Jump to content

Talk:Goddess movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

IMPORTANT. READ THIS FIRST

If you are making SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, PLEASE POST A NOTE HERE ABOUT THEM FIRST, GIVING A DEADLINE OF AT LEAST A FEW DAYS FOR COMMENTS, BEFORE MAKING THE CHANGES. Please sign in before making changes as this increases the reliability of the changes, and we may be able to contact you if we have questions. Changes made anonymously are more likely to be rejected.

These posts are in chronological order, with the most recent last, so make sure you read the latest posts before making changes. THANKS!

--Judith Laura 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, your enthusiasm is appreciated, but this article doesn't really need such tight control. You should dedicate your energy to improving another, more often vandalized article. Also, the allcaps thing doesn't really make people pay more attention. I just thought I'd say it. 76.87.253.141 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First Post

This article is a bit of a mess. It started life as part of a not-very-encyclopædic essay by Shan Jayran under Goddess. People have since added stuff before I cut this piece out to make Goddess movement, but it could use organising, NPOVing, and generally de-essaying... —Ashley Y 03:56, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

I have added it to my to-do list, which is currently in my head. --Viriditas 13:14, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Starting revision

No one has done anything on this though there was apparently agreement that revision is needed. To get started, I propose that the first two sentences be deleted and they be replaced by the following (with quotes removed):

"What is sometimes called the contemporary Goddess movement grew out of second-wave feminism in the 1970s, with the realization that women were not treated equitably in many mainstream religions and that masculine gender and male imagery were attached to deity to the exclusion of feminine gender and female imagery.

"Some people in the Goddess movement recognize multiple goddesses; some also include gods; others honor what they refer to as "the Goddess," which, although, rarely, may be meant as monotheistic, is usually understood to be a conceptual umbrella term incorporating many goddesses in many different cultures. The term "the Goddess" may also be understood to include a multiplicity of ways to view deity personified as female, or as a metaphor, or as a process."

If any of you disagree with this, please let us know by 12/30/05.

Thanks Judith Laura 21:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some other suggested changes and thoughts:

Moving on to the subhead "Terminology": Unless one of you (who are reading this in the last week of Dec. 2005) has a source for the capitalization distinction currently given, I'd like to change that. In my experience, capitalization of the words g/Goddess and g/Goddesses may be the author's choice, or it may be the publisher or editor's choice so that to say it signifies the distinction given here is confusing and misleading. If no one posts a source here by Dec. 30, 2005 for the distinction presently given in the text, I'd like to replace it with a statement noting that some authors and/or publications capitalize G/goddess and G/goddesses and some don't, and that the capitalization may reflect either the preference of the writer or the style of the publisher. I would then delete the "(small g") after "goddess" and make it plural "goddesses" and pluralize the nouns and verbs in that entry where necessary. For example, it would then read: "refers to local or specific deities, linked to a particular culture and probably to particular powers (I don't see why we need the present adjective "clearly" before "linked") . Under the definition of "The Goddess, the Great Goddess, (removing the now repetitive 3rd mention of Goddess and the notation "(capital G) I would move the discussion of Kali to the definition of goddesses; and remove the clause "and her greatness and complexity and tends to invoke the skills of thealogy" as this statement seems to be a snide remark. But please feel free to pursuade me otherwise or suggest a way that this might be stated to avoid this. To me, however, it just seems unnecessary. I would also delete the sentence about Wiccans and Discordians as it seems unnecessary as Wicca/Wicce is discussed below and Discordianism, as fun as it is, doesn't seem particularly relevant in an article on the Goddess movement (though it would be appropriate in an article on modern Paganism or Neo-Paganism). I would delete the "God/dess/ God/ess/ Godde" entry as these terms are not usually used in the Goddess movement but rather by those outside it (such as Christian and Jewish feminists) as alternatives to the word Goddess an alternative would be to leave the words, but to add or edit it to include what I've said here about it. Again please post your opinion here by Dec. 30.

I have gone ahead and edited the "Thealogy" entry in this section since the "Naomi Goldenberg" link led to a no-longer-existing Wikipedia article and while I was at it did some other minor editing on the language describing that term.

I also feel the section on "Prehistoric Matriarchy" needs to be more balanced. At minimum, references need to be provided for the assertions made in paragraph 2 of this section, and then a summary of the view of authors such as Riane Eisler, (who don't use the term matriarchy because they don't want to imply a reversal of power but rather a sharing of power) need also to be presented and referenced. As it is, it now seems to be an attack on Goddess movement assertions.

Judith Laura 17:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have edited the "Prehistoric Matriarchy" section, per my comments above. I have changed the title to "Prehistoric Cultures" and discussed the use of the term "matriarchy" in the text. I have included references for assertions regarding matriarchy/partnership societies,as well as references for the attempted refutation of their existence, which the previous version lacked.

Judith Laura 23:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Changes proposed above have been made to opening material and to Terminology, along with some additions to Terminology. The previous last paragraphy of Terminology has been move to the last paragraph of "Background" and a reference had been added.

Judith Laura 19:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I thought I previously posted about this when I proposed deleted the Non-Religious Goddessing section (see below). However, I couldn't find that post. In any event, I've deleted the "Men of the Goddess" section because it was rather rambling, based on questionable assumptions, and gave no sources and thus was unverifiable. I have inserted material about group composition and the role of men into material under various of the other Headings.Judith Laura 22:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Additions to Background section

I've made some additions to the ==Background==section, including: mention of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Women's Bible, the journals, WomanSpirit and The Beltane Papers, and the UUA course "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven." Related references also added to ==Reference Section==

Judith Laura 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've also added a subhead "Use of Mythological Materials" to the Background section, and under the Wicca subhead, I've added a sentence indicating that not everyone involved in the Goddess movement considers themselves Wicc-ans,-ens, or even Pagans. I've added References related to these text additions.

Judith Laura 22:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Earth Goddess section

I have changed the title to Earth As Goddess. I have deleted sentences that, while opinionated, gave no references for those opinions. I have left a paragraph about the Hindu Goddess Paravati and added a reference to information about other goddessess aluded to. I have added text about concept of Earth as a living Goddess, including internal links to Gaia, Gaia theory and ecofeminism. And I have included references to viewpoints discussed. Judith Laura 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Subhead: Non-Religious Goddessing

While this has interesting material in it, it is entirely unverifiable, lacking references. I cannot even verify the attribution to Carol Christ. If someone would like to add references to this section, that would be fine. However, the topic of "Non-religious Goddessing," which I would term something like "psychotherapeutic uses of Goddess Material" to me is off-topic for this article, which covers Goddessing as a spiritual/religious approach. So if no one can add references by January 5, 2006, I will either try to edit it or if that's not possible, I may have to delete it altogether. Judith Laura 19:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision of Ethics Section

The first two paragraphs, which did not contain any verifiable material (what sources there were, were not complete enough to verify)have been replaced by 3 paragraphs with verifiable sources. (BTW, here and elsewhere, when I finish the corrections on this article, I plan to go back and add page numbers to sources where relevant). I also did some editing on the rest of this heading where the information was unreliable or possibly inflammatory (such as in the characterization of the "Judaic God"), and when the discussion of the Hindu belief system became overly technical for this entry (though it may be suitable for the Hindu entry) and in some cases quite abstruse. However I kept as much of the Jayran material as I could, as it adds an interesting viewpoint, and I added an appropriately phrased reference (though it would be nice to have the title of the presentation). Judith Laura 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision of "One or Many?"

I moved this to be a subhead of a new heading: "Thealogy" and inserted an introductory sentence. I edited the "One or Many?" section, removing some unverifiable material and adding references for existing material when I could find them. I also added some material with references to this section. Then I added a second subhead: "Within or Without", wrote it and included references. Now I'm tired. :-) Judith Laura 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing reference

There's no ref for "Rigoglioso 2002"... —Ashley Y 09:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Just put it in. Thanks for catching this Ashley :-)

Judith --Judith Laura 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

June 1. 2006 Thanks to those of you who have added relevant info in the last month. There are some questions/problems that have arisen with some of the changes. These are:

The beginning, introductory section before the subhead "Terminology" was extensively changed and had gotten much longer. Because this was an extensive change, containing material that conflicted with what was already in the introduction, the proposal to change it should have been posted here first for comment. But it wasn't. In addition, the change was anonymous. For these reasons, we have reverted to the previous introductory paragraph. The person who made the changes is welcome to post the proposed changes here for discussion. It is possible that some of this material could be incorporated in a subhead (it was, in any case, too long to be in the intro). And we can also discuss that, if the person will post the proposed change here.

Wicca or Wicce section-Thank you to whoever added the info on Murray, Graves, Green Egg, Wood & Water, the Matriarchy Study Group, and Dianic Wicca. We do, however, need a reference for the material beginning: "which they regard as a cultural and religious cul-de-sac" to the end of that paragraph. This material was added anonymously. We would appreciate a reference for this statement by June 7, 2006. If we don't receive one by that time, we will remove it for lack of source and if anyone can source it at a later time, you are welcome to put it back in with a reference.

One or Many section -Again, the changes in question were done anonymously. In the last paragraph, which begins "One of the underlying themes of the earlier forms..." Do you have a reference for this? If so, please add it.

Earth as Goddess section--Again, an anonymous change. The last paragraph, beginning, "Some, however, find this identification..." Please provide a reference for this point of view by June 7, 2006 or it will be removed as unverifiable.

Again, thank you all for your help.

--Judith Laura 18:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No verifications were received for the unverifiable material in the Wicce/Wicca section and the Earth as Goddess section as stated in the above post. Therefore the few phrases and sentences have been deleted as unverifiable.

--Judith Laura 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas quotation for verification

(This was the block which was removed by the "censor") 

Some however find this identification with the Indo-European Earth-Goddess Gaia, 
as a concept unworthy of their view of the Great Goddess, 
who is the embodiment of all life in all worlds  
rather than what exists on our own home planet. 
 
This is not a modern idea. In the traditional, native Bon-Po religion of Tibet 
which preceded Tibetan Buddhism, the Great Goddess is named Sa-Trig-er-Sangs, 
"The Mother of Space".

From Marija Gimbutas, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. 1974, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley p. 196. 

"As a supreme Creator who creates from her own substance she is the primary goddess of the
 Old European pantheon. In this she contrasts with the Indo-European Earth-Mother, 
 who is the impalpable sacred earth-spirit and is not in herself a creative principle; 
 only through the interaction of the male sky-god does she become pregnant."

Many other academics have made similar points. There is a world of difference between the traditions of the Great Goddess and that of the Earth Mother/Sky Father dyad. If the Goddess is only the Earth how can She also be identified as the Queen of Heaven, the planet Venus and the Moon and Sun?

This is your verification for just one of the points which were unjustifably removed. Please restore the original quotation. The other comments were added in good faith.

I do not know how to verify each and every aspect of the previous statements except to say that until this information is challenged as incorrect it should be allowed to remain. At the very least, the person who decided to act in the role of censor could have done a few Google searches to find out if there was some substance to these facts. It would indicate that the person was genuinely interested in the subject.

I had not realised that one person on Wikipedia could set so short a time limit (especially during a holiday period) and remove the work of another contributor simply because she decided that she required formal verification. That does not seem to be in the spirit of a colloborative project.

Re: The Green Egg verification

"People all over the world associate Oberon Zell with Green Egg, one of the most highly-praised and universally-respected Pagan publications of all time. Dozens of books credit Green Egg as a primary catalyst in the early coalescence of the Neo-Pagan community, and name Oberon as its creator and primary influence. After founding Green Egg in 1968, Oberon published 116 issues over 28 years. For much of that time he volunteered his time and energy, building it from a single dittoed sheet to an award-winning 70+ page newsstand magazine with no outside funding. Green Egg eventually supported a part-time staff and a well-equipped office."

source: http://www.caw.org/greenegg/greenegg_oz.html

It does strike me that if the person responsible for removing all of the unverifiable contributions actually knew more about the history of the subject she would not be so quick to act as censor. I have noticed that most of the references in this article refer only to books by an inner circle of American feminists who are regarded as forming a cosy consensus.

I will try and take the time to find acceptable verifications for all of the other points and will contact some of the former friends and colleagues of Asphodel (Pauline) Long and Monica Sjoo to provide information on "Shrew" the magazine which was published by the London-based "Matriarchy Study Group".

Their story deserves to be told and it would be wonderful if they could make scanned copies of the original magazine (with its original artwork) available to the wider community and in defiance of those who would like to cancel out parts of history which do not fit their quasi-religious paradigm or where the "censor" (who has also quoted herself on this page as an "authority" is clearly too lazy to do her own research).

Half-an-hour on Google would have been all that she needed to discover that the statements made were entirely verifiable and that there was a lot more that she needed to learn before rushing into print.

Response to Marija Gimbutas quote for verification

Thanks for finding this quote. I'd recommend your adding this information to the text.

Re: Green Egg

Just for your background: I was one of the early subscribers(and also was a subscriber at it's end). I have hanging and framed on my wall for years now the cover of the magazine (I think from the 1970s) with Sophia on the cover (background is purple). I haven't removed any references to Green Egg or CAW and think if you want to add more, that would be appropriate under the Wicce/Wicca head, where there is already mention of it.

Regarding British contributions: I would welcome more. I previously put in material/references about by the late and great Asphodel Long and by Daniel Cohen. I consider myself fortunate to have met them on the internet and developed friendships with them. It's seems that the Matriachy Study Group may indeed deserve its own Wiki and I would love to see that.

I'm really having trouble seeing why you are attacking me, as we agree on most things. I am only trying to abide by Wikipedia's requirement that material be verifiable, and so asking people to supply references. This should be done by the people adding the material. I have noted that even if material is removed, it can be added back in when a person can supply the references. It's just that unverifiable material becomes a target for people who would go on the attack to descredit the whole wiki.

I think you and I are on the same wavelength, and I really feel bad about your attack.

--Judith Laura 15:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blatant Censorship

I have just looked more carefully at the huge sections of the text which have been effectively removed from this article on the basis that the "owner" of this page considers them to be unverifiable. The heavy-handed censorship smacks more of book-burning than of trying to ensure that the facts of history are accurately recorded. Why the unseemly rush?

If particular parts of it were challenged that would be acceptable but looking at the deliberate hacking of the text that has been done by the person responsible I cannot see how one person could justify something which is simply an act of censorship.

The underlying assumption of this page appears to be that if something has not been recorded in the books of the second-wave American feminists then it has no right to be here.

The history of the Goddess Movement is not as well-documented in Europe because it is more difficult to get books published. We do not have a massive internal English-language market nor do we have commercialised feminist celebrities who make a good living appearing on talk shows and hyping their books. It is a great shame that Asphodel Long did not write an autobiography because it would have documented almost all of the events that were included (in good faith) in this article.

I do not know making any further contribution to this article would be worth my time as it's "owner" seems to be pursuing a particular agenda and this page will actually enter history as an example of censorship which goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia community.

Perhaps what is needed is for an American publishing house to come to London and interview some of the remaining members of the various groups which preceded those found in America by at least a decade so that we too have a "verifiable" history.

Addendum

I have just done a Google search and discovered more to verify the statements.

SOURCE: http://www.goddessalive.co.uk/issue8/goddess_talk.html

It has been a useful exercise for me because, until recently, these pages did not exist and it will enable me to renew old friendships. I am still shocked and saddened by the arrogant attitude of the "owner" of this page and think that she was done great damage to the image of American feminism in the wider world. I would have expected more honesty and integrity from a sister.

Response to Accusation of 'Blatant Censorship"

You don't identify yourself--could you please do so, or at least sign in with a screen name so we can have a civilized conversation about this? I removed material because it is needed to be sourced and was not. Some of it has been and it would be nice to be able to discuss it. The reason I've been doing so much here is because no one else has, and it needed a lot of work. So instead of thanks, I get insults, some of which may be libelous. In additon, you should note that this topic is not about "Goddess" or general Pagan issues. It is about "Goddess movement," and grew out of a section in "Goddess" called "religious feminism" which was moved to here, but was very much in disarray. Accusations that I censor are entirely without basis as I asked for sources but they were not supplied, and therefore I couldn't substantiate statements. Huge section were not removed by me. Anything more that a few sections that I removed I first posted here, proposing what I wanted to do, and asking if there were any objections. BTW, I don't own the page, nor have I ever claimed to. Nor would I ever burn books. I love books, even those that I don't agree with. I hope you will identify yourself so we can straighten out what seems to me to be a vast misunderstanding. Or maybe not, but at least we can have a civlized discussion about it.

--Judith Laura 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This entire section was removed as "unverifiable"

The contemporary Goddess movement emerged as part of the re-emergence of spirituality in the late 1960s and as a recognition of the need for the worship of the Great Goddess to emerge into the mainstream rather than be confined to the status of a mystery religion, or limited to New Age and traditional religious enclaves. Few of its earliest proponents classed themselves as feminists at this time.

The first wave of feminism regarded the movement with suspicion and hostility and regarded it as an irrelevance to political activism but by the 1970s, second-wave feminism came to accept it and shape the movement to its own ends, predominantly in North America, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Unlike the first wave of the Goddess movement, the feminist branches often excluded males from participation. This has between an extremely divisive issue which has in many cases kept the movement from wider acceptance. The other issue has been the overt commercialism of the American feminist branches of the movement.

The second wave feminists had the realization that women were not treated equitably in many mainstream religions and that masculine gender and male imagery were attached to deity to the exclusion of feminine gender and female imagery. Some people in the Goddess movement recognize multiple goddesses; some also include gods; others honor what they refer to as "the Goddess," which may rarely be meant as monotheistic, but is usually understood to be an inclusive, encompassing term incorporating many goddesses in many different cultures. The term "the Goddess" may also be understood to include a multiplicity of ways to view deity personified as female, or as a metaphor, or as a process. (Christ, 1997, 2003)

The Goddess movement could also be said to include those authors and scholars who are dedicated to researching and documenting aspects of the worship of the Great Goddess through archaeology, anthropology and literary criticism but who distance themselves from the activities of most of the American neopagan celebrities and their followers. The author Merlin Stone is a prime example of one who followed a path of genuine scholarship and whose works, such as The Paradise Papers (1976), have had a far-reaching influence.

It could also include the work of those who wish to recognise and restore the original Goddess traditions within their own religions such as the Shekinah-centered forms of Judaism, the Shakti forms of Hinduism, the traditions of the Sufi mystics, and the Sophia-centered Gnostic branches of Christianity.

end of "unverifiable" excision

Having just carefully looked through the links section of this page and am pleased to discover that there are links to many UK sources who could vouch for the accuracy of the information which was removed by the American "owner" of this page.

I will be contacting them so that they can contribute to this discussion which so far looks to be aimed at giving Zee Budapest, Carol Christ, Riane Eisler and other clique of popular American non-academic feminist authors exclusive credit for creating a global movement.

Now I can understand why someone so fond of Zee Budapest would wish to suppress information regarding "The Green Egg" particularly if the "censor" may have been unaware of some of these facts before she started selling her own books and setting herself up as an authority with a range of books and products for online sale.

If the "owner/censor" of this page is actually interested in checking the accuracy of the facts on this page she would have followed some of the links herself rather than remove anything which did not suit her manifesto or her commercial interests.

Response to "Excision"

Your accusation of censorship is unfounded. I have done what I can to solicit and incorporate comments. It was excised mostly because you making claims without providing references. It would be really realy nice and polite and help make your case if you would stop being anonymous. It is not my "job" to check accuracy of what is posted here. I don't work for Wikipedia, I'm just trying to compile an accurate picture of this subject, like you. It is the responsibility of people who post and make changes to provide the references or in wiki-lingo verify what they are posting. In other words, when you posted the paragraph, you didn't provide sufficient verification. This is a wiki rule, not my rule. If you will click on "verifiable" you will see what I mean.

FYI, I didn't write the material in the Wicce section, although I did do some light editing (the earlier versions were even more idolizing of Z and Starhawk. That material was on this Wiki before I came upon it. I have great respect for both Z and Starhawk, and their contributions were great, I think even they would have felt the previous statements made about them were too gushing. However, I only changed those statements slightly out of respect to the Wiccen folks who had been here before me and know more about this subject than I do. If you will see my previous post, I thanked the person(s) who added/edited material to this section recently. I feel the statements about Z and Starhawk are more balanced, and I certainly did not delete those changes.

--Judith Laura 02:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What is verifiable

What is verifiable from this page is that the "editor/censor" feels that if she can find a quotation from a narrow circle of American feminist authors which supports her case then it is automatically a fact.

I do not feel that she understands the existing traditions of the Great Goddess or she would not be quoting her colleagues who regard Parvati as an "Earth goddess" or misread the concept of the aspects of the Goddess which form the root of Goddess spirituality in the Shakti forms of Hinduism.

If she had taken the time to explore some of the links on this page she might have developed a broader view of "the Goddess Movement" past and present rather than limit her understanding to so narrow a field as post-70s America and to treating her chosen authorities as if they were writing gospel rather than adopt a more balanced and critical view. This is not history, it is unvarnished propaganda for the purposes of merchandising.

Excerpt from the Censor's own website for "verification" : 

Do you live in the Washington DC area?
Are you interested in learning more about Tarot 
but can never seem to coordinate your schedule  
with announced workshops and classes? 
Then Classes by Request may be for you!
Individual and small group instruction at your convenience.
For more info,visit Whats News or 
email tarot [at]  ------. com or, if it's a local call, 
phone 301/000-0000, or see the contact page for more email options.

Now you can choose the Fool for you from everything from clothing 
such as t-shirts to mugs, a journal, greeting cards, and even a teddy bear! 
A Fool Calendar Print is offered in this Shop. He also appears as art for 
one of 12 months in --- larger Calendar of Art and Words on ....

Response to What is verifiable

I didn't include anything about my Tarot work in this Wiki--you're the one who added that--you are quoting from a small portion of my website. I have NOT linked to that part of my website in any of the links I put on this Wiki. So what is your point? AFAIK, there is nothing wrong, or even unusual, about people involved in the Goddess movement also being involved in Tarot. But that is neither here or there. What is relevant is that you are somehow thinking this discredits me. What an odd point of view.

You mention the material about Paravati and Hinduism. I did not write that material. That material was here when I came upon this Wiki. I left it because the person seemed to know what s/he was writing about and it was referenced. I didn't write this entire wiki, I only added material--and copious references,most to authors other than myself who are acknowledge experts--in areas that I felt sufficiently acquainted. What you call a "narrow circle of American feminist authors" are first of all not all American (Asphodel Long, Daniel Cohen, Jayran, to name a few non-Americans cited). But I am all for making it even more inclusive if someone else wants to add references! In addition, I have tried to include many of those responsible for beginning and nurturing the Goddess movement (but not necessarily all Pagan paths or even all Goddess paths. The Goddess movement is a very narrow part and focus of this and is not meant to be inclusive of all Goddess paths. For this, see the wiki entry, "Goddess".)

I hope you will cease being abusive and making statements that if not libelous, come very close to being so. Because you apparently have flagged this wiki as being under dispute, if this continues to be done anonymously, I will have no other recourse than to notify those who are in charge of Wikipedia. Please understand, I don't want to do that, I'd prefer to work with you and all others interested in a fair approach to this topic. However, I must ask that I be treated with respect. --Judith Laura 03:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Censorship and Self-Promotion

Sadly, this entire page does not bear close scrutiny.

It turns out that the "censor" has used almost every opportunity to quote from her own books.

Take a look for yourself. She has added her name to the list of recognized feminist authorities. None of whom, as far as I can see, can compete with her extensive product line and range of affordable psychic services. Google her if you want are interested in making an online purchase or wish to put her psychic powers to the test.

Response to Censorship and Self-Promotion

I quoted only from my 2 published books on this subject when it was relevant, and I also included others work, to show that there is a body of work supporting these claims. In addition, I restrained myself from quoting or sourcing from my books even when it was relevant. For example, under the Ethics section I quoted Carol Christ's "touchstones" from her 1997 book; but I did NOT reference my own "Her Words," from my 1989 book (which begins, "Seek knowledge. Revere wisdom") specifically because I didn't want to over-reference my own material. Your accusations are unfounded and verging on libelous. Would you care to identify yourself?

--Judith Laura 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

```A note to the man (it's gotta be a man) who is accusing Judith Laura of unethical behavior. As an author of several books about the Goddess, I have come to respect scholars of Goddess wisdom, including Ms. Laura. As I have read through this discussion, it does not seem to me that she is merely promoting her own work. She is correcting a poorly written and documented article on a subject in which she holds acknowledged expertise by her peers in the field. As I read the guidelines for participating in Wikipedia discussion, I see that one of the first rules is that contributors should identify themselves. Ms. Laura has done so; her accuser has not done so. What are you afraid of? That someone will recognize that you don't know what you're talking about? Let us all work together as scholars of Goddess history, prehistory, and worldwide scholarship to make the Wikipedia article on the Goddess movement as helpful as possible for people who come to Wikipedia wanting to learn who goddesses are. User: Barbara Ardinger, Ph.D.

To be fair I have read the article and this discussion page and I think the contributor's additions to this page does demonstrate that she knows what she is talking about but her comments about this page being limited to the Goddess Movement in the United States shows a profound bias.

I was contacted by several people who have been e-mailling copies of this page in Great Britain and there is discussion as to how best to resolve this situation because it does have far-reaching implications. It is a painful matter for some of us because we are aware that Judith Laura has been deliberating suppressing information as we have evidence that she visited Asphodel Long's website last year and signed her book of condolences. Her actions are contrary to the facts that should be known to her.

None of us can understand what has motivated Ms. Laura to demand verification of the items which were added to this page about the early history of "The Goddess Movement".

Much of the evidence that Ms. Laura disputes was on Asphodel Long's website which has been available online for several years. Had Ms. Laura been a serious researcher she would have been able to provide the citation from her own notes rather than simply suppress information which did not fit her particular view of history.

In response to the user who claims that Ms. Laura is an acknowledged authority and invites us to "make the Wikipedia article on the Goddess movement as helpful as possible for people who come to Wikipedia wanting to learn who goddesses are".

I think that was what the original contributor had attempted to do this but her work was deliberately removed by Judith Laura, who, had she truly been a serious researcher, would have at least been curious enough to explore these elements herself.

We note, with deep regret, that the comments that Judith Laura left in Asphodel's Guestbook Friday 16:57 04.02.2005 were not remembered by Judith Laura before she decided to remove any mention of the London-based Matriarchy Study Group and its place in the history of the Goddess Movement in the UK :

"I am grateful for Asphodel's life of leadership in the Goddess movement and am especially personally grateful for her pioneering work bringing us knowledge of Wisdom Goddesses, Asherah, and other Goddesses of the Ancient Near East. I am grateful for this website, where, in her graciousness, Asphodel continues to share her knowledge. And how grateful I am that I was fortunate enough to meet Asphodel on this new adventure of interweaving we call the Internet, the Web."

I think that, at the very least, Ms. Laura should now restore all of the elements that she removed from this page with such haste and should offer her apology to those she has deeply offended by her crass actions.


Astrantia 20:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Astrantia,

It pains me greatly that you think I would do anything intentionally to slight Asphodel, whose work I highly respect and whom I was fortunate enough to develop an online friendship with, as is evident from my entry on her memorial page. In fact, I added material from Asphodel's work that wasn't here before, and also references it. (I also added reference to Daniel Cohen's work, another online friend whose work I greatly value.) So I'm thinking that the changes to references to Asphodel's work that you object to weren't done by me. You've also got the wrong person if you think I'm trying to block the British contribution.I'd like to see more of it, but it shouldn't be in a tone that pits American vs. British. I believe each person had and has an important role to play bringing Goddess back, and in keeping the Goddess movement alive. I would also like to see more of other European countries, as well as the Australian, New Zealand, but since no one has been by to add that, so I could only refer to it in the opening. I have added references of people of many nationalities (and some who have dual nationalties). And I incuded a discussion of Heidi Abendroth's work. As I've said, I think you are misunderstanding my intent. However, when people post anonymously, and attack my character (I'm not saying this was you, I'm just commenting), it is difficult for me to continue doing this work with a level head.

What I would suggest at this point is that you post the material you want added to this wiki (according to Wikipedia guidelines, all extensive changes are supposed to be posted here first so that group consensus can be achieved. In addition, the material added is supposed to be what they call "verifiable." Please read their defintion of what that is). After you post the material here, give a deadline. And then if you don't receive any negative comments by that deadline, go ahead and post the material. You still have to be aware that people can come by and change things at will. This is how Wikipedia works. So, as Wikipedia itself says (or words to this effect)you should be aware when you post to the wikis that you're work is likely to be changed, edited, etc., and deleted by others. Some fun, huh?

--Judith Laura 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I also I want to note again, that the purpose of this article is not primarily to tell people about Goddesses, but rather to tell them about the Goddess movement, although of course you cannot separate them--and shouldn't separate them, entirely. There is another Wiki called "Goddess." The "Goddess movement" wiki was set up to specifically speak to the "Goddess movement" which was originally included and classified on the Goddess page as "religious feminism" but outgrew its space--and really deserves space of its own, don't you think?

--Judith Laura 21:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For the Good of All

At dinner tonight my family asked me for the sake of my own health, and because I need to focus on health situations of family members, that I leave this fray. I leave with great regret that people with ostensibly the same goals degenerate into squabbling and name-calling that benefits neither them, nor the movement in which they have been involved, some for many years and in my case since the mid-1970s. I hope that my leaving will benefit the greater good. May the victory be worth the battle. I wish you all the good that Goddess may bring. --Judith Laura 00:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and the like

Unfortunately, I went on holiday almost as soon as this row erupted, and had no time to comment until now.

The anonymous poster who has been so rude about Judith Laura has evidently not read the Wikipedia guidelines about verifiability. I find these rather uncomfortably strong, but they are Wikipedia's decision, not Judith Laura's. And it is the poster's job to provide verification, not anyone else's.

It's also (but this is mainly my problem) quite difficult to see what she posted that was removed. I suspect there was some valuable material that should have stayed and would have done so if it had followed Wikipedia's guidelines.

She is certainly right in that we could do with a good history of the Matriarchy Study Group, but that is another matter. In fact her own statement that the Group produced a periodical called Shrew is wrong - they produced one issue of Shrew. I will post the correction later.

--Daniel1Cohen 00:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Matriarchy Study Group

I have posted a correction, and some extra detail, about the Matriarchy Study Group.

Daniel1Cohen 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I made small edit - Starhawk, Victor Anderson, and Cora Anderson are members of the Feri tradition, not Feraferia, which is completely different.

format revisions

Well, at first glance the biggest problem I see is simply the improper footnoting. I will attempt to start cleaning them up asap. Then we can move on to some expanded fact checking and such.

BTW, as a newcomer to this article I scanned the entire talk page and read much of it. Judith, I wept to see how mercilessly and stupidly you were hounded by those apparently incapable of actually assisting in the work. I am sorry you felt the need to walk away, but understand why 100%. Goddesss Bless you for trying. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute was unfortunate but the issue of verifiability was to do with the fact that the American sources were all treated as verifiable simply by the fact that their words were published in books - regardless of whether those words were incorrect, untrue or deliberating slanted. The strict rules of Wikipedia were therefore enforced - which like both trademark and patent law - invariably favour American companies and American citizens.

The lack of a large internal market which not only affects publishing but all other UK businesses meant that Asphodel could not find a publisher for her history of the Goddess Movement in the UK. For this reason alone it was possible for the person who was editing this page to simply delete almost all of the content which had put forward a British perspective on the grounds of a lack of citation. There was no question of rivalry between the UK and USA versions but all trace of the British perspective was effectively removed while the American separtist feminists applauded. Would it not have been possible for Judith to be more tolerant of an alternative view without having to resort to such drastic measures. I did not agree with the tone of the dispute from any of the commentators at the time but once the damage was done it was impossible to repair.

Looking at what is left of this page now shows that history has once again becomes subject to the decree of a world power. I do not understand how Wikipedia works technically but it does appear that all of the British content that Judith removed can no longer be recovered.

So victory was achieved and the narrow American view of the Goddess movement is all that remains. Now that Asphodel and Monica are no longer with us and are reduced to mere footnotes on this page thanks to the power of the publishing industry in the United States (strengthened by a fundamentalist approach to Wikipedia policies) the boringly legalistic theological treatises and the versions of feminist history produced by American authors are to be regarded as the sole arbiter of truth simply because that have an ISBN number.

I can only hope that those who were part of the movement in the early 70s can manage to find a paper publisher to record the elements of history which have been so skillfully obliterated in memory of the British women who were pioneers and whose memories have been so totally discarded. If anyone has a complete version of the Goddess Movement page before Judith removed the UK contributions I recommend that they send it to the e-mail address on the Asphodel Long site or to Alix Pirani with the hope that they can find correspondence, articles or some other form of written evidence to challenge the censorship of this article.

Re: the comment by Bill Smith above. I do not think that if he had seen how much detail had been excised that he would be so quick to judge the capabilities of the contributors whose words were removed.

I have just re-read some of this "Talk Page" and have discovered that some of the sections which were removed from the article have been reproduced here and in spite of the fact that the references were provided they were still removed from the text of the Goddess Movement page.

Marija Gimbutas, were she alive today, would be totally astounded to see that her work has been cited and then so completely misunderstood. The censored quotation from one of her books which is quoted at the top of this page illustrates this point far more eloquently than I could. Unlike their American sisters, I know of no woman who was part of the Goddess Movement in the late 70s and early 80s that tried to capitalise on their "religion" by fortune-telling or other spurious "spiritual" money-making activities. Our publications and good works tended to be funded by jumble sales which neither exploited nor cheapened our faith.

For that reason we could not accept our American sisters (with their Ph.Ds and merchandising) as our leaders, experts, authorities or even comrades. Theirs was a different philosophy entirely which seemed rooted in both capitalism and separatism and which seemed also to discard nature, ancient culture and surviving pagan tradition in favour of a version of a "Goddess religion" which seemed based on Church theology rather than deeper roots. We did not have to invent a separate sub-sect in order to involve men as well as women nor did we have to justify the fact that we had husbands and/or male partners who worshipped the Goddess with us. Gender stereotyping was as objectionable to us as racial prejudice. This is the distinction which seems to have been suppressed in the editing of the Goddess Movement page by jingoistic American feminists.

MegWO 01:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There need not (should not) be any talk here of "censorship". That does not assume good faith, and in real terms, it implies a conspiracy where there is none. I may have missed it, but a can't see any link elsewhere on this talk page to the verifiability policy, which is absolutely essential reading to understand why information has been removed. There are some really key concepts behind Wikipedia that can seem like hinderances at first, but once you get used to them you will see them as great strengths. One is the requirement that everything in the encyclopedia be verifiable. If the UK Goddess Movement was so insignificant that it didn't leave a trace in the literary record then it clearly has no place in Wikipedia. However I really doubt this is the case, and there must be reliable sources out there that discuss it. The death of Asphodel Long is a real loss, and it sounds like her book would have been a convenient source of information for the article. Without it, bringing together all the relevant information will be less convenient, as it is presumably scattered through a number of sources.
Putting together an encyclopedia is not straightforward. Unlike a blog or a forum it is not just a collection of personal experiences, ideas and opinions; each article is supposed to be a carefully checked and edited document representing the best research we have. It all comes down to research, and if you add relevant and notable information, cited to a reliable source, no-one should remove it. Fuzzypeg★ 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Asrantia/MegWO

Just by writing style I am 90% sure that these are the same person, both of whom have been 1-day wonders (view their contributions). However, WP:AGF urges us to look at this in the best possible light and assume good faith. MegWO, if you wish to contribute to this article, or any article, do so. Please be aware that if you do not properly cite your sources, some editor may assume that your contributions are original research and remove them. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

History of the Godess movement in the UK

MegWO is simply incorrect in saying that "Asphodel could not find a publisher for her history of the Goddess Movement in the UK". She never wrote a book-length history. Her article on the subject was published in the journal Feminist Theology and is available on her Web site. Citations from that article would, of course, be within the Wikipedia guidelines.

I am saddened that many in the Goddess movement, even in the UK, have not heard of Asphodel and her work. But I doubt that Monica could ever be a footnote to anything, her writings and images are so widely available.

Meg, why did you suggest Alix Pirani? I would not have thought this would be something that she would want to work on, but perhaps you already know that she does want to. There must be a whole lot of fascinating stuff in the Matriarchy Study Group newsletter and its successor, but this was private material. If you or anyone wanted to gather some of this material and write a good history that would be great.

But I would say to you or anyone else who argues in the same way that it is not appropriate to criticise anyone on this page for following the Wikiepedia policies. I think those policies are very foolish, as they give priority to secondary sourcesby researchers over original participants in a movement. But the place to raise objections is on the Wikipedia page on "how to create policy".

Daniel1Cohen 13:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Daniel1Cohen

Prehistoric cultures

Part of the section reads "Neolithic and some later cultures were not patriarchally-structured; that is, they were not based on domination and almost always included reverence for the divine embodied as female." The absence of patriarchy is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the absence of domination. Domination can come from matriarchy or other factors. Similarly for "reverence for the divine embodied as female." JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, cultural matrilineality is not more egalitarian than cultural patrilineality. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That section reads pretty well to me, in that every claim is attributed to certain authors, rather than presented as fact. The sole remaining exception is in the sentence "These authors point out that such a reversal was not the case, but rather these prehistoric cultures had a more egalitarian form of social structure that included matriliny..." (my bold). The phrase "point out" implies that the thing being "pointed out" is true, and I don't know whether it is academic consensus that prehistoric cultures were more egalitarian and included matriliny. The word "claim" could be substituted for "point out" and it would fix that.
Apart from that, the only reason I can imagine for the totally-disputed tag being there is if these authors are being misrepresented. If not, could we make that small fix and remove the disputed tag please? Fuzzypeg★ 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Two statements are presented as equivalent that are not equivalent. that Neolithic and some later cultures were not patriarchally-structured; that is, they were not based on domination and almost always included reverence for the divine embodied as female. First, domination can take forms other than patriarchy (such as matriarchy), so the absence of patriarchy does not guarantee the absence of patriarchy. And how is reverence for the divine embodied as female a necessary or sufficient condition for the lack of a patriarchal structure?
Furthermore, the section includes these prehistoric cultures had a more egalitarian form of social structure that included matriliny. How is matrilineal succession more egalitarian than patrilineal succession?
The section continues - cultures in which women and men shared power, and in which female deities were worshipped. So a society where female deities were worshiped was egalitarian, but a society where male deities were worshiped was patriarchal? That claim needs something more to substantiate it.
Also - Eisler proposed the terms "dominator" and "androcracy" instead of "patriarchy," and "partnership" and "gylany" ... instead of "matriarchy." How is matriarchy a partnership and patriarchy a domination? JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sooo, you dispute that these things are necessarily correct, but you don't dispute that the cited authors have said these things? As I pointed out above, these ideas are presented as the claims of certain people, rather than as facts. It may be desirable to introduce some different points of view (and perhaps you know of some good theorists to cite), but in the mean-time that section hardly warrants a totally-disputed tag. I'll make the minor wording alteration I proposed above, and if you feel you agree with me, could we get rid of that tag or replace it with Template:toofewopinions? Fuzzypeg★ 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the claims are presented as facts (e.g. equating lack of domination with lack of patriarchy). Others are so ludicrous (e.g. claiming that patriarchy is domination but matriarchy is a partnership) that the sources might not meet WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem arises because the section makes no differentiation between the stances of the different protagonists. There are Feminists in archeology who drew biased conclusions based on highly selective evidence. There are goddess-feminists who built arguments around those biased conclusions. There are social-historians who commented on the relationship between second wave feminism and archeology, and there are archologists who aren't interested in feminism at all. All of this is just lumped together in order to make some rather useless claims about terminology. The sources are all quite reliable, but the way they are presented is far from Neutral. There is also the problem that some goddess-feminists equate academia with "patriarchy" and therefore will reject any critique based on logic or sound academic principles such as the need for evidence. Current scholarship totally rejects the idea that social patterns are modelled after, or reflected by mytho-religious patterns. I've added some text about how Gimbutas contributions are viewed by experts in her field (archeology), but the whole section needs a lot of work. --Davémon (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1

"suppression of ideas of the female divine"

Some loose and conspiratorial invocations of this idea can be somewhat inaccurate (especially considering that there have been some historically very male-dominant societies which nevertheless officially worshipped goddesses). However, the phrase is accurate and verifiable when it comes to ancient Jewish history, since it can clearly be seen from the text of the Bible itself that one of the items on the agenda of the prophetic movement seeking to purify Israelite religious practices in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. was eliminating worship of goddesses. Start with passages such as Jeremiah 7:18, consult Asherah pole, etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This looks like wp:or to me. The article makes no specific mention of Judaism in this regards, and if the "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven" course does make the claim that "ideas of the female divine" are "suppressed" by Judaism then a direct quotation to give the proper specific context would help. Lets not extrapolate broad generalisations while discussing a single source (apparently) dealing with a single specific culture. --Davémon (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever -- 7th and 6th century B.C Judaism may be merely "one specific culture", but it has exerted an enormous influence on billions of individuals who lived subsequently. And when Goddess movement types make broad sweeping historical generalizations, they quite often have Judaism and Christianity at least partly in mind, and some of them are very specifically aware of the Biblical citations I mentioned above (and others). Meanwhile, the fact that there was active suppression of ideas of the female divine in one attested historical society means that it's not really a "myth" (even if its value as a grand over-arching explanation of large-scale historical change is extremely limited). AnonMoos (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Without some reliable sources to back up and clarify any of the opinions attributed to the "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven" I'd rather just see the whole statement removed. In fact, the entire "background" section seems to be very poorly sourced. Davémon (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Dude, did you bother to even perfunctorily scan the references I provided earlier (considering that the phrase "cakes for the Queen of Heaven" is a direct quote from Jeremiah 7:18)? AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see how:
Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."
Is a citation for:
"In the 1980s and '90s, an adult education course offered by the Unitarian Universalist Church, "Cakes for the Queen of Heaven," (Ranck 1995) introduced thousands of women to what was known about the suppression of ideas the female divine, including information about supposed ancient Goddess cultures."
There seems to be a massive gulf of reasoning between these two statements. Can anyone provide a citation from a reliable source for the statements in the article? --Davémon (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with Gylany, which is neither matriarchal nor patriarchal. Gylanic tribes, such as those that once lived on the isle of Crete (Eisler, Riane, "The Chalice and the Blade") had societies in which men and women shared social power. This is all long before Judaism and Christianity were invented and also differs from "Goddess" cultures. AlphaLobo (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article would be greatly improved by presenting the Goddess as the original deity of mankind, and giving more historical and archeological info... rather than presenting the Goddess as a feminist reaction against mainstream patriarchal deities. It is also very important to point out that there is no historical basis for claims that the religion of the Goddess is for women only or is oriented towards women specifically. Some critisizm of modern feminist Goddess groups that restrict their membership to women only would be in order, especially Dianic Wicca, which almost laughably ignores the fact that Diana is a Roman goddess, and in Rome was served exclusively by MALE priests...

--Priestess Jean 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priestess Jean (talk • contribs)

That's a somewhat separate and controversial matter -- it's certainly one of the claimed roots of the modern Goddess movement, but it's not really the main subject of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we should all take the word of a woman who calls herself "PRIESTESS JEAN." I think this article would be greatly improved if religious, feminist zealots were not trying to brainwash people with this "original deity" crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.73.184 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This Article Has Multiple Issues

Most of the citations are done improperly. A last name with a year next to it is not enough for readers to understand what is being cited. Almost all of the citations are from the same three or so people, all of which are supporters and activists for this movement/religion. Referencing a source when stating opinions or beliefs does not make the statements facts, especially when they are not labelled as opinions or beliefs. This article goes back and forth between barely trying to look at the subject academically, and not trying at all, to the point where many parts blur/ignore the line between fact and fiction. The wording and tone of the entire article cannot be considered encyclopedic. It is hard to question the neutrality of this article, because there is not one bit of neutrality to be found in any section. It reads as though it is specifically catering to members of the movement/religion. I suggest that this entire article be deleted and rewritten by someone with less personal involvement in the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.229.146 (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed the banner templates. The article has changed enormously since 2014 and the issues raised are so vague that it is impossible to tell if any of the material the OP found problematic still remains. Not a single explicit example is cited and I am not even sure I can identify the "citations from the same three or so people". Even in 2014, there were far more than three citations in the article. Doubtless, there are still problems, but it would be more useful to explicitly label them with inline tags, or better still, just fix it. SpinningSpark 08:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

this article has serious issues.

Okay, I edited the intro section because it was depressing to read, but I don't have time or the proper in-depth knowledge to do an edit of the entire article.

I tried very, very hard to make the intro sound more academic and less like a political creed that you'd shout through a megaphone to people who agree with you. It seems to me that the editors of this page had trouble differentiating between politically charged blogging/journalism language, versus neutral academic language.

This page needs to neatly and intelligently explain the Goddess movement to people outside of it. It doesn't need to shout views about female inherent worth and politicization of gender at Joe Random reading from his basement in Wyoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:2D00:4EE:94FA:FD3B:5957:6F26 (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goddess movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Goddess movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goddess movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goddess_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1060548678"