Talk:Great Mother

"Great Mother" the archetype and "Mother goddess" are not the same. Though they should be cross-referenced, the two should not be combined, in my opinion.

I agree. There is a risk that one might link from Carl Jung's archetypes and pick up "Mother goddess." That, in my humble opinion, is unacceptable.

So do I. In general, the article "Great Mother" should take more reference to Jung's archetypology. Maybe also some examples, where the archetype of the Great Mother can be found in myths, legends, religions, tales and so on. I would do this job - if my English was good enough ;-). de:Benutzer:Dr. Meierhofer

I also agree. The phrase "Great Mother" enters the general vocabulary through Eric Neumann's 1955 book of the same name in reference to Jungian psychology. That the term was picked up by NeoPagans and applied to mother goddesses of various sorts is true, but conflating the two muddies things. Rorybowman 00:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. I think there need to be three very separate entries:

the archetype of the Great Mother used in Jungian psychology
the generic idea of the mother goddess type used by mythographers
the Roman goddess Magna Mater, often translated into English "Great Mother", who like every mythologic entity has her own distinct identity.

Tom Lougheed 2005-12-13.

I also agree. I think that the mother goddess is simply and example of Carl Jung's archetype in mythology. However, Carl Jung's archetypes also apply to the mind, so they should be kept seperate.

'archal' to 'lineal'

I changed the word 'matriarchal' to 'matrilineal', as there is no definite proof of any ancient matriarchal societies. In fact I would like to see this article expanded. I'm sure there's much room for more information about the idea of a 'Great Mother' in archaelogical thought. Anyhow, if anyone would like to discuss the changing of 'archal' to 'lineal' then by all means discuss :-) Ryan 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

I believe that at the very least there needs to be a single coordinating entry for all Great Mother like entries. A classicist searching for the Magna Mater will likely go for Great Mother, where there is absolutely no mention of Magna Mater, despite that being one of her names. I suggest that this entry contain an overview of the Great Mother figure in general as applies to many different cultures with a list of links to specific kinds of mother goddesses. 24.22.45.52 06:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup needed: adding originalresearch tag

Much of this article does not portray the accepted scholarly understandings on the subject. That's OK, but the ideas need to be attributed to their sources, and the more commonly accepted view needs to be mentioned for comparison.

Furthermore, some of the ideas in this article I find very surprising, and they sound like original research. You need to cite reputable sources for these, or remove them. In particular, I'm thinking of Queen Mab/Medb and the tiny/impregnating theme. It sounds like it's trying to draw a comparison with myths like the Gwydion/Cerridwen myth, and from what I can see it's going way out on a limb: a) Mab isn't male; b) she isn't swallowed by women. I don't even know what it means when it is suggested that "her qualities as a fertility goddess were more pronounced and emphasized as she endured time". I'm rather surprised to see Medb held up as a prime example of the Great Mother at all - she seems to me more likely to have been a historical personage who was over time given fairy qualities similar to the Matronae (I'm thinking of the plaiting of the horses' manes), but was never widely worshipped as the "Great Mother".

The Cattle raid of Cooley seems better explained as a historical event than as a remnant myth of a war goddess.

There's really good scholarly evidence of widespread goddess worship available (try Carlo Ginzburg for instance); this article could be much more convincing if it used reputable theories. Fuzzypeg 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heavenly Mother

Is She not great because she resides in heaven only?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.253 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article doesn't make this very clear, there is a theory that Asherah, the Heavenly Mother, was originally a Great Mother goddess until She was displaced by patriarchal religion. I'd be happy for there to be a link to Asherah, in fact that's a good suggestion of yours and I'll put it in. Fuzzypeg ^talk 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prajnaparamita and Supreme being

"The last two additions are not meanings of "Great Mother"; they are associated concepts." What does this mean? I am sure it is wrong. Is it not?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.7.43 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prajñāpāramitā means "perfection of wisdom" and refers to a class of literature. The link Prajnaparamita is actually a redirect to the Perfection of Wisdom article, and there's nothing there to indicate that this class of literature is the Great Mother, or the perfection of wisdom is the Great Mother, or that the Great Mother is a class of literature, etc. If the connection is not clear from that article, then there shouldn't be a link.

Regarding the Supreme being link (actually a redirect to Monotheism): this is partly a matter of logic and partly a matter of theological point of view. In logical terms George Bush is a person, that's true, but the George Bush disambiguation page doesn't link to person, because George Bush is only one of many persons. George Bush and "person" are not the same thing. And here's where it becomes theological, because you may say that the Great Mother is the Supreme Being and the Supreme Being is the Great Mother, but that's only your theological perspective, which excludes other perspectives. Other people say Jehovah is the Supreme being, so does that make Jehovah the Great Mother?

In practical terms, if someone types "Great Mother" into the Wikipedia search box, they're not going to be looking for the Monotheism article, which says nothing about the Great Mother. If you think these are important concepts that people should be aware of, then by all means make sure they're properly discussed in the Mother goddess article or wherever you think it's appropriate. But cluttering up a disambiguation page with more than the bare essentials just makes it more laborious for people to find the information they're actually looking for.

I hope this clarifies things a bit for you. Fuzzypeg ^talk 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to change the article on Prjanaparamita. and no, the disambiguation page says that Great Mother may refer to, and of course, it may refer to the socalled supreme being, if there is one.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.65.63 (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as the rest of your posting is concerned, I'll say some more words later.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.83.135 (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are solely intended to help readers find the article they're looking for. If someone types "Great Mother" into the search box and ends up at this dab page, then we know they're not looking for the Monotheism article (which is what Supreme Being redirects to), because that article is not about the Great Mother, and in fact doesn't even mention goddess worship. That's not the article they'll be looking for, so it's not appropriate to link to it. I'm not going to revert your change, because I can't be bothered getting into an edit war. Fuzzypeg ^talk 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism article and the Supreme Being: I've added Architect of the Universe although nobody has ever thought him to be a woman, I think, only because there in the beginning of the text there is a wikilink Supreme being which does not redirect to Monotheism article, until now.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.95.115 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do you understand me?

What I think I understand is this: you're trying to underline the fact that the Great Mother is the supreme being, the source of all and origin of all. I don't dispute that. However this is descriptive information about the Great Mother, which should be included in the appropriate articles, and not the disambiguation (dab) page. The job of the dab page is to help people quickly find the article they want, so they can read these descriptions. They type in "Great Mother" presumably because they're looking for information on the Great Mother. Sending them to the Monotheism article or the Architect of the Universe article is not helpful to them. Adding all these links is not making the information easier to find, it's making it more laborious for them to sift through and find what they want.

I also wonder whether you've taken offense to me removing some of the links you added and are now simply trying to make a point to me. Well, I can't be bothered getting into an unproductive argument on that basis, which would be a waste of both of our energies. Perhaps another editor will come and fix this up; in the meantime I can't be bothered. Sorry, you've got me grumpy. Fuzzypeg ^talk 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, I'll quote a couple of bits of the disambiguation page policy to you:

Do not pipe disambiguation links. Showing the entire linked article title avoids confusion, which is the reason for the link in the first place.
Only include related subject articles if the term in question is actually described in the target article.

And reading that policy page I see that it discourages the use of links for anything other than target articles; I might fix this page to conform to that, and I'll leave you to sort out your monotheisms and architects. Fuzzypeg ^talk 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this belong to? [2]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.16 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Shaktism? You may also want to put something in Shakti. It all depends on what information you want to incorporate, and which articles need more information... Not Great Architect of the Universe, though, please. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your proposal, I've put it @shaktism.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.8.103 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

The rules are pretty strict on disambig pages. But I seriously sympathize with those users looking for goddess-related articles. Since the primary meaning is "mother goddess", I've put it at the top. I have only retained variation of strictly the phrase "Great Mother" for the disambig links, but placed a "See also" to aid users looking for less specific articles. The Category:Mother goddesses should cover any individual goddess otherwise overlooked. --Yamara ✉ 23:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it the way it is now.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.13.187 (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yamara, it looks good to me. I particularly like it the page links to Category:Mother goddesses, which means readers can find the article they're looking for, but we don't have to maintain identical lists in two separate places. Austerlitz, if you have a concern perhaps you'd like to explain it. Fuzzypeg ★ 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Mater disambiguation page created

A Magna Mater (disambiguation) page has now been created, with links to Cybele, Magna Mater (band), and (via a See Also section) to Great Mother (disambiguation). Previously, the band had been the Magna Mater page, which wasn't exactly what most (possibly any) of the articles linking there had meant. I've added a link to the Magna Mater (disambiguation) page in the See also of this page. Allens (talk) 08:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, good find. However, Magna Mater had been a redirect to Cybele, not a disambiguation page (the history is now at Magna Mater (band)). So, I've changed that back to Cybele and made Magna Mater (disambiguation) the dab page. For the most part, I've also reverted the changes to all the articles with Magna Mater links so they go back to Cybele via the Magna Mater redirect, rather than piping, rewording, or removing the links (in lieu of a see also link) to Magna Mater (disambiguation), Great Mother, Great Goddess, Cybele etc. The links shouldn't go to a disambiguation page. This way, if it's ever decided that Cybele isn't the WP:PRIMARY topic to which Magna Mater refers, that can be amended/hijacked without editing all the individual articles. Similarly, if editors chose Magna Mater over Great Mother for any reason, the choice is preserved. For example, Great Mother doesn't currently redirect to Cybele, it, itself, is a "dab page" (with no primary topic… to which Great Mother (disambiguation) redirects).—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 15:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Cybele is not the correct redirect for Magna Mater. The Maia (mythology) article states - with a reference - that this was also a term used for Maia. Therefore, there has to be a disambiguation page, and it is also useful to indicate to people the translation of Magna Mater. Thank you for catching my error on Rhea (mythology). I now see that, thanks to my being offline, people have messed things up yet further; great. Allens (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Magna Mater (disambiguation) to the hat note on Cybele. Don't feel compelled to let that user revert your unrelated changes with such a lame excuse. Again, thanks for catching the hijacking in the first place. Once a linkable "list" gets worked up, it'll be even better.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]