Talk:Ashur (god)

Untitled

Should Ashshur point to Ashur (god)? — fnielsen 13:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Šarukinu 20:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey this article says that Ashur was the city deified but also that the city was named after him. That's impossible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.52.75.216 (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable reference

Author Charles Ginenthal is not a academic reference. He's a fringe scientist and isn't specialized in History or Archeology. Gustavo Rubén (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In addition the Mencken's book isn't a treatise about history but ethics. And is outdated. Gustavo Rubén (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gustavo Rubén: Mencken was also a journalist, not an Assyriologist. He is uniquely qualified to comment on the state of American politics in the early twentieth century, but the history of the ancient Near East is not at all his area of expertise. Even if he were not outdated by nearly a century now, he still would not be a reliable source to cite on this subject. Furthermore, the first paragraph of the section we are discussing only cites one source, the Assyrian Dictionary, which only supports the last sentence of it; all the rest of the paragraph is completely uncited. Furthermore, the reference itself does not even seem to be making the same connection that the information from it is being used to support in this article, which would make its use here a clear case of synthesis.

The gallery at the beginning of the section is clearly original research because, as far as I can tell, none of the sources cited in the section (of which only one - the Assyrian Dictionary - can be called "reliable" by any stretch of the term) say anything about iconographic similarities between Ashur and other Near Eastern deities. I am sure there are legitimate similarities, but we would need modern, up-to-date sources written by respected scholars on the subject to support those similarities; we cannot cite fringe theorists to prove this point, nor can we just post pictures and "leave it up to the reader" because that kind of comparison is so often used in pseudohistory and it effectively leaves the whole evaluation process to complete non-experts. I have now removed the section in question, which was written entirely by one editor, who seems ideologically driven to include it. I suspect the editor who added it will probably revert my removal of it once he or she finds out. Hopefully he or she will agree to discuss this matter civilly on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war over this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: You mention that Mencken is a journalist, and that his treatise is regarding ethics and not history and is outdated, which you haven't citied. Either way, regarding the Mencken quote, Mencken is quoting Assyriologist Archibald Sayce, which is being quoted from the Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Regarding the previous paragraph, Dr. Charles Callaway also quotes Assyriologist Archibald Sayce. Regarding the first paragraph where I stated that the origins of the Jews is in the Near East, I have added all the required sources. The inscription found in the Assyrian Dictionary that I have added mentions, as in the article, that Yav, which is a linguistic variant of YHW, is also found in Assyrian sources, which I have added citations for. It is a worthy mention, supported by the context, for the purpose of affirming the claim in the first paragraph that the origins of the Jews are in the Near East. The gallery on top, is supported by all the sources in the paragraphs in the bottom.

The Near East as defined as the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the Eastern Question

Statements on the talk page do not necessarily need to be cited if they concern obvious facts, such as that H. L. Mencken (a very famous journalist) was a journalist and not an Assyriologist. It is only in the article itself that every single statement must be cited to a reliable source. Regarding Mencken, however, there is no reason why we should quote from a non-Assyriologist citing an Assyriologist when we can just cite the expert himself and cut out the middle man. Furthermore, you seem to be missing my other point: Archibald Sayce died in 1933 and Hasting's Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics was published between 1908 and 1927, a time when almost no Sumerian texts had been translated and our knowledge of the ancient Near East was still extremely minimal. (Indeed, for much of Sayce's career, the very existence of the Sumerians themselves was still being questioned.) That makes Sayce and the Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics thoroughly outdated by every standard. If the information you are giving is still relevant, you should provide a citation to a modern, reputable scholarly source (i.e., one written within the last forty years at least).

I am baffled by your attempt to argue that Judaism originated in what you call the "Near East". You do realize that Israel is part of the Near East, right? At left is a map showing the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, which essentially comprise the lands now known as the "Near East". Notice that the region includes the entire Levant, including Israel. Furthermore, your argument, aside from being completely off-topic, uses flawed historical evidence. For one thing, Abraham was almost certainly not a real person, but rather a mythical figure, so it hardly matters where he is said to have come from. Second of all, the story of a global flood is a widespread Near Eastern myth that is by no means confined to Mesopotamia. It is highly unlikely that there ever was any kind of historical "Great Flood" and claims about the story having been inspired by flooding in Mesopotamia are nothing more than mere speculation; there is no reason to assume that a single historical flood underlies a story about a global flood and it is far more likely that people who were familiar with floods on a smaller scale simply imagined one on a cosmic level.

A much more valid argument for Mesopotamian influence on Judaism could be made using the fact that most modern scholars agree that much of the Torah was probably written and compiled by Judahite scribes living in exile in Babylon during the sixth century BC. In any case, however, this is extremely off-topic and has very little direct connection to the Assyrian god Ashur. We need to keep this article on topic and lengthy digressions about the origins of Judaism are only warranted if we have sources saying that Judaism was greatly impacted by the cult of Ashur, in which case we would focus strictly on those influences, rather than going off on extended tangents about peripheral details. I hope you do not take offense to my response here or my removal of the material you added; I understand that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, and sometimes my words may come across a bit harsher than I intend them to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I am removing the rest of the "similarities in Near East iconography" section; with the offtopic material and fringe sourcing removed it's still just a collection of statements and images that are never quite tied to the subject. NearEast, if you want to write a section about similarities between Ashur and other gods, you need to cite some reliable sources that cover the subject directly. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the Similarities in Iconography section, and I've added more than enough sources. --NearEast —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some of the material you added. Please consult my edit summaries for explanation why. Thank you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I know this is a little old by now, but I really don't think the remaining material can stand. There are two parts here:

1. The Yahweh comparison, based off two primary sources (a photo and a snippet of text. There's no sourced explanation of the connection -- in fact, there's no explanation at all. The reader is invited to take a look, make their own evaluation and interpretation, and jump to conclusions, all without any context or background except a slight nudge provided by the author. (In the case of the text snippet, the reader is actually invited to disregard the provided translation, and is nudged in a very strange direction indeed.) I also think it's worth noting that the claim that the drachm depicts Yahweh has been unable to stand on the Yahweh article without qualification.
2. The Ahura Mazda comparison, which stands on more solid ground, except Iranica flatly rejects the notion that the faravahar represents Ahura Mazda. (We tend to follow Iranica's lead on this matter, too, so introducing contradictions between articles isn't ideal.) The Provencal source is relevant and interesting (although that page is about Cyrus's adoption of Mesopotamian imperial symbolism, not about comparisons between Ashur and Ahura Mazda), but the nuances it introduces are making me think that the matter is best handled by expanding winged sun and increasing the prominence of this article's link to that one, instead of covering it here.

-165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Anshar into Ashur_(god). It seems that the content of the Anshar article is quite possibly redundant and should most probably simply redirect to this page. pablohoney (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pablohoney77: I'd like to see a little bit more convincing argument. Sure, it's good to ask this question, but do sources say they are literally the same thing or not? Ancient deities sharing attribtes is not at all uncommon. Also, Anshar is a WP:VITAL article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Sounds like they are two distinct deities that were subsumed in later times but their creation myths are different. There are other articles on deities that have more overlap but are separate; this one should stay separate, just needs better cross-reference so that readers of each article are aware of the other. DA1 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the contested equivalence. Klbrain (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Name

Is the god named after the city or the city after the god? This article says it is the former (and that the "whole heaven" reading of the god's name came very late), but the article on the city says that its name means "City of the god Ashur", so we seem to have something circular going on here? Furius (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

About the revert decision

@Skitash Can you please give a better explanation to the revert cause? So i can figure out where exactly you considered it to be a bad improvement. TahaKahi (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

1. You used Google Translate to translate all of that content from French Wikipedia without attributing it.

2. It is badly written.

3. Many of the sources that were added are inaccessible.

4. Citations are placed before punctuation, contrary to MOS:CITEPUNCT.

5. The content discusses a temple, which is not directly relevant to Ashur himself. Skitash (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not badly written, but you'd need to explain that further.

As for your second point, yes and no. I reworked the translation of the section from the French Wiki to the English one. I have yet to find where in the rules it disallows that.

It is directly relevant to Ashur. Isn't it his temple, did you even read the section?

However, your fourth point is a good observation. I'll work on that. But was the revert even necessary? you could've certainly fixed the issue as it was minor yourself or pointed it out. TahaKahi (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think discussions about the functions and construction history of a temple is part of any other Mesopotamian deity page on English Wikipedia, although granted Ashur has some special characteristics that makes him really hard to write about without mentioning the ideology of the Assyrian state, and Ashur really only had this one temple until the fall of Assyria.

But I feel like it's not super necessary to talk about the administration of the temple? Especially the part about the priest hierarchy, the Assyrian exorcist library, economic texts and the other people who work for the temple. That part really isn't related to the god Ashur at all.

Also some of the information in the edit are repeats of information already in the page, so those are redundant, for example Ashur's relationship to Assyrian royal/imperial ideology is talked about in the article already Baldpotat0 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I understand your point about the temple administration section possibly being less relevant to Ashur. Could you clarify which specific details you believe should be removed or revised or if to not include anything from that section entirely? I plan to work on these changes in my user sandbox at first to make sure i cause no edit war here, and I’m open to refining the content to focus more on Ashur himself while ensuring the essential context is preserved. Your insights would be very helpful! TahaKahi (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say to leave out the administration section, since its not really relevant and the relevant information (the king being the head priest) is talked about elsewhere in the article. As for the other stuff, just try to make sure that theres no repeat in information already present in the page (since this is translated from French Wikipedia, which is structured differently) and use your own judgement.

(Also not really necessary but you can also check out how the a lot of the other Ancient Near East deity pages are written, I know Ashur is a pretty special case when it comes to Mesopotamian gods but you can try to match the style/formatting) Baldpotat0 (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@TahaKahi actually now that I think about it, wouldn't the temple fit better in the page about the city of Assur rather than the god Ashur? Baldpotat0 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)