Talk:Matriarchal religion

Lorynote thinks aliens brought snake symbolism?

As I have said too many times, this editor doesn't seem to understand at all what a reliable source is. She's just added [1] which is all about what her source considers our alien ancestors, the Anunnaki [2]. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pls don´t put words in my mouth. The source explains what is the meaning of serpents´s symbolism, it doesn´t mean I agree with all the words mentioned there. Lorynote (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a reliable source, it doesn't meet the criteria at WP:RS. Why do you think a source talking about aliens is a reliable source for anything about serpent symbolism? That you think it is shows that you do not understand our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I offered high quality sources on Serpent (symbolism): Stone, Newadvent, Erich Neuman, you didn´t accept not a single. I offered my paperback and p.52, you didn´t accept it. I offered a review which you ignored... Lorynote (talk) 09:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For the simple reason that none of them actually backed the statement for which they were supposed to be the source. As for p.52, I asked what it said that might back the claim, and you didn't answer that, which seems telling. And a source discussing our alleged alien ancestors isn't useful for anything about symbolism. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I did yes answer you: p. 52 mentions serpents; would you a like a quote? Lorynote (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What about this source: http://www.thehappyheretic.com/11-09.htm? Lorynote (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

At Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/015696158X; many pages available mentioning serpents. There is a search (with or withouct registration); page 201: "The abundant evidence of the sacred nature of serpent"; p. 204: serpents associated with "wisdom and prophecy"; p. 211: serpent and oracles relations; Melampus after serpent lick could read the language of the birds; p. 214: serpents adorned, kept and fed the oracles shrines.... Lorynote (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole section on 'Symbols' needs to be either removed or properly sourced. at the moment this does not deal with the "symbols of matriarchal religions". It has two sentences, one an assertion about snakes being one and the other showing that snakes have been worshipped for many years. pablo 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think p.52 of Stone was mentioned in this article. That discussion belongs at Talk:Serpent_(symbolism)#Sourcing where we need to see both a quote and the statement it is supposed to back. Ditto Newadvent, etc, that's where this belongs. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Newadvent" isn't a source, let alone a "quality" one. Newadvent is a website that hosts the Catholic Encyclopedia. Lorynote, if you are unable to cite your sources properly, represent their content accurately and do so at an article where the point made in the source is actually on topic, you can hardly expect your edits to be left standing. Please either begin to contribute with a minimal regard to quality and accuracy, or else please stop wasting other peoples time and consider writing a blog instead. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Quotes provided form onlien source

Did you check the above quotes from When God was a Woman? Are OK with them for serpent symbolism and this present article? Lorynote (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

no, please stop using When God was a Woman as a secondary source. It is a valid primary source of second-wave feminism and feminist theology, but Wikipedia article are built on secondary sources. Instead of fixing this article, it would make more sense to merging it into an existing discussion of the topic. The article Goddess worship focusses on contemporary feminist neopaganism. The Goddess movement is to be treated as a new religious movement like any other and cannot be criticized as a hypothesis. The article feminist theology focusses on feminist views on theology published in a scholarly setting. Feminist archaeology about feminist views on prehistorly published in a scholarly setting.

We have an article at Matriarchy and one Witch-cult hypothesis discussing these views as scholarly hypotheses. This is to be distinguished from people who adhere to Dianic Wicca and worship the Goddess, their religion is a fact of North American subculture, and not a hypothesis on the European Neolithic. Hypotheses on the European Neolithic need to stick to academic literature, and preferably not "academic" literature published by 19th century innovators or 1970s idelologists.

Using Merlin Stone in Neolithic religion is exactly the same as using Creation science in timeline of human evolution: we don't do that, see WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 11:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I can cite Bachoffen, Evans, Burkert views on serpents and matriarchy. Would like me to ?Lorynote (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bachoffen is very old, Evans was an archaeologist (not a religion scholar), and as for Stone, see my comments at Talk:When God Was a Woman. They've all been influential to some degree on modern Goddess spirituality, but as factual support, respectable among current scholars, for the existence of prehistoric matriarchies / matriarchal religions, they're insufficient in various ways... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the serpent (mythology) article. As long as the sources explicitly link "serpents and matriarchy", they can be cited. Please make sure to cite them verbatim, with page number, avoiding ridiculous summaries that make Burkert a proponent of "matriarchal religion". The fact that authors like Stone will cite and misrepresent authors like Burkert cannot be blamed on authors like Burkert. I happen to have a fair idea of what Burkert does and does not endorse. He is a very pragmatic man. When stuff like matriarchal religion comes up in his lectures, the mood turns to humorous and mildly sarcastic. --dab (𒁳) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Burkert says Bachoffen is ingnious

• Homo necans, p. 80 in fact Burkert criticizes Bachoffen´s 'ingenious' matriarchal ideals. BUT still Burkert a major researcher on Greece, an author who traced POTNIA THERON from pre hystory to all ancient civilizations! So what is at stake is not a social structure of matriarchy BUT a matriarchal religion. Do you agree with that? You are the only who is putting together feminism (!!!!), religion and matriarchy...putting all these together. I am only mentioning serpents obvious symbolism/goddesses --and come up with matriarchy and feminism! Not me! A matriarchal religion has nothing to ddo with feminism whatsoever! has to do with goddesses worhip/serpents....Not feminism. Lorynote (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Serpent worship

• The Worship of the Serpent, John Bathurst Deane
• Ophiolatreia: Serpent Worship, Rites & Mysteries
• The Mysteries: papers from the Eranos yearbook Julius Baum,Joseph Campbell Lorynote (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know that a lot of it probably has more to do with Orphism and related developments than prehistoric matriarchal religions? Is there any ancient literary evidence (as opposed to Cretan statuettes discovered a century ago) for an association between snakes and "matriarchal religion"? AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. It seems a little odd that the Wikipedia "Orphism" article has nothing on serpent symbolism... AnonMoos (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

These books are not related to Prphism at all! Yes, have you read the Bible? Here only goddess/woman related: #Snake goddess

1. The Power of myth, J. Campbell(loads of serpents carefull!) Lorynote (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop spamming the Talk:Matriarchal religion page with random urls concerning serpents you googled? --dab (𒁳) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Societies that have been claimed to have matriarchal religions

Although I renamed this, I've realised it's unsourced and really shouldn't just be a substitute 'see also'. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don´t know any sourced 'see also'. Lorynote (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So do you accept all provided sources, even WP for the Snake Symbol subtitle. Lorynote (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

you cannot just list a bunch of articles under "have been claimed as". You need to present a coherent account of specific authors. I am sure Stone or Göttner-Abendroth have claimed all sort of things. The real question is, why should Wikipedia refer to any of it outside their biography articles. --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)