Talk:Lilith/Archive 3

Dead Sea Scrolls
In the dead sea scrolls section, there is a sentence that just says "Translation[76]". What is the meaning of this sentence? Perhaps it should be removed or elaborated on. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Siegmund Hurwitz
Can someone academically minded please do a prune on all the Siegmund Hurwitz sourced content?In ictu oculi (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'prune'? Is his authority been destroyed by newer research or is there just too much verbiage dedicated to his research?  Alatari (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well I'm not really sure anyone has ever given "authority" to the work or that Hurwitz ever did any actual (source) research of his own rather than - it looks more like a tertiary (and chronologically disordered) rehash of late19th/e.20thC sources on Mesopotamia with Kabbalah and Jungian psychology (his actual area) thrown in. Aside from that the verbiage is overweight, and seems to have been dumped wholesale into the article - perhaps because it's online as a Googlebook and most sources on Mesopotamia aren't? Some of his statements can actually be nailed down to early work by ANE scholars, but a lot can't. I got tired very quickly when I tried to do something with it, and was hoping someone else would have a try? Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going through the article today some and all the references to this one rather poor work of scholarship was making my head hurt. We would require a pretty heavy overhaul of this article to bring things into the current century. DreamGuy (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I see Ian T is doing sterling work with new refs, and going hungry.
 * Dream Guy - agree with above, but a point on one of your deletions, here. Under normal circumstances I'd fully agree with you, however here I think we have a special case since the key context of this section, the one Biblical use, is partly dependent on all the other animals/birds/creatures mentioned in the same chunk. In fact I'm 90% I inserted those links to Gesenius myself, if not then I would at least like to claim that I did. The context of that mid section (Bible, between ANE content and Talmudic content) is primarily a translation issue and a determining factor with hapax legomena is always surrounding text. It would be better to link to a more modern/complete lexicon than Gesenius, but I don't think there's one online. AND indeed link to modern scholarly commentaries on this section of Isaiah, which I suppose I could dig up. But before doing that can I request/suggest this one particular delete be restored. Then I'll try and supplement with academic refs in addition on each of the 7 or 8 Hebrew creatures mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just finished dinner, and desert. Thinking about second dinner, but have to go to bed soon anyway.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How reliable/well sourced is the basic supposition of any connection between ANE Lamashtu and Talmudic Lilith?
 * 'Lamashtû or Labartu (in Sumerian Dimme'') was a very similar Mesopotamian demon to Lilitû, and Lilith seems to have inherited many of Lamashtû's myths. Hurwitz (1980) p.34-35

Hurwitz should be replaced with Manfred Hutter, “Lilith.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: 1995. But also Handy, Lowell K. "Lilith". Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992. gives a different view. The Lamashtu section should reflect this in the header and then link to the main Lamashtu article. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Islamic Sources
Since Lilith is not mentioned in the holy Quran or the Hadith, it is not considered existing from an Islamic point of view. Arabs who mention it could have taken it from the Talmud or the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.12.86 (talk • contribs)
 * Which is why there isn't a section about Islam in the Lilith article. The section on Lilith in Arab mythology says they got it from Jewish sources (which does not always mean the Talmud or the Bible).  Arabs and Muslims are not the same thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew text links to online Gesenius dictionary removed
I removed several links to this outside website embedded within the body of the Lilith article, which you removed with the claim that I should see the talk page to see why. I did not see anything on the talk page showing a consensus for these links, which would appear to strongly violate multiple policies. We do not put external links in the bodies of articles, and we do not do so over and over, and we do not officially endorse outside sources of information with a specific POV to promote (the site in question promotes evangelical Christianity) as if they were some Wikimedia Foundation entity like Wiktionary or something. Please do not add such links again. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Dream Guy, Okay, this relates to the paragraph dealing with the Hebrew Bible use of Lilith and the surrounding birds/animals. Strange because I remember answering this and explaining (a) that links to a Hebrew dictionary were needed when the Hebrew meaning of the surrounding birds/animals was a major factor in how some translators translate the passage, and (b) that it was perhaps regrettable that the Gesenius dictionary was hosted on a site that (true) does promote Evangelical Christianity, but that I was not aware of a better online Hebrew dictionary (that doesn't mean there isn't one). As this user objects to the host (I don't know if it is against Wikipedia policy to link to a dictionary hosted on this site, again it may be?) does anyone know of an alternative online Hebrew dictionary that can be used in the refs? It would be a massive task to transcribe a dozen bird/animal entries from Brown–Driver–Briggs. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The answer was there see above, 7 Feb.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am responding to a notice at WP:ELN and have not studied the article, but so far I do not think that such links (seen in this ) are suitable for Wikipedia. First, there is the issue mentioned (we do not use external links in an article per WP:MOS). Second, if all the links are needed for some reason, it appears the text is not very encyclopedic. Is any original research used, and is it satisfactory that the article is not relying on secondary sources? My initial thought is that the approach of using all those links is not satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, the links are removed from main text, and I'm only thinking of how to provide something similar in sources/footnotes. It's simply a question of how to make the point that when translators take a list of creatures: tannin... bath... tsiyyim... 'iyyim... sayir... liylith... qippowz... dayah they don't take one term in isolation. A ref from a standard commentary like Delitzsch's Isaiah, and then from a Animals of the Bible type dictionary will do that job. But it still would be nice if it was possible to link tannin... bath... tsiyyim... 'iyyim...  sayir... liylith... qippowz... dayah to an online Hebrew dictionary in the relevant footnotes. The alternative would be first general ref from Delitzsch's Isaiah etc., and then from a Animals of the Bible, and then third copying out by hand with page number a Heb dicref which is a lot of work - probably for nothing.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Re the helpful suggestion to link to Wiktionary. Good idea, but but Wiktionary's coverage of Hebrew is fairly limited: e.g. no entry for owl Another copy of Genesius is hosted here, but this is also hosted by Christians http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/Gesenius/ (realistically is there likely to be a Biblical Hebrew dictionary on the Web that isn't put there either by Christians or Jews?) And is Wiktionary likely to substitute what is already there? Anyway: Resolution - remove links to lexicon In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Section: Lilith in Western Art?
Is there a source for identifying any of these pictures as anything to do with the Talmudic Lilith?In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Following investigation... no... so deleted. Ref for Rosetti added. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this is part of a religious topic I believe the respectful option to change the image used should be taken. Alanlevin (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary
>Lowell K. Handy (1997) notes, "Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these demons. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect."

OK, I want to know if this is an academically accepted viewpoint because obviously if anyone ever read Kramer, or Patai, or even better Jacobsen there's extensive research on lilitu and the origins of Lilith. In fact if I recall this passage is quoted out of context and is in fact referring to the Burney relief, not Lilith over all. If anyone wants to try to challenge Kramer's translations and win I would like to see that because its peer reviewed and academically accepted.

98.197.26.77 (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia doesn't decide what's "right," it just presents what different reliable sources have to say on a subject.  Not all reliable sources agree.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

500AD???
How can she be mentioned in Isaiah and then the lead says she wasn't mentioned till 500AD?

Hebrew: וּפָגְשׁוּ צִיִּים אֶת-אִיִּים, וְשָׂעִיר עַל-רֵעֵהוּ יִקְרָא; אַךְ-שָׁם הִרְגִּיעָה לִּילִית, וּמָצְאָה לָהּ מָנוֹח Hebrew (ISO 259): u-pagšu ṣiyyim et-ʾiyyim w-saʿir ʿal-rēʿēhu yiqra; ʾak-šam hirgiʿa lilit u-maṣʾa lah manoaḫ[74] 34:14 "And shall-meet desert creatures et (particle) jackals   the goat he-calls his- fellow    lilit (lilith) she-rests and she-finds rest[75]    34:15 there she-shall-nest the great-owl, and she-lays-(eggs), and she-hatches, and she-gathers under her-shadow:    hawks[kites, gledes ] also they-gather, every one with its mate.    71.86.157.30 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The word appears in Isaiah, but the character is not developed until the Talmud, and the word came to refer to the character from there. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Off Talk-page discussion

 * I've copied this from SusanStierch's Talk page to here

Lilith picture edit war on the horizon Well, maybe not yet, but it's aiming in that direction. And it has a bit of everything: vampires, snakes, sex, murder, Rossetti, the Sistine Chapel, and modern fan-cruft. What it seems to be missing is a modern woman's perspective and good judgement. Send any such person you know who has a sense of humor. Note: not Lady Lilith - just plain Lilith. Smallbones (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I shared it with User:Whiteghost.ink - I think it might be something she'd be interested in. If it gets out of control I'd advise that you ask for a semi-protection (if they're ip's) or a dreaded request for comment? SarahStierch (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a section on Western art - it seems to me that's where a 19th century painting should appear. Also, the topic is one of such ancient-ness that any 19th century image will throw it out of balance. The Pre-Raphaelites and other 19th century painters had, you might say, a "quirky" attitude to history - their purposes were artistic, not historical or representative. Their view of the topic is one of many. Whiteghost.ink 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

end of copy section
 * Comment - I believe wider participation would improve this article, and others that attract the same traffic (see edit history for last year). So the above communication in my view doesn't fall into the net of WP:Canvassing, but all the same the subject of this article is not about art, the subject is either the Talmud or debatably the Talmud + ancient Assyria. Therefore I suggest a moratorium on any image edits, and even perhaps talk about images, for 2 or 3 days to give people who are not acquainted with the article subject area to read up on the Talmud and ancient Assyria before diving into what image might or might not be appropriate to the article content. Does that sound reasonable? If not then dive straight in :) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment before making a change. Three pix are included - so that should keep everybody happy for at least 24 hours.  I'll also suggest that a couple of folks here are pretty touchy - we can work this out to everybody's satisfaction.  Certainly if we can get some better ancient illustration.  Please take your time, there is no deadline, but there are people who will help.  Smallbones (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Smallbones, but WP guidelines are here for a purpose and WP:Revert says that it is the status quo of the article which should be maintained, not a disputed edit. Particularly since new editors with no history on this subject have been alerted, the article should hold its status quo so new editors can see how it looks under consensus. Can you please revert your last edit to restore the form of the article before recent swapping around of images. I'm concerned that the next thing we know someone will be adding some manga or anime images. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to cause any problems with this great article. I was simply trying to help by adding the section on Western art and the links within it to show that these sorts of images come with their own freight and of course to help readers learn about that freight if they want to. These art works are not context-free. As I said, they are neither illustrations, nor history; they are art, created by artists for their own (often purely aesthetic) purposes. That is important if you are choosing something to illustrate a topic like this. The Burney image communicates the antiquity of the topic, so it seems a good one to have as a lead. The topic is nothing if not ancient. The 19th century paintings show that the story of Lilith still resonated in that century. That is the only relevance they have. So in my opinion, they belong under a heading "Western art". You can see from the refs that Rossetti was interested in history (it was an important component of the PRB manifesto) and that he engaged with it, but he used it for his own poetic and artistic ends. As an artist, Collier was less interested in history than in the form of his subject. He has given his painting an historical title to increase its perceived merit and sales potential because the artistic arbiters of the day encouraged "history painting", so such a setting would have had more cachet than if he had called it "Woman with Snake". Both 19th century paintings are only loosely connected to the topic. I think you only need one 19th century painting in the Western art section, and that should be the one that is both the more tightly connected and the more famous - Rossetti's. This is even more the case if it is agreed that the topic is the Talmud or the Talmud + Assyria. Again, only trying to help by offering some thoughts about the best illustration. Sincerely, Whiteghost.ink 09:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whiteghost,
 * Sorry but again this is not an art article any more than it is a computer games, cosplay, manga or anime article, we have to respect WP:Weight.
 * (i) can we please have some respect for WP policy. WP:Revert states:
 * (ii) a 1800BCE statue with no relation to Judaism is no nearer a topic from a 800CE Jewish text (Alphabet of Sirach) than Rossetti's painting (2600 years on one side, 1000 on the other) no matter how famous it may be to art-buffs. With my visitor to the Louvre* hat on I am also well aware that Lady Lilith is a famous painting, but this is not an art article.
 * (iii) re. "the best illustration" - great but it is extremely difficult to a find a fully relevant and suitable Jewish woodcut or other illustration for material of this kind. To date the Collier one was the best, which is why it was the status quo. A truly suitable picture, which would really fit the article would be either the Lilith incantation bowl in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, or the one at Harvard University but neither of these exist in copyleft form to be uploaded to WP Commons. If someone wants to find a relevant image - there they are.
 * In ictu oculi (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never been to Delaware In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never been to Delaware In ictu oculi (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image reverted to status quo per WP:Revert. I got bored of waiting for someone else to revert. The fact that it's back to status quo doesn't mean it has to stay that way, please feel free to continue with discussion above. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My view of the images: A bit off-topic, but I do find the erroneous connection of manga with "perverted young man" to be a bit annoying, probably because my univerity's anime club is watching something not too different from Ugly Betty and something Philip K Dick could've written. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rossetti's Lady Lilith bears nothing to identify her as Lilith other than the title. It could just as easily be Mary Magdelene, a member of Rossetti's family, or some woman Rossetti fancied.  Rossetti did not use any of his interest in history in that painting at all.  The only connection is the title, and nothing else.  I actually had not seen the painting before seeing it in the Lilith article, so I don't get how it's "more famous."
 * The Burney relief is often identified with Lilith, but this identification has been discredited. If it wasn't for that, I'd prefer this over the others.
 * The Collier image is in line with the myth. The first time I saw the painting, I knew it was Lilith before seeing the title.  "Woman with Snake" would be a possible title, but such a subject is more modern and so mythology would be a more appropriate subject.  The painting's age and the subject's white skin kinda prevents it from being an earth or maize goddess accompanying the Rainbow Serpent from Australian Aboriginal mythology or the Horned Serpent from the Southeastern Ceremonial Complex.  It does not prevent the subject from being from Abrahamic mythology, as most of Europe saw it as a white mythology.  Anyone familiar with Abrahamic mythology would have to conclude it was Lilith or Eve, but such a sensual Eve is made less likely by the painting's age.  "Gratuitous and potentially offensive" has no bearing on Wikipedia's policies in any way, shape, or form; and the only real nudity are a pair of breasts (really, how are breasts offensive?  I'm not trying to be a twentysomething heterosexual male here, they just occupy space and occasionally provide nourishment and/or comfort).  I have seen this image in a number of works before reading this article.
 * The Incantation bowls are the oldest depictions of Lilith available, so I wouldn't object to using those. Perhaps we could contact someone at the museum at Pennsylvania University or the Semitic museum at Harvard and asks for a public domain image, copyleft image, or an image that they could give us permission to use.  While the Harvard bowl appears to be a little clearer, its more abstract (I'm not sure if I'm looking at eyes or breasts), so I favor the Pennsylvania bowl.  It's a little harder to make out (but it could just be the photo), though the face is more skull-like, which works well.
 * Interesting points about the images, although here the use of art is for illustration, so it remains an issue whether western or eastern illustrations are most appropriate. Be that as it may, why is it okay to have a section on Lilith in Western Literature and not one on Lilith in Western art and instead muddle the two? Why isn't it important to communicate the context of artistic and literary interpretations, especially the easy way via links from a quote? Whiteghost.ink 23:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, good comments
 * And sorry about the anti-mangaist jibe ;), it was based on an idle image search on "Lilith" and in reply to the "dirty old man" comment on the Collier painting's nipples. Note that User:Nanib also removed four nipples on the Bathsheba article at the same time.
 * Hi Whiteghost
 * "Why isn't it important to communicate the context of artistic and literary interpretations"? Because of WP:Weight mainly. It's inevitable that anything that becomes common cultural property across ages and religions will pick up both pop culture and high culture references. Particularly with Second Temple Judaism material transmission via Christianity into Western (then world) culture means that any Second Temple article such as Gehenna, Beelzebub, whatever will end up with a burgeoning video game section at the end of it which acts as a magnet for irrelevant IP traffic. I'm all in favour of high culture but there comes a point at which adding high art is no better than video games, the literature section here is already too fat, and could add Lilith (opera) by Deborah Drattell and novel by Naomi Gal and so on, but these need to be wikilinks if the authors/composers/artists are notable enough to have their own articles. Lady Lilith is notable but has its own article already - should we drop the image of Sassanid demon-protection bowl into the Rossetti bio because he sold a painting to Leyland as "Lilith" - as far as I can see that says more about Rossetti's marketing skills than anything relevant to occult beliefs among Jewish exiles in 6th Century Iraq. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Salamanca
What about Lilith by J. R. Salamanca? Cf. Gottlieb in The Paris Review Interviews, Vol. 1. --13Peewit (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Patricia Monaghan Goddesses in World Culture 2010 Page 65 "JR Salamanca's Lilith was made into a 1962 movie of the same title that has become a cult classic. A study of the Lilith archetype informed by Jungian psychology, the film's character of Lilith is the beautiful inmate in a sanitarium, " -- isn't Lilith (film) already in the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion
Would it be a good idea to break all the material about the impact of the "Lilith legend ... as source material in modern Western culture, literature, occultism, fantasy, and horror" into a new article (that is, break out sections 8, 9,10)? Then this article could focus on the ancient Talmudic and Assyrian components. Whiteghost.ink 11:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Whiteghost, helpful suggestion, and I personally would be in favour, but unfortunately I suspect it's probably against WP:CONTENTFORKING. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't intended as a suggestion to generate articles for/ against the topic or for giving different points of view about Lilith - that would be against the policy. The suggestion was rather to create an article about modern cultural impacts so those could be explored without compromising the original article's focus or purpose. Whiteghost.ink 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Laylah
In the Talmud, Hanina bar Hama talks about the night Angel Laylah (female) in charge of pregnancy, conception, birth and death.
 * Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa expounded: The angel in charge of pregnancy is named "Laylah." He takes a drop of semen and places it before the Holy One, blessed be He, saying: "Lord of the Universe, what shall be with this drop? Talmud, Niddah 16b USchick (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the Talmud has Hanina bar Papa saying that, and it is in the Lailah article. But to connect with Lilith we need Secondary not Primary sources, per WP:PSTS. Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis seems to think they are distinct The encyclopedia of Jewish myth, magic and mysticism 2007 says "Lailah: “Night.” Not to be confused with Lilith, this is the angel of conception (and sex). Lailah escorts new souls to their bodies and erases from their memories all the torah they knew in the guf ha-Briyot (Nid. 16b; Sanh.") In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Lilith with a serpent's tail
According to some sources, Lilith is the one who tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden, that's why the snake is depicted as female with a serpent's tail. It is not a mistake, but simply an interpretation. From the dictionary of angels "In the cabalah she is...represented as a naked woman whose body terminates in a serpent's tail." And this source talks about Lilith being "the female of Samael called 'snake' and illustrated as a snake from the 1400s on." Later when Christians didn't know the story about Lilith (because she's not in the Christian Bible) and didn't know why the snake was female, they came up with the explanation about the snake being "seductive" and that's why it's female. USchick (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi USchick, yes it is very likely that Hugo van der Goes, and other examples of Christian art with the tail, are indirectly influenced by medieval Jewish legends, but what ones? We've just discussed the problem with Gustav Davidson's book before on Lailah; It's a book for entertainment not a serious WP:RS, unlike Ginzberg which is the scholarly source he primarily used but rarely credits. Davidson's comment "In the cabalah she is...represented as a naked woman whose body terminates in a serpent's tail." is pretty well useless, he doesn't tell us where "in the cabalah" and often when you track Davidson's comments back to Ginzberg you find he's misread them. So to go in the article we'd need a source saying "painter X was influenced by Jewish tradition Y appearing in source text Z," or something concrete. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that quoting the Kaballah as a primary source would be very helpful in this case. Goddess in the Grass: Serpentine Mythology and the Great Goddess By Linda Foubister is a secondary source that describes Lilith being represented in art in the 14th century with a serpents tail  like the one by Hugo van der Goes. USchick (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Feminism should not be catorgized under Occult
With respect to the contributors of this article, In modern occultism: "The depiction of Lilith in Romanticism continues to be popular among feminists, Wiccans, satanists, and in other modern occultism" Feminism is not an occult and should not be referenced as such. Jessicaheiman
 * Jessica, agreed, not sure how secure Amy Scerba's webpage article is as a source in general, but that word in particular is now gone. Feel free to edit yourself. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

policy violations in this article
There are some problems here. Zerotalk 02:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Kramer's identification is repeated without question or justification by Manfred Hutter in the article on Lilith in Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (1999)". This is really quite preposterous, obviously violating WP:NOR and maybe even WP:BLP.  We are not allowed in Wikipedia's voice to question the scholarship of a subject expert.  The most we could do would be to quote another subject expert as questioning it.  The connection to Kramer is also OR, since Hutter does not mention Kramer at all (as far as I can see).  He cites only modern sources (1971–1991), including his own work.
 * 2) "finally being rejected on textual grounds by Sergio Ribichini (1978)".  Who says it was final?  Given that some more recent scholars disagree, it clearly wasn't final.  We are not allowed to take sides in a debate between scholars.
 * 3) "this too is rejected by more recent scholarship".  Here again the editor declares one opinion to trump the others, but editors are not allowed to do that.  The source "RLA 7:25" is also inadequate as a reference.  (Yes, I know "Reallexikon der Assyriologie", but why should readers have to know and who is the author of this opinion anyway?)
 * There are a lot of problems here, I agree. USchick (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I'm to blame for casting doubt on DDD, it is however a WP tertiary source and just recites/samples actual archaelogical/scholarly papers - which have moved on on Kramer's identification. But that's a minor point. Well there are problems in this the article, but the main problem was/is the large swathes of pseudo-scholarly nonsense by non archaeologist Hurwitz which need scything, and well meaning editing by believers in real angels and demons. When that's done maybe it'll be easier to clearly/cleanly present where modern scholarship is on Kramer's identification. But per WP:PSTS we want to favour secondary sources over tertiary sources such as DDD. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Zero0000 I've made the 3 changes you indicate above. You were right on all 3 points. However you might want to take a look at the original state of this article, it was basically a fan-boy/girl shrine to the hidden knowledge of the real Lilith through the ages, rather than a detached look at how a babylonian demon migrated from incantation bowls of Jewish exiles in Babylon into rabbinical tradition. Some of the edits overcompensated. Any modern scholarly/archaeological content is welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hutter's article in DDD is a secondary source, since Hutter is an academic with relevant expertise. I don't see a reason to place it lower than an article in Anchor BD, for example. Zerotalk 04:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. To be honest I do not know whether between Handy in Anchor and Hutter in DDD which of the two has the more hands on research in this area. I suppose I'm slightly more disposed to place a scholar who says something is now debated to place a scholar who (as I remember looking in DDD) simply failed to mention the recent objections. By all means adjust. Though the ref from Kvam, Schearing, Ziegler 1999 suggests scholars plural, not just Handy. In any case, improvements to the lede are merely fixes. Ideally the actual paragraph Lilith needs to be better sourced and balanced. You were correct to challenge "finally" by Sergio Ribichini (1978), there must be half a dozen studies between 1978 and now. They need adding, then the lede will fix itself. Again, very much welcome someone with ANE expertise coming to this. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead
There was consensus on the lead and all of a sudden it changed to something ridiculous without any discussion. What happened? Lilith is a mythological figure, what makes her Jewish? Why is there commentary about her in the lead paragraph before she's even introduced? I'm reverting it. USchick (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to change? Could you underline? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Lilith is a legendary creature in many different cultures. She needs to be introduced before she is disputed. USchick (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi USchick, but Lilith is not a legendary creature in many different cultures. Lilith is primarily documented from Isaiah (possibly?), the prayer bowls, Talmud to the Alphabet of Sira as a Jewish legend. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The two bits you've bolded. ( < / u > can be used to underline).
 * 1. legendary creature, this might be better than "character" but "in Jewish mythology" should stay.
 * 2. I think a modern source in the lede "However, Lowell K. Handy (1997) notes, "Very little information has been found relating to the Akkadian and Babylonian view of these demons. Two sources of information previously used to define Lilith are both suspect."[1] The two problematic sources are the Gilgamesh appendix and the Arslan Tash amulets, which are discussed below.[2]" is definitely required given this article's history of using out of date Victorian sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Jewish mythology is not the same thing as Jewish religion. Currently, the article states "Jewish religion." This is inaccurate. 2. The subject needs to be introduced in an article. You can't dispute something you haven't properly introduced. 3. Mesopotamia is a region. There were lots of people there. Some of them were Jewish. Most of them were aware of Lilith. Therefore, she was a legendary creature and not a character (person). She was mentioned in Jewish sources, but only casually, because she needed no introduction, lots of people knew who she was. Even non-Jewish people. USchick (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Moses is a character in Jewish religion. Lilith is a legendary creature in Mesopotamian mythology. USchick (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again
 * 1. is correct, I agree. It should have said Jewish mythology
 * 2. is not correct. The current lede does introduce it.
 * 3. According to sources in the article there is no evidence of any non-Jewish belief in Lilith prior to the Christian Middle Ages. When you say "Lots of people" that suggests a source. What is it?
 * Now you've added a dispute tag - which was unneeded. And a bad habit when discussion was underway, why do you want a dispute? I'm not interested now, sorry, we'll freeze this until other regular editors get here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not the owner of this article. You can't just make stuff up and claim that you're not interested now. There was consensus about the lead and it was changed without discussion to something that is completely inaccurate. That's why I'm disputing it. USchick (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the owner of this article, but I am one of three or more regular contributors who has it on the watchlist as an article which attracts an undo amount of WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Your edit removed the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Lowell K. Handy and other sources and added unsourced opinion. Please present your source and other editors can look at it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Creation Myths of the World: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 Lilith was absorbed by the Hebrews while they were exiled in Babylon which means that other people knew about her, not just the Jewish people. The Biblical Archaeology Society agrees.  Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures were not all Jewish. North Syrian [], and definitely mythological. Cheers. USchick (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi thanks for these sources:
 * 1. David Adams Leeming is a reliable WP:RS, although this isn't one of his more academic works.

So evidently does not "mean that other people knew about her, not just the Jewish people." It means what it says, "The presence of the figure of Lilith [in the Talmudic Creation myth] reflects a Mesopotamian tradition absorbed, presumably, by the Hebrews in exile in Babylon." It does seem possible however that Leeming is unaware that the Lilith material in Mesopotamia is now discredited, since he makes no mention of recent research. I can't see what this will prove. Modern research separates Lilith into a distinctly Jewish myth based on some Mesopotamiam antecedents, as Leeming does. But there is no evidence for a single female "Lilitu" demon pre the Jewish sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2. What does the BAR article say?
 * 3. Sorry, the third source Raphael Patai (1967, 1990) is not reliable.
 * 2. According to the article: Lilitû – the hand of Sumerian Innana, lilitû demons are Assyrian, Greco-Roman mythology, Arabic mythology. According to the article and all the sources cited, Lilith is a multicultural figure, not simply a Jewish one.
 * Lilith is a legendary creature and all the sources support that.
 * I'm simply suggesting that in the lead paragraph, she needs to be introduced accurately. USchick (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi
 * 2. Please. What does the BAR article say? Please quote the sentence from the article.
 * As regards the lede. In order to make the change you want to make, you need to first provide a modern source for a single female Lilitu demon prior to the Jewish sources that takes into account recent scholarship. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not disputing the source, I'm disputing the description. Just because she was mentioned in Jewish sources, this does not make her a Jewish character. Moses was a Jewish character. Jesus was a Jewish character. There is a big difference between a Jewish character and a demonic legendary creature of non-Jewish origin, and they had trouble naming the creature in Jewish texts and translations – owl, zu bird, etc. Lilith is associated with Inanna which predates her Jewish heritage. She was mentioned in Jewish texts in reference to idol worshiping non Jewish people, which makes her not a Jewish character as stated in the lead. Biblical Archaeology Society: Lilith, or "night demon," the demon wife of Adam.  (Search for Lilith) USchick (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi U Schick
 * I located the BAR article, it's this which is already footnoted in the article. http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/lilith.asp
 * The lede says "a character in Jewish mythology," she's clearly a character in the Talmud per Leeming "figure".
 * These are not reliable sources:

As I said, in order to make the change you want to make, you need to first provide a modern source for a single female Lilitu demon prior to the Jewish sources that takes into account recent scholarship. These don't. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gillian M. E. Alban teaches Literature and English at Dogus University in Istanbul, Melusine The Serpent Goddess in A. S. Byatt's Possession and in Mythology 2003 doesn't cite recent research.
 * Lynn Gottlieb She Who Dwells Within: A Feminist Vision of a Renewed Judaism
 * The third source you've cited is 1903.
 * Please provide a source where she is "a character in Jewish mythology," otherwise, according to all the sources you cited, she is a legendary creature of Mesopotamian origin. Thanks. USchick (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've already covered these in the above (1) "character" rather than "creature" in the Talmud is supported by Leeming above. (2) the modern sources do not say she is a creature, nor that Lilith is of Mesopotamian origin. Leeming says "The presence of the figure of Lilith reflects a Mesopotamian tradition absorbed, presumably, by the Hebrews in exile in Babylon" which accords with what is in the lede. I think it best that we wait for either IanT, Editor2020 or Dougweller to get here. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to your own introduction, she appears on lists of animals and demons. How is that not a creature? If the sources say that she was absorbed into Jewish mythology from Mesopotamia, why not just say that? The incantations and amulets are used as protection against an evil spirit, not a character. Your own statements are not supported by the sources. USchick (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I invited comments from WikiProject Mythology. USchick (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone all at once, please. lol USchick (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Character" is more accurate. Arguing that "evil spirit" does not equal character makes no sense. An evil spirit certainly can be a character. Creature implies animal more than it does demon or spirit. Characters can be creatures also. As a comparison, centaurs are creatures, Chiron was a character. Lilith was a named individual entity. Character, spirit, demon, figure, etc. are all better descriptions than creature. Creature sounds too much like "I was playing Massive Myth Mash on my Wonkabilly 44 game system and killed 42 Liliths with my vorpal fireball!!!1!!!one!" DreamGuy (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)