Talk:Goddess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Jargon 2 Signature removal 3 Some cited source(s) 4 Passage clarification request 5 'Goddessing' 6 POV issues 7 Problems 8 Rituals 9 Reorg? 10 Split? 11 Satanic Verses 12 Modern popular culture 13 Gaia 14 The Goddess in Wicca 15 "Secular use" section 16 4.4 Religious Feminism Section 17 Early Islamic historians referencing 18 Lilith? 19 Cleanup

[edit] Jargon

Article's intro is so rife with jargon and POV I cannot read the rest now, but I have to comment on second and third paragraphs. ("As the concept of monotheism and polytheism can be relativistic, so too can related concepts be culturally misunderstood. The concept of gender as applied to a god and goddess, may connote deeper tendencies of patriarchy and matriarchy, which may have equivalence to the rift between monotheism and polytheism. The Goddess concept is advocated by modern matriarchs and pantheists as a female version of, or analogue to God, (i.e. the Abrahamic god) who in feminist and other circles is perceived as being rooted in patriarchal concept of dominance— much to the exclusion of feminine concepts. Use of parallel language such as "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" to indicate gender tendencies can add to the misunderstanding of the social organizational preferences of women and men, as evidenced in archaeological and cultural anthropological findings.)What the heck does this mean? Run on sentence plus jargon = confusion, but I think the writer's point and POV is that insinuating gender distinction into religion is, well, dumb. Now, I happen to disagree, in that I think it may not even be possible for human beings to de-genderize concepts of deity - so why not get it out into the open? And in discussing gender and religion, why not seek NPOV in the finest Wikipedia tradition? People believe in Goddesses; that's a fact, and shouldn't that fact and its various expressions in human culture and history be the subject of this essay? SC 04:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with you on that. The introduction is not very comprehensible and seems lacking in understanding of the theology of polytheism, and the article as a whole seems to be focused on a few apparently arbitrarily selected topics while completely ignoring many others (what about the goddesses of various ancient polytheistic religions? the "Great Mother/Mother Goddess" myth? goddesses in other forms of Neopaganism besides Wicca? goddesses in literature? women as goddesses as a part of feminist self-empowerment rather than a recognition of sex appeal - for example, the Go Goddess! board game?) - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature removal

{{attention}} Shan, I've removed your signature--no offense, I hope. We have long since stopped signing Wikipedia articles. A few of us did in the first few months, but it's long become clear that, in a collaborative environment, signing an article tends to make people less likely to contribute to an article. --LMS

Lawrence that's fine. I thought I saw some comment in intro text that we could sign or not optionally. If it is true memory and not mistake from learning curve, and I come across it again I'll let you know so it can be deleted as out of date. Shan Jayran

Oy, yes, we need to delete that. --LMS

[edit] Some cited source(s)

I have to ask here one particular cited source may be invalid. It comes from the The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets By Barabara Walker. The problem is she has much critizism in the area of historical accuracy. > [1][2][3] Some of Barbara's sources are outdated, not cited(at all), or says something completely diffrent than what she says. Could someone either fix this (in the Arabia sec) or confirm it's authenticity with an outside source? Xuchilbara 00:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Barbara Walker is not the best source to use. Academic ones are preferred. If you have the information required to fix that part, I encourage you to do so. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage clarification request

I don't understand this passage, I think it needs to be cleared up, or perhaps deleted.

"While most societies have goddesses, if not now not long ago, it is Western societies that have most obviously taken Goddess devotion and forged with it both a resting place and a battle ground of gender. Women and men alike look to Goddess to heal the lack of power they feel and create a new way of being spiritual. This is a spirituality not of either/or, but of both/and, so that body becomes sacred in both menstrual and seminal ways, and heaven is crafted here in an inevitably changing, unstable earth, rather than glimpsed far away somewhere else as an absolute. (cf. creation spirituality) "

• The first centence refers to which time period? Now? If anyone can specify this?
• The second centence seems to me to refer to wicca, in its modern variety. Is this meant or if not, can it be clarified?
• The third sentence seems too general to me. It suggests that what is there is true for all Goddess-worship, while it seems to me to be known for more modern versions (wicca again).

kh7 06:54 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] 'Goddessing'

The first half of the article discusses some kind of neo 'Goddessing' concept, seemingly labelling it as a distinct belief set or philosophy but neglecting to define it or demarcate it with historical discussion of goddess(es). IMHO the whole top of this page should be completely rewritten, the lower part should be mostly moved to Pagan and simply paragraphed with a link. --prat

• Just to clarify, does anyone know the background that most of the top half of the page comes from? If we can't find it, I say we chop it. --prat

[edit] POV issues

This article is quite POV and I've spent awhile trying to balance it out somewhat with alternative views. —Ashley Y 13:46, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. This article needs a major rewrite, a reworking into something less like a thealogian's exposition of principles and more like an encyclopedia article: it needs to be just a bit more dispassionate and neutral in tone. --Mirv 07:00, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I despair of editing this. In the end I can only add my own (quite contrary) POV to its POV, which NPOV does not quite make. —Ashley Y 01:29, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This article is rife with problems. It not only promotes misconceptions and ideological fallacies about Hinduism, but it completely misreads worldwide Goddess culture by seeing it as some new-fangled Euro-American cult without considering the major influence of long-standing traditions in India and elsewhere. The author(s) were limited by not knowing any sort of theological nomenclature outside of 'monotheism' and 'polytheism' and thus gave horribly inaccurate descriptions of Hindu goddess worship. Also, proper terminology and better knowledge of the history of Hindu goddess worship, which is really the only major goddess religion of many years, would inform the seemingly 'new' ones coming up in the new-age goddess worship culture so popular in the states. I don't know whether I will or won't dedicate time to this page, but misconceptions I will try to work on, as I have begun a bit today. --LordSuryaofShropshire 14:35, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. But could we remove the Hinduism link block? I certainly think the Hinduism sections are helpful, but at the same time, this article should not be just a piece in the Hindu puzzle. —Ashley Y 04:54, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

Absolutely... I don't remember putting in the Hinduism message link board thinggy (what the heck is it called!?) and it shouldn't be there.... frankly, I feel that since Hinduism is the only major extant religion with heavy Goddess worship, it's important, but is amply dealt with in Devi (which means Goddess). So, references are vital, especially since most Wiccan and 'neo-pagan' rituals are often derived from Hindu Tantric and devotional practice. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:20, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rituals

I like the Hindu and Devi references... but not because "most Wiccan and 'neo-pagan' rituals are often derived" from them; FYI that statement is probably as accurate (and offensive) as saying most Moslem and Christian rituals are probably derived from Judaic devotional practices. The statement causes more need for clarification than clarity. SC 04:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg?

I'm thinking this should be reorganised something along these lines:

(intro)

Hinduism

Judaism & Christianity

Neopaganism & the Goddess movement

...and where other cultures can be added in (Shinto for instance). —Ashley Y 09:49, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though I would say that cultures like Christianity and Judaism, whose "goddess" culture isn't really tenable aside from some marginalized Mother Mary sects (such as the Fatima in Portugal), should come towards the end. I mean, Hinduism, Shintoism, and the BUddhist 'Tara' (and its connection with the Tara of earlier Hindu culture), and of course greek and Roman cultures, plus current views on modern goddess worship, such as Gnostics, Hindus, Shintos, and the New-agers/Wiccas... --LordSuryaofShropshire 16:55, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've reorganised it, but it still needs work. I think "Neopaganism" and "the Goddess movement" sections need to be merged. —Ashley Y 10:14, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

I'm thinking maybe we have two articles here, one about goddesses (including any monotheistic Goddess) in all cultures, and one about the Goddess movement in the West. Perhaps this article should be split? —Ashley Y 06:04, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

OK, I've done this. Sections still might need to be moved around, but I'm hoping this will make overall editing and so on a bit more tractable. —Ashley Y 04:10, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic Verses

Pre-Islamic Arabia, and indeed in parts of Persia, there was dozens, if not hundreds of Goddesses. This Sub-Sectin does not deal with these Goddesses, but with 3 mentioned in the 'Satanic Veses', and about the novel by Salman Rushdie with the same name. The Section was, thus, poorly names, and I renamed it. --195.7.55.146 12:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. But clearly the scope of the paragraph is wider, and more goddesses should be added, or at least the fact that there were more should be explained. Don't change the title, fix the paragraph! dab (ᛏ) 14:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of it is arguments too and fro, that should more likely be located be the article Satanic Verses. There is little information about actual worship or anything such, it should probably be pre-islamic arabia with a footnote about their cameo in islam. Unless something more substantial can be found.--Tigeroo 19:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern popular culture

I don't think people currently associate the term godess with female deity. All males I know think godess refers to Britney, Beyonce, Basinger, Bundhen or Kidman (not mention Elle the Body). No one cares a damn about feminist whinings against no priesthood for chicks. -Anonymous

Anonymous, please stop holding back and tell us what you really think. SC 04:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Kari Byron is a godess, the fact that you reverted my edit, is offensive towards my religion! - Rift14

I think that this whole goddess thing is wrong. Mainly because of how it is fake and a crazy thing to worship. Don't you agree?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biblereader (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Gaia

How can you go through all this information about "Goddess" and neglect to mention Gaia? ...and Daphne...the priestess of Gaia? A phenomenal book called THE GREAT GODDESS by Jean Markale would lend greatly to the information found in your discussion about "Goddess". The introduction especially offers a great amount of history and information about the development of goddess culture and belief and how it was supplanted by a patriarchal oriented society.....NRS

• Well we wouldn't mention Daphne because this page is about GODDESSES, not their various priests or priestesses. Secondly the historic Daphne was a priest of Apollo, not Gaia. And finally because the "goddess culture" was never supplanted by anything, it never existed to begin with. Gods and Goddesses co-existed with each other in the ancient world's mythology. This page is about the history of concept of goddesses, not modern fiction.

[edit] The Goddess in Wicca

The Wicca and Neopaganism section contains the prominent and rather provocative statement that

Wiccan mythology mostly draws on historically inaccurate depictions of European mythology

while other Neopagan religions supposedly are much more accurate. While Wicca has a specific understanding of the Goddess that is somewhat different from other traditions (historical or modern), I think it's a little unjust to label us as "historically inaccurate" for this. Early authors on Wicca theorised that the religion was the survival of a pan-European witch-cult concerned with the worship of a Goddess and God - these theories have long been discredited though, and I suspect that only a minority of Wiccans still believe in a wide-scale organised witch-cult during the witch-trials. Interestingly, the historical widespread association of goddess-figures with witchcraft in Europe is now fairly convincingly confirmed by such notable historians as Carlo Ginzburg and Eva Pocs.

There has been some influence on Wicca from authors like Robert Graves and James Frazer, which could be called historically inaccurate, but as far as I can make out, the only clearly identifiable influence from these sources has been in books by Wiccan or Wiccan-inspired authors - the teachings and rituals in the Book of Shadows and other traditional sources are somewhat different. Graves' concept of the Triple Goddess, for instance, is not found in traditional Wiccan sources, which tend to treat the Goddess as a single being. The concept does, however appear in the works of certain Wiccan authors, and has been repeated ad nauseam by hundreds of Wiccanesque and neopagan books.

Saying this, I have no problem with the Maiden/Mother/Crone aspects of the Goddess — they are true aspects of her — however I don't claim that these aspects grouped in this way were a widespread phenomenon throughout Europe.

Trying to understand how the Wiccan religion was formulated and has continued to develop, I would say it has been led by what worked rather than an attempt to match some historical standard. I don't think most Wiccans consider Wicca to be a 'revival' religion - we view our Goddess a particular way because that's the way she speaks to us, not because that's what some fellow wrote down a couple of hundred years ago.

Wicca's early history is rather confused, I admit. However the major confusion nowadays, as I see it, is from a new generation of "Eclectic" Wiccans, who often step onto their spiritual path armed with a strong sense of "whatever works for me is just fine". This is great, but by calling this Wicca they're eroding the religion's popular image to the point where it can encompass any concepts or none. A whole industry of books has appeared to serve this market, often bearing almost no resemblance to Wicca and certainly often lacking in historical accuracy. I'm rather unhappy at seeing Wicca become a term of amusement because of the shortcomings of some non-traditional Wiccans. Before I go too far in offending people, I should say that I know and work with several witches of non-Wiccan persuasion who are very competent. They don't call themselves Wiccans (serious witches in NZ realise the difference), but I'm sure there are very competent "Eclectic Wiccans" too. Initiatory Wiccans don't claim to have the monopoly on being serious and competent. But what these other witches and neopagans do is different to traditional Wicca (more so than many of them realise), and if they are misrepresenting my religion, it's a real pain.

Sorry, that became a rant. But my reasoning stands: most Wiccans (traditional at least) don't claim that their religion is historically-based (perhaps historically-inspired in some respects though), therefore claims of historical inaccuracy are unjustified. Fuzzypeg 06:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a simple fact. Wicca is a mishmash of unrelated cultures and largely historically inaccurate depictions of aspects of those cultures beginning at its its very Abrahamic monotheism-influenced Gardnerian origins. This should be stated pretty up front when compared to other groups, since there are various reconstructive groups that are exactly the opposite, despite the misunderstandings surrounding the common "neopagan" classification and it is one of the most basic differences between them to outsiders. I suggest you look into polytheistic reconstructist groups - Some of the more informative ones documented on Wikipedia are Germanic neopaganism groups - where the necessity of such a description may become more apparent. :bloodofox: 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wicca is only historically inaccurate in regards to the claim that it is a direct survival of a European witch-cult, which, as I expressed above, is now a minority view (I believe). Would you call Vodou historically inaccurate simply because the slaves in Haiti incorporated elements of diverse religions and societies, using whatever appealed to them and whatever worked? Of course not (even though they have their mythical history too). Basically, the development of a religion is quite a complex affair. It is unavoidably influenced by other religions and philosophies, both current and historical, and there is also a great deal of internal development that will mark it as different from anything else. If you limit your analysis to only historical external influences, and view them in light of an old theory that has long fallen into disrepute, you are both oversimplifying and being unjust. I think the concept you're looking for is not "historically inaccurate" but rather "syncretic".

I also notice you have sectioned off part of the text as a "Wicca" subsection. This needs changing, because most of it is unrelated to core Wiccan tradition, being rather the beleifs of certain sub-groups or individuals. The ideas are nice, but not representative of Wicca. I'll have a go at writing something better when I get the time (I was going to do this anyway). Fuzzypeg 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a lecture regarding religious developments, a religion that founded in 1954 cannot be compared to a subsect of Africans who were colonialized and seperated from their original culture. However, to state that Wicca is some sort of "continuation" of any tradition is simply wrong and misleading. Wicca is most defitely not the only form of neopaganism there and a very small percentage of "Wicca" then and now has anything to do with previous pre-Christian indigenous European practices. :bloodofox: 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a straw doll argument. As I have said twice now, I don't think most Wiccans believe Wicca is a continuation of a pre-existing tradition. It is largely syncretic in that it draws from diverse areas such as folklore, freemasonry, solomonic magic, modern poetry and literature, etc., etc. It has also, like other syncretic religions, undergone its own internal development based on discovering what works.

And of course I can compare Wicca with Vodou if I have a valid point to make. Vodou is a good and obvious example of a syncretic religion.

I understand from looking at your talk page that you probably represent one of these Germanic reconstructionist religions mentioned in the article, and that's great, however I detect from the original wording in the article, and from your comments here, a certain "holier than thou" attitude that makes me squirm. I see you have several criticisms on your discussion page regarding historicism too. I suggest that perhaps you are so immersed in the labours of historical validation that you're forgetting that not all religions see themselves as historically-based.

Most religions have a certain amount to be embarassed about, particularly when it comes to the myths surrounding their inception, but it is common practice to treat them with a lot more charity than this article was treating Wicca. And I'm serious, I think your conception of Wicca as a hodge-podge of happy goddess-y stuff is based on misrepresentation. As a Wiccan High Priest and a serious occultist with years of experience in Qabalah, Freemasonry, Vodou and other ceremonial magic, in my experience Wicca has been by far the most effective, challenging, rewarding, joyful, scary and beautiful of all my practices (it also encompasses all my other practices in that wonderful way that a syncretic religion can). The Wiccan initiates I know are amongst the most competent priests and priestesses and the the most skillful ritualists I have met. Fuzzypeg 06:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've finally got around to rewriting the section. I'm not sure I've included all the necessary references yet; I'll go back and check soon. (running short on time right now) I've yanked some stuff that I couldn't really figure out how to include: I don't recognise it as any common form of Wicca. If anyone wants to claim it, make sense of it and put it in its appropriate place under Neopagan religions (not under Wicca, I believe), feel free.

They revere the yoni or vulva as a symbol of the Goddess, together with the cowrie shell, the (Moon) Crescent, the Earth, the Serpent, the Tree, the five pointed pentagram and the Eight Pointed Star, the Quartered Circle (compare Celtic Cross), and many animals and birds.

The following text includes several epithets that don't to my knowledge have common Wiccan use; also the list of different cultural goddesses seems to serve no particular purpose: these are no more prominent deities for Wiccan worship than any other:

In some New Age and Wiccan-influenced religions, the Goddess can appear as the "Lady of the Ten Thousand Names", as did Isis. Adherents refer to her as 'Queen of Heaven', 'Lady of the Beasts', 'Creatrix' and just 'the Lady.' Worshippers sometimes approach her through "different aspects," represented by often culturally unrelated goddesses such as Sarasvati, Lakshmi, Uma, Kali (of the Hindu tradition), Isis, Guan Yin, Pele or Athena in a form of universalism.

I'm quite happy to leave both of these sections of text out of the article. Neither seem particularly representative of Wicca or any other prominent Neopagan religion that I know of. Fuzzypeg☻ 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Secular use" section

It is not immediatey obvious to me that this section is encyclopedic. Jkelly 23:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a little more fleshed out now, with several examples in Shakespeare. I think there's literary and sociological interest in references to goddess as metaphor, which this section briefly touches on. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a bit better. "Goddess as metaphor" seems like a perfectly reasonable section. It's the danger of a "List of women called goddesses by news reporters" that I am concerned about. Jkelly 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Without looking, I'm sure someone has already created such a list for an entry on Maxim magazine. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4.4 Religious Feminism Section

Section 4.4 Religious Feminism was marked as a "stub" that needed more material in it. So I wrote a couple of paragraphs. I also added references for this material to the References section. Hope it's okay.Judith Laura 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Islamic historians referencing

Re: the inclusion of the early Islamic historians. If a further citation is needed and their pages on Wikipedia are not adequate then I suggest you may need to remove the unsubstantiated claim that their writings were forgeries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.200.247 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) .

I suggest that the section really needs a copyedit -- we introduce the two scholars in question twice now. Jkelly 23:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the claim that their writings are forgeries which is in fact unsubtantiated. The opinion of an Egyptian politician of the 19th century should not be considered definitive. Both of the Islamic historians are highly regarded. Geryon2006 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of mentioning Rushdie's work on the section about Islam? The quality of this section's content is quite bad and, unlike Judaism and Christianity, is irrelevant to the subject. --24.211.184.243 11:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems more like things that should be moved to the Satanic verses page where it is more relevant, with a short cameo mention about its featuring in an Islamic controversy and re-focus on the actual pre-arabian goddesses and that area in general.--Tigeroo 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lilith?

This is really annoying, I came ot this page and it looks like some femenist or Lilith lover has edited this page with a demon, I think it should be taken off, especially since the Lilith as a Goddess is a modern creation.. But instead I see someone lumped her in the Mesopotamian section. Obviously someone here has not done their research. And put two pictures of her? Why 2 pictures? Why not pictures of OTHER Goddesses? Why is the 2nd pic in the HINDUISM section? (Wouldn't you think Kali or Uma (goddess) would be a more appropiate Goddess for that section? Seeing as Lilith has ntohign to do with India or Hinduism.) And the first pic is a 19th centuary painting of Lilith, why can't we have a pic of ancient Ishtar or a REAL Mesopotamian Goddess picture?(all the other Goddess pictures are.) Besdies, the 2nd picture is of that of the Burney relief which is arguably Lilith, but has NEVER been proven to be her, in fact it's less likely to be Lilith than how it is optimistically potrayed as such.

Someone needs to do some clean up and research, because Lilith is no Goddess in ancient sense, which someone has lumped her in with Ancient KNOWN Mesopotamian Goddesses. WTF? True she is Mesopotamian , but she's a female night demon! Sounds like someone is trying to re-write history.

In fact maybe there should be a section talking about Lilith modern day reinvention as a Goddess.(In a Neopagan sense. She's usally listed as a Hebrew Goddess by Modern sense.) becasue I assure you putting her in there with Ishtar(Who's comparable to Inanna, in which Lilith was mentioned with in the Epic of Gilgamesh, and that's Mesopotamian !

Lilith has been identified with ki-sikil-lil-la-ke₄, a female demon in the Sumerian prologue to the Gilgamesh epic. Kramer translates:

a dragon had built its nest at the foot of the tree

the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown,

and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle.

[...]

Then the Zu-bird flew into the mountains with its young,

while Lilith, petrified with fear, tore down her house and fled into the wilderness

Notice the describtion demon Lilith.) is a insult to the Mesopotamian religion. They never worshipped her as a goddess at all, she was feared and/or avoided. I'd also like to see some more citations in this article.

And on Lilith's wiki you can see that she's a demon, first sentence is:

Lilith is a female Mesopotamian night demon believed to harm male children.

(I think we had a debate on in her article awhile back too. You can see the evidence that she's a demon, especially in the discussion page.)

I normally wouldn't make a big deal of it, but the Lilith thing in this article is not matching up historically, or to the ancient worshippers. Xuchilbara 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Provided that there actually were any ancient worshippers... Tomer^talk 07:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any of Lilith, I know that much. Whereas we have evidence of ancient worship(temples etc) and accounts for the others. Lilith doesn't have any. Because she isn't a Goddess.Xuchilbara 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, both pics were actually in the Mesopotamia section. It just looked like one was in the Hinduism section because it extended down that far. The pre-raphelite painting was a quite recent addition. Now what constitutes a god or goddess? Must they be kind and beautiful to be given that title? I think of some of the Norse Gods, figures like Loki, Hel and so on, who were called gods, but had some pretty scary sides to their characters. I can well imagine that some considered them demons, and I can just as easily imagine some ancient people considering Lilith a goddess. I haven't gone looking for references yet, but I know that this Wikipedia article is not the first place that claimed her as a Goddess. I can think of one source from 1900, Charles Leland in an appendix to Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches. That of course is not the kind of citation we're looking for here, but lets not be too surprised if we actually do find evidence that she was revered as a goddess. I'll start looking.

A hint: if you use your "show preview" button rather than the "save page" button while you're still working on your post, the history page won't get cluttered up with scores of separate edits. Otherwise when another editor tries to do a diff against an older version, it's all the more likely that that version will have dropped off the bottom of the displayed list, making it much more of a rigmarole. Fuzzypeg☻ 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, there were two Babylonian deities, En-lilla and Nan-lilla ("Lord of the mists" and "Lady of the mists"), who seem also to have been Bel (note: not Bel-Marduk) and Beltu - "Lord" and "Lady". "Beltu" came to be a title given to many goddesses. It is from this figure that "Lilith" is derived. I don't know anything about the Dr. M. G. Magee who wrote the page I found, but it looks fairly reasonable. It seems to establish her origins in a fairly eminent goddess, however it still doesn't say much about how she was perceived by the time she was called Lilith.

It seems clear that Lilith was not (widely) considered a goddess by that name, but has her origins in a major goddess. However she may have still been a goddess in some applications, or for a minority of people. We can find many similar situations in later mythology: for example the German Frau Perchta is widely considered a demonic figure, dangerous to pregnant women and children, while some traditions see her as benificent and protectress of mothers and children; the Alarvady from Azerbaijan and Georgia is seen in almost identical terms; the ancient Hecate again is seen in almost identical terms; also the Rusalky of the Ukraine, etc., etc. All these figures have been described with two completely polarised characters, as witch- or ghost-like malevolent figures who attack children and mothers, and as the protectresses of children and mothers.

That Lilith might have had a positive side is of course pure supposition on my part. However my meagre research so far was not likely to have found any such evidence, and I'm not yet satisfied that she wasn't a goddess in some applications at least (even a malevolent goddess like Ereshkigal!). I suggest a {{citation needed}} tag might be appropriate. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

IDk if this'll help. The debate is argued fairly well here: http://www.lilitu.com/lilith/lil_alt-myth.html

And this is a good source on Lilith herself : http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/

Xuchilbara 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I can't make out what these say about Dr. Magee's info, and I don't have the time to research further. I'm not terribly fussed whether or not she appears in the Mesopotamian goddesses section, but perhaps we should remove her for the moment. It sounds like if she was a "goddess", she was either revered under a different name or else by a minority of people. She could be listed under "Neopagan goddesses" if need be. If someone wants to list her in the section where she currently is, the onus can be on them to supply evidence. Sound OK? 210.55.244.243 00:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, WP logged me out: Fuzzypeg☻ 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll defenatley accept that. I'll won't deny her modern reinvention as one. Thanks.

The thing that bothered me was that you go to Lilith's page and it's saying something a little on the contrary to this article's claims. We had issue's with the goddess thing before on her aricle and it came under many discussions. finally, some ppl cleaned it up enough, where we don't see this anymore, which is good, and you can see her actual history. (Although I wish more was added like about her daughter of the same name.) Th disscusion page of Lilith's is real intresting, I would suggest reading it.

Another thing was the Burney relief picture with the inscription Lilith. The fact is that some ppl opitimisticaly assumed this to be her, with much enthuasim.(As many WANT Lilith to be a Goddess and it somehow hold up in history, unfortunaley this is not the case. This is where alot of debate comes in, well some of it.. Some of the Neo pagans are trying in words of many others "re-write history" about her. I've notice the shakey history, Neo pagan thing to extend far beyond Lilith. Such as with many Wiccan/Neo Pagan authors out there. )But more evidence shows it to be Ereshkigal or her sister Ishtar rather than Lilith. So I didn't think the claim right off about Lilith to be accurate. Evidence is showing the conrary about the relief, and most scholarly opinion is that it's one of the two Goddesses I named. So I didn't think it appropiate, and I had to call it like I see it.

I think it was the fact that this article inaccurately potrayed Lilith to be a Mesopotamian deity, without citation, lack of historical evidence, and is basing this claim on many modern Feminist and Neo Pagan views. It started out with Lilith becoming a feminist icon, for her refusal of Adam, claiming they are equal, it escalated to a belief that Lilith was a Goddess, demonized by the wicked Jewish patriarchal socity or a original Matriarcal society turned Patriachal and their consequent distest of females and anything feminine. Though there are cases of this, for example the Goddess Astarte to the demon Astaroth.(One reason being that she was worshipped in the same temples of God, and some of the religious leader distain of this.)

this isn't found with Lilith however, I remember someone claiming on the owl page that Lilith was a Iraq Goddess, this I've never heard before, not just in modern view, but also in historical view.(And Lilith's page certinaly doesn't support this.) Most Neo Pagan's in books I read etc, take thier sources on her as a "Hebrew Goddess", taken from the Adam & Lilith Jewish myth as mentioned above. the biggest ironic thing here is that Eve's ( Ninti's story.) myth and herself actually DOES have Goddess orgins rooted in the story of Adapa and Enki. Whereas Lilith never has. However some modern opinion sees Lilith and Hecate as to have paralels or the same, the more of fact is that Lilith is thought of as the Greek equalivent of Lamia(Greek for witch) rather than Hecate. Lamias' being Hecate's children in some stories.

One other thing that i fnd wrong a little with this article(off subject of Lilith real quick) is how it ignores Mesoamerican & African Goddesses and their roles in religions, I do remember that the Goddess plays a huge role in Voodun. A good example is the African Goddesses Oshun & Yemaja.

Xuchilbara 00:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The Goddess playing a huge role in Vodou: I can't really say so much about Nigerian Vodoun, but Haitian Vodou is a monotheism, rather like Roman Catholicism. The various Loa, of which there are thousands (though a few very widely-worshipped ones) are powerful spirits, but they are not gods, although many show signs of having evolved from African or native Indian gods. The most loved female loa is probably Erzulie, loa of love and beauty; she has an alter-ego as La Siren ("the Mermaid"), wife of Agwe king of the sea.

I don't consider her a goddess, though, and I believe most Vodouisants make this same distinction. Fuzzypeg☻ 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have to be more skilled on the subject, so I can't say exactly either. Voodoo varies from area and influence I think. Xuchilbara 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Oh dear Goddesses, does this article need work. I made a start. The only way I could avoid deleting even more of the opening was to place *citation needed* tags. I can source some of that, but don't have time tonight. I only glanced at other sections, but saw a lot of problems. If we don't overhaul this ourselves, and pretty soon, I think we'll need to place a general cleanup flag on it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. I have to agree the article is a shambles. It lacks overarching cohesion and focus. It's one of the more randomly constructed articles I've seen. I'm tempted to just start anew. (thinking hard). We'll see what can be done with this mess. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, just as a point of comparison, take a look at what the article was like in July of 2004. [4] Yes, there were plenty of problems as well but it had a bit more readability and cohesion. I'm particularly looking at the listcruft of the various cultures' goddesses which has crept into the current version of the article. I feel like scrapping all of that stuff, particularly since a sizable portion of it is wrong. Still thinking but I'm leaning toward being bold about this. Comments? --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do it while the inspiration's hot. I've struggled with this article a little too; I ended up just contenting myself with trying to get the Wicca section working, because the whole thing was too much to bite off. I'm in favour of being bold. Fuzzypeg☻ 20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)