Talk:Inanna

message: 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)
thread_title:  Connection with Athena and requested semi-protection 

message: Basically a reversion of the disruptive IP's edits: change
| Roman_equivalent = Venus,
| Greek_equivalent = Aphrodite
| Hinduism_equivalent = Durga
}}
to
| Roman_equivalent = Venus, Minerva
| Greek_equivalent = Aphrodite, Athena
| Hinduism_equivalent = Durga
}}
Thanks.
 47.72.38.134 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2020 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inanna and the Venus cycle 

message: Deacy 2008 is cited but not listed. I'll add more here as I find them. Skyerise (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All uses were supported by two or more citation so I removed these. Skyerise (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference(s) 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd be happy with any one of those solutions. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue emphasis on the Parpolas 

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Later Influence Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: Outdated?