Talk:Matriarchal religion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matriarchal religion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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) 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Bachofen was ingenious. This doesn't mean he was right. Burkert is not "still a major researcher on Greece" in spite of being critical of Bachofen, he is the major researcher of Greek religion and as such is well aware of what Bachofen is and is not.

This is an article about feminism. Yes, Matriarchy was not a feminist concept when Bachofen suggested it in 1861. This was 150 years ago. Any discussion of "matriarchy" today is entirely about feminism. Burkert's views on Greek religion obviously are relevant to our articles that actually cover the religion of Ancient Greece. If Burkert also commented on feminism, you are welcome to cite him here. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn´t understand a word! There is no relation between feminism and matriarchy. Matriarchy is a reality from religion to archeology to serpents to goddesses. There is not a single "mars figurines" but there are plenty of venus figurines related to religion and to social structures (and likely to matriarchy) but there isn´t a single clue of a patriarchal system in pre history or pre hellenic civilizations. Your personal view doesn´t qualify you to edit this article but if want to leave it this way ...you are by the way telling me and other editors, the one who also started to write it (in 2008) that we are ignorant. Lorynote (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Bachoffen

Can you believe Bachoffen reduced to feminist wave or a goddesses movement LOL --things I never heard about! I heard about venus figurines (also deleted from what is left of the article) but I don´t know ANYTHING nothing at all abouy whatever goddesses movement --and I mean it! Poor Bachoffen a feminist surfing the wave. Lorynote (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plato

Following your rules then Plato would a gay icon? Shouldn´t we include him in gay category or Aristotle in anti-feminists? Lorynote (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorynote, we are trying to write an encyclopedia. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you will need to start respecting Wikipedia core policy like WP:RS, and perhaps it would also help if you used a spellchecker.

As long as this article is called "Matriarchal religion", it is about whatever is called "Matriarchal religion" in literature. This happens to be a term coined in 1970s femninism, and it is therefore encountered in feminist literature, and as such the article is a topic of feminism. The earliest attestation of the term I can find dates to 1970.[3] Yes, it is true that this literature is inspired by Bachofen's idiosyncratic theories of 1861. This doesn't change the fact that this is a debate within feminism. Not even Bachofen postulated a "matriarchal religion". He postulated a maternal-chthonic religion (mütterlich-chthonische Religion). This was abbreviated to "matriarchal religion" in 1970. Nobody ever accepted Bachofen's theories at face value, not in 1861, not in 1900, not in 1930, not until 1970 when they came in handy for the feminist agenda.

I am sorry if this happens to be your agenda, you are welcome to your ideology, but then please refrain from editing Wikipedia articles. See WP:TIGERS.

I don't know if Plato is a gay icon, but I can assure you that he has sufficient notability for a Plato article even without this aspect. If he is a gay icon, I doubt this would be very relevant for the Plato article, but perhaps it could be mentioned in some article about gay icons. --dab (𒁳) 13:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thealogy

So I think you should include the above term within all these feminist categories and Bachoffen deleted from all those misleading categories where he is now and as for the "M. Stone stuff" who is not a respected historian should also be included within the feminist ones. Lorynote (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thealogy" is a rather unfortunate term, whose use should not be greatly expanded on Wikipedia. I suggested long ago that it should be named back to "Feminist spirituality"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure. Oh by the way any news on the etymology of Venice (goddess Venus) Africa (goddess Ifri)? Do you know the mantra OM believe me, is because of the letter" M " associated/originated with Women an Mary the Mother of Jesus..perhaps related to Matriarchy and the aMazons and Mothers. Do you think this mantra should be included within the feminist theology? Lorynote (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]