carian origin far more interesting than the spelling and pronunciation of her name in English. And let me give you a hint: if you're basing your argument on an 1866 dictionary and a handful of modern neopagan writers, you don't have a very strong array of sources on your side. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind you, once again, that the present topic, back to the creation of the talkpage sections #Hekat and #Pronunciation, has been the name of this goddess, as it is in the article section we're discussing — which includes the portrayal of her name in Elizabethan literature. If that went beyond her name, it would belong elsewhere in the article. You wanted it out of the lede, and it is out of the lede. But you have no consensus to delete it altogether from the article.
An article directed solely to scholars on the topic of possible Carian origin would not address the same topics as a Wikipedia article directed to a general readership, true. But this is the Wikipedia article directed to the general readership; it is not an article directed solely to scholars. "The spelling and pronunciation of her name in English" is relevant here. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Rather than revert once more, I've put a {{ pov-section}} tag on the "Spellings and pronunciations" section. The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight to the interest of a single wikipedia editor, rather than reflecting a widespread concern in secondary sources over the spelling and pronunciation of Hecate's name. A secondary problem is that the section is placing too much weight on pronunciations found in neopagan sources which aren't found in contemporary dictionaries. (See the subsection just above for more issues with the section.)
Some potential solutions:
«The POV problem is basically this: by breaking this out into a separate section, the article gives undue weight» — easily resolved. Now combined with the previous section, "Name and etymology".
«the interest of a single wikipedia editor» — Listing variant spellings for a name that has them, and variant pronunciations likewise, shouldn't even be controversial. This isn't an archaeology or classical-history journal, where readers' basic familiarity with the name can be assumed. We need to cover what the first-time reader may not know. Deleting such basic stuff because you yourself have moved on to more advanced topics is not how to approach writing an encyclopedic article. — Sizzle Flambé ( ☎/ ✍) 05:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it appropriate for that section to remain. It is encyclopedic to mention that Shakespeare et al. did spell the name differently. However, the Milton quotation should be removed. The OED (who one would expect to take care with their sources) gives Hecat' in its quotation from Milton with the apostrophe indicating a likely poetic omission. This edition based on the performing manuscript has Hecat with a footnote that Milton himself used Hecate in his handwritten manuscript. This makes the implication in our footnote that Hecat was Milton's spelling unreliable. There is enough in the footnote without it to imply that some people did use that variant spelling.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)