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 to Thanks. 47.72.38.134 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. &mdash; 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I do not feel strongly in regards to whether the article should be split or not, but I do agree with 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Myths and legends of Babylonia and Assyria (1916) (14801964123).jpg

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 ? 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, 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, 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)

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)