Talk:Horned God/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Puzzlement

er..."deific archetype"? "naturalistic religions? I'm puzzled...

• Sorry about that - terms from a long-ago mythology class, from which basis I wrote that. I'll try to clarify and neutralize it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by April (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 December 2001‎ (UTC)

Skeptical tone

"such widely-dispersed and historically unconnected mythologies as the Celtic Cernunnos, the Welsh Caerwiden, the English Herne the Hunter"

I appreciate the sceptical tone, but there's a lot of controversy about that. It's certainly not an undisputed fact.

I would agree that "unconnected" is probably controversial. Some pre-Socratic Greek thought, Pythagoras in partciular, appears to have had subcontinental influences, and I understood that it was fairly well assumed now that some form of contact or transmission of ideas took place. There is no need to assume that Gauls and other Celts were uninfluenced by eastern traditions, even though they may not have recognised them as such, and vice versa. - Unsigned post

Skepticism is fine, and always healthy. However Wikipedia should not have any tone, as such, rather than informative, and the clear tone from reading this article was even more than skeptical; it was scoffing. I've done some subtle rewording to remove that tone.

I've also removed the mention of a 'melange of classical symbolism' in the caption to the Baphomet picture, and replaced it with a clear comparison to the Devil card of the Marseilles tarot decks, from whence the image clearly derives, almost in its entirety. I realise the caption of this card is now indulgently long - I suggest moving this material to the Baphomet article, and in the caption here, having only a brief mention that it resembles the Devil card.

I would also like to find the source of the quote cited only as "Burkert 1985 p.64". Anyone know who this is? If anyone has some other prominent authors who criticise this syncretism it might be an idea to mention them too; Burkert looks a bit lonely there. Even Ronald Hutton, if he says anything about this (though he's not my favourite author - another scoffer teeming with factual errors). Fuzzypeg 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited with an even clearer comparison to the actual Tarot of Marseille card, not to be confuised with the modern Rider-Waite deck etc, and made some badly-needed links. I integrated the caption text with the main text. Burkert Greek Religion should have been listed in References: now it is. --Wetman 20:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my mention of "omphalos-type stone". I have just been reading about depictions of Dionysus, and it just slipped out, I guess. I tossed an turned a couple of times last night over that one. I've slightly altered your description: the "perched on a globe" was a feature of the marseilles decks, but gesturing above and below was not. I'm not sure where you got "good above and evil below" from - Levi refers the moons to Chesed and Gevurah, not good and evil. Fuzzypeg 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of these sections need a much more skeptical tone, being written from a completely Murray-ist point of view of the ancient worship of a pan-European horned god as a fact. I'd rewrite myself if I had more time... Fuzzypeg☻ 21:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Horns and Antlers

minor point:

The Horned God image as embraced by neo-pagan traditions includes both gods with horns (such as Pan) and gods with antlers (such as Cernunnos). I think the distinction between the two, and the way they have been "combined" should be made more clear.

yes, it would be a valuable addition (do you have sources where this is discussed?) beyond the obvious that just, well, antlers are a type of horns. dab 09:07, 17 November 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no...horns are part of bone if I remember, and antlers are closer to nails and hair in composition. Also, antlers are shed while horns are not, and horns tend NOT to branch. They both grow on one's head, but are not the same thing...

God or god

see User_talk:Sam_Spade#Horned_God. The article Deity might also add some insight. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yeah, so it's a syncretic term. It's still "Horned God" is a syncretic term, not, "Horned god" is a syncretic term. You should add that the insight from deity is your insight. This is not a matter of capitalization as explained on God. It's simply a question of common usage. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22horned+god%22 . Please move it back, you did no good here. dab (ᛏ) 15:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Horned God" is used almost exclusively to refer to this figure. As a proper name, it should be capitalized. Also, it's a bit telling of the bias involved in the rewrite that the first three words are now The Horned god (sic) rather than The horned god or The Horned God. -Sean Curtin 01:29, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I know. please change it back. dab (ᛏ) 11:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that because it's a proper name it should be "Horned God". Note the capitalizations of "Great Mother", "Great Father", and "Green Man". The capitalizations should at least be consistent. The rest of the page currently has "Horned god" though instead of "Horned God". The capitalization should at least be consistent in the same article! --C S 01:35, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

well, you can fix it, if you like... dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i agree with Chan-Ho Suh. im going ahead and changing the instences of "Horned god" to "Horned God". Craptree 05:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I respect the concensus. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 January 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I notice that someone has removed the note that most of this article (everything between the headings "Associations" and "Wicca", I would say) takes the neo-pagan ideas of a Horned God at face value. (Rather like reading the article on Jesus, only to discover that the text after the first couple of paragraphs is just a rehash of the Nicene Creed.) I do not know why this was not considered worthy of note, but I do agree with the suggestion that this article needs better references. The following ideas especially need to be made clear (who proposed them, when, and on what grounds?):

• That there is a unified cross-cultural Horned God. There are plenty of gods with horns, and one can find shared attributes among them, but as far as I know the idea of a single capitalized Horned God is a modern invention.
• That he's associated with the woods. Pan and Faunus, sure, and Cernunnos, but what about Leib-olmai the alder man, or the Slavic Perunu, or the dryads?
• That he's associated with hunting. Orion, Artemis, Odin et al. are hornless counterexamples.
• That he's associated with wild animals. Again we have Cernunnos, and also Faunus, and Pashupati. (No counterexamples spring to mind, and associating a figure with animal attributes with animals is quite sensible.)
• That he's a fertility god. (This one is probable, actually, since it's one of the most common meanings of the horn, for obvious reasons.)
• That he's always a life-death-rebirth deity. A fertility god, yes perhaps, but the two don't always go hand in hand.
• That this Horned God survived into the 19th century in local customs, rather than being invented around that time.

Also worth keeping in mind is the dictum from Burkert quoted in the Bull (mythology) article. —E. Underwood

on the contrary, I have replaced your "exposition of syncretism" in the article body with the prominent Template:Unsourced, meaning that the statements in the article should be referenced or cleaned up. You are more than welcome to insert the points you make into the article, raising the it to a more encyclopedic standard. It's always preferable to actually improve an article than to just sneaking in a statement that it's really crap. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry that you consider adding a referenced explanation of the idea's historical context and pointing the reader in the general direction of the sources for the rest of the article to be "sneaking in a statement that it's really crap". Such was not my intent. I do not believe that it is crap; I think it is a religious belief, I think it has identifiable origins and purposes, and I think it is accurate in some ways but not in others. This is fine. Letting the reader think that he's reading something other than a religious belief is, however, not fine. The article on Jesus should not say something like "Jesus was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day he rose again. . . etc." without making it known who believes that. Neither should this article. Indicating that sources are lacking does not indicate the nature of the beliefs described.

Is a subtle but necessary piece of context superior to one of those ugly, obtrusive dispute boxes? I've added eight words, neutrally phrased, that satisfy all of my objections for now (though of course sources should still be found); if you don't like them, then take them out and put up a TotallyDisputed tag. It is neither neutral nor accurate to expound a religious belief without the slightest indication of what it is. —E. Underwood

I'm very sorry, I was referring to this edit, where you say

"What follows is a description of the neo-pagan conception, sources unknown."

I had not seen your earlier, very substantial edit. It was entirely my mistake, and you have already improved the article substantially. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, this concept is a theory which did not originate with wiccans, but rather along with the mother goddess concept lead to them. There has long been a tendancy to blur the lines between ancient dieties, and I see this as yet another attempt at that. We should find out who came up w the idea, clearly. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

James Frazer, maybe? blur the lines between ancient deities? the ancients were happy to blur them, themselves, often enough. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, I didn't mean to suggest that the line blurring was anything new, it was a major theme of the Romans, for example. The particularly broad catagories of Horned god and mother goddess are pretty new tho, I'd assume. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:25, 9 March 2005 (UTC)

interpretatio Romana, yes. Horned gods and mother goddesses are nothing new, and especially in the case of the latter, linking them across cultures is a common practice. I think it might be worthwhile to put the information on non-capitalized horned gods and other mythological horns into Horn (mythology). That could cover various horned deities and symbols, the Minoan sacral horns, the Horn of Plenty, the unicorn's horn, the Kirin, and suchlike; this article could be entirely about the modern concept of a single Horned God, with reference to the real background where appropriate. —E. Underwood

"Pseudohistory"?

I'm removing the "Pseudohistory" template, since the article states from the outset that it is about a modern syncretic term. As such, "Horned God" is not pseudohistory at all, just a contemporary notion with roots in older, historical notions. dab (ᛏ) 14:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't an adequate definition of pseudohistory be "a contemporary notion with roots in older, historical notions"? When the "Hornèd God" is set into historical contexts, how is the result not pseudohistory? All history is colored by the historian's view: perhaps it's all pseudohistory... --Wetman 01:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you here. Is Carnival "pseudohistory", for example? Everybody agrees that carnival customs have ancient roots, but as long as nobody claims that Iron Age Celts celebrated "carnival" with brass bands, I don't see how it is "pseudohistory", it's just what these ancient customs have evolved into today. I am not aware that anybody claims that Wicca etc. notions of the "Horned God" are authentic Iron Age reconstructs. It's just a collection of whatever people fancied in old sources. dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The celebration of Carnival is traditional, not historic, endlessly self-renewing in an eternal present: ask a Samba band. There is a history of the development of Carnival, nevertheless. Perhaps there is a pseudohistory of Rio's Carnival as well, which would include the folk etymology carne vale and much elaboration on a few hints in West African folklore besides. Thus a contemporary notion has roots in older, historical notions, both as history and—through inventions—pseudohistory. I do see your point in removing the Pseudohistory template, but look over the articles at Category:Pseudohistory: they all select from some genuine nuggets. --Wetman 20:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ba`al Hammon of Carthage

This was anonymously added as an element of the "Horned God". Since so little was known of Ba'al Hammon while the syncretic myth of a "Hornmed God" was being developed in the 19th century, I moved this here, lest we simply develop a random list of pagan deities. --Wetman 04:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

{{pov-section}} tag added

The section on Wicca and Gardner is basically going straight with the POV that Gardner made up Wicca on his own. There is, in both Hutton and Heselton combined, reason to doubt that statement.--Vidkun 13:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As a Wiccan (and don't you hate people who introduce their opinion with 'As A Whatever,' as though it makes it any more than their opinion?), I'd like to say that there's no evidence that's yet convinced me that Wicca is anything other than the invention of Gardner and his associates. If the dispute here is that he 'made up Wicca on his own', then I agree that's not the case. If the dispute is about whether or not it actually existed as a defined religion in pre-Christian Europe, then I'm certainly not aware of any reputable source that would argue that it did. Gardner certainly drew from many existing sources, so much of what is recognised as Wiccan ritual and philosophy did exist already - but it's unlikely that Wicca itself did. - Adaru 17:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If the dispute is about whether or not it actually existed as a defined religion in pre-Christian Europe It isn't. The debate is whether Gardner made it up on his own, as suggested by the wording Gerald Gardner began Wicca in England. There is, for those willing to read published works, sufficient evidence in Hutton's Triumph of the Moon, and Heselton's Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration, to show that Gardner did not begin Wicca. People prior to him did, and he revised and reinvigorated it.--Vidkun 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then. - Adaru

I'll have a go at improving the wording. Fuzzypeg☻ 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

horned gods

I think the question of why there are/were so many horned gods around the world is worth an article in its own right (e.g. horned gods). I don't know enough about anything like this to start one unfortunately. Ireneshusband 05:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the question of why there are/were so many vegetation goddesses, sun goddesses, horned goddesses and sky goddesses, and why almost all lunar gods are male, and most goddesses don`t fit in any triad, all around the world, is worth an article in its own right. Come on, let`s face it they`re even more sun goddesses than lunar goddesses.

It might be true that there are more horned gods than horned goddesses- but then again, we all know ALL men are half animals, don`t we? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.14.246 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How about an article about how/why most fruit aren't shaped like bananas? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make — that most fruit aren't bananas, or that bananas are unimportant... ??? Or that some people who like eating bananas should be eating other fruit instead? Please explain. Fuzzypeg★ 05:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Seeing as someone deleted this section I thought I'd provide a rationale for inclusion: The section on representations of "The Horned God" in pop culture is highly relevant to the subject, and directly relates to the evolving syncretic nature of the concept and it's representation in the wider society. Further to that, the band mentioned Sabbat are neo-pagans. The "Horned Rat" of the Skaven is an example of how the concept has influenced fictional work, and whilst somewhat tongue-in-cheek in itself, The Horned Rat might well be a better known and understood "deity-with-horns" image among a certain demographic than the 'real' one. At present the article has a strong neo-pagan bias and fails to deal with the popular image, modern interpretation or it's influnce on secular culture. --Davémon 09:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The someone was me. I was thinking of the Manual of Style section on trivia. Now you may not all agree that popular culture references equate to trivia, but the two disparate references I deleted here certainly seemed rather randomly gathered, and not by any means the most important cultural manufestations of the Horned God. There is an essay here which, as an essay is obviously not formal policy, but I think it makes good sense and would prefer that we follow its guidance in this article. A further essay here also makes some useful points. What do other editors feel? I certainly don't want to impose my view if I'm alone on this. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I've added a couple more references 'off the top of my head'. If you have some more significant examples then they should be added too. As suggested by WP:TRIVIA once we've got a more comprehensive outline of the popular image of the Horned God - it should be a simple task to take it out of list-form and integrate it into the main article, but it is useful whilst editors gather the information together. To show the influence that the idea has outside of the neo-pagan 'ancient-religion-survival' / 'christian demonisation of Pan' narrative the article is currently biased towards will help balance the article more evenly. --Davémon 15:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the right way to go with this section is to expand it. The presence of such sections at all is deprecated, and the preferred strategy (vide the essays cited above) is to integrate 'popular culture' references into the main text of the article in a sensible way that illustrates and expands the article. Frankly (and I speak as an ex-Warhammer player!) I see no link between the Horned Rat and the topic of the article. At an absolute minumum, these pop culture assertions need a reference each, but personally I'd delete them again in a second except I have no interest in starting an edit war. Anyone else have a view or is this just a 2-way difference of opinion? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Horned Rat is a "god" whose defining feature is having "horns" (there are other connections - he also presides over a council of thirteen, the number of a 'coven' popularised by Murray). This article is obviously at a very early stage of development - the first section rightly positions Margaret Murray's theories as discredited, then goes on to state precisely those theories ("European common belief in and worship of the Horned God waned almost to extinction by the 19th century") as if they were simple accepted facts in a completely unreferenced way. As a lot of work is needed to remove these internal contradictions, I see no reason to delete what is obviously outline content for new sections. Indeed WP:TRIVIA states "Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article". Or does everyone else see this article as already comprehensive and nearly complete? --Davémon 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please! No more!! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe in this situation that trying to accumulate trivia and then expand it into discussion is going to result in original research. It is not our job to report on our own perceptions of how pop-culture elements relate to the neopagan Horned God; if some reliable author has written about this subject then by all means report on their findings, but otherwise this all comes down to personal speculation. Take the horned rat you've discussed above, for example: this may indeed be based on the Horned God concept, but isn't it more likely that it was based on the Devil, linked with the concept (admittedly originating with Murray) that covens have thirteen members? This, to my mind at least, seems more likely to have come to Warhammer via Satanism or any number of a host of crap horror movies and books. Anyway, regardless of what we think, this is just our own personal speculation, clearly inconclusive, and has no place in the article.

As for things like album covers and so forth, I can think of much better ways to expand the article than by providing every pop reference. Again, if we find some notable author who writes about how the Horned God has influenced pop culture, we might quote them and get a more interesting and useful discussion. If the Jesus article had a "Popular culture" section it would involve a discussion of trends of influence, rather than a listing of every tacky piece of junk with a picture of Jesus on it. In most of the cases with these pieces of trivia, if any discussion is deserved at all, it would be more appropriate to mention the Horned God link in the other article, i.e. in Cruachan (band) or Death SS. Then if anyone's really interested they can click on the "What links here" link in the toolbox.

I'm going to remove the couple of references that have no established connection to the subject, and I invite anyone else to remove other items, or the section in its entirety. Fuzzypeg☻ 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove the list and place it on the Talk page. As you've also expressed a problem with original research, which has also concerned me for some time, I'll also remove all the uncited statements from the article. Yes, the Horned God seems to have generated a small wealth of "crap horror movies and books" - or 'pulp fiction' as I prefer to call it, in his short life. --Davémon 07:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Now just be careful here. A number of the statements in the article marked with {{fact}} tags were marked before the decision of about 2 months ago that controversial statements marked with fact tags could be automatically removed. That was, in my mind, a stupid decision, because many people had been using that tag for non-controversial statements that could have done with a reference, not because they were not attributable, but to make the article more informative. When that decision was made I went through the Wicca article and removed many of the fact tags that didn't warrant deletion of the statement! No-one has done this here, so if you're going to remove any statements, remember to evaluate carefully: is the claim actually doubtful, or is it just uncited?

To clarify: until about April the {{fact}} tag simply indicated that a citation was needed but wasn't an automatic go-ahead for deletion, and was applied to a number of things that were known to be non-controversial. Since then a decision was made that the fact tag should only be applied to statements that are "doubtful". Much of what you deleted consists of non-doubtful statements that were tagged before the policy change. I shall reinstate the deleted material for more careful deletion of only doubtful statements. The fact tags can simply be removed from other statements, since no-one has proposed an anternative tag that doesn't carry an auto delete policy. Stupid, I know, but there you are.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to discuss policy. However, it has been the case for quite some time that WP:V states "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed" (my emphasis). I've no interest in starting an edit war, but without proper sources, much of this is just cruft. --Davémon 08:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm just a little concerned: something in the way you phrased "I'll also remove all the uncited statements from the article" conveys the sense of a vendetta. I trust this is not the case, but please make sure you're improving the article rather than just diminishing it. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored some of this info with some minor rewordings. You're right, there was some quite poorly worded stuff here, but the basic ideas are still worth recording. I think it's helpful in building a picture of what the Horned God concept is supposed to represent, and with better citations it would be even more helpful. I'm pretty rushed for time, so if it doesn't initially look perfect please forgive me. I believe attributions can easily be found for most of what's in the article — where fact tags remain I'm less certain (without doing further investigation) that finding attributions will be trivial. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I doubt there are reliable references for much of it at all - the Satan section - isn't really necessary to compare the characters of the two - Murray clearly illustrates their historical relationship, and this later section adds nothing except very poor theology. I'm also more concerned that the article becomes less biased. You suggest in your edit notes to consult Heselton. I do not want to offend, but he is a Wiccan, and is hardly unbiased on the subject. Might as well ask a Christian about the historical reality of Jesus. Further, I'm not sure there is a need to re-hash the whole History of Wicca debate here at all, rather simply make reference to the two positions (inspired by Murray / taught by a survivor), and that they are debated by wicca supporters and neutral historians, and get on with describing what the Horned God means in Wicca. Davémon 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Satan section: the first paragraph is a straight synopsis of Hutton's analysis in Triumph of the Moon. The second paragraph is straight fact that you should find repeated in any Wicca 101 or Paganism 101 book. I don't have my books here with me at work, but I should be able to find a citation soon. I changed the word "pagan" to "neopagan" to hopefully placate you further.

Of course it's necessary to compare the Horned God with Satan, since they are easily and commonly confused, especially by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, and because Murray's supposed "Horned God" was the Devil in witchcraft testimonies. I expect this section will eventually grow substantially to discuss this relationship.

You're concerned about bias. Let me remind you that Wikipedia articles can and often should cite biased sources; the article itself should remain (as far as possible) unbiased, by presenting these views in context and providing alternative views. Saying that, Heselton has been highly praised by Ronald Hutton for his wealth of factual evidence and the clear distinction he makes between objective data and his own occasional speculations. His research is generally considered the most complete and up-to-date regarding the facts of Gardner's inception into Wicca. Hutton is regarded (for better or worse) as the world authority on Neopaganism in general. Neither of these authors conclude that Gardner created the religion himself, although both allow this as a possibility. More particularly, neither say that Gardner "followed" Murray when he claimed the religion was ancient; if he didn't make the whole thing up it then he could well have "followed" his initiators in this belief. The thing is, we don't know, and neither do the experts in the field. If we want to make statements like this we need supporting evidence. I don't want to re-hash the history of Wicca either, so I'm sorry. But if we disagree on Wiccan history then it's going to come up. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure this is the correct forum for a debate on this subject - as long as the article is balanced, that's all that really matters. Hutton may well support Heselton, but few others do. Both Jaquiline Simpson ( "Margret Murray: Who believed her and why?") and Micheal York (‘Invented Culture/Invented Religion: The Fictional Origins of Neopagansim') and many other academics besides them simply say that Gardner followed Murray - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem . It remains an article of faith of the Wiccan religion that Gardner's sources are really what he claims - as you say - the experts "don't know".

However, I do think the relationship between Satan and The Horned God is adequately explained with reference to Murray - everything else will be "after the event" and will inevitably stem (as far as reliable sources go) from that. Satan is a theologically complex figure, and paragraph 2 depends entirely on 1) a naive literal reading of Satanic mythology, and 2) that mythology being mutually exclusive from that of the Horned God - which simply isn't the case. If the article presents the idea that Wiccans do not believe that the Horned God is Satan (as it currently does), then it should be balanced with the Christian opinion that they are one and the same thing. I personally don't feel that debate is of benefit to the article but if it's going to be represented it should be done properly.Davémon 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not have York's or Simpson's articles on hand, but I presume they must have been following Kelly or Roper (I think it was Roper?) in claiming that Gardner followed Murray. These opinions are outdated, coming before either Triumph or Heselton's books, and being derivative of works now considered flawed (Kelly's scholarship in particular has been pulled to shreds, see Hutton and Don Frew). That said, I like the wording change you made, since there clearly was some influence from Murray, but how much and at which points, and at whose hand, is unknown.

No, York and Simpson weren't using Kelly nor Roper - why would anyone do that? Heselton doesn't have a monopoly on the academic study of witchcraft. --Davémon 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I intended Eliot Rose, not Roper. He and Kelly wrote well-known "debunkings" of Gardner's claims, forming a basis for most later research surrounding Gardnerian origins. Of course Heselton doesn't have a monopoly on the academic study of witchcraft, but he has produced by far the most comprehensive study of the origins of Gardnerian Wicca to date. Fuzzypeg☻ 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now as to the "Christian opinion" that the the Horned God and Satan are one and the same, that would be a good thing to mention. Do you have any good sources to hand that we could draw from for this? I know some Christians view any other god as Satan in disguise, but it'd be good if we could find something that more specifically names the Horned God. Hopefully not too polemical, or we'll make them look like raving loonies...

Of course I don't see why the pagan viewpoint needs to be balanced with the Christian viewpoint... why not the Buddhist viewpoint? I would prefer not "balancing" with other coloured perspectives, but trying to take a more objective approach, simply saying "this is the supposed deity, these are his known origins in folklore (and the misinterpretation of folklore), these are the people who honour him, and this is how they see him". But hey, a small section on Christian perspectives would be OK. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Finding decent sources that say "Wiccans are Satanists, their 'Horned God' is satan" by anyone except the lunatic fringe has proven impossible. However, there must be sources where Wiccans have felt the need to express the difference between the HD and Satan because it has been accused? --Davémon 13:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. If I remember I'll have a look through my books. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture Representations

• 1967: The film The Devil Rides Out features a Devil which is based on the Horned God syncretism (based on the 1937 book of the same name)
• 1986: In the gaming merchandise related to Warhammer published by Games Workshop a race of mutant rat-people called Skaven worship a Horned Rat.
• 1988: The song "Horned is the Hunter" by thrash metal band Sabbat on the album A History of A Time to Come describes an un-named Horned God of Hunting.
• 1989: The comic book series 2000AD featured Sláine by Pat Mills and Simon Bisley features the Horned God in a major story-arc.
• 2002: the irish folk-metal band Cruachan feature a song called The Horned God on their albumn Folk Lore.
• 2004: The italian black metal band Death SS have a compilation album entitled The Horned God of the Witches released featuring an image of Baphomet on the cover.
• 20??: The [Wood Elf Orion] takes the form of the Horned God.

Hutton-centrism

I've just made some pretty big changes to the intro, and I'm sure a few people will be surprised. I've tried to make the supporting evidence clear, and have included a host of references, all from highly regarded academics. People like Bengt Ankarloo, Georg Luck, Keith Thomas and Eva Pocs are extremely well-regarded, and have written standard texts in their fields. If their opinions seem to contradict Ronald Hutton, around whose books this article seems to have been written, it's because they do.

Ronald Hutton has a habit of casting himself as one of an academic elite, and actually cites several of these authors in support of his theories, often misrepresenting their work in the process. Hutton's work can largely be seen as an extension of Norman Cohn, whose book Europe's Inner Demons Carlo Ginzburg has described as a 'polemic'. Far from presenting a synthesis of current academic consensus, Hutton's works stand apart as taking quite an extreme and minimalistic approach.

So I realise this may be a shock to those who have read Hutton but little else; what I've tried to do is restore some balance and make this article representative of wider academic opinion.

I've only attacked the lead section so far, and it may be a little to top heavy and go into too much detail regarding the witch-hunts and the survival of paganism; this is partly to demonstrate to other editors that I'm not off my rocker, and I would expect some of this text to move further down the article in future. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 23:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's good that other opinions than Huttons are being introduced to the article. Unfortunately naturalising those opinions isn't good, and makes it look biased. The history of the Horned God is created by several differening and conflicting viewpoints. The article must not priveledge any of those views over the others, but neutrally lay out what the sources say. Actually fleshing out what the witch-cult survival arguments are (rather than just citing them on one line) would help that a lot. --Davémon (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to make this into an article about survival of elements of pagan belief. That would be more appropriate elsewhere. I've only included enough to demonstrate to readers and other editors that another body of academic literature exists outside of Hutton, and provide a little context for this argument of a pagan god.

Note also that what I've added is actually not in as much conflict with Hutton as it would at first seem, since he only claims that "paganism" had entirely disappeared from everywhere except the very fringes of Europe; he doesn't give much attention to the possibility of pagan beliefs and practices persisting as folk magic or folk superstition within a Christianised society (at which time it's debatable whether they could be called 'pagan' or not — if the practitioners consider themselves 'Christian', who are we to contradict them?). The authors I've cited don't (mostly) call the activities of these accused witches 'pagan', but they do claim that their activities often originated in pre-Christian paganism and magic. When reading Hutton, one gets the impression that he is claiming a complete Christian holocaust of pagan-related beliefs between the 6th and 8th centuries, but in fact he only talks about paganism, not beliefs originating in paganism but practiced by people who were nominally Christian.

This is a subtle but important distinction, and hard to word clearly, I know. Unfortunately Hutton hasn't helped to make this gap in his discussion clear.

The main conflict with Hutton comes from the opening paragraph in which the "Horned God" is stated to be a syncretic god of late antiquity rather than a syncretic god of the 19th and 20th centuries. The scholar cited there is Professor Emeritus from Johns Hopkins University, Georg Luck:

"No one currently at work in ancient magic or related fields can remotely compare with Luck for the breadth and profundity of his knowledge of the literary texts... or for the humility and lightness of touch with which he conveys his scholarship." -- Daniel Ogden, Magic, Ritual, and Witchcraft.

So, if you want the arguments about survival from paganism fleshed out:

• Ginzburg charts the development of the Sabbath stereotype from pagan ecstatic shamanistic practices originating in ancient central Eurasia, with themes of leaving the body in spirit and battling for the fertility of the land, or congregating at feasts presided over by a goddess who would teach magic and give prophecies.
• Pocs, having conducted the largest single study of witch-trial documents, elaborates on this theme of leaving the body at particular times and communing or battling with various spirits, and again claims these are essentially pre-Christian beliefs and practices. She also demonstrates how little there was to distinguish a 'witch' from a 'healer' or wise-person, and one village's healer was often the next village's 'witch'.
• Wilby carries the same conclusions that Pocs came to with the Eastern European data over to England and Scotland; she demonstrates how closely witchcraft beliefs were tied up with the pre-Christian magical world and beliefs regarding fairies and the cult of the dead; she also demonstrates just how flimsy common people's grasp of Christianity was even by the Early Modern Age. She is particularly important in having demonstrated in the British data how little separated the cunning-folk from 'witches'; that both used the same techniques, both employed familiars, and both were often seen with ambivalence by others (as being capable of both beneficent and malevolent magic). The terms 'witch' and 'cunning man/woman' were interchangeable, and a large number of accused witches seem to have been cunning folk.
• Monter, looking at French white witches, identifies elements of paganism under a 'Christian veneer', such as the 'devils' encountered in the woods who he claims were pre-Christian deities, or the holy springs to which these witches sent customers for their health giving properties; the saints to which these springs were sacred were, he says, marely pagan deities in disguise.
• Erik Midelfort spends most of a chapter describing how the diabolical themes associated with the witches' sabbath began developing right from the first introduction of Christianity to Europe, based around pagan beliefs and practices re-cast in a negative light; he also shows how some of these practices persisted amongst the populace in the form of popular magic.
• Henningsen basically elaborates on Ginzburg, showing how elements of pre-Christian belief and fairy lore persisted in a fairly coherent structure that ultimately was cast as the 'witches' sabbath'.
• Thomas, author of the widely acclaimed magnum opus "Religion and the Decline of Magic", has charted, probably in the most detail, the persistence of folk magic techniques and superstions amongst common people, originating in paganism and contributing to the witchcraft stereotype.

Hope this clarifies things a bit. Fuzzypeg★ 23:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Hutton can be blatantly wrong. However, I think one of the issues here is that, without up front attributing theories to individuals and mixing various notions in a big line of references, you can easily arrive in the area of synthesis. I think it's wise to just present notions side by side or simply say "... theorizes otherwise, stating ..." and that "this notion is echoed by .... who states that ... but that ....". I'm a big supporter of stating attestations up front and then putting the rest in a well organized "theories" section or when necessary a "debate on ..." subsection - it makes it easier on those trying to edit the article and readers both. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say, that discussion about survivals of pagan belief is probably more than is appropriate, especially in the lead section. I'm happy for it to move or be trimmed down, and I intend to do so myself as I find time to make further changes to the article. If you want to pursue improvements in the meantime or try to trim that paragraph down, then be my guest.

I don't think what I've written regarding survivals from paganism constitutes OR, since all the cited authors quite explicitly claim such survivals from paganism — there's no synthesis in that. What is a little questionable is beginning this discussion about pagan survivals in the middle of the lead section of the Horned God article. It's not directly relevant to the Horned God, as evidenced by the fact that a lot of these authors aren't specifically discussing a Horned God, but rather survival of paganism and witchcraft in general.

I guess I was just trying to anticipate what arguments might be raised and give my evidence in advance. But I'm happy for that text to be relocated or even potentially removed. Fuzzypeg★ 01:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the ideas - and the Horned God is inextricably linked to the construction theories of the history of paganism, so some discussion is bound to come up in the article. The problem isn't the content itself, its just the way it has been presented as a Everyone vs. Hutton argument, rather than neutrally showing the views. It just needs a bit of clarifying, expanding and attributing. I'd rather see it fixed as Bloodofox suggests than removed. --Davémon (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Restructure

Right now, this article is very much centered around the concept of a horned god in Wicca. What would be far more useful is a listing of horned gods, a short paragraph about them with a {{main|...}} tag in their appropriate sections, a section regarding the medieval notion, and then whatever theories and modern beliefs centering around the notion of horned gods/horned god. In fact, perhaps the article should be moved to horned gods and the theory/belief of the god representing some sort of universal archetype be treated in its own section within the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would second that. I think Horned god is more appropriate than Horned gods (just as Deity is more appropriate than Deities), but I would make the subject of the article pluralistic, rather than trying to mash every horned god into a single syncretic deity. (Note my capitalisation of 'god' in my proposed title.) Highly syncretic Neopagan conceptions would be a subsection, as would the various theories about a universal 'horned god' archetype. And the conception of a syncretic god in late antiquity who became a god of 'witches', that would be another subsection. Fuzzypeg★ 01:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've finally gone through and built a basic skeleton that this article ought to logically flesh out around: the historical gods with horns and antlers and the singular "horned god"/baphomet that would later appear with Christianization and modern groups. Right now it's a bit of a mess, but, unfortunately, so are the current articles for the very interesting figures that are linked here. There's plenty to be said here: for example, the similarities between the depiction of "Cernunnos" from the Gundestrup cauldron found in Denmark and the "Pashupati Seal" is most striking. Note that these are also all Indo-European cultures currently listed here (minus the paleolithic cave art, obviously), and there's probably some interesting things out there on that. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! Getting the right structure in place is probably the most important thing at this stage, and you've done well. At some stage I might add the horned Dionysus. It's interesting that Prajāpati has been clearly linked with the Orphic Protogonos, an incarnation of the Orphic Zeus/Dionysus/Pan/Phanes/Eros. I read this in a MA thesis, but this is just an extension of comparisons made in a more reputable source: Martin West's Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient and Orphic Poems. There's probably plenty of other interesting material cited in that paper. Fuzzypeg★ 00:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, I am glad we can agree on a structure here then! A shame that the articles we're "main-linking" are in poor states. As a result, I say that we ought to just provide a basic summary of characteristics of each figure, then go into their depictions with horns or antlers on our own here. Let's just be sure to keep the theories cleanly separate from the primary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the new structure seems to be committing wp:syn and wp:or. By clumping together these 'horned gods' and folklore characters the article is naturalising the view that all these things are somehow connected. They aren't. Or at least the connection is somewhat disputed and to retain neutrality must make that clear. --Davémon (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing of the sort. This article is simply about figures with horns and/or antlers, whether culturally related or not. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In my opinion, the article is giving undue weight to one particular, disputed view of what 'The Horned God' means. Either way, Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and random list of entities with horns aren't wanted. --Davémon (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here, who decided that Hinduism, one of the Worlds 7 largest religions should be categorised as "folklore and paganism"? seems a rather strange and somewhat biased conclusion. And then paganism shouldn't be lumped in with folklore as they aren't exactly the same thing. --Davémon (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here. This article represents two distinct elements: gods with horns and antlers, and the development of the singular "horned god" that later came out of the European Middle Ages. Both are distinctly related, and, as I've mentioned before, comparisons between figures such as Cernunnos and Pashupti are rife. A simple Google books search reveals this: [1]. Try "Indo-European" and "Horned God": [2]. Basically, the article is simply not yet developed enough to indicate this, but these connections are commonly commented upon, which this article ought to explore. Like I said though, it's very important to keep theory clearly removed from primary sources and fact whenever possible.

The reason "folklore" is mentioned is due to the Herne reference. Yes, the section should be retitled with Hinduism in mind. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that Cernunnos and Pashupti are 'equated' but generally not by serious academics or historians. The theory that the singular horned god came out of the Middle Ages is heavily disputed. Therefore the connections you're implying are biased towards the 'there is a connection' and are not being made in a neutral way. In order to help maintain the neutrality of the article until the connections you are making by combining these two 'elements' can be done in a completely neutral, unbiased way, I suggest we remove the list. --Davémon (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Generally not by serious academics or historians"? You've at least taken a brief glance at Proto-Indo-Europeans, I hope? Then you'd realize how absurd this statement is. You should be immediately aware that there are all sorts of theories out there regarding the Indo-European connections between Celtic Cernunnos and Vedic Pashupati, both coming from Indo-European cultures, and thus sharing elements in their respective religions of their earlier Proto-Indo-European ancestors, which we can pretty easily produce plenty of scholarly theory on here. Again, a simple Google book search would aid you well here (and with that, as a general rule, to ignore all new age and Wiccan texts on these things). Basically, the entire article needs work, but the skeleton to work around is solid. What is not helping are the pop culture references you've instituted. They do not deserve their own subsections, nor anything more than a brief mention in a "popular culture" paragraph. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-Europeans is irrelevant, and makes no mention of a "horned god". Sky god, yes, horned god, no. And since when has wikipedia been a reliable source anyway? Find a reliable source for the comparisons and connections you're making. The context needs to be fleshed out - take "The Sorcerer" - who says that this figure is a supernatural entity? What relationships have been proposed between this figure and other depictions of horned people? Who made these suggestions, when? Without all of this information, the list just reads like a random directory. The structure is totally unsound and biased towards psuedo-history. --Davémon (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not using the article as a reference, I was pointing out your apparent lack of familiarity with the subject, which you seem to confirm with your "sky god" comment. In becoming more familiar with the subject, you'll discover such revelations that both Hinduism and Celtic polytheism originate from Proto-Indo-European culture. So does every other figure mentioned here, minus "The Sorcerer". Look into the subject, it is immensely interesting. Anyway, I am fine with the removal of "The Sorcerer" as it stands now, as it is paleolithic cave art and nothing else is known, but if the article were more highly developed, a properly sourced theory regarding the cave art would be important to include. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite a theory proposing a Proto-Indo-European Horned God, by all means, add that to the article - but simply claiming all these things come from a singluar hypothetical culture isn't enough to keep the content. As I said before the entire list should be removed until proper discussion and citations are cited. Perhaps you could work on the article in your user-space, rather than the main space until it is properly sourced? --Davémon (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said before the entire list should be removed until proper discussion and citations are cited. Then AfD it, already.--Vidkun (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the whole article! Just the random list of Gods that Bloodofox claimed at 16:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC) were not culturally related, and then at 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC) claimed are. Either they are 1) theoretically culturally related, therefore the list is biased to promoting that theory. Or they are 2) not culturally related, therefore they contravene Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. Either way, without proper cited reference to the debates around the underlying theory in the article they must be deleted. --Davémon (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, obviously, these cultures stem from a common origin (Proto-Indo-European) but obviously developed on their own thereafter, retaining many aspects of that Proto-Indo-European origin. The issue is digging up references that don't just list them together based off of a Proto-Indo-European "nature god" but specifically as gods with antlers and horns, and enduring wading through all of the new age and Wiccan nonsense throughout the process. I really don't have the time to do this (when I edit here I focus almost exclusively on improving our coverage of Germanic figures, and will continue to do so) but for anyone wanting to improve this article (now or however many years from now), there's a tip from bloodofox. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, proper research can be difficult, but it is the only way of actually improving any article. Do we have a consensus to remove the disputed content? --Davémon (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't have consensus for removing the list. I for one feel that it is useful and valuable. If nothing else, these figures are all named by the notable (but disputed) theory that they are historically linked, and that would be reason enough to have them in the article. But that's not all.

"Horned God" is a notable concept well recognised amongst mythographers and archeologists, and applied to regions as diverse as Cyprus, the Indus valley, France and the British Isles, and Syria. Whether or not they subscribe to theories of shared origins for some of these gods (and of course many do), they use this term widely, often as "the Horned God" (like a proper name) rather than just "horned god". This is especially the case where the precise identification of the deity is uncertain, or where the figure has locally become popularly known as "The Horned God", such as in Cyprus. Anne Ross discusses the Horned God in Iron Age Britain and its possible links with Roman religion in Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition (1967). The widespread and early importance of the horned god archetype in the near east is described by Claire Gottlieb in "Will the Real Moses Please Step Forward", reprinted in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century p. 129. There are plenty of other sources.

There's plenty of scope here for a decent article, offering the various theories about the meanings of horns (See Miranda Green, for instance, in Animals in Celtic Life and Myth, ch. 8), the proposed developments of various figures, the adoption of horns as a sign of divine office by near-Eastern rulers, etc., etc. A few of these theories will be controversial, but that's fine, Wikipedia can deal with that.

It is possible that a little more info could be added to the lead section to provide context for the list of deities that follows, and explain that while some scholars have attempted to find historical links between them, others merely class them in a "horned god" category without claiming they have any shared origin.

And remember, Davemon, this is not a race. It takes time to do research, and time to write a good article. As Bloodofox has pointed out, you seem unfamiliar with some pretty important aspects of this subject, and yet still seem willing to dismiss it out of hand, pushing hard to have quantities of text removed while they're still in formation. Cut us a bit of slack, please, and let us get on with improving the article. Fuzzypeg★ 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm tired of these wp:personal attacks, I am in no way unfamiliar with the subject. Indeed, both Fuzzypeg and Bloodofox seem to be campaigning for this article, in its current form, to represent ignorant, out-dated and thoroughly debunked pseudo-history and post-jungian new-age mumbo-jumbo. Quoting pre-1975 works to support the content is just showing ignorance of the current scholarship on the matter. Presenting the evidence used in that POV without proper cited analysis or context is breaking wp:neutrality. If you need time to develop the article - by all means work on it in your user-space, but the wikipedia main-space is not the appropriate place to just dump biased collections of 'facts' until someone gets around to fixing it.

The best way to satisfy the 'many things have been called a horned god' is actually to create a wp:disambiguation page for "horned god" (lowercase) and list all the random humanoid supernatural entities with horns from different cultures there, and leave the "Horned God" article to discuss the debates on how these have been promoted, seen to (and not to) inter-relate, and discussed by different historians, pseudo-intellectuals, authors and crackpots. That way proper weight is re-established in this article, and the function of directing users to a specific supernatural entity with horns they may be looking for is achieved. --Davémon (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"...and leave the "Horned God" article to discuss the debates on how these have been promoted, seen to (and not to) inter-relate, and discussed by different historians, pseudo-intellectuals, authors and crackpots." That's exactly what I'm proposing, and we don't need to excise information from the article to achieve this. The "proper cited analysis or context" you ask for is exactly what I suggested needed adding in my previous comment.

And please get off your high horse. You claim I have personally attacked you because I noted your seeming inability to comment on Indo-European studies, and then in the same breath you align me and bloodofox with ignorance and mumbo-jumbo, and toss in plenty of other words around such as "pseudo-intellectual" and "crackpot". You've been rude and disruptive ever since I pruned your list of pop-culture items in June 2007; your first act following that was to remove all uncited statements from the article, and much of your editing since then has made things difficult for me and other editors. Are you editing to prove a WP:POINT here?

I'm sure you have relevant expertise to contribute to the article, and critical editors can be very valuable in improving articles; but if you treat this as a battlefield rather than a collaborative community, we'd be far better off without you. Fuzzypeg★ 00:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to actually put some cited information based on the theory of an indo-european culture which directly comments on "The Horned God" into the article, that would be great. Far from being disruptive, removing uncited content is the right, nay, the duty of wikipedia editors:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. wp:v

I'm sorry you find me rude and you'll not be suprised to know that I find you likewise. If you don't mind community members actively upholding the values of the community and if we keep our comments to addressing the article, not the editor or other topics, then I'm sure we can all get along fine. --Davémon (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion is looking nasty... I've decided to join in with perhaps a fresh outlook to it. Why is there simply not room for both information on "horned deities", just as there is articles on sky deities, and solar deities, and on The Horned God of Wicca? Why not simply talk about both on this page, it'd help to ease this argument. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I've still got major bias issues with the random lisitngs of various Horned Gods, but the consensus seems that it is OK. The current version is much, much better than the bare list (but still needs sources) thanks Midnightblueowl. --Davémon (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why their necessarily has to be bias in listing horned deities. After all, we have pages on solar deities, or earth deities, why can't horned deities be treated in the same manner, in that they are linked by a theme, namely that of anthropomorphism of a horned kind. I believe bias would encroach if it were to be declared as a fact that all of these deities were either:

1. All adaptations on a proto-Indo-European deity.
2. All of them are really the pan-European Horned God from the witch cult ala a certain Dr Murray...
3. That they are all entirely seperate of one another with absolutely no link and anybody else who says differently is a silly nitwit.

We have to have nuetrality, though that doesn't mean the ample criticism that certain theories deserve shouldn't be expressed. And by listing the various deities, we are helping to lead on to why Murray thought what she did, because this evidence was there to be formed into theories like the Witches' Horned God or the proto-Indo-European horned deity. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't agree. Simply listing things strongly implies there is a 'category'. As far as I'm aware, "solar deity" is a category which is used in anthropology, and 'horned god' isn't, it's just a descriptor, like 'red car' or 'horned animal'. By us deciding what evidence to collect under a theme of 'anthropomorphism horned entity' - means we are deciding, and that is WP:OR. Having said that, the work here could lead to a very good disambiguation page, and possibly improve the articles for the individual gods. --Davémon (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But surely the fact that it was the existence all these deities that led to both the theory of the Horned God Witchcraft cult, (which has had serious effects in the formation of Wicca, one of the world's fastest growing religions), and the Proto-Indo-European horned god theory (that has yet to be mentioned on this page surprisingly), helps readers understand why these theories came about? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

Neither of the positions stated are sourced or expicity mentioned in the article, so rather than help the reader understand these positions, the article advances them without giving the reader the required critical tools to verify the validity or origin of those positions. Hence the bias/OR issue. Davémon (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Horned God" (singular) is a notable concept in and of itself, as popularised by Murray and still held as an article of faith by a very large number of neopagans. It is also notable as a (mainly historical) theory in academic fields of comparitive mythography and historical anthropology. To suggest that this article might "lead to a very good disambiguation page" (a rather back-handed compliment) is to ignore these areas of notability. Davemon has removed relevant, well-cited information about specific deities from the article, on the basis that it only relates to what he considers a historically inaccurate theory, and he feels that unless there is scholarly consensus on the connections between these various deities, placing them together in one article constitutes original research. He forgets that Wikipedia articles do not take sides and that even the most controversial theories can and should be fairly reported if they are notable. With, of course, clear explanation of the controversy.

The article as it stands clearly and fairly presents the controversies around any academic theory of a single Horned God; to then remove or restrict relevant, well-cited information regarding this theory would only serve as censorship. Fuzzypeg★ 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to focus your comments on the article, not the editor. --Davémon (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure that constitutes a personal attack Davemon, there was nothing specifically attacking you, just an acknowledgment of what you have done, and why Fuzzypeg disagrees. I think thay Fuzzypeg has a better argument here to be fair Davemon, though I understand your well-meaning motives. For instance, the "Adam and Eve" page doesn't spend a lot on trying to debunk it as a myth instead of being literal fact. All historical influential theories, however ridiculous, or however well debunked, still are of note. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

"He forgets that..." is a deliberate attack on my mental faculties, and rather acknowledging my contributions, it attempts to frame them in a completely unsupportable way. We can just say the post contains incivility and misrepresentation. Either way, it contains very little of relevance to improving the article. I'll support any proper, sourced, cited discussion of any influential theories on this subject. However, vague allusions to Indo-Aryan theories and claims that WP:N has anything to do with article content doesn't actually support the inclusion of the questionable material. If someone could actually provide the sources requested, then that content will stay, otherwise it will at some point be justifiably deleted as misinformation. Also as 'horned god' (general folklore term) and Horned God (Murray/Wicca specific term) are clearly different subjects, these should probably be split. --Davémon (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that there must be cited infomration regarding a proto-Indo-European horned god, and I have never come across such a source in any published information, though if Fuzzypeg, or anyone else for that matter, knows of such a source, I certainly believe that it deserves inclusion. I disagree with splitting this article into two, because, quite simply, the "Horned God" page would still have toi include a list of deities considered to be horned gods in order to explore why the theory arose. Regarding the "personal attack", I really don't want to get involved, can't you all just make-up and hug or something because it could soon descend into petty "Fuzzypeg knows absolutely nothing about modern historical theories showing he's a silly old fart" or "Davemon is so caught up in his anti-Murray, anti-Wiccan origins stance that I'm surprised that he isn't a fundamentalist Christian who'll call us all Satanists in a minute", which is AN ABSOLUTE NO-NO!!!! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

I don't think there are sources for an Indo-Aryan horned god. I think this falls into the "vague 'i heard it somewhere'" category - I've never come across this kind of reference in anthropology, mythology or folklore studies, If losing context for Murrays work is a concern, why not summarise the list she claims were ascendants of the "God of the Witches" in her book of that name and attribute the theory of decent to her? All the other deities could then move into their own article or a very useful disambiguation page. This would help remove the silent psuedohistory bias. --Davémon (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that I have seen sources talking about a Proto-Indo-Aryan source for horned deities, after all the depiction of a horned deity on the Pashupati seal and the Gundestrup cauldron do look pretty darn similar for two cultures that existed leagues apart. And if we were to list the deities that Murray claimed the Horned God had been based upon, wouldn't we be going back to the problem of just having a list of pointless deities? And I am not entirely sure that there is a "silent pseudohistorical bias" in this article. Murray's theories are largely debated, and a lot of good solid evidence has been brought to the contrary, but a number of modern scholars, such as Philip Heselton, still support it. If we were to purge such elements, wouldn't we be siding this article with Hutton and the rest of the anti-Murray supporters unfairly. I would suggest setting up, under the "The Horned God Theory" section, subsections titled "Murray's theory", which could also include those that supported, but adapted her theory, and then "Evidence For" and "Evidence Against". Then we truly would have an unbiased article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

There is no "PIE horned god" I know of. Look, this article isn't about "gods who have horns", it is about The Horned God of Murray's. In this sense, there is no "silent pseudohistorical bias": much rather, this is an article about a fringe theory, its pros and cons. Random gods who happen to have horns should go to a list of mythological hybrids, that's not the issue here. --dab (𒁳) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With the exception that showing evidence for a POV without explicitly describing that theory or context biases the article towards that POV. --Davémon (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have my concerns, but I'll go along with the concensus, as long as a link can be provided between that list of deities, and this article, after all, for many Neopagans (see The Witches' God by the Farrars), all the horned deities are seen as emanations of one aspect of divinity. Meanwhile, I am concerned that this article is going to end up more about The Witch-Cult hypothesis than the actual Horned God. Maybe this page needs splitting even further. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

I'm happy with Dbachman's suggestion that "this is an article about a fringe theory", since I haven't managed to put much time into research, and the main thing I've found so far is Timothy Taylor's connection between the Gundestrup cauldron depictions and Indian deities. Research takes time, and the University Library is out of my way. I also agree entirely with Davemon's suggestion that giving evidence for a hypothesis without naming that hypothesis or providing contextual information leads towards unacceptable POV. There needs to be sufficient explanation that the Horned God is a historical and controversial theory.

I would like to get this article to the stage where we can resume adding cited, relevant information without it being immediately reverted under accusations of POV-pushing. If we can agree that this article is about a fringe theory, and write it on that basis, then at least we should be able to write something without the threat of our efforts being effaced in the name of NPOV, or the entire article being turned into a dab page!

And Davemon, I wasn't attempting to cause personal insult; I was merely trying to describe what I disagreed with in your editorial actions and why. Decent well-researched writing takes time and effort while deletion takes comparatively little — not no effort, and I know you're fairly well-read and are applying a critical mind here, and actually checking sources when you can — but perhaps I can repeat a statement I made to you over a year ago: "please make sure you're improving the article rather than just diminishing it". It's hard to convey tone in written text, but I'm not attempting any kind of sarcasm or point-scoring here — I just want to have an agreed-upon structure that I can start adding information to without it being immediately deleted. Fuzzypeg★ 04:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this most certainly is about a fringe theory. Or is it? Indeed, I worry that this article could become too much about Murray's Witch Cult hypothesis and not about the Horned God that she alleged was central to the cult. Really, we need a new page about the Witch Cult, in fact, I might start it, if anyone wants to come along, and help out? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Yes research takes time. Adding unresearched or uncited material is simply not acceptable - this, I hope, we can all agree on, as it's one of the fundamental tenets of our community. The debate isn't really about WP:OR - the removal of which always benefits an article. The problem is the structure is not right - the subject of the article is not "random deities depicted with horns" - it is Murray/Gardners Horned God. I agree many neo-pagans hold to a post-jungian 'archetype' model of deities - but this isn't covered in the article and should be, and it must be properly cited. The random list of gods doesn't help make the belief in the archetypal nature of the deity clear. Nor does it help explain Murrays Horned God historical origin theory (published a considerable amount of time after her witch cult theory). Indeed, it detracts from these central themes. Basically unless the article cites that deity X is representative of Horned God Archetype, or that deity Y was historically antecendant of the Horned God - they aren't verifiably relevant to the subject. Until they are cited, they should be removed. --Davémon (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The witch-cult hypothesis was a valid possiblity in the 19th century, I suppose, but it has since been fully discredited, and isn't tenable as a valid theory today. It is of interest in the context of occultism, neopaganism, and of historical Romanticist scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Davemon, I agree with virtually everything that you have said in that last message, except for " Until they are cited, they should be removed" - I, and, most probably Fuzzypeg too, will try our best to find such sources as soon as possible, and it does not help in the least if the material that we are sourcing has dissapeared in the meantime.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Well, WP:OR and WP:V supports the removal of material until it is cited. The burden of evidence is on editors adding material, not those challenging it. The issue has been raised over a month ago, which is more than a reasonable enough time to find and add sources. I've seen no reason citing policy or reliable sources why this material must remain in this article, so it will be removed. We'll have to take this to an RfC if editors insist on adding content to the article which is not verifiably related. --Davémon (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Horned Deities List Split

Let's reach a clear consensus on dealing with the list of horned gods, please breifly state what should be done and why:

• Split to list_of_legendary_creatures_by_type. The list can never be exhaustive (so isn't strictly encyclopedic), the broad category 'horned god' only relates to the core subject of this article 'horned god of Murray/Wicca' in a minor way. The cited material on the individual deities should be integrated into their individual articles. --Davémon (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Do Not Split to list_of_legendary_creatures_by_type - there just isn't concensus for it. As Fuzzypeg and bloodofox have shown, there is some validity for keeping this list, as integrated in paragraph forms, in this article, for the following reasons:
  • If it goes, it will have to come back: If it was to be deleted from this page, it would soon be back again, because we would have to say something like "Murray and her supporters brought about her theory of a pan-European Horned God based witch-cult after looking at the similar physical attributes of deities like Cernunnos, Pan, Faunus, Pashupati [etc, etc], and the illustration of the Sorceror". In this way, the list would remain, but in a form where the very fact that they were each associated with different things and the differences between them would not be mentioned, possibly making this page unfairly lopsided in favour of the Murray theory.
  • Anti-Murrayism : I fear that by deleting the list, we are unfairly taking the side of Hutton and his supporters who oppose Murray. We would be deleting a key piece that the Murray hypothesis relied on. Basically, we would be committing a Wiki No-No - this page would take the view that Murray was wrong. Granted, much evidence has been brought up to the contrary of the theory, but Hutton isn't 100% factually definitely right. He has a theory, and so did Murray.

For these reasons, and others, that I believe others shall be better at explaining, I have come to my decision. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

I do think we need a separate horned deity aricle. Any item that can be shown to bear relation to Murray's theory may still be discussed here, within the context of the theory. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Support the creation of a new article. If 'horned deity' as a specific concept (rather than a commonly used noun/adjective pair like 'horned animal') is found in reliable academic sources, outside of recourse to Murrays theory and the subject thus passes wp:n, then that solves the problem. --Davémon (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was more thinking along the lines of "horned deity" as a compositional expression, while "Horned God" clearly isn't. Not sure about WP:N at this point, but there can always be a list of horned deities, even if as a section redirect to a sublist of list of deities or similar. --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't split. Most, possibly all of the deities mentioned (and many of the deities already removed by Dbachmann and Davemon, despite protests from other editors) are examples of the Horned God throughout history cited by Margaret Murray (The God of the Witches, Ch. 1), and are thus not a "random list of gods" but are indeed "verifiably relevant to the subject" (I'm quoting back Davemon's words from 23:00, 13 Nov 2008). I also note, Davemon, that while you now seem in favour of creating a horned deity article, you previously argued strongly against such a grouping of unconnected divinities: "the new structure seems to be committing wp:syn and wp:or. By clumping together these 'horned gods' and folklore characters the article is naturalising the view that all these things are somehow connected. They aren't" and: "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and random list of entities with horns aren't wanted." You realise that this bizarre about-face is yet a further obstruction to attempts by Bloodofox, Midnightblueowl and me to add information to the article, and regardless of whether or not you intend it as such, you should realise how infuriating it is.

This article right here is the appropriate place to discuss these various horned deities and their potential connections as argued for or against by notable authors, whether now considered mainstream or fringe. This includes Margaret Murray but need not be limited to her or defined by her work, since the concept of a cross-cultural or archetypal Horned God has continued in popular use (and in some scholarly theory) up to the current day. Fuzzypeg★ 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You still keep addressing arguments at me despite repeated requests. It frames your entire argument as an ad-hominem, which doesn't help make your point clear. I do not unequivicably support a "horned deity" article, that again is misrepresentation on your part. Read my comment again. If editors spent less time 'protesting' and more time citing sources, they'd find they had less to protest about.

There is simply no need to list every deity Murray listed in any encyclopedia article, in fiction articles, this would be swiftly identified as being excessive detail. It's enough for the general reader to have her theory paraphrased and then use reliable, independant sources to elaborate on it, where they have shed light on her theory or the choice of depictions she decided were related. --Davémon (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolving editorial disputes

Davemon, you have asked me to stop talking to you, but there are some real problems occurring in this article and this talk page, and we need to sort them out. You also told me I am uncivil and am misrepresenting your position, and I'm sorry, this has not been my intention.

I'm not attempting to be uncivil. What I'm attempting to do is get you to realise, in the most civil way I can, that your edits here are obstructing the attempts of other well-meaning authors to improve the article, and are likely to cause a good deal of frustration and annoyance. You're playing hard and fast; many of your edits are deletions or threats of deletion; and you're not leaving the latitude to other editors that is considered normal practice in Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with WP:DISRUPT (particularly WP:DISRUPT#Signs of disruptive editing and notes relating to tendentious editing, hostile cite-tagging, threats of large-scale deletion and disregard for consensus-building); disruption may not be your intention, but it is the natural result of such aggressive editing.

For example, you unilaterally removed the Dionysus-related material I added to the article, only 4 days after I added it, your edit comment being "removed unsourced and biased disambiguation material". It was indeed well sourced, and your claim of "bias" rested, if I understand your comments above, on your position that Dionysus and the other gods in the list were not "theoretically culturally related" and that no references establishing their relevance to the Horned God theory would be forthcoming. But you refused to allow us time to work on this. You asked for consensus to remove the content, and when you found that no other editors were in support you deleted it anyway. In situations of dispute, it is considered normal good practice to leave the article as it is and not edit until consensus can be reached. This article is not a living person's biography, so there is no need for such urgency.

I gave my reasons for not removing the list of gods, and asked for more time to improve things. Rather than address my concerns, you accused me of personal attack, and in the same breath said that I "seem to be campaigning for this article, in its current form, to represent ignorant, out-dated and thoroughly debunked pseudo-history and post-jungian new-age mumbo-jumbo. Quoting pre-1975 works to support the content is just showing ignorance of the current scholarship on the matter." (Whatever you thought my personal attack was, please compare it with that and reconsider!) Now in a way you're quite correct: I am, as you claim, campaigning for the article to represent *expletive* *expletive* mumbo-jumbo, i.e. to represent the horned god theory — that's what the article is about! The fact that this theory is academically disputed and you consider it mumbo-jumbo is no reason to exclude it or any relevant, notable and verifiable material on the subject from Wikipedia. We must explain its disputed nature, of course, and detail the criticisms levelled at it, but beyond that, we should be free to resume working on the article without your threat of unilateral deletion hanging over our work.

Because the accepted civil approach to editing is to stop and discuss when there is dispute, most of us have stopped editing and are trying to clear up the dispute so we can continue. During this phase it is quite reasonable, indeed essential, to discuss each other's positions, so please don't take offense. I'm not attacking you. I'm also trying really hard not to misrepresent your arguments. Yes, I was aware of your caveat to splitting out a "Horned deity" article: that 'horned deity' should be a specific concept (not just a compositional expression) used in reliable academic sources — indeed that was part of what I was arguing (22:55, 8 Oct 2008) when you dismissed me out of hand, yet you were happy enough to support this same structure later, when you thought Dbachmann was suggesting it. I don't think I misrepresented you, but if I did, it's a simple mistake as easily made by you (regarding blodofox's position) as any other in what is, to be fair, a complex and shifting argument. Please don't interpret it as malice.

So, we need to reduce the complexity and "shiftingness" here, and get some clarity. I will try to summarise the key points we agree or disagree on. Please comment on what you think I've misunderstood, or if there are key points that I'm missing:

1. We all agree this is an article about a fringe theory.
2. We all agree that the hypothesis/hypotheses of this theory, along with surrounding controversy and arguments, need to be clearly explained.
3. We all agree that any theories, details, deities etc. mentioned must be notably relevant to this fringe theory and not included merely to support an unstated 'hidden' hypothesis (per WP:SYN).
4. We seem to have no clear consensus on which authors are relevant to this fringe theory: I propose it is not just Murray, Gardner and their detractors, but all who discuss the concept of a cross-cultural or archetypal Horned God; I sense you and perhaps Dbachmann might include less, and this is an important point to be clear on, since you have repeatedly threatened to delete everything in the article that is not relevant.
5. We disagree on whether listing and detailing the various gods and folkloric figures involved in the theory is "excessive detail".
6. We disagree on whether notable theorists or their work dating from pre-1975 should be mentioned in the article (although presumably you allow Murray and Gardner).
7. We disagree on whether theories that make no mention of Gardner or Murray may be mentioned in the article, even if they specifically address the relationships that Gardner and Murray proposed between the various deities.

Let's try to establish our positions clearly, then work out our differences until we can reach some kind of agreement. And let's have no more deletions until we've had a good crack at it. Fuzzypeg★ 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoisting Davemon's interjections (and Vidkun's reply) out of the middle of my comment, so that authorship doesn't become confusing in future, and so that the numbered list works correctly: (Fuzzypeg★ 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

Your "normal good practice" is not policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemon (talk • contribs)

No, but it does follow the suggestions of the essay bold, revert, discuss, which is intended to help further the policy of consensus. This is beginning to look like an edit war with Fuzzypeg on one side trying to get source material, and Davemon on the other deleting everything that Fuzzypeg adds. I'd request you all get someone neutral to look at this, and leav it alone for now.--Vidkun (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have failed in my search for the relevant guidelines, and it seems I am working on the basis of outdated information. The 3RR guideline used to strongly recommend no more than a single revert, and I'm sure there were similar recommendations in other related guidelines, but they've now changed and I'm happy to concede the point. I think many editors still operate on the basis of WP:DEADLINE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:DEMOLISH, though. Fuzzypeg★ 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I finally found it. WP:DR#Discuss: "Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself". So it is indeed policy. I, however, am just as sick as you of arguing over editor actions, so I'd like to focus as much as possible on article content and policy. Hopefully you will find this more amenable. Fuzzypeg★ 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Point 4: This must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis:

• if someone says "this is an aspect of the archetypal Horned God" then that is clearly relevant to the archetypal theory (still not described in the article BTW, so until that is actually sourced /described is off-limits), or if they say "is related to the Horned God of Wicca/Murray" then thats fine.
• if someone says "this horned god." then they're probably just using a common noun/adverb pair - claiming this is definately related to Murrays Horned God fails WP:V
• If someone says "deity x looks like deity y" and mentions neither Murray/Wicca nor any Archetype theory, then it's not relevant. Relating these to the Horned God of Murray is WP:SYN

Point 5: wP:UNDUE - this article isn't just about Murrays mistaken historical origin theory. We should paraphrase, not copy-paste chapter 1 of "Horned god of witches", and give proper context from reliable sources who have discussed her theory.

Point 6: No, of course cites from all times can be added to the article if done properly. I.E. as per WP:FRINGE their acceptance within academia is mentioned, or is part of the 'acceptance'. You're confusing the article with the talk-page discussion.

Point 7: Clearly unless they state it is related to an Archetypal horned deity concept, or Murrays Horned deity then this isWikipedia:SYN.

Added point 8: We agree that the Horned God of Murray is the antecendant of the Horned God of Wicca, and when we refer to them we refer to the same concept, and that this is the subject of the article.

I hope this helps. By referencing policy this gives us a solid ground for discussion rather than just it being about opinions. Davémon (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fuzzypeg. Your continual re-framing of the problems with this page as being about my behaviour is out of hand. Stop trying to reframe, recontextualise, paraphrasing and quoting out of context my discussion with yourself and others and let it stand. Your theory of "normal editing" is not supported by policy, and is simply an attempt to frame my behaviour as "abnormal" and therefore in some way wrong. That is malicious, disruptive, incivil and pointless.

The problem with the article is simply this:

The list of random deities in this article is not verifiably relevant to the subject by recourse to reliable sources WP:V, is therefore misleading and must be removed.

Where Murray has listed certain deities - we must paraphrase this (not simply repeat) and it has to be given context as provided by independant third party sources, not Murray herself or unrelibale sources WP:WEIGHT.

Further, the notion of an "archetypal theory" is being bandied about - this must be fully explained, sourced, cited and referenced in the article before it can be used as a caveat to add discursive or descriptive content WP:OR.

That is my position on the article, put as clearly as I can. Davémon (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have conceded your point about editing during dispute (see my comment above). I can no longer find the relevant guidelines, but I still believe a less adversarial approach is the key to getting this resolved with less effort and much less emotional drain. I shall do my best at this, and whether or not you choose to do the same, at least you might hopefully feel a bit better about my actions. Enough on that, then. Right now I'm going to figure out how to request an admin to supervise things, and then I'll try to address your points. Fuzzypeg★ 01:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Horned_God on the relevance of sources that don't specifically mention Murray or Gardner; feel free to comment there and correct any mistakes I may have made. Leave your comments and corrections beneath my post. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 04:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an WP:RFC would be a good start to the wp:dispute resolution process. The discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Horned_God doesn't address the problem that the article contains a collection of content I think should be removed that others think should be kept. Also I really do feel that the burden of evidence is on those wanting to add the content, that this is supported by policy and is non-negotiable. Therefore the discussion should really be framed around "what do we need to do to include this content?" - which is a more constructive and creative position than the current binary "delete/keep" argument. To achieve that positive framework, the disputed content initially needs to be removed. Maintaining the status quo of the article over the past month has not resulted in the section being better sourced, or it's relationship to The Horned God of wicca being better explained, it's just generated pointless argument on the talk-page. Now is time to change approach. --Davémon (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to open an RFC that's fine. I'd personally wait until we've received guidance on WP:SYN, since that will simplify the issue greatly, but go ahead if you want to. I agree with WP:BURDEN and I'm not attempting to negotiate policy. I don't agree that disputed content needs initially to be removed before it can be improved; you'll need to provide some support for that. I'll try to address your numbered points above now:

Point 4:

• "Archetypal horned god" hypotheses mostly occur in neopagan/Wiccan literature. I consider them relevant to the article.
• "Horned god" when used simply as a compositional phrase is not enough to establish relevance to this article (in agreement with DBachmann).
• If a reliable source says "deity x is historically related to deity y" and this same relationship between x and y has been proposed by a Horned God theorist, that should allow inclusion in the article. By "Horned God theorist" I mean Murray or Gardner or any other notable writer who syncretises roughly the same set of gods, or holds them to be historically related. Hopefully we'll receive guidance on this subject of WP:SYN.

Point 5: I would consider WP:UNDUE if this article were about a different subject, and the Horned God theory was only being mentioned as a sideline; however the Horned God theory is what this article is about, and describing it in detail is not giving it "undue weight".

Point 6: Great, glad to see we're in agreement on this one then.

Point 7: George Luck tells us how a Celtic horned deity and the Greco-Roman Pan were syncretised and the resulting horned god became a rallying point for the pagani and the prototype for depictions of the Christian devil, his followers accused of witchcraft. He doesn't mention Murray or Gardner, or make any kind of reference to a theory of an archetypal horned god. Yet to me it would clearly not be synthesis to mention his account in the context of Murray's almost identical account. Of course we are currently awaiting guidance on this at WP:ORN, so we'll see what they think.

Point 8: I see no reason to hold as an article of faith that the Wiccan Horned God derives from Murray. For a start many neopagans consider the Horned God to pre-exist both these authors. Furthermore, some Wiccans and neopagans believe that the Wicca that Gardner popularised was indeed a surviving witchcraft tradition. It seems very probable that Wicca took its Horned God from Murray, and we can cite people like Ronald Hutton for this, but to assert it as bald fact is unnecessary and breaks neutrality. Apart from that, I agree that the concept of a Horned God is shared by a number of different authors and belief systems including Murray, Gardner and Wicca (see my definition of "Horned God theorist" in point 4 above).

Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

4 If a reliable source says "(A) {x = y}" and if another source says "(B) {x = y} " We can not say that A=B. This is not only basic logic (see fallacy of composition) but it is also the very definittion of WP:SYN. A source must be explicit itself in saying A = B - we must stick to what the source actually says and not conject as you propose.

5 Article is Horned God. Not "the theory of historical origins of the Horned God". There are the archytpal, jungian, new-age, historical and literary aspects to go in the article. Devoting large amounts of space to a random list of things depicted with horns tangentally related to one theory of supposed historical origins is undue weight, and giving large amounts of space to Murrays list is not only wp:undue but also wp:bias towards an outdated and incorrect theory, and it is not required in order to explain that theory.

7 I don't think attempting to create general ruling on wp:or/wp:syn is a good idea. If anything the outcome just going to be a case of "who turns up on the day". Policy is already in place, and each case must be looked at if and when challenged, on an individual, case-by-case basis. I don't think anyone is specfically challenging Luck right now. If/when he is challenged, then we can discuss his case.

8 "Many neopagans consider the Horned God to pre-exist both these authors." Neopagans are not reliable sources for historical theory. We can say "neopagans believe XYZ" if we can find reliable sources (i.e. from academics working in the field of social anthropology etc.) that say what it is that they believe in a new-age or wiccan section. It would be a useful addition to the article.

While some editors disagree with the removal of the content, no case has been put forward citing policy to keep it. The content has been challenged for over a month, and no sources have been added that state these deities are related in any way to the Horned God. Basically the content can be removed under WP:OR as it is not verifiably related to the subject of the article - i.e. they are not related to any theory of a Horned God in the sources given.Davémon (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloodofox, Midnightblueowl and I have each put forward a case to keep the disputed content, and the current debate is part of that case. There are still points I have raised (8 Oct) that you have so far failed to address, instead labelling me as ignorant, followed by a string of expletives about crackpots and mumbo-jumbo. In your comment above (re. points 5 and 8) you again ignore the important and already agreed-on point (point 1) that this article is about a fringe theory. WP:UNDUE contains nothing which could lend it to the interpretation you're trying to give it. Please quote the section of policy you feel is at issue here, and while you're finding your quote, be sure to check the paragraph beginning with "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia."

I have also read WP:SYN and feel you're similarly misapplying it. The original research noticeboard is the appropriate place to ask for guidance on the interpretation of this policy, and the people "who turn up on the day" there will be experienced, informed people able to help us out. Giving some credit to the guidance process would also go some way to demonstrating good faith in this debate.

Far from us having failed to argue a case, I see your case now hanging on some rather improbable interpretations of two policies. I also noticed that following my mention of Timothy Taylor at WP:ORN you made edits to the Gundestrup cauldron article to distance Taylor from any Celtic interpretations of the cauldron's depictions, and thus from the concept of a pancultural horned deity. I have partially reverted your edits, which attributed your own theories to Taylor, and I ask you in future not to arbitrarily rewrite well-cited information without recourse to the source documents. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 00:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the ad-hominems. If you'd like to discuss the misrepresentation of Taylor in the Gundestrup Cauldron article the right place is on Talk:Gundestrup cauldron, rather than here. Meanwhile, quoting WP:UNDUE:

• must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. - this is precisely what the random list of deities does. The majority view of reliable sources is that this list represents bad, througly debunked pseudohistory.
• Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to,

• depth of detail, - Check. detail on each god is not required to understand the psuedohistory, nor archetype concepts.
• quantity of text, - Check. huge amounts of the page are dedicated to the list.
• prominence of placement, - Check. Prefixes the entire article.
• and juxtaposition of statements. - Check. By listing them all together without context creates wp:bias towards an uncited bunch of theories, including rejected historical origins.

Re points 5 and 8 - wp:fringe does not negate WP:V. We still need to use WP:RS when discussing fringe theories and the context in which they are presented in needs to reflect the views of mainstream scholarship.

The problem is that the list is not verifiably related to the subject in reliable sources and therefore should be removed from this article. All other problems stem from this fact. The discussion at original research noticeboard#horned god does not actually address this problem, therefore is not part of a process of resolving this dispute. Yes cases have been put forward, but no case has been put forward citing policy to keep the content.Davémon (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You call it "bad, thoroughly debunked pseudohistory"; I call it "fringe theory"; regardless, it's not a problem in Wikipedia as long as it's not dressed up as fact. Now, none of the quotes you have provided us with from WP:UNDUE relate to this article, since this article is an exception case within that policy, and is provided for by the following paragraph:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

There are still stylistic issues to consider, such as structure of the article, how to best ensure context is clear, and so on. I would probably have this list of deities further down, for instance, but I haven't been editing while this debate is running. These stylistic issues have nothing to do with the clauses you've raised from WP:UNDUE, though.

You say wp:fringe doesn't negate WP:V, and we still need reliable sources for providing context — of course, I agree; I'm not sure what you're getting at here. And yes, we need to reflect mainstream scholarship, but that doesn't mean we can't also describe the fringe theory that the article is about.

You say "the list is not verifiably related to the subject in reliable sources": Huh? Rephrased, you seem to be saying we don't know for sure if Murray, Gardner etc. linked these particular gods together, because no-one more reliable says they did. I seem to recall Ronald Hutton does in fact mention several of these gods in his discussion of Murray, but that should be neither here nor there. We know from Murray's, Gardner's (etc.) writings what their theories consist of. Common sense would suggest we should be allowed to source from them when writing about them, and indeed policy supports this: WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. Fuzzypeg★ 03:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've opened a request for help at WP:FTN#Horned God, to hopefully resolve this question of undue weight. Feel free to comment there. Fuzzypeg★ 03:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE: 'Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Murrays historical-origins theory has been rejected, is considered absurd and is only of historical interest. We therefore have to look to reliable sources, Hutton, Cohn and many many others to describe this in the article. Listing out the 'evidence' she created for her theory in the "Horned Deities" section breaks the advice given as to how rejected theories should be handled. Of course if we need to cite "Murray thought X" then we can cite Murray, it is precisely this which wp:fringe usefully protects.

The section "Development" is a good model of how the theory should be treated, especially the 2nd and 4th paragraphs. These use reliable sources to explain what is currently thought of Murrays evidence. The non-discursive context-free list obscures this by re-presenting errornous and rejected evidence as 'encyclopedic content' - not in the proper context of explaining 'a rejected (fringe) theory'. We need to describe the theory, not repeat it. --Davémon (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(Remember, there are plenty of neopagans who revere the Horned God, so the theory is not only of historical interest!)

I agree we need adequate framing (clear description of the criticisms of the theory and its current scholarly standing), and have said so repeatedly. Given such framing, from reliable sources, we are then at liberty to describe the important features of the Horned God theory, as described by Murray, Gardner and others. WP:FRINGE#Independent sources describes this approach in a nutshell.

The context of the Horned God#Horned deities list is already given by the lead, although I agree the list itself needs improvement to clarify how the deities fit into the Horned God theory (in its various forms). I've been holding off editing though, since you're threatening further large deletions, claiming the list is already undue weight and synthesis (I don't agree). All your edits and arguments seem aimed at minimising coverage of the theory and passing judgement on it as "crackpot mumbo-jumbo". I feel it should be approached neutrally. I can see nothing in any of the policies you've cited that should prevent us discussing the various gods and how they fit into the theory, at length. Fuzzypeg★ 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"discussing the various gods and how they fit into the theory, at length". I agree we should be doing exactly that (although I'd say "theories" not "theory"). That is not what the list is doing. Nor does having the list there faclilitate this occuring. One sentance at the top of the list does not create context. The context iscreated by citing second pary sources and accurately reflecting what the sources say. The Development section is doing this properly, the list of Horned Deities is not. The list is currently wp:bias and wp:syn, properly cited discussion as per "Development" is unlikely to have these problems. There may be wp:undue problems in the future with overly focusing on Murrays historical-origins theory but we also have comentators such as Luck who provide (slightly) different historical-origins theories which (providing sources allow) should be used to balance-out Murrays debunked ideas. --Davémon (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My requests for guidance at WP:ORN and WP:FTN have not received much in the way of replies (although the replies we did get supported my position). I'm hoping third time will be lucky, and I've asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism#Dispute at Horned God. Hopefully this will get a decent response rather than just spilling the argument onto yet another page. Fuzzypeg★ 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The replies do not support the retention of the list as it stands. I'm not sure anyone (apart from us) is really that interested. I've clarified the situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism#Dispute at Horned God, but we might have to try a few different wikiprojects (history etc.) to get a more general sample of opinion. --Davémon (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me, if you want to open some more discussions.

I've checked Hutton and can only find specific mentions of a few of these deities/figures: Pan, Cernunnos, Dhu'l Karnain (Alexander) and "every prominent representation of a horned god in European or Near Eastern art and literature" (Triumph p. 196). Margaret Murray, on the other hand, mentions most of these deities in The God of the Witches, but not, as far as I can tell, the Nigerian or American ones, nor Cocidius (though with her index being so shoddy, it's hard to be sure). These figures appear in more modern neopagan literature. All of these figures may be discussed in the article, cited to Murray or to the various neopagan authors, per WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources.

If you feel a new article Horned deities is deserved and you can find evidence of notability, by all means go ahead and create it. I've already provided a few sources further up this page that you might like to follow up on; I note however that in a previous incarnation of the article we were trying to achieve just such a structure, keeping the syncretic Horned God theory isolated in one section, but you deleted most of what we had, arguing that these gods were only connected by pseudohistory. If you've now changed your mind, great, but remember that creating your new article does not require deleting material from this article.

And sure, I can start adding citations to the article and making improvements. In that case, please don't delete cited text without first seeking consensus. It's dispiriting, adding well-referenced text only to have it deleted immediately on debatable grounds.

(Part of this post is in response to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism#Dispute at Horned God.) Fuzzypeg★ 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool. The deities are only related by pseudo-history (and an archetype theory which isn't cited). However the Horned Deities article does not need to show that they are related to each other as it is a broad category of artifacts which covers them all (assuming wp:n allows). Horned God is a specific cultrual artifact. Anyway it sounds like we have a way forward. What I propose we do is:

• 1) Start the "Horned Deities" article. (I don't know how to do that, there is a redirect in the way - Help!).
• 2) Put the list of "Horned Deities" into the "Horned Deities" article.
• 3) Remove the "Horned Deities" list from the "Horned God" article.
• 4) Start the process of adding information on the different deities to the "Horned God" article, making sure each one is properly sourced etc.
• 5) Add the missing cites to the "Horned Deities" article.
• 6) Check/fix "Horned Deities" article so it satisfies wp:n.

No sourced content need be deleted. Hope we can all agree on that. --Davémon (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not cool. As I said, there's no call to remove the listed deities from this article; also, I'd like you to provide evidence of wp:n before you create the new article, since you convinced me of the error of the article's previous structure. You said: "By clumping together these 'horned gods' and folklore characters the article is naturalising the view that all these things are somehow connected. They aren't", and "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, and random list of entities with horns aren't wanted". Also, please explain why you have now so dramatically changed your opinion, after putting us to so much trouble? Surely you can see how annoying this might be, and I'd like to know why you're doing this. Fuzzypeg★ 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Way cool! I think we actually have the same goals in mind, but just don't agree on how to get there. The figures aren't connected, and would not need to be connected in a horned deities article. "Horned deities" may be too loose a category to survive wp:n, my opinion is that it wouldn't pass, others may differ. My opinion may change. Either way, the list of deities as it stood won't be in this article, and thats the main thing. The process of change has begun and Fuzzypeg has started editing the article so I take it that the stale-mate has been broken. Some proper soruces have been added and I've placed it into it's proper context. Perhaps if we work on the article itself and pause to discuss specific disagreements when they arrise then we'll make real progress with it. Cheers! --Davémon (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't effectively edit the article while you're edit warring with me! Your deletions of material I've added, just after I've added it, are exactly why I haven't been editing during this debate. You've managed to cajole me into resuming improvements to the article, and as soon as I started, you deleted most of my additions, despite my specifically requesting that you not do so! (01:18 2 Dec 08)

Your supposed "deletion of duplicate material" made no attempt to preserve information and references that in fact were not duplicated anywhere else in the article. Also, the fact that I've just started adding some references doesn't mean that anything else unreferenced in the article should be immediately deleted. Have you considered that this might be a work in progress? That I might not fix the article in a single day? Your edits are not improving the article, but merely WP:DISRUPTing the regular editing of others. Indeed, you effectively derailed a drive by Bloodofox to overhaul the article, and we've been in a stalemate since. I'll repeat the words of User:Kim Dent-Brown, a year and a half ago: "Please! No more!!" Fuzzypeg★ 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You deleted content rather than moving it to relevant pages on the individual deities, or on the collective-noun page. You added content about 'folklore' figures to a list of 'deities'. This has just got to stop. Can you please cite anything you add to the article to reliable sources which directly relate to the topic of the article? All I'm asking is for the basic editorial standards to be upheld. As of my edits today all the content is cited in an accurate way.

Can we please try to start from here and move forward? Thanks. --Davémon (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Horned Deities Chronology Geography

Chronolagising or sub-setting this section is problematical - we don't have sources that say when Pashupati or Ikenga started to be workshipped, and they remain relevant to this day. I'm not sure 'Medieval' is a concept we should be applying to African or Indian culture. Does anyone have a better suggestion for organising it? --Davémon (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By continent? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

I like the geographical divisions. Wicca and Hinduism are popular on several continents, so I think we should mention somewhere that the categories are based on the first-recording of their deities. Otherwise I've also separated Europe and Asia - 'Eurasia' isn't as commonly used, and subsectioned Middle East as it's a culturally/historical significant region distinct from Asia. --Davémon (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wicca and Hinduism are popular on several continents" is a rather sweeping claim to say the least. Hinduism has 1 billion adherents, Wicca 1 million. Hindus are predominantly found in India, Wiccans are predominantly found in the western industrialized countries. Hinduism is a huge cultural umbrella term, Wicca is a 50-odd year old nrm. dab (𒁳) 17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize that horned deities may be less ubiquitous than the article would have us believe. The Aztec "two large protrusions" seem hardly relevant. This leaves us Europe and the Mediterranean, perhaps the Ancient Near East (?) and maybe Sub-Saharan Africa. It should be easy to dig up references discussing this in terms of Mediterranean bull worship. This could be part of a more comprehensive discussion of mythological hybrids in the Mediterranean area. I am not sure how relevant the Nigerian and Aztec factoids are in all this. dab (𒁳) 17:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)