Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Accurately reflecting sources

The inclusion of Pythagoras and Hera accurately reflects the source being cited. The source does not in any way propose a "maiden, mother, widow/grandmother" model as the article claimed, but discusses 2 completely different models. Claiming that these two separate models combine to make a single model is wp:or. The question of whether the whole section consists of wp:syn is discussed above. Davémon (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the other cited/quoted entries also accurately reflect the source being cited. Your complaint was that some other source hadn't also asserted these entries — but this was also true of the Pythagoras/Hera assertions you reinstated; so you seem to be applying a double standard here.

Meskell & Hutton et al. agree that Harrison proposed the Triple Goddess idea first, and that Graves drew upon Harrison as a source, so it can't be "original" or "synthesis" on our part to discuss that. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the posts above. Point 1: the specific examples and the specific conclusion that these relate to the Triple Goddess need to be cited to secondary sources (see "#synthesis" section). The summary of Harrison did not reflect what she actually wrote. This is a different issue see "#Accurately reflecting sources". Conflating these totally different problems will not help solve them, they are not related. Davémon (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The specific examples are cited to the text where they occur. As to "the specific conclusion that these relate to the Triple Goddess", you're responsible for your own conclusions. The current summary, quotes, and citations do "reflect what she actually wrote". All "conclusions" are attributed to cited/quoted authors, which is as it should be.

In her discussion of James Mellaart's theories regarding Çatalhöyük, Lynn Meskell says it is probable that the Triple Goddess originated^[29] with the work of Jane Ellen Harrison.^[30] Harrison asserts the existence of female trinities, discusses the well-known sets of goddesses (the Seasons, the Graces, the Fates, and so on) as chronological symbols representing the phases of the Moon,^[31] and the three seasons of the ancient Greek year,^[32] and suggests, "[T]he matriarchal goddess may well have reflected the three stages of a woman's life."^[33]

Only the part up to [29] states a conclusion, and Meskell is cited along with a "See also" to Hutton. Everything after that is a plain statement of what Harrison actually wrote, and is duly cited to her text. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the bulk of the wp:or. There are still problems with the section. The extensive quoting needs to be summarised. Meskell posits the origination of the TG with Harisson. Hutton posits that the TG originates with Graves, under the influence of Harisson. These two views are slightly contradictory. I suggest removing Harisson out of the "Graves Sources" as she is also posited to be the originator of the concept and not just a source for Graves's final creation. Davémon (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Harrison is one of Graves's sources, and clearly (as Meskell, Hutton, & Greer indicate) a major source; so her being listed under "Graves's sources" is appropriate. And this is all under the greater heading "Origins", again appropriate. Graves is listed first, when a straight chronological list would put him afterwards — but this appears to be a reverse-chronological list (like jobs in a résumé), newest first, oldest last, so the sequence Neopagans→Graves→hisSources(incl.Harrison)→Earlier(incl.classical) is accurate.

Hutton credits Graves for the "fully formed" Triple Goddess, not for all the constituent elements; so there isn't the contradiction you perceive.

The extensive quoting is there due to the demand, notably your own demand, for verification. You'll recall it was mostly citation, but then this didn't satisfy you. Having required more in order to not delete text, why ask to eliminate it now? Without it, somebody might tag and then delete the text in future. So let's leave the thorough verification in place. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between something "fully formed" and "a collection of elements". fallacy of composition. There is a difference here between what Hutton and Meskell are saying. There is a suggestion, from Meskell, that Harisson can be seen as an originating source without reference to Graves as an intermediary, evolutionary step. I fully concur with the reverse-chronological ordering, and the title Origins. However, I think that marginalising Harrison meerly as one of "Graves sources", and not an "originator" in her own right does contradict Meskell. I understand your point regards quotations. However, a brief and accurate, summary followed by a simple reference will suffice for verification purposes, both are easy to check online. Plus prosification is more in keeping with an encyclopaedia. Davémon (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The current text clearly states (per Meskell): "it is probable that the Triple Goddess originated with the work of Jane Ellen Harrison." That Graves later built on that foundation is stated several different ways. This is far from "marginalising" Harrison, especially after the struggle to even have her mentioned here.

As for "a brief and accurate, summary followed by a simple reference will suffice for verification purposes, both are easy to check online" — this has not been our shared experience, e.g. with "Brighid" or "phases of the moon". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

Jane Ellen Harrison

The article claims that several "elements" of the Triple Goddess concept are found in Jane Ellen Harrisons work. The article then goes on to select 3 or 4 examples of "evidence" for this, which are completely sourced to Harrisons primary text. The problem here is that we only have wikipedias word these specific examples are the elements that Graves or later neo-pagans based the Triple Goddess idea on. This is wp:syn based on wp:primary sources. Either citations from reliable secondary sources which have previously made these specific claims need to be provided or the text removed. Davémon (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

«Several of the elements of the Triple Goddess concept can be found in Harrison's works:» summarizes what two writers are quoted saying in the preceding footnote:

(Meskell:) "It seems clear that the initial recording of Çatalhöyük [1961-1965] was largely influenced by decidedly Greek notions of ritual and magic, especially that of the Triple Goddess — maiden, mother, and crone. These ideas were common to many at that time, but probably originated with Jane Ellen Harrison, Classical archaeologist and member of the famous Cambridge Ritualists (Harrison 1903)."

(Hutton:) "In 1903... an influential Cambridge classicist, Jane Ellen Harrison, declared her belief in [a Great Earth Mother] but with a threefold division of aspect. ... [S]he pointed out that the pagan ancient world had sometimes believed in partnerships of three divine women, such as the Fates or the Graces. She argued that the original single one, representing the earth, had likewise been honoured in three roles. The most important of these were the Maiden, ruling the living, and Mother, ruling the underworld; she did not name the third. ... [S]he declared that all male deities had originally been subordinate to the goddess as her lovers and her sons."

... and the list following the colon gives examples, citing specific Harrison pages as you {{cn}}-demanded.

Incidentally, you keep asserting in your edit remarks that [Harrison] "says nothing about Graces or Fates representing the phases of the moon"; " says these goddesses represent 'divisions of the year' not 'phases of the moon'"; "does not say the Seasons, the Graces, the Fates etc. represent the phases of the moon." This in the face of the cited text, and now the direct quote: "The three Horae are the three phases of the Moon, the Moon waxing, full, and waning. ... [T]he Moon is the true mother of the triple Horae, who are themselves Moirae, and the Moirae, as Orpheus tells us, are but the three moirae or divisions (μέρη) of the Moon herself, the three divisions of the old year. And these three Moirae or Horae are also Charites." How are you not seeing "phases of the Moon" there? Or are you not getting that these are the Seasons, Fates, and Graces? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on one issue at a time. Neither quotations supplied from Hutton and Meskell specifically say anything about: 1. Orpheus, 2. Lunar symbolism, 3.Pythagorean model of female theology 4. Harrisons reading of Hera, as influencing the modern Triple Goddess which is what the article states. Those specific examples have to be shown by a reliable source to have influenced Graves or neopagans otherwise this is wp:syn based on wp:primary sources. Davémon (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Harrison cites Orpheus here only as a source on the topic of the Moirae being divisions of the Moon; this doesn't require that later users of the concept also dutifully cite Orpheus.
2. Lunar symbolism is used both by Graves and subsequently by Neopagans (including in this article, e.g. the first illo and footnote).
3. "Pythagorean model of female theology" was your own addition to the text; since you feel it's unsupported, I'm removing it.
4. You yourself also added (same edit) the specific mention of Hera, where previously the text only spoke of (and named) the "three stages of a woman's life" as represented by the Goddess — and you may recall that in the article text Berger also says "echoing of women's life stages", a close paraphrase. Since Berger doesn't mention Hera, you shouldn't have added that, so again per your objection I'll remove your addition.

I think it's odd that you insert text and then tag the article because of it; that's like deleting footnotes and then tagging statements as "unsourced". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here. Allow me to rephrase the problem: Each of the specific examples from Harrisons work, along with the conclusion that these specific examples relate to The Triple Goddess must have been published elsewhere first. Otherwise these examples along with the conclusion drawn from them constitute wp:or/wp:syn. Davémon (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Undoing your change ("because"→"becauseo") to my prior comment.
• You've reinstated the "Pythagorean model of female theology" and "Hera" mentions, which (as you objected) no secondary source mentions, commenting yourself that "Let's stick to what Harrisson actually says, rather than over-simplify." Indeed. Well, then, Harrison actually says those other things, too, and why "over-simplify" by deleting them, either? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the posts above outlining what the problem actually is. Davémon (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up most of the wp:or issues.Davémon (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Earlier mentions of a triple goddess

None of this section is cited to a source that puts the subject in context with the neopagan Triple Goddess concept. Each of the deities or wp:primary sources listed needs to be specifically cited to a source which explains the relationship between that example and the contemporary neopagan / gravsian concept. Otherwise this is an indiscriminate collection of information and by relating this content to the subject of the article without providing secondary sources to support that view iswp:or and wp:syn.Davémon (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Earlier mentions of a triple goddess" is a straightforward title, and quotes/citations already clearly link the examples to that heading, no WP:OR or WP:SYN or indiscrimination involved. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says these are "mentions of a triple goddess"? This is either 1) an interpretative statement wp:or or 2) an indiscriminate collection of information. If there are no sources that specifically relate these sources to the subject of the article, the content does not belong here.Davémon (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

«Who says these are "mentions of a triple goddess"?» — Davémon, I've had to add quotes on top of cites in the "Brighid" and "phases of the moon" matters when you could not find the relevant text, but this section already has quotes, e.g.:

There were other supernatural female triads like the Gallo/Germano-Roman Matres and Matrones (frequently depicted in trios), [cite: Cf. Walker, Barbara G. (1983). The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. HarperCollins. p.619: "Matres meant the Celtic Triple Goddess, or Three Fates."] the Greco-Roman Erinyes or Furies,[cite: Cf. Walker, Barbara G. (1983). The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. HarperCollins. p.327: "Also called Erinyes or Eumenides, the Furies personified the vengeful moods of the Triple Goddess Demeter, who was also called Erinys as a punisher of sinners. The three Erinyes were emanations of her."] and female deities associated with concepts of fate (the Greek Moirae, the Roman Parcae, the Norse Norn trio of Urðr, Verðandi, and Skuld).[cite: The Fates are called "the threefold form of the Great Mother" in Neumann, Erich (1955). The Great Mother: an Analysis of the Archetype. Pantheon Books. p.226.] Sometimes it is ambiguous whether a single being or three are represented, as is the case with the Irish Brighid and her two sisters, also called Brighid,[cite: Called "the Triple Goddess Brigit" in Graves, Robert (1948). The White Goddess: a Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth. Creative Age Press. p.80.] the three Goddess-names of Ireland (Eire, Fodhla, and Banbha),[cite: Called "the Triple Goddess of Ireland" in Graves, Robert (1948). The White Goddess: a Historical Grammar of Poetic Myth. Creative Age Press. p.151.] or the Morrígan who is known by at least three or four different names.[cite: Barbara Walker says the "triple Morrigan" is "the Irish trinity of Fates," composed of the virgin Ana, the mother Badb, and the crone Macha. Walker, Barbara G. (1983). The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. HarperCollins. pp.151, 563, 675.]

I'm sure their relation to the "triple goddess" concept is clear to other readers. If it's not clear to you, I'm not sure what would help. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Graves is not a reliable source for mythology. If the text was moved and attributed properly, in the Graves section, that would be fine. Likewise the opinions of Erich Neumann, belongs in psychology, as he's a psychologist rather than a classicist or anthro/sociologist. None of the "citations" mentioned actually contextualise any of the within neopaganism, it's purely wp:or. There is no verifiable source that the specific entry in "E. Cobham Brewer's 1894 Dictionary of Phrase & Fable" has influenced the neopagan Triple Goddess nor is there a verifiable source that states these specific elements of the Greek Magical Papyri have influenced neopagan concept ot he Triple Goddess. Davémon (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You demanded citations of secondary sources asserting "'triple goddesses' in antiquity", else you'd consider the idea WP:OR. Now you have ample citations to exactly that point, you consider them both WP:OR and irrelevant. No, Davémon, finding and citing a secondary source is not the kind of "original research" that WP:OR refers to. And neopaganism isn't alleged to be influenced by these secondary sources themselves (like Brewer): neopagans claim basis in historical goddess-concepts, and these secondary sources discuss the concepts' history. A (neopagans) and B (these sources) both point to C (the history), not A pointing to B. As for the Graves/TWG cites, they certainly relate to his opinions, and since you yourself believe his opinions in TWG influenced the neopagan concept, how are those cites then unrelated? The relevance of this section is that the concepts of a triple goddess didn't begin in the 20th century, or the 19th, but go back much further, as asserted (as a neopagan belief) in the earlier section. The neopagan innovation (building on Graves) is to synthesize and syncretize all these similar concepts into one unified deity. Note: that's their synthesis, not ours for merely reporting on it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Graves opinions need to be reported as Graves opinions, not reported in the authorial voice as the article does at present. As for the non-Graves "citations", sources are required that say "A (neopagans) + B (these sources) = C (the history of the concept) " otherwise they are being presented as wikipedias synthesis. that is precisely what wp:syn warns against. Davémon (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In this section, Graves's opinions appear only as attributed (cited) quotes in footnotes, not in authorial voice. The "synthesis", likewise, is only reported in this article and attributed as Graves's and neopagans', not asserted as Wikipedia's. WP:SYN doesn't forbid reporting on synthesis by others, e.g. "Witch-cult hypothesis".

As for "A (neopagans) + B (these sources) = C (the history of the concept)", what on earth do you mean by that? A and B both point to C, but that's a far cry from equalling C — which would require that together they constitute the whole of the history, it doesn't exist outside them. That could be true if C were a mere folie à deux, but not when C is a history which long predates both of them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Graves needs to be attributed in the text. Of course we can report other peoples synthesis, but this needs to be done by actually attributing these opinions to the authors. The text cited to Graves does not do that. It fails to uphold the neutral point of view, and instead reflects Graves point of view. Regards the Dictionary and Greek Majical Papyrii , what is missing here is that history is actually a narrative constructed by historians, and not some self-evident sequence of events. The only problem with this pseudohistory is that the person who has constructed it and proposed the evidence cited in the article, is a wikipedian, not a reliable source, so therefore we can't wp:verify it, and it fails wp:or. If the specific examples from the PMG and the Dictionary can not be shown to have influenced the development of TG, by reliable secondary sources, this content must be removed. --Davémon (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Graves isn't quoted in the text body of this section, and his works & opinions aren't its topic. You wanted explication of the relationship between this section's supernatural female triads and Graves/neopagans/triple-goddess-concepts, and the footnotes provide that, but there's no need to clutter the text body with the footnote contents.

The PMG and Dictionary are cited regarding the historical occurrence of the triple-goddess concept before Graves and Harrison, since that occurrence was apparently in doubt here, or at least challenged for sources. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says the PMG or the Dictionary is a "historical occurrence of the triple-goddess concept before Graves and Harrison" we need to cite that in the article in order to wp:verify that they represent this.Davémon (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to a goddess as "triple", "triple deity", or "triple goddess", indicates a triple-goddess concept; the dates of the documents show they are before Graves and Harrison. These are WP:NOTOR: Compiling facts and information; Simple or direct deductions. Indeed, it would take convoluted "original" reasoning to dismiss these examples. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"The relevance of this section is that the concepts of a triple goddess didn't begin in the 20th century, or the 19th, but go back much further, as asserted (as a neopagan belief) in the earlier section." Fine to assert this as a neopagan belief, but not fine to state this as objective fact, or for the article to imply this as objective fact. That's the problem here. You're assuming that any association of a goddess with the number three means we have a "triple goddess" (left vaguely defined) and that it's relevant to Harrison/Graves/Gimbutas. If it's relevant, we should have sources saying how Harrison/Graves/Gimbutas/etc. used pre-modern evidence, and it should be presented in the article as just that, instead of a free-floating section about "earlier mentions of a triple goddess." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond Hutton, Greer, et al? How about archaeology professor Miranda Green on "triplism" in ancient deities? Okay. But try to keep in mind that the key relevance is to the triple-goddess concept, not just to what Harrison, Graves, or Gimbutas wrote. This article isn't about Harrison, Graves, or Gimbutas; they have articles of their own. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus, the neopagan "belief" in an ancient history of the Triple Goddess should be reported, and that reporting this as "history" and not as "belief" is a mistake.

Miranda Green does not say anything about the Triple Goddess. Yes she discusses triplism, but this article isn't about triplism as a theme in myth or folklore. Further, there is no evidence that any neopagans have based their ideas of the Triple Goddess on Green. Adding the material to this article is wp:or.Davémon (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

«Miranda Green does not say anything about the Triple Goddess» — Except for things like "the most common triadic depiction is that of the triple mother goddess" (she lists numerous examples), and giving the goddesses Macha and Brigit as examples when she says "Triads or triple beings are ubiquitous in the Welsh and Irish mythic imagery", and saying that "Triplism" reflects a way of "expressing the divine". Quoted not as a source on which "any neopagans have based their ideas", but as an archaeology professor asserting the historical occurrence of triple-goddess imagery: so the concepts of a triple goddess didn't begin in the 20th century, or the 19th, but go back much further. Pointing to the history, again. Not suggesting that anyone based a religion on this particular pointing finger. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about "historical occurrence[s] of triple-goddess imagery" Triple deities would be the right place for that. This article is about neopaganism. Who is saying the history put forward by Green has any relationship whatsoever to the contemporary, neopagan, Triple Goddess concept? As far as I can see Green is not saying this. Davémon (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Neopagans are the ones asserting the historical (and even prehistorical) existence of triple-goddess concepts, as indicated earlier in the article — which makes the actual historical occurrence of such imagery relevant. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle writes above: "Referring to a goddess as "triple", "triple deity", or "triple goddess", indicates a triple-goddess concept..." Really? What's a "triple-goddess concept"? Who defines it? Who says that the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Celts share the same "triple-goddess concept" as Harrison/Graves/Gimbutas/etc.?

Sizzle also writes: "Neopagans are the ones asserting the historical (and even prehistorical) existence of triple-goddess concepts, as indicated earlier in the article — which makes the actual historical occurrence of such imagery relevant." Who says that the ancient examples given are "actual historical occurrence[s] of such imagery"? Green makes no connection between ancient religion and modern that I can see. I know that you think the connection is a "simple or direct deduction" and therefore not original research; but you're wrong. The connection is not straightforward; at least in the case of the Greek evidence, it is not one that most experts in the subject would make, as evidenced by its absence from academic literature on Hecate and the general scorn towards Graves and Harrison among classicists (not to mention the general rejection of theories of primitive matriarchy). So, absolutely, in your insistence that any connection of the number 3 with a goddess there is an "actual historical occurrence" of the Triple Goddess, there's OR going on. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, clearly neither Smith nor Brewer, nor Ovid nor Hesiod, nor the original PGMs, were discussing Graves's or Harrison's ideas, for the simple reason that those writings long antedated G&H's — thus they are sources independent of Graves and Harrison, and cannot be dismissed as having been influenced by G&H, as later sources have been dismissed. And when assertions of "triple goddess" (or synonyms like "triple deity", "threefold goddess", and referring to goddesses as examples of "triplism"/"triple beings") are quoted directly from the cited sources — as with Miranda Green — it's not WP:OR to simply take them at their word. Do you have any cited source arguing against them, or is this your own "original" idea? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither Smith, Brewer, Ovid, Hesiod, etc. were discussing Graves' or Harrison's ideas. Absolutely. But by putting them in a section entitled "earlier mentions of a triple goddess", the article implies that they did. That's the OR. Come up with a definition of the "triple goddess conecpt" yet? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither "the article" nor the section title ("Earlier mentions of a triple goddess") implies that pre-1900 sources somehow foresaw Graves's and Harrison's works in the future, and chose to discuss them. Such an anachronism would indeed be WP:OR, but you and Davémon are the only ones suggesting it. As to a definition, this article used to begin with one: "A triple goddess is a term used to describe any goddess who appears as a triad." Since you keep demanding a definition, I'm restoring that one to the article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I'm sure you anticipated, I think the version of the article from which you drew that sentence is problematic in equating ancient goddesses with the modern Triple Goddess. I'm removing that sentence, and I hope you don't re-add it (oh dear, you did). It seems to me that the article already defines the "triple goddess concept" as "the central concept comprises the idea of three separate female figures being united; frequently described as the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone, each of which symbolises both a separate stage in the female life cycle and a phase of the moon." This is different than the sentence you've inserted, which claims that the triple goddess is "any goddess who appears as a triad." So it seems to me that you're inserting an unsourced sentence to justify the WP:OR in the "earlier mentions of a triple goddess" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You weren't satisfied with the existing text, and kept demanding a definition, yet you keep deleting definitions — just as you demand cited sources, yet delete them when provided, and deleted the formerly sourced text as "unsourced" — which seems to me to be a case of creating problems and complaining about them, while preventing any solution — which isn't helpful or contributive. But having denied any definition, you're in no position to claim anything doesn't meet the definition, Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll borrow the uncontroversial existing sentence from Triple_goddess_(antiquity)#Triple_goddesses, where at least it's been allowed to stand; consensus there, if not here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see this edit summary: Borrowed sentence from Triple_goddess_(antiquity)#Triple_goddesses, as it wasn't found objectionable there. Wikilinked terms.) But see, this is exactly the problem. You think that it's obvious that the Moirae, Erinyes, Graces, etc. are examples of the "triple goddess concept", so you stick them into this article, about a modern concept of the Triple Goddess, into a section entitled "earlier mentions of a triple goddess." A reader unfamiliar with this subject will naturally come away with the impression that the Graces, Erinyes, Moirae, etc. are unproblematically examples of a Harrisonian/Gravesian T.G.--and now you've stuck in a sentence which is basically the same as your talkpage claim that any goddess associated with the number 3 in some way is a triple goddess. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither Graves nor Harrison (nor the neopagans, come to that) claim the triple-goddess concept is a "modern concept"; that appears to be your own original point of view. They assert they're referring to historical (or even prehistorical) concepts — though perhaps with some (admitted or unadmitted) synthesis / syncretism on the part of the neopagans. Neither Graves nor Harrison wrote anything to the effect of "I propose this new Triple Goddess for the 20th century"; both were discussing existing (old) mythology. Well or poorly, correctly or incorrectly? For that one would need to compare the actual history as reported independently of them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's your evidence that that sentence is "uncontroversial" in the context of this article? The whole reason this article exists as something separate from Triple goddess (antiquity) is that the concepts are separate. In case you've missed it, I have proposed a solution to the dispute at hand, which is to explain how Harrison, Graves, and Gimbutas (and anyone else this article cares to name as modern exponents of the Triple Goddess idea) used ancient evidence, and to specifically attribute opinions about ancient goddesses to whomever holds them. Instead, what you want to do is have an autonomous section about ancient goddesses, which, in your words, shows "the actual historical occurrence" of triple goddess imagery. This is, as I've already said about 25 times, a problem, because it takes a non-standard view of ancient religion and states it as objective fact; it also implies a connection between the ancient materials and modern viewpoints without ever spelling out exactly what the connection is. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice, but as above in the blockquote with all the cites printed in green, we already do "attribute opinions about ancient goddesses to whomever holds them" — it's not my own "think[ing] that it's obvious that the Moirae, Erinyes, Graces, etc. are examples of the 'triple goddess concept'", it's all cited to secondary sources. If you believe they're wrong, then cite sources to support that belief. Otherwise, don't let your own personal opinions trump (again) the cited sources.

«The whole reason this article exists as something separate from Triple goddess (antiquity) is that the concepts are separate.» — That's what you're citing as your source? Sorry, no, that's not a valid citation. The two articles both exist, clearly, but that's no proof they discuss separate concepts as opposed to, say, the identical concept in different time periods. Perhaps some Wikipedian holds the opinion you speak of, or perhaps editing disputes required separation so that the editors wouldn't fight over a single article — but either way, that doesn't prove your point, nor could it be cited. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought, with your previous post (which I didn't see until after I made my last post), we could find something to agree about--Graves and Harrison thought they were referring to historical concepts, not inventing a Triple Goddess! (Well, actually, Graves might have been consciously inventing without a great concern for accuracy.) If we make this article about what they thought, instead of trying to present the existence of ancient Triple Goddesses as an objective fact, we'd get somewhere. But, no, I suppose that's not what you were saying. Too bad. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: your last post, that's a bit silly. I know you think the Triple Goddess existed in antiquity; you've made it clear that you think you can find the Maiden, Mother, and Crone in the Hymn to Demeter. But you know quite well that Meskell sees Harrison as the probable originator of the Triple Goddess; you quote her at the beginning of the last section. The Hutton you quote is also relevant. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, «Graves and Harrison thought they were referring to historical concepts, not inventing a Triple Goddess!» — And in Graves's case referring to more than one Triple Goddess (as for instance he called Eire, Fodhla, and Banbha "the Triple Goddess of Ireland"). He didn't invent those three deities, just as Harrison didn't invent the mythological figures she wrote about. Identifying the recurrent pattern of threeness, triplicity, triplism, or whatever term you use for it — that was their observation, not their invention. And it had been pointed to before them in the case of specific goddesses like Hecate. What is new with neopaganism is synthesizing or syncretising all these different trios into one trio, so that Persephone-Demeter-Hecate and Brighid and the Hindu Tridevi are all spoken of as the Triple Goddess, or aspects thereof. But the trios themselves are not new, not by millennia. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are Graves and Harrisons observations. That's why they the should be attributed (not just cited) to these authors and placed in the sections that discuss Graves and Harrisson, not in a free-floating section which takes these observations out of context. If I follow your reasoning properly, I agree a section that covers "Historical Goddesses that Neopagans believe to be aspects of The Triple Goddess" would be worthwhile. Davémon (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Graves's and Harrison's discussions of the concept are attributed to them and in their sections. However, theirs were neither the first nor the only mentions of triplicity in goddesses, and this section is about "earlier mentions" of such triplicities — Fates, Furies, Graces, Hecate, Brighid, the Morrigan, et al. — also recognized (but surely not invented) by Graves and other writers. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Graves invented the category, which is why his work is considered pseudo-history. No sources relating the PMG or the Dictionary to The Triple Goddess have been supplied.Davémon (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hutton and Meskell don't seem to agree with you that Graves "invented" the category; both (among others) point to Harrison as preceding him. And the term "triple goddess" is already shown to antedate both Graves's and Harrison's works. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Hutton says Graves took elements from Harrisson. In fact Hutton does say that the fully formed Triple Moon, Maiden Mother Crone of modern paganism, was Graves invention. (Triumph of the Moon p. 194) If another source that says the Triple Goddess of Neopaganism has a different origin, then add what that source says. Otherwise speculation is just that, and will be removed as wp:or. --Davémon (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Meskell, as cited: "...Greek notions of ritual and magic, especially that of the Triple Goddess — maiden, mother, and crone. These ideas were common to many at that time, but probably originated with Jane Ellen Harrison...". (current footnote 33, which goes on to a "See also" Hutton.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of what Meskell wrote, I added it to the article myself. What Meskell doesn't do is support any of the "previous mentions of the Triple Godddess" claims that the article was making. Nonetheless, many of the individual writers used in the section were reasonably easy to allocate to their own sections which discuss those ideas within their proper contexts. While it is valid, and important for the article to describe these notable views, collating the writings of the poet Graves, the psychologist Neumann and the feminist Walker together, and presented in the authorial voice as if they were all "historically neutral" or the work of mainstream anthroplogists had wp:syn and wp:weight problems. Keeping them separate avoids this and keeps wp:npov the neutral point of view. Davémon (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying now has nothing to do with what you were saying above (that Graves "invented the category"), nor with the text you've now removed from the article against consensus. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is entirely relevant to the material of this article. Whether Graves 'invented' the category (Hutton), or Harrisson 'invented' the category (Meksell), neither Hutton nor Meskell support the specific material now moved to triple deities as being relevant to the development of the Neopagan Triple Goddess. Subsequent editors have ratified the decision to move much of this material, so yes, it reflects the wider consensus. --Davémon (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Subsequent editors" plural? Please list them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then allow me to rephrase: there is no consensus for merging any of the material at triple deity into this article. There is no consensus for taking observations of Neumann, Graves and Walker out of the context of their discourses and synthesising a section out of their views. If you would like to show there is a consensus that support either of your positions, please go ahead. --Davémon (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So: no list of "subsequent editors" plural that "have ratified the decision to move much of this material", so, no, your action didn't reflect any "wider consensus", and what Cynwolfe said earlier still holds true (follow link): That is the consensus: that the classical triple goddess concept needs to be included. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

cquotes in "Jungian Psychology"

It's a matter of aesthetic tastes, I suppose, but the cramming of many cquotes together looks terrible to me.

One cquote as a section header, or footer, provides a nice change of pace for a reader.

Many cquotes in a row is just obtrusive, and interrupts text flow, to no particular purpose here.

If this isn't a change you cling to, Davémon, please let this text resume its prior formatting.

Thanks. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the correct semantic formatting was adhered to, (also see WP:MOSQUOTE). What reason is there that a list of quotations should "flow"? Surely, quotations should, by their very nature, stand alone, and not flow into each other. Thanks.Davémon (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:MOSQUOTE requires, or even suggests, cquotes. "A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation", yes, but then either

or {{quote}} is used; far less obtrusive, no big curly quotation marks. None of these quotes are full paragraphs; and unless you're using very large print or a very small window, there's no way "constellations of three goddesses are to be found everywhere in Greece, becoming quaternities only by association with a male god." extends more than four lines. WP:MOSQUOTE shows examples of shorter quotations as in-text, which is how this section was (correctly) formatted before. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sizzle on the interpretation of WP:MOSQUOTE and the undesirability of cquotes in this section. I find cquotes obtrusive in almost every use. It should also be considered whether there are too many quotes to begin with. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, what WP:MOSQUOTE says is that the {{cquote}} template is "used only for pull quotes" — which these are not. Quotes as such may be necessary because any summary gets challenged as "interpretation" here, but {{cquote}}s are completely inappropriate in this context. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the in-text quoting, and then put two longer passages into blockquotes per WP:MOSQUOTE. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus makes a good point, and one I think I made in an edit summary. Both the Jung and Harrison sections are totally dominated by quotations. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Selections of quotes aren't proper encyclopedic content, and stinging together a lot of quotes just looks like biased cherry-picking trying to prove a point. Instead of relying on quotes, these ideas should be summarised, briefly and linked. Davémon (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem at this page is that every summary is challenged as "interpretation", and some supposed "summaries" omit significant points made by the quotations. If this hadn't been the case, I think a great deal more of the article would be summary rather than quotation. As it is, direct quotation seems the only practical way to avoid fights over "interpretation". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Direct quotation isn't the answer, better summaries are. Have a look at wp:quote, then another look at the psychology section. 60% of it is quotations completely taken out of context, it's really not good. In fact I'd go as far as saying that the selection of quotes is biased and does not reflect a neutral overview of how Triple Goddess imagery is seen within Jungian psychology. That the whole of Neumanns work on The Mother archetype is reduced to a quote rather than an explanation really lets the article down. Davémon (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please propose and discuss specific improvements. The quotes selected were (a) as short, and (b) as on topic, as I could find. Are you aware of shorter quotes that address the topic as well or better? Would a paraphrase that covered all the same points be any shorter or clearer, and not be challenged by anyone for "interpretation"? If a paraphrase is no shorter or clearer, what's the gain? If it's challenged as "interpretation", isn't the subsequent wrangling an extra cost (not charged by the direct quotation)? Our mutual experience with summaries has not been good, but I'd enjoy seeing that change.

BTW, charging "bias" and tagging "POV" on a section that (as you complain) consists of direct verbatim quotations, as close as possible to no "interpretation" at all, has a rather chilling effect on summarizing — which by its nature involves more interpretation. You might want to cool it with such accusations and tags if you really want summaries used instead of quotes. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that taking a brief "quotation" out of context introduces bias (see Confirmation Bias. The problem is compounded by stringing together a selection of quotations to uphold a specific POV argument. Note how all of the quotations make claims to history, but do not discuss psychological function. This is bias and is attempting to skew the article to a specific, non-neutral POV. The quotes as they stand are damaging to the neutrality of the article. I have already suggested how to fix that, but if this cant be done these quotes should just be removed. the first Jung doesn't even discuss the feminine. Davémon (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"The first Jung" says "triads of gods appear very early, at the primitive level", and notes that "arrangement in triads is an archetype in the history of religion", which has a perfectly clear bearing on the topic of this article, especially in view of (1) the question of antiquity of the triadic concept, and (2) the archetype theory discussed in "Contemporary beliefs and practices". That he does not limit this to one gender does not make it irrelevant to the feminine, but makes it relevant to deity-triads of any gender. You may consider this "biased" in that it asserts what you deny, but it can't be helped that Jung says what he says. Disliking what he says isn't a refutation, and silencing it by deletion is merely suppression of evidence. Withholding relevant information from the reader isn't part of Wikipedia's mission. Come up with a contrary quote, if you think such exists. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"relevant to deity-triads of any gender" that is not the subject of this article. General statements about gods that appear in 3 don't belong here. By your logic any writer that talks about any religious thing that comes in 3s is relevant. This is clearly nonsense in an article called Triple Goddess (neopaganism). I don't "dislike" what Jung says at all, but unlike you I don't think that Jung is a reliable source for ancient history. However, Jung is not talking about the Triple Goddess, and this statement by Jung is not specifically cited by a reliable source who is talking about the Triple Goddess. Somebody needs to prove, by reliable sources that this specific quote from Jung is relevant to the TG. The burden of proof lays in the person adding or requesting material is kept. The quote will be removed until it can be properly connected to the article. Even so, the wp:bias issue of strign together quotations remains. Davémon (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this article is one specific deity-triad, so Jung's observation applies to it. In the very next paragraph Jung & Kerenyi discuss specifically female triads, which discussion applies even more particularly. You haven't demonstrated any "bias", merely slung around the word. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

_{"The subject of this article is one specific deity-triad..."} I thought that the article was supposed to explore different ideas of a modern Triple Goddess.  rdunnalbatross  07:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the subject is the modern "neopagan" Triple Goddess. If Jungs quotation regards triplism is related to the Triple Goddess via reliable sources, then it can stay, otherwise claiming it is relevant is WP:OR. Is Jung in the quote discussing Triple Goddess? Mo. He's talking about a broad based theory of how concepts are formed. I have absolutely no doubt that the theory does get applied to the TG, by someone, somewhere but emphatically this does not happen in the quotation given. The article needs to say by who and where this specific quote of Jungs is related to the subject of the article. My problem isn't with what Jung says, it's with the fact that the quote is being taken out of context, and put into the context of the TG without explaining how these things are linked. This is simply begging the question. The historiographical bias which underlines the quotation selection has already been described in this thread: let's quote psychologists on psychology, and leave history to the historians. Davémon (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Very simply, Jung is "talking about" the antiquity and the archetype of triads of deities. This article is about a deity-triad called the Triple Goddess, "the idea of three separate female figures being united", by its very description a member of the set "triads of deities".

No WP:OR is involved; the text is again an attributed, cited, unaltered direct quotation. To see a connection between Jung's discussion of a set and the article's discussion of a set member is WP:NOTOR, on the order of "if A is in district B, and district B is in province C, then A is in province C". As the idea that "the Triple Goddess is an archetypal figure" is explicitly mentioned earlier, the opinion of the original archetype-theorist is highly relevant and "weighty". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, Jung is not talking about The Triple Goddess. Claiming that this quote is taking about that requires wp:or. Physical geography is much simpler than transpersonal psychology and new-age belief systems, the comparison is faulty.Davémon (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jung is talking about a set (triads of deities). The Triple Goddess is a member of that set, a triadic goddess. This is WP:NOTOR, simple or direct deduction. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a logical deduction to claim that this specific quote refers to the Neopagan Triple Goddess. Who says Jung is defining a "set"? Jung is talking about an archetypal construct, not a "set". The problem is that this specific quote is being taken out of context. Quoting a psychologist on matters of ancient history is clearly errornous, Jung is not a reliable source for matters of classical antiquity or prehistory. If the article said something along the lines of "Jung considered the arrangement of deities in triads as an archetype arising at the most primitive level of human development." That would be accurate and providing the correct (psychoanalytical) context within which Jungs comments were made. --Davémon (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article quotes Jung (a) directly and (b) accurately. If you wish that he had said something other than he had said, you have my sympathies. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts

a)_{(This article is about a deity-triad called the Triple Goddess, "the idea of three separate female figures being united", by its very description a member of the set "triads of deities")} No as it "... discusses the concept of a "Triple Goddess" in Neopaganism.

b) I think we should just move the whole Jung section into the triple goddess section on triple deities as it seems to me to have nothing to do with pagan beliefs and is just theories. It has nothing on the fact that the 3 Goddesses could acctualy be Good, Evil and Neutral.  rdunnalbatross  09:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

a) «No as it "... discusses the concept of a "Triple Goddess" in Neopaganism» — and in Graves. But both Graves and the neopagans are shown asserting that this concept existed before the 20th century, in ancient history and prehistory. That neopagans consider it an "archetype", such that other cultures' deity-triads like the Tridevi are venerated as forms of the Triple Goddess, surely makes Jung's assertion of such an archetype relevant here.

b) «... is just theories.» — But "theories" about pagan beliefs, and those "theories" are in turn adopted by neopagans, viz. discussion of "archetype theory" in the "Contemporary beliefs and practices" section. «It has nothing on the fact that the 3 Goddesses could actually be Good, Evil and Neutral.» — It's true that the Jung quote isn't discussing that idea; but then, neither is any other part of the article. So what does this alleged "fact" (out of the clear blue sky) have to do with anything? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is me trying to illustrate that the article needs to be split or heavly expanded with other ideas. (also the article seems to be just be about MMC)  rdunnalbatross  10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for a while another editor was excluding anything that wasn't MMC (a very frequently used form of the TG); but now we've got documented that some neopagans venerate non-MMC forms of the TG, such as Tridevi and the three sisters named "Brighid". By all means please document others. Such an expansion would be good — but wouldn't require moving Jung out of this article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaries

These edit summaries [1] [2] are deceptive. Sure, there are some reference fixes, probably some copyediting, but to claim that the restoration of disputed text is just a "major cleanup job" is disingenuous. Those were both reverts; so is Davemon's edit and my recent edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're looking right past the "missing text" part. That, as you say, was restored. And, as Cynwolfe said, consensus favors it. So, no deception, merely selective reading on your part, once again. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Next time label it as what it is: a revert. And Cynwolfe has left this discussion, so I wouldn't quote his words as support for any version of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I had added ISBNs and Google Books links and publishers and editors and publication dates and article names and spelling corrections and a host of other details, all of which Davémon deleted without ceremony, and then I restored them -- the second (Davémon's) and third (my) edits were "reverts", yes -- but my edit summary "Restored" followed by the identical text of my first edit summary pretty much indicates that. To say that my *first* edit with all the new ISBNs etc was a "revert" is senseless. How could it be a "revert" when all that information had never been in the article before? I *also* added back information that had been removed against consensus, as you know. This was entirely proper. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, your edits added new material (ISBNs, etc.), but also added back disputed text. The part where you "added back information that had been removed against consensus" is a revert. I'm afraid I disagree with you that the material was removed against consensus, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dianic Wicca Bias Issues

Previously, the statement "Wiccan practice and theology differ from tradition to tradition, including the identities of their deities" was followed in the same paragraph by "For example" (discussion of Dianic Wiccans). A separate paragraph addressed neo-Druids, who are not Wiccan.

As recently changed, that "Wiccan practice and theology differ..." statement ends the paragraph, and what follows are now subsections titled "Dianic Wicca" and "Neo Druidism" [sic] and "Eclectic Archetype". This gives the false impression that all three sections are about the differing ""Wiccan practice and theology", when only the first of the three is about a Wiccan tradition.

Also, Davémon has deleted the significant detail that Dianic Wicca invokes just the Goddess, not also the God, which is what distinguishes that tradition in a mostly duotheistic (God-and-Goddess-worshipping) religion, and which is why it was brought up as an example of the differing ""Wiccan practice and theology".

For this reason, sorry, Davémon, I'm putting "Contemporary beliefs and practices" mostly back to status quo ante, though retaining one of your changes (removal of gender). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sizzle, would you mind to add back in the accurate, reliably sourced content that said Dianic Wicca took the triple goddess from Gardnerian Wicca as well? Cheers. Davémon (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That some Dianic Wiccans regard Diana as a Triple Goddess (Z Budapest as cited example) is already stated. Attributing that particular concept to the Gardnerians is more problematic. You're conflating two adjacent sentences. (1) "Presented as a new religion with ancient roots, the Dianic Craft incorporated many elements of Gardnerian Wicca, although it delighted in creating new elements and innovative practices." [Many elements, yes, which is why it's now called Dianic Wicca and discussed here as a tradition within Wicca.] (2) "From Wicca" [note no modifier] "it adopted the five-fold kiss...; the casting of the circle and the correlation of the four elements and the directions, the eight sabbats and thirteen full, moon esbats; and the concept of the Triple Goddess originally promoted by English poet Robert Graves." [From Wicca, yes, but not necessarily the Gardnerian tradition at that point. The extraneous comma after "full" falsely indicates the thirteen esbats are both "full" and "moon" rather than being "full moon" — which, together with the same author's misunderstanding about whether all Dianic groups are women-only, suggests this source is not so very reliable. Where, in a good source actually covering Gardnerian Wicca (not just making a third-hand assumption about it), is the Triple Goddess asserted as part of Gardnerian theology? Or is Berger loosely using "Gardnerian" not as indicating a particular tradition, but as indicating overall Wicca being ultimately derived from Gardner?] — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The source specifically says that Dianic Wicca adopted the Triple Goddess from Wicca, along with the athame and other elements. The fact the author dropped the "Gardnerian" modifier (possibly to avoid simple repetitiion) is not a reason to delete reliably sourced content from the article. If identifying "Gardnerian" is problematic, then we can just say "Dianics adopted the TG from other Wiccan traditions". There is no reason the information proposed by Berger should not appear in the article. Davémon (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) "Some Dianics regard Diana as a Triple Goddess (adopting the idea from other Wiccan traditions)", if you must, though I hope you'll reconsider. I think the significant statement is that they thus regard their deity, and that's already stated. That the Dianic Craft borrowed many of its elements from other Wiccan traditions is true, but trivially true (as it's true of every Wiccan tradition other than Gardnerian); it's also more detail than the weight of a brief passing mention here requires, and really belongs at Dianic Wicca. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Berger is a well respected, academic sociologist and her views are both relevant and notable here, as is the history of the Triple Goddess concept as it moves through various neo-paganisms which she reveals. I have reinstated the content in a neutral manner.Davémon (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only do we have Berger saying the deity in Dianic Wicca is the Triple Goddess, we also have Budapest saying this. The content is repeatedly being biased away from what the reliabley secondary sources state, towards an original synthesis, apparently based on a single sentance from a single primary source. Davémon (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, the content had been reverted to the biased state again. Here: [[3]], between the last discussion here (13 October 2009) and again this was reverted today, both times without discussion. As it stands the biased version, which keeps being reverted to in the article has no support. Davémon (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated edits introduced both grammatical and factual errors. "Some Dianic Wiccans... says" is grammatically wrong, whether in Commonwealth or American English. You moved the "some" to Barrett's statement about Dianic Wicca as a whole (that it's inspired by Diana, as the name "Dianic" indicates), where the word "some" does not belong. You removed "some" from a statement about TG belief, where the evidence supports that some Dianic Wiccans believe this (at least Z Budapest does), but not that all Dianics incorporate that element (it's unstated by others). It's not "bias" to (a) be grammatical and (b) stay within what the evidence supports. And BRD, don't BRRD while levelling accusations of editwarring at others. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The bias had already been re-introduced on 13th Oct. without any discussion. No "factual" errors were introduced. If you have a problem with the grammar then simply fix the grammar. Your claim that the name "Dianic Wicca" indicates the Roman goddess is not upheld by reliable secondary sources which states it is based on C19th fiction, and based on Graves. Why remove this accurate and correctly and adequately cited content? Why is the whole paragraph biased towards upholding a single statement from a single primary source, when we have both the founder and a reliable secondary source saying something else? Davémon (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not my claim, Davémon; that's an attributed/quoted/cited statement by Ruth Barrett, co-founder of the Temple of Diana, and it is repeated at that organization's own website page titled "The Tradition of Dianic Wicca". If you don't like it, argue with that source. Where is your cite for Z Budapest's "something else"? As for Berger, you cited her that (all) Dianic covens are women-only, a false statement; you call this "reliable"?

And Davémon, having been reverted due to errors specified in the revert comment, why didn't you fix your grammar etc, instead of reverting to reinstate the same errors intact? (Neither "accurate" nor "correct"!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Barrett actually considers the Goddess to be Maiden/Mother/Crone, see her Women's Rites, Women's Mysteries: Intuitive Ritual Creation p194. So yes, it is your claim that her statement about the Roman Diana means she thinks otherwise, and the subsequent wp:bias in the paragraph stems from this narrow sourcing. Yes, Berger is a reliable source. Where is your evidence that she isn't considered such, other than your own personal point of view? Hey, I'm not too good at grammar, wikipedia is supposed to be a shared effort. Most editors actually just pick up minor spelling and grammar mistakes and fix them, not just blanket revert edits. Davémon (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That cite, if you'd bothered to add it (with direct quote, please), could at least add to the "some", and might even argue for simply removing the word "some" from that sentence — which I see has been done and reverted in the meantime. It would not justify the other paragraph-mangling, nor would it in any way refute what Barrett also says about being inspired by the Roman Diana — and how you reason that it does remains entirely unexplained. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now added that cite for you (and removed "Some"), though Google Books won't show the page you refer to. Please still give the direct quote. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

As Barratt herself disproves your theory, there is no reason at all to keep the biased POV version of this paragraph in the article. I have inserted a neutral version which accurately reflects the sources, and does not make any POV claims which are unsourced. If there are any specific problems with the version I've put in, then we can discuss those problems. Davémon (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] To what "theory" are you referring? That Dianics are inspired by Diana? That's (1) a directly quoted statement by Barrett, not my idea; (2) not "disproved" by anything you've said; (3) not removed by your edit. All you've removed is the mention that Dianics only invoke the Goddess and (unlike other Wiccans) not also the God. There's no POV in that; it too was a direct & attributed quote. And it was an example of how Wiccan practice & theology differ (which was the first sentence of the paragraph). You broke the paragraph after that first sentence, rearranging the remainder to leave no concept flow. The coverage of Dianic Wicca started with what it is, how it differs from other traditions — inspired by Diana, only invokes Goddess, uses Aradia — then moves on to how Dianic views the triple goddess. You stirred that up to separate the TG portions, putting some before and some after the basic Dianic info, and removed a basic part of how Dianic differs from other Wiccan traditions. That's senseless, as then why mention Dianic at all? This was a senseless mangling of one coherent paragraph, without reason (since it didn't remove any "POV" or "bias" as claimed). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In this edit [[4] ]Sizzle has reverted to the previous biased version stating "Concept flow is: practice & theology differ; here's an example of *how*; what Dianic *is* & *does*." whilst removing cited content regarding Graves, cited use of the Triple Goddess in ritual. Editor is more interested in having the article reflect their unsourced POV argument and "concept flow" than actually reflect what the sources say.Davémon (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What "bias"? You yourself had asserted the Dianics took the triple-goddess concept from other Wiccan traditions; that statement remains, as do the specification of the MMC aspects and all the citations. Mangling the paragraph sequence isn't "removing bias". Removing direct quotes doesn't "reflect what the sources say". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather the points are:

1. The idea that Dianic Wiccans identify their deity as the Roman Diana is totally WP:OR based on a faulty interpretation of a primary source.
2. Leaving out the (properly sourced) fact that Dianics concept of the Triple Goddess is based on Graves is wp:bias.
3. Leaving out the (properly sourced) fact that Dianics use Triple Goddess imagery in ritual is wp:bias.
4. Barrett is given more weight than Budapest wp:due, Budapest is by far the more significant figure.

All these problems are fixed in the version I added. Further, there is no need to confine the articles content regarding Dianic Wicca into "an example" for the opinion that wiccan theology is different across traditions. The correct, and encyclopaedic way of showing different opinions on the same subject is to describe the relationship between these traditions and their versions of the Triple Goddess, with reference to reliable sources, and let the reader themselves see that they aren't the same. Davémon (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. «The idea that Dianic Wiccans identify their deity as the Roman Diana is totally WP:OR based on a faulty interpretation of a primary source.» — An attributed, cited, unaltered direct quotation of a reliable source (you've cited her yourself for your own argument), with no "interpretation" at all, faulty or otherwise, in authorial voice:

   For instance, Ruth Barrett, co-founder of the Temple of Diana, says that Dianic Wiccans are "inspired by the nature and aspects of the Roman goddess Diana", and that "although the God is always present as one of Her sacred creations, He is not specifically invoked in Dianic ritual, and there are no specifically male images on a Dianic altar".*

   * Barrett, Ruth (2004). The Dianic Wiccan Tradition.

2. «Leaving out the (properly sourced) fact that Dianics concept of the Triple Goddess is based on Graves» — You already inserted the claim that the Dianics "regard Diana as a Triple Goddess (adopting the idea from other Wiccan traditions)"; and the very first sentence of the article already indicates that Wiccans adopted the idea from Graves; so I don't see how this is "left out". It merely isn't repeated again and again in every paragraph, nor need it be.
3. «Leaving out the (properly sourced) fact that Dianics use Triple Goddess imagery in ritual» — You were asked, more than once, for a direct quote, and have never supplied it. In any case, since Dianics invoke Diana (and "regard Diana as a Triple Goddess"), it already follows logically that they are invoking a Triple Goddess. So again you are claiming "bias" for a mere lack of redundancy.
4. «Barrett is given more weight than Budapest» — Both are quoted. Barrett has an article on the whole Dianic Wiccan tradition, which is quoted as to the identity of their deity and the significant detail that only the Goddess, not the God, is invoked. If you've found a text by Budapest which conveys the same information as clearly and briefly, I'd have no problem with using that instead. Budapest is both identified as "widely considered the mother of Dianic Wicca" and quoted on the Triple Goddess, which doesn't seem derogatory toward her. Indeed, citing Barrett on the same point only increases Barrett's "weight", but you were the one who cited her, so why charge "bias" for a weight you increased? [It is of course silly to insist that WP:WEIGHT requires quoting each person in a length directly proportional to their prominence; these two people were just quoted where they had something to say pertinent to the immediate issue.]

The version you added only removed the key difference between Dianics and other Wiccans, no two-gender duotheism, and that wasn't a POV issue since it also was a direct quote (as well as an uncontroversial statement about the Dianic tradition, so there's no "opposite POV" to include). Mangling, misspelling ("Barratt"), and adding errors to the paragraph did not constitute a "correct and encyclopedic" edit, nor was "bias" involved in the version you mangled. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 16:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1: "inspired by" is not the same thing as "identified as". The direct quote of Barrats is completely taken out of context, misinterpreted and given undue weight. Basically, the idea that Dianic wiccans worship the Roman Diana is wrong. The entire paragraph as you have it is supporting a misconceived conclusion.

2: That Dianics are seen to specifically take inspiration from Graves, rather than Harrison or Gimbutas, is completely pertinent to. Your reason "repetition" does not hold up, we're talking about different groups here.

3: Who says I need to supply "quotes". I have supplied adequate citations.

4: WP:Weight has nothing to do with the lengths of quotations. It's to do with the ordering of information and the tone. Compare "Barratt co-founder of the Temple of Diana" and "Budapest, widely considered the mother of Dianic Wicca".

There's no reason to keep you wp:or conclusions in the article, or the complete fallacy that Dianic Wiccans identify the Goddess as the Roman Diana. It's complete fabrication. Davémon (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. What is in the article is Barrett's "inspired by". Where is the "identified as" that you are objecting to as WP:OR?
2. "Different groups"? Such as the Wiccans from whom the Dianics are already stated to have taken the Triple Goddess concept?
3. *I* asked you for a quote, because that page (unlike others in the book) is not provided online.
4. The ordering of information was, first, the difference between Dianic and other traditions of Wicca (inspired by Diana, don't invoke a God) — because this was an example of how "Wiccan practice and theology differ from tradition to tradition" — and then further detail, not necessarily differential, like the view of the Triple Goddess.

If you feel any of this is "out of context", don't merely assert that, provide the missing context. If you feel that Barrett is "wrong", too bad; it's her religion, not yours. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. the article currently opines: Wiccan practice and theology differ from tradition to tradition, including the identities of their deities. For instance, Ruth Barrett, co-founder of the Temple of Diana, says that Dianic Wiccans are "inspired by the nature and aspects of the Roman goddess Diana.."'. This is claiming 1) wiccan deities have different identities and then proceeds to provide the "Roman goddess"Diana" as evidence of this, no other identiry is mentioned, and Diana is the only possible identity pointed to by the prose. This is a simple rhetoric of begging the question, (what identities?) then answering it ("diana"). Juxtaposing these ideas, followed by a quote (taken out of context) is purely WP:OR.
2. Yes, Dianics took their idea of the Triple goddess from Wicca and Graves. This is verifiable and cited, there is no reason to remove this from the article.
3. The fact that someone can't read the whole book online not a reason to delete the content I added.
4. The ordering of the content to support a wp:pov argument is not neutral. The article should not discuss Dianic Wiccans in terms of their "difference", but rather than just report their beliefs? wp:npov.

I have provided the correct context here. --Davémon (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. «The article currently opines» — No, it states on the basis of reliable citations. If you feel Wiccans all have the same deities, that would be a fringe belief, and you'd have to cite sources for it.
2. ...
3. The verbatim quote in the citation would allow the reader to judge (not blindly trust) its interpretation.
4. A paragraph that begins "Wiccan practice and theology differ from tradition to tradition, including the identities of their deities. For instance,..." is clearly about the variation of Wiccan deity-identies. To scramble such a paragraph on the basis that "the article should not discuss Dianic Wiccans in terms of their 'difference', but rather than just report their beliefs" is a POV of its own. The article Dianic Wicca already exists to "report their beliefs". That the question of "identity" is answered "Diana" is already hinted by the name "Dianic".
5. Here you misspelled "Barrett", mistagged a reliable source, and scrambled the sequence of the paragraph, Davémon, but did not indicate how the quote was out of context. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the number ordering in your comment. Hope that's OK, but it's important for anyone following this argument to see what point relates to what.

1. Please read my critique again. The problem is that the selection of quotations, along with the ordering of statements has introduced bias and created a POV which is not upheld in the sources- i.e. that Dianic Wiccans identify their deity chiefly as the Roman goddess Diana - this is wp:syn and not supported by any of the sources.
2. Again: Dianic Wiccans took the Triple Goddess from Wicca and Graves. There is no reason to remove this properly cited fact.
3. Taking a quotation out of the source material is not required by policy. The statement regarding the Dianic use of the Triple Goddess in ritual, is adequately sourced by wikipedia standards. Can I suggest you read as much of the Barrats book as is availiable to you, as the larger part of it uses the nomenclature "The Goddess" in relation to the deity of Dianic wicca, and does not claim this is the Roman goddess Diana.
4. Your paragraph begins "wiccan practice..." etc. and is based on the idea that this is "different". My paragraph does not require such a supporting framework. The article does not need to discuss "difference of identities of wiccan deities", it needs to discuss The Triple Goddess. The framing argument of "difference" is wp:pov pushing. wp:npov says we should describe different views of the same subject. That is what my version does. It describes the relationship between Dianic Wiccan and the Triple Goddess concept. It doesn't say it's "different", it does not say its "the same", it just describes it. Neutrally.
5. That the question of "identity" is answered "Diana" is already hinted by the name "Dianic". You can't seriously claim that the identity of a deity can be descerned by the name of the religion. Do "Alexandrian Wiccans" worship the Greek Alexander? No, they don't, the logic is completely bizarre. Reliable sources explain that the name is from the novel Arcadia, not from Roman texts. Further, Barrett explains that The Goddess is a "universal entity", not a culturally specific one.
6. Here What do you mean by "scrambled". As far as I can see, this is just an emotive way of saying that it no longer supports your argument. If perhaps you could explain your actual problems with the paragraph we could work on it until it meets both our requirements.
7. The Covenant of the Goddess website FAQ is not a reliable source. It is a self-published neopagan making a facile comment "there are as meany gods as there are worshippers", and is not a sociologist or anthropologist making an informed, academic statement on the status of neopagan worship. If the comment was just kept to the beliefs of "The Covenant of the Goddess" and it's followers, that would be fine. However, it is being used to make a broad, sweeping statement characterising other peoples beliefs. Using as a spokesperson for, or a commentator on, the entire neopagan community is not to the spirit or the letter of wp:selfpub. There is no evidence for the reliability of this source.
8. Spelling flames? If there's a typo, fix the typo. Using this as an argument to repeatedly revert text to a section which has wp:syn wp:pov and wp:bias issues isn't a very constructive attitude.

In short, the assumption that Dianic Wiccans worship the Roman goddess Diana is a faulty conclusion based on the the fact Barrett says Dianics take inspiration from the figure, and that the religion is called Dianic Wicca. There is no evidence in reliable sources which directly uphold this view that The Goddess of Dianic wicca is identified as the Roman goddess, and several reliable sources which say otherwise. The section is misleading, and misrepresents the beliefs of Dianic Wiccans. Davémon (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That Z Budapest, its founder, "called her denomination Dianic, after Diana, the Roman Goddess of the hunt and untamed nature"; and that Barrett's organization is named the Temple of Diana; says nothing to you? It's not the "Triple Goddess Tradition", or "The Temple of the Triple Goddess", just as it's not "the Barrats book" or "Arcadia" or "descerned" or "meany" — and when you keep getting basic facts (like the spelling of "Barrett") wrong despite correction, I get the impression you simply don't care to get them right.

COG is a major and prominent Wiccan umbrella organization; even if its statement were true only of its own members, that would be sufficient to make it a broadly applicable statement. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A self-published, non-independent writer should not be given wp:weight over an academic sociologist. Even so, that Barratt states: "called her denomination Dianic, after Diana, the Roman Goddess"; - this does not actually say that the deity is the Roman goddess Diana, as the article posits. The "COG" is not a reliable source for sociological information, the comment "there are as many gods as worshippers" is a facetious cliché with no empirical evidence to support it. Even if there was, there is no reason this absolutely must be set up as the framing argument for discussing how different neopaganisms use the Triple Goddess. Attacking typing errors as being "factual errors" is clearly fallacious, are you even attempting to assume good faith? As there have been no actual objections to the arguments I've put forward, I can see no reason not to amend the article accordingly, and remove the wp:or and wp:bias.Davémon (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're relying on the same source you had earlier cited (Berger) that all Dianic covens are female-only, against the same source (Barrett) that had said not all were, and in that match Berger was shown erroneous and Barrett was shown correct. Your "amendment" has once again merely inserted errors, including in facts, spelling, grammar, and punctuation, and what you removed was neither WP:OR nor WP:BIAS in the first place; you're not well positioned to make a WP:AGF complaint after all these accusations and what looks like a prolonged hostile WP:OWNership campaign. Your arguments have been objected to, your errors have been detailed; you've chosen to ignore both, and to repeatedly override consensus while pretending to represent it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The hostile WP:OWNership argument could equally be levelled at you, as could your empty claims for reflecting 'consensus'. The WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT issues have been discussed here at length and no evidence was brought forward to deny the WP:OR ("Dianic Wiccans worship the Roman Goddess Diana"). Hopefully we can now move on. If you doubt Bergers reliability, then take it to the RS noticeboard. If there are any issues with the article as it stands, be they spellings or "facts", then hopefully we can work on those specific problems together.Davémon (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears that discussion has ceased. Here: [5]here:[6] here:[7] each time without attempting to move consensus or discuss the problem, instead reverting to the biased, WP:OR version without any attempt to even acknowledge the issues raised or discuss th issues further. Davémon (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering that you yourself thumped heavily on Aradia (though, as usual, you misspelled it: "Arcadia"), what was left to argue? You seemed to think that proved the "Diana" in question was not the Roman goddess, which indicates you have read neither the article nor the book itself. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)