Talk:Dumuzid

Tendentious text

 * deleted by author*
 * We are all volunteer amateurs here, nobody is supposed to be getting paid for contributing articles. On this article, I and another editor, Ottershrew, are the main contributors of the paraphrase of the contents of these mythological texts in question.  I do not see how these mythological texts are being treated as a "literal account of history" in any way, or as anything other than mythological texts; this seems like an unjustified criticism if you read it carefully. I don't think the paraphrase of them is anything other than a straight, factual paraphrase; also a quick book search for secondary sources reveals a whole spectrum of interesting scholarly discussion on all the various opinions and schools of thought, as to whether or not Dumuzid could have ever been a real king of Uruk, as in these mythological texts where that idea came from.  I will be more than happy to put in the specific references for anything now in the article that is being challenged; but at the moment there is only a vague complaint; I need help determining where exactly to add the references and what are the best specific references to look for. Where you can help is by going through the article and adding  to whatever specific statements in the article you wish to challenge, so that I can look for the most appropriate references, and put them in the most appropriate place. As it stands, if I were to look for references now, it would be a bit like blind man's buff, since I don't know which specific statements you are challenging with only a general complaint. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * deleted by author*
 * When writing the summaries, I did my best to steer clear of interpretation as much as possible, and stick to a straightforward factual summary. So once again, if you could please add  to the specific places where you want the citations to go (standard procedure), because otherwise, I may waste time putting the citations in the wrong places, not knowing exactly where you want them to go. Thanks again, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if you feel the summary we have given of Dumuzid's Dream is inaccurate, why don't you write what you feel would be an accurate summary below here on the talkpage, and then we will see if we can't all mesh out the best mutually acceptable summary of that text together and update the article accordingly. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * added it .. On their own the summaries are just fine, but you do not mention in Dumuzi's Dream that demons are coming for him (which is paralleled in other texts), because you focus too blindly on seeing this myth as a story of a people rising up against an oppressive king. That is an interpretation steering the summary somewhat, which you can notice by 1.not mentioning that in most of the text it is very clear demons are coming for Dumuzi, and 2.focusing on one passage enumerating "men" (or literally "persons", referring to the demons), by which you give the impression that that is all the text is about, while it is only one short passage. So, if you know from a source that the text is about toppling a king by his subjects, then add that reference, but if it is your own interpretation then give a more objective summary.
 * deleted by author*

"World's oldest known love poem"
I deleted the section with the above title as a clear copyright violation. It's quoted a number of places on the web and I can't locate the original source, but it appears in a post dated from 2006 here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/caner/314998602/ where it's attributed to one Michael Himick at http://www.artknowledgenews.com/?q=node/1412 which is a dead link. Since we don't know who this is we can't assume he's a reliable source or if the quote was even original to him, so we can't even use the information until it can be verified elsewhere. 192.31.106.36 (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dumuzid the Shepherd. 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/20080517150822/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue1.htm to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/catalogue1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think that Tammuz (mythology) should be merged into this article because "Tammuz" is just a later Semitic spelling of "Dumuzid" and the two names refer to exactly the same figure. I would have just merged the two articles myself, but, unfortunately, I have discovered that people become really angry with me when I do that, so I am putting up this merge proposal. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

According to some sources Dumuzid does resurrect
In "Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others" Stephanie Dalley says that Dumuzi dies and resurrects but the article says he doesn't.

"The Sumerian version, The Descent of Inanna, is attested earlier, and is much longer, consisting of some 410 lines. It is a fuller, more detailed account, and shows clearly that Dumuzi periodically died and rose, causing seasonal fertility, a fact which had been doubted until 1963, when a newly published fragment disclosed the crucial evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blebnh (talk • contribs) 05:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The exact same section of text is copied in several articles about purported dying and rising gods, the conclusions based mostly on Edie and Boyd 2007. The logic here seems very confused. How does post-dating Christianity invalidate the category of dying and rising god? The passage seems to conflate the existence of such an archetype with the possible influence of the archetype on the development of Christianity, which is largely irrelevant to this topic. It comes across as an apologetic defense of Christianity to paste this conclusion (which is contradicted by other and more recent sources, both mentioned here and cited on the actual dying and rising god article), which is not even warranted. I suggest the debate about dying gods be restricted to that article, and any pros and cons for including Dumuzid or Adonis or whoever be mentioned with a link. 2600:1002:B001:99C5:F225:843D:E48:578D (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Kramer
Somethings wrong with Kramer, 1966. I tried correcting the format from "article=" to "title=" but a template error keeps occurring: ''Warning: Dumuzid is calling Template:Citation with more than one value for the "title" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.'' — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Reference Regarding Sacred Marriage Rituals
The reference #29 listed currently shows a preview of the book Ishtar by Louise Pryke, however it links to a google search page with the term "Ninshubur gender" rather than Sacred Marriage. Is she the eminent scholar on the topic at the moment? She suggests that there is no evidence that the sacred marriage actually took place from what little I could read. Was looking to clear this up a little, and point the above out to the other authors. Desdinova (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Christmas ?
A Seventh Day Adventist website states one of the errors of other Christians includes "Saying that the birth of Jesus was on 25 December [from the birthday of the Babylonian sun god's son, Tammuz];" Other sites have similar claims which I am not in a position to confirm. Is there enough solid research to include some of that information in the article? Samatva (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that anyone in ancient Mesopotamia ever believed that Dumuzid/Tammuz had been born on December 25th. The ancient Mesopotamians did not even use the Latin calendar, so there was never a month on any ancient Mesopotamian calendar called "December" to begin with. The idea that Dumuzid was born on December 25th is an inaccurate assumption based on the inaccurate assumption that Jesus was inspired by Dumuzid and the inaccurate assumption that the ancient Mesopotamians therefore must have said all the same things about Dumuzid that modern western Christians say about Jesus. —Katolophyromai (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Which temple?
Ezekiel's vision obviously relates to the first temple (Salomon's) not the Second temple. There is an error in the legend to the picture. Qasinka (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Changed.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)