Talk:Vesta (mythology)

message: The Vestal Virgins were prostitutes??? Certainly some people have claimed so, but haven't others maintained they were indeed virgins?  Which of these two classes of people is better informed? Having intercourse with a Vestal Virgin could result in a death sentence in Rome.  I wish I knew more about this, but surely the claim that Vestal Virgins were prostitutes is not universally held and should be attributed?  Hoping someone can educate me... -- Someone else 02:04 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)
:I suspect modern fantasy as well here.  There were several groups of sacred prostitutes in the ancient world, but I've never heard such a claim made about the Vestal virgins.  It just doesn't fit in with the character of the deity in question, either; sacred prostitutes worshipped Aphrodite, or Astarte, or Cotys, but not Hestia/Vesta.  -- IHCOYC 02:33 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::More to the point, um, they could hardly be both (v. and p. I mean). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prostitution?

message: The Vestal Virgins were incredibly high class in Roman society. I think they could get away with really being virgins.         
:Tell that to Rhea Silvia. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Really virgins?

message: "Goddess of the Hearth she was the symbol of the home, around which a newborn child must be carried before it could be received into the family. Every meal began and ended with an offering to her:
Vesta, in all dwellings of men and immortals  
Yours is the highest honor, the sweet wine offered  
First and last at the feast, poured out to you duly.  
Never without you can gods or mortals hold banquet.
 
Each city too had a public hearth sacred to Vesta, where the fire was never allowed to go out. If a colony was to be founded, the colonists carried with them coals from the hearth of the mother-city with which to kindle the fire on the new city's hearth."
This entire section has been directly copied from Edith Hamilton's novel Mythology with the exception that the word "Vesta" has replaced "Hestia". I see that it is referenced at the end of the article but that DOES NOT make it okay to copy the complete section without putting quotation marks. I don't mean to sound overly critical, I just don't want to see anyone get in trouble as this currently infringes on copyright laws set by the publisher. I suggest that this be changed immediately, either by changing the wording or by adding appropriate quotation marks. Until this is changed, I will place a tag over the above mention section where it appears in the article. This shouldn't be too difficult to do; I'll try to fix some of it though I would really love if someone could help. Thanks. --France3470 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the note of Edith Hamilton's Mythology as well, it certainly cannot be the only reference for all this information as she barely talks about Hestia/Vesta at length. I believe the references section might need to be expanded as information of Vesta is hardly common knowledge. Maybe some footnotes could be added to help improve the credibility of the article. Since I know a bit on this topic I'll see what I can do to improve the article.--France3470 22:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation, from a ''novel'' no less! 

message: I am new to Wikipedia and I am not accostumed to the use of the relevant software, I apologise to the reader for not giving quotations and citations in the usual way.
I see somebody, perhaps the administrator of this page, asks me to improve the article because it does not give citiations.
Frankly I am puzzled as I have started by saying "according to Dumezil" and "Ovid says" below. Before I made the additions the article was totally uncited , but nobody put the request for sources above it. Now I have given the relevant biliographic info on which I based my additions at the foot of the page in the notes section and somewhere in the text too.
I wonder whether there is a certain selectivity here as totally unsourced articles are let alone but as something new comes by it is asked for citations even when they are stated rather clearly.Aldrasto (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and sources 

message: Dumézil stuff in section Theology paragraphs 2-6 seems more like comparative religion than theology. It doesn't fit in the beginning of the section, since the reader expects Roman theology/mythology/whatever – not Vedic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps in disorder?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Those favoring the move make the argument on long term significance, but those opposed disagree. Clickstream data show that more people who come to the dab are looking for the asteroid than the mythology topic, with the goddess receiving fewer than 30% of clicks. Therefore, I'm not seeing any consensus when looking at the arguments made.   (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That sort of thing is why the long-term significance criterion exists. Over the course of this year, Pink (the color) has 128,379 views. Pink (singer) has 1,497,894 views - over 11 times as many. Just between those two topics, the color gets slightly under 8 percent of views, and yet it's the primary topic, because of course it is. Pageviews are much more useful for primary topic questions when none of the topics can really make a long-term significance claim. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable, but: The asteroid is a Level-5 vital article. The goddess isn't even on the Level-5 list. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pink should probably be a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk)  10:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

text: "Not determinative" is not the same as "irrelevant".  The fact that most or all of the other uses of a name are directly based on its original use is an important factor to consider: much more so in a case such as this, where in each case the name is chosen due to the character of the namesake.  We can probably argue ad nauseam about usage, since the asteroid is occasionally in the news due to recent space missions, which is probably the only reason why most people have heard of it, although I suspect a lot more people learned about the Roman goddess in school.  While both mythology and astronomy are taught in school, I don't remember anything I might have learned about the asteroid belt in school—and if the asteroid Vesta was mentioned, it could only have been in passing, since to schoolchildren a list of asteroids would be utterly forgettable.  But with respect to long-term significance, there's no contest: the asteroid was only discovered in 1807.  It seems to me that if long-term significance is clear, but usage is arguable, the argument should weigh in favour of long-term significance.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 June 2021