Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ronald Hutton

I've recently done some research on Ronald Hutton who is sourced in this article multiple times to some controversial statements. Before this, I was under the mistaken assumption he was a neo-Pagan author based on various discussions with others on this page. However, it appears that in addition to Robert Graves, many of you are also unfamiliar with Hutton since none of you bothered to correct me and point out that he is a historian, specifically a Professor of History at the University of Bristol. Anyway, after I did some research, I discovered that his assessment of the neo-Pagan religion has been criticized by both feminists and neo-Pagans. (Feminist Max Dashu and neo-Pagan Wade MacMorrighan, for starters.) In particular, his work has been called "intensely anti-feminist", containing major factual errors, and having a lack of *Skepticism* to the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy. Consequently, I added a sourced sentence to the beginning of this article in order to present a more NPOV with *sources*, as I've been repeatedly asked to do. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about him. If you have general sources attacking him, they belong at Ronald Hutton. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since that is exactly what I said, I'm starting to think that you don't actually read anything that I write, Ricky. Regardless, you don't seem too happy that I've presented some sources, something you've rather persistently requested for me to do. What gives? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job on finding something! Is there any evidence for Max Dashu being a reliable source? Wikipedia doesn't generally accept self published works as being reliable. The source given ([1]) does not even refer to Huttons opinion of Graves, so if it can be shown to be reliable, perhaps we could find a better place in the article for it? --Davémon (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I've moved it to the Goddess Feminism section, because Max Dashu appears to be a Goddess-feminist. Still no idea if s/he is a reliable source on matters of history. --Davémon (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- Two problems: 1.) Do you have a source which states that Max Dashu is a "Goddess Feminist"? As I'm sure you are aware, that is "Original Research";) Perhaps you should consult with Doug or Ricky first, don't you think? In addition, you are violating the very rules to which you hold so dearly. Therefore, it would appear that you think these rules only apply to those who disagree with you. 2.) Your statement that Max Dashu has "attacked scholars who have rejected the idea of an ancient Triple Goddess" is false, Original Research, and reveals your male-chauvinist bias toward this topic. She simply critiqued Hutton's work and this sentence originally reflected a NPOV before you vandalized it. For these reasons, your changes have been reverted. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, the website is not a reliable source. I've also added the rest of the Bromley quote (actually Sarah M Pike) " Many witches and other neo-pagans believe in the "Triple Goddess" of maiden, mother, and crone that originated with the first neo-pagans in mid-twentieth-century England." and that is independent of Hutton. I'll add something by Barbara Jane Davy on Graves and the Crone shortly. And yet more personal attacks I see. Dougweller (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug- Reliable source or not, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT YOU HAVE TURNED A BLIND EYE TO THIS NPOV ISSUE WHEN IT HAPPENED IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND BY DOING SO YOU HAVE PERSONALLY CONDONED DAVEMON'S MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS, QUOTES, AND ADDITION OF A BIASED POV AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT CLEARLY ALTERING INFORMATION AND ADDING ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!! And then I love how you say "It doesn't matter". So what if the source isn't "reliable", YOU ARE STILL INTENTIONALLY IGNORING THE REAL PROBLEM HERE DOUG! AGAIN! In addition, you have yet to explain how Hutton speaks for all academics about the origin of the Triple Goddess. Not to mention, the sentence starting with "The idea of the Triple Goddess predates Wicca..." IS STILL UNSOURCED! (The rules about sourced comments only apply to me, since I'm the one who p!ssed you off, right?) Yes, just keep on ignoring the same two issues, again and again and again and again. And then try to divert attention away from this fact by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks in the above post or try and tell me that I need to add a source yet again, despite the fact I've never previously needed to since I've never actually added any statements to this article before now. It is obvious that you cannot perform the basic functions of a wikipedia administrator. You are a hypocrite who fails to maintain any semblance of objectivity once someone irritates you. And you have no clue about how to maintain a NPOV on this article. Absolutely none whatsoever. Are you even capable of performing your job at all? And FYI- These are not personal attacks. They are all *factual* statements based upon your own behaviour and actions. (Consequently, I'm afraid I'm going to have to recommend your immediate termination, Doug;) tcob44

Sheesh. Dashu is not a quotable source. Hutton certainly isn't above criticism, But since his work is academic, such criticism must also be academic. dab (𒁳) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree with my phrasing, but the statements made aren't false unless they were also false when you originally added them, nontheless, the source isn't reliable. I'm not sure what you meant by "male-chauvanist bias". I am aware there are some highly contested theories that were circulated in the 1970's feminist literature regarding the myth of a goddess-worshiping prehistory, but these ideas have now been generally rejected by both serious feminists (on the grounds of being ideologically unsound) and historians (on the grounds of a lack of evidence). Do you have some reliable sources which report on these Feminist viewpoints in relation to The Triple Goddess? Certainly there are zero grounds that a Feminist POV is the majoritively accepted, and therefore 'neutral' one. Davémon (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- Rejected by "serious feminists" on the grounds of being "ideologically unsound"? So exactly how is the personification of the earth as a Mother Goddess by an agriculturally-oriented culture "ideologically unsound"? In addition, no historian would dismiss this theory because there is no documented evidence for it, simply because the alphabet was discovered after patriarchal religions/cultures had supplanted the agriculturally-oriented, matriarchal ones, hence the lack of documented evidence (a result of a lack of an alphabet in which to produce documents). In addition, most historians are aware of the numerous Venus figurines and ancient statuettes of fertility goddesses from the Neolithic period which the majority of scholars have identified as artifacts of various and widespread matriarchal/matrifocal societies. (BTW- Can you actually *quote* some academic sources that refute these facts, Davemon? And accurately;) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those are exactly the ideas I thought you meant. I would be glad to point you to the The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory for a start on the ideological critique. However, this is not a forum and I am not here to discuss the failings of feminist theology and archaeology, although if you post your email address I'd be happy to contact you on that subject. It's up to you to provide relevance of these ideas to this subject if you want to claim this is the 'neutral' position. If you could provide Feminist sources that specifically reference the subject of the Triple Goddess, then we can get this material into this article. Bye. --Davémon (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- In all my research on this subject, I've never come across any information which gave me the slightest reason to doubt our matriarchal prehistory. And considering that the modern feminist movement is riddled with internal divisions, I know that Cynthia Eller doesn't speak for all feminists, especially the various authors whose books I've read on this subject. Regardless, I'd be interested in you explaining some of her counter-points to me. Therefore, would you like to have a friendly debate on my talk page regarding this subject? Tcob44 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchal Religions

Currently, this article contains the following sentence:

"According to believers, the echoing of a normative model of a woman's life-cycle allows women to identify with the deity in ways unreachable by what they consider to be "patriarchal" religions."

By definition, the word 'patriarchy' means "any system of organisation in which the overwhelming number of upper positions in hierarchies are occupied by males." Accordingly, the religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism are considered to be "patriarchal religions", by definition. (Literally, all of the major religions of the modern world.) Therefore, I think this sentence should simply read:

"According to believers, the echoing of a normative model of a woman's life-cycle allows women to identify with the deity in ways unreachable by patriarchal religions."

Although this change has been made before, it was not discussed prior to being changed and it has been recently stated that identifying these religions patriarchal represents a "fringe viewpoint". Therefore, I'd like to hear some other thoughts from the rest of the editors involved with this subject before any further changes are made. PS- If you are rather surprised at this type of non-antagonistic post by me, as well as a proper signature, please take a look at the discussion in the "Moving Forward and Assuming Good Faith" section of my Talk Page. Currently, I'm trying a New and Improved approach to editing articles that I hope to be more productive and less grueling for all involved. Cheers. Tcob44 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To me, the suggested version reads like "'non-deity-access for women' in patriachy is a 'fact' that is overcome by the normative MMC model". I think we should be reporting the position of believers, not making generalised statements about normative life-cycle models and patriachy. I've attempted a re-write of the source:

"According to believers, patriarchal religions do not allow women to identify with the deity in the way that the echoing of a normative model of a woman's life-cycle does."

As long as it's clear that the criticism of patriachal religions is part of the reported belief, rather than external to it, then it is fine. --Davémon (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your original version of the sentence is better. Especially in regards to the sentence structure. The problem with it is that it sounds kind of uninformed(?) when it states "what they consider to be patriarchal religions", which is exactly what they are. By definition. It makes it sound like we should be suspicious of "what *they* consider to be...", but there is no reason to because they are correct. All the major world religions, even a majority of the minor religions, are patriarchical (even Skeptics, Agnostics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, etc) in the fact that a vast majority of their hierarchies are composed of males. Do you understand that you are reading too much into this factual statement, as well as realize your original sentence is to be preferred? That I am trying to improve upon it with just a minor tweak? Tcob44 (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have explained why I do not find your suggested edit acceptable. The statement is not intended to be a statement of fact but rather a statement of peoples beliefs. If you do not like the phrasing of my attempt at a compromise, then please suggest a new phrasing. Perhaps rather than paraphrasing we should just directly quote the source? that way there is no ambiguity. --Davémon (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current sentence is rather confusing due to its structural problems. Therefore, let's simply state: "Many neo-Pagans and Wiccans believe that the echoing of a normative model of a female life-cycle allows women to identify with the deity in ways unreachable by patriarchal religions." Or this: "Many neo-Pagans and Wiccans believe that women can identify with the deity in ways unreachable by patriarchal religions by echoing a normative model of the female life-cycle." In addition, I fail to see how the original sentence can be construed as a criticism of patriarchal religions. However, even if someone did interpret this as a subtle critique, let's not forget that the foundation of the three monotheistic religions of the West start out with the thorough denigration of both Eve (re: women) and sexual reproduction (re: Original Sin), as described in the beginning of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. Furthermore, according to Genesis, Eve is not imbued with the "breath of life", hence the theological debates during the 16th and 17th centuries over whether or not women actually had souls. Finally, the Covenant with the Lord God is based upon the principle of circumcision, thus technically excluding women. Tcob44 (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

NPPOV Concerns

What happened that this moved from an overview of triple goddesses in a variety of cultures into just being about Wiccan varieties of Neopaganism? The bias of this article has resulted in the articles about triple goddesses in specific cultures being flagged as "not triple goddesses", due to this article, and it looks like the article Triple deities is an attempt to salvage a broad-based meaning. I don't have time to overhaul this right now, but I am quite concerned about the bias here. I propose turning this back into an article about triple goddesses in historical cultures (with mentions of contemporary practice), and if the Wiccan section is very large, splitting that off into Triple Goddess (Wicca). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: This looks to be the edit where the biggest cuts were made. While Davemon and others have done some very good work sourcing, rewriting and cleaning this up, both before and after this change, I don't think we have a workable article here, at least not under this name. Another proposal that would preserve the work editors have done in the past few months would be to move this article to Triple Goddess (Wicca), expand it with more Wiccan stuff, and then rebuild the Triple Goddess article. Either way is a possibility. Note - the reason I am specifying "Wicca" here and not "Neopaganism" is that not all Neopagan religions see triple goddesses through the Wiccan lens. Many of the eclectic ones do, but those are the ones based on Wicca or Neo-Wicca. Reconstructionists and traditionalists (categorized as Neopagans here on WP, even if such groups don't choose the Neopagan label for themselves) do not see it this way. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that we have Triple deities which was originally called Triple goddess (antiquity)? Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have previously shown - the term "Triple Goddess" is predominatly used to mean the modern, Neopagan concept. This usage is the neutral position. Indeed, the term 'triple goddess' comes from outmoded academia, and I doubt any anthropological, comparative mythology or religious-studies source which would be acceptable as a reliable source uses "triple goddess" as an overarching category or blanket term today (so I see no reason why Wikipedia would do this either). Of course, evidence to the contrary is more than welcome! Davémon (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am new to the whole idea of neopaganism.This sounds similar to 'thantric cult' in India. And I find it as neutral as neutral can be, for no one can be really neutral.Ofcourse the balance is tipped against neopaganism.Still for a layman like me this is neutral,'coz after reading this am not hating wiccans,rather want to know more about that.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.72.117 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps Triple Goddess should be a disambig. Otherwise, we'll need to go through a bunch of articles that describe triple goddesses of various cultures, sorry, "triune deities" and change it all, just because lots of Wiccans and their offshoots use this term. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. The majority of use in the English speaking world of the phrase "Triple Goddess" relates to neopaganism and/or Robert Graves pseudo-scholarship, and that is what this article is about. Any mythology or anthropology Wikipedia articles which are applying the term 'triple goddess' as a category in an unsourced or badly sourced manner, need to be changed. I'd gladly help if you can point to any that need fixing. Davémon (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The main issue here is that 'Triple Goddess' is being treated as a proper noun, pointing to the concept now most popular among Wiccans. On the other hand, this ignores the historical 'triple goddesses' - the numerous goddesses that appear in antiquity in groups of three, which are plentiful and very well attested. I do think that 'Triple Goddess' should redirect to a disambiguation linking something like 'Goddesses appearing in threes' and 'Triple Goddess (Wicca)'. I am also unhappy with our current situation. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

These so-called "historical triple goddesses" are not identified as such by reliable sources. As ever, evidence to the contrary from reliable sources is more than welcome! Davémon (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, mind telling me the difference between describing goddesses who appears in threes as "triple goddesses" as opposed to simply "goddesses who appear in threes"? Are you arguing the semantics of "triple" versus "threes"? Note that "triple," as a noun, can mean something three-fold or simply in threes, which is exactly what these goddesses I'm talking about appear as (and where this Wiccan concept originally comes from, for that matter). To illustrate my point, we have an article called Triple deities. Now what would that indicate? Why, 'triple gods' and 'triple goddesses'. Are you somehow arguing that this article can't be split (and in my opinion it needs to be split) into two articles; one called 'triple gods' and 'triple goddesses'? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Davémon, I have to say I think you are arguing from a POV. If you want reliable sources for non-Wiccan citations of Triple Goddesses, here are a few for The Morrígan:

• Sjoestedt, Marie-Louise. Celtic Gods and Heroes. Dover Publications. pp. 31–32. ISBN 0-486-41441-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• O hOgain, Daithi (1991). Myth, Legend and Romance: An Encyclopedia of the Irish Folk Tradition. Oxford: Prentice Hall Press. pp. 307–309. ISBN 0-13-275959-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Davidson, Hilda Ellis (1988). Myths and symbols in pagan Europe: early Scandinavian and Celtic religions. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. p. 97. ISBN 0-8156-2441-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• MacKillop, James (1998). Dictionary of Celtic mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 335–336. ISBN 0-19-280120-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The same books will also support Brigid as a Triple Goddess as well (although on different pages.) And these are just Celtic mythology books near to hand at the moment.

What I typically see in WP articles is generality granulating down to specificity, then often into breakaway articles as sections become developed and too large for the original article. What we have here is broad concept/category (triple goddess) being expressed as if the only pertained to Wicca. This is hardly an encyclopedic approach to my mind. I'd recommend something like what Kathryn suggested above: rename this article to Triple Goddess (Wicca), reinstate a more generalized overview of triple Goddesses with sections for significant cultural/mythological expressions. Those sections can be broken out for stand-alone articles as they grow or become unwieldy. I'm not in favor of a disambig page because I think it's unnecessary. To say that one specific type of Triple Goddess (the Wiccan version) is the default strikes me as POV pushing. My opinion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What is POV pushing, and OR, is claiming that an appellation somehow equates to a category of deities. The word 'triple' is applied to the individual deities Brigid, Matres, Hekate and many others. This is not the same thing as a reiable source saying these are all belonging to a family of 'triple goddesses'. This is wp:syn at best, and wp:or at worst. There is absolutely no need for an article that collates all these things, the individual articles are the logical place to discuss the triple nature of the deities in question. As ever, sources which actually directly support the existance of a category as you suggest, and do not meerly mention triplism in relation to single deities would be welcome. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Davémon, I understand if you don't have the books I listed above at hand to look at the specific references but you're being very disingenuous to claim that other historic instances of triple goddesses are somehow invalid or not really triple goddesses. It's a little like saying God==Jehovah because all other gods aren't really gods.

The New Theogony: mythology for the real world By Maria Maddalena Colavito, p25: "Every ancient culture revered the goddess in her triple manifestations. In India, she was Kali-Ma; the Druids called her "Diana triformis"; in ancient Etruria, she was "Uni" (a cognate of Yoni); in Egypt she was called "Isis."" I'd call that a categorical grouping. And this is hardly a unique quote. That's the point: the term "Triple Goddess" is not unique to one specific instance or religion. It's hardly synthesis when whole books have been devoted to the subject of triple goddesses across many cultures in history.

Like bloodofox, I think this article and its branches need to be rethought. Playing semantic games is not helpful in doing so. Pigman☿/talk 18:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that hard to find sources that claim a "Triple Goddess" is found across many cultures in history. However, I doubt that current academic literature about comparative mythology/religion makes this claim--there's usually a huge gap between academic perspectives on mythology and non-academic ones. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agreed. Davémon (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no claim towards the Morrigan, Brigid, Hekate, et. al. not being identified as triple. The point I'm making is that calling various things 'triple' does not a category or 'subject' make.

We obviously differ on what constitutes a wp:reliable source in the feild of mythology. Maria Colavito is a Jungian oriented philosopher, not a historian nor an anthropologist nor is she an academic in the field of comparative mythology. Her work on myth is intentionally interpretative, not analytical. You will note that even in the quotation given, that she is assuming there actually exists a "triple goddess" who "manifests", this is a statement of belief, not a statement of academic opinion. I was not previously aware of her, and will to incorporate her writings into this article in the psych section, unless you'd like to do so. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is against WP naming conventions to take an article was a broad, multicultural overview and rewrite it to be only about one of the possible cultural or sub-cultural forks of that topic. I see no consensus or policy that indicates that a Neopagan subset should take priority over a broad historical concept. It would be equally inappropriate for Triple Goddess to be just about triple goddesses in Hinduism, with a note like: This article is about the triple goddess in Hinduism. For other interpretations see Other triple deities in a bunch of other cultures. WP policy is to start general and then fork off the subsets when they get large enough to deserve their own article. While the work that was done to flesh out the Wiccan subset is notable, and can be preserved under Triple Goddess (Wicca), WP naming conventions support Triple Goddess as the overview of historical and contemporary triple goddesses. The section on Triple Goddess in Wicca can include a brief summation, with a "see main" to the Triple Goddess (Wicca) article. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'broad, historical subset' which is recognised by contemporary academics in the field. There are certainly deities that have significant relationships to the number 3, but there is no recognised subset of deities recognised as 'Triple Goddesses'. It is purely POV pushing, based on non-academic sources, to claim that the phrase 'triple goddess' has a broader application than it's neopagan origins. Davémon (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not just the concept but also the phrase "Triple Goddess" is used outside neopaganism and does not have neopagan origins. Just search "triple goddess" in googlebooks and you'll see most of the first books like The triple goddess: an exploration of the archetypal feminine and Goddess as nature: towards a philosophical thealogy talk about it in a general sense and the examples they give are usually from Greek, Celtic etc mythology, not from Wicca. Munci (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Theaology is a term from neo-paganism, also known as Goddess Feminism or the Goddess Movement - both of which are dealt with in this article. You're right, it's not just "Wicca", but several 20th century neo-paganisms, all influenced by Robert Graves (who is not taken seriously by the academy as a historian), and some influenced by Wicca. You'll note that the Google Books results are not academic sources, but are popularist 'new age' works. Certainly we can describe these beliefs in a neutral way, as this article currently attempts. However, Wikipedia should not be repeating the errors of these non-academic sources. Davémon (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the efforts to reword this to be about "Neopaganism" as the article is written through a Wiccan lens. Wicca is only one branch of Neopaganism. The article doesn't need to be overhauled to see other traditions through the Wiccan lens, it just needs to be renamed for what it is. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded the disambig to: "This article is about the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype in Wicca and some related belief systems. For other triple goddesses see Triple deity". The issue is not to change this article to "include" Neopagan traditions that don't employ this concept, but to acknowledge this is not an ancient goddess or something that is accepted across Neopaganism in general. While I still believe this should be moved to Triple Goddess (Wicca), I am willing to remove the POV flag if the article does not try to apply this concept to traditions that reject it, or never had anything to do with it in the first place.

I see no consensus here for having this article be named Triple Goddess, as many use this link/phrasing to indicate historical triple Goddesses. Therefore, I would like to take a straw poll on renaming this Triple Goddess (Wicca). - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't written through a 'wiccan lens' - reliable sources tend to focus on Wicca as it is the largest and most recognisable Neopagan faith, rather than the full plethora of neopagan belief systems. The article simply reflects this. As it stands, I agree with your phrasing, but don't agree with the use of the word 'archetype' - this is a non-neutral and rather obscure term, 'deity' is better. (edit) I would prefer it if we could cite other Neopagan religions Triple Goddess models in this article, if reliable, independant, secondary or tertiary sources can be found for them. Davémon (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Poll

Should this article be renamed Triple Goddess (Wicca) (or something else that indicates it is a modern archetype and not about historical Goddesses who have been depicted as triplicities. Maybe Triple Goddesss (Maiden Mother Crone). Please just weigh in briefly, and keep long threads above. Thanks :-)

• Support renaming. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do NOT rename to anything with "Wicca" in the title, since the modern Triple Goddess concept was not invented by Wiccans, is not practiced by Wiccans exclusively, and from what I can tell is not really a core essential Wiccan belief... AnonMoos (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about putting something about Maiden, Mother, Crone in the title? Did you look at this diff:[2]? This is what I'm trying to fix, either through changing this article or, what I feel would preserve Dave's work, just renaming it. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm too greatly impressed with Davemon's overall work on this article, and I don't see why this article can't contain both the modern concept and also the ancient mythologies or iconographies which partly inspired the modern concept, as long as everything is kept properly distinct... AnonMoos (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrase "Triple Goddess" is used in the vast majority of both popular and academic sources to refer precisely to the concepts outlined in the article. To limit this content to just 'Wicca', thereby losing out on the Goddess Movement, literary criticism and fiction would be unencyclopedic. Adding MMC or anything else is just obfuscation. Davémon (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I support a fork that results into a split. The links would look this this:

1. A link to the concept popularized by Graves and now modernly overwhelmingly associated with Wicca.
2. Historical goddesses who appear in threes, which shouldn't just be lumped into triple deities (a name which necessitates the term "triple goddess" as applied to historical goddesses who appear in threes).

The current article is a terrible hack job. Like it or note, the term "triple deity" necessitates—and directly implies—the term "triple goddess" (and a "triple god," for that matter). This is not a term that Graves and Wicca can claim as their own. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not "overwhelmingly associated with Wicca"[sic] (unless perhaps among some whose knowledge of the subject tends toward the partial or superficial). And the term "fork" actually has rather negative connotations in a Wikipedia policy context... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Graves' concept is, indeed, overwhelmingly held by Wiccans and is quite frequently associated with Wicca (do a Google books search and see how many Wiccan hits you immediately get), and, of course, Graves fans (support for Graves' dubious theories in academia is lacking—See Hilda Davidson's criticism at The_White_Goddess#Criticism for an example, which I added some time ago). There are also scant pop culture references due to Graves' influence. Of course, like you, I oppose that this article be renamed to something with "Wicca" in the title, as Graves himself had no involvement with Wicca and certainly stands on his own.

Now, a different notion of 'triple goddesses', that is to say 'goddesses that appear in threes' in polytheism, cannot be questioned. It's pretty commonly attested. That's the very problem we're having here. A "triple goddess" can just outright refer to a goddess who appears in threes or goddesses that frequently appear in trios. That's why this needs to be a fork or, if you have a problem with the obvious usage of the word fork in this context, a disambiguation page. I disagree with handling them all together on the same page. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It may possibly be "overwhelmingly held by Wiccans" but that's quite different from "overwhelmingly associated with Wiccans". Not sure what much of the rest of your rant is about, but Graves never claimed to be competing in the realm of academia, so criticizing him for not being a proper academic is extremely pointless. Graves has no discernible "pop culture" influence (unless perhaps in a limited way through I Claudius), but during the late 1940's, and for at least a decade afterwards, he was the only real semi-prominent figure publicly exploring a goddess spirituality, and so he has had a certain degree of influence (even if somewhat diffuse) on a number of subsequent formulations of goddess spirituality...

To inform yourself about what "fork" actually means in a Wikipedia context, see WP:POVFORK -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so what you're saying is that you're a Graves fan. That puts things into perspective. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- I know something about his writings, but I do not make inappropriately grandiose claims for him; however, I also see very little point in denigrating him for not being something which he never claimed to be or wanted to be, nor in ignoring the fact that his contribution in this area was prior to that of Wiccans... Calling me a "fan" is really quite simplistic, and serves no useful purpose in the context of trying to improve the Triple Goddess article. AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support renaming; suggest Triple Goddess in Neopaganism. If Triple Goddess as covering the overall triple-goddess topic, with subsections for "in antiquity" vs "in Neopaganism", would be too long, as I suspect it might, then it should at least become a disambiguation page. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Building

A poll is obviously a too-simple mechanism for achieving consensus. What I'd like to to is to briefly outline the positions of the main protagonists, and talk about how we can accommodate those positions within the guidelines of wikipedia.

1. Thesis: TG is a broad category of multicultural historical female deities that appears as three.
   Antithesis: This definition does not appear in academic sources, only popular/poetic/new-age sources, and thus is unencyclopedic. We can talk 'about' wp:fringe theories, but not repeat their organising principles. Saying several different things are 'triple', does not make a category. Collecting random things called 'triple' is wp:or /wp:syn.
2. Thesis: TG is the poetic invention of Robert Graves, and the article should focus on his artistic intentions and the reception and literary influence of his work.
   Anithesis The meaning has gone beyond Graves initial intentions, and these are no longer the most relevant concepts in this area, wp:due.
3. Thesis: TG is central to the Wiccan faith.
   Antithesis: TG is not central to the Wiccan faith.
4. Thesis: TG is (a deity / category of deities) in a multitude of neopaganisms and each of these should be represented and/or the broad statements should be balanced against these, and Wicca should not dominate the definition of TG.
   Antithesis, Wikipedia is not the place for extreme-minority views, the TG is primarily Wicca and wicca-influenced neopaganisms. Definitions from other neopaganisms are not reported in reliable sources and are too minor to be held significant wp:due.

I hope I have managed to summarise most of the positions in a neutral manner, if anyone would like to redefine or add to these thesis/antithesis pairs, that would be great. After everyone agrees that these broadly describe the positions held, I think the next step would be to find support for the thesis statements in wp:reliable sources and add this content to the article! If eventually any of this content gets moved, renamed, split, forked or whatever, at least we'd all be constructing a better encyclopedia, within WP guidelines rather than just arguing our own opinions. Thanks! Davémon (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I really don't see how upholding any one of the "theses" or "antitheses" in a simplistic form will lead to the improvement of this article. We can fully acknowledge that historical mythological triads of female supernatural beings are part of the relevant background of the modern Triple Goddess concept while also acknowledging that the modern concept has some features which are distinct from those of its historical precursors. We can acknowledge that Graves was the main 20th-century originator, while also admitting that when some of his ideas were partially taken up by pagans and/or spiritually-oriented radical feminists beginning ca. 1970, they naturally underwent further development. We can acknowledge that Wiccans are among the most publicly-prominent adherents to some form of a Triple-Goddess idea, without making this into a Wicca-only article (which would be completely inappropriate in a number of ways).

I have confidence in our ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, and see no reason to only walk or only chew gum... AnonMoos (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The statement "The Triple Goddess is the Wiccan deity" is simply factually false for mainstream traditional Wicca (or whatever you might want to call it), as far as I can tell. AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response AnonMoos. The thesis statements are not meant to contradict one another, or be held as exclusively correct. The thesis and their opposites are just the POVs various editors seem to be holding. I agree, it is really a task of balancing these different thesis in the article by giving them due wp:weight, providing they are substantiated via reliable sources. Davémon (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the revised wording of #3, recognition of a goddess is certainly central to Wiccanism, but was a triple goddess part of Wicca as practised by Gardiner, or is that a later synthesis? AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe it stems from Alexandrian Wicca. Sources tend to just say Wicca, and not worry about the fine divisions between denominations. Davémon (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, the operational definition of "core essential doctrine" is that if you don't hold to belief X, then the majority of members of group Y will not consider you to be a "real" fellow-member of group Y. For Wicca, the belief in a goddess as one of two major divine principles certainly qualifies, but the interpretation of this goddess as a triple goddess may not be so essential (especially if it doesn't occur in the works of the original founder). AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is fundamentally about identity forming, differentation, and some notions of 'authenticity'. In Wicca there are many different groups, each with their own 'creative' take on the subject. In both Dianic Wicca, and Alexandrian Wicca, the Triple Goddess is a central figure. Here's an example from an Alexandrian (actually Alex's wife, Janet), the author being one of the founders of this movement makes this a primary source:[[3]] which also notes the indebtedness to Robert Graves. I also dug up this secondary source: [[4]]. Add to that the countless numbers of popular sources which equate the TG with the female aspect of the generic Wiccan divinity. Would you be willing and able to work some of this material into the article? Might improve my "hatchet job" somewhat :-) Davémon (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have any deep knowledge on Wicca and its various sub-groupings, only some more general background knowledge which provides a useful context for evaluating the plausibility of certain claims made about Wicca or by some Wiccans. I don't know that I have great enthusiasm to resume editing on this article, since in the past you've uniformly slapped down all my edits on things which I do have detailed specific knowledge about... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to "slap down" your work. All I'm interested in is that material is properly sourced. I understand you have detailed knowledge, but to add that information to WP you need to refer it to a reliable source.Davémon (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was very distinctly less than impressed when, after I happened to mention that my main contribution to the article had been to add images, you immediately all of a sudden started going after the images in a major way, apparently as some kind of petty revenge against me for having challenged your edits on other matters. AnonMoos (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise for giving you that impression. The removal of the images was purely because their relation to the subject matter was not cited. If you can find any images that are related to the Triple Goddess by reliable sources, please do add them back in to the article. Davémon (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I have very little confidence that anything positive on a large-scale will be accomplished on this article as long as you're the main guiding force behind it, and only real reason I came back to this talk page for a limited time was to prevent the article from being renamed to an inappropriate name... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we've managed to stop the minority view renaming. All I ask is that encyclopedic content be verifiable, neutral and relevant. Not sure why anyone would have a problem with that. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'Single article' approach

If we can't agree on a disambiguation page, perhaps we ought to go with a single article covering the development of the notion of "triple goddesses" from antiquity and into modern belief systems, bringing out separate sections for each step of the development, some pointing to larger "main" articles, such as for "Goddesses appearing in threes" in antiquity, which could very well just be a well-referenced list. Roughly, I propose that the article look something like:

1. Antiquity
2. Pre- and post-Graves notions
3. Neopaganism

Thoughts, comments? :bloodofox: (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that information under all of those headings can be useful for this article. However, I'm not really sure what would fall under "pre-Graves notions" and be specifically-relevant to this article. A few months back, I did a little research on Jane Ellen Harrison, who has been claimed to be one of the main precursors to Graves, and from what I could tell the resemblance in detail between her formulations in this area and those of Graves was rather small.. AnonMoos (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also pretty unfamiliar with these pre-Graves notions of triple goddesses, but I am willing to wager that, prior to Graves, theories were put forward and who knows what else (like "in the 1765, Deadus Scholarus proposed that goddesses appear in antiquity in trios because.."). I think it would benefit the article to explore what led up to Graves, so we could have a solid narrative of the history of 'triple goddesses' from antiquity into modern neopaganism. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"a solid narrative of the history of 'triple goddesses' from antiquity into modern neopaganism" would be entirely wp:or, there is no continuum, and is historically quite naive as it denies the fact that history is a constructed narrative rather an a simple 'sequence of events in time' as proposed here. The article could talk more at length about the antique sources Robert Graves and the Neopagans use, that would be more encyclopedic. I suggest:

1. Neopaganism
   1. Outline of Neopagan concepts
   2. Neopagan sources and their interpretation of them
   3. Critique of Neopagan historical methodology / conclusions from academia
2. Robert Graves
   1. Outline of Graves concepts
   2. Graves sources and his interpretation of them
   3. Critique of Graves historical methodology / conclusions from academia

This should be reasonably trivial to find reliable sources for especially if we have Graves experts, plus it gives the notion of "'antique' triple goddesses" in it's proper context(s). As stated many, many times "Triple Goddess" in the majority of its use today in the English language is in discussing the Neopagan concept - and that is what people will be expecting the article to be about. A simple set of Google searches on Books, Scholar and Web will overwhelmingly show the current use of the term. Other uses are fringy. Davémon (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the Neopagan concept chronologically follows Robert Graves's concept (and arguably derives from it), shouldn't Graves be put first in that list? Sizzle Flambé (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source that says there were "'triple goddesses' in antiquity", not that just points out that discreet, individual goddesses happen to have triple characteristics. That would help support your proposed structure. Othwerwise it's just encouraging wp:or and pseudoscholarship. Davémon (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, are you seriously arguing that a "triple goddess" isn't the same as "goddesses that appear in threes," and, in fact, "triple deities? They are the exact same thing. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously arguing that you need to find a source to support your position as per wp:RS, WP:V and WP:OR.Davémon (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that non-answer as a "yes." This is absurd. I am not interested in going in circles with why you somehow claim that a "triple goddess" is not a "triple deity." I've also lost interest in trying to improve this article in the face of your lawyering to keep this article solely about Graves and Wicca. Count me out. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have any sources then that's fine. FWIW I'm totally unsure to what a "triple deity" pertains to. Seems to be some totally made up category.Davémon (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For a male example: Trimurti, the Hindu "trinity" of Brahmā, Vishnu, and Śiva. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, and there is the Celtic Brigid, Hekate, the Christian Trinity, Demuzils proto-european musings, etc. etc. but collecting random things that have a relation to the number 3 isn't a sensible organising principle, which is why it is totally unsupported in reliable sources. It's trivial at best and complete nonsense at worst. Davémon (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So you do clearly know "what a 'triple deity' pertains to" after all. You know the category exists, you just personally think it's not sensible. Isn't that the flip side of "original research"? That your own dislike should negate the recognition of a whole category, even indicated by long-standing terms (Trinity, Trimurti, Trivia, Diva Triformis)?

On whether it's "sensible" vs "trivial" or "nonsense", take that up with C.G. Jung, as quoted: "Triads of gods appear very early, at the primitive level. The archaic triads in the religions of antiquity and of the East are too numerous to be mentioned here. Arrangement in triads is an archetype in the history of religion, which in all probability formed the basis of the Christian Trinity." (A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity)

Reference to that category is not "original research". Denying its existence is the idiosyncrasy here. — Sizzle Flambé (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jungs area of expertise was psychology, not history or mythology. His definitions are fine for psychology articles dealing with his theories, but nobody organises historical, religious or mythological materials around his 'archetype' theory. Davémon (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody? Not Joseph Campbell, not Mircea Eliade, not Karl Kerényi? On what "original research" do you base the claim "Nobody"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and two of the sections you have linked to are totally unsourced. Further, each of the examples you have given are not without controversy, they do not form the mainstream of academia in these matters. If you would like to add sourced content about Triple Goddesses from Campbell, Kerényi or Eliade to the Jung/Psychology section that would be very constructive. Davémon (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliade was a historian of religion, not a psychologist. In his Encyclopedia of Religion, vol.6 p.251 (of the 1987 edition), the Hekate entry observes: "Hesiod represents her as a threefold goddess with a share in earth, sea, and starry heavens...." — another case of a secondary source citing a primary source. Where is your source denying (not simply not-mentioning) that triplicity? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying the "threefold". What I'm saying is that the phrase "Triple Godddess" is actually not being used, which your example perfectly illustrates. "Triple Godddess" has connotations that contemporary scholarship will intentionally avoid, so we simply won't find examples of its use. Davémon (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Threefold is a synonym of Triple.
• Your "will intentionally avoid" is mind-reading, unless you can cite that "intention".
• "Won't find examples of its use"? But did, e.g. David R. West's Some Cults of Greek Goddesses and Female Daemons of Oriental Origin (1995), in Chapter Four - The Goddess Hecate. The index entry "Hecate", sub-entry "the triple goddess" gives six occurrences, which hardly seems an "intentional avoidance". (He also uses the terms "triple form" and "triad"; it appears the only thing being "avoided" there is repetition.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

File:HecateDieuxAntiques.gif

Hecate is triple in herself; Diana "is addressed by Horace as diva triformis ('three-form goddess')", as already noted at Triple_deity#Classical_Antiquity. Both have been addressed as Trivia. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's hard to understand what Davemon means. Some goddesses appear in trios in antiquity, but the maiden-mother-crone archetype is a modern interpretation of such trios. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Kore/Persephone/Proserpina, the abducted maiden. Demeter/Ceres, her grieving and questing mother. Hecate/Trivia, the crone who aids the search. Applying the "maiden-mother-crone archetype" to all "triple goddesses" may be a false generalization, but it fits this trio. Denying that, and asserting its strict modernity, would also be a false generalization. Clearly the "maiden-mother-crone" triplicity is a subset of "triple goddesses", and has been since long before "modern" times.

Likewise, this article (with its current emphasis on Neopaganism's Triple Goddess) discusses only a subset of triple goddesses, which is not what I for one expected from the title. I think Triple Goddess should either discuss or disambiguate the (entire/overall/general/inclusive) triple-goddess topic, with either subsections or links to subsets for "in antiquity" vs "in Neopaganism".

... Though where does that division leave current and long-standing religions like Hinduism? Sizzle Flambé (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of wp:original research. Is any of this theory even remotely verifiable? Davémon (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What "theory"? "Kore" means "maiden", Demeter was her mother, etc. Have you read the linked articles? Sizzle Flambé (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, 4 "theories". 1)That the MMC 'archetype' fits Prosperina/Demeter/Hekate. 2)The MMC is a "subset" of a broader category of "triple goddesses" 3) "Triple goddesses" are a pre-modern concept. 4) Hinduism contains "triple goddesses". Cheers. Davémon (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Already addressed above, twice now. 2) Follows if there are non-MMC triple goddesses, otherwise it would be the same set. 3) See the pictures above; they were there before you posted this. 4) For instance the Tridevi, the three wives of the Trimurti, "(goddesses in their own right): Shakti (also known as Paarvathi, Ambicaa) the goddess of courage and power, Lakshmi the goddess of all forms of wealth, and Saraswati the goddess of learning." Sizzle Flambé (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read [wp:rs] and [wp:v]. It means you have to find someone else (specifically, an expert in the field) who has written these theories first. Just proposing your own theories and claim ing they are 'self evident' is not what wikipedia is for. Davémon (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So even the existence of the Tridevi you call a "theory" and credit to me? I'm flattered, but no. It far predates me and the whole "modern era". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I never wrote that, please don't misrepresent my position, it's highly discourteous. You have been asked for sources for specific unfounded opinions you have put forward. If you actually want to have your POVs included in the article, you will need to provide sources. Davémon (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

removed text

I removed the following text from the article:

Sir William Smith's 1849 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology says that, Hecate "being as it were the queen of all nature, we find her identified with Demeter...; and as a goddess of the moon, she is regarded as the mystic Persephone." Persephone's cognomen Kore means "maiden", and Demeter is her mother. Wiccan author D.J. Conway includes "Demeter's trinity with Kore-Persephone and Hecate" in her discussion of the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype.

This is an instance of original synthesis. This text uses Smith's 1849 Dictionary and the 1911 Britannica to say that Hecate/Demeter/Persephone are a form of the Triple Goddess, but, as discussed extensively above, those sources do not make that claim. D.J. Conway makes that claim, but in 1994. The purpose of citing her here seems to be to connect the dots that the 1911 Britannica doesn't, and assemble Hecate, Demeter, and Persephone into a trinity. Now, I do think that Conway ought to be cited in the article, but in a section on modern claims of H/D/P as the Triple Goddess, not in a section on "Pre-Graves goddess threesomes". (Also, if that section is retained, the title should be rethought, it sounds...unwholesome.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I put the Conway ref into the "Neopaganism" section: [5]. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR: These were direct and referenced quotes from published secondary/tertiary sources, no "synthesis" involved. If you draw conclusions from them, well, you're not the first to do so, as Graves and Conway show. But I didn't assert those conclusions myself in the article. Nor, if I had, would they have been "original" with me. WP:OR says, "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." As the article topic is the Wiccan deity, and this same Wiccan book by D.J. Conway had already been cited in this article without protest (thus being accepted as WP:rs), I believe I would have satisfied that criterion by citing her here. Back they go. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but Conways argument is post-Gravesian, not pre-Gravsian and is taking place within a discussion of neopaganism. Reporting her argument out of context makes no sense. Davémon (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is on the topic of neopaganism's (including Wicca's) concept of a Triple Goddess. The Classical-era goddesses Demeter, Persephone, and Hecate long predate Graves and Gardner, but Wiccans like Conway have adopted them too. The "synthesis" involved is characteristic of Wicca, which is a synthesized religion. Reporting such syntheses is not the same as committing them, let alone "originally". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, other Wiccans (calling their version "Hindu Wicca") have adopted the Tridevi as their version of the Triple Goddess. Feel free to tell them they can't or mustn't. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does need to properly report the neopagan / Gravesian context(s) via reliable sources, or else it does commit the same synthesis. Attributing the " Hecate/Demeter/Persephone are a form of the Triple Goddess" argument to Conway in the neopaganism section is the right move. Davémon (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

question at WT:CGR

I took the question of whether a translation is a primary or secondary source to the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome#Are_translations_primary_or_secondary_sources.3F. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

While the Neopagan/Wiccan deity is hogging the article "Triple Goddess" all to herself, linked references in other articles (e.g. Demeter, Frigg, Chía) to "triple goddess" are being misdirected here, since they mean the general sense and not the Neopagan deity. In order to remedy that problem during this stalemate, I've created "Triple goddess (disambiguation)" and am now starting to re-link all the non-Neopagan articles to there. This isn't how things should be, it's just better than how things have been. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-linked: Demeter, Frigg, Chía (goddess), Westeros, Monotheism, Brigadoon, Brigid, Zorya, The Morrigan, Anann, Macha, Dea Matrona, Les Lavandières, Nordwestblock, Celtic pantheon. Again, this wouldn't have been necessary if the linked article had retained its original topic. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just link the articles to Triple deity? None of the articles are using "Triple Goddess" in the contemporary sense of the phrase at all. Davémon (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Contemporary sense"? Do you mean "Neopagan/Wiccan sense"? Because it's surely in a "contemporary sense" that Demeter has:

According to Robert Graves, Persephone is not only the younger self of Demeter, she is in turn also one of three guises of Demeter as the Triple Goddess. The other two guises are Kore (the younger one, signifying green young corn, the maiden) and Hecate (the elder of the three, the harvested corn, the crone) with Demeter in between,...

That refers to Graves's Triple Goddess archetype, but not to the Neopagan/Wiccan deity. The problem is that the formerly linked article "Triple Goddess" has been changed to refer solely to the Neopagan/Wiccan deity, excluding all other Triple Goddesses. Meanwhile, "Triple deity" isn't discussing Graves's ideas. So now there is no article about that archetype as applied to ancient goddesses — which was Graves's topic, as he was not discussing Wicca. The disambig page is the closest we've got. Better would be to have this article cover the archetype, and "Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)" or "Triple Goddess (Wicca)" cover the Neopagan/Wiccan deity, but that option's being blocked. So the disambig page isn't the best option, merely the best available right now. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean contemporary sense. Robert Graves and his ideas are already covered in this article. The disambiguation page is muddying the waters - just pointing the links to triple deity is the simplest and best solution. Davémon (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Robert Graves and his ideas are already covered in this article", but this article itself now explicitly states: "This article is about the deity in Wicca and related Neopagan belief systems" — which takes the topic away from ancient, non-Wiccan, non-Neopagan goddesses, and makes linking here no longer appropriate for Demeter et al. Meanwhile, Triple deities does not discuss "Robert Graves and his ideas", which was the point of Demeter's link. Thus neither of these two articles fits the need now. The disambig page is only an attempt to fill the gap left by Wicca's usurpation of the topic. I agree that's an imperfect solution. Worse would be to not fill the gap at all. Better would be to restore this article to the whole "Triple Goddess" topic, and have the specifically Wiccan deity only as either a subsection or a separate "Triple Goddess (Wicca)" article. Will you allow that, or block it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Triple Goddess#Origins discusses Graves and his theory. The reason why wikipedia does not follow his theory is explained (with sources) there. You are mistaken that there is a gap or a need to be filled, Graves theories are completely rejected by contemporary scholars. Wikipedia talks about fringe theories, not reproduce them. If the disambig page you have constructed is intended to support a Gravesian view of the Triple Goddess it is damaging to the project by pushing out-dated and totally debunked pseudo-scholarship onto wikipedia. This article does cover the whole of the Triple Goddess subject as it is covered by reliable sources. What it does not do is uncritically repeat the rejected, pseudo-scholarship of Graves or put together [wp:or|original research] based on popularist sources as you seem to be intent on doing. Davémon (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Triple Goddess#Origins discusses Graves and his theory", but now only in the context of "the deity in Wicca and related Neopagan belief systems" — a change that makes the pre-existing links from Demeter et al. no longer appropriate. The right fix, the proper fix, would be to restore this article so that it discusses Graves's ideas without being limited to the Wiccan context, so that Demeter et al. could link here; and to make the Wiccan deity either a subsection or a separate page. But that fix is being blocked, so a work-around is needed. If we can end the usurpation, the work-around becomes unnecessary.

As for your personal accusation that I am "uncritically repeating the rejected, pseudo-scholarship of Graves" — how? By the act of linking to existing articles? That's all I'm doing in article-space. As for "original research", you have "originally" disputed what secondary sources say, offering no evidence for your side of that dispute, but asserting the absence of evidence for the other side... and I've merely shown that such evidence isn't absent, from both primary and secondary sources, to rebut your denial. Your unsupported assertions aren't "original research", only because you had no research at all to support them. But "original unresearched assertions" are surely even worse. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that Demeter is actually considered to be a Triple Goddess by reliable sources? It's not up to me to provide evidence that you are wrong, it's up to you to provide evidence that you are right. You have provided no evidence from reliable sources at all that historical goddesses are considered to be "Triple Goddess" by contemporary scholarship. What more needs to be said about Graves than it 1) is influential among popularist/neopagan writers and 2) his idea has been totally debunked as being pseudo-history? In what other contexts other than loosely defined neopaganism is the Triple Goddesss actually discussed? Certainly not in a serious historical or anthropological or mythological one. The disambiguation page is based on your own opinions and research, not that of experts in the field, it is damaging to the project by promoting ideas that are rejected by academia and more confusing than useful. Further, I do not hold that the TG is a soley Wiccan concept, and until the POV-pushing of certain other editors the article made no such claims. Davémon (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to claim there's no documentation after it's been posted and then deleted. Prior version of this article:

Modern interpretations

The term Triple Goddess was popularised by poet and scholar Robert Graves, in his "work of poetic imagination," The White Goddess (1948). Graves believed that an archetypal goddess triad occurred throughout Indo-European mythology. He was not the originator of this theory; it appears as a recurrent theme in the "Myth and Ritual" school of classical archaeology at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, among scholars concerned with the ritual purposes of myths. The "Myth and Ritual" school is often associated with Cambridge University and with Oxford University in England.

The theme of the goddess trinity can also be found in the works of Jane Ellen Harrison, A.B. Cook, George Thomson, Sir James Frazer, Robert Briffault and Jack Lindsay. The Triple Goddess mytheme was also explored by psychologists involved in the study of archetypes Carl Kerenyi, Erich Neumann, and even Carl Jung.

One of the most recent of archaeologists to explore this theme was the late Professor Marija Gimbutas whose studies on the Chalcolithic period of Old Europe (6500-3500 B.C.E.) have opened up entirely new avenues of research. Gimbutas was a prominent supporter of the view that in ancient Europe, the Aegean and the Near East, a great Triple Goddess was worshipped, predating the patriarchal religions imported by nomadic speakers of Indo-European languages (later superseded by patriarchal monotheism). Gimbutas interpreted artefacts from neolithic (and earlier) Europe as evidence of worship of a triple goddess of (1) death (represented as a "stiff nude", bird of prey or poisonous snake), (2) birth and fertility (represented by a mother-figure) and of (3) regeneration (represented by a moth, butterfly or bee, or alternatively by a symbol of the uterus or fetus, such as a frog, hedgehog or bulls head.) This goddess persisted into Classical times as Gaia (the Greek Earth Mother), and the Roman Magna Mater, among others. That such a Great Goddess existed is disputed by authors such as Cynthia Eller and Philip G. Davis.

The first and third aspects of the goddess, according to Gimbutas, were frequently conflated to make a goddess of death-and-regeneration represented in folkore by such figures as Baba Yaga. Gimbutas regarded the Eleusinian Mysteries, with which this view is highly compatible, as a survival into classical antiquity of this ancient goddess worship

The publication of the complete texts of the magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt provide exhaustive examples of the imagery usually wrongly ascribed to Graves' imagination. In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirae, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses:

... they call You Hekate,

Many-named, Mene, cleaving Air just like

Dart-shooter Artemis, Persephone,

Shooter of Deer, night shining, triple-sounding,

Triple-headed, triple-voiced Selene

Triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked,

And Goddess of the Triple Ways, who hold

Untiring Flaming Fire in Triple Baskets,

And You who oft frequent the Triple Way

And rule the Triple Decades...

She is variously described within the one poem as young, bringing light to mortals ... Child of Morn, as Mother of All, before whom gods tremble, and as Goddess of Dark, Quiet and Frightful One who has her meal amid the graves. She is exalted as the supreme goddess of time and space,

...Mother of Gods

And Men, and Nature, Mother of All Things...

...Beginning

And End are You, and You Alone rule All.

For All Things are from You, and in You do

All Things, Eternal One, come to their End.

The Greek Magical Papyri reveal elements of the culture of Greco-Roman Egypt that were drawn not only from Classical and Egyptian tradition but also from earlier cultures such as those of Mesopotamia and the Near East. The triplicity of the Goddess in these texts is a recurrent theme.

This imagery was well-known to those with a Classical education and continued in poetry throughout English history. A case in point is the Garland of Laurell by the English poet, John Skelton (c. 1460 - June 21, 1529):

Diana in the leavës green,

Luna that so bright doth sheen,

Persephone in Hell.

(Bolding added for emphasis.) Now you may consider none of these sources authoritative for the purpose of "proving" that the Triple Goddess "really was" such-and-such, but that's not the point. The article only needs to report that these notable people (including Graves) argued for that position. Reporting that does not equal agreeing with them. And it's established that Graves was neither the first nor the only notable proponent of the Triple Goddess concept. Deleting all that text doesn't refute it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

From Ovid's Metamorphoses, book 7, tr. John Dryden, et al (1717):

Hecate will never join in that offence:

Unjust is the request you make, and I

In kindness your petition shall deny;

Yet she that grants not what you do implore,

Shall yet essay to give her Jason more;

Find means t' encrease the stock of Aeson's years,

Without retrenchment of your life's arrears;

Provided that the triple Goddess join

A strong confed'rate in my bold design.

— Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This is not documentation, it is totally unsourced assertions regarding Graves (I have marked the relevant sections to your argument with ) - the stuff regarding Gimbutas is a separate discussion, for which I suggest you read the current article. If you want to report what Graves wrote, in the section that deals with Graves, then do so. I have absolutely no issue with that, but ensure wp:npov is met in that Graves concepts are totally rejected by academia, and we should not allow his pseudo-history to dominate the article. Quoting huge swathes of text and random poetry to "prove" his POV isn't required, just enough for the general reader to get an idea of how his theory is formed. Davémon (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The only two places you marked with both deal with the Greek Magical Papyri, which was already cited as "Betz, Hans Dieter (ed.) (1989). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation : Including the Demotic Spells : Texts. University of Chicago Press."

• You so marked the sentence "The publication of the complete texts of the magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt^[9] provide exhaustive examples of the imagery usually wrongly ascribed to Graves' imagination. ^{[citation needed]}" A citation is in the middle of that sentence. "[E]xamples of the imagery usually wrongly ascribed to Graves' imagination" (i.e. of goddess triplicity) immediately follow that sentence, including:

  ... triple-sounding,
  Triple-headed, triple-voiced Selene,
  Triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked,
  And Goddess of the Triple Ways, who hold
  Untiring Flaming Fire in Triple Baskets,
  And You who oft frequent the Triple Way
  And rule the Triple Decades...

  (quoting the same source, covered by the same citation). That text on p.84 actually continues,

  ... with three forms
  And flames and dogs. From toneless throats you send
  A dread, sharp cry when you, O goddess, have
  Raised up an awful sound with triple mouths.

  Further on it adds "O triple-headed, triple-named...."

• You so marked the sentence "The triplicity of the Goddess in these texts is a recurrent theme. ^{[citation needed]}" Again see the examples already given, from the same source, covered by the same citation. Would more examples help?

  Three-headed Goddess, Lady
  Of Night, who feed on filth, O Virgin, thou
  Key-holding Persephassa,* Kore out
  Of Tartaros, grim-eyed, dreadful, child girt
  With fiery serpents,... [p.65]
              * footnoted as: "A poetic form of Persephone."

  I call you, triple-faced goddess... [p.86]

  All-tamer, crossroad goddess, triple-headed,
  Bringer of light, august / virgin, I call you
  Fawn-slayer, crafty, O infernal one,
  And many-formed. Come, Hekate, goddess
  Of three ways....
  But you, O Hekate, of many names,
  O Virgin, Kore, Goddess, come, I ask,
  O guard and shelter of the threshing floor,
  Persephone, O triple-headed goddess.... [p.89]

  The sentence you marked is a summary, but clearly not a mischaracterization. It's a verifiable (and hereby verified) statement about the book's contents. Again, the book is already cited, and there's no single page number to cite.

This book is new; these translations are of varying ages, but apparently more recent than The White Goddess. These and other sources may not have been known or even available to the critics who scoffed at Graves's "Triple Goddess" theory. However, they are available to us, and verify the existence of the "Triple Goddess" in ancient Greek beliefs. So it makes no more sense to continue scoffing at the antiquity of the "Triple Goddess" than it would to continue scoffing at the ideas of (say) continental drift and of a bacterium causing ulcers, both of which seemed "outlandish" when first proposed. The scoffers are out of date; they've become the "fringe"; and you're now inserting that outdated "fringe" POV into articles as though it were the current state of knowledge. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing, Sizzle: it's well-known that Hecate is invoked by ancient authors as a triple figure, and that she's often combined with Artemis/Diana, and less frequently with Persephone. That's what the quotes you've provided do. But that's not the same thing as the Triple Goddess that this article talks about--one who combines the figures of mother, maiden, and crone (and one assumed to descend from the Great Goddess of the primeval matriarchy?)--for that, we need a secondary source that interprets the magical papyri, or whatever other ancient sources, as conforming to the Triple Goddess that's the subject of this article. No doubt there are some authors who do so, but I'm betting that Betz doesn't, and I doubt that many scholars of ancient Greek religion do either. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Davémon's denial was more basic than that: he demanded «Finding a reliable source that says there were "'triple goddesses' in antiquity"» — and so far has not declared himself satisfied on that point, despite the cites and quotes given above. Your concern is more nuanced, but we've already discussed the maiden (Kore) Persephone, her mother Demeter, and Hecate, as just such a triad. You're aware of the Eleusinian Mysteries (where just Demeter and Persephone got top billing), but perhaps you should look at the Samothracian Mysteries (which celebrated all three). See here, for instance: "The Kabeiroi (or Cabeiri) were twin gods or daimones (spirits) who presided over the orgiastic dances of the mysteries of Samothrake which were performed in honour of the goddesses Demeter, Persephone, and Hekate." (I'm citing that for your info, not for an article.) Note that these "twins" would also have been a trio, except that they murdered their brother.

• (The online 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: Hecate: "As a chthonian power, she is worshipped at the Samothracian mysteries, and is closely connected with Demeter." Proserpine: "She was sometimes identified with Hecate.")
• Sir William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1849), v. 2, page 364, Hecate: "This extensive power possessed by Hecate was probably the reason that subsequently she was confounded and identified with several other divinities, and at length became a mystic goddess, to whom mysteries were celebrated in Samothrace and in Aegina. For being as it were the queen of all nature, we find her identified with Demeter...; and as a goddess of the moon, she is regarded as the mystic Persephone."'

As to whether this trio conforms to the Wiccan/Neopagan deity in every respect, I doubt that Betz or "many scholars of ancient Greek religion" give a damn. Wiccans rewrite their religion all the time, which is why there are so many versions of Wicca. Some may follow Graves letter-for-letter, or Gimbutas, or Margaret Murray, or C.G. Leland's Aradia, or this very article; who's to say? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Insertion undone

All of this is your interpretation of primary sources. Quoting a primary source that says "threeform Hecate" (or whatever) and then saying "that means Hecate is a Triple Goddess" is an interpretation of the nature of threeform as it applies to Hecate. It is not evidence that this interpretation is verifiable. What is required are contemporary secondary sources that support your conclusions. Also, wholesale inserting old content that is primarily original research isn't really acceptable. Davémon (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not WP:OR; WP:NOTOR. It could hardly be all my interpretation of primary sources, when (1) some of those were clearly secondary sources, and (2) the phrase "triple goddess" (or the non-gender-specific version "triple deity") actually appears there. Do you count Ovid ("triple Goddess") as a primary or secondary source? Brewer's 1894 Dictionary ("triple deity"), long predating Graves's work? You've also deleted Marija Gimbutas, "A.B. Cook, George Thomson, Sir James Frazer, Robert Briffault, and Jack Lindsay" — not primary sources, and mentioning them is certainly not "original research". The only two claims you made above about "citation needed" were addressed: every quote from Greek Magical Papyri was cited by both page number and papyrus number; the other sentence was simply removed. There were no other areas you marked "citation needed", so that isn't the problem. You've improperly deleted fully-cited text. Undoing your undo. See WP:OWN and WP:TEND. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's not WP:OR, you'll be happy to provide the soures for the statements in the article for which citations are required. As for all the primary sourced material (translations of Greek Magical Papyri et al) these will need to be supported by wp:rs which actually say they are relevant to the subject, and not that they just happen to have two words in them. Good luck. Davémon (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit disingenuous to tag already-referenced sentences as "citation needed". For instance,

However, the existence of a "Triple Goddess" in ancient Greek beliefs is not only asserted by writers before Graves, it has been verified with the publication of the complete texts of magical papyri from Greco-Roman Egypt. In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirae, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses:

... they call You Hekate,
Many-named, Mene, cleaving Air just like
Dart-shooter Artemis, Persephone,
Shooter of Deer, night shining, triple-sounding,
Triple-headed, triple-voiced Selene,
Triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked,
And Goddess of the Triple Ways, who hold
Untiring Flaming Fire in Triple Baskets,
And You who oft frequent the Triple Way
And rule the Triple Decades... [p.91, PGM IV. 2785-2890]

The "publication of the complete texts of magical papyri" is what's footnoted at the end of that sentence: the book The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation : Including the Demotic Spells : Texts. As for "she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses:" after the colon there's the quote referred to, including those goddesses' names and titles, with the page number and papyrus number of the text. What's left to cite? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(And what on Earth does "Robert^{[citation needed]}Briffault^[23]" mean? The footnote after his surname already cites his book. Are you asking for a citation for his given name???) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A source that tells us that Hecate is the "Triple Goddess" that this article specifically talks about: a figure that combines the Maiden, Mother, and Crone. Betz doesn't say that, does he? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That was addressed at the end of the previous section, Akhilleus, with "As to whether this trio conforms to the Wiccan/Neopagan deity in every respect,...". Davémon is demanding (and then deleting) documentation of mere triplicity. You are asking about Maiden-Mother-Crone, but then looking right past a trio composed of: Persephone (whose cognomen Kore means "Maiden"); Demeter (her mother); and Hekate (who may be the original hag-as-witch). I've cited multiple secondary sources linking them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking past the alleged trio of Demeter-Kore-Persephone; I'm simply tired of arguing with you about it. Your citations in this matter are to primary sources, which don't speak for themself: you need to provide a secondary source that advances your specific interpretation. And then, those sources need to be contextualized, because mainstream opinion in classical scholarship does not see these goddesses as forming a trio.

Also, I believe that you're misreading Davemon. He's not demanding documentation of mere triplicity; he's demanding documentation that Hecate is a "Triple Goddess" in Graves' sense. After all, the sentence under dispute says: "However, the existence of a 'Triple Goddess' in ancient Greek beliefs is not only asserted by writers before Graves, it has been verified with the publication of the complete texts of magical papyri[citation needed] from Greco-Roman Egypt." In other words, this sentence (and some of your text above) claims that Graves was right--that the invocation of three-fold Hecate etc. validates Graves' concept of the Triple Goddess. Without a secondary source that makes that claim, the sentence under dispute is an example of WP:OR--it uses primary sources to advance an argument, and in fact cites a secondary source (Betz) as if it made that argument. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed to discover that Sir William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica are "primary sources", as I cited them above on Hecate's identification with Demeter and Persephone. (I did not allege a trio of "Demeter-Kore-Persephone", as Kore is Persephone.)
With regard to Davémon, he can speak for himself, and currently seems to argue (as on the Tridevi) that the exact phrase "Triple Goddess" must be used in order to qualify, synonyms like "threefold" will not suffice.
With regard to Betz, that is the book being cited because that is the book being quoted and summarized:

In one hymn, for instance, the "Three-faced Selene" is simultaneously identified as the three Charites, the three Moirae, and the three Erinyes; she is further addressed by the titles of several goddesses:^{[citation needed]}

"[S]he is further addressed by the titles..." refers to the quote from PGM IV. 2785-2890 immediately following that statement. The earlier part of the challenged sentence is summarizing other parts of the same hymn, e.g.:

O queen who drive your car on equal course
With Helios, who with the triple forms
Of triple Graces dance in revel with
The stars. You're Justice and the Moira's threads:
Klotho and Lachesis and Atropos
Three-headed, you're Persephone*, Megaira,     [* book notes this should be Tisiphone]
Allekto, many-formed,....
Hard to escape are you; you're Moira and
Erinys, torment, Justice and Destroyer,....

Do you require all of that to be fully quoted in the article, or will the brief summary suffice? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had made it clear that the 1911 Britannica and Smith are not sufficient sources to establish that Hecate is identified with Demeter and Persephone as part of a trio. (BTW, I don't think I said a trio of Demeter-Kore-Persephone, but if I did, it was a mistake for Demeter-Kore-Hecate; I'm sure I did write something like "combined with Demeter/Kore/Persephone", where Kore and Persephone are (as we all know!) the same figure. Sorry for any confusion.) Smith is describing how Hecate is "confounded and identified with several other divinities", including Demeter, Rhea, Cybele, Artemis, and Persephone. That's not the same thing as being a triple goddess. As for the 1911 Britannica, it says that Hecate is "closely connected" with Demeter, and worshipped along with her at Samothrace (and, you know, other divinities were worshipped there too!), but this is not the same as saying that Demeter is an aspect of Hecate, or the other way around...The D.J. Conway citation that you've put in, however, looks great; but the opinion of a modern Wiccan author shouldn't be foisted upon earlier sources that don't share it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

«I don't think I said a trio of Demeter-Kore-Persephone» — First sentence of your previous comment, just 3¶ above your denial. You couldn't look?
«Smith is describing how Hecate is "confounded and identified with several other divinities",....» — And later on he says "confusions and identifications, especially with Demeter and Persephone".
«That's not the same thing as being a triple goddess.» — Smith also says, "She is described as of terrible appearance, either with three bodies or three heads.... In works of art she was sometimes represented as a single being, but sometimes also as a three-headed monster."
«As for the 1911 Britannica, it says that Hecate is "closely connected" with Demeter» — Whose daughter (it also says) is "sometimes identified with Hecate". BTW, the Hecate entry notes: "In older times Hecate is represented as single-formed, clad in a long robe, holding burning torches; later she becomes triformis, " triple-formed," with three bodies standing back to back."
So both Smith and Britannica discuss her triplicity. Or are you going to adopt Davémon's argument that if it doesn't use the exact phrase "Triple Goddess" then it doesn't count? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, forgive me for the mistake, I didn't really want to read through all the text to find exactly where I might have misspoken--in case you haven't noticed, the page is getting pretty long and hard to use. Anyway, I really must ask you to read Smith a bit more carefully. Again, he explains how Hecate is confounded and identified with Demeter, Artemis, Cybele, Persephone, and so on. Are you going to make Hecate a quintuple goddess now, or what? Also, I think we all know that Hecate is represented as triple in text, sculpture, and so on. But that doesn't mean that the three bodies/heads = Hecate, Demeter, and Persephone. (Nor would that make the three forms Hecate, Artemis, and Cybele, or any other permutation you want.) Smith is saying two different things--that Hecate is identified with a bunch of different goddesses, and that Hecate is represented as having three bodies or three heads. Smith says: "she is described as of terrible appearance, either with three bodies or three heads, the one of a horse, the second of a dog, and the third of a lion." Now which one do you think is Demeter, which Persephone, and which Hecate?

Since you ask my opinion (which you need not share):

• Demeter has the horse's head (Frazer's The Golden Bough, ch.49 §2: "... in the cave of Phigalia in Arcadia the Black Demeter was portrayed with the head and mane of a horse on the body of a woman. ... It was said that in her search for her daughter, Demeter assumed the form of a mare to escape the addresses of Poseidon...."); see Demeter#Demeter and Poseidon for more;
• Kore/Persephone has the lion's head ("Soteira"=savioress); [Added later, just came across this tidbit from Mesopotamian Mythology: "Ereshkigal is the consort of Nergal and Namtar is her messenger. She is depicted as a black-haired woman or a lion-headed woman suckling liion cubs. Ereshkigal was worshipped at a cult centre in Cuthah and has been identified with the Greek Goddess Persephone." Book cite to confirm same: Alfred Jeremias, The Babylonian Conception of Heaven and Hell (London: David Nutt, 1902), pp.23-25];
• Hecate has the dog's head (she is called "bitch-goddess", is attended by Stygian dogs, and dogs were sacrificed to her but not to other gods). [Added later, book cite: David and Noelle Soren, "A Roman Villa and a Late Roman Infant Cemetery: Excavation at Poggio (L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1999), pp.620-621: "Hecate is described as the goddess of dogs.... and it was she who was depicted with canine attributes or given epithets referring to dogs or puppies. Her canine associations are so strong that she has been described as having a 'close and virtually exclusive connection with the dog'."]

The image you mention actually is a nice demonstration of the trio. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

On the 1911 Britannica, "closely connected" doesn't mean the same thing as "identified". What I understand you to be claiming is that Persephone, Demeter, and Hecate are the same goddess, in three different forms. "Closely connected" doesn't mean they're the same, just that they appear together. Hecate is "closely connected" to Artemis a lot of the time, probably more often than to Demeter, but that doesn't mean that she is Artemis (although you will find that argument made far more frequently than you find an argument that Hecate is Demeter. And, oh yeah, there were a lot of gods worshipped at the Samothrace temple complex, so I don't see why we're picking out two of them are claiming they're "identified".

Does "identified" mean the same thing as "identified"? Because Britannica does say "identified" of Proserpine and Hecate. And Britannica's "closely connected" refers to Hecate (like Demeter) being "the queen of all nature", which — unless all nature has two queens at once — sure sounds like an identification. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To say it again: yes, Hecate is represented as triple in various ways. But that doesn't mean that she's represented as Hecate/Demeter/Persephone. Nor does that mean she's represented as the Triple Goddess this article talks about--the goddess who combines the figures of the maiden, mother, and crone. Graves thinks so, Conway apparently thinks so. Others may, if so, let's cite them! But the 1911 Britannica doesn't, Smith doesn't, and mainstream writers on ancient Greek religion don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Maiden": say it in Greek, kore, and you're saying Persephone's cognomen. "The Mother", metr, in that context, is as clearly her mother Demeter. Speaking of goddesses as "The Maiden and the Mother" would never have been mistaken for any other pair. Surely that much you know. Need we debate the original "hag"'s characterization as "crone"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We could, but that would probably get us nowhere. I'll just observe that once again, you're only able to get to a trio of mother/maiden/crone through your own argumentation. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Again you give me too much credit. This isn't original with me. Even Harrison 1903 repeatedly refers to Demeter and Persephone as "Mother and Maiden", and no source I've ever seen — until you and Davémon — has contended that Demeter isn't a mother or that Kore-Persephone isn't a maiden, or that for any other reason the terms don't apply to them. (Young/old Hecate-as-crone vs Hecate-as-virgin seems to vary, but then crones can be virgins too.) Hecate has been linked, and even identified, with Demeter and with Persephone; even the 19th century sources noted this. And all three goddesses were worshipped together at the Samothracian Mysteries. I did not invent any of this linkage, and I'm certainly not the first to notice it. I'm only saying it here because, for reasons unknown to me, the two of you have been denying it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Sizzle, it's not that hard to understand what I meant: you're only able to take the Smith and the 1911 Britannica and get to a trio of mother/maiden/crone through your own argumentation. Happy now? As for Harrison, it does seem that she conceived of Hecate/Demeter/Persephone as a trio, and if that's the case, then the article should say so. But it shouldn't claim that Smith and the 1911 Britannica say so, because they don't. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kindly try to keep track of what is actually being claimed for what source, as you keep switching tracks from Hecate's identification with Demeter and Persephone and Hecate's triplicity (which both Smith and Britannica were quoted about) to the "Mother-Maiden-Crone" archetype (which they were not quoted about). The observation that the resulting trio does in fact meet the description of a mother, a maiden, and arguably the original "hag", was not attributed to Smith or Britannica. (Though it's not original with me, either.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As per wp:v Wikipedia requires a secondary source for Sizzle Flambes claim that the Greek Magical Papyrus is saying Selene is "identified as" other goddesses. As far as I can see, Selene is being praised with the qualities of many other goddesses, which is quite a different matter from her being "simultaneously identified as" some goddesses and "addressed by the titles" of others, especially as the spell is supposed to incur her favour, not simply confuse her with other goddesses as Flambe supposes. Flambes understanding of such occult matters as the petition and flattery of goddesses is totally lacking, and without external sources to support his position see no reason why an encyclopedia article should contain such blatantly incoherent conjecture. If Flambe wants to be taken seriously at all, secondary or tertiary sources that support his points of view will need to be provided. Davémon (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When the text says (to Selene) "you're Persephone, Megaira, Allekto", you yourself may personally interpret that as being "praised with the qualities", but the text doesn't say "you're like [them]" or "you have the qualities of [them]", it says "you are [them]". Again, take it up with Sir William Smith and the Encyclopedia Britannica, both cited and quoted using the term "identified with". Are they "blatantly incoherent"? Perhaps your occult understanding says differently, but that's neither verifiable nor a reliable source. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither Sir William Smith nor the Encyclopedia Britannica are discussing the Prayer to Selene in the Greek Magical Pap. The argument proposed by Sizzle_Flambé is completely incoherent. Davémon (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

But Betz is discussing the Greek Magical Papyri, when he writes: "The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri." (p.xlvi) No suggestion there that she's merely being "praised with the qualities", which appears to be only your own original take on the matter. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any secondary source that explains the meaning of these papyri? Or are we just relying on the "plain meaning" of the text? If we don't have a secondary source interpreting these texts and explaining their significance, I don't think we should use them. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Betz's book is a secondary source; if these papyri hadn't been interpreted into English, we'd have to squabble over the original Greek texts. Presumably the translators intended their product to accurately express the meanings of the originals, as that is the purpose of translation. The footnotes are there to explain whatever the actual text does not. So if the "plain meaning" of the translation were wrong, they could either (1) correct the translation, or (2) explain the discrepancy in a footnote (as they did for Persephone→Tisiphone and Persephassa→Persephone in the quoted portions). What's left as is, we are supposed to take as their intention to present. Yet now you think we need yet another, thus tertiary, source to assert that Betz & crew really meant their English translations to say what they say? And perhaps a quaternary source to likewise confirm what the tertiary source says? That way lies endless regress. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Betz does not provide any interpretative commentary. You're taking the translated text at face value, completely ignoring the possibility of rhetorical or poetic use of language, and proposing that a naive, literalist interpretation of the text is "the truth". There are no experts in the field who support your interpretation of the text (translated or original), so it has no place in wikipedia. Davémon (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

«Betz does not provide any interpretative commentary.» — We must not be looking at the same book. My copy has footnotes at the bottom of each page, besides separate introductions to the Greek and Demotic texts. It's in the former of those that Betz says: "The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri." (p.xlvi) No hint there of that being a mere rhetorical or poetical device. So is Betz now suddenly not an "expert in the field"? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And besides, do you think making "a naive, literalist interpretation of the text" is not exactly what the original inscribers of the texts did? They were "naive" enough to believe in using magic to solve their real problems, and "literally" believed in the goddess(es) enough to hope for their intercession in this world. They were, in short, not neo-pagans. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What you need to do then is to cite Betz's commentary, not the translated text! Davémon (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Triple or quintuple goddess?

"The goddess Hekate, identical with Persephone, Selene, Artemis, and the old Babylonian goddess Ereschigal, is one of the deities most often invoked in the papyri." So Hecate is equivalent to four other goddesses? Did this article change to quintuple goddess while I wasn't looking? On p. xlvi Betz says nothing about Hecate forming a trio with any of these goddesses, or having a triple nature which is manifested by these different goddesses, or anything about triplicity. (He does, however, note that Hecate's equivalence with these other goddesses is a feature of Hellenistic syncretism; so we shouldn't assume that phenomena we see in the papyri are characteristic of ancient Greek religion as a whole; in fact, Betz refers to the religion of the papyri as "a new religion altogether" combining features of Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish religon.) The notes on PGM IV.2785-2890 (p. 91) don't say anything about Hecate having a triple nature, or forming a trinity with other goddesses, or anything similar. (There is, however, a note on the text which suggests that we should read Tisiphone in place of Persephone on IV.2797. So, as far as I can tell, Betz is telling us nothing relevant to the concept of a Triple Goddess in the papyri--what we're getting is Sizzle's own interpretation of the texts. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wherever the text did not speak for itself (as with Persephone→Tisiphone), Betz et al. added footnotes. Thus, where there are no footnotes, we may presume that the text speaks for itself — e.g. that the word "triple" means "triple" and not "quintuple". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so you acknowledge that Betz doesn't say anything about the Triple Goddess, but you claim that the text "speaks for itself". Thing is, the text obviously doesn't speak for itself here, otherwise we wouldn't have a dispute--I mean, if the papyrus said "Hecate, Demeter, and Persephone are a three-formed goddess, and they represent the crone, mother, and maiden aspects of the Great Goddess respectively," we'd all acknowledge that (and we'd say "what a lousy spell!"). Let me quote Wikipedia's no original research policy, which you ought to read if you haven't: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So what reliable secondary source tells us that PMG IV.2785-2890 is about Hecate as the Triple Goddess? --Akhilleus (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So along with all the footnotes explaining difficult or obscure or questionable points, you require footnotes on every word — even where the translators gave a clear and meaningful plain English translation and left it at that? Wherever it said "Hekate", they should have had a footnote saying "Yes, the name here really is Hekate"? Wherever it said "triple", that can't be quoted without a secondary source saying "That means triple, not quintuple"?

... they call You Hekate,
Many-named, Mene, cleaving Air just like
Dart-shooter^{[actually footnoted]} Artemis, Persephone,
Shooter of Deer, night shining, triple-sounding,
Triple-headed, triple-voiced Selene,
Triple-pointed, triple-faced, triple-necked,
And Goddess of the Triple Ways, who hold
Untiring Flaming Fire in Triple Baskets,
And You who oft frequent the Triple Way
And rule the Triple Decades^{[actually footnoted]}... [p.91, PGM IV. 2785-2890]

This is ridiculous. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood Akhilleus' point. It is not that the primary source needs to be cited, but any conclusions or interpretations made about the primary source in the article, no matter how self-evident they might appear to an individual editor, needs to come from a reliable secondary (or tertiary) source. This is wikipedia core policy, it's how we are all expected to work here. Davémon (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The two of you keep talking about a "primary source" as though we were discussing the original Greek papyri. We're not. Betz et al's translations are secondary source material: those translators undertook to present the meanings of the Greek (and Demotic) texts in English, adding footnotes only where the translations by themselves needed further explication. No footnote means no further explication needed, the translation can be taken as is. Again, that is a secondary source, presumably reliable (I've seen no challenges to it), interpreting the primary (Greek and Demotic) material. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Translations of primary sources are still primary sources. And really, even if the translation of PMG IV.2785-2890 were a secondary source, your interpretation of its meaning is not self-evident, which means you need to supply a reliable source that comes to the same conclusion anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

«Translations of primary sources are still primary sources.» — No, as Dougweller and Cynwolfe pointed out. As for my "interpretation of its meaning", how much "interpretation" is involved in "assert the triple nature of the goddess", after all the "triple"-phrases and her being equated to trios like the Graces, Fates, and Furies? That's a straightforward summary. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither Cynwolfe or Dougweller said that--noting that translations are original work with their own copyright isn't the same thing as saying it's a secondary source. And Cynwolfe noted that translations don't speak for themselves. How much interpretation is involved in asserting the triple nature of the goddess? Well, what do you mean by "triple nature", exactly? Everyone (including me) has been writing as if this is a straightforward notion, but I don't think it is. The simple fact of having three bodies or three heads might be a superficial trait, whereas having a "triple nature" implies something deeper. Furthermore, in both discussion on this talkpage and in the text of the article, Hecate's triplicity (however conceived) has been connected with her identity with other goddesses; so assertions are made, on the basis of the PMG text or others, that Hecate, as a triple goddess, is Hecate-Demeter-Persephone, or some other combination of three names. That's an interpretation of the text. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor have I suggested that (in general) translations speak for themselves. I was quite specifically referring to Betz et al, noting that they heavily used footnotes wherever their translations did not speak for themselves, as a result of which we may have some confidence that where there were no footnotes they had confidence that those portions adequately expressed the meaning and thus did "speak for themselves". To stretch that to a universal statement about all translations is quite without warrant. To feign that such was the issue at hand is utterly dishonest.
«having a "triple nature" implies something deeper» — Than mere triplicity as specified by the papyri? Do tell: what "something", precisely? One might otherwise think the bountiful repetition of "triple" as applied there meant to convey exactly that. Where and by whom (other than yourself and doubtless Davémon) is it suggested that "something deeper" would be required? And did the ancients share this fine distinction? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You've said that Betz's translation speaks for itself, except where footnotes are provided. How is this not a suggestion that, in general, translations speak for themselves? Up above, you wrote "No footnote means no further explication needed, the translation can be taken as is"--yeah, you were referring to Betz, but why wouldn't this be applicable to all other translations?

Pfffft. If I say that President Lincoln's experience in office included a civil war, how is this not a suggestion that, in general, presidents' experiences in office include civil wars? A specific statement about a specific case is not a general statement about all other cases as well. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"mere triplicity as specified by the papyri"? Sorry, I'm a bit confused here. What do you mean by "mere triplicity"? What is the bountiful repetition of "triple" supposed to mean? The article currently says: "Spells and hymns in Greek magical papyri assert the triple nature of the goddess..." What does "triple nature" mean? Does it simply mean that the number three is often associated with Hecate? Or does it mean that she has three bodies? Or that she is part of a triad of related entities (who are the other two, then)? Or that she herself has three aspects (not just bodies, but three separate natures, modes of existence, or whatever)? Or that she has one nature (or essence, if you prefer), which is manifested by appearing in threes? That's what I mean when I say that having a "triple nature" implies something deeper. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a lovely original argument, but where is it shared by anyone before you? The 1717 translation of Ovid by John Dryden et al. uses "triple Goddess" as the English rendering; Brewer in 1894 calls her a "triple deity"; apparently they did not think "something deeper" was required. Graves didn't invent the term, nor was he the first to apply it to Hecate. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence I've quoted uses the phrase "triple nature", not "triple Goddess" or "triple deity". What is "triple nature" supposed to convey to the reader? --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the text in question has been eliminated, which I think is the correct move. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)