Talk:Hero/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

"A hero is the name of a man or woman (or being) who is able to do what no other can do."

That's not the standard definition given in a dictionary. Perhaps you're thinking of superheros. (but even they can often do what other superheros can do, for instance fly or deflect bullets). I'll hold to my dying day that Harriet Tubman was a hero, and all she did was what (some) other people didn't have the courage to do. I think a topic like this will rather quickly generate metatalk about the role of media as well as various topics in psychology, including whom people choose to lionize. --KQ

Hmmm. That definition of hero would actually incorporate Harriet Tubman, since her courage was out of the ordinary. "What no other can do" is a rather wide statement. It also includes "what no other (present on the site of the actual heroic deed) can do". As long as we go with widely recognized heros with significant historical staying power we should be safe from media and various late 20th century obfuscations of what a hero is. But this is of course IMHO. --Anders Törlind

Harriet Tubman is definitely a heroine, who most would agree with. Wallie 07:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"Can" indicates ability, and certainly anyone who thought of it could have done the same thing Harriet Tubman did. However most of them who were so inclined stopped at the thought of it, fantasizing a bit perhaps and then settling back into their relatively comfortable, secure lives. The difference is not in ability, but in willingness. --KQ

---

"Zero My Hero" is the name of a School House Rock song. It talks about how the number Zero is a kid's hero because it is so essential to 'going to the stars', elevating us above 'counting on our fingers and toes' etc.

---

This page is beginning to look nice. Hmmm. I'll insert a link to The hero with a thousand faces theory (or what one should call it). --Anders Törlind

---

To forestall possible objections to my addition of "Superman" to the list of famous heroes, let me point out some of his standard (non-super) heroic characteristics:

• His presence in society is due to his tragic loss of home.
• He works for truth, justice, and… well, you know.
• He sacrifices his own personal interests (like Lois Lane) to carry on his noble mission.
• He has flaws and vulnerabilities (like kryptonite and, in some variations, a tendency to see things in "black and white").

On top of all that, he is arguably the prototypical superhero of this era, rendering redundant the listing of other famous superheroes. He certainly seems to me to qualify as a modern mythic hero. -- Jeff Q 04:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who rescues a large number of People[sic], either Financially[sic], Physically[sic], or Mentally[sic]. Although Hero's[sic] are usually Famous[sic], in the Age[sic] of one minute attention spans, the Media[sic] and AP probaly wont mention a hero for more than 15 seconds in a Report[sic] about the days events, unless you rescue someone who happens to be famous or important. Dead Martyrs[sic] are usually more famous and useful to their cause than living heros.

---

Can any one really break the line between the title Hero and brave actions. Heroes should be real and not fictional and universal not personal. Personal would be a mentor--of sorts. What to any of you is a real modern day hero? Heroless 11:28 am 24 October 2006(spc). ______________________

A hero is necessarily someone who receives recognition - from some public or other - for their heroism. In my view heroes come in two varieties: self-aggrandizing and self-sacrificing. The former includes superheroes and is marked by some intrinsic superiority: leaping buildings in a single bound or simply the cool ability to single-handedly shoot whole regiments of the enemy without collecting a scratch. Coolness is needed - that Brosnan James Bond was dopey just because he looked worried and rushed about while being chased by that machine with its cutting wheels. For Bond, not more than a slight frown is permitted and then only as the laser is on the verge of slicing into the delicate parts. This hero is admired.

The self-sacrificing (and self-effacing) type is quite different. He or she does something exceptional in terms of effort, either bravery or hard work. This hero has no intrinsic personal superiority but is of sturdy moral fibre. This hero achieves something for the community, gets a medal and is respected.

The individualistic one is the usual basis of an American film. Although the hero is self-aggrandizing, the agenda is still a community one - usually freeing the community from the evil bureaucrats, aliens, or crime organisation. But it was all in a day's work and when completed the hero rides off into the sunset.

- Pepper 150.203.227.130 05:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

List of heroes

Do we really need to have this list, putting Sir Galahad and Brother Rabbit by the same table? (And this list definitely misses Pikachu, as well as the Islamic hero who killed this nasty invader Roland.) Mikkalai 04:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter? Please people... --162.24.9.213 15:50, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I think we have to lose either the 'traditionally', or HP. Alai 07:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the HELL was Attila the Hun doing in the heroes list. Attila was an evil man who commited awful acts of genocide and rampaged through Europe with no purpose save that of plundering and raping those "weaker" than themselves. I took the liberty of deleting his name from the list.

Corrected "Maui'dib" to Muad'Dib and restored link to appropriate page, as well as added link to corresponding page on Paul Atreides. Also added Frodo Baggins, since Lord of the Rings is one of the current top heroic myths. --Visitor SKB 15:04, 28 Jun 2005

This list is bogus POV. Mahatma Ghandi? Why is he a hero? Frodo Baggins? Maybe we need to redefine hero in terms of its Campbellian mythical function. Perhaps we could limit the list to historical persons with sizable fictional or mythical curriculum vitaes--Aufidius 14:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC).

"Thank you Mario, but our princess is in another castle." Mario is SUCH a hero. I mean he just kept going to all those castles in the video game, and eating all those magic mushrooms, and growing, and stomping on monsters. And he was the main guy in the story, too! And I can totally make him get through the whole game! Plus Bob Hoskins was just so dreamy in the movie. I think he must be a hero! Maybe we can add Marty McFly from Back to the Future since he totally fixed his family by going back in time. Plus he was the main character in the story. I just love heroes, they are like, so, tooootallly greaaat. --Sbfisher 17:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on updating the Hero-List by providing more info on why they are considered heroes & possibly adding more names, but if possible removal is being discussed should their be a continuation of the list? Also, "That means that silly names like Clinton, Bill Gates etc should not be there, primarily as they did not risk their lives, a prime requirement." The definitions of "hero" are *different*, so because Bill Gates did not risk his life, but donated over 20 billion dollars to charities, he should be removed?--Visitor 3:27, 1 January 2006

Political and military heroes

I was surprised not to find here any mention of more historical heroes, like political and military figures. Think George Washington or Ghandi. -- Beland 14:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A section has to be added for "national heroes" as opposed to mythical or fictional heroes. Alternatively, we need two articles - Hero (mythical) vs. Hero (national). Feedback? -- IBaghdadi 26 Aug 2005

National heroes are world heroes too. I for one do not care much for Nationality. People have multiple nationalities, and change it to suit the occasion. Wasn't Washington English? Wallie 07:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

The list is the current state es slowly steering into a big problem. Technically, every war has thousands of heroes, even if we take the highest awards of every state. Also, there are zillions of literary heroes, not forgetting other fitional ones, like games. Not to say that one's hero is other's villain.

I suggest to discuss the criteria. mikka (t) 02:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The list

Why is there even a list on this page? It needs to have a much tighter criteria, or it needs to go, either to its own page, or perhaps just use list of fictional heroes. Turnstep 02:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? The list is interesting. I cannot see why people object to a list of heroes. The list seems great to me. For example, I have never heard of Laura Secord, but her story made interesting reading, so I have learnt something.

If anyone objects to someone being on the list, then remove that entry, but not the entire list. If someone believes an an entry should be added, then add it!

Perhaps the list is culturally biassed. I added Audie Murphy myself, and I am not an American. These lists are usually full of American people, but this one probably has too few! As for the Japanese, Chinese, Indian, African, Eskimo, French, etc etc heroes, get them all up there! We want this to be NPOV. I cannot see the problem with a large list, as there are a lot of heroes out there. A few humerous ones too, like Donald Duck too... Please, not too many 'celebs'... Jordan, Ronaldo, Posh and Becks, Paris etc. Some may think they are not really heroes. Wallie 07:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that we already have a list of heroes and that is what this is turning into. Generally, articles and long lists are not kept on the same page. What we need to discuss is what makes this list different from the existing list of heroes page. Is is "traditional"? Then we need to discuss Harry Potter again :) Is it meant to be a broad cross-sampling of heroes across the ages and cultures? If so, perhaps we could limit it to one example per culture? Turnstep 23:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. The "list of heroes" is for fictional heroes only, though. The list in this article contains fictional heroes and real heroes. They should be put into a separate article. I know that people object to a list of real heroes, as it is POV. But traditonal encyclopedas have such lists, and they are very subjective and cultural, depending on where the encyclopedia is written. So, I have an idea, based on your idea. I will now include the list of heroes into the existing 'list of heroes' article, and reference that article. I think we should aviod the one article per culture, better to encourage heroes from other cultures, if one culture is starting to take over. Wallie 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to, but the list of heroes is being redirected, etc. There is also another list of heroes which has been supercede by the revert in that article. I reverted back why changes I made, as I do not know the background.

I think that what you really want is not to have any lists containing heroes as real people, as such a list is too contentious. I do understand your concern. The word "hero" is very loaded. There are however other lists such as Pop icons, Celebrities etc, which are also contentious. I do think a list of heroes like we have is useful. It is also interesting to read about people, whose story we had not heard before, irrespective of country etc. A hero might be catalogued in other lists, such as Prominent Slavs in the period 1200-1300, but most folks would not have the knowledge to look there. (too obscure) Wallie 07:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you were on the right track - let's wait about a day and see if anyone else wants to chime in, and then you can recreate the list on another page. Don't worry about the history on that redirect page, y the way. Another option is to create a List of non-fictional heroes page. I'm still torn between these two options:

1. Deprecate List of heroes, use List of fictional heroes and List of non-fictional heroes (or "historical" heroes).
2. Just stick everything into a List of heroes page with two sections.

My only concern with #2 is the eventual size of the page. But then again, list pages are expected to be large. Turnstep 13:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the list over to the new page. I'm sorry. I skimmed the comments and just now noticed the "let's wait a day" statement. If someone wants to revert my work, that's fine; it just looked incredibly unsightly with a huge list in the middle of this article.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that the separate article for a list of non-fictional heroes was nominated for deletion, and the vote succeeded. In that case, I don't think the list belongs in this article either. Even though I disagree with the result, I think to be respectful of the reasons for which the vote passed, this list shouldn't be posted on either article entry. Unfortunate.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am deleting the list again, because there is simply no way to definitively classify what is and is not a hero in real life. As much as I have my own personal heroes, I do not feel as though we can include a 'list' of this sort in an encyclopedia.

-- CaveatLector 01:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the list again as well. See section "Swedenman" below. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-fictional heroes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes both of which were deleted after going through an AfD. To have a list of heroes here would seem like an attempt to get around the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

List pages

As discussed above, I've created a new page, so that we now have a List of fictional heroes and a List of non-fictional heroes. I invite people to look over both lists for problems and omissions, particularly the latter list, as I've just created it and it may have some fictional people still hiding in it. Turnstep 01:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

People traditionally recognized as heroes

I am glad to see this list back. But this is a different list than the one which was deleted. Lets keep it very tight. That means that silly names like Clinton, Bill Gates etc should not be there, primarily as they did not risk their lives, a prime requirement. They are also not "tradional". The list would more likely people who are now dead, ie historical figures. I have left Stalin off the list, and others who also have major downsides should be purged ruthlessly too, such as Churchill. Wallie 13:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It was put back by an anon IP - I've reverted to the last good version. All the edits in the short period it was up just further reinforces the earlier decision to break it off into separate pages. Turnstep 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To Wallie: Thank you, it's was mine idea. To Turnstep: Why i put the People traditionally recognized as heroes it wase for Enochlau deleted the List of non-fictional heroes. To Wallie again: are you a Stalinist? 213.114.215.199 20:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think we should be allowed our non-fictional heroes. This is more important than fictional heroes in a way. The re-creation of List of non-fictional heroes is barred. This list may be a bit eclectic, but it may be the whole nature of the Wikipedia project that it is a bit eclectic. In particular David Broadfoot and John Axon deserve a mention. PatGallacher 00:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic hero

Could someone delineate the "comic hero"? J. D. Redding 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comic hero can have TWO possibile interpretations. The first is a funny hero as in comedies, and the second is a hero in comics, like the Marvel comic world. Corrupt one 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heroes vs Heroines

I think, especially since "heroine" redirects here, a section detailing the evolving concept of heroines is extremely necessary. For the longest time, the idea of a heroine was exceedingly rare, and even when there were heroines, their roles were considerably different to the heroines of today. I added a subject header. I might add some information when I have some time, but I could REALLY REALLY use some collaborative help. -- Hinotori 11:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Film movie heroes section inadequate

The film movie hero paragraph as a whole feels very irrelevant and too general. Film, like any other media, has plenty of nuances. To talk only about action heroes is to trivialize the topic as a whole. I left it in because I think a section should be there, and that the info is valuable as a part of a larger whole, but I do think that, by itself, it's somewhat unsightly. I have to admit, I'm slightly at a loss at the moment as to how exactly it should be expanded. But I would really appreciate help. Cheers. -- Hinotori 11:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall request for expansion

My last new section on this talk page... for now. ;) This is a general request for expansion which I think is desperately needed for this topic. Heroes are an incredibly important part of culture everywhere and have a wide variety of incarnations. As talked about earlier on this talk page, more information is needed on military heroes, comic heroes, etc. Also, as I mentioned in the other comment on this talk page, a section about female heroines as an evolving concept is very necessary. (Please put comments directly related to that topic in THAT comment section for the sake of organization.) With our combined neural might, I think we can really make this article something great. At its peak, this could really be featured article material, guys. But it's a LONG ways away. -- Hinotori 11:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Greek Hero

Editing this:

The word hero comes from ancient Greek, where it describes a culture hero who figures in mythology. The Greek heroes were often the mythological characters who were the eponymous founders of Greek cities, states, and territories. These mythological heroes were not always role models or possessed of heroic virtue; many were demigods, the offspring of mortals and the gods.

Actually, heroes were specifically either born from the gods or humans whose deeds on earth gained them some sort of divine status. I basically took out the whole paragraph and replaced it with a lot more pointed information from the Middle Liddle, with source link provided. I seperated the sections, as I feel that this will help with the expansion. Right now the information seems haphazard (why is the opera reference thrown in there?). I also feel as though the different types of heroes should be listed and linked. (I mean things like the Byronic hero, which I've added to the "see also" section. --CaveatLector 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

for complete specificity: the original meaning of the word 'hero' is simply 'halfgod'. Not until much later (and due to mythology and 'hero stories') did it imply a positive, rather than a neutral, role. 62.251.127.12 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources? 90.195.53.166 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hero With a Thousand Faces

Other literary theories of the Hero schould be placed here as well, at least by links. --CaveatLector 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are refering to the book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" I must tell you that it seems to be to be working backwards from an idea and trying to find supporting information and theories. It ignores areas it should look into and presents twisted interruptations to explain things while ignoring basic ideas that would contridict the main idea. They are not even presented in an effort to explain why they are wrong!

I have not managed to fully get through it, as I find the level of bulls*** in it to be that high. I say the book does not count sa unbiased, Neutral point of View. I will try looking more at it, but that is what I have so far. Corrupt one (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Expansion/Merger

After running across the article Greek hero cult, I felt that these two articles should be merged. The Hero article seriously needs more flesh to it, and I feel as though building something comprehensive and encyclopedic should include this information. -- CaveatLector 02:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Swedenman

Swedenman is showing a blatant disregard for the vote on the AfD and the consensus shown on this page. He is repeatedly adding the list back in without an appeal to discussion here whatsoever. If this continues, I recommend someone file an RfC or notify an admin. I'd wait around to see to it myself, but I might be busy over the next week or so. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The list 2

I hade say why i put in the list. Lock in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Turnstep/Dec_2005 1. Swedenman 12:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing any new argument for having the list here. Have you read the reasons against it? Again, I refer you to the discussion above. For the record, I was for having the list, but I respect the AfD and the reasons it passed. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 12:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the AfD? Swedenman 11:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Shouldn't have assumed you knew. AfD stands for "Articles for Deletion." The list was made into a separate article which was nominated to be deleted. The vote passed. It's already been mentioned above, but here is the link again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-fictional heroes. The reasons cited were that the list was too POV based and that an objective criteria for determining who gets on the list would be impossible to follow. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 11:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the list is a bit long, too. Plus it's full of typos. Can we just turn it into a category instead? Elonka 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The reinclusion of the list, given this talk page and the AfD discussions, is ridiculous. Deleting it and hoping it will stay that way. CaveatLector 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that the list should stay gone. And "Yikes" to a category, actually. The tendancy is for cats to suffer even more than lists from POV, as they are less closely watched and the hurdle for verification is even lower.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 05:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Tragic Flaw

The reason for the deletion: Greek heroes do not have 'tragic flaws' as we percieve of them today. This comes out of a misinterpretation of Aristotle's word αμαρτια, which literally translates to "a missing of the mark" and is more accuarately represented by the modern word "mistake" or "sin". CaveatLector 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The article at tragic hero seems to disagree with you. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying there's an inconsistency either way. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it, but I think you're being a little picky in the definitions. I still need to review your criticism a bit more; it's intriguing (any suggested reading in this regard?). I think the removal of the Greek tradegy part is probably best.

--Shadow Puppet 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested reading includes Aristotle's Poetics just to get a feel for the text, I don't have much time to delve out a major amount of resources, but you may want to check Moles J. L. - "Aristotle and Dido's hamartia." Greece and Rome 1984 XXXI : 48-54. for a really good interpretation of a work from this standpoint. Check out Moles' bibliography for more sources. I, for one, feel as though the Tragic Hero page needs a complete rewrite, but I really don't have the time at the moment to do it. CaveatLector 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Validity - Marx v humanism

Forgive a newcomer having missed the backstory to this article, but can anyone enlighten me as to where Marx criticizes 'humanism'? The writing here reads to me like fancy language which misdirects the argument the author has tried to make - sounds like he was referring to a marxian critique of individualism to me, not to a putative marxian critique of humanism. Clarification, please? Adhib 13:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"becomes", or "is recognized as" (a hero)

"A person normally becomes courageous by performing an extraordinary and praiseworthy deed."

Huh?

Perhaps a person becomes recognized as a "hero" by performing such an act, but a person can be "courageous" and no one else ever know.

Then, too, the word "hero" has become so debased and trvialized by over use, perhaps the confusing sentence matters not at all...

I say the line quoted there is in error. I say make so it is "A person normally is recognized as courageous by performing an extraordinary and praiseworthy deed." Corrupt one 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hero cycle

Why hasn't someone added a section on the hero cycle? This would seem intergral to any discussion of a hero, especially the literary or film hero. I know that a link was crafted for Campbell, but I think this page needs more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.228.200 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 May 2006‎ (UTC)

The Teacher/Mentor

I want to add something along these lines. However, the wording is iffy and I don't know if it is as prominent as I make it out to be: "Traditionally in many fiction and fantasy stories involving one strong protagonist and one evil antagonist, the hero will have a guiding teacher or wise mentor who will either die or leave in order for the hero to grow stronger and/or face his destiny on his own. Many examples of teachers that have fulfilled this tradition include Obi Wan Kenobi and Yoda of Star Wars, Dumbledore of Harry Potter, Gandolf and the rest of the Fellowship in Lord of the Rings, Brom of Eragon, Uncle Ben of Spiderman, and many others." From the movies, books, comics, and games that I've come across that focus on good vs. evil, this tradition seems to be there very often. But then again it could be that I just read too many fantasy stories. H2P 08:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nm, after looking at the page for Hero with a Thousand Faces I realize that instead of listing the traditional structure of a heroic story, we should instead just make that link more prominent.

Heroes 2

"Now heroes are the ones who cherish lofty designs in their bosoms and have plans to achieve them. They have all-embracing schemes, and the world is at their mercy."

Quote from Cao Cao, Romance of the Three Kingdoms Chapter 21, Line 57.

I do wish for once in our all of our life that we could see a hero come here into this world and do what many of us are afraid of doing. In this day and age of the year 2006, there are no heroes, man or woman, in this world and all that is left is a bunch of braggers or loud mouth people who do very little to bring stability into their own country. Weather it is war, poverty, lack of growth, or guns in the hands of young ones, this world has no heroes in it.

However, from what I gather and know what a hero is, I shall share it with all of you and feel free to send me any personal thoughts to mytalk under Zhang Liao. I see heroes as a person who can bring people together and lead them to times where the state flourishes while the people are willing to fight for their belief. I now post questions to all of you who think of heroes.

1. What do you see, know, or thought a hero would be?

2. Where would a hero be born from and of?

3. How can you trust their word and follow them?

I ask these questions cause I, myself, need to know if any heroes still do exist. --Zhang Liao 06:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

etymology?

Did the word hero come from Herostratus? Anomo 18:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It came from the cognate ηρως in the ancient Greek. CaveatLector^Talk 19:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How is a hero identified?

Moved this here because, while it seems to contain good information, it screams out 'I was copy and pasted from a paper!' CaveatLector^Talk 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

How is a Hero Identified?

In literature, film, epic poetry, and myth the idea of the hero dominates. What makes this so? All people can tap recognize a hero when they see one but why? According to C.E. Jung, “Archetypes shape experience rather than derive from it.” In other words the pattern of the archetype exists in our unconscious and when we recognize the pattern we follow it. Or, another way to put it is that the fact that we respond to the hero motif in literature, movies, and myths is that the pattern shapes our experiences. But what exactly constitutes a hero.

Joseph Campbell in his book Hero With a Thousand Faces (1949) , gives a detailed description of the hero’s journey in 17 steps. In a short synopsis of Campbell’s journey there is a call to action to leading to the road of trials, where friends and enemies are discovered. The hero crosses from the ordinary world of comfort and familiarity to the Underworld where danger is always lurking. Ultimately, the hero must face a powerful nemesis in the darkest moment of life, in the deepest part of the underworld. Here in what has been called the Inmost Cave, the hero faces the very real possibility of failure and even death. But lessons learned and knowledge and skills gained generally aid her in defeating the archenemy. From the victory, the hero gains a gift which might be an object of great worth, wisdom, a piece of knowledge, and with it returns to the community a more skilled leader who is aware, open and fulfilled person who shares what has been gained for the greater good of the community.

While the hero lives a magnificently grand life filled with danger, menace, victory and return, the real beauty of the archetype that is instilled the collective unconscious of every human being is that the hero also applies to each individual. In this way, the common folk, like you and me, can realize the aspects of the hero in our own lives. The hero archetype can be witnessed in the ways people meet life’s trials, get pulled under, succeed in getting out with others’ help and go on to share with the greater community.

To break down the hero’s journey on a personal level life think of four stages: 1. Innocence—In this stage the person is happy and feels little suffering. There is ego-centered view of the world. 2. Initiation—This is brought by one of three events—Sexual awareness, the presence of evil in the world, or death. Regardless of which event, a person’s world is turned upside down and no longer can they see themselves as the happy person they once were. 3. Chaos—Having awareness crammed down the psyche of a person, a journey is begun in denial to change the harsh outcome of the new awareness. Through difficult things the world seems spun out of control and having no order. Gradually, confronting face to face, heart to heart, the initiate comes to understand the reality of the new awareness. 4. Resolution—The person returns to the world where once there was little suffering with a greater awareness, a more open mind, a fuller sense of being and participating in the community. A hero has been born.

The archetype of the hero manifests itself in every human being my nature of being part of the unconscious. Jung’s statement above alludes to each person’s movement in a pattern that is familiar. Because the archetype of the hero resides in the collective psyche, every person’s life has the potential to imitate the hero’s journey—perhaps more than once.

Is it even suitable? Campbell's analysis is by no means as authorative as it is presented here. Goldfritha 03:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To whoever made that main part of this segment

1) You are attempting to define ALL types of heroes on the basis of just one hero, from what I can read, and that is totally wrong. There are many different types of heroes.

2) Also, it looks like you have read the book and used it as your research, which is against the NOR policy.

3) Thirdly, you are ignoring a wide range of literature; some has the hero going on adventures all the time, and other stories have a short life and set rewards for the end, or even them dying. Corrupt one 00:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To Whomever decided to write the whole definition of 'a hero'. As was brought to the attention of my class by our Classics prof. in ancient greek times a hero was not one who did selfless things, in fact it was just a man... who took things that he wanted.. the mindset was very different in those times, and a man who provided for himself and his family was looked highly upon. ex. if 3 men were beating up a man for some food, an onlooker might say, look at those good men beating that bad man.

Masked Heroes and those without Masks.

There is a fundimental difference between masked heroes and those without the mask. Examples include the secrecy that the disguse gives them that enables them to fight evil without too much retaliation, and without friends being attacked. Those without the mask are able to be contacted more easily and are often more trusted. I would like to get some people discussing the differences here. Corrupt one 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hero or Superhero

A Hero is in my view someone who risks themself to aid others. (This means supperman is NOT a hero for stopping bullets, on the ground that there is NO risk for him, but opposing monsters DOES make him a hero.

This leads to the question of WHAT is the difference between a hero and a superhero. I can some it up in this sentence; A superhero is a hero with superpowers or abilities.

The Phantom, Lone Ranger and other such heroes are normal Heroes. Superman, the Xmen, and other such people are superheroes

I believe this is all generally accepted

However, there is a gray area. What about people who do not have superpowers themselves, but use things that give them abilities that seem supperpowered? People like Batman, Green Lantern, and others. I await your responce to this. Corrupt one 00:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Types of Heroes

There seem to be a few main archtypes of heroes in fiction. (Although the antihero is growing in popularity and blurring the boundries of what is considered a hero). I would like to know what people think are the main types. I listen some when I made some changes on 04:23, 20 February 2007, which got removed due to lack of dicussion. Corrupt one 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

References

The extended reading list would be more useful converted into references -- preferably footnotes. Goldfritha 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hi all. I'm currently mediating a case into which this article is involved.

Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.

In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.

I'm at your disposal for every question.

Happy editing,

Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI - 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ and Matyrdom

I can't believe I didn't think of this before seeing the recent JC edit, but I do think this article should contain some text addressing the connection between matyrdom and classical hero worship, even if it is only a brief reference. CaveatLector^Talk 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You have NO idea how ammused I was to read you wanting to add iformation on that to the article. As I remember correctly, I wanted to get a discusion about verious things dealing with heroes going, and THAT was one of the issues that i wanted discused before being added. You removed all of that all together, as well as any updates put up since then. Technically we are still in mediation over that, mainly because YOU have not replied to it.

You will of remembered in my comments that you removed that according to the Bible, Toran, and the Koran, if you die in service to God, you are a matyr and shall go to heaven. However, that does not say that if you use the Lords name and die doing something evil just to enter heaven that you will be allowed it.

Thus any would-be-matyr must ask themselves WHY they are doing it. If to enter paradise, then they fail, as it would be greed and self interest. Corrupt one 01:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

.....what, exactly are you on about? First, please stay WP:CIVIL, I have always addressed you with civility and attempted to explain the rules of Wikipedia to you civily. Secondly, I did reply to the medcab case, and I'm not quite sure where the moderator is on that one. Thirdly, and this is important, I am NOT using this talk board as a discussion forum as you were, nor am I against expanding the article. I will try this one more time, because i have obviously not made this clear: Information we do not DISCUSS about the TOPIC on the talk pages and then put the results of the DISCUSSION on the article. On Wikipedia, we discuss the article's CONENT, what sources we should use, what information is relevant to include in the article. ALL information on Wikipedia should be SOURCED. If you can find a source talking about matyrdom as a form of herosim (something which i welcome and actually want to do), FINE. But your OPINION on the matter belongs neither in the article nor on this talk page. Nor does anyones, for that matter. CaveatLector^Talk 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We have to DISCUS the matter before we can add things to the article, so we can agree on what should be added. That is what I was trying to do before. My main objection to your actions was just turning the discuion page back to how it was before I asked for the discusion, and thus removing all the updates. I would not of minded if you had just removed that ONE PART of it. I think the mediation section is susposed to be a place we visit and discus the issue by ourselves.

Well, anyway, Let us look at the part I mentioned. The bible/ Toran/ Koran states that if a person dies in service to God they enter heaven. That we have to agree on. They also state in the ten commandments "Tho shalt not use the Lord's name in vain". That can be seen to mean invoking the Lord's name on things you do for your own reason. Such as blowing yourself up just to enter Paradise. Can we include that in any article about Matyrdom, since it touchs on an issue VERY serious in the middle east right now? Corrupt one 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Because we do not have a source. You are mistaken. We do not discuss what 'we' should say in the article and then put information into it. We discuss how to improve the article, where to get research, what research is reliable, ect. ect. We cannot put this mention of matyrdom into the article without a source. Your interpretation of the bible (a primary source) is not a reliable source, nor would mine be. We would have to get good scholarship on there (I actually have a book that discusses martyrs as heroes, come to think of it, and might be able to cite it here). We do this because we do not know if the people on here can reliably interpret the information. Take, for instance, your interpretation of the commandment 'thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain'. You are forgetting (or are unaware?) that the verb phrase 'take in vain' is a translation from the hebrew scriptures into english (actually, its a translation of the Latin vulgate which was a translation of the hebrew scriptures). Thus, the word 'vain' here probably does not mean what it means today.

I think, in general, that you are misunderstanding what original research is. Any discussion we have here would count as 'original research'. Now, if you are aware of scholarship that touches on this subject, please do add it to the article with the proper references.

Oh, and as part of the MedCab (or I would be if there were a cabal, that is), I'm pretty sure that the mediator should have responded to our positions after we gave them and then began mediating the conversation. CaveatLector^Talk 09:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in what that book of yours says. I hope it takes into acount suicide bombers who are considered matyrs and the reasons behind them. I must remember to look those books up and the reasons they give for becoming matyrs that way. Either way, we have come a bit closer to getting the research material.

I look forward to your addition to the article, and finding a way to refute part of it with my own referances. Corrupt one 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reluctent Heroes

The definition in this article does not allow, as far as I see it, for Reluctent heroes. They date back as far as the Odyssey. How can we change the definition to include them without losing the main gist of the current definition? Corrupt one 23:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We cannot consider Odysseus a 'reluctant hero' (I'm not quite sure where you got this term, by the way) because we cannot (and most anthropologists and classical scholars will agree) impose our values onto an ancient society. For the Greeks the idea of 'reluctance' was rather irrelevant. Odysseus was considered a hero by his deeds, not by his intentions or whether or not he was a nice guy (I'd recommend reading Murnaghan's introduction to Lombardo's edition of the Odyssey, as well as her book on the poem). If we want to talk about 'reluctant' heroes, we should probably search for some scholarship that discusses whether or not this became a trend at some point in literature ('this' being a hero or protagonist who goes against a societal expectation for heroes to be people who seek out to be heroes. However, i think this is probably covered by Anti-hero already. CaveatLector^Talk 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that he is NOT a hero, but rather he become one despite being reluctent. As for being covered in the Anti-hero section, reluctent heroes have become convetional and traditional enough that they may not fit ANY definition of anti-hero.

The definition given on the Hero article mentions "display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is, heroism, for some greater good," Odysseus only wanted to get home. The current definition EXCLUDES him from being considered a hero. I am trying to find a way for heroes like hinm to be included.

I'm sure you will be willing to help remedy this matter, even if you do not wish to. Corrupt one 04:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we use one of these definitions? Some allow us to include ancient heroes if their cultures considered them heroes, without imposing ou own values onto them.

The new oxford encyclopedic dictionary (c) 1976 bay books Hero 1. Man of superhuman strength, courage, or ability favoured by the gods; later as intermediate between gods and men, and immortal. 2. Illustrious warrior; man of extraordinary bravery, fortitude, or greatness of soul. 3. man forming subject of epic; chief male character in poem, play, or story.

The concise english dictionary (c) by Gedded & Grosset Hero A person of exceptional bravery; a person admired for superior qualities and achievements; the centeral male character in a novel, play, etc.

Collins Paperback English Dictonary (c) 1999 Hero 1. Principle male character in a novel, play, etc. 2. A man of exceptional courage, nobility, etc. 3. A man who is idealized for having superior qualities in any field.

The Macquary Concise dictionary Hero 1. A person of distinguished courage or preformance. 2. Someone invested with heroic qualities in the opinion of others. 3. The principle male character in a story, play, etc. 4. (in early mythological antiquity) a being of godlike prowess and benefice.

Some will not fit what we want, but I thought best to show what options there are for a fair dicision. Corrupt one 23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of these are good (I think Oxford sounds the most specific), but a little simple and unspecialized, no? I wonder if there are any folklorists out on Wikipedia who have access to a recognized definitive source. CaveatLector^Talk 12:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"A hero" vs. "An Hero"

I'm pretty sure grammatical its "an hero" and am thus changing the page. Tintagel555 (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, "an hero" is an older form that is no longer considered appropriate. See this link and the section entitled "A shibboleth of gentility: (h) from William Shakespeare to Henry Higgins" for details. (Anyone else have some insight?) --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's trolling. "An hero" is a joke from 4chan referring to a person who commits suicide.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"An hero" is the Old English version of a hero. This is a result of the French influence on the English language, making the "h" silent. Indeed, in Frnech, the word "hero" is pronounced "arrow." The organization 4chan is correct; in fact, they have stated they merely wish to reinstate the proper grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.219.200 (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand the words a, an and one all have the one base word ane, and all mean the same thing, a singlar instance of something. No referanceable material on that was found, just something I heard somewhere. Corrupt one (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A Heroine, Or Hera If You Don't Want This Person To Sound Like An Addictive Drug

This entire section seems to be something that somebody put in for the fun of it. I honetly don't think it should be here. It discusses a song somebody wrote and has nothing to do with "A Heroine" or "Hera". I have decided to remove the section from the lack of sources and the unrelated content to the page. --ImperatorLux (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethimology

There is no reference for the ethymology. Does anybody know where we could find information. Just wondering why this is not simply related to Eros (Ἔρως) which is very similar to Heros (ἥρως).

Benoit Sanchez (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Working man's hero

What about this type of hero?

58.168.1.108 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"good guy" redirects here

Good guy redirects to hero, but we have other uses for the term, so what's wrong with adding a hatnote to the disambiguation page? 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Heroine is sometimes used for females"?

Only sometimes? Isn't that just a case of people often getting it wrong? I could have sworn that "heroine" is the standard feminine form or "hero". The first sentence of the article should be changed. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heroism-War Hero-Courage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hero re-directs to this article. Which says nothing at all about war heros.

The section on 'modern thought [about heroism]' seems like it should mention 'killology' David Grossman's theories on bravery? I'm not sure if that would be better suited to the courage article. But...if 'war hero' is going to re-direct here, it seems like that query should have a more complete answer, somewhere? Khallus Maximus (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Too Greek based?

To me, it seems like this article is more addressing the Greek legend type of hero. Hero as an archetype has always existed, it certainly wasn't invented by the Greeks. To define a hero, in the first sentence of the article, as a Greek concept is completely incorresct. I would like to see a more general introduction talking about heroes in general, with a sub-section, or several, on the demigod stuff. Sure, the Greeks had heroes, but so did everyone else, maybe the Greeks are more significant, but they definitely don't define the concept. Alcatraz ii (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Heroes"

The usage of "Heroes" is up for discussion, see Talk:"Heroes" -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Example picture

An editor has changed the current picture of Raoul Wallenberg to Florence Nightingale. I reverted back, arguing that there are no sources in Nightingale's article describing her as a hero, but plenty in Wallenberg's. Can other editors please weigh in? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why it matters whether Nightingale is described as a "hero" in her Wikipedia article? Jesus is a hero to lots of people, but he's not described as a hero in his Wiki article. Does this mean he is absolutely not a hero? 109.158.76.226 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a Wikipedia policy. We do not make assertions and interpretations based on personal feelings. I don't care if Wallenberg is used as the example of a hero. I care that whatever picture is used, there is supported non-trivial text in the subject's article which indicates that they are regarded as a hero. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

It seems possible to me that the information in the new "Mythic hero archetype" section has been added to support or promote the Christ myth theory, potentially violating WP:NPOV. However, I am reluctant to take action without further discussion. Thoughts? Gildir (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is being edited by a student in a WikiEd course at ColgateUniversity/Core151: Legacies of the Ancient World (Fall_2015)

Algreen11 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My edits just went live. Feedback is appreciated :)

Query deletion

Why has my latest addition been reverted? Why aren't they heroes? All right, one of them is technically a heroine. PatGallacher 17:44, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Might it make more sense to seperate the different definitions or types of heroes? This page just seems confusing since it's a conglomeration of so many different definitions (some quite different). It seems that there is a traditional mythological hero, Another type might someone who does outstanding deeds. Another might be roughly equivalent to the protagonist in a story. Glomming all the definitions together just makes for confusion. And then the hero list has all the different senses jumbled together as though they all mean the same thing.

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. 213.114.152.216 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

courage and bravery

"displays courage, bravery or self-sacrifice"

Isn't courage and bravery the same thing in this context?

The Wikipedia page even redirects from Bravery to Courage (at this time), and the page itself says "Courage (also called bravery and bravado)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

--92.21.151.223 (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

About the management of the Heroism, Heroine and Hero pages

Hi everybody, We are gathering right now in the context of the event Heroines organized by Just for the Record. We are discussing about the best way to think about the distinction between the terms hero and heroine. Léonie Butler (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideas for better naming of the articles:

• one general page: Hero(ine)
• one general page: Hero*
• one umbrella term: Heroism, with two sub terms: Heroine and Hero.Glinte (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus during the meeting

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)

Discussion about article scope

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)

Requested move 17 January 2016

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. Cúchullain ^t/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. -- 70.51.44.60 (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. 64.105.98.115 (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.--72.0.200.133 (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.

Phrasing of gender bias issue

The article currently reads:

″As argued by Geneviève Dermenjian, Jacques Guilhaumou and Martine Lapied in Le Panthéon des Femmes Figures et Représentations des Héroines, however, this supposedly gender neutral term in fact carries a strong implicit male bias."

This does not seem like appropriate phrasing. "As argued..." implies that the authors named have an opinion which others may disagree with. But "in fact" implies a fact. The word "supposedly", to my ear, carries a pejorative connotation and an assumption that the argument being described is correct. I do not feel it is necessary to name the title of the book as well as the names of the authors in this case.

Therefore, I suggest rephrasing this sentence in the following way:

″Geneviève Dermenjian, Jacques Guilhaumou and Martine Lapied have argued that this apparently gender neutral usage of the term actually carries an implicit male bias." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C7C:4E00:25ED:A53D:2BD6:A060 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the section because it's poorly cited and not well backed up. Ergzay (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Batman is NOT a superhero by definition

While a Hero per-se, Batman (and Robin) do not possess super- (or otherwise extraordinary powers) that would fit into the Super-Hero genre. While Bruce Wayne (Batman) is wealthy and knowledgeable (skilled too, and Robin also highly skilled), these attributes do not fit with the SuperHero genre. Indeed, this is how they are separate from SuperHeroes. Heroes are regular men and women. 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Superhero says superhuman biology is typical, but some superheroes are merely extraordinary (which I read as exceptionally skilled) or derive power from technology rather than biology. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Missing information about the Jungian archetype

The hero is one of the main Jungian archetypes, but this is not discussed in the article at all. Other Jungian archetypes, like the shadow and the artist-scientist have entire articles dedicated to discussing them as Jungian archetypes. Kaldari (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hero (Greek religion)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hero (Greek religion). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 28#Hero (Greek religion) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"'Heroes'" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 'Heroes'. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#'Heroes' until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)