Talk:Persephone

message: This should not be italicized; article titles are italicized only when they would be italicized in the body copy (or what WP calls the "running text"). Persephone is simply a proper name, like Gaius Marius or Sancho Panza. See WP:ITALICTITLE. I don't know how to undo this. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That comes from this edit yesterday, which added an infobox for a play about Persephone. The infobox is formatted to put the title in italics, because it is supposed to be used for articles that are actually about a play (i.e. not this article). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the dangers of auto-editing. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: I remove the following from the article as a whole: It appears to be largely speculation. From the assertions about what Linear A tablets say, to nonsense about Zeus Trophonius (Pausanias 9.39 is miscited; there is no section 25 and it does not identify Zeus with the oracular hero), this may be a mine of valid material - but it isn't article stuff now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, also recognizing the point about its potential as a mine. At present it obscures more than it illuminates about the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of the cult

message: Can somebody please tell me exactly how many seeds she ate? in the wiki it says severak diffrent time she eats diffrent seeds :/ the several numbers are 2, 5, 1, 8, 9, 12, the whole fruit. Please give me a better descriptions so I can get the right number.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.48.251 (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs a thorough rewriting, and I'm sorry it isn't giving you the help you need. My impression is that the number of seeds is less important in the myth than the symbolic value of her eating "seeds" (that seems to represent her transition from virginal girl picking flowers) and it's the fact of her having eaten in the underworld that binds her to the world of death. The number of seeds, I think, is unspecified or varied depending on who was telling the story. This source says casually "a pomegranate seed", with no emphasis on the numerical "one", and I think that's what the Homeric Hymn to Demeter says. Ovid, whose versions of myths often become standard, says seven seeds (at Metamorphoses 5.537). So there is no right number: the number chosen by poets or mythographers depends on what tradition they're following, or whether they choose a number that means something within their particular belief system. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The Homeric hymns either did not mention it, or mentioned it on the part of the paper which is damaged. Wikifan153 (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many seeds? 

message: I would suggest merging Rape of Persephone into Persephone. This is because the Persephone page already covers the myth of her abduction by Hades in great detail. The Rape of Persephone article currently consists of just a short list of artworks representing the myth, which would be better placed within the overall Persephone page. LegesRomanorum (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't know.  "Persephone" is a very large article already, and the contents of this article might tend to get lost there.  This article seems to be about a single aspect of the Persephone myth that has frequently been depicted in art since the Renaissance.  It seems like a discrete topic that's long enough to justify existing as a separate article, and is certainly capable of expansion, either by adding artworks or by expanding the discussion of individual artworks already listed in the article.  I believe that when articles reach a certain size, they become potentially unwieldy, and difficult to navigate or absorb; this is why detailed subtopics are split off into separate articles.  While this article has a lot of potential for expansion, it's longer than a great many stand-alone articles, and it doesn't necessarily follow that it should be folded back in to the main article about Persephone because it's not that long yet.  But I'd be interested to see what other members of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome have to say about this proposal.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

text: In general I favor multiple articles. This allows for different focuses, which can be particularly beneficial. Paul August ☎ 16:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is as much or more an art page than it is an adjunct to the Persephone article. Leaving it as is seems the best option for Wikipedia's art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I've removed it now. Paul August ☎ 18:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: the original name is Ratto di Proserpina! the word Ratto means kidnapping and not sexual violence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.18.231.245 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Italian "Il Ratto di Proserpina" is sometimes (usually?) translated into English as "The Rape of Proserpine" (see for example the opera Il Ratto di Proserpina by the librettist Lorenzo Da Ponte. However I'm not sure what you mean by calling that Italian expression "the original name". The original name of what? Paul August ☎ 18:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I think that "abducted" is the usual word (rather than "kidnapped") to describe what Hesiod, and the Homeric Hymn say Hades did to Persephone. That's why the section about that event is titled "Abduction myth" and why the word abduction is used in that section to describe that event. (Notice that I've recently changed a couple several of "rape" to "abduction".) Is there someplace else that you want the word "rape" changed?  Paul August ☎ 13:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But the event, particularly in art, is traditionally referred to as the "Rape of Persephone", so no you can't change that sentence to say, for example, "is traditionally referred to as the Kidnapping of Persephone" because it isn't. Paul August ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

text: "Rape" is the traditional English translation of the Latin raptus in this context, and while in modern parlance the word is usually associated with sexual violence, that's not the only meaning, and in a historical context the original meaning of the word may be expected: think of "The Rape of the Sabine Women", which again is a story about abduction, not sexual violence.  There aren't a lot of familiar examples, so I'm very hesitant to reduce the number of examples further, since that might tend to make the original use less familiar, and more confusing than it apparently is now.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

text: I've moved the mention of the term "Rape of Persephone" in that section to a note, since I don't think it really needs to be there. Paul August ☎ 21:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation correction 

message: Couldn't there be the original Greek pronounciation? --2A02:908:899:2920:E1E8:E4A0:60E4:F30C (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why that "English" (traditional) pronounciation? 

message: I've copied here (in the section just below) a section which was appropriately removed from the article, in order to preserve it for possible use in future edits. Paul August ☎ 12:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed section

message: I appreciate 's attempt to find a compromise by framing this passage, but it remains misleading, even if it was not based on deeply flawed original research.
Though it's currently explicit that it concerns only two Roman authors, readers are bound to understand it as indicating a general shift to a more positive and romantic view, with examples - else why did we include it? Surely we wouldn't do so in contravention of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy of ?
Instead we seem to have two examples that were found by searching for "Persephone" in translations of Roman authors, and thus selecting for translations that impose Greek names not found in the original texts and missing Latin mentions of Proserpina, let alone Ennaea or other allusions.
But it's worse than that. Neither example does what's claimed.
The quoted passage from Lucan's Pharsalia was translated by Ridley as
 I'll noise abroad
 The banquet that beneath the solid earth
 Holds thee, thou maid of Enna; by what bond
 'Thou lov'st night's King, by what mysterious stain
 Infected, so that Ceres fears from hell
 'To call her daughter.
That's not positive or romantic, and it's even less so if you read the whole passage about the horrors of the underworld, as Lucan describes what's waiting for those who fall in the battle to come in his account of Rome's ghastly civil war. It's even less so when you read the Latin
 Eloquar, immenso terrae sub pondere quae te
 Contineant, Ennaea, dapes, qua foedere moestum
 Regem noctis ames, quae te contagia passam
 Noluerit revocare parens.
Note for example that foedere. "Bond" is not a bad translation; it carries some of the coldness of a term usually used for treaties (foedus is the root of "federal" etc) but occasionally for a marriage compact. But it's an artful choice by Lucan; foedus is also an adjective meaning "foul, filthy, loathsome, ugly, unseemly, detestable, abominable, horrible", the root of or cognate with the root of "fetid". In this context it reinforces Lucan's description of the loathsome underworld. Persephone is trapped in and abandoned to a fetid federation; what we would now call an abusive relationship.
In the cited passage from Virgil, he calls fulsomely on Augustus as a benevolent lord of the fruitful world, in contrast with the underworld
 For neither Tartarus hopes to call thee king,
 Nor may so dire a lust of sovereignty
 E'er light upon thee, howso Greece admire
 Elysium's fields, and Proserpine not heed
 Her mother's voice entreating to return
 nam te nec sperant Tartara regem
 nec tibi regnandi veniat tam dira cupido,
 quamvis Elysios miretur Graecia campos
 nec repetita sequi curet Proserpina matrem
He does not say, as our article now has it, "that Proserpina  was overcome by the charms of the Elysian fields"  and instead he distinguishes Roman bounty in the here and now with Greek fascination with or longing for the underworld.
I'm sorry to go on at such length, but this is where we have to go if we're going to base entire sections on original research from primary sources, with the only modern secondary source being mentioned as disagreeing with the editor's original research. We should remove this section entirely from this article and from Proserpina, and we can be confident that we're not leaving out a well-founded addition by sticking to Wikipedia's principles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NebY (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: the text still says she loves him and avoids her mother, showing a clear preference for the underworld,i really don't know how it came to such an extreme conclusion based on a vague verb and the  the verb is referring to underworld food not their relationship and bond isn't necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Hades! Plato Cratylus, who is possibly the most important source about Hades, said that he has the ability to unite people to him by their own will and those were the strongest bonds( and the verb is referring to underworld food not their relationship and Proserpine avoids his mother, and i think you've come to very extreme conclusion based on vague verb)considering that she has shown a preference for the underworld in other verses and avoids his mother, treaty or alliance seems to be a more correct translation.Aizen7817 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Plato Cratylus literally says that everyone falls in love with Hades and that's why no one leaves the underworld, and he calls it Bonds Aizen7817 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Ovid also gives a significantly happier ending in the Metamorphosis version, Proserpine is happy with his situation at the end of the poem, and Orpheu says that love brought them together! regardless of Pluto having was hit with an arrow Aizen7817 (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Lucan said that Proserpine loves Pluto and avoids her mother, showing a clear preference for the underworld and the word is not so problematic considering that the most important Poets in Western(Plato and Socrates) history wrote that Hades does not force anyone to be with him, that he seduces everyone and he called it bonds Aizen7817 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Ovid said that love brought them together, Lucan said that she loves him, and Virgil said that she preferred the Elysian fields, whatever the context, that's what he write Aizen7817 (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: this is not simply the writings of three poets, Diodorus Silicus said that the biggest and most famous temple in all of Italy is one that commemorates the wedding of Hades and Persephone, with them enthroned with huge smiles, he literally said that it was bigger and more famous of Italy, was an emblem of the state, with Persephone being the goddess of marriage Aizen7817 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Proserpina literally started as an evolution of Persephone who was patroness of marriage in Magna Graecia, Lucan said that she loves him, Ovid that they were united by love and that she did not want to return and the writings are independent of the context and fact that her temple was the biggest in Italy with both smiling, shows that it was public knowledge Aizen7817 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

text: the fact that Proserpina had started out as a variation of a Persephone from magna greacia who was the patron goddess of marriage is actually an interesting topic and one that may justify the presence of the sources here, I think I can improve the quotes 45.7.161.77 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: please man I didn't want to argue anymore 45.7.161.77 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Lucan made it very clear that Proserpine prefers the underworld, I disagree with her argument, as the basis is just the interception of a Word Aizen7817 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The fact that Diodorus says the most famous temple in Italy with Hades and Persephone smiling indicates that it was public knowledge. Aizen7817 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Lucan made it very clear that Proserpine avoids her mother and that she loves Pluto, I disagree with your argument (with all due respect I think an argument based on the interpretation of a word is very weak) and Virgil still says that Proserpine prefers elisions, if as a representation the fascination of the greeks with the underworld doesn't change that at all, just that the Elysian fields is a wonderful place and chose to represent that through Proserpina not wanting to follow her mother (these things are not exclusive) Aizen7817 (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I made some changes to the text with the intention of reaching a one consensus, I really don't like to argue Aizen7817 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

text: even in the worst possible interpretation of the verb it is referring to the food and not their relationship, he is saying that the act of consuming the detestable or horrible food from the underworld made Proserpine fall in love with Pluto and that she was contaminated in a way that her mother would not recall her,and this interpretation is reinforced by the fact that she avoids her mother (she was contaminated by the food and now loves him) he laments that she has become an infernal deity, but he also says that she loves him, and this interpretation of the meaning of the Pomegranes appears in some  essays of the Homeric hymn Aizen7817 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Faulty original research and [[WP:undue]] anyway

message: I've deleted the section title "Roman interpretations", but left the section "Romans" under "Worship". The two sections were separate, but hopelessly entangled; the first was full of errors, and poorly or partially sourced, and editorial opinion/guesswork - the second is better written and considered, and better supported and at this moment, I'm more bothered about scholarly support and accurate representation of source opinions than about equivalence and synthesis. I've listed my reasons at the article history in the form of an edit summary. I'd also like to suggest that the interminable and inconclusive and primary source-based discussions about the subject (hint - look at the top of this page!) come to an end, and we rely entirely on reliable, scholarly, secondary sources (preferably up-to-date), as we ought. Haploidavey (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I will pass the last motifications to Proserpina Aizen94 (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

text: i don't know why i wrote so i don't really like to argue or bother people, i'll pass the latest motifications to proserpina, but i want to keep a little reference to magna greacia's persephone as a possible origin, but catching the sides and partial editors that I treat them like the same Aizen94 (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

text: I wish to keep the quotes on Proserpina's page and i will rewrite more impartially Aizen7817 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of section

message: There are several sentences in the Modern reception section about “Persephone Under the Earth” by Suzanne Banay Santo. This 24 page booklet does not seem to be at all notable. The section was added just a few months after the booklet was published.
I suspect the person who added this section was the author of the booklet. The same person submitted a Wikipedia article about Suzanne Banay Santo. That article was marked for deletion due to the fact that the author was not notable and it sounded autobiographical. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suzanne_Banay_Santo 75.114.207.132 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove “Persephone Under the Earth” from Modern reception? 

message: How Persephone Is a goddess of life destruction and dead??? She can't be both a death and life goddess so please remove her from death deities and goddesses. Also 2A02:1388:14A:6451:0:0:316C:10D2 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Goddess of those things  

message: You should know that Persephone was not the goddess of life, dead and destruction. First of all she didn't decide who is gonna live and who is gonna die neither she gave life to the humans. Also every deity can destroy anything, what does goddess of destruction mean??? Please remove the titles of goddess of life, dead and destruction because they are fake!!! One Last thing Persephone was not a goddess of Olympus meaning she did not live in mount Olympus. If you see any of her stories you will see that she only resides in the underworld and in earth(forests). She has never been mentioned on living and being on Olympus so please remove Mount Olympus from her abode and also life, dead and destruction from her goddess titles 2A02:587:1E54:615E:1065:28A9:50D5:7C23 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed from the infobox Persephone being the goddess of "destruction" and and of "life", since there are no sources given for these nor are they mentioned in the article. However the article does mention that she was considered the goddess of the dead (not death by the way which seems to be what you are objecting to when you say "she didn't decide who is gonna live and who is gonna die"). The concept "god of" (or "goddess of") is problematic, and it would probably be best not to have in the infobox at all. Paul August ☎ 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 2A02:1388:208D:C1CC:0:0:DA3B:B756 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake Informations 

message: The redirect Iron Queen has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  TNstingray (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Iron Queen]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]