Talk:Triple deity

"Triune" definition
Most traditionally-mainstream Trinitarian Christians would disagree with the definition of "triune" given in this article... AnonMoos 04:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can anyone suggest a better alternative? I have had to rv vandalism from a Christian once already.  The definitions are meant to be very plain-English, not super-geeky comparative religion grad student ones. :-) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:triune gods
Should we add this to category:triune gods? Pictureuploader
 * I would think so. Done.  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List versus article
Would we want to rename this article "List of triple deities", or would you like it to be more like an article to expand? It seems to be half and half and could go either way. I've just put it down as a Wikiproject mythology list.Goldenrowley 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to mostly be a list right now, but I think it should be an article per se that happens to contain a list (which could some day split off into a "List of..." list-article if necessary. There is way more than enough material out there to write a great comprehensive article about the topic (starting with probably Graves, Fraser and Campbell as sources); just needs someone interested enough to be the spearhead.  No qualms at all with it being called a list in the context you mentioned, until such time as the article-direction expansion happens. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OKay. Mid or high importance is fine, I dont clarify importance all the time as it tends to bristle people's feelings. Goldenrowley 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unanswered question
I noticed the list does not contain any triple-deities from religions originating outside of Eurasia before modern Eurasion contact (such as the pre-columbian Americas).

If this is because such things do not exist, that would be worth noting, otherwise an example of such a thing would be very informative.

Mschures (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's simply because the article is under-developed. Cf. the interwiki links in the left sidebar; there are at least 2 foreign-language articles on the topic that are probably worth plundering (by editors who can read those languages). And see topic immediately above; I suggested 3 references that could provide a wealth of material (more specifically, I refer to the work of Robert Graves's The White Goddess, Sir James George Frazer's (I misspelled it above) The Golden Bough, and Joseph Campbell (his entire body of work). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Trinity
It is problematic to include the Trinity in here without a special explaining of sorts. The Trinity is not considered to be a form of tritheism, save for some moslems and jews, but rather it is one God in three manifestations (one substance, three hypostases). This is why Christianity is widely regarded to be part of monotheism. ADM (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And the three members of Tridevi are also manifestations of one Devi. Jane Ellen Harrison refers to the Greek trios as "Women-Trinities", and of their source in earlier dualities (exemplified by Demeter and Kore) she says these are "two persons though one god." (Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, 1903, p.272.) So the idea of multiple Persons within a single Godhood is not unique to Christianity, though the details may differ. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 06:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Address the issue with clear prose then. I know that various Christians have attempted to remove the Trinity from this article entirely, and to recharacterize it in POV-pushing ways, but a reasonable compromise has to be found. The Trinity is emphatically within the scope of this article. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article isn't even asserting that Christianity is tritheistic: Triune means three in one (i.e. mono-) in this case. I took your wording, "manifestations" and used that. Hopefully that will cut down on the disagreements. Not addressing the Trinity, Tridevi, and Greek Trios would render this the Triple but not triune deities, sometimes article. —  SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any conclusion to this deliberation? An article on the general topic of all deities &ldquo;associated with the number three&rdquo; which entirely omits one of the most widely-advertised instances in the world (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is seriously incomplete.  Is there a legitimate reason to omit or exclude this information, other than the fear of further vandalism by zealots?  206.205.52.162 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The previous version contained much accusatory language. I have rewritten it:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD07:E900:9C92:71E8:6248:8545 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Two potential points of improvement
Now that we have a tritheism article it needs to be mentioned an explained, and differenced from other forms of worship (this would be a good way to address Christian concerns that the Trinity is being misrepresented as tritheistic). A second issue is that Jung is cited as positing that tripled deities are archetypal but just above there are sources mentioned showing an outgrowth of triads from pairs, and these views are necessarily at odds, a debate that needs exploration and explanation. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I recently proposed the article Khnum-Satet-Anuket for deletion, on the grounds that the article adds nothing to our existing articles on the gods Khnum, Satet, and Anuket. User:Carolina wren declined the proposed deletion and proposed a merge to this article instead (to the "Historical polytheism" section). That user did not create a section here to discuss the issue, so I am. A. Parrot (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I still don't think the article has any point, even as a redirect. I believe people are unlikely to search for the phrase "Khnum-Satet-Anuket" (it's very rarely used in Egyptological literature, let alone stuff that non-Egyptologists are likely to read), and the article's minimal page views (see here) bear me out. Probably the only time circumstances in which casual readers arrive there is if they type in "Khnum", see "Khnum-Satet-Anuket" in the suggestions list, and click the link wondering what it is. If that's true, the redirect serves no purpose. Even worse would be redirecting here. Even if this article becomes someday becomes as thorough and well-written as one could hope for, it shouldn't have much more than a passing mention of Khnum, Satet, and Anuket, who are not towering figures in Egyptian religion. On the other hand, if the articles on those gods became as thorough and well-written as one could hope, those articles would have much more detail on their interrelationships. Any reader who stumbles upon Khnum-Satet-Anuket is likely looking for Khnum anyway, making even a redirect superfluous. A. Parrot (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support While I would not oppose a deletion of the redirect after the merge, to preserve the edit history of the content, which at present would be suitable to be added as an entry in the indicated section, a merge is needed, not deletion. Carolina wren (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Norse Image
The picture of Odin, Thor, and Freyr states that one of the members is likely "holding an ear of corn," even though it is from a 12th century tapestry. Since corn wasn't introduced to Europe until the 15th or 16th centuries, its basically impossible that they meant to depict corn. Should probably be changed or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably it means corn in the traditional English sense of the word, i.e. a generic cereal crop, rather than maize specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.108.23 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Three Golden Goddesses from Legend of Zelda
Would be a good idea to put they in the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farore#Golden_Goddesses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.18.139.72 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Triple deity or triad?
Several of the examples given are of groups of three individuals (for example Zeus, Athene, Apollo) rather than a tripartite individual (like Hecate). Shouldn't these be be covered in separate articles? --Khajidha (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Minerva And Hecate Are Not Crones
The whole concept of "crone", as in maiden, mother and crone, is a Wiccan invention. Both Hecate and Minerva are listed in the article as being "crones". They most certainly are not. The Greeks rarely portrayed goddesses as crones and especially did not portray any of the major goddesses as crones. Hecate is specifically said to be the "saffron clad maiden". So it's extremely silly for Wiccans to try to insist on turning her into an old hag. The same with Minerva. Both Minerva and Hecate are always portrayed as young women and are never portrayed as crones.BoyintheMachine (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hecate went through a number of evolutions or conceptualizations, but in late antiquity she was most prominently a goddess of curses and night, and that's how she's most clearly remembered today... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

2019

 * She was still universally described as a young maiden goddess in those contexts. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of the Word Charge
<>

The verb 'charge' implies, at most, hostility and at the very least, negativity toward Trinitarian Christians. I can only speak for Jehovah's Witnesses in stating that we do not 'charge' Trinitarian Christians, or any other individual with a personal religious belief. Our published statements are never in an attitude of complaint, criticism, or attack; rather they are simple reasonings from the scriptures and secular sources for any seeking answers to their questions. At doors, we politely ask questions and listen carefully before responding, looking for common ground, looking to encourage. Our evident success in this endeavor would preclude the idea of 'charging' persons. Use of the word 'Some' does not lessen the implied blow. http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/own-religion/

Serlyndi (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a naive reader might see “charge” as suggesting that acknowledging multiple gods is somehow a bad thing, despite the context of this article. Perhaps we should reword “charge &hellip; with believing in” to something like “recognize &hellip; as believing in”?  Unician &nabla; 13:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Source dispute
Three figures of Arthurian legend are described in this article as "goddesses", but there is no reliable source for such a claim. I requested a scholarly, not neo-pagan, source for the idea that these figures of folklore and legend were in fact religious figures. Someone has added as a source "Barbara G. Walker (1983), The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p.583 ISBN 0-06-250925-X, but this is precisely the kind of neo-pagan, modern reinterpretationist work we cannot cite as evidence for treatment of legendary figures in their native cultural environment. The author has a journalism degree and is an expert on knitting, and is not an anthropologist or historian. She's also a feminist activist, and a proponent of the pseudoscience theory of a prehistoric matriarchy in Europe, and thus has a vested interest in elevating random folkloric figures into reinterpreted "goddesses".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Barbara Walker is not WP:RS for history or even for neopaganism. Her paperbacks were once popular among goddess worshippers and neopagans, but she played fast and loose with the source materials. She cited sources in her books, but time after time misrepresented what is actually in the sources and instead presented her own spin. That section is all screwed up. I'll attempt some cleanup. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 23:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Triple Goddesses
Since the table of goddesses is mostly unsourced wouldn't this travesty be considered "original research"? I thought we were trying to discourage this kind of thing. 63.140.104.226 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed entire table as it's been 18 months and no explanation has appeared. It's basically an assertion that "these are all the same type of thing" without any scholarly source saying so, or any room for debate given. There are some sources in the table for individual names but since theres no sourced explanation of what the table is actually doing other than the blanket assertion, they can't support it. It's synthesis at best. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Table is back, no sources, highly questionable associations of gods, use of Robert Graves' terminology, and mostly triads of gods, not triple gods. Removing again. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with removal. Properly sourced such a table might be useful in some other article. Paul August &#9742; 17:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

In fiction
I understand that certain fiction works, such as literature and videogames contain deities who are trinune, or form trinities, or are simply three, such as the Elder Scrolls: Morrowind's Almsivi, a triumvirate of three God Kings named Almalexia, Sotha Sil, and Vivec. There are other triple deities in the Elder Scroll's various religions. I believe I remember similar ideas from the Star Wars comics.

Should these be included?Pepe Oats (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Korean triune deity
This [|Samsi Halmoni] is an ancient Korean triune goddess. Hard to say when this myth started, or where it came from, but it deserves at least a link in this article. --Snow (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

"Khnum-Satet-Anuket" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Khnum-Satet-Anuket. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Hutton's Rejection of Triple Goddesses?
Should one include the very conservative position of Ronald Hutton, who, in Triumph of the Moon (pp. 37 and 42), is dismissive of triple goddesses in any sense, which he characterizes as a nineteenth-century fallacy that swept through academia in a wave of "burgeoning enthusiasm"? Prof. Hutton often tends to project the ahistorical position that pagan elements evident within Christianity are in actuality not pagan, but Christian, since he tends to argue that there is no evidence for these concepts prior to Christianity. In fact, he outright scolds scholars who use the description of "Mother Goddess" of projecting the Virgin Mary onto the source data. -- 04:13, 4 February 2023 70.39.20.64