Talk:Demeter

Does the author of this know of any active old world mysteries or cults that can be contacted by phone or email or other wireless means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disciple1989 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I’m really into Greek gods but it would be cool if you put on here who the god/goddess was last dating or who they are married to 2A02:C7F:5633:9A00:B53F:C5CA:BFA5:2833 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Best not to remove partial references without checking thoroughly. The partial ref citing Dalby is almost certainly Dalby, Andrew (2005), The Story of Bacchus, London: British Museum Press, ISBN 0-7141-2255-6 (US ISBN 0-89236-742-3)

The alternative (his only other work published in 2005) is Venus, a biography but I've no access to either work

I can't cope with these formats and templates, and don't wish to try. So could whoever well-meaningly removed the partial Dalby ref please oblige with a restoration? Or tag it for mending? Details as above. PS: I've already restored the inline short ref-link. Haploidavey (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Haploidavey (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 13:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Demeter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article. Full comments later, but to get you started a couple of notes:

• I see several places which are lacking a citation – at least four paragraphs are entirely uncited.
• The article includes a list of Demeter's "most common epithets" – I can see no source for the fact that these are the most common, and several of them appear to be cited to a primary source which supports that there was a shrine to Demeter with that epithet at one particular place; that's not sufficient to demonstrate that they are common epithets, let alone "most common"!
• The article as a whole is nearly 6000 words long, which isn't a problem in itself – it's a big subject! – but it means that being concise and remaining on topic is even more than usually important. There are several places where even at a quick look through the article could be tightened up – for instance:

An ancient Amphictyony, probably the earliest centred on the cult of Demeter at Anthele (Ἀνθήλη), which lay on the coast of Malis south of Thessaly. This was the locality of Thermopylae.
After the "First Sacred War", the Anthelan body was known thenceforth as the Delphic Amphictyony.

This is grammatically awkward and could already be tightened to e.g.

Probably the earliest Amphictyony centred on the cult of Demeter at Anthele (Ἀνθήλη), lay on the coast of Malis south of Thessaly, near Thermopylae. After the "First Sacred War", the Anthelan body was known as the Delphic Amphictyony.

But the fact that after the First Sacred War the Amphictyony acquired a new name doesn't seem to me directly relevant to Demeter herself, and I would strongly consider cutting it.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, having assessed the article more thoroughly I would say referencing is the biggest problem here.

Firstly, there are way more references to primary sources than I would suggest is a good idea, including essentially the entirety of §Other functions and titles, §Other wrath myths, and §Other favour myths. In the case of the section on functions and titles, this means that the section's primary claim (that the listed titles are the "most common epithets of Demeter") completely unsupported – none of the ancient sources cited are reliable sources for the claim that those particular epithets are common, let alone the most common! In the case of the myth sections, the overreliance on primary sources leads to just a grab-bag of random myths with limited structure and no analysis of why these particular myths matter. We've grouped them as "wrath myths" and "favour myths", but is even that a useful way of thinking about them that scholars use? It's impossible to tell from the lack of sources cited! The "wrath myths" could equally be considered "myths about Demeter's search for Persephone" – which may well be a more useful way of thinking about them!

Secondly, some of the secondary sources cited are deeply dubious. In the section §Etymology, we have the claim According to a more popular theory, the element De- might be connected with Deo, an epithet of Demeter. The citation for "more popular theory" is Jane Ellen Harrison's Myths of Greece and Rome, which was published in 1928 – this is not a good source for claims about what theories are currently popular! It also doesn't make any claims about the relative popularities of different theories, so even if the source were usable it wouldn't support the claim made! We also cite Harrison's even more dated Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, and Martin P. Nilsson's Greek Popular Religion (1940) and History of Greek Religion (the article cites the 1967 German translation, but the original book is from 1922). Then there's Robert Graves, whose ideas on mythology are... not widely accepted, to say the least.

Also cited are several non-specialist tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, all of which I would rather avoid. The World History Encylopedia, in particular, I am sceptical of.

Finally, I find several examples where the sources cited simply don't support the claims made. For instance: In the cult of Flya, she was worshipped as Anesidora who sends up gifts from the Underworld. There was a temple of Demeter under this name in Phlya. is simply not supported by the sources cited (the British Museum source identifies Anesidora as Pandora!) I've already mentioned the use of Harrison in the section on etymology, which also falls into this issue. After the "First Sacred War", the Anthelan body was known thenceforth as the Delphic Amphictyony is another example of a claim where I cannot see how the source supports it.

Other than referencing, I have found at least one example of excessively close paraphrasing: which lay on the coast of Malis south of Thessaly. This was the locality of Thermopylae, when the source says Anthele lay on the coast of Malis south of Thessaly [...] This was the locality of Thermopylai. There are also issues with structure (why, for instance, is the paragraph on Demeter's association with Poseidon and Cybele in the section on etymology), and writing about myths as though they are real things that certainly happened (this is a problem in some, but not all, of the subsections of §Mythology).

On the whole, this article needs substantial work to bring up to GA status – more, I suspect, than could reasonably be done in the conventional one week hold period. For this reason, I am going to fail this nomination, though I hope you continue working on the article and do bring it up to GA standard. If you want an informal review of the article before renominating, do let me know and I'd be happy to give it another look over. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

1. L.H.Jeffery in her book :"Archaic Greece.The city states c.700-500BC"(1976) mentions that .....in an ancient Amphictiony (dwellers around) centred on the cult of Demeter at Anthela. Anthela lay on the coast of Malis south of Thessaly, in Trachinian country; behind her rose Mount Oita, where Heracles had died.This is the locality of Thermopylae ('hot gates') that is the place of hot springs and cavernous entrances to Hades).The twelve delegates to the Amphictiony met in spring and autumn, and were entitled Pylagorai (gate-assemblers), perhaps a reference to the local Gates of Hades, since Demeter was a chthonic goddess in many of her oldest local cults.(pp. 72-73). There was not any excessively close paraphrasing in the article, but your remark is excessively prejudicial. Even if one doesn't know the geography of Greece, the meaning is clear in the passage.

2.Jeffery mentions in p.73 (The war and the Delphic Amphictiony) :Kirhha throve on these visitors (n. of the oracle of Delphi) ; indeed until the war she was apparently in recognized control of the holy site itself.In p.74 As the result of the war the Anthelan body was known thenceforth as the Delphic Amphictiony,and became the official overseer and military defender of the Pythian cult. ..........It is said that this enlargement created the system aroused in classical period.The claim is well supported by the source. I don't know why a well-known scholar like L.H.Jeffery is underestimated.

The Delphic Amphictiony is not related to Demeter, but I believe that the information is useful. The Anthelan Amphictiony was enlarged and became the Delphic Amphictiony.

3. Pausanias describes two temples at Phlya. The second had altars for Demeter Anesidora, Zeus Ktesios, (In Greek: bringing up gifts). (Pausanias I 31,4) Jestmoon(talk) 22:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor criticism, but it seems like neither the section "In Crete" nor "Greek mainland" really discusses only Crete/Greek Mainland. Both sections are about findings in Crete, Pylos and Mykenai. 2003:CD:6F06:ED00:29B5:969:DC46:8155 (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I find the references in this article to "Corn Mother" and "Godess of new corn" erroneous.

Corn was first domesticated by the indigenous tribes of Central America and brought back from the new world by the Spanish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize Ttownparrothead (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a reference to cereal grains, not to maize. Gawaon (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Corn means maize only in American English. See Corn (disambiguation). Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

There was no corn in Greece prior to the Spanish return from the Americas in the late 1490s A.D. Nilsson's "Sacred Texts" is the source of the corn-related content. On the one Nilsson page I checked, "corn" is present 67 times in the context of Demeter in ancient Greece. (The GA review mentioned lack of suitability of Nilsson as a source, due to it being outdated etc.) There only remain 3 mentions of corn in the article, which I will alter to reference grain more specifically. As for usage, I do not see any annotation indicating whether this article is written in British or American English, so I'm unsure how to account for Dimadick's observation. I do notice some uncomfortably close paraphrasing of Nilsson's text, so I'll try to address both matters wrt the remaining 3 mentions of corn in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The pre-existing English term "corn" was applied to the American crop in American English, and in American English eventually came to mean that crop in particular, but has never been so restricted in British English. Annotations indicating the variety of English are not supplied in most of our articles and the application of WP:RETAIN does not rely upon them. However, this article does have the annotation, on the fourth source line, {{Use British English|date=October 2022}}.

Even the American dictionary Merriam-Webster lists your understanding of "corn" as only the fourth meaning and gives the etymology as

Middle English, going back to Old English, "grain of a cereal grass, seed, berry," going back to Germanic *kurno- (whence also Old Frisian, Old Saxon, Old High German & Old Norse korn "grain of a cereal grass, seed," Gothic kaurn), going back to European Indo-European *ǵr̥H-no-, whence also Latin grānum "seed, especially of a cereal grass," Old Irish grán, Welsh grawn, Old Church Slavic zrĭno "grain, seed," Serbian & Croatian zȑno, Russian zernó, Lithuanian žìrnis "pea"

which long precedes the Spanish return from the Americas. NebY (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC), NebY (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)