Talk:Triple Goddess (Neopaganism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV

I recently came across this article and attempted to reword it in order to maintain a neutral POV. Previously, it read like a mudslinging campaign against neo-pagans, the Triple Goddess, and Robert Graves. Even though I've come to expect things like this from wikipedia, I'm rather surprised that no one involved in editing this article wasn't even slightly embarrassed by the the extreme bias of the so-called "scholarship" of their references. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit, as it anything but "neutral". --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Nicknack, the article you reverted is far from neutral. Since you cannot tell this on your own, I won't bother to try to reason with you since it obviously isn't your strong suit. Regardless, it is also inaccurate. For starters, the triple goddess did not originate with Graves. Thousands of years ago Hekate was depicted as a Triple goddess in Greece. Similarly, Sarasvati was portrayed in triple form in India. These are a few of the reasons I reverted it back. If you actually have something to contribute to this article and aren't too lazy to write something, feel free. Are you actually familiar with this topic? In fact, have you even read 'The White Goddess'? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk • contribs)

The best way to address neutrality issues is to add properly cited material from reliable sources that supports the alternative points of view that are currently missing from the article. --Davémon (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Davemon, it is best to simply remove the pseudo-scholarly drivel directed against Graves. It is irrelevant, inaccurate, and in rather poor taste. However, an even better way to address this issue is to have the New World Encyclopedia website create a new article written by scholars and certified experts. As opposed to intellectually-challenged simpletons with male-chauvinist agendas. Not saying you are, but some of the contributors to this article certainly fit the bill. Anyway, you don't happen to have any contacts at newworldencyclopedia.org do you? Thanks in advance! tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk • contribs)

Davemon is correct. And personal attacks are a bad idea and get editors blocked. I'll also add that any major changes should be discussed here first. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Duog- How do you actually think that you, a self-professed Skeptic, is qualified to determine the accuracy and/or dictate the content of an article about the Triple Goddess as well as 'The White Goddess' by Robert Graves? (By way of contrast, can you imagine a Christian fundamentalist controlling the content of the Skeptic article?) Seriously, do you actually believe that your skeptical prejudice against neo-Pagans and your condescending comments about Robert Graves are somehow enhancing this article? Anyway, I know your Skeptic motto is "I know I know nothing", and I truly believe this to be the case with you, but how can you seriously think that the below examples are "neutral" or "more accurate":

"Believers claim" (Biased weasel words)

"what they consider to be patriarchal religions" (I know you know that you don't know, but all the major religions are patriarchical, Mr. Weeler.)

"unsuspecting readers to his idiosyncratic theory" (More biased weasel words)

"however it was accepted as history by many non-scholarly readers and 'The White Goddess' remains a major source of confusion about the ancient Celts and influences many un-scholarly views of Celtic paganism" (Biased, false, and irrelevant to the article.)

"Much of Graves theories are indebted to this out-moded nineteenth-century romanticist scholarship." (Biased and false.)

"and scholars, particularly historians and folklorists generally do not receive the work favourably." (Biased. Not to mention, you could just as easily find a source to say the exact opposite.)

"Neopagans have been bemused and upset by the thorough debunking that Graves 'Triple Goddess' has received in recent years." (Not only is this biased, it is laughable. Of course you haven't read 'The White Goddess', so you wouldn't actually know, just like your motto... How convenient for a wiki-skeptic admin!)

I know you won't actually take the time to respond or fix any of your biased errors (like I actually tried to do for everyone's collective benefit). Of course, I really don't care. Because it's only wikipedia! (Besides I'm not a neo-Pagan, just a lover of Graves.) Basically, I just want to hold you accountable for the truly pathetic state of this article and allow everyone to be able to see what a wikipedia admin considers to be "more accurate" versus what I tried to either remove or reword with a neutral POV... And it's too bad you'll get in trouble if you try to ban me for this, huh? Cheers;) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I won't fix any of my 'errors' because I haven't been editing the article except for reverting your unagreed changes. You've already been told what to do about your concerns. I'm not saying it doesn't need work, I'm saying this isn't the way to do it. And I think the neo-pagan academic Hutton probably knows a lot more about the subject than you do. As for banning, I doubt anyone will try to do that. Block, maybe, we'll see what happens there, but it won't be me. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If the language is offensive, then it should be edited to be more neutral - but it also has to accurately reflect what the sources actually say. If the selection of sources is biased, then adding relevantly sourced content that supports the view-points missing from the article will remedy that. Davémon (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- First of all, I already did try to edit the above sentences to make them more neutral, however, there is obviously a(nother) conflict of interest going on here at wikipedia. (But THANK YOU SO MUCH for telling me to do what I already did attempt to do several times. Because it sure did "remedy" the situtation, didn't it?) Secondly, there is no reason to include biased sources and you know it. They should be deleted, however, it is clear that the wikipedia admins and their cohorts have a personal bias regarding this topic. Thirdly, actually take a few moments and read some of the sweeping generalizations and inaccuracies in the some of the sourced sentences above. For example, "scholars, particularly historians and folklorists generally do not receive the work favourably". Please. Are you really going to stand behind this rubbish? Of course, both biased information and subtle (as well as not-so-subtle) personal attacks like those directed against Graves in this article are perfectly okay here at wikipedia as long as they're sourced, right? tcob44

Doug- "Reverting your unagreed changes"? Are you kidding?!? The above examples ARE NOT NEUTRAL AND I TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO FIX IT! (Which is why they are *your* errors now as you've clearly endorsed them by blocking my efforts to maintain a NPOV.) In addition, it is obvious that many of you wikipedia admins just make up new rules as you go along. Am I supposed to somehow get everyone's approval before I make a change now?!? How exactly does one go about that? Is there a board of review for each article or something? "You've already been told what to do about your concerns." Yes, I've been told by a Skeptic (someone who clearly has a conflict of interest with this topic) that my efforts at maintaining a NPOV are going to be reverted because of your personal bias. As for Hutton, I've never heard of him. But unlike you, at least I've read 'The White Goddess' (three times and counting) and know that Hutton doesn't have a clue. (Which would be obvious to you if you had ACTUALLY READ IT. How convenient it must be to know that you know nothing. And then on top of it get to revert the changes for people who actually do know something about the topic at hand!) But at least now future editors will know that you are **intellectually vandalizing** this article and hopefully they will go somewhere else for their information, like newworldencyclopedia.org where the articles actually have credibility. Anyway, I think I'm going to go make some more edits around here, but since I don't want you stalking me, I might have to use a different IP. Oh my gosh, I almost forgot to get your approval first!!! Is that okay with you, Doug? I assume so, especially since I know how you wiki-admins love to use sock-puppets;) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you think a Moonie encyclopedia is a good source, fine, you're entitled to your opinion although I don't know why you keep harping on about it. But not for Wikipedia except for an article about itself or maybe the Unification Church. Hutton is a WP:RELIABLE source for this article -- he's a published academic with expertise in the area and that is all he needs to be considered a reliable source by our criteria. You've already been advised as to what you can do, but you appear to be more interested in cheap insults. Yes, critiques of Graves are perfectly acceptable so long as they are well sourced. Indeed, all significant well-sourced views are acceptable so long as they follow our WP:NPOV policy, which does not call for sources or statements to be neutral. I don't see how anyone can have a conflict of interest with this topic unless, of course, they were a Triple Goddess. Being a skeptic is irrelevant. We expect editors to have their own points of view, so long as they follow our policies and guidelines that is not a hindrance and is often to the good of Wikipedia. And you don't have to have anyone's approval to make a change, but you do have to have consensus to keep it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug- A "Moonie encyclopedia"!?! What in blazes are you talking about?!? In case you are blissfully unaware, I did not add any sources to this article. I simply changed the wording of some of the sentences to make them more accurate and/or neutral. Also, I removed some unnecessary/irrelevant/biased sentences as well as their respective sources. Of course, I'm not at all surprised (and somewhat relieved) to know that this whole situation is the result of your ignorance of the facts and general confusion as to what is really going on. Regardless, the multiple problems with this article will remain indefinitely as long as editors and contributors like myself have to overcome various obstacles such as: the consensus of ill-informed individuals who approve of the unscholarly bias against Graves and desire to see his work belittled in a (so-called) encyclopedia; a certain wikipedia admin who mistakenly believes that I'm adding sources to a "Moonie encyclopedia" and reverting my changes based on this false notion; and most importantly, the pre-existing Skeptical consensus towards the topic at hand. Why do you think it is necessary to show "doubt" and "skepticism" in this particular article? To be fair, shouldn't we also show a man's POV and a woman's? Christian? Taoist? Anarchist? Can't someone just simply come to wikipedia and get an actual, living, breathing ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY without the unnecessary *negative* and FALSE commentary? If you actually cannot, <<at least let someone fix it for you>>! (Not to mention, I'm sure you certainly wouldn't try something like this on a Christian-related topic with individuals who are equally as gullible/misinformed in the eyes of a Skeptic. Even though I might somewhat agree with this assessment, that is besides the point. Why do you think you can get away with it here? I imagine it's simply because you can actually maintain a Skeptical consensus on a "neo-Pagan" article, is that right?) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.225.133 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The New World Encyclopedia is here: [1], see also here [2]. It's the first hit on Google and what you get when you enter New World Encyclopedia here. You clearly weren't adding sources to it. It hadn't occurred to me that you meant Funk & Wagnall's which perhaps you meant, although it seems unlikely anyone could get them to create an article. In any case, you don't understand how Wikipedia works, so I've given you a menu. I suggest you take Brangifer's advice. And read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(Version 2.0) Doug- How does Mr. Moonie founding a wiki-based encyclopedia change the fact that it's written by SCHOLARS AND EXPERTS? (Just like the scandal(s) swirling around the founder of wikipedia do not affect the *concept* of wikipedia.) Besides, the articles are not written by Moonies, but an international team of scholars. As for telling me how to fix this article, I don't think you understand the problem at hand. Fixing this article is your responsiblity now. You reverted this article back to the above examples. People know how to read an article for themselves and say "What do these negative comments and biased scholarship have to do with anything?". They can click on the discussion page to find out the back-story. It's both on record and on display, Doug. YOU REPRESENT WIKIPEDIA with this (so-called) "encyclopedic" article!!! And my attempted improvements are on record, too. Don't you understand this is your both your reputation and wikipedia's on the line? Isn't this website *desperately* trying to get academics to acknowledge the accuracy of these articles?? However, what you are doing is furthering this problem, reverting my far more neutral, eloquently-spoken, and well-balanced version, to the above examples of pure, unadulterated, biased, cr@pola! In addition, you aren't even familiar with the topic as you haven't even read the book ('The White Goddess') which is being discussed in this article. This is shameful behaviour for a website which is supposed to be, and trying to be recognized, as a legitimate source of encyclopedic information, don't you think? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

personal and irrelevant attacks removed -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)... tcob44

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 

Profile? I wonder what you think Wikipedia is, and what you think the purpose of this page is. Please start reading some of the links I have given you. And my scholarly credentials (which exist by the way but I am not going to discuss here) are irrelevant to my role as an editor of this or any other article. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, the edit I responded to just above was substantially changed after I responded. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And to give this IP some credit, they are apparently saying that they are User talk:Tcob44 now using an IP instead of the account, which has not been used this year but ran into somewhat similar difficulties last year. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To the IP, if you want to argue your source is appropriate, that's fine, we can discuss it, but you are not going to convince anybody by insulting people here. I've left a warning on the talk page to knock that stuff off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky- You are correct, some of my personal attacks were unnnecessary. I'll happily rephrase my response without most of them. Moving along, I have a simple request. I really, really, really wish that the wiki-admins (like yourself) would actually take the time to read what is going on with a situation before they respond to an issue, since I've never, ever been arguing that my source is appropriate. I never added a source. And I cannot tell you how incredibly frustrating it is to deal with people who are supposed to know what is going on, and don't. Not only is this a(nother) crediblity issue with wikipedia, but it is an ongoing one. For over a year, I've consistently encountered this problem, again and again. Anyway, I'll take the time to write up a response which will inform you of the problem(s) with this article in a crystal-clear (and polite) manner. Right after I rephrase my deleted response above. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug and Ricky- To begin, my rather high level of frustration with wikipedia has (somewhat) subsided and this reply is intended to read in a courteous and polite manner. I'm sure the both of you will agree that wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. In addition, it's motto is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." For the past few years, this website has been trying to be recognized as both a legitimate and accurate encyclopedic source. However, both the 'Triple Goddess' article and the general treatment of well-intentioned editors such as myself who have been attempting to maintain a NPOV in this article are a few of the reasons why wikipedia is still failing in their quest. Sometimes I cannot tell if the admins such as yourselves are simply over-whelmed with various issues and as a result, your well-intentioned actions end up causing more harm than good. Or on the other hand, considering the frequency I've been encountering similar problems, perhaps there are some other serious issues going on here. For the record, I'd like to believe its simply the former. Regardless, the main problem with wikipedia appears to be your "Consensus" policy. Currently, the "consensus" on this article thinks it is best for wikipedia to present blatantly inaccurate information, biased scholarship against a legendary mythographer, and a "Skeptical" viewpoint for the 'Triple Goddess' article which is currently presenting an unnecessarily antagonistic attitude toward the topic at hand. When these issues were brought up and certain changes were made, the "consensus" and/or wiki-admins reverted it back. Protocol or not (and hopefully not), this is an example of your "Consensus" policy having a major conflict-of-interest with your quest for legitimacy and accuracy. If you want to see your website succeed in its quest, perhaps you should bring it up with whomever necessary in order to figure out a way to remedy the situation. When I come to wikipedia for information, I don't want biased opinions (even if they are footnoted). I want facts. This article has far too many opinions. Which is why I made the changes below.

Originally, the article read:

"The idea of the Triple Goddess predates Wicca, and originates with the poet Robert Graves, who described her in his 1948 book The White Goddess."

This is false, the Triple Goddess does not originate with Graves. It goes al the way back to ancient Greece and India. I attempted to make this sentence accurate and changed it to this:

"The idea of the Triple Goddess predates Wicca and is eloquently described by the poet Robert Graves in his 1948 book The White Goddess."

This sentence is both false and unfootnoted, so I removed it:

"Whilst various Pagan goddesses throughout history have appeared in triadic form, none have had the "maiden, mother and crone" aspects associated with them."

This sentence subtly attempts to imply that Robert Graves was somehow associated with neo-Paganism and Witchcraft:

"The concept of the 'Maiden, Mother and Crone' goddess was Robert Graves' contribution to modern pagan witchcraft."

So I changed it to an accurate and unbiased sentence:

"The concept of the 'Maiden, Mother and Crone' goddess was elucidated by Robert Graves. "

Apparently, this sentence is trying to subtly belittle neo-Pagans and Witches:

"Some feminist neo-pagans who self-identify as Witches subscribe to a witch-cult hypothesis which posits that the worship of the Triple Goddess dates to pre-Christian Europe and possibly the Paleolithic, and that their religion is a surviving remnant of ancient beliefs."

Therefore, I removed the unnecessary armchair psychoanalysis and changed it to this:

"As the worship of the Triple Goddess dates to pre-Christian Europe, possibly to the Paleolithic period, modern day Wiccans and Witches believe that their religion is a surviving remnant of ancient beliefs."

As a female prophet is actually a prophetess, I made this change in the article. This sentence is both condescending and unnecessary to a (so-called) encyclopedic entry, so I removed it:

"Faber explains this in psychological terms of attempting to re-unite with the protective mother fantasy of the psyche."

This is false, unsourced, and unnecessary to the topic at hand, therefore I removed it:

"Much of Graves theories are indebted to this out-moded nineteenth-century romanticist scholarship."

This sentence is a sweeping (and inaccurate) generalization:

"scholars, particularly historians and folklorists generally do not receive the work favourably."

Therefore, I reworded it to make it more accurate:

"Some scholars, historians, and folklorists have not received the work favourably."

This sentence is so ridiculous it borders on the absurd:

"Some neopagans who value the work of Graves have been bemused and upset by the thorough debunking that Graves 'Triple Goddess' has received in recent years from such scholars."

Although I should have removed it, I simply changed it to read:

"Neopagans have been bemused by the attempted debunkings that Graves 'Triple Goddess' has received in recent years."

(I assure you, although Graves made a few mistakes (pioneers in their respective fields always do), no one has "debunked" Graves, much less in a "thorough" fashion.) Furthermore, here is another example of inaccurate generalizations, personal bias, and unfounded claims which I tried to fix:

"Graves systematically applied his convictions enshrined in The White Goddess to Greek mythology, often confusing and puzzling readers by the references to his Triple Goddess, and exposing a large number of unadvised readers to his Goddess mysteries. Classicists and scholars in comparative mythology, such as, have called the work a compendium of misinterpretations."

Finally, the article has numerous weasel words such as: "believers claim". (However, this is one change I made which hasn't been reverted. Yet;) Other sentences like this: "what they consider to be patriarchal religions" should simply read "patriarchical religions" as all the major religions are indisputably patriarchical. Since I am more than familiar with the topics discussed in this article, I attempted to fix this article for the collective benefit of everyone with the above changes. Unfortunately, the "Consensus" behind this article reverted my changes, despite the fact that currently it appears that none of them are familiar with this topic and have not read 'The White Goddess'. Issues like this are sabotaging your goal for credibility and legitimacy. And one final point, just so you know, when most people get an overly curt message with a hyperlink to your (seemingly endless) policy pages, they don't usually click them, so you might want to actually include in the sentence the main point you are trying to make along with the hyperlink in order to improve communication and what-not. That will help prevent already frustrated contributors from responding with too many personal attacks, to which I apologize for. Thanks for reading. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First, it is very difficult to respond to extremely long comments like this. Second, I have no clue what to do with your personal beliefs that everything is inaccurate. If you don't have a source to the contrary, I'm not sure what I can do. Let me start with one example and see if that's clear. For your statement "This is false, the Triple Goddess does not originate with Graves. It goes al the way back to ancient Greece and India", do you have a source? To say that a certain idea goes back to ancient Greece and India is going to be very difficult to show directly, so a reliable source would be appropriate. Be specific (a "legendary mythographer" isn't helpful). There is a citation to Hutton's The Triumph of the Moon p.194 for the statement that Graves was the source. I have no way to review that but as is, let's leave that be. Do you have a source contrary to that? If so, then the proper thing to do is to not give undue weight to Hutton and to present both views. However, if you cannot show us a source that meets our standards, as Doug noted above, we are going to support Hutton's views over what you tell us is "the truth" because we want verifiability, not truth. Screams that it's not neutral are not going to be productive until you put the effort to show us that reliable sources agree with your views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For an example, the Rountree citation does say that some claim it dates to pre-Christian Europe, etc. If that's the view you are going for, you need to provide evidence of further support to it's not just a minority view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with Ricky. We need to use sources that are reliable by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and that clearly includes Hutton - who is of course a pagan. I'm not sure if the IP editor is saying that Graves was not associated with paganism or just not with neo-paganism. If we need another source about Graves and the Triple Goddess, there is [3] Witchcraft and Magic by Helen A. Berger who says Graves originally promoted the concept. There are more of course. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky- I really appreciate you reading the lengthy post, I mainly wanted to fully apprise you of the situation and let you know, beyond a doubt, that I'm not trying to add any sources here. Although I understand what you are saying, I still think it would be helpful if someone/anyone representing the "Consensus" of this article was actually familiar with the Triple Goddess. For example, the ancient Indian goddess Sarasvati was regularly depicted in triple form (known as Arya Sarasvati): three heads and six arms (see 'Dictionary of Ancient Deities' by Turner and Coulter). She also formed a trinity with Lakshmi and Parvati (wikipedia article). Similarly, the ancient Greek lunar goddess Hekate was depicted the same way (basic information featured here on wikipedia). Other variations of Hekate had her three heads represented in animal forms: horse, lion, and lion. These are the primary examples of the Triple Goddess in antiquity, goddesses who are conceived of as having a Triple form and trifold nature. All of this is common knowledge in the field of comparative mythology (even more, most of this information is readily available here on wikipedia, the rest is a few clicks on Google), which is why it is frustrating to have someone think it is a "minority view". In addition, it appears that the scholarship (or lack thereof) of Hutton is actually the one who represents the minority view here. For example, it is also commonly known that neo-Paganism is a modern syncretism of *ancient traditions*. Case in point: the Triple Goddess. No one would argue that neo-Paganism is a modern amalgamation of *modern* beliefs. Likewise, 'The White Goddess' is about the various manifestations of the Triple Goddess throughout history. Which is why it is absurd for Hutton, or anyone for that matter, to think the Triple Goddess recently originated with neo-Paganism and/or Graves! In fact, I've noticed in the discussion topic below they are considering correcting this, which they most certainly should do, as the Triple Goddess should be presented on wikipedia as a mythological topic, not simply a neo-Pagan topic, and this would be the best viewpoint from which to approach the subject. Finally, there are other issues in my post above which should be addressed. For instance, the numerous sweeping generalizations should at least be attributed to their respective authors. For example, if Hutton says that Graves is not accepted by modern scholars, then it should properly say that Hutton himself says this, not simply (and misleadingly) that scholars in general believe this as if it is a commonly accepted fact. This is the main problem that I'm trying to point out with this article, however, my first attempts to do so ended up getting all of us here. However, I'll happily take care of it if no one objects this time. In other words, is it okay to address the NPOV issues above and attribute generalizations to their respective sources? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"The various manifestations of the Triple Goddess throughout history" has been debunked as poor scholarship on Graves part, it was a figment of Graves poetic imagination, not a historical or mythological thesis anyone except neo-pagans (and some Jungian literary critics) have ever taken seriously. In all my research on this subject I've never come across a reliable, academic, historical or mythographic source that supports Graves thesis, and several that have denounced it - I'm not saying support doesn't exist, but that these sources will need to be found in order to improve the article in the way you wish. Nobody is blindly defending the current consensus, the external evidence for your statements just needs to be supplied as per WP:OR/WP:RS and WP:N. If, as you say, "All of this is common knowledge in the field of comparative mythology" then it should be very easy for you to find the sources required. Also, may I suggest you read the sources already provided in the article? some of them might themselves cite those that support your views and much of their text is easily available on Google Books [4], if not your local library. --Davémon (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- Have you read 'the White Goddess'? Regardless, click this link and look at the ancient statue(s) of Hekate (aka Hekate Trevia), one of the Triple Goddesses of antiquity. This image is one of the forms of the Triple Goddess. In addition, I think your (other) problem is that you are focused on the wrong (re: neo-Pagan) definition of "Triple Goddess". BTW- Did the research you speak of include anything offline, like an actual book? Also, would you like a list of books who do take Graves' historical thesis seriously? As I occasionally work in a bookstore, I can easily provide you with one if you wish. PS- It appears that the underlying problem is that *some* of you have a really simplistic, one-dimensional definition (neo-Pagan?) of the Triple Goddess. PPS- And just so you know, this entire discussion is quite possibly going to be featured in a documentary/student film. (Thanks in advance;) And seriously, I'm glad everyone is in agreement and nothing is changing with the article. Whenever someone clicks the discussion page, they can all read about your vast amount of knowledge regarding this subject. (J/k...) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.97.110 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do read the sources provided in the article, all are published, reliable sources including scholarly journals and books. If you can provide any reliable sources (author, book/journal title, date) which actually support Graves 'Triple Goddess' theory as a valid work of comparative mythology or history I'd be more than happy to help in using them to improve the article. --Davémon (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Given what was said last night by tcob44, one way of looking at all the above is that it is an exercise for a student documentary and only tangentially about this article. Certainly if the intention has been to turn this discussion into a documentary, it must have affected tcob44's posts and it's a bit hard to WP:AGF his/her posts. But let's recap. It doesn't matter if some edits are skeptics (which to me is simply the scientific approach) and others are non-skeptics (or Pagans or Christians, who could also be skeptics, they aren't exclusive categories), in fact, that's a good thing. It doesn't matter if someone has read Graves 3 times (and presumably Hutton not at all), or that I've read Graves and Hutton. What does matter is that editors not put their own opinions into articles (we call this original research, see WP:OR, which includes not trying to make decisions about whether sources are right or wrong. This discussion page should also not include original research but should be where we can discuss sources, content, etc. We have policies about what kinds of sources should be used, at WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. As the latter policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". Editors who want to make an article reflect The Truth are unlikely to be happy here. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

When an individual consults an encyclopedia, they expect the information to be factual and accurate. They also expect the information to be unbiased and presented with a neutral point of view. In short, individuals expect an encyclopedia to tell them the Truth about a subject. Without the negative commentary and personal bias. Which is why I whole-heartedly agree with your statement Doug: "Editors who want to make an article reflect The Truth are unlikely to be happy here." Regarding your interpretation of my documentary/student film comment about this thread, the reverse is true. Basically, I've realized at this point that none of the numerous inaccuracies in this article are going to be corrected. Even worse, these inaccuracies are being perpetuated/enforced by two administrators for wikipedia (Doug Weller and Ricky). In addition, I know from personal experience that this is not an isolated incident. Furthermore, I know that all universities, colleges, high-schools, and every other type of learning institution warn their students about the lack of accuracy and veracity of the information on wikipedia. In short, they are not allowed to use wikipedia as a Truthful source. Which is why I think this discussion should be featured in a documentary as evidence supporting this academic policy against wikipedia. And considering that I know both documentary film-makers and film students, this subject may just well become a reality. Cheers. tcob44

Seriously, just which "scholarly journals" exactly does this article cite? No offense, Davemon, but I really don't think you have any credibility regarding the subject of Triple Goddess. According to your profile page, your expertise on this topic is derived from playing Warhammer and making graffiti out of Pagan(ish) symbols. Or did I miss something? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.42.170 (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has 'profile' pages, we have user pages. My four post-graduate qualifictions aren't listed on my user page either, nor my academic career. They are irrelevant to my role as an editor as we are not expected to do original research. So yes, you missed something extremely important. Wikipedia doesn't care if you can recite Robert Graves' work backwards, what we care about is that your edits follow our policies and guidelines. Specialist knowledge in a field can of course be helpful, but not if it is not accompanied by an understanding of how Wikipedia works. Now can we please stop this discussion of the qualifications of editors to take part in editing this article and concentrate on specifics? If you've got some sources to bring to the table, great. If all you want to do is complain, perhaps you should go find a web forum somewhere. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Profile page, User page. Tomato, Tomatoe. Seriously, who cares? And what you don't seem to realize is that my edits DO FOLLOW YOUR POLICIES AND GUIDELINES. My edits have only attempted to maintain a NPOV and make sure that statements accurately represent their sources. tcob44

I have no credibility, nor do I need or want any, I'm not a self-proclaimed expert. The credibility of the article comes from the sources that are cited in it. If an article appears to lack credibility, then its because either the sources cited are not reliable, or it needs more sources adding. Have you found any sources that support your position yet? --Davémon (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

After all this time, I cannot believe that both of you STILL think I'm trying to add sources!?!?! Seriously, I'm flabbergasted. I really don't know what to say... tcob44

Are you saying you have no intention of adding sourced material to this article? --Davémon (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug, Davemon, and Ricky- I am through wasting my time trying to reason with the (stubbornly) unreasonable in this so-called "Discussion". At this point and time, two out of three of you still think I am trying to add sources to this article which (unsurprisingly) reveals the fact that you are obviously incapable of grasping even the most basic points I have been repeatedly making. Consequently, I am simply going to edit this article, one sentence at a time, giving it a NPOV and making sure the statements are accurately representing the sources. If you don't like the changes I've made to a sentence, then make the necessary changes you see fit. Or simply revert it with an explanation as to why it was reverted and I'll make the necessary changes myself. In addition, I'm going to cross-reference some of the material with the Triple goddess in Antiquity article which refutes many your inaccurate notions. At this point, let's finally put all of our collective writing skills (as evidenced by the above) to some good use and make some much-needed improvements to this ineptly edited article by fixing the numerous biased and/or inaccurate statements. Hope all of you can keep up;) Cheers. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.11 (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Article titles

I'd like to suggest some changes to the title of this article and Triple goddess in Antiquity. It seems to me that the Wiccan/Neopagan triple goddess is a subset of triple goddesses more generally, so "Triple goddess in Antiquity" should have first claim to the title "Triple goddess", and this article should be something like "Triple goddess in modern pagan religions". Thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For my proposal on the matter, see Talk:Triple_Goddess/Archive_1#Proposal:_Triple_Goddess_.28Maiden.2C_Mother.2C_Crone.29_and_List_of_goddesses_appearing_in_trios_in_mythology/ :bloodofox: (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are posted 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC), to paraphraphase: Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia, not a specialist one. Therefore article naming is supposed to be based around the most commonly used language (see WP:NAME) which in this case means Triple Goddess = the neopagan / Gravesian conception. By way of evidence for this usage:

1) The majority of wikipedia pages that link to the Triple Goddess article are in regards to Neopaganism rather than ancient mythology.

2) A "Triple Goddess" search at Google Scholar brings up a significant majority of neopagan and eco-feminist texts, rather than scholarly mythographic or ancient history texts.

The issue is that we have a proper noun: Triple Goddess (neopagan) and a weak correlation of the appellation triple goddess to various, otherwise unrelated ancient deities. Therefore I'm deducing that Triple Goddess as a proper noun this is exactly the right title for the Gravsian/Neopagan content. Of course other ways of organising the articles may also be appropriate but they should be supported by external evidence and wikipedias naming convention guidelines. --Davémon (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's right, both by common sense and by our own guidelines. The main relationship of this article is with Neopaganism. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got the guidelines backwards. If an article has several possible names, you should use the name most common name used to refer to the subject, but if a name can refer to more than one thing, be precise. Primary meaning is not determined by a popularity contest. The primary meaning of the term "triple goddess" is the more general one, so that should be the first one a searcher should hit when searching on the term, and then a disambiguator should lead to the Wiccan triple goddess, which is a subset of triple goddesses generally. As a comparison, if I Google "Twilight", the majority of the sites linked are about the series of vampire novels by Stephanie Meyer and the film based on them, but the Wikipedia article Twilight is (rightly) about the time of day, because that's the primary meaning of the term. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We are attempting to be precise, hence "Triple goddess (antiquity)". The critique of my methodology (which describes commonality within reliable sources, not popularity) is mistaken as the comparison uses Google Web rather than Google Scholar, which passes the 'Twilight test' by showing the more common usage is the sensible one. Without evidence and rationale, the conclusion "The primary meaning of the term 'triple goddess' is the more general one" doesn't convince.--Davémon (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicknack- You are correct, Doug and Davemon have the guidelines backwards (among other things). Because of their extreme unfamiliarity with this subject, both are under the mistaken impression that the Triple Goddess originated with neo-Paganism, despite the fact that there are ancient statues and depictions hundreds of years old depicting the Triple Goddess, images of which are featured on wikipedia, for example Hekate. Anyway, best of luck trying to enlighten the ignorant and explain to these Skeptics the depth of this subject, as I've failed miserably. Just like they say: Ignorance is bliss... Fortuitously, the Triple goddess in Antiquity article refutes many of the false notions the Doug/Davemon/Ricky are trying to perpetuate here. Thank the (Triple) Goddess! tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.11 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for any of that? If you do not intend to prove the slightest bit of evidence, don't be surprised if we just ignore you and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV (again)

Three out of three! Absolutely astonishing... Regardless, in case you didn't read my reply to Doug, Davemon, and yourself, your services are no longer needed by me around here. But thanks anyway, though. BTW- If you haven't already seen the photographic images of the ancient statues/depictions portraying the Triple Goddess (like Hekate, for example) then it's probably best that you don't check out the Triple goddess in Antiquity article here on wikipedia because it might cause a severe blow to your current world-view which could result in irreversible mental trauma;) tcob44

And Davemon is a major contributor to the article Triple goddess in Antiquity, which is about various concepts plural, but not about the triple goddess of this article, something you still fail to comprehend. There's no conflict between the articles, no one need fear any blows to their world views. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Major contributor"?!?! That's quite a stretch, as the details recorded on the history page clearly show otherwise. (Much to the benefit of the article, it would appear;) tcob44

As I've warned you, knock it off with the personal attacks. This stuff has gone on long enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend that as a personal attack. And since you gave me a "Final Warning" over the above comment, I have to assume you are going to try to get me banned by any means necessary. However, to (hopefully) prevent you from succeeding in this quest, I'll make sure that all of my future comments appear nice and polite to everyone. Cheers;) tcob44

I don't want you banned or whatever. Besides, it would be mostly fruitless since you could easily start up with a new IP and continue on. However, you aren't going to be appreciated until you put some effort into providing evidence for your beliefs, not just changing things to match your personal beliefs. I'm not going to argue with you on it. I just find it extremely doubtful you've actually read all those works enough to be able to appropriate change what the authors are saying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky- The problems cited in your post affects only one of my changes. Regarding the following sentences in the article: "The concept of the Triple Goddess with Maiden, Mother and Crone aspects and lunar symbology was Robert Graves' contribution to modern pagan witchcraft.[1] Many modern witches follow beliefs that originated in 20th century England." Since the second sentence is **unsourced**, it appeared to be implying Graves as he is a 20th century English poet. Consequently, I incorrectly added "He claims" to the beginning, under the mistaken assumption it was following the previous sentence. This was an honest mistake and hardly qualifies the accusation that I'm trying to "change things to match my personal beliefs." Here's the proof: click the (prev) button on the history page next to your revision (the feature which allows you to compare versions) and you will see that this is the only instance of this happening, thus making your blanket revert unnecessary since none of the other changes are inaccurate. Therefore, shall I undo it or do you want to? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.11 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it seems clear to me. The modern witches sentence is sourced by the next one, Bromley's description of their views. It's an explanation of the connection. Now, from what I can guess, you seem sympathetic to the Rountree argument, and perhaps we can merge the two sections into more of a dichotomy, contrasting the views. If you cannot articulate your view into that of the scholarship, it's exceedingly difficult to discuss this. Do you actually have a legitimate criticism of the scholarship, with countering evidence? Claims of "I just know better" aren't particularly productive, especially in a topic of this level of obscurity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your question: No, Ricky, and I don't know why you still think that. As I've repeatedly stated, I'm primarily trying to maintain a NPOV and make sure that statements, especially sweeping generalizations, are accurately attributed to their respective sources. For example: "The concept of the Triple Goddess with Maiden, Mother and Crone aspects and lunar symbology was Robert Graves' contribution to modern pagan witchcraft."[1] should read: "According to neo-Pagan author Ronald Hutton, the concept of the Triple Goddess with Maiden, Mother and Crone aspects and lunar symbology was Robert Graves' contribution to modern pagan witchcraft." To presume that this author speaks for all scholars, mythographers, academics, etc is false. Therefore, I changed it. BTW- I'm glad to see you making some of the changes I have suggested and/or already made. Thanks and keep up the good work! tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.11 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You say Hutton doesn't represent all scholars but you refuse to show us examples of alternative views, beyond personal conjecture. Until you can show that, it would be improper to give undue weight to views that clearly aren't representative. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Ricky, eventually I'll get to adding new information (with plenty of sources) to this article. Then the fun will really begin;) But first things first. The main problem with this article is the intentional misrepresentation of the current information along with their respective sources. To elaborate, several sweeping generalizations and blanket statements are presented in a misleading way which makes it seem like their opinions represent the academic consensus. For instance, the biased and/or ill-informed opinions of a couple neo-Pagan authors/"experts" are *anonymously* quoted (or paraphrased) as if they speak for the all the scholars in the field of mythology, an academic group most of them aren't even a part of. Once that is taken care of, then we can move along. Thankfully, regarding the NPOV issue, this article finally seems to actually be showing some much needed improvement in this department. tcob44

Yes, the fun will begin when you start adding sourced material! At the risk of repeating Ricky: unless you can prove, via sources, that the academic consensus is other than shown in this article, then all you're doing is taking the currently neutral article and making it biased towards your unfounded opinions. --Davémon (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'll repeat myself: The main problem with this article is the intentional misrepresentation of the current information along with their respective sources. I'm sure I might think this article is neutral if I had never read a book by Graves and didn't have any actual depth of knowledge about this subject. Apparently, any statement followed with a source is blindly accepted as a universal fact around here without any sort of critical evaluation. And FYI- A couple of neo-Pagan "experts" hardly qualifies as any sort of academic consensus. Even worse, one of these so-called "experts" thinks that the concept of the Triple Goddess originated with Graves! (BTW- Have you even read Hutton's book?!?) Regardless, I know that you are aware of the Triple goddess in Antiquity article and I assume that you are also aware that neo-Paganism is a modern amalgamation of ancient traditions. Therefore, it's hard to figure out why you blindly swallow Hutton's unfounded and ill-informed claim that the Triple Goddess somehow originated with 'The White Goddess'. Personally, I'd be embarrassed by standing behind such utterly ridiculous nonsense. Therefore, I have to wonder: Do you get some sort of kick out of spreading misinformation? Or just antagonizing those who point out your mistake(s)? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we all get it. You don't care about presenting sources, you may reward us by showing us evidence eventually but right now, we should all be happy that you've taken it upon yourself to correct our misinformation since you just "know" what's the truth, and you're just smarter than all of them. Because it's so much more likely than a random anonymous internet user will know what's going on than scholars in the field. There's a reason policies are in place and requirements are done. Frankly, I'm just getting tired of these endless circles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Wikiversity or any other site. Hutton is a reliable and verifiable site by our policies, like it or not. Believers in the Triple Goddess probably don't like him, but that's irrelevant. What is also irrelevant is the 'original research' of editors. Hutton should not of course be the only source for the article and is not the only source. Every significant view should be shown in the article (in proportion to its significance), that's what WP:NPOV is about. Accusing anyone of intentional misrepresentation isn't helpful and is getting tiresome. It's also a good way to lose credibility, especially when not accompanied by any sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, does anyone have a source for this sweeping generalization in the opening of this article: "The idea of the Triple Goddess predates Wicca, with academics citing Robert Graves' 1948 book The White Goddess as the begining of the modern amalgamation of historically informed and new ideas." (Or is it a rehash of the following statement sourced to Hutton?) Also, the flow of the quoted sentence above seems a little tortured. PS- Believe it or not, there are some NEW SOURCES discussed below in the new 'Ronald Hutton' section. tcob44 (A "believer" in the Triple Goddess;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the full sense of the statements in the lede is properly cited in the body of the article we don't tend to put citations in the lede. It's just stylistic. So yes, it's a "re-hash" of several statements attributed to Hutton and others in thee body. HTH. --Davémon (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- Strange that *your* statements don't need any sources, don't you think? And just exactly how is it that one single author suddenly speaks for *all* academics? Not to mention, why is it that this type of statement doesn't even need a footnote?!? I think Ricky and Doug are going to give you a verbal spanking for this;) tcob44

Doug and Ricky- Per your repeated and persistent requests, I recently did some research on Ronald Hutton and added some new *sourced* information in order to present a more balanced point of view to this article. After this sentence: "According to historian Ronald Hutton, the concept of the Triple Goddess with Maiden, Mother and Crone aspects and lunar symbology was Robert Graves' contribution to modern pagan witchcraft." I added this sourced statement (quoted from femininst writer Max Dashu):

"However, it should be noted that Hutton has been criticized by both feminists and neo-Pagans who have countered that Hutton's works are "intensely anti-feminist", contain major factual errors, and show a lack of skepticism toward the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy."

Unfortunatetly, this sentence was immediately removed by Davemon, relocated to another section, and CHANGED to this:

"Goddess-feminists such as Max Dashu have attacked scholars who have rejected the idea of an ancient "Triple Goddess" as being intensely anti-feminist, entertaining factual errors, and showing a lack of skepticism toward the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy."

Not only does this source not state she is "Goddess feminist" (wholly made-up information, aka: Original Research), it now reads that Dashu "attacked scholars" and her quoted statment "major factual errors" now reads "entertaining factual errors". This incident is a perfect example of the lack of a NPOV with this article and the intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Again, the only two issues I've had since the beginning of this extremely long discussion. After some more editing on my part, this sentence has been restored to its original location and now reads:

"However, this assessment by Hutton has been criticized by both feminists and neo-Pagans. For example, feminist writer Max Dashu has countered that Hutton's works are "intensely anti-feminist", contain major factual errors, and show a lack of skepticism toward the Eurocentric bias of Oxbridge orthodoxy."

Anyway, that's all for now. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.45.185 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Goddess feminism is what Dashu preaches. It needs no more sourcing than calling Hutton a historian. Anyway it's irrelevant since Dashu is not a reliable source. Davémon (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just exactly how does her not being a reliable source change the fact that you were caught altering information and actively presenting a biased POV? Can you please explain that to everyone, cupcake? Pretty please? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.42.20 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a moot point, as the content has now been removed. Minority views must not be given the same weight as majority views. Your edits make the mistake of naturalising a fringe source as if it were taken as seriously as a leading academic. This is Bias. It is not biased to present a fringe, minority viewpoint as a fringe, minority viewpoint (which is what my edit achieved). That would be neutral. If you could add some content from reliable sources to the article which support your views, I'm sure we can discuss how to present those in a neutral manner. Davémon (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Davemon- Simply because the content has been removed does not make this issue a moot point. YOU WERE CAUGHT MAKING UP INFORMATION, CHANGING QUOTES, AND PRESENTING A BIASED POV, DAVEMON! In addition, you personally altered the statement from a NPOV. Even worse, not only do you seem to think what you did was alright, but you are also under the delusion that what you did presented the information in a "neutral" manner for a minority viewpoint!!! (For these reasons, you are going to be the "star" in the forthcoming documentary film about the perils of wikipedia due to its lack of scholarship and the extreme bias of numerous editors and admins.) tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because you think it's made up and biased doesn't make it so. I've actually started a discussion at ANI. Nothing personal but a documentary showing editing here sounds mightly boring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky- Even giving Davemon the benefit of the doubt regarding his labelling her a "Goddess feminist", he still <<intentionally changed a quoted critique>> to appear less damaging and then FALSELY ACCUSED her of "attacking scholars". And this doesn't reflect a biased POV to you? Did you even look at the source, evaluate the accuracy of my paraphase of her comments, and compare it to what Davemon changed it to?!? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ricky (Part 2)- I figured you were trying to get me banned. (And apparently, so is Doug...) However, I'm sure if they read the backstory above, they'll realize what is really going on here. Either way, a majority of the NPOV issues I originally had with this article (listed twice in previous posts above) have been pretty much resolved. The neutrality of this article is much improved. Controversial comments are now attributed to their sources instead of sweeping generalizations misleadingly presented as an academic consensus. And various other unnecessary negative and/or condescending comments have been removed. All in all, I can live with the current version of this article. Despite the seemingly endless "mutual antagonism" of all involved, the whole wikipedia-collaboration-concept has finally worked itself out. Anyway, it's been real... tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.203.66 (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism versus trivia

I've removed the language about how the Triple Goddess just appears in fantasy literature here. It feels too much like a trivia section at that point, against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree it is trivia. We have the statement "fantasy literature is important to the neopagan worldview" which connects it to the theme, and all the citations are from serious critical sources, not primary sources. I know the list format isn't right, but as a skeleton it's at least a good start. Notably Graves Triple Goddess is a common literary device and belongs as much to Jungian and feminist literary criticism as neo-paganism. What do you see needs to be added/changed to the section to reinstate? --Davémon (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a difference between "it's used and helps develop the neopagan worldview" and "a band uses the three goddess mythology in a song." The second tends to lend towards "here's is everywhere this is used", more like trivia. Well, the Sandman, Garner's work, and the Vertigo analysis are the ones with secondary sources. The Sword is clear, but I hope for a more general discussion of its role in fantasy literature at the overarching scholarly levels (how does it fit into fantasy literature, generally), instead of specific examples. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most lit-crit looks at specific authors and works, rather than broad patterns within a genre ( although of course that does happen). However, the cited parts of the list is a specifically targeted - that is of works that have been read using the TG as a critical tool, or which have been found to play upon these themes in a concious way. As far as I can see this isn't the kind of random collection of information that WP:TRIVIA is telling us to avoid. I've reinstated the content and made some attempt to prosify it. There are sources such as: [5] and Margaret Atwood has both referenced the figure (see esp. [6]) and had her works critiqued using the model. I'd like to think the section could grow appropriately. Davémon (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

This is aimed specifically at the user signing him/herself as tcb044, editing with the IP address 68.217.45.11 and before that editing as Tcob44 (talk · contribs).
1. We expect editors to sign their posts on talk pages - it says that below the editing window. This is just common courtesy to allow ease of communication and transparency.

2. We ask editors not to make personal attacks. The editor in question is well aware of this and has a history of making personal attacks both under this IP and his/her account. Apologies followed by resumption of personal attacks aren't very usful. Continuation of personal attacks often leads to editors being blocked.

3. We also ask editors to avoid changing (redacting) their talk page edits. As WP:REDACT points out, " Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement.". As it is now, any reader seeing this page may see other editors replies which were in fact to statements no longer visible or changed considerably. Please stop. If you've written something you no longer believe is correct or wish to say, strike it out and start a new comment explaining the strikeout if necessary.

We have these guidelines to make talk pages easier to use and less intimidating. Let's all try to follow them. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I missed an IP address, the editor in question is also editing as 67.34.225.133 (talk · contribs) as well as 68.217.45.11 (talk · contribs) and has been asked by another editor to use his/her account instead of IP addresses. Adding 'Tcob44' here doesn't show up in the edit history of this page or articles, and makes it difficult for other editors/administrators to trace the history of the user's edits (and of any warnings they may have been given). Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doug- Based on the above post, I have to ask: Are you trying to get me banned? (That is, if you are actually talking about me in the first place since I've never posted anything under tcb044.) Regarding my apologies being followed by further "personal attacks", do you have any examples of this, other than some subtle innuendo in reply to bone-headed and/or downright rude statements and tactics by other editors? Or are you referring to this continuing after a similar situation which occurred over a year or so ago when I was banned from editing for 96 hours over the changing of a single word on the Knights Templar article? (Rather draconian tactics, in my opinion...) Regarding that one, single situation, the editor of that article was under the mistaken assumption that the Knights Templar were "incorrectly" linked to the Friday the 13th superstition. So I changed it to read "sometimes" linked. In the end, the individual tried to get me banned for my persistent efforts to make sure this sentence remained correct/accurate and they ultimately had to resort to making up a reason ("Pushing a fringe theory") when I later added a *sourced* statement to the article that some scholars believe that the Templars utilized an atbash cipher technique, thus revealing the mysterious "Baphomet" as a Hebrew code for "Sophia". (Even more draconian tactics.) But don't take my word for it, I encourage anyone reading about my ongoing struggles to *help improve* the accuracy of the information on the Triple Goddess article here on wikipedia to read about the similar problems I encountered with the "Consensus of admins" on the Knights Templar discussion page (under the Friday the 13th section). As for your issue with editing posts, if I have to make changes, usually they occur before anyone has replied. Sorry if that is a problem, but sometimes it is going to happen. BTW- Don't you think you're going a little overboard on this whole "personal attacks" issue?!? I think you need to re-read this thread and try to stop being bitter about everything. Although it's never fun to discover you are wrong, it really shouldn't be that much of a surprise when it occurs with a topic you a unfamiliar with, should it? tcob44

Please continue any personal discussion on his user talk page. This is not what this page is for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)