text:
Talk:Labours of Hercules

Sources and authors
This page -- like many of the Mythology pages on Wikipedia -- is worthless without an indication of where these stories actually come from. Which authors, and what specific works, are we drawing this information from? The Wiki is not supposed to codify something vaguely recalled from a tenth grade literature class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.26.129 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 * One source is Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.4.12 to 2.5.12). Another is Hyginus (Fabulae, 30). Others may available and, I agree, they should be listed.

 * ICE77 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Another source is Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 11.3-26-4).

 * ICE77 (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Consistency
The title of the article refers to "Hercules", but Heracles is used throughout, and the category uses Herakles. Is there a good reason for this? I propose one is chosen, and used throughout, with notes indicating the other names/spellings. 129.120.244.99 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Arjun

Labours/labors
Should "Labours" be spelled in British fashion? Haiduc 04:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the author's choice. We just have to be consistent throughout an article.  I was inconsistent in the external link only because the linked page itself uses the American spelling. —Triskaideka 17:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And why not? I didn't realise Wikipedia was American only :) 195.157.52.65 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hercules/Heracles
It is explained at the top of the article that Hercules is the Roman name for Heracles. Thereafter both names are used in the article. The line quoted uses both names in the context of the same plot.

I think this is confusing.

Tsingi (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 * There is awkward mixing of Hercules/Heracles throughout the article. Surely it's better to be consistent, especially within the same section.124.37.83.250 (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that consistency should be there and Heracles should have precedence over Hercules since the original sources are in Greek and the Romans borrowed from the Greeks. Also, the title should be consistent in the same way with Heracles instead of Hercules.

ICE77 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Zodiac
Is this article perhaps too heavily weighted in its content on the zodiac? I know quite a bit about Greek mythology, but I've never seen so much (if any) on the 12 labors dedicated to the Zodiac. It is possible I just overlooked it, but then again I've been of the impression that the zodiac and astrology were not very important to the Ancient Greeks, that they were really of greater importance to the Romans.--MS

Astrology and astronomy were pretty much the same thing in ancient times. Many many myths originate from astronomical observations, either as a deliberate metaphor, attempt to understand the constellations as gods, or just an invented story to go with them that god a bit carried away. E.g. the tale of Cassiopea is intrinsically connected to the stars. W.r.t. the twelve labours, their superficial complexity can be understood simply as an elaborate description of the sun's path as it crosses the sky.

It is certainly true that in classical times (usually around the 400BC - 200BC era) that the greek culture was quite elaborate and was not so interested in simple things such as astronomy, but the tale of Herakles' twelve labours goes back many centuries before that, in much earlier times, e.g. when Hecate and Hyacinth were foreign gods, and those who told the myth of Herakles were only just arriving on the pelopennese (spelling is probably wrong), displacing the Perseus culture. Time is an important factor in understanding greek myths, and greek religion; they were not static but evolved greatly over the centuries, and the end result can be quite distinct from the starting point. 22:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that astrology existed in ancient times, and moreover, I understand that mythology changed dramatically over the centuries it was in active use. In fact, this goes directly to what I was saying. That is, it was my understanding that the Greeks were not too big on astrology (which should not be equated with astronomy, as each, while certainly related, was distinct, and the Greeks were very much into astronomy and it certainly could not be called "simple"). However, I might be wrong about the Greeks and astrology, which is why I ask here on the talk page rather than changing the article. What I want, and what your answer does not give, is to know whether or not the Greeks used astrology (with proper evidence, preferably cited); if so, when they started and if it is applicable to the 12 labors of herakles (which seems unlikely as the labors are given as various numbers in different texts, and probably began as a lower number--probably those labors performed in Greece--to which several more were later added)? Granted, (assuming I am correct in saying that the Romans were the ones to more frequently use astrology) it would make sense that they would have applied the Herakles myth to the stars, just as they might have with the Cassiopoeia myth. If this is the case, it ought to be more clearly stated in the article that this was a later, Roman contribution to the mythic presentation.--MS

I just did some easy research and looked up astrology here on Wikipedia, which somewhat corroborates what I've been saying. It claims that the astrology arrived in Greece in the 4th c. BC; that is centuries after the overwhelming majority (if not all) of Greek myths were first formulated(thus, the tale of Cassiopoeia cannot be said to be "intrinsically connected to the stars"), and furthermore after ancient Greece's primary cultural productions (barring a few Hellenistic pieces). The article should reflect the fact that any Zodiacal readings (it should also site these readings; as I said before, I can't remember hearing of them) of the 12 labors are later constructions mainly adhered to by the Romans (if at all). --MS

Now that depends on what you mean by astrology. What arrived only after the 4th century BC was predicting the future via the stars. Star based myths existed forever, e.g. Sirius, which means "scorching" - a direct reference to the scorching effect of the sun, as Sirius appears just before the start of the hot part of summer. The greeks also believed Sirius to be a dog, which is why they always referred to the baking hot summer days as "dog days". This was the case well before 400BC.    07:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been using "astrology" too loosely, (wrongly) incorporating star related legends/myths into my usage of it. However, the same criticism generally holds for these as well; Morford and Lenardon, in their book "Classical Mythology" note, "Astral legends are an aspect of Alexandrianism [post-Alexander Greece, and elsewhere], and genuinely early Greek astral myths are rare" (545). As for Sirius, I'm not an expert, and you may have some excellent sources, but in a quick search online, the things you attribute to Greeks are much more prevalent in the Egyptians and the Romans, and even later. Thus, "dog days" does not come from the Greeks, but from alternate sources in the ancient world. But I'm getting off topic... While Morford and Lenardon do say that astral legends in pre-Alexander Greek Mythology are rare, they can be found. One example they give (and which you note over in your response to similar complaints I made on the "Boast of Cassiopeia" page)is that of Orion. Still, this doesn't seem to be the case with the twelve labors. As it stands, the article seems to imply that the myth(s) spring out of the constellations; that it explains the transit of the sun, which is almost certainly not true... at least originally. Now, I'm not saying that the zodiac section should be remove, as it very well may have been important in later, particularly Alexandrian and Roman, renditions of the myths. I'm simply asking that evidence of this be presented, and that this not be presented as the implied origins of the myths when it would more likely be a later application of the myths to astronomical/-logical observances.--MS

The time period in question would be circa 9-1200BC rather than the period immediately pre-Alexander. It starts as astral myth and gets fleshed out as the centuries wear on. Myths don't come from nowhere. Beginnings are always "overly" simple, centuries of history subject them to chinese whispers, extra detail, etc. Its like crop circles - a simple thing that becomes rapidly more elaborate as people get interested in it, gaining background and extra myth, that was never really there originally. See Professor Allan Chapman (Royal Astronomical Society), a specialist historian in this area, at Oxford University. 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Your answer hasn't actually responded to anything that I've said. And the tone you've consistently taken is one that seems to characterize my questions and arguments as if I were entirely ignorant. I never implied that the origins of these myths can be found in the time directly preceding Alexander, merely that it is after this point that astral myths became common and before that time they were rare. My questions clearly assume that the origins of these myths were much, much earlier... around or before the time you suggest (it's obviously hard to know, given the lack of many pre-Homer written sources). Also, I've consistently said that myths accrete, expand, change through the centuries of their telling and as they are transferred from one culture to another, which is why I'm open to keeping the connection with the Zodiac (as a later development in the myth, rather than an originary trait)in the article, provided that some evidence is provided. Moreover, I've never said or implied that myths "come from nowhere." To do so would be silly, what I've been arguing is the unliklihood of this particular set of myths having sprung from or even been associated with the stars until a very late phase in their development. You've stated that the beginnings of myths are necessarily simple; that is purely conjecture, but I'll tentatively agree that many myths have simple beginnings and are undoubtedly elaborated upon. But this tack simply leads back to my conclusions insofar as it admits that any attempt to pin down a simplistic origin to a myth (especially when it originates long prior to any written accounts of it) are undeniably difficult at best. This is not to say that they come from nothing, but that definitively finding that origin is unlikely. There are numerous anthropological theorizations and accounts of myths and myth formation that point out that even when there is a seemingly simple point of departure for a myth, it is usually bound up in a complex mesh of cultural/linguistic/ideological intricacies that render the simple conception of the origin misleading and illusory. However, once again I am going off topic. In this particular case, you are claiming that the twelve labors are astral myths, first and foremost; I, knowing enough about this subject to find it odd that I don't know anything about that, ask for clarification, for evidence that this is the case, as I think that any significance the zodiac might have for the myths is a later development, and if it is should be more clearly acknowleged as such. I've offered a citation that suggests that what you seem to be claiming is unlikely; all I'm asking for is that since you are making a positive statement in this matter, that you provide evidence to support it, not just a reply (something akin to an ad hominem) that appears to assume that I know nothing about the subject without at least also offering an actual argument, with evidence to counter mine.--MS

You are asserting that astral myths were rare before Alexander. I am stating that they were not, but astrology and explicit acknowledgement of astral connection was. Don't you think its quite a large co-incidence that the stars happen to describe the myths perfectly - e.g. Orion - this is either an extra-ordinary co-incidence that the Greeks hardly thought worth mentioning, or the basis of the myth in the first place, that the Greeks didn't bother mentioning because it was fairly clear to them until it had become clouded over as a gradual process of accretion to the myth culminating at, say, the time of Alexander, when they needed to assert the connection that had now become obscured. I agree that it is odd that you don't know anything about that, but I cannot be responsible for the quality of your education. We are discussing myth formation, so I fail to see how Professor Chapman is not extremely important here. 08:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * 1)  I am more specifically asserting that astral myths were rare (though not absent) before Alexander in Greek mythology; other cultures certainly had an abundance of them.
 * I am asserting that they were not, in common with other cultures.     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  You bring astrology back up, but I have already conceded that I was originally using that term too broadly, and I don't understand exactly what you mean when you say "explicit acknowledgement of astral connection".
 * I mean by that term "rather than just describing an astral myth, describing an astral myth and admitting it is one".    ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  (This point is perhaps the most important for the specific, practical disagreement over this article.) This is not a simple he-said/she-said disagreement as your first two sentences indicate.  I have given evidence, from experts in Greek mythology, that provides reasonable doubt as to your specific contention in this case that the Twelve Labors are based on and originate from the Zodiac.  In light of what they say, and the fact that the labors have changed in number at various times (most likely beginning at a lower number), I have hypothesized that the astral connections of the myth were later developments in keeping with the increased practice of this in Alexandrian Greece and in Rome.  However, I have no proof that this is the case in this specific instance (that of the Twelve Labors).  Nor should I, as I am not really making a positive statement, but am countering your positive statement that the Twelve Labors originate as astral myths.  That is, I am merely showing that there is good reason to doubt what you say in this particular instance, though I have not disproved it.  All you need to do is provide evidence (scholarly arguments on the origins of this particular myth or arguments based on primary sources--though these would be lacking as pretty much the earliest sources would be Homer and Hesiod) that this is the case.  Since you are so confident that you are correct, this should be easy.
 * When you state that you "have given evidence, from experts", the only person whose name I can see in your comments is professor Chapman, who supports the case opposite to yours. When you say that you "have hypothesised", this constitutes original research, which is, for better, or worse, not allowed in Wikipedia. I have repeatedly directed you to Professor Chapman, one of the most respected sources in this field, who teaches at Oxford, and is a member of the Royal Astronomical Society. These are substantial qualifications.     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  "Don't you think its quite a large co-incidence that the stars happen to describe the myths perfectly - e.g. Orion"... a) I've already conceded your point that Orion is one of those rare early Greek astral myths, but it wasn't through any argument of yours, it was because I happened to find evidence suggesting this when I was doing my own research.  b) I've never claimed that the connection between constellations and mythology is pure coincidence, merely that for most Greek myths any astral connections are later developments and not intrinsic to their origination.  c) Stars don't "describe" anything, and they certainly don't do it "perfectly".  By claiming agency for the stars (as you do here) you make overt a tacit assumption that your arguments often seem to rely upon: that a particular group of stars has an intrinsic shape--a big man, a bear, a woman,etc.--which must then be explained by myths, and that this is the end-all be-all of the myth (even if it is forgotten, you suggest, it is the driving force of the myth).  Rather, star formations don't look like anything save through the act of interpreting their relative positions in meaningful ways.  Thus, the Big Dipper "looks" variously like a dipper, a bear, a cart, or simply seven birds, depending on the interpreter or culture doing the interpretation (and the number of stars included change depending on the needs of the interpretation).  So, since it is an interpretation of the stars, a reading into their formation to see a shape, myths can be applied to them AT ANY TIME, even centuries after the initial formation of the myth.  It is not a wonder that if one interpreted a formation of stars as a big man, he/she would further interpret that big man as an already existing and highly significant cultural referent, Herakles for example; or if he/she "saw" a horse, it would be Pegasus.  The cultural referent thus guides the interpretation and lends it a certain cultural clout and staying power.  By way of an example, if I look at the stars and see Mickey Mouse, according to the way you've presented your ideas, we reach the absurd position that Mickey Mouse must then be based on this formation of stars.  Of course, this example is inapplicable if the myth, the cultural referrent, is in fact originally linked to astronomical phenomena, which is exactly what I want to know in this instance.  Are the Twelve Labors in fact in origin astral myths?  I've given good reasons to doubt the veracity of this claim.
 * 2) *B - I disagree. You are implying that the stars matching the myth is pure co-incidence, a highly unlikely situation, which the greeks somehow only noticed after Alexander.     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *C - Sorry, that should have been "arrangement of the stars" (i.e. visual appearance of the constellations) rather than "stars". Star formations most certainly do look like something. Orion is almost universally identified as some kind of man, either in profile, or in portrait (usually portrait). Hydra looks distinctly like a snake, and many many cultures therefore identify it as such. If they did not have a distinct appearance, so many cultures would not all agree on what it was. The question is not what they CAN be made to look like, but what the stars NATURALLY have the appearance of. I.e. without contrived reasoning - mickey mouse would be extremely contrived to obtain from the stars, a big man is not (well, unless you live in an urban area where artificial lighting makes the visibility so low that you can only see the belt if anything).     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)  "I agree that it is odd that you don't know anything about that, but I cannot be responsible for the quality of your education."  That's kind of petty, don't you think?
 * Its a trueism. I am not responsible for your education (unless you are a student in Linguistics, in a certain UK university, which I doubt, based on your spelling conventions).     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)  And finally, if I gave the impression that Prof. Chapman is not a valid person to cite, I apologize, I did not mean to.  My criticism was not of him, it was of how you used him.  Rather than citing a specific text, or preferably, giving an enlightening quote or two, you simply said his work (as a whole) should be read.  That is entirely unhelpful, as without specific reference it does not advance the argument (it would be like me saying, John Smith says similar stuff, and leaving it at that, expecting that to settle the matter).  However, while I wasn't criticising Chapman, or rather his applicability before, I will now (to an extent).  I haven't been able to get ahold of his works, but what I have found out is that his area of expertise is astronomy, and the development of astronomy in and around--I think--the medieval and renaissance periods (but also extending into other periods).  In other words, he's not even an expert on mythology, it's not really his field.  That being said, he does have a book on astronomy and religion (generally) going to ancient times (apparently across several cultures, not specifically Greek).  Now, I haven't read his book, so I can't really criticize it, nor would I ever claim that it must lack important insights, as astronomy is related (albeit a little vaguely) to the specific matter under debate here. However, I have cited experts in the specific field of Greek mythology. You, however, have not given any specific evidence (beyond conjecture), and the one person you've mentioned is apparently not an expert on Greek mythology.  Moreover, when I originally said that Chapman was probably not important to our argument, I meant the specific argument about the Twelve Labors.  That is, whatever disagreements we may have about myth formation in general, these are not what is most pressing in this instance, which is this specific article, and whether or not the Twelve Labors are originally an astral myth as the article seems to imply.  So, if his arguments are more generally about myth formation they are not helpful unless they illuminate this specific question.--MS
 * He is an expert in the history of astronomy, including mythos developing from it, thus Greek (and Hindu/Vedic) mythology - in so far as it stems from the stars. I wasn't aware he had published a book on the subject, but I've looked it up now, its called something like "Gods in the sky". His research papers are more substantial (the published book is geared at the general public rather than academia, which makes it readable, but less detailed). Personally, I recommend talking to him over dinner somewhere, he is an entertaining speaker. And Chapman has written (and indeed given talks) explicitly about the origin of Greek myth, including the Twelve Labours.     ( ! | ? | * ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about the "original research," which is why I have not and would not recommend my hypothesis's being in any way added to the article itself without further research and substantiation. As for my citing experts: in my fourth post on this subject I said, "Morford and Lenardon, in their book 'Classical Mythology' note, 'Astral legends are an aspect of Alexandrianism [post-Alexander Greece, and elsewhere], and genuinely early Greek astral myths are rare'" (545). You state, "You are implying that the stars matching the myth is pure co-incidence, a highly unlikely situation, which the greeks somehow only noticed after Alexander." No, I am arguing that constellations, whether of originally astral myths or not, are actively created through an interpretive scheme. Thus, it could not be a coincidence unless one assumed that the stars have inherent forms (i.e. of a man, a dog, a bear), whicch they do not. They are simple points of light in the sky that require a tremendous amount of interpretation, "fleshing out", so to speak, in order to resemble any thing. Thus, various constellations (the big dipper for example) are variously intepreted--or not even recognized, or recognized only in an entirely different form--between different cultures. (As for Orion's being interpreted as a man in multiple cultures, I can only speculate: cross cultural borrowing certainly played a part; or, perhaps in this case, pure intercultural coincidence--not that the constellation/myth relation is coincident, but that across cultures it is interpreted as man might be--based on tendencies towards anthropomorphism). As for Chapman, I'm sure he's a qualified man at what he does (after all, he is at Oxford), but simply stating and restating his qualifications is not evidence of anything other than his qualifications. If he writes about the Twelve Labors originating as astral myths, great, just quote and cite the sections where he discusses it. --MS

While I agree that some constellations, e.g. Camelopardalis, are contrived, most actively have a visual form. For example, Orion occurs as a giant in pretty much every mythological scheme on earth, even when they are completely unrelated (e.g. in cultures that haven't even met until the 17th century). This is extremely unlikely unless they have intrinsic visual forms. Drawings, and paintings, are, technically, just simple points of colour, especially when digitally printed, but nethertheless we still manage to make shapes from them. Likewise, a join the dots picture of a man quite often looks remarkably like a man, even though it is just dots. This is because of the way the mind is intrinsically wired up to pick out shapes. It is not co-incidence that many many varied and widely different cultures will pick out a join the dots picture of a simple snake as a snake, even when it isn't identified in the join the dots image. It does not require cross cultural borrowing, nor even remotely due to co-incidence. It's because it looks remarkably like a snake. Likewise with the classical constellations. As for Chapman, he is not only a qualified man, but one of the, if not the, most qualified. Like most academics in most academic research, his written material on the subject constitutes scatterings across a wide variety of different research papers and journals. It is simpler for you to just attend one of his occasional lectures on the subject. ( ! | ? | * ) 09:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again, simply saying that Chapman is qualified, and that if I'd go to his lectures I'd have the proof I need, is not evidence of what you are claiming about the Twelve Labors. You need to cite (and preferably quote) specific, written sources that could be realistically be accessed by most people.--MS

Academic papers are not easily accessable (either physically, or in readability), which is why I suggest you attend his occasional lectures on the subject instead. ( ! | ? | * ) 22:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Academic journals (in which academic papers are published) are available in most libraries, especially university libraries (in one of which I happen to work). So, it is relatively easy for anyone who lives near a library to gain access to the most prestigious journals. Claiming, as you are, that Chapman is a preeminent scholar in the field, he would certainly be prominently, and often, featured in the best journals in that field, and could be easily found (if only you would cite--and preferably quote--his work) by most people, and especially those near an academic library. Much more easily than happening to be in Oxford, England and going to a lecture in which he just happens to discuss the origins of the myths surrounding the twelve labors of Herakles, as that is the specific issue at hand. Once again, please actually provide evidencial support for what you are claiming, that is, that the twelve labors are originally astral myths. --MS

Moreover, a quick look at the Wikipedia entry for the constellation Orion shows that it has been differentially understood as a sheep and simply "three" by substantial cultures. This is in direct contradistinction to your claim that it is "almost universally identified as some kind of man"; of course, you say "almost," but this still goes to the point that constellations have no intrinsic (or "natural" as you say) shape guiding their interpretation, or rather that they have no intrinsic interpretive configuration above or outside of the interpretation itself, regardless of whether the constellation generates the myth or vice-versa, the myth guides the configurative choices and interpretations of the constellation. If the stars we call Orion are interpreted as a man in a preponderance of cultures, there are other explanations for it, and the exceptions suggest the invalidity of thinking that there is a natural and undeniable form to the constellation guiding its interpretation. (Of course, all of this is still beyond the scope of the specific argument at hand: whether or not the twelve labors are originally astral myths; so, I suppose I'm just being argumentative on this point). --MS

Confusing Argolid with Arcadia
I wouldn't build too heavily on an interpretation that found Argos the "capital" of Arcadia. I think a hyperlinked list of the individual labours, at the very least, belongs at Heracles. It's all too easy to detect the imngredients of a list and cannibalize an article to make a "new" one, leaving an incomplete article behind (cf. Trocadero) --Wetman 03:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Herakles
I have changed the name of Hercules from Herakles to Heracles, since Herakles was linking to a computer programme that plays othello. Hope no one minds :) - Lamuk69 (talk) 10:20, 03 March 2006 (UTC)

Zodiac redux
In spite of the lengthy Zodiac section above, I see no sources cited for the claim that the twelve labors match up with the zodiac. Considering an earlier editor asked for citations from scholarly literature and got none, I will delete the zodiac section now.

Actually, I see no sources cited for anything in the article, except for a Burkert cite with no page #, and a cite of Morford and Lenardon. And, um, citations to mythology textbooks aren't exactly a way of improving Wikipedia's scholarly credibility. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it has apparently been months since you made your changes to this page, I thank you. I was the one arguing in the above discussion that the references to the Zodiac ought to be either removed (my preference) or if possible (which I doubted) substantiated with reference to scholarly sources. For reasons I won't get into I was unable to continue that argument but am glad you have changed the page for the better (though I don't understand your claim that using a textbook--written by scholars--would not help with Wikipedia's "scholarly credibility"... granted, textbooks aren't written for experts, but neither is Wikipedia, and they are a quick way of finding facts on a subject generally agreed upon by the scholarly community... it really doesn't matter anyway, as we are in agreement about the article and I was only using the textbook as easy evidence against the Zodiac claims). --MS

 * Thanks for your kind words.

 * Regarding the use of textbooks, the reason I don't think they help WP's credibility much is because textbooks are usually written without footnotes and other forms of references that enable verifiability. They are, as you say, a good place to look for facts and viewpoints that are widely accepted in the scholarly community, and so can be good starting points for us, but eventually we should cite peer-reviewed articles or monographs. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...preferably written in Latin. --Wetman 12:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Era usage
The first reference to an era was when 6th century BC was used. This usage persisted for some time - it was the favoured usage of the original editors. Only latterly did someone introduce the BCE usage. Therefore I am reverting to the orginal preference. Here is the first usage  Arcturus 10:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Twelve Labours → Labours of Hercules — More common term. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.

 * Support as nom. See "Discussion" for results of google searches. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Andrewa 11:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The "Twelve" inserted in the title seemed to me an attempt to pre-empt any discussion of ten labours converted to twelve. --Wetman 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:

 * Comment. A Google search for "Twelve Labours" turns up about 27100 results, many of which are for pages titled "Labours of Hercules" (or Heracles) or "Twelve Labours of Hercules" (or Heracles). A search for "Labours of Hercules" gets about 62300 results. Searches for the spellings "Twelve Labors" and "Labors of Hercules" reveal a similar split. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ecologist interpretation
I remember a book for teenagers by some Green Party politician from Germany or the Netherlands, that retold the labours as ecological problems. For example, the Stymphalian birds were noise pollution, and so on. Do you know what I'm talking about?

technically he slayed the gorgon for king euyeth

Stag or Hind?
Is it the Golden Stag or the Golden Hind? I've seen it as the golden stag, not hind. I'm thinking it depends on what source you use. Rђαηα (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Solar Interpretation
Albert Pike, in Magnum Opus, (XVIIII...13) gives a solar interpretation to the Labors of Herakles, giving one labor for each month in the solar year. This is probably akin to the Zodiac argument above. I'm not one to vouch for Pike's scholarship, but at least here's a reference. -- 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moly (talk • contribs)

Penance for What?
I'm curious as to what he was performing penance for -- some sort of specific sins or just general? Xyad (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Details
The section "Erymanthian Boar" mainly talks about Hercules meeting the centaur Pholus and what happens after, not the actual labor itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinzhang27 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Feel free to be bold and fix it. Ckruschke (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Move to Labours of Heracles?
The article seems to prefer Heracles over Hercules so why doesn't the title? 82.132.228.222 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree on the title but more than moving I propose relabeling. ICE77 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Names, Titles, Places
"Pythia" is the Delphic, not some cute sounding "Pythoness". Apollo killed the Python, son of Gaia, thereby making the Oracle (the place; Oracle the person; Oracle the answer), his. In respect of Apollo's mom, the Delphic Oracle keeps the title Pythia. These articles will be eliminated by schools for bibliographic citing, as long as Wiki's pages are via concensus, instead of peer-review by people who have the degree; not by those whose feelings, beliefs, and opinions have nothing to do with reality of empirical evidence. "Pythoness", WTF?! 108.23.140.221 (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm struggling to see your point. If you have a suggested edit to the page, rather than a general complaint, please either state it specifically here or be bold and make the change yourself. Ckruschke (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I too find the noisy indignation puzzling, but I'll tentatively offer an explanation: some older sources (such as the 19th-century public-domain sources that were used more often in Wikipedia's early days), call her "the Pythoness", presumably to render the gender of the title "the Pythian", which can refer also to Apollo. Word-endings in Greek would distinguish between the feminine Pythian (the oracle) and the masculine Pythian (Apollo); English does not, unless one resorts to the faintly archaic "Pythoness". "Apollo's mom" was Leto, and he was born at Delos. The article, however, needs work. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

He only completed 9 labors
If getting help slaying the Hydra disqualifies that task, then shouldn't getting help picking the apples disqualify that? Ranze (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Heracles did 12 and 2 of them were disqualified by Eurystheus (this is only according to Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.1 to 2.5.12)).

 * ICE77 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The 12 Labours of Putin
Should this article have a In popular culture section? If so, should this be included? LOL! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Second labour: Lernaean Hydra
Hey all! In looking at the page's history, there seems to be a slow-mo edit war as to whether the head that Hercules cut off with the golden sword was immortal or not. In the paragraph directly above this statement, it indicates the Hydra's one weakness was that it had one mortal head - which makes more sense than its weakness being it has one immortal head. I just changed the text back to read he cut of its one mortal head; but I'm happy to discuss in case my interpretation is incorrect. If that's the case, we should clarify the text somewhere as this apparently is a source of confusion for quite a few. Thank you! 12.10.219.222 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Title, sources, tricking Atlas and reference to Mycenae
1. The titles of this article should be Heracles and not Hercules. The Romans borrowed from the Greeks so the Greeks have precedence.

2a. Peisander is mentioned as one of the sources and the article in Italian on the writer (Pisandro di Camiro) mentions that only fragments of his work survive (two by Aristophanes and one by Stobaeus). This information should be added to this article.

2b. A very important source that provides the entire description of the labors of Heracles that is not mentioned is Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca) where the twelve labors are mentioned (2.4.12 to 2.5.12). Other sources are available and they should be mentioned.

3. The article says "Hercules tricked him by agreeing to remain in place of Atlas on condition that Atlas relieve him temporarily while Hercules adjusted his cloak" but Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.11) says it's a pad and not a cloak.

4. Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.4.12) says that Heracles mentions Tyrins where he would serve Eurystheus but after that he repeatedly refers to Mycenae when he meets Eurystheus. My understanding is that Tyrins and Mycenae were two different places so I see an inconsistency.

ICE77 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternative ninth Labor
I had read some years ago that in the older stories about Hercules, the most ancient versions,the ninth Labor was NOT the girdle of Hypolita. The list was changed to include the amazons. ¿Can someone find some reference or source about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.87.177.6 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 * I am aware of 3 sources: Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 11.3-26-4), Hyginus (Fabulae, 30) and Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.1 to 2.5.12). In all 3 cases the ninth labour is always the belt of Hippolyta/Hippolite.

 * ICE77 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments and questions
This article was interesting but also very annoying. The sourcing for this article is misleading or it’s totally lacking. Labours 3, 4 6, 9 and 10 have no sources whatsoever!

Most of my comments refer to sourcing and I will sound repetitive but I have a reason.

1. The article says "The establishment of a fixed cycle of twelve labours was attributed by the Greeks to an epic poem, now lost, written by Peisander, dated about 600 BC.[3]"

Perseus, at the page http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0160:book=2:chapter=37&highlight=labors, says "Peisander wrote a poem on the labors of Heracles. His date is uncertain, but perhaps he flourished about 645 B.C."

The missing citation should be replaced with an actual link with more accurate chronological information.

2. “Driven mad by Hera (queen of the gods), Heracles slew his sons by his wife Megara.[4]”

This is not always true. In fact the account of Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.4.12) does not specifically say Megara was hurt or killed.

3. “Eurystheus originally ordered Heracles to perform ten labours”.

This is only true for Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.1 to 2.5.12). Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 11.3 to 26-4) and Hyginus (Fabulae, 30) list 12 labours without explaining that Eurystheus did not recognized two of them.

In addition, Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 9.5) specifically states that the 12 labours have been imposed on Heracles before he was even born and, therefore, they were not something that did not have anything to do with the fit of madness that Hera caused on Heracles.

4. “As they survive, the labours of Heracles are not recounted in any single place, but must be reassembled from many sources.”

This is not true at all and it’s pure blasphemy. In fact, I found at least 3 sources for the labours of Heracles: Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 11.3 to 26-4), Hyginus (Fabulae, 30) and Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.1 to 2.5.12). All the labours, 10 or 12 depending on the sources, are listed in the same place and, in some cases, narrated in great detail.

This article clearly follows the sequence of Pseudo-Apollodorus so this can be inaccurare unless mentioned clearly. It can be confusing if you read multiple sources and compare them (like I did).

5. “Although he was supposed to perform only ten labours, this assistance led to two labours being disqualified”.

Idem as 3 above.

6a. “Heracles wandered the area until he came to the town of Cleonae. There he met a boy who said that if Heracles slew the Nemean lion and returned alive within thirty days, the town would sacrifice a lion to Zeus, but if he did not return within thirty days or he died, the boy would sacrifice himself to Zeus.”

What is the source for the 30 days story?

6b. “Another version claims that he met Molorchos, a shepherd who had lost his son to the lion, saying that if he came back within thirty days, a ram would be sacrificed to Zeus. If he did not return within thirty days, it would be sacrificed to the dead Heracles as a mourning offering.”

What is the “another version” that is mentioned?

6c The section “it would be sacrificed to the dead Heracles as a mourning offering” does not make any sense and needs to be rewritten.

7. “Others say that he shot arrows at it, eventually shooting it in the unarmored mouth. After slaying the lion, he tried to skin it with a knife from his belt, but failed. He then tried sharpening the knife with a stone and even tried with the stone itself. Finally, Athena, noticing the hero's plight, told Heracles to use one of the lion's own claws to skin the pelt. Others say that Heracles' armor was, in fact, the hide of the lion of Cithaeron.”

What are the sources for the “others” at the beginning and at the end of this section?

8. The Lernean Hydra had 9 or 100 heads depending on the source.

9. “He fired flaming arrows into the Hydra's lair, the spring of Amymone, a deep cave that it only came out of to terrorize neighboring villages.[8]”

This sentence does not make sense and needs to be revised.

10. “Eurystheus ordered him to capture the Ceryneian Hind, which was so fast that it could outrun an arrow.”

What is the source for the above?

11. “In some versions, he captured the hind while it slept … In other versions, he encountered Artemis in her temple … Yet another version claims that Heracles trapped the Hind with an arrow between its forelegs.”.

What are the versions in question?

12. “By some accounts, the fourth labour was to bring the fearsome Erymanthian Boar”.

That is the case for Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.4). This should be added to the text. The fourth labour for Diodorus Siculus and Hyginus was the hind/stage.

13. “One version states that a stray arrow hit Chiron as well.”

Which version?

14. “the eagle, continued its torture on Chiron, so Heracles shot it dead with an arrow ... However, this tale contradicts the fact that Chiron later taught Achilles.”

What are the sources for the above?

15. “Heracles had visited Chiron to gain advice on how to catch the Boar, and Chiron had told him to drive it into thick snow”.

I do not recall coming across a source that talks about snow. What is the source?

16. This article seems to present a recurring theme: Eurystheus gets frightened at the completion of a labout and hides in a pithos. What is the source for that claim?

17. In the section labeled “Fifth: Augean stables” “Heracles returned, slew Augeas, and gave his kingdom to Phyleus. Heracles then founded the Olympic Games.”

The only time the Olympic Games were mentioned in the 3 sources I read were in Bibliotheca historica (Book IV 14.1-4) by Pseudo-Apollodorus and this happened between labours 7 and 8.

18. “The sixth labour was to defeat the Stymphalian birds, man-eating birds with beaks of bronze and sharp metallic feathers they could launch at their victim.”

What’s the source for these “man-eating” “bronze-beaked” “metallic feathery” birds?

19. “Theseus would later sacrifice the bull to Athena and/or Apollo.”

I read 5 sources on Theseus: Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 55.5-61.7), Hyginus (Fabulae, 37-43 and 178), Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 3.1.1-E.1.10), Plutarch (Life of Theseus, III [3]-XXII) and Pausanias (Description of Greece, 1.27.7-1.24.1).

According to Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 59.6) and Plutarch (Life of Theseus, XIV) the bull is sacrificed to Apollo. According to Pausanias (Description of Greece, 1.27.10) “It is said that Theseus sacrificed the bull of Marathon to the goddess” but the name of the goddess is not provided. One would assume that it could be Athena but we cannot come to that conclusion.

Therefore, the above should add the sources I listed that talk about the sacrifice and remove Athena (unless a source on Athena is provided).

20. “In one version of the story, Heracles brought a number of youths to help him. They took the mares, called Podargos ("swift-footed"), Lampon ("the shining"), Xanthos ("the blond"), and Deinos ("the terrible"),[12] and were chased by Diomedes and his men.“

What is the original source of the story and the source that provides the names of each mare?

21. “Heracles left his favoured companion, Abderus, in charge of them while he fought Diomedes, and found out that the boy was eaten.”

What’s the source?

22. “In another version, Heracles stayed awake so that he didn't have his throat cut by Diomedes in the night”.

What’s the version?

23. “Both versions have eating making the horses calmer”.

What are the versions in question?

24. “In some versions, they were allowed to roam freely around Argos, having become permanently calm. In others, Eurystheus ordered the horses taken to Olympus to be sacrificed to Zeus, but Zeus refused them, and sent wolves, lions, and bears to kill them.”

What are the sources for “some versions” and “others”?

25. The first 3 paragraphs of “Ninth: Belt of Hippolyta” are coming from Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.9) and the source should be added to the article.

Interestingly, at the end of the ninth labour, according to Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV) Hercules did not obtain the girdle of Hippolytê (16.1) but the one of her sister Melanippê (16.4).

26. “In Roman versions of the narrative, Heracles drove the Cattle over the Aventine Hill on the future site of Rome. The giant Cacus, who lived there, stole some of the Cattle as Heracles slept, making the Cattle walk backwards so that they left no trail, a repetition of the trick of the young Hermes. According to some versions, Heracles drove his remaining cattle past the cave, where Cacus had hidden the stolen animals, and they began calling out to each other. In other versions, Cacus' sister Caca told Heracles where he was. Heracles then killed Cacus, and set up an altar on the spot, later the site of Rome's Forum Boarium (the cattle market).”

What are the “Roman versions”, the “some versions” and the “other versions”?

27a. The first 3 paragraphs, the first sentence of the 4th paragraph and the 5th paragraph of “Tenth: Cattle of Geryon” are coming from Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.10) and the source should be added to the article.

27b. “The sun-god Helios "in admiration of his courage" gave Heracles the golden chariot Helios used to sail across the sea from west to east each night.”

Pseudo-Apollodorus does not refer to a “golden chariot” but to a goblet. If there is a source for the “golden chariot” I would like to know what it is.

28. “After Heracles completed the first ten labours, Eurystheus gave him two more”.

As I previously commented, this is only true for Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.1 to 2.5.12). Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, Book IV 11.3 to 26-4) and Hyginus (Fabulae, 30) list 12 labours without explaining that Eurystheus did not recognized two of them.

29. Reference 18 says: “In some versions of the tale, Hercules was directed to ask Prometheus. As payment, he freed Prometheus from his daily torture. This tale is more usually found as part of the story of the Erymanthian Boar, since it is associated with Chiron choosing to forgo immortality and taking Prometheus' place.”

What is the version of the tale?

30. “When Atlas returned, he decided that he did not want to take the heavens back, and instead offered to deliver the apples himself but Heracles tricked him by agreeing to remain in place of Atlas on condition that Atlas relieve him temporarily while Heracles adjusted his cloak.”

Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2.5.11) talks about a “pad” and not a “cloak”. If there is a source for the “cloak” I would like to know what it is.

31. “One tradition tells of snakes coiling around their legs then turning into stone; another that Hades feigned hospitality and prepared a feast inviting them to sit”.

What are the 2 traditions above?

32. The “Aftermath” section provides 3 stories for Heracles and the Argonauts. 2 of the 3 are unsourced.

33. Finally, I do not understand why this article should use Hercules instead of Heracles. We are talking primarily about Greek mythology so it should be Heracles and not Hercules.

ICE77 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixing watermarked images
On this page, a lot of the images of the labors are really badly watermarked. However, on Wikipedia Commons, I found high-quality unwatermarked pictures by a deleted user "Haumart" (contributions here), with full citations as well. Is there any way the images can be redirected? Speakercrab (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hercules capturing the Ceryneian Hind.webp

"Hercules"?
Is there a reason for the page's title being "Labours of Hercules" instead of "Labours of Heracles"? "Heracles" is used throughout the article, and the two main sources for the twelve labours are Diodorus Siculus and Apollodorus, who both write in Greek, and so refer to "Heracles". From what I can tell, all (or almost all) modern scholarly sources on the topic refer to them as the "labours of Heracles", or at least contain them in their discussions of Heracles, as opposed to their treatments of the Roman Hercules. – Michael Aurel (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My sense is that the proper noun "Labours of Hercules" (or "Labors of Hercules") is more commonly known than the alternatives (just as Hercules is more commonly known than Heracles). But since this article is about the twelve labours of Heracles, I would support a page move. Paul August ☎ 14:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. As "Labours of Hercules" is not really accurate as a description of the mythological events themselves, though, I will propose a move. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2023

 * 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: moved. This is a complicated discussion, involving two groups of editors with strong opinions on the subject.

On one side, we have editors arguing for "Labours of Hercules", with the justification that this is its WP:COMMONNAME.

On the other side, we have editors arguing that the common name is inaccurate; that "Labours of Heracles", the Greek name for Hercules, is more accurate and thus the better title.

Normally, when editors argue that the majority of sources are wrong we dismiss those arguments, in line with WP:OR, WP:RGW, or any number of other two- or three-letter initialism. However, in this case the argument is justified by referring to quality of sources; editors in support of this position argue that while popular sources may refer to it as "Labours of Hercules", academic sources prefer "Labours of Heracles".

While the numerical support for both positions was roughly equal, consensus is not determined by counting votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Considered through this lens, we find a very rough consensus to move this article.

We find this because reliable sources are not all assessed equally; some are more reliable than others, and on Wikipedia we grant greater weight to those more reliable sources when resolving content disputes. As such, when when Michael Aurel quoted [a]rticle titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject and justified this with a focus on academic sources, they, and those who agreed with them, presented a stronger argument than those who focused on the broader common name. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Overturned to No consensus, per. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Labours of Hercules → Labours of Heracles – The twelve labours are performed by the Greek Heracles, not by the Roman Hercules, and "Heracles", rather than "Hercules", is used throughout the article, with the page Heracles being the one which contains a discussion of the twelve labours. The two main sources for the labours are Diodorus Siculus and Apollodorus, both of whom write in Greek, and so refer to "Heracles". WP:CRITERIA states that [a]rticle titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject, and, from what I can tell, essentially all modern scholarly sources on the subject (which are the relevant sources here) refer to them as the "labours of Heracles", or at least contain them in their discussions of Heracles, rather than their coverage of Hercules. For example, reference works which cover both Greek and Roman mythology, and have entries for both Heracles and Hercules, discuss the twelve labours in their entry on the former (e.g. see Grimal, Brill's New Pauly, the OCD). – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment we have articles for both Heracles and Hercules -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per Michael Aurel. Paul August ☎ 23:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds offered. This isn't an obscure subject only of interest to "modern scholarly sources", but rather a very famous myth that everyone in Western culture is at least vaguely familiar with, and is taught to elementary school kids.  As such, an analysis of the common name in scholarly sources isn't the right WP:COMMONNAME test, in the same way that scholarly sources don't predominate in how we use the anglicized Alexander the Great rather than Alexandros.  As the lede of Hercules says, that form of the name predominates in English literature & culture, so I'd want to see evidence of a move away from that in broader culture instead, similar to how 'Odysseus' is more popular than 'Ulysses' these days.  SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The grounds offered are that the title "Labours of Hercules" is an inaccurate description of the subject of the article; this article is on the twelve labours carried out by the Greek hero Heracles, not by the Roman Hercules. The title "Labours of Hercules" does not refer to what this article is about. As books by modern scholars are the sources which cover the topic of these twelve labours, they are the relevant sources here. I'm not sure what other sources we would be using. Websites? Few would qualify as reliable sources. If you are referring to sources which discuss depictions of the twelve labours in modern art, modern fiction or popular culture, those sources do not describe the labours themselves, only later representations of them, and so are not determining of what the article's title should be. Such logic would dictate we rename the article Heracles to "Hercules" because the Greek mythological figure and his associated mythology are more frequently put under the label "Hercules" in modern art, modern fiction and popular culture. Additionally, using the title "Labours of Heracles" on this basis this would be inappropriate, considering that the article does not mention any such later depictions.
 * "Alexander the Great" is a very different case. As can be seen by looking at Alexander the Great, essentially all modern scholarly sources refer to him as "Alexander the Great", and not as "Alexandros"; in the "Sources" and "Further reading" sections of that article, I count 41 works by modern scholars which contain "Alexander the Great" in the title, and none which refer to "Alexandros". Looking through any of these these sources will show that throughout them he is referred to as "Alexander" or "Alexander the Great". Similarly, almost all modern scholarly sources refer to "Odysseus", and so the article is entitled as such. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alexander may have been too "easy" of an example, but there are plenty of other Greek figures who are better known in wider culture by Latinized forms, but more direct transliterations of Greek in recent scholarly literature. For example, Seleucid rulers named "Antiochus" I see very frequently called "Antiochos" with an o in recent scholarly literature as closer to the Greek (e.g. Antiochus IV Epiphanes), but RMs to match recent scholarly style would never succeed due to the pile of other literature that still uses "u".  Or Demetrius vs. Demetrios, cyclops vs. kyklops, etc.  I agree with you that the Labors were something the Greek version of Her*c*es did, but I think that even the Greek version is still usually known by the name "Hercules," and the only reason we have an article at "Heracles" is because Wikipedia has two separate articles: if we had a single combined article, it'd go under the title "Hercules".  I do get the impression "Heracles" in English is more common than it used to be, but I doubt it's >50%, but happy to be proven wrong - just I'd want to see an argument using wider literature, because Hercules is not a restricted-to-academics topic, he's super famous ("herculean" is a common word in English) and thus gets judged by the wider usage.  Here's a 2022 newspaper article that writes "As myth has it, Hercules had to complete 12 heroic labors to be absolved of guilt and to become immortal." for a recent example that shows that associating the labors with "Hercules" is not uncommon.  And this is the NY Times, not a random rag.  Or for works that even have separate Wikipedia articles, The Twelve Labors of Hercules (Spafford).  SnowFire (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any works about Greek mythology using Hercules; all or nearly all of them use Heracles. When he's discussed in other contexts the form differs according to whether Greek or Roman sources are being followed (Livy, for example, refers to Hercules).  I realize that Hercules is probably more familiar, but Heracles is not restricted to specialist material, and it's probably the only form I've seen in any works on Greek mythology—at least anything printed from the mid-19th century onward.  P Aculeius (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Antiochos" vs "Antiochus" or "Demetrios" vs "Demetrius" would be equivalent to "Herakles" vs "Heracles": the former is a more direct transliteration of the Greek, whereas the latter is the more common usage in English. However, in these examples both clearly refer to the same figure (and I certainly wouldn't suggest we move to "Herakles"). We cannot treat "Heracles" vs "Hercules" in the same manner, though, in the same way we cannot treat "Zeus" and "Jupiter" or "Ares" and "Mars" as two names for the same figure. I understand your point that "Hercules" (and so presumably "Labours of Hercules") is more commonly found in a broader context in the English language, but I still don't think that news articles or later representations, rather than modern scholars, are the appropriate measure here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Support: whether one finds Heracles or Hercules usually depends on whether you're reading from Greek or Roman sources; both forms are in general use. But the myth is specifically Greek, and while one might find it referred to or treated in Roman sources under the name Hercules, most modern sources use Heracles.  I note that Heracles still uses the traditional method of transliteration of Greek names into the Latin alphabet; but that's distinct from using Roman names, which are not (usually) transliterations.  I don't think I could get behind Herakles.  P Aculeius (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. While it is true that Heracles is now very common when referring to the individual, I think the Roman name is still much commoner in English-language sources when referring to the labours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This should be moved for consistency with Heracles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The strongest reason to support this move is that—since the topic of this article is the labors of the Greek god Heracles, not the Roman god Hercules—the current title is inaccurate, and for those of you who are appealing to WP:COMMONNAME (e.g. and ), please note that WP:COMMONNAME also says: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. And even if we were to rely on what the most common name for this topic is I don't think it is "Labours of Hercules". Although the proper noun "Labours of Hercules" may be more common than the proper noun "Labours of Heracles", I think the common noun phrase "the labors of Heracles", is probably more common than the "the labors of Hercules", when referring to the specific labors of the Greek god, which is what this article is about. Paul August ☎ 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I would completely disagree with that. Also, the name is neither ambiguous nor inaccurate. Heracles and Hercules are entirely the same figure. To quote the Heracles article: The Romans adopted the Greek version of his life and works essentially unchanged... Given he is mythological in any case, how on earth is it inaccurate? -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's true that the Roman version didn't differ substantially from the Greek—although there were some Roman myths concerning Hercules that had no Greek counterpart, or at least none that we're aware of. But they still assigned their own rendering of his name, just as they rendered "Odysseus" as "Ulysses".  English speakers may well be more familiar with "Ulysses", but virtually all versions and discussions of the Odyssey use "Odysseus".  And I'm not even arguing that Roman names are uncouth or inherently worth less than the Greek names from which they sprang—but the Labours of Heracles is basically a Greek myth, and in nearly all scholarly contexts (and many non-scholarly ones) the Greek name is used when referring to Heracles as he appears in Greek mythology.  One only encounters "Hercules" in specifically Roman contexts—usually because the source material was written by Romans writing in Latin.
 * The two names are not interchangeable in reference materials: the DGRBM article is under "Heracles", to which "Hercules" is a cross-reference; the Oxford Classical Dictionary has separate articles on each. Morford & Lenardon use "Heracles" when speaking of most myths, "Hercules" only when discussing specifically Roman ones.  G.S. Kirk's Nature of Greek Myth has "Heracles", not "Hercules".  D'Aulaires' Book of Greek Myths uses "Heracles", except once when referring to the Pillars of Hercules.  As counter-examples, the Larousse Encyclopedia primarily uses "Hercules" (although this might be influenced by the fact that the publishing house is French), while RE and the Oxford Companion to World Mythology use "Herakles" in reference to Greek myths, "Hercules" for his Roman cult.  P Aculeius (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The name is inaccurate, because Hercules did not perform the twelve labours. The Greek hero Heracles did. The sources for the labours start with references in Homer and Hesiod; somewhat later, several of the labours are mentioned in fragments of Peisander (who presumably gave a full account of the labours), and they are referred to in the Homeric Hymn to Heracles, while Euripides and Sophocles give lists of labours (less than 12 in number). From this period come various artistic sources which depict a number of the labours, one of the most significant being the twelve metopes of the temple of Zeus in Olympia. The authors which give complete accounts of the twelve labours are Apollodorus and Diodorus Siculus, who are the two main sources for the topic. Of course, various Roman authors make reference to or describe certain labours in their works, and in doing so use the word "Hercules" because they are writing in Latin. However, the labours are a Greek myth, with the most important sources all being Greek, as shown by the above; consequently, virtually all modern sources refer to the labours as being performed by "Heracles", not by "Hercules". For example, see the following: Gantz's Early Greek Myth ("Herakles" throughout), Hard's Routledge Handbook of Greek Mythology ("Heracles" throughout, "Heracles" used to describe stories unrelated to the labours, and which come from Roman sources), Tripp's Handbook of Classical mythology (discussed under "Heracles", no separate entry on "Hercules"), Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (discussed under "Heracles", no separate entry on "Hercules"), Brill's New Pauly (discussed under "Heracles", not in entry on "Hercules"), Grimal (discussed under "Heracles", not in entry on "Hercules"), the Oxford Classical Dictionary (discussed under "Heracles", not in entry on "Hercules"), Robin Lane Fox's Travelling Heroes: In the Epic Age of Homer ("Heracles" thoughout), Morford and Lenardon ("Heracles" throughout, "Hercules" only used in a few specific instances when following Roman sources), Hansen ("Herakles" throughout, "Hercules" only used in a few specific instances when following Roman sources).
 * Heracles and Hercules are entirely the same figure. This is wrong. Please read the entries on Heracles and Hercules in any encyclopedia of classical mythology. An example would be Brill's New Pauly, which discusses the following topics in their article on Hercules: him killing Cacus and then after this making "sacrifices and a ritual meal" in Rome, that springs are sacred to him, that various eponymous founders of Roman cities are considered to be his sons, his initiation cults, myths in which Hercules plays some role in telling the future, how he was the god of commerce in Italy, and his association with triumph. No mention is given to the labours. All of the content contained here is different to what is in the same encyclopedia's entry on Heracles; that entry contains a quite lengthy discussion of the twelve labours. Or look at the entry for Hercules in Grimal's Dictionary of Classical Mythology, of which the first sentence reads: To this name was attached a whole collection of Roman legends, particularly aetiological and topographical, .... Similarly, there is no mention of any labours in the article on Hercules here, rather that is covered in the entry on Heracles. I think these sources are pretty clear on this, but I can find more if desired.
 * To quote the Heracles article: The Romans adopted the Greek version of his life and works essentially unchanged...: WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and citing it here does not carry any weight. I have removed that sentence from the lead of Heracles, as it was both unsourced and not supported by the article's body, and I think the reliable sources I have given above contradict this assertion.
 * Given he is mythological in any case, how on earth is it inaccurate? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Greek mythology does not come to us ready-made as does a piece of modern fiction, but rather exists across numerous different literary (as well as artistic) sources over the course of centuries. The name is inaccurate because the sources, both ancient and modern, state that is was Heracles who performed the labours, not Hercules.
 * The title "Labours of Hercules" is incorrect. It is incorrect because this is not what the sources say, and because it is an inaccurate description of what the article contains, which is the twelve labours carried out by the Greek hero Heracles, not the Roman figure Hercules. Furthermore, having the title as "Labours of Hercules" clashes with both the body of the article itself, which uses "Heracles" throughout, and with the articles Heracles and Hercules. Apologies for the length of this; while in response to you, this is aimed more at the discussion generally. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "The name is inaccurate, because Hercules did not perform the twelve labours. The Greek hero Heracles did." Technically, neither of them did. Red   Slash  21:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose per COMMONNAME.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has enough traction in popular culture to be retained by their common name. It is instructive that nearly all the visual cultural artifacts depicted are Roman or have original title "Hercules". The myth may be of Greek origin, but has long exceeded those bounds. Walrasiad (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment For anyone who thinks that Heracles and Hercules are entirely the same figure, please understand that that is simply factually incorrect. This can easily be demonstrated by looking up the names in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Just as Zeus and Jupiter are distinct figures, so are Heracles and Hercules. That this is so explains why we (just like the OCD) have one article on Heracles and a separate one on Hercules. Does anyone believe we should only have one article entitled "Hercules"? : After reading the above replies to your comment, do you still think they are the same? Does anyone else think that? Hopefully we can discount any such notion. Paul August ☎ 21:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I do. The Greek Heracles was adapted into Roman mythology as Hercules. The figure may have evolved differently since, but he's still the same figure with much of the same mythology. The Romans still used all of the Greek mythology that came before, just as they did with all the figures from other mythologies that they adopted. So the Labours of Heracles and the Labours of Hercules are the same thing. All that matters is what the common name is. I still maintain it's the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I ask future opposers to please address the points made by myself in this comment here before doing so. Arguments on the basis that "Hercules" is more commonly found in popular culture or modern art are irrelevant to the subject of the article, and do not address the reason for the page being moved: that "Labours of Hercules" is wrong. This needs to be addressed, because until it is, I can see no good reason to keep the page under its current title, which is out of line with all of the sources we have. I would appreciate if future opposers would do so, thanks. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Sorry, but the Google Ngrams aren't even close on this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither are these the Google Ngrams, does that mean we should move our article on Heracles to Hercules? Paul August ☎ 00:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably.— Ermenrich (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We should move our article on Heracles to Hercules? Come on, that would be as baffling and wrong as saying we should have one article for both Zeus and Jupiter, or Ares and Mars, or Aphrodite and Venus. As has been explained extensively above, Heracles and Hercules are most certainly not the same figure; please read the sources given in the comments above. I don't understand how anyone could disagree with this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can justify separate article on Heracles and Hercules, certainly we can justify separate articles on the labours of Heracles and the labours of Hercules, no? If the latter sounds absurd, the former probably is as well. Srnec (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Heracles and Hercules are two different figures, and very much need to be in separate articles. Heracles is Greek, Hercules is Roman. The Greek hero Heracles is the one who performed the twelve labours, the Roman hero Hercules did not. There are no "Labours of Hercules" to have an article about. This is exactly my point, and the reason the page should be moved. – Michael Aurel (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ovid seems to know a Hercules who performed the labours. Srnec (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would expect most references to relate to post-classical art, which will usually use "Hercules". Somebody keen might analyse "what links here". Art history covering post-classical material rarely uses "Heracles" - for example the seven pages in: Hall, James, Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art, 1996 (2nd edn.), John Murray, ISBN 0719541476, are under Hercules. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @ John, Yes that's probably true for the theme in art, especially if we are talking about the proper noun "Labours of Hercules". But two things, this article is not about the theme in art right, it's about the labours themselves. Right? Also while this may be true for the proper noun "Labours of Hercules" do you think the same is true of the common noun phrase "the labours of Heracles"? Paul August ☎ 09:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Subject" in art, you mean. Saying "not about the theme in art right, it's about the labours themselves" is a false distinction imo, especially as there is no definitive literary source. The article is rightly heavily illustrated with both classical and later images, and covers all aspects of the subject. It could do with sections on its presence in both ancient and later art. I don't really understand the last sentence, and have no thoughts on that point. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Checking just in books and book titles, it is clear that both names are in use in the last 100 years. However, please take a look at the actual usage:
 * "Labours of Hercules" is used in fiction (Agatha Christie), popularized account (Joe Corcoran, 2020), children's book (Charlie Keith, 2021), astrological book (The Labours of Hercules: An Astrological Interpretation, Alice A. Bailey, 1983) among others
 * "Labours of Hercules" is used in popularized account (James Ford, 2004), school book (GCSE Route book 2017) but also specialized books like "A Special Model of Classical Reception", 2020, "Work in Ancient and Medieval Thought: Ancient Philosophers, ..." B. van de Hoven, 2023, "Dictionary of Classical Mythology", Jennifer R. March, 2014
 * So in conclusion, both are in use, however, it seems to me that sources indicate preference for popularized text as "... of Hercules", while more specialist texts prefer more (not exclusively) "... of Heracles". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FocalPoint (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article needs a lot of work, but the name should not be changed. Note: walls of text are seldom read in their entirety, and they almost never sway anyone's opinion besides. It would be nice if some of the energy spent here was directed to the article, which is in a sad state. Carlstak (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are most likely right about the length of my comment above, I will repost my reasoning much more succinctly below. I should have avoided the temptation to write at such length. Regarding the article itself, you are entirely right. – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Put succinctly, the page should be moved because "Labours of Hercules" is incorrect. The Greek Heracles and Roman Hercules are two different figures, with different mythological stories, and they can not be called the "same figure". Because of this, it is wrong for us to treat "Labours of Heracles" and "Labours of Hercules" as the same thing. The reason that "Labours of Heracles" is incorrect is because the labours were carried out by the Greek hero Heracles, not by the Roman hero Hercules, and to claim otherwise would go against virtually all modern, reliable, secondary sources on the subject, which all describe them as being performed by Heracles, and ascribe different mythological stories to Hercules (but not the labours). What is used more frequently in modern art or popular culture does not override this. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The title must stand alone and be recognizable. Art & popular culture is how our readers know about this. It is how works of general reference (e.g. Britannica) refer to it. Yes, that is WP:COMMONNAME.  As to your particular theories of the difference between Heracles & Hercules, that is evidently not widely shared or known. I understand your frustration. But the article exists for the benefit of readers, not writers. Walrasiad (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, however much I disagree. I think it's clear the move won't happen, and I don't plan to press the point any further. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have made this point above at least once. But by a strange coincidence, the Roman God Hercules performed exactly the same number of labours, of the same nature, and in the same places as Heracles. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not what essentially all reliable, secondary sources on the topic state, they state that it was Heracles who performed the labours. I was simply restating the point I had already made, as it had been pointed out that few had likely read my previous comment due to its length. If you disagree, that's fine, but please don't address me sarcastically. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason that "Labours of Heracles" is incorrect is because the labours were carried out by the Greek hero Heracles, not by the Roman hero Hercules... You're talking as though these were real tasks carried out by a real person! It's mythology. The spelling of the name of the mythological being who carried them out varies depending on who was describing them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether I use past or present tense in referring to the myth is completely irrelevant; both are used on Wikipedia and by modern scholars, the meaning is identical. I have provided a number of reliable sources in favour of my view, all you have provided is an unsourced (and now removed) line from Wikipedia. You are commenting upon the tense used in my comment, instead of addressing my argument. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Support. Keeping it at "Hercules" would be as if twenty thousand years from now Wikipedia merged the articles on Anne Hathaway, the wife of Shakespeare, with the Anne Hathaway who was in the film Interstellar because the popular culture of AD 22023 thinks the two were the same person and lived for 500 years like they did. Readers are best served by exposure to scholarship, not a mirror of their own misunderstandings. Ifly6 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting thing to say given that Greek mythology itself was not constant, and the way the gods were both named and perceived greatly varied by time and place. This is healthy and normal, not misunderstandings, and just as people living in 200 BCE in Asia Minor had a different idea of Hercules / Zeus / Athena / etc. than people in 500 BCE in Athens or 200 CE in Corinth.  And syncretism just as crazy as your Anne Hathaway example happened too, where two gods were conflated as the same entity who almost assuredly had nothing to do with one another!  Anyway, if the Greeks let Zeus have 10 different titles by area & domain depending on what he was worshipped for, letting Heracles have a different title in English as Hercules isn't so bad.  It's not a misunderstanding, just the natural way of things as a legend changes and expands and gets translated.  SnowFire (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, Heracles was a Greek demigod, and his name in Greek is "Heracles". "Hercules" is just his Roman name, and even the Romans didn't dispute the fact that Heracles was from and largely associated with Greece; Roman myths about Hercules largely concern stories about the founding of various cities in Italy.  These are later and largely intended to explain the origin of cities, not focusing on the attributes of Heracles that had already circulated and developed for centuries in Greece.
 * Perhaps a more apt analogy would be describing the myth of "Diana and Amphitryon" instead of "Artemis and Amphitryon"—a Greek myth taking place in Greece with a Greek goddess, but calling her by her Roman name because "Diana" is more familiar and found in Roman sources—which were widely used in Medieval/Renaissance depictions, and up to the 19th or early 20th century, on the assumption that Diana and Artemis, being the same goddess, could be referred to just as well by either name. But there were differences in their cults and myths, and so there are typically separate articles about them reflecting not just their different names, but differing traditions in Greek and Roman myth.  Just as most sources have separate articles about Heracles and Hercules—even though the Greeks and Romans never disputed that both names referred to the same mythical hero, the two cultures treated him in different ways.
 * And if we refer to him by his Greek name in discussions of Greek mythology, then this article, which is about a Greek myth, not a Roman one, should use his Greek name, not his Roman name. Just because the myth is also recounted in Roman sources doesn't make it a Roman myth, any more than finding it in French or English works makes it a French or English myth.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Support. For centuries, English used Latin names indiscriminately for Greek and Roman deities and heroes with no sign of any awareness that they might have been different religions and mythologies. Even as late as the eighteenth century, Pope's Odyssey had Minerva, Poseidon, and even Ulysses alongside Orestes and Agamemnon; Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dickens all had Hercules. This started to change substantially in the late nineteenth century, as shown in ngrams for eg Zeus/Jupiter/Jove, Poseidon/Neptune, Athene/Athena/Minerva and Heracles/Hercules) by which time classical allusions were also becoming less fashionable. Nowadays there's more awareness of the differences between ancient Greeks and Romans, and here on Wikipedia we're thorough in distinguishing their religions and mythologies. This article is clearly and emphatically about the Greek myths of Heracles and while there's no problem with Labours of Hercules remaining as a redirect, this article's name should be the one that precisely identifies the subject.
 * As for the paintings used in the article, those are also from the period in which Latin names were used indiscriminately (and contemporary armour and towns shown). Similarly, our articles on Ares and Hephaestus are illustrated with Vulcan surprising Venus and Mars, and Aphrodite with Mars and Venus Surprised by Vulcan, paintings of an incident from the Iliad in which Ares is subject to the mockery of the Greek gods and by extension the Greeks generally (the Romans had somewhat more respect for Mars). They're entertaining paintings that brighten up the articles (and happily don't contain a lot of anachronistic clothing) but we aren't ruled by the naming conventions of our illustrations. NebY (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Neutral, but I tend to support Johnbod's reasoning on the following grounds, though it will pain me if this is taken as opposing G&R colleagues I hold in the highest esteem.
 * (1) Most common, because I see this as a topic on the classical tradition. As Srnec points out, the reception of mythology in the Renaissance comes overwhelmingly from the Latin versions, primarily Ovid, and for good or ill (Horace and I apologize for Rome conquering Greece, but is that my job as a WP editor?), that is the name under which the "West" came to embrace this mythological figure.
 * (2) Scope, because what is the topic of the article? What is the general reader wanting in coming to this topic? A list of twelve labors, which the article would then explain in fact vary in number, order, and canon, with notable parerga or incidental deeds, for the very reason that the labors are represented in a wide range of media spanning millennia. One objection to Johnbod's reasoning appears to be that somehow "Hercules" is most common only in art history. Search a concordance to Shakespeare, and you'll find "Hercules" not "Heracles/Herakles". I'm also unaware of any Hollywood movies in which The Rock plays a character named Heracles/Herakles (and not sure why the transliteration is not also at issue—the "c" version is itself Latinate).
 * (3) WP:UNIVERSE. The labors and the doer do not have an objective reality beyond what WP clunkily calls "cultural depictions" (as if depictions can exist outside culture). The rules of fiction and myth apply. There was no real-life Greek dude who shoveled that manure; there are only those cultural depictions. So again, I'm wary of truth claims that there is some "authentic" ur-version of this figure and his deeds that it's the job of the article to reclaim.
 * (4) Back to WP:TOPIC. I'm not convinced that the labors constitute a distinctly Greek set of myths without meaningful or important Roman or for that matter Hispanian or Gallic innovation or accretion. Gibraltar ("Mr Joyce also preoccupied with Gibraltar / and the Pillars of Hercules," writes Ezra Pound in the Cantos), Roman Spain, Gaul, and even those mysterious Celtic Isles up north very early become part of the last three labors set in a vague "West" where Ocean meets the Otherworld, with a Carthaginian influence coming from the Temple of Hercules Gaditanus, aka Melqart, where Julius Caesar decided that he too needed to conquer the world. In the Roman Imperial era, a Greek author naturally styles the name in Greek, but Lucian was not referring to the Greek figure when he said Herakles was a god of eloquence in Gaul; Diodorus Siculus says Hercules/Heracles/Herakles helped found Alesia and was the progenitor of the Gauls through his son Galateus, fathered during those Western labors (all this and more documented, unexpectedly, by Robert E. Hallowell, "Ronsard and the Gallic Hercules Myth," Studies in the Renaissance 9 (1962), pp. 242-255). Some Greek sources as early as the 6th and 5th century BC gave Heracles Roman connections during his famous labors, says T.P. Wiseman, in Remus: A Roman Myth (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 39, 41.
 * So I don't understand a "move" argument based on "this is a Greek myth" rather than Johnbod's "this is a widely disseminated and interpreted myth that's the perfect example of how the classical tradition works" (my words, not his). Is the article to be confined to a canon based only on "cultural depictions" of archaic and classical Greece? Or is it about the reception of these stories as alluded to or taken up by too many other literary and visual artists to count, most of whom use "Hercules"? The title of the article indicates that it about the labors, which exist only as narratives and art; it is not about the cultus of either Herakles in Greece or Hercules in classical Roman religion. I'm not clear on how the scope of this article is being defined and what policies would then pertain in support of Herakles/Heracles. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you here, your thoughts are always useful! I will try to respond to this when I have the chance (been very busy lately). Paul August ☎ 14:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, this article really brings out editors' loquaciousness on the talk page. This is the only wall of text here I actually read through—it is paragraphized—which helps a bit, but it caught my eye., I see you haven't edited the article in a while. Could you possibly find the time to do some work on it? I have faith in you. ;-)
 * PS: Good lord, there's a "yo" template? Carlstak (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment I'm not taking a stand for or against this move, but I'd like to point out that until the 20th century educated folk conflated the Roman & Greek versions of this mythic personage, not making a distinction between the two. This conflation persists in many circles, due in part to reliance on older, obsolescent texts like Bulfinch's Mythology. If this move is agreed to, the relevant articles need to make a more extended & clear explanation why these two versions (as well as the Etruscan one -- I see we also have an article Hercle) should be treated as separate subjects. Otherwise, I predict in a few years this issue is likely to resurface because most non-experts won't perceive a significant difference. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on this ngrams plot showing that the current name is approximately ten times as common as the proposed version, thus per WP:COMMONNAME. Mathglot (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"Iphone 15 Pro max"?
I think someone has griefed the background information page with the phrase "iPhone 15 Pro max." 2601:681:4C00:9CC0:197E:495A:6E19:1F30 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Labours of Hercules


text:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-28/Power outage

Wikipedia suffered a major interruption last Monday when the Wikimedia servers lost power due to circuit breakers tripping at their colocation facility. Read-only service was restored after several hours, although it took more than a day for editing to resume, but in the end no significant data was lost.

The servers crashed at about 22:14 (UTC) on Monday, 21 February, due to a loss of power at Neutelligent, the Tampa, Florida company that provides hosting services for the primary set of Wikimedia servers. After some scrambling to determine why network access had been lost, Jimbo Wales contacted Neutelligent and learned that the cause was the tripping of circuit breakers.

In spite of the fact that some of the servers had a second power supply on a separate circuit, this circuit breaker tripped as well, leaving all of the servers entirely without power. Speculative theories suggested that because the tripping mechanism is magnetic, one circuit breaker tripping could also have caused others around it to trip, or that the servers all simultaneously switching over to the new circuit might have overloaded it as well. However, the actual reason for the circuit breakers tripping remains unknown.

The recovery
Once power was restored, the developers then faced the challenge of bringing the servers back online from an unplanned shutdown. This was complicated by the fact that all of the databases actively replicating at the time of the crash ended up being corrupted. Fortunately, one slave database server had been halted earlier and was storing updates in a log rather than actively applying them to its copy of the database.

This intact copy was used to restore read-only service initially, while the logs were being applied to bring the database back to its current state before the power went out (at most, a few edits in process at the moment of the crash may have been lost). Additional technical details can be found in the report on Meta. Wiki editing was restored at 22:26 (UTC) on Tuesday, 22 February, just over 24 hours after the initial crash.

In order to get back to a full level of service, the database needed to be copied again to several servers, and features such as watchlists and contribution histories remained mostly unavailable over the next day. Performance also stayed rather slow for several days.

LiveJournal comparisons
The incident had several points in common with the power outage last month that took down another community website with a sizable database, LiveJournal. The LiveJournal servers, hosted by Internap in Seattle, Washington, crashed on 14 January when someone improperly pushed the EPO (Emergency Power Off) button at the facility. Like Wikimedia, LiveJournal did not have its own uninterruptible power supply for the servers as an additional form of backup; whether the local fire code would allow this has not been determined.

LiveJournal, which uses a MySQL database like Wikimedia, needed a similar amount of time to restore service to users after its power outage. They also had to deal with corruption in the databases that had been shut down. Based on LiveJournal's experience, some developers suggested that the data corruption in the active copies of the database might have been due to the RAID hardware giving the database incorrect reports that information had been written to the hard disk when it was actually being stored in cache first.

Brad Fitzpatrick, founder of LiveJournal, expressed his sympathies over the situation as the developers were working to restore service.

Fundraising progress during downtime
Pages related to the ongoing Wikimedia fundraiser (see archived story) were naturally disabled along with everything else. As an emergency measure, a static version of the main fundraising page was temporarily hosted on Angela's website, but the traffic there, with a Slashdot story about the crash also contributing to the load, soon exceeded her bandwidth quota. About eight hours after power was lost, Wikimedia was able to make another backup of the fundraising page available on its own servers.

Wikimedia CFO Daniel Mayer reported that donations were not significantly affected by the downtime. PayPal donations for Monday and Tuesday remained fairly steady at levels somewhat below the initial surge from the start of the fundraiser. Mayer did indicate that donations increased after the Slashdot story was posted, about four hours after the power was cut off.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian politicians

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of Christian politicians
This is pointless. You might as well add every politician from every Western country. Christianity is the predominant religion of almost all of the Western world and such a small list doesn't even come close to covering every Christian poltician (probably not even 1% of 1% of 1% of them), and such a list would be impossible and pointless. 65.123.220.255 05:05, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:12, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might as well have a list of Tall politicians. Religious affiliation isn't categorical enough to make easy lists. Do the politicians have to be self-declared, or does the wiki community decide who fits the bill? What about Catholics? Mormons? Etc. Feco 04:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Scope too broad. I like how the list implies that the politicians listed are only notable because they are christian. Dave the Red (talk) 05:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 06:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: agreed w/ Megan1967. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: impossible and pointless list is right. Jonathunder 06:19, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
 * Delete: yeah, impossible and pointless. Nominator overstates the case by saying that all Western politicians are Christian, though. FreplySpang (talk) 13:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - what would be the definition of the "real christian", for one? Potential POV pusher magnet - Skysmith
 * Well, see, natural christians are a subset of real christians, which are a subset of complex christians together with imaginary ones. Never mind, delete. Radiant_* 14:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Incompletable trivia. Chris talk back 16:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, we do have List of Jewish superheroes after all. Grue 18:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible list - probably would about the same unmanageable size as a list of all male politicians, or all politicians in Asia. -- 8^D gab 16:41, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.