Talk:When God Was a Woman

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Feminism

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality[edit]

Your analysis of this book displays in my opinion a good deal of subjectivity and makes assertions that you have not backed up with citations. Moreover some of your assertions are simply not true, for instance "The book charges that the Israelites attempted to murder all Canannites and created a new religion, Judaism, solely to demonize goddess worship."

Takign the first part of this statement, the bible records God's demand of Israel that that they kill all living things in the land of Canaan. Stone merely documents this statements and also points up some inconsistencies that occur when Israel decides this does not apply to nubile virgins, whoa re allowed to live and become the Hebrew wifes (will they, nill they)

In the second part, this is not remotely Stone's thesis. she proposes that the demonization, as you name it, of Goddess worship, came about as a mechanism to enforce a patricarchial society with inheritance through the male line, and with women bound in marriage to a single man, in order that men may have assurance of the patrimony of the resultant offspring.

Your approach to this entry contrasts decidedly with Stone's treatment in the book itself which, whether you agee with her argument or not, makes comprehensive use of citations to her sources.

Would you be prepared to edit your text in this article to make it a more objective standpoint?Tashkop 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I naively added the above comment thinking that this article was a unenhanced stub. I now see that there has been an underground edit war going on with no reference to the discussion pages. It would be nice if we could get this article to an objective state that does not merely assert the biased view of one sect or another. In my opinion the editors to date have focused, wrongly, on the examples of exposition used by Stone, and have missed the main point of her book, which was the disempowerment of women through the gradual adoption of patriarchial based religions. In that context her example of Christianity and Judiasm is merely a well documented source for her to use, it is not actually her main point. I also do not think that people are giving her credit for the degree of scholarship that is exhibited in her work. She cites an extensive bibliography and the book is replete with citations and quotes to source. Whatever her prefoessional qualifications if we put aside for a moment the argumentam ad homimnem and look at the output on her merits, it cannot be claimed that it is not well researched (once again - whether or not one agrees with her conclusions)Tashkop 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Farmbroughs changes[edit]

I have reverted the changes by Farmbrough for reasons of bias and because he or she has made no attempt to address that bias. In my opinion the previous text was fair commentary. Tashkop 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book[edit]

I haven't seen this article until this moment, and so I can't comment on previous edit controveries, but the book itself (though I'm kind of fond of it in a way) is horribly historically shallow and unscholarly (especially when there's anything to do with linguistics or etymologies), and I imagine that it would not be at all diffficult to find informed reviews which say much the same... AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous sections[edit]

I saw this page a while ago, and wasn't there a section about criticism? I thought it was helpful, and actually now I can't find a source that was mentioned in it because that entire section has been removed. 216.54.22.188 (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Divine Women[edit]

This BCC documentary is clearly influenced and inspired by this book, should it be in the links or references? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01g8ck1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultan42 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310084545/http://merlinstone.net/ to http://www.merlinstone.net/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]