Talk:Inanna

Connection with Athena and requested semi-protection

Athena was also identified with Inanna in that scholars wrote that Athena's birth from the head of her father was likely inspired by Athena's return from the underworld. This was sourced but kept on being removed by an IP. Thus I have filed a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:85B6:FA4B:2C3A:8482 (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020

Basically a reversion of the disruptive IP's edits: change | Roman_equivalent = [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]], | Greek_equivalent = [[Aphrodite]] | Hinduism_equivalent = [[Durga]]{{sfn|Parpola|1998|pages=224–225, 260}}{{sfn|Parpola|2015}}{{sfn|Baring|Cashford|1991}} }} to | Roman_equivalent = [[Venus (mythology)|Venus]], [[Minerva]]{{sfn|Penglase|1994|page=235}}{{sfn|Deacy|2008|pages=20–21, 41}}{{sfn|Penglase|1994|pages=233–325}} | Greek_equivalent = [[Aphrodite]], [[Athena]]{{sfn|Penglase|1994|page=235}}{{sfn|Deacy|2008|pages=20–21, 41}}{{sfn|Penglase|1994|pages=233–325}} | Hinduism_equivalent = [[Durga]]{{sfn|Parpola|1998|pages=224–225, 260}}{{sfn|Parpola|2015}}{{sfn|Baring|Cashford|1991}} }} Thanks.

47.72.38.134 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After several listing periods, there is no agreement as to whether to move to the proposed name or retain the current one, and both are valid. Hence we simply retain the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Inanna → Ishtar - Ishtar was merged here because Ishtar and Inanna are clearly the same deity, but Ishtar is clearly the most prevailing name. This can be seen through Google Ngram (link), where Ishtar has consistently seen more use than Inanna since the 1800s. Ishtar being more prevailing is also reflected on Google Scholar (which gives Inanna 19,900 hits and Ishtar 30,300 hits). Inanna is the deity's original Sumerian name but Ishtar is more prevailing, both in academia and elsewhere. Unless Ishtar be made a separate article again (as it was until 2018), the article title, as per Wikipedia naming policy, should be Ishtar. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 18:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support move. The common name for this deity is Ishtar. O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose in favour of Inanna-Ishtar. This is two separate theologies frequently merged in academic study. One should not eclipse the other. The joint name, used in some publications, is better than the prior two articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Ishtar and Inanna are clearly the same deity" seems to imply that the writer believes in deities. Inanna is a concept of the older culture, and Ishtar is a concept of the later culture. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: "Inanna-Ishtar" doesn't work. There are no ancient sources that speak of "Inanna-Ishtar"; they all either call her "Inanna" or call her "Ishtar." Likewise, modern scholarly sources generally don't use a hyphenated name. I'm not even sure why I used a hyphenated name in this article, since Pryke 2017 generally uses "Inanna/Ishtar," rather than "Inanna-Ishtar." —Katolophyromai (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Not sure how "Ishtar and Inanna are clearly the same deity" implies that I believe in either. Ishtar is clearly a later incarnation of the deity the Sumerians worshipped as Ishtar and is treated as such in academia. The move discussion ongoing right now is not whether they are the same or not (the article as of now treats them as such), but what the article should be called. As I showed in the nomination, Ishtar is used more commonly than Inanna and I suspect that either singular term is used more often than Inanna-Ishtar or Inanna/Ishtar. Which term is more correct is not relevant; Ishtar does eclipse Inanna as a name and Wikipedia should follow suit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• If not renames to the joint name, and having the article compare and contrast the similar deity from completely different periods, the article should be de-merged. In fact, I am leaning to that as the first preference. There are different sets of references for each. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Ishtar was originally a Semitic deity assimilated to Inanna in many ways. Inanna was not really assimilated to Ishtar, so that would be the tail wagging the dog. I would really favor two articles again (this discussion actually reveals a problem with merging them). AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I strongly disagree with the view that there should be two separate articles. Although Inanna and Ishtar were originally separate, they are so closely identified from such an early date that it is impossible to say anything about either goddess that isn't directly relevant to the other. A separate article about Ishtar would have to include all the same material that is included in the article about Inanna and vice versa. In the scholarly sources, Inanna and Ishtar are generally treated as one deity. The only sensible option here is to have a single article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I do not feel strongly in regards to whether the article should be split or not, but I do agree with Katolophyromai that they typically are treated as one in academia and that it significantly decreases unnecessary overlap to just have one article. Whether the article should be split is really a separate discussion; what I'm saying is that if we maintain a single article, the title should be Ishtar, since it is more frequently used and (I would argue) more recognizable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral At this point, I don't have an especially strong opinion about whether the article should be titled "Inanna" or "Ishtar," as long as it is maintained as a single article. Both names are in widespread use. —Katolophyromai (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator & Katolophyromai -- "Ishtar" was a not too detailed figure in the Semitic pantheon into whose name the specific characteristics of Inanna were poured (parallel to how many of the deities of the Roman pantheon were somewhat vague and shadowy until they were identified with Greek gods and all their associated mythology), so to me having a single article under the name "Ishtar" would be a rather strange outcome -- and if the article merger facilitated this undesirable outcome, then it was the wrong thing to do. AnonMoos (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: The important thing is not whether Ishtar and Inanna should be regarded as separate figures, but if they currently are regarded as such. From my understanding current scholarship treats them as early and late versions of the same deity. If we are to have one article for both, I believe the article title should be Ishtar since it is more widely used than Inanna. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Friendly oppose Inanna nearly existed for a thousand years as a Sumerian (non-Semitic) goddess before the Semitic Ishtar appeared, and Ishtar actually adopted many of the traits of Inanna, so if any should have primacy, it should be Inanna. Ishtar may have more presence in publications, but that would only be because we have more information on the more recent dynasties and their cults. I would favour two separate articles, as for Heracles and Hercules, but if only one article is to remain it should be about Inanna first and foremost, and only about Ishtar as a later evolution. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: As I've stated above; I do not feel strongly about whether the article should be split or not. The important aspect to consider in that respect is whether academia treats Ishtar and Inanna as separate or the same. If the articles are split, there is no problem in regards to the article title but I am not sure reliable sources support it being split (but please provide evidence that they do if that's the case). If the article is not split, the title should be Ishtar because that name is more frequently used and recognizable than Inanna. What name is more correct or original does not matter. The article on the most famous Babylonian king is titled Nebuchadnezzar II, not the original Nabû-kudurri-uṣur or the more correct Nebuchadrezzar, because that variant of the name dominates in scholarship and popular usage. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I don't think this is a case of numerous name variants for a single person or deity (in which case your "frequency" argument would stand), but rather a case of two deities with different names, the second one (Ishtar) adopting the characteristics of the first one (Inanna) later in history ("Inanna and Ishtar were originally separate, unrelated deities..." with refs in article). In this case, the "frequency" argument is irrelevant. Ideally, we should have two articles, but if only one article is used, Inanna should have primacy, Ishtar being a later development. Best regards पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: You are not wrong, but my concern is not whether Ishtar and Inanna are separate deities but whether they are considered as such in academia today; Wikipedia follows reliable sources. The Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were not separate empires, but there are different articles on them because modern scholarship treats Roman and Byzantine studies as distinct topics. Does modern scholarship treat Ishtar and Inanna as different deities? If it does, I 100 % agree with you that the article should be split (as has been done on the Ancient History Encyclopedia: 1, 2). If it doesn't, the title of the article should be Ishtar (as has been done on Encyclopedia Britannica: link) per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think Ishtar being later matters in regards to which name is more recognizable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Ishtar is used more often than Inanna in modern sources, and so this should be the article's name. The various names of the goddess should be explained in the bofy of the article, not its title. Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Inanna (Ishtar) per infobox title. Best of both worlds. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• I specifically oppose that title suggestion. On Wikipedia, parentheticals are used in titles as a form of disambiguation, not as a dual title name. Dual title names are occasionally done with a slash, but it is generally discouraged. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose This is a very long article, and it is about equally divided in content between early Inanna and later Ishtar. Certainly imposing Ishtar backwards would be anachronistic, so at least in the text, the first half should firmly remain Inanna. Which means that in an article titled "Ishtar" the reader would have to scroll half-way down before they get the actual mentions of Ishtar. That doesn't seem right or intuitive to me. Splitting into two articles would solve part of the problem, but it doesn't seem ideal either (although it wouldn't be terrible - we see separate articles for Zeus & Jupiter, Aphrodite & Venus, etc.). I don't think there's any happy solution here. Walrasiad (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME. Majority of sources I've worked with use the variant Ishtar. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Myths and legends of Babylonia and Assyria (1916) (14801964123).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of dubious Greek equivalence

As far as I am aware, the infoboxes are meant to document attested syncretism. Penglasse doubtlessly had credible info about Greek and Roman deities so his iddentification of equivalents of Ishtar/Inanna isn't what's called into question here, though. The problem was the addition of Persephone. When it comes to the other Near Eastern equivalents, the evidence comes from primary sources, discussed in this article in some capacity: Pinikir is outright referred to as (an) "Ishtar" in the "Babili" (eg. written in Akkadian) rituals from Hattusa; Ashtart and Ishara are equated with Ishtar in a trilingual (Akkadian-Ugaritic-Hurrian) god list from Ugarit; Shaushka's name was written logographically as "ISHTAR" and she was called "Ishtar of Subartu" in Mesopotamia and plays Ishtar's role in the Hurrian translation of Epic of Gilgamesh according to renowned Hittitologist Gary Beckman. All of them share functions too though there is no full overlap (Shaushka and Ashtart had no pronounced astral character, for instance). In contrast, the comparisons to Persephone are rooted in dubious comparative speculation based on modern ideas about one myth, and here were sourced from the book of a controversial author who is not a mythology specialist, and not an Assyriologist either, and as such hardly an authority (the fact his information in the article is outdated or otherwise blatantly wrong doesn't help his case). It therefore shouldn't be present here at all. If anything Nergal has a stronger claim to being called the Mesopotamian Persephone, one could argue: married to a much less commonly worshiped underworld deity, stuck in the underworld through marriage in a late tradition, etc.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody cares. There is no rule that says sources must be Assyriologists or that they have to agree with your own opinions. Skyerise (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be unaware that the growing seasons in Greece and ancient Mesopotamia differ. In Greece, the growing seasons are spring, summer, fall; winter is the fallow season because it is too cold. In Mesopotamia, the growing seasons are fall, winter, spring; summer is the fallow season because it is too hot. Both are myths about the fallow season; to say they are not the same because winter =/= summer is ignorant, even if an "expert" Assyriologist shouts it from their ivory tower. Haven't you ever gardened? Skyerise (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, you wrote in an edit comment "attested syncretism, which is what the infobox is meant to document as far as I am aware" - that's simply not true. It's for equivalences, whether of ancient synccretism or not. Both modern scholarship and modern popular mythology are perfectly valid equivalences and there is no reason not to include them in the infobox with a citation, so the reader can draw their own conclusions. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is supposed to form some "right" conclusion and exclude others. That's simply not the case and you'll get along better with other editors if you drop the attitude. Skyerise (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Really, no one should consider themselves an expert on ancient mythology unless they have also studied both Astronomy and Agriculture! Skyerise (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

While you were busy bitching about sources, perhaps you neglected to check the credentials of John M. Riddle, who is Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History at North Carolina State University, where he holds appointments in the history and botany departments. So your bogus claims about his dubious reputation are a bit ridiculous, Professor. Perhaps you mixed him up with some other Dr. Riddle? And the book was reviewed by Mark J. Plotkin, Ph. D., President of the Amazon Conservation Team, "The book is pure Riddle: extraordinary history and blinding insight with a touch of whimsy. Recommended only for those interested in plants, war, altered states, witches, and sex - in other words, everyone!" So not only are you long-winded, what you claim can't be trusted. Any response to that @HaniwaEnthusiast:? And try to keep it conversational, I'm not interested in your page long lectures. Don't you know how to talk to people? Skyerise (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Seeing User:Skyerise bully and threaten User:HaniwaEnthusiast here and on their talk page gives me very little confidence in this page's point of view. -Apocheir (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, against my better judgement I'm going to try to mediate this. With regards to the Riddle reference, much more weight is being put on it than it can support. The reference is to a single page in Riddle's book: possibly the reference was meant to extend to further pages? Riddle is drawing comparisons between Inanna and Persephone to support his idea about the use of pomegranates as a contraceptive in classical times. He's a historian of medicine, not of mythology or religion: granted they were closely related at the time, but the book is about medicine foremost. Based on John M. Riddle § Response, I think calling him controversial is fair.

I recommend removing the Riddle reference and referencing substantial, mythology-focused material instead. If this is a real equivalence, there must be something else out there that supports it. -Apocheir (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course there are other sources. I've added two. And I think Riddle should be left until WP:RSN says otherwise. But it's up to the editor who thinks it's not reliable to open a thread there... The additional references show that Riddle's not out in lala-land like HW would like to imply. Skyerise (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this discussion and I don't spend much time on Wikipedia anymore, but I definitely do not think that John M. Riddle should be cited as a source about Inanna. Firstly, he is not a specialist in ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Near Eastern studies, religion, mythology, or anything else that might be directly relevant to Inanna in any way. Secondly, as others have already pointed out, even much of his work in his area of specialization (i.e., ancient medicine) is extremely dubious. I actually wrote a post on my blog nearly two years ago about how he is primarily responsible for promoting the fantasy that the Greeks and Romans primarily used silphium as a contraceptive, that it was genuinely highly effective, and that they overharvested it to extinction (all three parts of which are probably wrong).

I also don't think there should be any comparisons to Persephone in the lede. The lede should be reserved only for the most important material and, in my opinion, the only connection to Greek mythology that is well established enough and widely mentioned in the scholarly literature to warrant mention in the lede is the connection to Aphrodite through Astarte. —Katolophyromai (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that moving the Persephone part later is the right thing to do. I am a little concerned about the Mark 2011 reference. It looks like the author is also a co-founder of the World History Encyclopedia website, so the editorial independence is a bit questionable. Nothing in the article jumps out at me as being blatantly wrong, but I'm no expert on this subject. Would like someone else's opinion. -Apocheir (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody else seemed to jump to the task, I moved Persephone later.

Except for one paragraph about his opinion on the meaning of the descent myth in Inanna § Other interpretations, anything that cited Mark 2011 also cited a few other things. Calling him a "philosopher" is a stretch: "freelance writer and adjunct professor of writing" is more accurate based on what information I could find on him. Plus, imho the opinion wasn't that interesting. I went ahead and removed that paragraph and the two other references to it.

The same author is that of Mark 2017 and 2018. Mark 2017 (on Anu) is only used in one place, and it seems that it would be easy to find another reference that supports the same point, possibly among the references of Mark 2017. Mark 2018 (on Gilgamesh) is referenced 6 times and might be harder to replace, if it actually needs replacing. -Apocheir (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Inanna and the Venus cycle

I don't see anything in the article about the connection of the descent of Inanna with the period that Venus is not visible during its retrograde cycle. That's seven days before the inferior conjunction and seven days after it. I'll see if I can find some sources for this, but it's well known among some... Skyerise (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing reference(s)

Deacy 2008 is cited but not listed. I'll add more here as I find them. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Gressman & Obermann 1928 - same. Skyerise (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

All uses were supported by two or more citation so I removed these. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Inanna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept This has been open long enough and the original issue has long been dealt with Aircorn (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Issues with neutrality (criteria 4). User:Skyerise has been acting like she WP:OWNs the page, bullying and threatening other users into letting her views stand. See Talk:Inanna#Removal of dubious Greek equivalence and User talk:HaniwaEnthusiast#Astarte. In the latter user talk page link Skyerise asserts that her personal religious beliefs should be considered on equal footing with reliable sources, which might indicate an original research (criteria 2) problem as well. -Apocheir (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from StainedGlassSnake

• I think this is a very reasonable concern, and it does indeed seem to violate criteria 2 and 4. I'm particularly concerned by the discussion on User:HaniwaEnthusiast's talkpage including the tone and content of Skyerise's messages, and their use of an edit warring notice as part of an edit conflict that they were part of themselves. It does not seem to me that the purpose of the three-revert rule is to ensure that anyone's alterations to an article can stand as long as they have the endurance to keep posting it repeatedly and only one person is opposing them, though the edit conflict should never have happened in the first place. The issues raised regarding the source for the mention of Persephone in an article on Inanna from the article's talk page were never addressed, and lines such as "And try to keep it conversational, I'm not interested in your page long lectures. Don't you know how to talk to people?" are certainly inappropriate under WP:RUDE when an in-depth discussion of the point at hand is being provided. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Problem is User:HaniwaEnthusiast's "in-depth" discussion is not completely honest. He dismisses a source first by claiming the author had no qualifications: turned out the author was Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History at North Carolina State University. Then HW hints and something about that author having right-wing views and that that makes the source unsuitable. A Google search found no such common knowledge about the author nor any related news items. IMO, HW's complaints are nothing but academic rivalry between himself and the author of the cited source. As for "rude" - HW also started that by referring to my personal beliefs, which I hadn't shared, as "dubious spiritual beliefs." That's an intentional personal attack levied after my information about the author of the cited work didn't kowtow to his desire to discredit the source. I told him quite clearly that unless he retracted that personal attack, I had no reason to humor his long messages which now could not relied on to be entirely accurate. I don't think it's reasonable to ask another editor to read that potentially unreliable pedantry and sort out the true from the false. But y'all are welcome to do that. Oh, any my prounouns are she/her. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The author in mention indeed lacks qualifications, and on top of that endorses heinous conspiracy theories such as Gunnar Heisohn's "new chronology" ventures. He isn't quoted in any papers or books about Inanna or Mesopotamian religion as a whole written by actual experts in the field (ex. Andrew George, Joan G. Westenholz, Wilfred G. Lambert, Jeremy Black, Frans Wiggermann, Manfred Krebernik, Gábor Zólyomi, the list goes on - I'm sure that as a self-proclaimed expert Skyerise is familiar with these authors) and his theories stand in opposition to the most basic assumptions (he basically describes Inanna as a child-snatching boogeyman!). Putting that aside: this article never really deserved the star. The sources prior to my attempt at fixing it were to a large degree outdated, fringe or irrelevant, and the overall quality of information presented was pretty low and hardly in-depth. The same can be said about many other Mesopotamian mythology articles on wikipedia, which seem to prioritize haphazard antiquated "interpretations" of myths and dubious Greek parallels, and worst of all until recently even List of Mesopotamian deities was basically arranged according to fringe theories of the Helsiniki school (Parpola and his students) which is an object of scorn from most authors. Also, I'm a woman.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
      • See, being a Alumni Distinguished Professor emeritus of History is what we call a qualification. But do feel free to add a rebuttal from any of the authors you mention. If Riddle is so wrong, surely someone besides yourself has actually said so, right? Skyerise (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Here are a few summaries of mr. Riddle's work for your enjoyment: "Riddle sometimes departs from careful analysis and forces his thesis on the data" (Michael Walton in The Sixteenth Century Journal), "Riddle accumulates materials which do not always say what he claims," "there are many errors" (to specify - he gets basic mythology information wrong, ex. calling ARTEMIS a goddess of love; all of this courtesy of Helen King, in this review); yet another critical review can be found here. Noticing a pattern yet? All of these come from credible journals in the field Riddle is purportedly an expert in, which it not history as a whole, but merely some aspects of history of medicine, also - not from random websites, astrology magazines or self-published esotericists. I think in the context of this discussion it's worth bringing up your other dubious sources, by the way. For instance, you seem to treat self-published extremely fringe Jungian pseudohistory site metahistory.org as some sort of authority, as seen in the article Simhamukha. I do not think you're the one who should be asking others to muster stronger evidence.HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
          • There you go, insulting me again. Basically this is a disagreement between two editors. Plus there is the editor who added the information in the first place, as I did not add the statement that you object to. The most reasonable step, which I believe I've mentioned before, is to take it to the reliable sourcing noticeboard. As it stands, you don't seem to have support from other editors with respect to the unreliability of the source. In such a case, the content stays until there is a consensus about the reliability of the source. Since no other editors have stepped up to support you, then it's up to you to find that support before removing the material. I've got no vested interest here other than making sure you follow process and have a consensus for the removal. Skyerise (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
            • I agree with them. This content should be removed Remove this content (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — Remove this content (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Focus on the criteria

Please do not use this forum to continue old disputes. All we care about is how it fails the WP:GACR. If there are concerns with editors behaviour then they need to go to another noticeboard. There is a serious risk of turning away editors well versed in the Good Article process if the above back and forth continues. Aircorn (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay. From what I can gather this seems to be a dispute over whether the lead should say This is similar to some aspects of Greek myths of the abduction of Persephone and whether John M. Riddle is a reliable source for making that statement. Is this correct? Aircorn (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue is that user H.E. removes things based on her own opinions, and makes up the reasoning later. Cue complaints about the other two sources I added (one which was already being used in the article) in 1, 2, 3... Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • That is not an issue that we deal with here. We have WP:BRD and if discussion goes nowhere WP:RFC for most complaints of this nature. Otherwise you can try your luck at WP:ANI if you think the issue is behavioral (but that is likely to be an unpleasant experience for everyone). What I am looking at is, at least superficially, a pretty decent article. Editors that think it fails the WP:GACR need to explain why. For example it fails WP:LEAD at the moment as the Persephone stuff is not mentioned in the body. This is an easy fix. It either gets expanded in the body, moved out of the body lead or deleted as being undue. @Apocheir: you opened this by saying it had issues with neutrality. Can you explain more on how this is not neutral as it is not obvious to me and the links you provided are editors sniping at each other. Aircorn (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree. I don't think the article fails GA. Could it be improved? Sure. But I've seen no analysis of precisely how it supposedly fails WP:NPOV. Skyerise (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It seems the material preceding the Persephone detail, about the connection with the cycle of the seasons, is also only to be found in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Then the same should happen to that material too. The lead is a summary of the body, so it should not introduce any new information. It appears to come down to WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, which is best discussed on the talk page. From what I can see you seem to be in the minority there. That's fine, edit here long enough and consensus will fall against you occasionally. If you feel strongly about it I suggest starting an WP:RFC as that can bring in outside voices. Another option is to propose a compromise. Maybe suggest moving it to the body and attribute it according to John M. Riddle .... If its just a sentence in the body the claims of UNDUE are weaker and if you take it out of wikivoice it mitigates the reliable source concerns. Either way none of this seems to rise to the level of demoting the whole article. Aircorn (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
          • The Riddle source is gone, replaced by two other sources. Doesn't need to be in the lead, that's just where the editor who added it put it. I haven't figured out how or where to integrate that content yet, or even how much needs to be moved. Skyerise (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that this article lets one user's POV dominate. User:Katolophyromai and User:HaniwaEnthusiast have both stated that they think the similarities between Inanna and Persephone are overemphasized. Individual users may have other concerns that I haven't been able to tease out of their flame wars, as well. I am not an expert on this topic, I just happened to see the fighting over it and became interested. If everyone else comes to an agreement, I'll be happy to withdraw this reassessment. I encourage them to speak up. -Apocheir (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• You do realize that I didn't add the material? This is not a POV I'm pushing into the article. This is material that's been here for a while, added by other editors over time and, given the number of sources for it, should certainly remain in the article despite whatever academic rivalries are leading to calls for its removal. Skyerise (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Skyerise: I am the editor who originally rewrote this article and nominated it for GA back in January 2018 in the first place. The version of this article that passed GA contained no mention of Persephone in the lede; the only mention of comparisons of any kind to Persephone was near the bottom in the "Later influence" section and it was only one line, cited to the Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer. Also, the line was actually comparing Ereshkigal to Persephone, not Inanna, so it was probably not really relevant in this particular article anyway.

The line in the lede comparing Inanna to Persephone that is at the center of this contention was added by Titus III in a single edit on 12 August 2021 without any kind of citation. The line is not present in any version of the article before that date. HaniwaEnthusiast immediately reverted the edit and you immediately reverted her edit. You are, as far as I can tell, the only one currently arguing for the inclusion of this line in the lede.

I do think it might be worth mentioning somewhere that scholars have, rightly or wrongly, compared Inanna to Persephone. Walter Burkert, who is cited in support of the statement in the lede currently, was probably the foremost scholar of connections between ancient Near Eastern and Greek religions in the twentieth century, so, if he has indeed made this comparison, it is certainly noteworthy. It does not, however, belong in the lede. —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never argued that it belongs in the lede. By all mean, move it. Skyerise (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at pg 109 of Burkert's Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual, it seems to be making quite a different claim from the sentence in the article. He compares the Adonis myth with Inanna's Descent; the abduction of Persephone (as in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter) does not feature. He actually describes the relationship between the Hellenistic and Roman Adonis myth and the myth of Dumuzid as seeming to be of 'different worlds'. He then goes on to note, however, that in the Christian period, beginning with the Apology of Aristides (an anti-pagan tract), Christian authors began to add the element of Aphrodite going down to the underworld to seek Adonis and of Adonis returning to the living world for part of the year. His hypothesis is that the 'Sumerian-Semitic' myth was added as an appendix to the Greek narrative in the late period. All that to say I don't think it supports the claim made on the page, though it could be used to support Greek authors identifying Ereshkigal with Persephone, Tammuz with Adonis, and Ishtar with Aphrodite in the 2nd century CE onwards. StainedGlassSnake (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair one persons views dominate most articles, but I agree that Skyerise needs to follow consensus. You are unlikely to find experts here either though and I am usually happy to defer that knowledge to the editors that have done the work getting it to GA status (in this case Katolophyroma). It seems to be overkill to suggest delisting a pretty decent article based on one disputed sentence. Aircorn (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that the fighting was out of proportion to the issues with the article. (Which is a common state of affairs...) -Apocheir (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing?

It's now been months since there was any discussion on this reassessment, the content about Persephone appears to no longer be in the lead, and the dispute about this point appears to have died down. A quick glance over the article suggests that it is in pretty good shape. Can this now be closed as keep GA, or are there any remaining concerns? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think it is well past time to close it. Aircorn (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on the Parpolas

I noticed that, for some reason, there is now a full, three-paragraph section devoted solely to the views of Asko and Simo Parpola titled "Fringe theories." It is, however, my understanding that the Parpolas' views are very fringe within Assyriology and they don't seem to be especially influential on the perception of Inanna by the general public. (The fringe theories of the anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist Alexander Hislop and the ancient astronaut theorist Zecharia Sitchin are far more influential on the general public than anything either of the Parpolas has written, but I don't think it would be appropriate to devote them much attention here.)

Neither of the Parpolas was even mentioned in this article when it passed GA review and, when I last left it, if I remember correctly, it only contained one sentence mentioning each one. Much of the material about the Parpolas seems to be devoted to a general critique of their work that isn't directly relevant to Inanna. It seems clear to me that this extensive focus on the Parpolas violates WP:UNDUE. I propose that one of the following solutions be applied to the section about the Parpolas: 1) it be removed completely, 2) it be radically pared down to just a single paragraph and re-integrated into the section "In antiquity," or 3) it be broken up, moved to the articles about the Parpolas respectively, and edited to suit those articles. —Katolophyromai (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy with any one of those solutions. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I boldly removed the extended discussion of the Parpolas' views with this edit. As I say in my edit summary, much of the material is encyclopedic, but doesn't really belong in a general article about Inanna. It may be better suited in the articles about the Parpolas themselves. —Katolophyromai (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Later Influence Cleanup

This excerpt « 1}} Gary Beckman, a researcher of religions of ancient Near East, calls neopagan authors "not revivalists, but inventors," and notes that they often incorrectly "view all historically attested female divinities as full or partial manifestations of a single figure," and highlights that while Ishtar did overshadow many other deities, she was never a "single Goddess." » is impertinent and degrades the value of the article.

This excerpt deserves removal.

For somereason Vpab15 continues to vandalize and harass the good faith removal of this impertinent excerpt.

Please someone with the power and authority to look into this, do so. Thank you! 67.8.169.171 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I know nothing about this Beckman person, but it seems that in a number of cases scholars of ancient religions aren't necessarily too impressed by neo-pagans. It's not confined to Inanna... AnonMoos (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

hence the raison for removal. thank you to all! 67.8.169.171 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"that they often incorrectly "view all historically attested female divinities as full or partial manifestations of a single figure" True enough, when talking about the Triple Goddess. "Some neopagans believe that the Triple Goddess is an archetypal figure which appears in a number of different cultures throughout human history, and that many individual goddesses can be interpreted as Triple Goddesses. The wide acceptance of an archetype theory has led to neopagans adopting the images and names of culturally divergent deities for ritual purposes" . Dimadick (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

agreeable , so can we get some addition of Triple Goddess in here for context because the bias in Beckman's excerpt devalues impartiality and is imbalancing the article in my opinion. thank you 67.8.169.171 (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Outdated?

We have a pretty bombastic declaration of "obsolete theories" here, in a very old and debated field. No such claims can be made based on a single author.

Some researchers in the past attempted to connect Ishtar to the minor goddess Ashratu, the Babylonian reflection of West Semitic Athirat (Asherah), associated with Amurru, but as demonstrated by Steve A. Wiggins this theory was baseless, as the sole piece of evidence that they were ever conflated or even just confused with each other was the fact Ishtar and Ashratu shared an epithet - however the same epithet was also applied to Marduk, Ninurta, Nergal, and Suen, and no further evidence can be found in sources such as god lists. There is also no evidence that Athtart (Ashtart), the Ugaritic cognate of Ishtar, was ever confused or conflated with Athirat by the Amorites.

If Wiggins declaration of "outdatedness" has any merit, surely some other scholars should refer to his great feat.- Berig (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, in Hebrew and similar languages the name Asherah begins with an Aleph or voiceless glottal stop, while `Ashtaroth (singular `Ashtoreth), the local version of Ishtar begins with an `Ayin or voiced pharyngeal consonant. In the older non-Eastern Semitic languages, these are two completely separate consonants, as distinct as "p" and "k", though this can be obscured by the confusable apostrophes often used in Latin alphabet transcriptions. Just on phonological grounds, the idea of a connection between the two names is rather implausible. AnonMoos (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

tea 67.8.168.231 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Adab

Frayne mentions some inscriptions referring to an "E-Sar" temple of Inanna at Adab. Dunno. If anything turns up while I am touching up the Adab article I will report back. "Douglas Frayne, "ADAB", Presargonic Period: Early Periods, Volume 1 (2700-2350 BC), RIM The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Volume 1, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 17-34, 2008" EDIT - Well, based on "Marchesi, Gianni and Marchetti, Nicolo. "Appendix A. Remarks on Early Dynastic Temples". Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, University Park, USA: Penn State University Press, 2011, pp. 219-229", there is a lot of back and forth about this issue. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For temples I recommend just getting George's House Most High. Esar(ra) must have existed at least through much of the third millennium BCE because in addition to the ED inscriptions from local rulers it also pops up in one by Mesalim of Kish and (without ceremonial name) in one by Naram-Sin; later attestations are from literary texts (pp. 140-141). Overall not obscure (it's even in Inanna's Descent in the list of temples) but hardly notable for much beyond the activities of ED rulers of Adab, I'd say. For more info on Inanna in Adab see here, pp. 19-20; I'm not aware of any unique local form developing there.

There's some 70 temples of Inanna with attested ceremonial names according to Beaulieu, which is obviously too much to cover in one article, so I personally think most would be better to cover in the city articles, while due to the sheer volume of material to actually include here it would probably be optimal to focus just on Uruk (and maybe Nippur/Kish/Assur in some smaller capacity; Zabalam and Arbela are pretty much already covered on wikipedia on their own due to related Inanna derivatives being particularly well attested as effectively distinct goddesses, and the same ought to be done with Nineveh as a subsection of the Shaushka article), with everything else just receiving some smaller "a temple also existed in x as attested by inscription y" note. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

In an amusing coincidence I am in the midst of redoing the Nuzi site article and have just encountered the Šawuška/Ištar mashup for the first time.Ploversegg (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Nuzi is a great site to study. This specific situation is unique because you can't really tell in most cases which one it's supposed to be, usually before the first mil BCE it's clear Shaushka is meant as long as Nineveh is mentioned somewhere near (or if the name is written phonetically, like in Drehem). The entire phenomenon warrants more coverage here (but also in the Shaushka article ofc); there's also a dire need for a solid explanation why labels Inanna and Ishtar were generally interchangeable after the ED period (there's already a really funny case in the Temple Hymns, "Inanna of Ulmash" as the city goddess of Akkad), but ex. geographically designated Inanna of Uruk and Inanna of Zabalam (or Inanna/Ishtar of Akkad, Kiti, Nineveh, etc.) - not really. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Ishtar's alleged role in the flood myth of Gilgamesh

Ishtar is not actually be mentioned as doing what this article claims she did in the flood myth. That is instead Belet-ili the mother goddess. In A. R. George's and Benjamin R. Foster's translations of Gilgamesh, it clearly says Belet-ili in the narrative, and you can also see this in the original text. As George states (The Babylonian Gilgamesh Volume II page 886), Belet-ili is not Ishtar except in certain theological traditions which are not the norm. The only mention of Ishtar that there actually is in the flood narrative is the sentence "Ishtar screamed like a woman in childbirth", which George argues is more likely use of it as a common noun ^diš-tar meaning "goddess" and that the goddess it refers to is Belet-ili (another line in Gilgamesh uses it as a common noun to refer to Ninsun).

Essentially, I think the only thing that should be mentioned is the screaming like a woman in childbirth (with mention that it may be use as a common noun), and the rest moved to the article for Belet-ili. Ishtar in that section should be changed to read "Belet-ili" on the Epic of Gilgamesh article (that section on that page even cites George despite how George says it is not Ishtar). PikaSamus (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a recurring problem on wikipedia, even though there's no shortage of literature demonstrating that both in EoG and in Atrahasis there is a fair number of passages which aren't actually about Ishtar and merely use cognate common nouns as a generic designation for goddesses; the Ishara passage in Atrahasis is another passage commonly misinterpreted this way online, leading to the unwarranted notion of Ishara as a mere byform of Ishtar even though the two are clearly separate. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

images

This text (the entire text of this entry) should be re-done by someone familair with the matter.

I will just note

(a) the winged figurine has bird feet and cannot be Inanna/Ishtar

(b) the statue from Mari has a crown with only one pair of horns. This cannot be Inanna/Ishtar. Leser4000 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The only recent publication I can think of which makes this weird assertion about the Burney relief received very critical reviews (see ex. here), and I am pretty sure the consensus view is basically the same as Wiggermann's: a major deity (Ishtaran's proposed snake tail nonwithstanding) would not be depicted with animal body parts. However, as you said yourself, the article is in dire need of intervention by someone actually well versed in up to date assyriological literature - not with self-published bdsm manuals, vintage translations from half a century ago and random comparative scholarship (is the passage about some completely unrelated figure being actually related because both wear jewelry in there?).

Even the infobox needs to be cleaned up, based on a cursory glance. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• The lead is quite long: is all of this information in the body of the article? All of this information necessary in the lead?
• There is uncited text in the article
• The "In popular culture" is written as a list, which would be better written as prose.

Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Inanna

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

The lead is quite long: is all of this information in the body of the article? Is all of this information necessary in the lead? There is also uncited text in the article, and the "In popular culture" is written as a list, which would be better written as prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. However, not exactly for the suggested reasons - a bigger issue is that much of the article predominantly depends on low quality sources and doesn't accurately reflect academic consensus. World History Encyclopedia is a mess predominantly written by non-specialists; publications from the 1960s and even earlier are considerably outdated; some self-published essay entitled "The History and Arts of the Dominatrix" has no place in an assyriological article; and so on.

This is a problem with a number of major deity articles - the other major offenders are Enki (even worse than Inanna), Adad (irresponsibly merged with Hadad into a wastebasket article), Nabu, Enlil and Ninurta.

Obsessive references to "fertility" are an issue, too. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussions of World History Encyclopedia:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 390#Encyclopedia of World History,
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 441#The World History Encyclopedia.

Consensus seems to be that it's not reliable. Apocheir (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Link to the first time it went to GAR. I don't think that closure as keep was appropriate: instead of resolving the questions, the discussion became muddled and everyone gave up on it (including me, to be fair). The article still has pervasive neutrality and reliable sources problems, and possible original research problems. More issues have been raised on the talk page since the first GAR. I have little confidence that much will be resolved this time either, so I'm putting in a preliminary vote for delisting. If the article improves enough, I'll strike it. Apocheir (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Link to Talk:Inanna/GA1 and Talk:Inanna/GA2 for good measure. It might be worth mentioning that the user who did the original GA reviews has been blocked since late 2018. Apocheir (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would argue not all of the talk page concerns seem equally sensible (ex. complaints about Gary Beckman, a reliable, well established author in a relevant field) - some of the complaints boil down to people being upset that academic sources do not support their ideas. The most recent ones are definitely valid, though, like the discussion of dubious flood myth coverage and the highly questionable interpretation of the "Queen of the Night" relief. This definitely lends further validity to the need for reassessment. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delist. I gave it a lookover. I will leave aside the fact that I have always thought Ištar should have her own article because every town X I look at seems to own a Ištar of X. :-) Anyway, the article reads like something that was originaly cribbed from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica back in the day and then reffed to a fair thee well. The Date section is puzzling, beginning in the Ubaid and ending at the end of Ur III. And, frankly, and yes I know it is an important topic, the article is much too long. Lastly, I agree fully that some of the refs, like the world history thing, are soft.Ploversegg (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact the article doesn't really dedicate much space to the matter of names and the splitting off of local forms is a problem in itself - it seems like this is one of the more significant topics in recent (1990s-now) scholarship (ex. Beckman's Ishtar of Nineveh Reconsidered; Nevling Poster's Ishtar of Nineveh and Her Collaborator, Ishtar of Arbela, in the Reign of Assurbanipal; Allen's The Splintered Divine; and so on), and there are multiple other articles which go into the details.

I wouldn't call it too long, but the priorities are definitely off; too many myth summaries which feel like a book report for school, too little actual data. Too long barely relevant sections about "later relevance" which are barely about the subject of the article, etc.

I think a problem is that due to the sheer scope of the article one person will have trouble with fixing it; same issue I ran into with Adad last year. I think we'd basically have to come together on the ANE project talk page to really plan how to remedy the situation. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)