Talk:Ishtarat

Newer studies
It would appear "Ishtarat", while repeated in multiple publications, might be a misreading: "erroneous reading of the DN dba-sùr(KAM)-ra-at, which appears in two votive inscriptions that were found in the temple in question" according to Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotama by Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti. Dominique Charpin seemingly accepts this in his review of their book (see here, in French) and notes this possibility has already been proposed by Manfred Krebernik in the 1980s, and given the sheer volume of Krebernik's work on deities with just a handful of attestations I'd be inclined to follow the new reading just based on his opinion myself. His article is also accessible online, see here (p. 165). I am not aware of any recent opposition to the suggested new reading. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also find this very logical. Yet, the name Ishtarat is still repeated by scholars and understood as a goddess. The best approach is to include this "new" argument and give it a prominent place in the article.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the fact that it's still the more widely used name, and scholarship attached to it is sound (ex. the change in reading does not change the fact we're dealing with a goddess, not with a god, or the connection to deified river Id, etc.) is why I am reluctant to just change the name. "Ishtarat" still appears in reference works and in books general audiences are likely to come into contact with. I think your solution seems optimal, a paragraph highlighting the new developments and adding a redirect for the new proposed spelling should do the trick. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)