Jump to content

Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Tridevi

To reprise the "4)" track, you required verification that Hinduism contains "triple goddesses"; I cited "For instance the Tridevi..."; you characterized my reply as "Just proposing your own theories". (No, I didn't "propose" the Tridevi, I'm far too young, by centuries.) Now you call it, along with the whole "pre-modern concept of 'triple goddesses'" (of which the Tridevi is but one example), "unfounded opinions you have put forward" — in the face of multiple clear examples: the Tridevi depiction and citation, the triple-goddess denarius, and the Hecate Triformis statue, all posted or linked right here. Again, you give me too much credit, these long predate me and the "modern era". On what basis of "original research" do you dispute all these long-known cases? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting your opinion without providing verification is a breach of the wp:talk guidelines. If you want to claim that "Tridevi" is considered to be a "triple goddess" you will need to find a reliable source that actually says this. Just posting pictures and making claims about them is not convincing, nor does it satisfy wikipedia content policy. Davémon (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
«If you want to claim that "Tridevi" is considered to be a "triple goddess"...»? That's what the word means! Tri (three, triple) + devi (goddess). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So what? Pocari Sweat isn't made from sweat. Sources please! Also I would be interested to see any sources that support points 1, 2 and 3 as well, they would be really useful in expanding this article. Thanks in advance. Davémon (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and Mountain Dew isn't really made from dew found in the mountains. But we're not discussing soft-drink brand-names. This triad of Hindu Goddesses is referred to by a term that directly translates as "triple goddess". Even this very article (when it was still about triple goddesses in general, not just Wicca's female deity) began with the definition: "A triple goddess is a term used to describe any goddess who appears as a triad." — which the Tridevi does. Further, this article had a double citation to assert of the Tridevi: "In the annual festival of Navaratri images of the Triple Goddess are carried in procession throughout India and in Hindu communities worldwide.(15)(16)" You can still see in the article "Navaratri": "Navratri is divided into sets of three days to adore three different aspects of the supreme goddess or goddesses. [...] In order to have all-round success in life, believers seek the blessings of all three aspects of the divine femininity, hence the nine nights of worship." (emphases added throughout) If there were a competition, the Tridevi is a much older triad than Wicca's, and should have prior claim to "Triple Goddess". But as a category, it fits both of them, and other triads as well. Why should this actually-used term for the Tridevi (and other goddess-triads) be forbidden to mention here except only in relation to Wicca? What gives Wicca an exclusive copyright on the term "Triple Goddess"? At this point there appears to be a very non-neutral POV in the article, privileging Wicca and unreasonably excluding all other religions with goddess-triads. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
And Sprite isn't made of fairies either. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we can't base our article here on what other wikipedia articles say or have said in the past. We need to cite reliable sources. The sources provided in the old TG article (probably at [triple deities] now) are both from the genre of travel journalism, rather than religious studies, and I don't think we should be taking them at face value as 'expert' opinion on the matter of Hindu theology. Davémon (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Navaratri's "travel journalism" describes events the readers can travel to and attend, because they are still held every year, because the religion is still being practiced, rather than being in the dustbin of ancient history — so you don't need a religious or historical or archaeological expert to dig it up, just a journalist to report it and a travel agent to get you there. This was the schedule of a "[re]current event"; a public event, not some arcane secret lost in the mists of time. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hot Dogs aren't heated canines. If "Tridevi" really were an important concept in Hindu mythology and religious practice it should be simple to find serious sources that support the idea, rather than relying on the interpretation of a couple of westerner tourist-guide writers to support your point of view. Davémon (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
«If "Tridevi" really were an important concept....» Then so'd be the male counterpart, "Trimurti" (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). But no, eh?
Jai Bihar (news site for Bihar in eastern India) reports on a festival, explaining: "Saraswati is the Hindu goddess of knowledge, music and the arts. Saraswati has been identified with the Vedic Saraswati River. She is considered as consort of Brahma, the Hindu god of creation. Thus, with the goddesses Lakshmi and Parvati or Durga, she forms the Tridevi ('three goddesses'), who are consorts of the male trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, respectively. Saraswati’s children are the Vedas, which are the oldest sacred texts of Hinduism." Hinduism Today Magazine reports that the Navaratri festival is celebrated by "Hindus across the globe.... Millions of Hindu women consider Navaratri each year's primary festival, the one they can most deeply connect to. Many see it as a way to commune with their own feminine divinity." HTM also reprints an article reporting: "The festival of Navaratri, the nine-night Hindu festival honoring three Goddesses, is celebrated in grand style by South Indian Hindus now living in Texas." So yes, it's still important to Hindus, even outside India. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. These all appear to be good news sources. Some sources that provide explanation of the trinity / triplism concept as it relates to Lakshmi/Parvati/Durga in Hinduism would be very useful. Davémon (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It will be noted that neither of these sources use the phrase "Triple Goddess", again this shows that this phrase is not the one to use.Davémon (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The term "Tridevi" is Sanskrit, not English, but can be translated as "Triple Goddess". The first HTM article does make clear the three are part of one Goddess: "Here the Goddess is worshipped in three forms. During the first three nights, Durga is revered, then Lakshmi on the fourth, fifth and sixth nights, and finally Sarasvati until the ninth night." Demanding that exact English phrases be used in a non-English-language culture is disingenuous; it's the referent that matters. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
In Hinduism all goddesses are considered to be aspects of one goddess, there is nothing significant about these 3 in this regard, they also have common divisions of 9, 12 and many more. Claiming that a non-English culture has the same referent as an English one is disengeniuos to say the least. The articles provided certainly do not translate the name as you claim.Davémon (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You think tri and "three" have different referents? That's like arguing that "threefold" has nothing to do with "triple"! Oh, wait, you do argue that. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
You're seriously trying to argue that two completely different signs ("Triple Goddess" and "Tridevi"), arising in two completely different cultures over 4000 miles apart have exactly the same referent because they both happen to contain the number 3? Yes, that does appear to be your entire thesis. Davémon (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, since Wiccans are modern, and full well aware of different pantheons, and tend to synthesize their own from existing pantheons, and since "Hindu Wiccans" have expressly adopted the Tridevi as their version of the Triple Goddess, it seems at least in their case, yes, the referents are exactly the same. Are you going to tell those Wiccans their Triple Goddess is not the Tridevi? By what reasoning will you argue that they don't worship what they do worship? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Aha! well, if we can find a reliable source that discusses Tridevi in Hindu Wiccanism or whatever, then sure we can add it in to the article. Technically Hindu Wiccanist deity isn't the same referent, but actually a completely separate one. As has been mentioned previously, anyone can make a website, doesn't mean people actually go around believing what they say. Without reliable sources, this is a clear case of putting an undue amount of weight onto a minority view. Davémon (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
«doesn't mean people actually go around believing what they say» — Well, that thoroughly poisons the well. Website, book, magazine article, or public speaking, the same argument applies. Maybe nobody believes anything of what they utter, all publicly devout people are secret atheists, all apparent devotees of any cause or person secretly hate it/him/her, etc.; but how do we read their minds to know for sure? All we have to go on is what they say and do. The point to challenge is where they contradict themselves, say one thing and do another, or say one thing at one time and the opposite thing at a different time — the usual test for hypocrisy or lying about one's own beliefs.
«putting an undue amount of weight onto a minority view» — If saying that "Hindu-Wiccans worship Tridevi as their Triple Goddess" (or at least say they do, and we have no grounds to doubt them about that) is "putting an undue amount of weight onto a minority view", then so is saying that "Wiccans worship a Triple Goddess" (or a God and Goddess, or whatever), because all Wiccans put together are still a small minority. In fact, how dare we say that any individual (Robert Graves or anyone else) believed anything he/she said, since any individual is the smallest possibly minority, and discussing their beliefs is also "putting an undue amount of weight onto a minority view"?
By your rules, it becomes impossible to discuss anyone's beliefs. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a complete straw-man argument. There is no reason to think the website you're quoting is a wp:reliable source. Unfortunately if something is not reported by reliable sources, we can't report it here. Can you find any statements from reliable sources for the "Hindu Wicca" use of the Tridevi concept as the usual "Triple Goddess"? Davémon (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Given recent discussions, I have to wonder what source likely to cover Hindu Wicca at all you would find "reliable". Apparently not any website dedicated to the topic, such that it would possibly go into the details of theology. Would anything that even merely verified the existence of Hindu Wicca or its superset IndoPaganism be rejected as "fringe" or "minority view"? Pages at Witchvox? That's a website too. Articles in PanGaia or Green Egg? Those are "minority view" (neopagan) magazines. And whatever they say, that can never prove they actually believe it, right? The whole well has been poisoned. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The right place to ask this question is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As none of these additional sources appear to mention Tridevi = The Triple Goddess, I can't see how they are relevant to the current content of this article. As far as I'm concerned an online bulletin board with a thread with a single post on it from an anonymous user really can't count as a reliable source. Davémon (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as Wikipedia is concerned, WP:SELFPUB. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
And since you yourself give weight to Google Scholar searches, try "triple goddess" (kali | durga | parvati | lakshmi | saraswati | sarasvati), 253 hits. The same search in Google Books, 370 hits. Example: "Nov. 27: Day of Parvati-Devi, the Triple Goddess who divided herself into Sarasvati, Lakshmi, and Kali, or the Three Mothers." from D.J. Conway (1995), Moon Magick: Myth & Magick, Crafts & Recipes, Rituals & Spells. Llewellyn. p.230. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Is D.J Conway a reliable source for Hindu theology? Doesn't seem so. If you want to use her as a primary source for eclectic neopaganism, go ahead and add it to the article with full attribution. Davémon (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You were asking for citation that Wiccans recognize the Tridevi as "Triple Goddess", which Conway (an already cited Wiccan author) verifies. You can also see in those hits non-Wiccan references to "Triple Goddess" as applied to those Hindu goddesses. (And Kali, like Hecate, is also a triple goddess in her own right.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
This is clearly synthesis of other sources. Conway (primary source) does not say "Tridevi=The Wiccan Triple Goddess". The newspaper articles (secondary source) do not say "Tridevi=The Wiccan Triple Goddess". The only person claiming this is a POV pushing single editor (and a self-published forum source). This is not encyclopaedic content.Davémon (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hindu Wicca / Indopaganism's existence is verified by multiple sources including the notable and oft-cited Witches' Voice website & two Neopagan magazines; a notable Wiccan author, D. J. Conway, likewise refers to the three as a triple goddess — not describing Hindu belief, but Wiccan belief; and the Hindu Wicca Forum itself is referred at Witches' Voice. The material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is (in view of the other citations) no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This meets all the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Persephone, Hecate, and Lucan

Actually, I think Davemon missed a step here: why think of Kore/Demeter/Hecate as a triple goddess at all? The Greeks thought of Kore and Demeter as a pair, so much so that one could simply say "the two goddesses" and everyone would understand that meant Demeter and Kore. Hecate plays a role in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, but this is only one version of the Demeter/Kore story, which can be told without Hecate at all. (Furthermore, in the Homeric Hymn it's Demeter who plays the role of the "crone"--in grief over her daughter's abduction, she disguises herself as an old woman.) Some classical writers make a big deal about the triple nature of Hecate, but I don't think they invoke Demeter/Kore when they do so. So I would hesitate to say that the Greeks thought of these goddesses as forming a trio. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
One could as easily refer to Demeter and Hecate, during their search for Kore, as "the two (questing) goddesses"; or refer to each of the three singly and separately as "the goddess". Likewise, one could refer to Christianity's "God the Father" as "God", separately from "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit"... but that would likewise do nothing to deny that they are also grouped as a "Trinity".
Demeter's "crone" disguise was, as you say, a disguise. Hecate, on the other hand, may be the original "hag". Sizzle Flambé (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It matters who's doing the grouping. If it's not the ancient Greeks but modern writers doing it, that means something. If it's not mainstream scholars of ancient Greek religion, but "outsiders" like Graves and neopagans, that means something to. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For instance Lucan's Pharsalia (De Bello Civili), book 6 line 700, the Thessalian witch saying: Persephone, nostraeque Hecates pars ultima — usually rendered along the lines of "Persephone, the third/last/lowest aspect of our Hecate", or per Joyce "Hecate's infernal aspect" (her triple realm being Heaven, Earth, and Underworld). Latin text. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Lucan is a Latin author, not Greek, and he lived hundreds of years after the Homeric Hymn to Demeter was composed. Roman religion is not Greek religion, and Lucan is a highly mannered and "literary" author, so is probably not a simple reflection of Roman religious practice. So Lucan isn't great evidence for what classical Greeks were thinking about Demeter/Kore, and probably not for classical Romans either. Oh, and does Demeter appear in the passage you cite? I think not. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This addressed "ancient" vs "modern" writers. Do you count 1st-century Lucan as a "modern writer"? And he was not presenting it as a Roman belief, but as that of a Thessalian (i.e. Greek) witch; thus she calls upon "Persephone" rather than "Proserpine".
The witch doesn't trouble to name the middle (Earth) aspect of Hecate, because she's calling on the Underworld aspect in order to raise the dead. But as you've already noted, Persephone and her mother the Earth-goddess Demeter went together in Greek religion.
A Roman would have used the Latin name "Proserpine" for the Underworld aspect (emblem: the poppy), and "Diana Nemorensis" (the huntress Diana, forest-goddess, whose emblem is the bow) rather than "Demeter" for the Earth aspect; you can see those emblems held by the two outer figures on the denarius. The Heaven aspect, the Moon-goddess, had many names from the Romans, e.g. Luna and Juno Lucina, but was also conflated with the Greeks' Hecate — though Alföldi equates Hecate directly with Proserpine, and has her holding the poppy. And all this you know already, since you've read the articles linked above, right?
Further photos of classical depictions, and extensive classical text quotations (along with explanations you may choose to ignore if you wish), are in "The Rotting Goddess", pp. 71-157 of Marks's Junkyard of the Classics (pdf). Emphasis: I'm not suggesting that the opinions there are "authoritative", just that this is a good compilation of photos and classical quotes. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle, my post above the one where you quoted Lucan mentioned ancient Greeks and scholars of ancient Greek religion. There's no reason to exclude Roman sources from discussion here, but it's important to understand that Roman religion isn't the same as Greek! And a Roman author putting words in the mouth of a fictional Thessalian witch is still a Roman author. Furthermore, the fact that Demeter/Kore form a tightly linked pair does not mean every appearance of Persephone automatically invokes Demeter. Odyssey 11 comes to mind. So let's not go slotting her in where she's not mentioned. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Must I repeat that this source was not referring to Roman religion but to Greek religion? A 1st-century Roman author, yes, but not discussing his own religion. That's a contemporary source, an ancient writer, not a modern writer, and not a neopagan. He had (1) basis to know those beliefs since they were still current, and (2) incentive to get them right, since ("fictional" or not) he'd have risked being mocked for ignorance if he'd misstated them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You're making a lot of assumptions about 1st century CE literary culture. Contemplate what type of work Lucan was writing: an epic poem about the civil war between Caesar and Pompey (one about Roman history, not Greek), and one in which supernatural phenomena abound--in the episode from Book 6 you've quoted from, the Thessalian witch you've quoted resurrects a corpse, who prophecies Pompey's death and the fall of the Republic! Obviously, this was not a historical event; however, the fact that Lucan freely added events to a historical narrative didn't prevent him from acquiring an admiring readership. So why would these readers expect Lucan to accurately depict Greek religious belief, when he's already deviating from reality in obvious ways? And note, earlier in Book 6, Lucan says: "Every animal that has the ability to kill and is equipped by nature to do harm fears the Thessalian witches and provides them with murderous techniques. The greedy tiger and the lion, noble in his wrath, show their best manners and lick their hands; the snake unfolds his frosty coils just to please them and stretches at full length on ground that is covered with dew; the bodies of knotted vipers break apart and get joined together again, and serpents collapse, because human poison is blown at them." Did Lucan's audience believe this to be a realistic portrait of Thessalian witchcraft, do you think, or a flight of fancy?
Aside from these specific points, like any epic poem, the Pharsalia is an imaginative, poetic text, and its relationship to religious belief and practice has to be illustrated, not simply asserted.
Perhaps more importantly, all of this discussion falls under the heading of original research. Do you have any modern, secondary sources that say that the ancient Greeks (or the ancient Romans) thought of Demeter/Kore/Hecate as forming a trio? How common is this view among modern scholars? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Literary critic Andrew D. Radford cites the same goddess-trio in his analysis of 19th-and-early-20th-century novels. Radford, Andrew D. (2007) The Lost Girls: Demeter-Persephone and the Literary Imagination, 1850-1930, Volume 53 of Studies in Comparative Literature. Rodopi. ISBN 9042022353, 9789042022355. p.127. Discussing symbolism in Thomas Hardy's 1891 novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Radford writes: "Maiden and Mother are two phases of the female lifecycle through which Tess passes. The third, the 'wise crone' stage, is embodied in the goddess Hecate. In her fullness, Demeter was the Triple Goddess of Mother, Maiden, and Crone. ... [T]hree distinct but dynamically interlinked deities: Kore as Maiden, Demeter as Mother, and Hecate as Crone." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
So now you don't want "ancient" writers, and do want "modern" writers? Once again, take Karl Kerényi for example. Davémon says my earlier reference to him as influenced by Jung's ideas was "unreliable" and "unsourced", but Jung and Kerényi co-wrote Essays on a Science of Mythology (in German 1940, in English 1949). The copies at Google Books can't be read, but see a summary and excerpts in Barbara Weir Huber's Transforming Psyche (1999), pp. 117-118:
"After mother and daughter are reunited, Hecate once more appears in the hymn in order to receive the Kore, and remain her companion for always: Hecate and Persephone are as inseparable as Demeter and Persephone" (Jung and Kerényi, 154). Hecate and Persephone are also as inseparable as Hecate and Demeter, a situation reflected in the tendency of scholars to see "Demeter and Hecate as one person" (Jung and Kerényi, 158). This, in effect and twice over, makes a doubled figure. Demeter and Persephone are almost always together, "thought of as a double figure". Without Persephone, "her mother's Kore," Demeter would not be mother, "Meter" (Jung and Kerényi, 152).
According to C. Kerényi, the two forms are, in reality, not two doubled figures, but "a triad of unmistakable individuals"; "the torch appears to be the attribute of each of them." Their communal epithet, "phosphoros" (bringer of light), emphasizes the kind of transformational consciousness this triplicity implies: a consciousness symbolized in "[o]ne torch, two torches held by the same goddess, three torches in a row" (Jung and Kerényi, 154).
Now documented from both "ancient" and "modern" writers. I wonder what new reason will be invented next to persist in claiming this is "unsourced" etc. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. You've made a lot of assertions about what the ancient Greeks believed about Demeter, Kore, and Hecate, based on your interpretation of passages in ancient literature. I think your interpretations are faulty. However, the content of Wikipedia articles is not supposed to be based on what individual editors think about primary sources, but what reliable secondary sources tell us about various subjects. So what do secondary sources say about the relationship of Demeter/Kore/Hecate in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, or the passage of Lucan you quoted? You've indicated that Kerenyi (and Jung?) say something about the Hymn to Demeter, but only through an intermediary source you found on Google Books; whatever Kerenyi/Jung means needs to be explained directly from the source.
However, Kerenyi (and Jung) are not representative of what most scholars of Greek religion think about the relationship of Hecate and Persephone--take a look at the entry for Persephone in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, for instance, and Hecate is not mentioned at all. The OCD's entry for Hecate mentions Persephone in two paragraphs of an extensive article, and does not present Persephone as an inseparable pair. Walter Burkert's Greek Religion (an essential work in the field) barely mentions Hecate in connection with Demeter/Kore, and certainly not as a member of a trio. So, again, it matters who's grouping these figures together. Despite everything you've said in this thread, the classical sources don't support the idea that the Greeks thought of Demeter/Kore/Hecate as a triple goddess, and it doesn't look like it's a common idea in modern scholarship on ancient Greek religion either. Of course, the article should still describe what Kerenyi, or Graves, or whoever, thought about these figures; it just needs to be careful to specify that these ideas are not widely shared by scholars of ancient Greek religion. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Now we're bringing in dictionaries to cite what they don't say? The American Heritage Science Dictionary's entry on "Earth" omits the word "round", so the Earth must be flat? No. Hecate's triplicity is mentioned elsewhere. The "Hecate" entry in E. Cobham Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (1905), p. 593, does state, right at the start (using the Roman names): "A triple deity, called Phoebe or the Moon in heaven, Diana on the earth, and Hecate or Proserpine in hell." But the Greek names appear in Burleigh Mutén's The Lady of Ten Thousand Names: Goddess Stories from Many Cultures (2001), p. 72: "The Triple Goddess // Greek // Persephone, Demeter, and Hekate represent the daughter, mother, and grandmother, but together they are often thought of as one goddess, which is why they are referred to as the Triple Goddess." Adam McLean's The Triple Goddess: An Exploration of the Archetypal Feminine (1989), p. 57: "In this Mystery, Demeter unfolds as a Triple Goddess, her three facets being Demeter, Persephone, and Hecate...." The "Hecate" entry in the Greek Mythology Index: "This extensive power possessed by Hecate was probably the reason that subsequently she was confounded and identified with several other divinities.... 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." Wasson, Hofmann, & Ruck's The Road to Eleusis: Unveiling the Secret of the Mysteries (30th anniversary edition, 2008), p. 112: "Both Persephone and Demeter are Hecates, for that goddess is the third that completes and joins the sacred duo of mother and daughter."
"[T]he tendency of scholars to see 'Demeter and Hecate as one person'" is "not widely shared by scholars"? Or the constant companionship of Hecate and Persephone? ("Directly from the source": Hymn to Demeter, lines 438-440: "Then bright-coiffed Hecate came near to them, and often did she embrace the daughter of holy Demeter: and from that time the lady Hecate was minister and companion to Persephone." Evelyn-White's translation) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Shall we just have a look at these sources:

In short, these sources do not appear very [wp:rs|reliable] in terms of describing Greek myth from a serious, mainstream viewpoint. They might be useful in creating a "Triple Goddess in popular culture" section.Davémon (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sizzle, you are apparently unfamiliar with the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Perhaps you're misled by the title--it's really an encyclopedia and not like the American Heritage Dictionary at all. The articles are quite extensive, and written by eminent classical scholars; the entry for Hecate was written by Albert Henrichs. This is a good source for mainstream opinion about classical topics, much more so than a 1905 dictionary of phrase and fable, or a random website about mythology. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Akhilleus, you have apparently missed the point of "Now we're bringing in dictionaries to cite what they don't say?" An entry in such a work might be declared "authoritative" (in that what it does say is reliable), but it is not thereby "exhaustive" (in that whatever it doesn't say on the matter can't be true). By the nature of the work, summary entries will omit many details. You're taking the omission as probative; it isn't. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
(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.") — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sir William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 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." — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Davémon: «1905!» Even older; the same entry was in the 1894 revised-and-enlarged edition. «scholarship might have moved on in the last hundred and five years.» (Scholarship might have moved on in the last five years, too; may I therefore just dismiss out-of-hand any source cited at me from before 2004?) But cite a reliable source to show that scholarship actually has rejected that notion. My own hardcopy says in a 1978 foreword: "Long known as the authoritative guide to the English language and still considered as such today,...." Where's your source to expressly contradict it? «Needless to sat the phrase 'triple deity' is a casual two word appellation.» "Two word": clearly; what's wrong with two words? "Casual": are you attempting telepathy on someone dead for a century? The phrase "A triple deity" begins the entry; I would presume he really meant it. « Does he give "triple deity" it's own definition in the dictionary? No, because...» The entry is "Trinity: Tertullian (160-240) introduced this word into Christian theology. The word triad is much older. Almost every mythology has a threefold deity. (See Three.)" There follows a list of examples, including the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, Ṣiva), the Chinese "triple goddess Pussa", the Orphic "triad" (Phanes, Uranos, Kronos) and the Platonic and Pythagorean triads. «... it's was/is not a term of any significance.» Again presumably it signified something, else why begin the entry with that phrase? "Deity" is a gender-neutral term for a God or Goddess; "A triple deity" would describe either a "triple god" or a "triple goddess" (or a mixed-gender triad) — and you don't seem to think the term "triple goddess" either insignificant or outdated.
In fact, your objections miss another point, that the concept of a triple goddess (a female triple deity) is hereby shown to predate Graves's The White Goddess, and even "the works of Jane Ellen Harrison, who initially formulated and published the idea in (1912)" according to the current article here. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
That's great. I think it is strong evidence that the right place for the kind of material you are talking about would be Trinity (polytheism), organised along cultural demarcations, rather than gender ones. Davémon (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"Triple deity" conveys the same meaning without borrowing the Christian term. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A simple google scholar search shows that the word "trinity" has a much broader use than the Christian concept [[1]]. Oops, yes. "Trinity (polytheism)" would be some quite specific Christian discourses. Still, it makes more sense to group together all these 3-in-1 gods and goddesses rather than have gender-split articles for them. Davémon (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"Triple deity" does "group together all these 3-in-1 gods and goddesses", and, like "Deity", it is gender-neutral. There's also "Trinity (disambiguation)" for the varying senses of "Trinity". But there are still separate "gender-split" articles for "God (male deity)" and "Goddess", so following that structure "Triple god (male triad)" and "Triple goddess" should each discuss the respectively gendered triads. There are quite enough triple goddesses (we've already mentioned Tridevi, Hecate, Pussa, and the Graves/Wicca "White Goddess" here) for a full article on that gender alone. The same is true of male triple deities. A third article could cover the mixed-gender triads, for instance "family" patterns like Osiris-Isis-Horus. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to split Triple deity at all, it's not actually a long article that needs splitting. Davémon (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Deity" isn't "split" either. That article still exists. But so do "God (male deity)" and "Goddess", for their respective genders. So, following that structure.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Both the "God (male deity)" and "Goddess" appear to be largely unsourced, so hardly a shining example of how to proceed. There is no policy or guideline that says existing articles should set the precedent for structuring new articles, and for good reason, anyone can create new article with a title of whatever they like, doesn't mean those articles are sustainable. Davémon (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Following Wikipedia's structure of article topics and subtopics is a separate question from whether articles are well-written, properly sourced, etc. Clearly all articles should be well-written, properly sourced, etc., with, say, nobody persistently adding misspellings or grammatical errors or uncited POV claims in authorial voice, let alone deleting other editors' properly formatted and cited work — but that doesn't negate the validity of the article's placement. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms Wikilinked

"Grave's work on Greek myth was often criticized; see The White Goddess#Criticism and The Greek Myths#Reception." wikilinks to the criticism sections of the two articles about the two books, where criticism of those two books belongs. That way any additions or update to those sections will immediately be visible to readers of this article, or of Demeter (where the same sentence appears). It would be senseless and redundant to replicate the full text here and at Demeter, since then all three copies would have to be maintained — and copies in how many other articles that mention Graves or those books? No, the better way is to write the lengthy section once and then wikilink to it with a brief note. Otherwise it crowds out what the other articles are actually about, looking very much like advocacy-spamming and dead-horse-beating. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Redundancy" as you term it isn't acknowledged by the general community as an editorial concern, maintaining multiple articles generally isn't seen to be a problem. WP:REDUNDANT covers not creating new articles similar to existing ones. The general consensus on WP:FRINGE sources, such as Graves, is that the mainstream view of these sources should be reported in the article where they are discussed. I agree with this stance. Many of the comments, especially with regards the "White Goddess" are not simply about the book but report that Graves ideas have a pervasive influence on contemporary conceptions around the Triple Goddess and paganism (which are the subject of this article). If anything the section on Graves should be much longer, explain more of Graves theories and should not only contain what you perceive to be "criticism" (unfortunately that is all I've found in reliable sources so far). Nonetheless, this is the right venue for such statements. Davémon (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Redundancy affects the reader, not just the editor. I believe text sections can feasibly be transcluded in articles; this would allow "write once, read many" and address the multiple-maintenance issue. However, the problem for the reader remains: if he goes from article to article (e.g. Triple Goddess to The White Goddess) following the wikilinks, is he going to have to read the same text over and over? "...should be reported in the article where they are discussed" (note the singular) doesn't require replicating the whole text in every article where they are so much as mentioned. Mention the book, mention the criticisms of the book. Those criticisms definitely do belong in the book's article (i.e. where it is chiefly discussed). Any other article mentioning the book can wikilink to the book's article for more details, and likewise wikilink to its criticism section while mentioning the criticisms. Readers then needn't go through the same text repeatedly in different articles.
In the case of the present article, it is specifically discussing the triple-goddess concept. However, the quoted/paraphrased criticisms of The White Goddess and The Greek Myths do not indicate that they are specifically discussing the triple-goddess concept; to the extent they cover other topics (other Greek myths, other contentions by Graves, etc.), they go beyond the topic of this article, don't belong here, and should be removed for irrelevance. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem with the reader coming across things twice. Ideally it shouldn't be exactly the same text for aesthetic reasons, but "redundancy" is not a reason to remove cited critique of a fringe theory (central to the history of the concept, as Hutton shows) from the article. You can't expect every reader to read every article. I do agree that Graves theories do need to be further expanded upon in this article. Most of the statements regarding Graves theories specifically mention the Triple Goddess idea, including his lunar association of the TG to celtic deities for which there is no historical evidence, and the hitoricising of the "Greek Myths" in context of his TG idea, and that these ideas are still pervasive in unscholarly understandings of myth, including much contemporary neopagan thought. It's completely relevant and properly cited. Let's look at it another way, rather than us debating how to handle the current Graves material, why don't we try to find additional reliable sources that support and expand upon Graves Triple Goddess idea and add that content to the article? Davémon (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's focused specifically on the Triple Goddess concept, that would be relevant; widening the field to (for example) the Canu Taliesin or other issues not bearing on the Triple Goddess would not be. General criticisms of Graves or of his books belong in the articles on those subjects. The criticisms quoted and paraphrased so far have not so much as mentioned the Triple Goddess. Don't "leverage in" criticism of Graves unrelated to this specific topic, let alone in volumes overwhelming the actual topic (like those two lines of criticism added to a one-line sentence); put it in Robert Graves or The White Goddess or The Greek Myths as appropriate, and let the reader see it there. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As cited in the removed text, Jullitte Wood explicitly mentions Graves incorrect dating of Taliesin texts as part of his goddess (mis)conception. It is all relevant to the subject. Davémon (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Your citation is intact at The White Goddess#Criticism; however, Wood says something different than you attribute to her. You claimed «the "pseudo-Celtic" Canu Taliesin from the 19th century which he believed to represent an ancient document» — but Wood is talking about the Hanes Taliesin, "dating from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century". Hanes (history), not Canu (song). Wood does not call the Hanes "pseudo-Celtic". And she doesn't mention a "Triple Goddess" there, so this may be relevant to the book in whose article it appears, but not to the Triple Goddess article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Wicca???

  • Ref 9 online example which talks about Hindu Wicca can not be considered WP:RS
  • The other link in Ref 9: accurately says "Day of Parvati-Devi, the Triple Goddess who divided herself into Sarasvati, Lakshmi, and Kali, or the Three Mothers." Parvati is NOT the Triple Goddess. In Hinduism, there is no single goddess cognate "the Triple Goddess", but three distinct goddessses - the Tridevi.Any RS book about Hinduism which talks about Parvati can prove it. Parvati is identified with Kali, and is not supreme to Sarasvati, Lakshmi as the sentence suggests. She is par with Sarasvati and Lakshmi in the Tridevi trio.--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz, that online example is WP:SELFPUB, talking about his own beliefs. You're speaking of "Hinduism"; the belief system mentioned here was "Hindu Wicca". As to the question you asked when deleting that term, "what are Hindu wiccans????" — Hindu Wicca; its superset IndoPaganism; Pages at Witchvox, see also PanGaia and Green Egg. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It is NOT a case of WP:SELFPUB, it is a forum (NOT RS), where anyone can post anything. WP:SELFPUB can apply official websites etc. Anyway Tridevi is not particular to Hindu Wicca, they are venerated in Shakta school of Hinduism, which should be noted. http://www.geocities.com/ is also not a WP:RS. The questions raised about the accuracy and reliability of source are still unanswered.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a "Hindu Wicca" forum, and the poster is the forum administrator. And yes, it's true that "Tridevi is not particular to Hindu Wicca", but this was given as an example of Wiccans adopting deities from other cultures — in this case from Hinduism — as forms of their own deity. That same sentence notes that Tridevi is (1) Hindu and (2) "celebrated in Southern India during the nine-day Hindu festival Navaratri", beyond which all the names are wikilinked. I don't think the readers will have any trouble understanding that Tridevi is not particular to Hindu Wicca. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 14:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The point is that if the only source on Hindu Wicca that you can find is a forum, it isn't notable.
It's a general problem with wiccan/neopagan/new-age groups that you can find someone to link together almost any two things. It's more or less inevitable that someone in wicca is going to link Tridevi to pretty much anything that includes "goddess" and "three". The question is whether this amounts to anything. A forum or blob isn't going to be a good enough source to claim that. Mangoe (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
«if the only source on Hindu Wicca that you can find is a forum, it isn't notable» — (1) You appear to have missed the non-forum sites listed in the 2nd comment above. (2) We're not discussing an article about Hindu Wicca (and no-one here had proposed one), but we are discussing the Triple Goddess concept in (among other things) Wicca (which is notable enough to have its own article); so the different ways different Wiccans regard that concept are directly relevant to this article, whether or not they merit an article of their own. (3) WP:SELFPUB. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mangoe, you've deleted the illustration for this paragraph:

Some Neopagans assert that the worship of the Maiden-Mother-Crone triad dates to pre-Christian Europe and possibly goes as far back as the Paleolithic period and consequently claim that their religion is a surviving remnant of ancient beliefs. They believe the Triple Goddess is an archetypal figure which appears though various different cultures at throughout human history, and that many individual goddesses can be interpreted as Triple Goddesses.[4] For instance, D.J. Conway includes "Demeter's trinity with Kore-Persephone and Hecate" in her discussion of the Maiden-Mother-Crone archetype.[13] This archetype theory has led to Neopagans adopting the images and names of culturally divergent deities for ritual purposes,[14] for example the Hindu Tridevi (literally "three goddesses") of Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvati (Kali/Durga),[15] which is celebrated in Southern India during the nine-day Hindu festival Navaratri (nine holy nights).[16]

The illustration, "Tridevi", clearly and directly pertained to that paragraph. You deleted it as "misleading and unnecessary". How was it "misleading"?
As for "unnecessary", I suppose no illustration is strictly "necessary", this could be an all-text site with no pictures at all, but generally illustrations pertinent to the text are appropriate to include. Do you intend to delete that same illustration everywhere else it appears, on the same grounds? If not there, why here? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mangoes removal of the image was correct. The image had serious wp:weight issues. Especially as the entire subject hinged on a single unreliable source. Meanwhile we have several editors who all agree the sourcing of this was inadequate and only the contributing editor arguing against this. I suggest we let it drop. Davémon (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Single and unreliable? Has D. J. Conway become an unperson, despite the other citations of her in this same article? She's cited about this too. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hindu Wicca / Indopaganism's existence is verified by multiple sources including the notable and oft-cited Witches' Voice website & two Neopagan magazines; a notable Wiccan author, D. J. Conway, likewise refers to the three as a triple goddess — not describing Hindu belief, but Wiccan belief; and the Hindu Wicca Forum itself is referred at Witches' Voice. The material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is (in view of the other citations) no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. This meets all the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvements and Concerns

I see progress is being made. My concern with the article is that it be made clear that Wiccan ideas, and Graves' ideas, are only employed by *some* Neopagans. Maybe most Neopagans. But not all. Many of the non-eclectic Pagan and Heathen groups do not self-identify as Neopagan. But here on Wikipedia, these groups are called Neopagan. Fine. As that's our standard here, the distinctions between different types of Neopagans need to be made whenever "Neopagan" is used, even if it's just to say, "Some Neopagans" or "Neopagans who practice an eclectic tradition" or "Those who base their practices on Wicca" etc. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede revised accordingly. Added a cautionary footnote. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you point to any reliable sources that say neopagans use the Triple Goddess in a non-Wiccan, non-Graves derived manner? Otherwise it's difficult to see there is actually a wp:weight issue here. Davémon (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
«non-Wiccan» ≠ «non-Graves derived». It's possible to "use" that deity in a non-Wiccan manner but still derive it from Graves, Davémon. Nothing in his concept compels those using it to be Wiccan. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Examples of non-Wiccan Neopagan groups using the Triple Goddess: the Church of All Worlds (article by its founders on its own website); Ár nDraíocht Féin (a neo-Druidic group; ritual on its own website); Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (another neo-Druidic group; ritual on its own website) — "The Virgin of Light, the Crone of Darkness, the Mother of Time;... Triple Goddess, One in Three". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
How are these using the Triple Goddess in a different way than the Gravesian / Wiccan concept? Seems perfectly Gravsian to me. Davémon (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Gravesian (arguable) but non-Wiccan. Read the 08:54 comment above. Some non-Wiccan Neopagans use Graves's Triple Goddess too. But also note some Druids' use of Brighid (a three-sisters figure) as Triple Goddess, which would ring a change on Graves's concept. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Revised sentence in "Character of the goddess": (old) "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." → (new) "Some Wiccans and some other Neopagans worship the "Triple Goddess" of maiden, mother, and crone, a practice going back to mid-twentieth-century England." Details: "Witches"→"Wiccans". "believe in"→"worship"; the act of worship can be and has been observed; what people believe is another matter. "that originated with"→"a practice going back to", since the concept didn't originate with them; Graves's The White Goddess, at least, preceded the Wiccan usage. "the first neo-pagans in mid-twentieth-century England"→simply "mid-twentieth-century England". Avoiding a hornet's nest here about who and when "the first neo-pagans" were, even in England (doesn't the Druid revival count?). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that Davémon has undone the lede changes without discussing them here, commenting in the edit: "Undo introduction of wp:weasel and unsourced minority wp:pov pushing." Further, he has changed "Character of the goddess" to "Neopagan beliefs", as though these beliefs are held by Neopagans generally — essentially the opposite of the requested NPOV change, and a fundamentally false implication. Ironic, in view of his demand above for reliable sources on non-Wiccan Neopagan use of the Triple Goddess! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
And I have reverted accordingly. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that Sizzle Flambé is edit-warring and has failed to provide any evidence that there is a bias or a weight issue here, before reverting. Please see wp:cycle. Sizzle made an edit, I disagreed, began discussing. Sizzle then reverted without discussing further or answering any of the points raised. There is no irony in expecting standards to be upheld. If there are neopagans who use the Triple Goddess in a different way than the Gravesian / Wiccan concept this needs to be proven to exist via reliable sources, not primary sources, and simply WP:POV pushed into the article. Also, this Davémon (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
«Sizzle made an edit, I disagreed, began discussing. Sizzle then reverted without discussing....» — If that were true, I would have been reverting my own edit. Rather than "disagreed, began discussing", Davémon had undone my changes four minutes after I'd made them, and then didn't discuss it: *I* discussed the changes above (09:05, 09:16, and then at 09:33 noting my 09:31 revert), but his 11:26 comment above is his very first talkpage entry since he undid my work. ... And three minutes later he undid it again. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[Repeated edit conflicts] The requested evidence has been added, and the text accordingly restored, incorporating Davémon's later improvements. As this addressed the demand for citation in the "weasel words" tag, that is now removed. "Character of the goddess" section title restored, this isn't all "Modern beliefs" just as it isn't all "Neopagan beliefs". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
3 wp:selfpub primary sources have been added to wp:or footnotes to the article.[2] This seems to be avoiding the fact that such a small selective sample of primary sources doesn't support the wp:pov being pushed. Davémon (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Three major non-Wiccan Neopagan groups — CAW, ADF, and OBOD, all notable enough to have their own articles — sufficient to prove "some" as you requested. WP:SELFPUB by religious organizations about their own beliefs are specifically accepted by policy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Also the section outlining the beliefs seems to be needlessly appended with "Some" - this is very ambiguous, and isn't supported by the sources. See: wp:weaselDavémon (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Some" is indicated by the added citation. Are you disputing the idea that not all Neopagans worship the TG? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 12:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. "Some" is just vague language, and isn't supported by wp:rs, but rather a limited amount of wp:or. We should be more definite - I've added CAW, ADF, and OBOD to the main body of the article, and prosified it. I'd rather see these beliefs and useage with much more detail. The more varieties of neopagan Triple Goddess worship we talk about at length, in the article, the better. This in turn adds wp:due weight to counter the "it's not not just wicca" POV without resorting to wp:or or wp:weasle statements. That's why I immediately requested sources - so we can add more and better content to the article. Hope that makes sense. Davémon (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
But you're also missing the point of "Some" as "not all" when you remove the "Some" from "Some Wiccans" (worship the TG). Not all Wiccans do, just as not all Neopagans do. That was the thrust of Kathryn NicDhàna's request at the start of this section, and the reason for both the NPOV changes I made and the footnotes I added, which you keep removing. To say "Wiccans" (worship the TG) without the word "Some" conveys the false idea that all Wiccans worship her. What then of the single-Goddess Wiccans, Dianic Wiccans for example? You've repeatedly removed necessary qualifiers from the article. Please stop doing that! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not missing that point, I'm disagreeing that it has been handled in the best way. Putting unsourced claims specifying a subset of neopagans "some" or "eclectic" or "Those who base their practices on Wicca" is not adhering to the spirit of wp:npov. I suggest 3 things. 1) reflect what the source actually says accurately. 2) If the problem is a perceived wp:weight issue, then adding reliably sourced content from additional POVs will properly solve it. 3) Just adding "Some" to every mention of Wiccans or Neopagans makes it seem like the Triple Goddess is a trivial idea in contemporary neopagan discourse (which it is not). Hope that makes my objections clear. Have you got a good secondary source on what Dianic Wicca actually says about the Triple Goddess? That would make great article content and I'd love to see it added to the article rather than their beliefs just being sued as a footnote to support indefinite words like "some" being added! Davémon (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
«unsourced claims» — You actually deleted a footnote, repeatedly, and now complain "unsourced"? "Some Wiccans"; but not, for instance, Dianic Wiccans, click that wikilink for background. "Some Neopagans"; three big examples being CAW, ADF, and OBOD.
«Have you got a good secondary source on what Dianic Wicca actually says about the Triple Goddess?» — As a whole, that tradition doesn't say anything about a Triple Goddess, since (as the name indicates) they worship Diana; and as the article will tell you, they get her from Leland's Aradia, written half a century before Graves's The White Goddess. (However, Wicca varying as it does, no doubt somewhere some Dianic Wiccans regard Diana as the Triple Goddess, not that I know of any!) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 15:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle. Again: wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, try reading some of the sources that already included in the article, some of those might help describe Dianic Wiccas view of the Triple Goddess from an external POV. I'm sure Griffen says something pertinent in Bergers book. Cheers. Davémon (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Davémon. The Dianic Wicca article cites sources; I link to some of them below in reply to Kathryn; no mention of "triple", the MMC, or Graves. Absence of mention is of course not probative, but the goddess-descriptions that are mentioned omit triplicity. Again, this doesn't prevent any Dianic Wiccan from incorporating the MMC into her (or his, or their) thealogy. It's just that this doesn't appear to be an essential or universal holding. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Sizzle, why do you insist on collating primary sources, making generalised statements about them and then arguing a point? This is [[]wp:or] ] Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. If we want to say something about Dianic Wicca, we don't look to their primary texts for answers, we look at academics and anthropologists and scholars who have looked at their beliefs and practices. There have been several scholarly works looking at the history and development of neopaganism published in the last 20 years, several of which are referenced in this article. Start with those. Davémon (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Davémon, when people and groups WP:SELFPUB about their own beliefs, that can be cited, and it isn't WP:OR. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
[User:Sizzle Flambé|Sizzle Flambé] has misinterpreted WP:SELF "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves,". Neither the article nor the article content is making statements about the specific authors. It is being used to make general statements about the beliefs of groups of people. This is clearly, obviously, and outrightly wp:or. 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Davémon (talk)
Davémon, each of those three cites was from the official website of the religious organization mentioned (CAW, ADF, and OBOD), where and how the organization presents itself and its beliefs to the Web-reading public. The CAW article is by the founders of CAW. A religious organization discussing its own beliefs on its own official website is certainly not WP:OR, but citable WP:SELFPUB.
Likewise, Ruth Barrett (whose article describes Dianic Wiccan beliefs) is the co-founder of the Temple of Diana, a Dianic Wiccan group, and in a position to speak with authority about that group's thealogy. The first part of the passage quoted from her article is also on that group's official website. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As of 15:16, 5 October 2009, without further discussion or challenge on this point, Davémon has tagged these cites as {{rs}} and {{or}}, even tagging a direct quote from Conway's book {{or}}, and tagging the whole article {{Synthesis}}. On what basis, Davémon? Make a reasonable defense of those tags. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I've waited patiently, 12 hours since I asked that, with no reply. 16 hours since that edit. Over 18 hours since Davémon last posted on talk at all. Over 36 hours since he posted his above comment. No explanation or justification of those flags. I'm removing them (obviously not as a "hair trigger revert"). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 07:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
And 15 minutes later Davémon reverted, with still no explanation or justification of those flags, no discussion on this point at all. So what's the basis for them? Make a reasonable case. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Davémon, what do you mean by "The Church of All Worlds also and identify the symbol..."? This is nonsensical. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Fix0red. Davémon (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triple_Goddess_(Neopaganism)/Archive_4&oldid=1137267950"