This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Self-sacrifice for some greater good of all humanity
The introduction states that a hero is a character who display "the will for self-sacrifice" for "some greater good of all humanity". To me that just seems to be true for a subset of characters considered heroes. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The consensus in the end of the meeting was to use the term heroism as a data page and make two redirections to this page from Hero and Heroine. Lionel Scheepmans✉ Contact(French native speaker) 11:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the page heroism so people are now free to make the page move, per consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this move since I failed to find the actual discussion that created the consensus, this article has been at this title for quite a while, there was apparently no move request created for this page to be moved, and I contest the move of this page to "Heroism" since I think it is controversial. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to you for inform me about procedure in the English wikipedia. I'm French native speaker with lot of difficulties to understand bureaucratic explanation. Could you please Steel1943 help me by starting the discussion to decide or not moving hero to heroism that's a question of gender equality and the desire created by an off line meeting. We don't have a reccord off this off line meeting but the best thing is probably you proposal: starting a new discussion with wikipedia community. Thanks a lot in advance and welcome to me if you need any help in French wikipedia or French project. Lionel Scheepmans✉ Contact(French native speaker) 15:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you simply want to rename the article, or are you suggesting a change in scope? The article so far deals with the evolving concept of a hero since antiquity. There is little information of what "heroism" is supposed to be. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest Dimadick. The problem is quite complex because actually all contain is concentrait on this page but a redirection from heroine to hero isn't faire in term of gender equality. So in my own opinion the best think to do is to separate the thee articles and make three separated scope. But that's means a lot of works and unfortunately my level in English is clearly not sufficient. That's why I've propose during the just for the record gathering to simplify the task by moving title and changing redirection. But in the end, it wasn't respecting the English wikipedia recommendation. The best best thing now should maybe organize the distribution of the article's content in three part. But which people will do it ? Lionel Scheepmans✉ Contact(French native speaker) 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Good to see a discussion on the structural problems of this article, Dimadick and Lionel Scheepmans. I am one of the representatives from just for the record gathering where the initial off line discussion took place. What seemed to be the concern of the participants of this gathering was that when one searches for the word Heroine one gets automatically redirected to the article Hero, but with almost exclusively male examples and references. Using the masculine term Hero as the gender neutral term is a modern construct, not backed up by the words etymology (in ancient greek hero and heroine was gender specific). The article is now more gender-neutral, but there still lies a gender bias in this redirect, something Lionel Scheepmans proposed to balance out by making both the article Hero and Heroine redirect from an article on Heroism. MMelvaer (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move. Consensus is that the topic is better covered under the present name. Cúchullaint/c 20:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hero → Heroism – See the section above on this article's talk page. I am neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose this article is about heroes/heroines, not heroism. A separate article should be written about heroism, which is a concept that is not strongly tied to myth and fiction, unlike hero/heroine. Heroes are not always heroic, while those who perform heroism are not always called heroes, except jingoistically. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I had no strong opinion on this, but the comment by the IP above has convinced me. There should be two articles in order to cover two concepts. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. As it stands now the article Heroines redirects to Hero, although the mythology and history of the concept Heroine is different. Historically we even find other criteria for what it takes to be a Heroine versus a Hero. A redirection of both Hero and Heroine from Heroism therefore seems a more natural way to disambiguate these concepts. It is argued above that a hero is not always heroic and vice versa, yet from the perspective of cognitive linguistics the majority will consider the concept Hero and Heroine as subcategories under Heroism. MMelvaer (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I see no problem with Heroine redirecting to Hero; we have lots of redirects from gender all over the encyclopedia, and in plenty of cases when there is no gender-neutral term different from a gendered (usually masculine) term, the feminine redirects there. Unless we have good, sourced reason to consider heroes and heroines separately, rather than just oppositely-gendered versions of the same idea, I don't think those need to be separate articles either. On the other hand, I don't see any specific obvious problem with discussing the both under the name "Heroism", the way that both "Waiter" and "Waitress" redirect to "Waiting staff". But if there are good, well-sourced reasons why we should treat heroism separately from heroes/heroines, then I don't see a problem with the latter article staying where it is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I came to say the same thing about "Waiting staff"; I think the polite comment from User:Pfhorrest is in fact a succinct case against the proposal. I agree with earlier remarks that say that Heroism and Hero_(Antiquity) could possibly be treated on different pages, but that's not what's under discussion here. To clarify further, I think it's OK to redirect to the masculine/gender neutral term. Compare the usage at Actor. Arided (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. I think the fact that other gendered terms redirect to the male version is not a reason to keep doing this. As the Wikipedian community is placing more focus on gender balancing its editors as well as its content, these are exactly the kind of traditions we need to reconsider. I think the title of a page needs to be a neutral term or else be made up of both male and female forms. Glinte (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to be on the forefront of advancing gender neutrality. Granted there are several articles that use gender neutral term but that is because they have entered into common usage not delibrate championing on Wikipedia's part.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Further, it's not clear that parity (with page names like "Actor/Actress" or two pages "Actor" and "Actress"; "Hero/Heroine" or "Hero" and "Heroine") is really an advance for gender neutrality, or equity among persons. What is clear is that terms like "actress", "heroine", "waitress", "chairwomen", etc., are explicitly not "gender neutral". I think one risks entering into an (entirely unintentional!) "false flag" campaign, with the aim of promoting gender balance and equity among persons that instead ends up reinforcing sexist stereotypes. Arided (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. This essentially would change the topic of the article. Moreover, there are lots of articles on WP that suffer from gender bias issues but this, with its current opening "A hero (masculine or gender-neutral) or heroine (feminine)", with a picture of Joan of Arc at the top, isn't one of them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I have read both supporting and opposing comments and this time I am more convinced by the opposition. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Strong support. The comment by the IP at the top suggests two concepts. There is only one: heroism. Hero / heroines exhibit heroism. The lead needs reworking to describe heroism, then a subsection of hero / heroines which mentions the the mythical aspect (which at the moment is a bit too prominent). --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.