Talk:Assyro-Babylonian religion/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Assyro-Babylonian religion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Ashurism vis-à-vis Assyrian mythology/Assyrianity
There are no results for 'Ashurism' on Google Scholar or JSTOR. Doing a general search on Google turns up a number of hits, but all of these belong to websites of the Modern Assyrian Community. I would, therefore, question the academic status of this term. — Gareth Hughes 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's a newly coined term. Let's just leave it at that. We could call it Assyrian mythology, but I don't see the point in that. Also, there's not much interest in the ancient Assyrians. By the way, AINA, to my knowledge, base most of their content on our history, on Assyriologists writings. So it's most likely, an academic term. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:21 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- The word is featured in this book [1], and this book [2], so it's most likely an academic term; though not a widely known one. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:22 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- If it's a newly coined term, then the article should say that: when and by whom. If AINA does not give references, we cannot assume that it is voicing academic opinion. It does not seem that this term is used in academic literature. The two books referenced are rather lightweight, the first is Assyrians of Eastern Massachusetts, clearly an 'in-community' publication likely to continue community usage. In the second book, the word appears in a long list of religious organisations beginning with 'A', and it looks like some pop science about biodiversity. Neither of these book look like Assyriologists using the term. — Gareth Hughes 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about we use Assyrian mythology as the title of the page, and we make a note in the article that it is also referred to as "Ashurism". I don't see a point in arguing over the name of the article, it's not a huge deal. Gareth, you're right in that it isn't used in academia, but I disagree with your comment that it has "no value". If the term "Buddhism" has any value, then the term "Ashurism" definitely has value simply by default, regardless of academic use (or the lack thereof). Who knows, maybe the term "Ashurism" can gain momentum in this century and become an "academic" term. =) --Šarukinu 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? What's the difference between Judaism and Ashurism? They both stem from the same period, and other religions are called something+ism. In the bible, they're referred to as Ashurites, that said, the religion's proper name is Ashurism. Also, the academic intelligentsia is not a valid argument. First of all, academics are not omniscient. Second of all, Assyriology is a very small field because there's not much to glean from. If you doubt AINA's sources, how about contacting them and ask them whence they got the term Ashurism? http://www.aina.org/contact.html EliasAlucard|Talk 21:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I have to ask, Garzo, out of sheer curiosity: why do you object to it being called Ashurism? Never mind the few questionable sources referring to it as Ashurism. Is it some kind of innate bias? Because really, I don't see the big deal with it being labelled Ashurism. It's an old pagan religion, centered around Ashur. If anything, Ashurism is the proper term, regardless of if it has become de facto standard in the academical sphere. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:33 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- However, 'Judaism' and 'Buddhism' are widely used terms, in academia and elsewhere. This is a coinage, as admitted by the creator of this article. It is not for Wikipedia to create new words by writing articles about them. Yes, the word is used, but it only exists in publications of Modern Assyrians. The religion of ancient Assyria is the proper domain of academic Assyriologists, so academic terminology should be used in preference to the coinages of non-academic groups. The arguments that any kind of -ism is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article is clearly spurious, as is the argument that insisting on academic terminology in an encyclopaedia smacks of the 'intelligentsia'. Please go ahead and talk to AINA — it is a matter for the defence. — Gareth Hughes 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've sent AINA a mail. Let's see what their response will be. However: Judaism' and 'Buddhism' are widely used terms, in academia and elsewhere. — Well, Judaism is still in practise, as is the case with Buddhism, and they're both a lot more prominent religions. Their wider use is proportionate to their prevalence. Also, Assyriology is still a young field. Have you read Assyriology books and not found the word Ashurism? This is a coinage, as admitted by the creator of this article. — Neologisms get coined all the time, and it wasn't by me, I just created the article after the most reliable sources available. It is not for Wikipedia to create new words by writing articles about them. Yes, the word is used, but it only exists in publications of Modern Assyrians. — As Assyrians, aren't we allowed to coin terms of our culture? I mean, isn't that our inherent right? Wikipedia did not create the word "Ashurism", Assyrians did, don't worry about original research, because that's not the case. Also, Ashurism per se is not illogical, it is, in my objective opinion, a very rational choice for naming our pre-Christian religion. By the way, what say you, about Ashurites? Doesn't that say anything at all? EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- However, 'Judaism' and 'Buddhism' are widely used terms, in academia and elsewhere. This is a coinage, as admitted by the creator of this article. It is not for Wikipedia to create new words by writing articles about them. Yes, the word is used, but it only exists in publications of Modern Assyrians. The religion of ancient Assyria is the proper domain of academic Assyriologists, so academic terminology should be used in preference to the coinages of non-academic groups. The arguments that any kind of -ism is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article is clearly spurious, as is the argument that insisting on academic terminology in an encyclopaedia smacks of the 'intelligentsia'. Please go ahead and talk to AINA — it is a matter for the defence. — Gareth Hughes 20:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have to ask, Garzo, out of sheer curiosity: why do you object to it being called Ashurism? Never mind the few questionable sources referring to it as Ashurism. Is it some kind of innate bias? Because really, I don't see the big deal with it being labelled Ashurism. It's an old pagan religion, centered around Ashur. If anything, Ashurism is the proper term, regardless of if it has become de facto standard in the academical sphere. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:33 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- How about, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? What's the difference between Judaism and Ashurism? They both stem from the same period, and other religions are called something+ism. In the bible, they're referred to as Ashurites, that said, the religion's proper name is Ashurism. Also, the academic intelligentsia is not a valid argument. First of all, academics are not omniscient. Second of all, Assyriology is a very small field because there's not much to glean from. If you doubt AINA's sources, how about contacting them and ask them whence they got the term Ashurism? http://www.aina.org/contact.html EliasAlucard|Talk 21:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- How about we use Assyrian mythology as the title of the page, and we make a note in the article that it is also referred to as "Ashurism". I don't see a point in arguing over the name of the article, it's not a huge deal. Gareth, you're right in that it isn't used in academia, but I disagree with your comment that it has "no value". If the term "Buddhism" has any value, then the term "Ashurism" definitely has value simply by default, regardless of academic use (or the lack thereof). Who knows, maybe the term "Ashurism" can gain momentum in this century and become an "academic" term. =) --Šarukinu 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- If it's a newly coined term, then the article should say that: when and by whom. If AINA does not give references, we cannot assume that it is voicing academic opinion. It does not seem that this term is used in academic literature. The two books referenced are rather lightweight, the first is Assyrians of Eastern Massachusetts, clearly an 'in-community' publication likely to continue community usage. In the second book, the word appears in a long list of religious organisations beginning with 'A', and it looks like some pop science about biodiversity. Neither of these book look like Assyriologists using the term. — Gareth Hughes 16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The word is featured in this book [1], and this book [2], so it's most likely an academic term; though not a widely known one. EliasAlucard|Talk 08:22 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is you don't coin words and create Wikipedia articles about them. 'Ashurism' is coinage by a few Modern Assyrian publications for the ancient Assyrian religion. If Assyriologists don't use the term and it is not in general use, then it is not a notable term. Ancient Assyrian religion is the preserve of Assyriologists, anything else is amateur writing. The latter should not inform an encyclopaedia. It is, perhaps, acceptable that, in an article on ancient Assyrian religion, to mention that the Modern Assyrian community has coined the term 'Ashurism' for the their understanding of the ancient religion, but it is not deserving of an article. This word does not exist in any dictionary or encyclopaedia and has been coined for a aspect of Assyriologists by people not qualified in the field. Let's wait to hear AINA's response. — Gareth Hughes 20:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Look, you may not like the word, but it's gaining ground. Someone, probably an Assyrian, coined the word, and it's being used more and more. There's simply not much interest in ancient Assyria, that's why, for instance, Ashurism is not a widely used word; it's not yet fully established. I'm sure most Assyriologists would agree anyway, that Ashurism is a proper naming for the old Assyrian religion. Also, Google search isn't always the best search engine. Have a look here: [3]. The Middle East Forum refers to it as Ashurism [4], the Anthropology of Religion site calls it Ashurism [5], Goodnews media calls it Ashurism [6], adherents.com lists it as Ashurism [7], and the bible calls them Ashurites. Again, I ask you, doesn't that count for anything? I think the bible referring to them as Ashurites, should be taken into consideration EliasAlucard|Talk 23:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias, khon, Garzo brings up a valid point and I agree with him to some extent. To name an article using a term that's not widely used isn't very academic and is somewhat against the purposes of Wikipedia. We can have a part about the term "Ashurism", but we can't name the article Ashurism - in stead, we should use the most widely used term. Akhilleus suggested "Religion in Assyria", which would have been ok, but technically that could refer to Christianity as well, because it's currently practiced in the geographical region corresponding to Assyria. Perhaps we can name it Religion in Ancient Assyria - I personally see nothing wrong with it, although I see "Ashurism" as the most accurate term to describe that religion. Regardless, "Ashurism" isn't an accepted term, as ridiculous as it may be.--Šarukinu 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to contact Assyriologist Simo Parpola, see what he has to say about Ashurism. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome idea. You have his contact info? --Šarukinu 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, but I think it's possible to acquire it from www.auf.nu since they interviewed him recently, as you can see here [8] Anyway, his opinion on this is definetely valuable. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:20 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- You call the University of Helsinki Faculty of Arts where he's teaching. — Gareth Hughes 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I can also contact my Assyriology professor from the University of Toronto. We should get input from multiple authorities on this subject. --Šarukinu 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- You call the University of Helsinki Faculty of Arts where he's teaching. — Gareth Hughes 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, but I think it's possible to acquire it from www.auf.nu since they interviewed him recently, as you can see here [8] Anyway, his opinion on this is definetely valuable. EliasAlucard|Talk 00:20 03 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome idea. You have his contact info? --Šarukinu 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to contact Assyriologist Simo Parpola, see what he has to say about Ashurism. EliasAlucard|Talk 23:27 02 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias, khon, Garzo brings up a valid point and I agree with him to some extent. To name an article using a term that's not widely used isn't very academic and is somewhat against the purposes of Wikipedia. We can have a part about the term "Ashurism", but we can't name the article Ashurism - in stead, we should use the most widely used term. Akhilleus suggested "Religion in Assyria", which would have been ok, but technically that could refer to Christianity as well, because it's currently practiced in the geographical region corresponding to Assyria. Perhaps we can name it Religion in Ancient Assyria - I personally see nothing wrong with it, although I see "Ashurism" as the most accurate term to describe that religion. Regardless, "Ashurism" isn't an accepted term, as ridiculous as it may be.--Šarukinu 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, I am the first to use the term Ashurism ([9]). I did this merely for convenience and brevity. I wanted a single noun to use when referring to the religion of the Assyrians in B.C. times, instead of typing "the religion of the Assyrians" or "Assyrian religion." I don't see where the controversy is in using this term. According to the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary, "ism" means (among other things) "a: doctrine : theory : religion <Buddhism> b: adherence to a system or a class of principles <stoicism>." This is a rather ordinary use of the English language and does not require an academic seal of approval. In fact, it is not in the purview of academics at all. The Assyrians are named, after all, after their god Ashur, and their land was called Ashur, and one of their five most important cities was called Ashur. Ashurites connotes the people, Ashurism the religion. Perfectly mundane use of English. Also keep in mind that their were Ashurites who were not Assyrians, so the "religion of Assyrians" would not be accurate. As for the other suggestion, "Assyrian mythology," this is not correct. Mythology is not the same as religion. For the Assyrians in B.C. times Ashurism was their religion, the Epic of Gilgamesh was (one of) their mythological stories. Religion is the asserted divine truth of its adherents, whereas mythology is the collected stories in the cultural fund of a nation -- it is not divine truth. (Keepa 22:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC))
- That's very well said, Keepa. As I said before, this is a good place for the term "Ashurism" to become more widespread. It is the most accurate term to describe the religion of the ancient Assyrians. I'm just not sure if it's within the scope of Wikipedia to name articles using terms that aren't widely used (or academically recognized). --Šarukinu 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well put, Keepa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with Šarukinu that Wikipedia could be a good way of popularizing the term Ashurism. I don't see how that would be the end of the world. We shouldn't be overly meticulous with this. I find it hard to imagine that any other Assyrilogist would disagree with the term Ashurism. Speaking of that, Šarukinu, what did your professor say? EliasAlucard|Talk 04:53 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe this to be overly meticulous: it is not for non-Assyriologists to invent a term for the field. Wikipedia is not for the popularisation of terms — "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (especially to disseminate newly coined words), "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (including "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day") and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Wikipedia official policy actually prohibits this kind of article. You cannot make up words and write articles about them no matter how clever or fitting the word is. We prove it to be a word widely used in Assyriology, or we turn this article into a redirect to a more acceptable name (as discussed previously). — Gareth Hughes 11:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Damn Garzo, no offence, and I do mean this in a positive way, but you're truly a pain in the ass :) Anyway, I'll try to contact Simo Parpola, just give me some time. Hopefully, Sarukinu will do the same with his Assyriology professor. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:28 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- That's the second personal comment against me on this page. You have previously been blocked for making personal attacks — now stop it. It is important to remember Wikipedia policy on this issue. I think it is quite clear that if this word is not shown to be a standard technical term in Assyriology then this article should either be deleted or redirected to a good name. The majority of arguments outlined above, about the suitability of the word, are spurious — you cannot coin words and create pages about them. — Gareth Hughes 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lighten up, will you? What's your problem? Can't you take a joke? Unbelievable. Did you not notice the smiley? You are obviously, like most Wikipedians, an enemy of Freedom of Speech, you have issues with someone questioning your motives, and you are also a hypocrite. You have been accusing me several times of Assyrianist propaganda, Assyrian revisionism (which is, needless to say, a personal attack) and lots of other personal attacks. I just made a joke, and you're insinuating subtle threats with blocking. I personally believe you are anti-Assyrian (at least that's the impression I've gotten so far), and that's why you don't want this term accepted, and because of it, you are hassling us instead of helping us out with collaboration. Seriously, what's the difference between the term Ashurism, and Islamism, Buddhism, etcetera? They do have their own articles, do they not? You're basing this on ad populum fallacies, i.e., if it's a widely used word, then, and only then, should it be allowed because it couldn't be right otherwise. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- We could be, instead of arguing over the name, trying to actually waste some time on the actual religion and some facts on it. But look what we got here, Garzo has gotten us into am overhauled dispute. Great job, Garzo, keep it up. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:15 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Lighten up, will you? What's your problem? Can't you take a joke? Unbelievable. Did you not notice the smiley? You are obviously, like most Wikipedians, an enemy of Freedom of Speech, you have issues with someone questioning your motives, and you are also a hypocrite. You have been accusing me several times of Assyrianist propaganda, Assyrian revisionism (which is, needless to say, a personal attack) and lots of other personal attacks. I just made a joke, and you're insinuating subtle threats with blocking. I personally believe you are anti-Assyrian (at least that's the impression I've gotten so far), and that's why you don't want this term accepted, and because of it, you are hassling us instead of helping us out with collaboration. Seriously, what's the difference between the term Ashurism, and Islamism, Buddhism, etcetera? They do have their own articles, do they not? You're basing this on ad populum fallacies, i.e., if it's a widely used word, then, and only then, should it be allowed because it couldn't be right otherwise. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:06 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- That's the second personal comment against me on this page. You have previously been blocked for making personal attacks — now stop it. It is important to remember Wikipedia policy on this issue. I think it is quite clear that if this word is not shown to be a standard technical term in Assyriology then this article should either be deleted or redirected to a good name. The majority of arguments outlined above, about the suitability of the word, are spurious — you cannot coin words and create pages about them. — Gareth Hughes 13:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Damn Garzo, no offence, and I do mean this in a positive way, but you're truly a pain in the ass :) Anyway, I'll try to contact Simo Parpola, just give me some time. Hopefully, Sarukinu will do the same with his Assyriology professor. EliasAlucard|Talk 15:28 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I do not believe this to be overly meticulous: it is not for non-Assyriologists to invent a term for the field. Wikipedia is not for the popularisation of terms — "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" (especially to disseminate newly coined words), "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (including "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day") and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Wikipedia official policy actually prohibits this kind of article. You cannot make up words and write articles about them no matter how clever or fitting the word is. We prove it to be a word widely used in Assyriology, or we turn this article into a redirect to a more acceptable name (as discussed previously). — Gareth Hughes 11:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well put, Keepa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with Šarukinu that Wikipedia could be a good way of popularizing the term Ashurism. I don't see how that would be the end of the world. We shouldn't be overly meticulous with this. I find it hard to imagine that any other Assyrilogist would disagree with the term Ashurism. Speaking of that, Šarukinu, what did your professor say? EliasAlucard|Talk 04:53 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Gareth here. The page needs to be moved to Religion in Ancient Assyria, corresponding with Religion in Ancient Greece, Religion in Ancient Rome, etc. Gareth said it perfectly; The bottom line is you don't coin words and create Wikipedia articles about them. Chaldean 14:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't happen to find being damned and called a pain in the ass very funny, with or without a 'smiley' — a joke at my expense, hey! Now come come the accusations of being anti-Assyrian. Elias Alucard has a history of incivility. Focus on providing evidence for the notability of this word rather than lashing out at anyone who questions you. — Gareth Hughes 14:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's really, because you are an old man, Garzo. You know, a little stiff. Again, no offence, but you should stop taking yourself too seriously, you know, be a little bit more humble. I believe, Christianity teaches that. Anyway, I object to the religion in ancient assyria proposal. That would be a more general topic, and it would include Judaism, and other non-Assyrian religions that were practised in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. This is, specifically, an Assyrian religion (much like Judaism is a Jewish religion), and although it's a dead religion today, it merits an article of its own. Though I wouldn't mind a Religion in Ancient Assyria article, that's quite ambivalent and not exactly what this article is about: Ashurism, worship of Ashur. Assyria at the end, was a multiculturalist society, and it included other religions. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:29 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias, please refrain from personal attacks against others. How about Assyrian mythology? Chaldean 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's really, because you are an old man, Garzo. You know, a little stiff. Again, no offence, but you should stop taking yourself too seriously, you know, be a little bit more humble. I believe, Christianity teaches that. Anyway, I object to the religion in ancient assyria proposal. That would be a more general topic, and it would include Judaism, and other non-Assyrian religions that were practised in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. This is, specifically, an Assyrian religion (much like Judaism is a Jewish religion), and although it's a dead religion today, it merits an article of its own. Though I wouldn't mind a Religion in Ancient Assyria article, that's quite ambivalent and not exactly what this article is about: Ashurism, worship of Ashur. Assyria at the end, was a multiculturalist society, and it included other religions. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:29 04 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Stepping back and looking at the wider picture, this is a bare stub of an article, as is Ashur (god). Might it make sense to combine the two and address the worship of Ashur in the article on Ashur? This avoids the contentiousness about the name of the article on the religion, since Ashurism, Assyrian mythology, and the like would all just point to the article about Ashur. Then, as the article becomes large enough to warrant carving out the practice of the religion from the stories of the god, a) we can carve the religion out to its own article and b) we will have collected enough sources to reach a wider consensus on what the scholarly term is. —C.Fred (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is not an academic issue, it is ordinary use of English. A living language will produce neologisms. Is this sentence correct: "I googled the name ashur." Before Google was founded it would not have been correct, but now it is not so clear. People use "googled" to mean "searched for." How about "I xeroxed the page" -- which really means "I copied the page using a Xerox photostatic machine." It is not Wikipedia's business to say what is or is not correct vis-a-vis English words, even dictionaries don't do that. If a word is being used then it is valid. And in this case, since there are so many analogous examples (Judaism, Budhism, Manicheanism), and the word is grammatically correct, there is no reason to question its usage. I am beginning to think, from my experience with such things concerning Assyrians, that there are personal biases at work with some who are opposing this word. Keepa 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Chaldean, Keepa already discussed what's wrong with the term "Assyrian Mythology".. I'll re-post what he said:
As for the other suggestion, "Assyrian mythology," this is not correct. Mythology is not the same as religion. For the Assyrians in B.C. times Ashurism was their religion, the Epic of Gilgamesh was (one of) their mythological stories. Religion is the asserted divine truth of its adherents, whereas mythology is the collected stories in the cultural fund of a nation -- it is not divine truth.
Elias is right about the term "Religion in Ancient Assyria" - it's too ambiguous. As for merging Ashurism with Ashur (god), that won't work either. The religion of the Ashurites was not exclusive to the worship of the god Ashur, as they also worshipped other lower gods such as Shamash, Ishtar, Sin, etc (see henotheism). I say we expand the article with the current title "Ashurism", and if some Wikipedia admins don't like it, they can take it up with those of us who are editing this article, and we can discuss it with them. Arguing over the title of the article is not productive at all. --Šarukinu 20:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Religion in ancient Assyria
As people have noted in the discussion above, I think this is a better title for the article. "Ashurism" is a neologism, and so far we haven't seen that it's prevalent in scholarly discourse (although, as has been pointed out above, there are not as many Assyriologists as there ought to be, so it's not like there's a ton of scholarly discourse). Because "Ashurism" is an uncommon term, I don't think many readers are going to find this article through web searches. Until there's a clear consensus for the name, though, the article should stay here; in the meanwhile, I'll create Religion in ancient Assyria as a redirect to this page. If there are other logical redirects those should also be created. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, Akhilleus. But "Religion in ancient Assyria" (which is a pretty decent alternative), as Elias mentioned above, could refer to numerous religions that existed in the Assyrian empire, as Assyria was a vast collection of different peoples, ethnicities, religions, cultures, etc. I really do not see an alternative to Ashurism. The only problem (if it really is one) is its lack of academic use. --Šarukinu 06:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mm. I see the problem. Perhaps "Religion in ancient Assyria" should be a quasi-disambiguation page which directs users to the different religions that were practiced in ancient Assyria (of course, whether people at the time thought of "religion" as a discrete practice and recognized different religions in the sense that we do is an important thing to consider). As long as "Ashurism" or whatever it's called has the appropriate incoming links from other articles about Assyria and the Assyrians, it won't be a big problem if it can't be easily found through web searches. I would still prefer a term that's commonly used in scholarship--but maybe there isn't one. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, Akhilleus. From there we can post links to other religions that existed at the time throughout the Assyrian empire. Here's one reason as to why there isn't currently an alternative term for "Ashurism": the ancient Assyrians (and people of Mesopotamia in general) did not have a defined term for "religion", as we do. They had words for "temple", "worship", "god", "sacrifice", and all other terms tied to religion. But they did not have a word for "religion" itself. So when Assyriologists were translating the cuneiform texts and learning about this ancient religion, they never found an Akkadian equivalent for "religion" in the sense that we do in our modern languages. Still, it's very odd that nobody had originally coined a term equal to "Ashurism" as Peter (Keepa) has done in his article on AINA. --Šarukinu 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the title Religion in ancient Assyria makes perfect sense. While there are some small articles on Assyrian gods, there is no one overall article on the pantheon. This title would be appropriate to such an article. It says exactly what it is, unlike this coinage. At its height, Assyria controlled lands in which Caananite, Aramaean and Babylonian gods were worshipped. However, there was an official Assyrian pantheon with Asshur at its head, such that one can refer to Religion in ancient Assyria without overmuch vagueness. There is no term for this religion, because none is needed: one simply has to refer to ancient Assyrian religion. — Gareth Hughes 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- All right, that does it. I know what this is about. Garzo, why don't you just admit it, you have something against Assyrians, do you not? For instance, here, you reverted my edit with the reason "rv: AINA call everyone Assyrian, not unbiased source, there are many people who call themselves Syriac who do not like being called Assyrian" — Right. You know, just as well as I do, that these Syriacs, are ethnic Assyrians, and not Aramaeans, as they claim to be. They call everyone who speaks Aramaic, Aramaeans; they are uneducated, brainwashed, lost fools. You simply don't want them to revert back to their true identity (Assyrians), and you know, for a fact, that Simo Parpola (whom I cited as a reference in that edit), is an expert Assyriologist from Finland, and that he's not payed by AINA to spread some kind of Assyrian propaganda. On your talk page, you've accused me of "Assyrian propaganda" and "Assyrian revisionism", and I quote: "Because it seems that you are doing the usual Assyrian Revisionist thing of extending some idea of ethnicity to as many Middle-East Christians as poosible.". This is, not only a personal attack, but it is also slander, and a damned lie, and you are also insinuating that I am some kind of dishonest liar. Did you see me, running to Neil and crying over some lame personal attacks like a baby? No, I didn't. But it just shows your biased POV. You know just as well as I do, that the Syriacs are, indeed, Assyrians. For the record, my mother is a Syriac. I wouldn't be stating this if it was some kind of cheap propaganda. We Assyrians, have been scattered because of the Assyrian diaspora and all the Assyrian Genocides, we have gone different ways and some of us don't even want to see themselves as Assyrians any longer. And now, in spite of all the enmity that exists between our churches, we're trying to unite our people, and your personal attacks filled with slander, isn't exactly helping us out. Here, you can see Richard N. Frye, stating (and he's a historian), that the Syrians (not the arabs living in Syria, but the real Syrians, the Syriacs i.e.) are the same people as the Assyrians. No, we don't want to include every Christian in the middle-east as Assyrians. Only those that are, Assyrians. These are the Syriacs, the Nestorians, and the Chaldeans. Period. Now, to the main point here. This article, coinage or not, is properly named. The Jews have named their religion after Kingdom of Judah. We Assyrians, though this is not a widely discussed topic amongst Assyrians, have named our ancient religion, on the exact same grounds: Ashurism, after our deified ancestor, Ashur, and due to the name of our ancestral homeland, Assyria, which was named after Ashur. What's wrong with that? Look, we may not have any political power today, and the world doesn't give a shit about us. But at the very least, we are allowed to name our culture and we don't need Assyriologists wiping our ass every five seconds and telling us what's what. Yes, I appreciate all the research they've done into our culture and history, but please, understand, we are at the very least, entitled to adopt a name of our ancient religion. AINA, as tiny as this News agency is, and as worthless as this organisation is in the real world, to us, it's something big, because we don't have much. They've named it Ashurism? Fine, I see no problem with it. Religion in ancient Assyria, would imply not a specific religion, but several non-Assyrian religions, as in plural, in ancient Assyria. Also, there is an article on Jesus, there is also an article on Christianity. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am a Christian and I'm not elevating Ashur to the same level as Jesus, but what I'm saying, is that the same rules should apply here on Ashur (god) and Ashurism as it does on Jesus Christ and Christianity. We could call this religion, Assyrianity, but that sounds stupid. Now can we please, put aside your bias, Garzo, and start working on the actual article and trying to dig up some facts on the Ashur religion per se, instead of quarrelling over this? Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:09 06 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- What a horrible big tantrum of a rant! I made the point that Ashurism is not a term in Assyriology, and, thus, we shouldn't use it. It's that straightforward, but I have been repeatedly lambasted by this user. Bad attitude will not get your point across; in fact, tantrums tend to do the opposite. It's funny that you're the one who told me to keep cool. — Gareth Hughes 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you have been getting on my nerves :) Look, can we reasonable about this? Assyriology, and don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the field a lot, but it's not exactly the most common and 'alive' study today. There are, what? 100 Assyriologists in the world, if that? Couldn't it be so, that since it's a stale subject, not much progress has been done on the matter, especially not, the ancient religion of the Assyrians? Don't get me wrong here, I know you want to be factual, and that's a good thing! But please understand, we are ahead of the Assyriologists on this specific point: the name of the religion. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:57 06 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- What a horrible big tantrum of a rant! I made the point that Ashurism is not a term in Assyriology, and, thus, we shouldn't use it. It's that straightforward, but I have been repeatedly lambasted by this user. Bad attitude will not get your point across; in fact, tantrums tend to do the opposite. It's funny that you're the one who told me to keep cool. — Gareth Hughes 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- All right, that does it. I know what this is about. Garzo, why don't you just admit it, you have something against Assyrians, do you not? For instance, here, you reverted my edit with the reason "rv: AINA call everyone Assyrian, not unbiased source, there are many people who call themselves Syriac who do not like being called Assyrian" — Right. You know, just as well as I do, that these Syriacs, are ethnic Assyrians, and not Aramaeans, as they claim to be. They call everyone who speaks Aramaic, Aramaeans; they are uneducated, brainwashed, lost fools. You simply don't want them to revert back to their true identity (Assyrians), and you know, for a fact, that Simo Parpola (whom I cited as a reference in that edit), is an expert Assyriologist from Finland, and that he's not payed by AINA to spread some kind of Assyrian propaganda. On your talk page, you've accused me of "Assyrian propaganda" and "Assyrian revisionism", and I quote: "Because it seems that you are doing the usual Assyrian Revisionist thing of extending some idea of ethnicity to as many Middle-East Christians as poosible.". This is, not only a personal attack, but it is also slander, and a damned lie, and you are also insinuating that I am some kind of dishonest liar. Did you see me, running to Neil and crying over some lame personal attacks like a baby? No, I didn't. But it just shows your biased POV. You know just as well as I do, that the Syriacs are, indeed, Assyrians. For the record, my mother is a Syriac. I wouldn't be stating this if it was some kind of cheap propaganda. We Assyrians, have been scattered because of the Assyrian diaspora and all the Assyrian Genocides, we have gone different ways and some of us don't even want to see themselves as Assyrians any longer. And now, in spite of all the enmity that exists between our churches, we're trying to unite our people, and your personal attacks filled with slander, isn't exactly helping us out. Here, you can see Richard N. Frye, stating (and he's a historian), that the Syrians (not the arabs living in Syria, but the real Syrians, the Syriacs i.e.) are the same people as the Assyrians. No, we don't want to include every Christian in the middle-east as Assyrians. Only those that are, Assyrians. These are the Syriacs, the Nestorians, and the Chaldeans. Period. Now, to the main point here. This article, coinage or not, is properly named. The Jews have named their religion after Kingdom of Judah. We Assyrians, though this is not a widely discussed topic amongst Assyrians, have named our ancient religion, on the exact same grounds: Ashurism, after our deified ancestor, Ashur, and due to the name of our ancestral homeland, Assyria, which was named after Ashur. What's wrong with that? Look, we may not have any political power today, and the world doesn't give a shit about us. But at the very least, we are allowed to name our culture and we don't need Assyriologists wiping our ass every five seconds and telling us what's what. Yes, I appreciate all the research they've done into our culture and history, but please, understand, we are at the very least, entitled to adopt a name of our ancient religion. AINA, as tiny as this News agency is, and as worthless as this organisation is in the real world, to us, it's something big, because we don't have much. They've named it Ashurism? Fine, I see no problem with it. Religion in ancient Assyria, would imply not a specific religion, but several non-Assyrian religions, as in plural, in ancient Assyria. Also, there is an article on Jesus, there is also an article on Christianity. Now, don't get me wrong here, I am a Christian and I'm not elevating Ashur to the same level as Jesus, but what I'm saying, is that the same rules should apply here on Ashur (god) and Ashurism as it does on Jesus Christ and Christianity. We could call this religion, Assyrianity, but that sounds stupid. Now can we please, put aside your bias, Garzo, and start working on the actual article and trying to dig up some facts on the Ashur religion per se, instead of quarrelling over this? Thanks. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:09 06 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I think the title Religion in ancient Assyria makes perfect sense. While there are some small articles on Assyrian gods, there is no one overall article on the pantheon. This title would be appropriate to such an article. It says exactly what it is, unlike this coinage. At its height, Assyria controlled lands in which Caananite, Aramaean and Babylonian gods were worshipped. However, there was an official Assyrian pantheon with Asshur at its head, such that one can refer to Religion in ancient Assyria without overmuch vagueness. There is no term for this religion, because none is needed: one simply has to refer to ancient Assyrian religion. — Gareth Hughes 13:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's a great idea, Akhilleus. From there we can post links to other religions that existed at the time throughout the Assyrian empire. Here's one reason as to why there isn't currently an alternative term for "Ashurism": the ancient Assyrians (and people of Mesopotamia in general) did not have a defined term for "religion", as we do. They had words for "temple", "worship", "god", "sacrifice", and all other terms tied to religion. But they did not have a word for "religion" itself. So when Assyriologists were translating the cuneiform texts and learning about this ancient religion, they never found an Akkadian equivalent for "religion" in the sense that we do in our modern languages. Still, it's very odd that nobody had originally coined a term equal to "Ashurism" as Peter (Keepa) has done in his article on AINA. --Šarukinu 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mm. I see the problem. Perhaps "Religion in ancient Assyria" should be a quasi-disambiguation page which directs users to the different religions that were practiced in ancient Assyria (of course, whether people at the time thought of "religion" as a discrete practice and recognized different religions in the sense that we do is an important thing to consider). As long as "Ashurism" or whatever it's called has the appropriate incoming links from other articles about Assyria and the Assyrians, it won't be a big problem if it can't be easily found through web searches. I would still prefer a term that's commonly used in scholarship--but maybe there isn't one. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There are many, many wikipedia articles on much shakier ground than this one. So far as I know, a word need not arise from scholarly sources to appear in WP; they merely need to "reliable." I am willing to let the "modern Assyrian community" establish this as a suitable term. A scholar.google search for "ashur worship" also turns up no hits. Does Ashur worship therefore not exist? The term "Ashurite" occurs in the Bible (2 Samuel 2:9), which suggests that "Ashurism" is an acceptable usage. Beyond that, "Ashurism" may be a neologism in English, but, obviously, followers of Ashur probably had a term for their religion, which, since their religion is extinct, never had call to be translated into English.Wachholder 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lots of valid points, Wachholder. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:32 06 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- There really wasn't a term for "religion" in the ancient Akkadian language, Wachholder. Had there been one, it would have turned up at least once in the hundreds of thousands of texts that have been uncovered from different periods in ancient Near Eastern history. Garzo, thank you for your input, and if you have information related to the religion of the Ashurites then by all means contribute. You've made a strong and valid case against the name "Ashurism", but the only argument you have provided thus far is that Ashurism isn't a widely used term. --Šarukinu 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Elias, one point about Assyriologists. They know things about our history that we would never have known ourselves. Prior to the field of Assyriology, all we had were Greek myths about Semiramis (Shammuramat), the Old Testament (a very biased view of the Assyrians) and bits of the Akkadian language preserved in our own language. Yes, it's possible that many Assyriologists lack an inside view of our culture, but they are definitely the only qualified authorities on the culture of our ancient ancestors. --Šarukinu 20:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you; that's the point I've been trying to make. Google Scholar gives 215 hits for "Asshur worship" (not all of good quality), and JSTOR gives 104. Understand that the study and description of ancient Assyria is an academic discipline, Assyriology. As with all other Wikipedia articles, without exception, this article should reflect the best mainstream academic opinion on the subject (if there is one), supported by references. The name Religion in ancient Assyria is acceptable to the majority of contributors here, and there has only been one, partial argument outlined above — I would like to hear that given in full so that we can discuss it. I don't know how many here read Hebrew, but II Sam. 2.9 uses the word האשורי and there is some uncertainty over that reading (mostly variants in LXX versions). I'm not entirely sure what we are supposed to gain from repeated references to it. I hope that is all quite straighforward and solid. The Sackler Library is right next to where I work if anyone wants me to look anything up there. — Gareth Hughes 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
After additional review and considering the arguments presented above, I think "Religion in Ancient Assyria" seems to be a more suitable title for the article. Wachholder 02:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wachholder, we have mentioned the problem with "Religion in Ancient Assyria" several times - the term is too ambiguous. That page will remain a disambiguation page (with a short description) linking to other religions geographically encompassed by the Assyrian empire at the time, including Zorastrianism, Judaism, the Urartean religion, Ashurism, etc. To use "Religion in Ancient Assyria" as the title for the religion of the Ashurites is to assume that all inhabitants of the Assyrian empire practiced Ashurism, which of course was not the case - this also applies to the term "Religion of the Ancient Assyrians". This is proving to be somewhat of a difficult matter, mainly because "Mesopotamia" was a diverse, multi-ethnic region, as opposed to any other region in the world at the time, such as Egypt (for the most part). So if we refer to the religion of the Ashurites, the only sensible way to do so is to refer to the religion itself - not by the name of the followers, and not by the name of the region.
Garzo, as for the uncertainty over the reading of האשורי , that's shouldn't concern us as the editors of this article until a conclusion has been reached by the "experts". For now, let's focus on what we do have about the religion of the Ashurites. I've laid out a very basic outline, detailing what should be included - again, let me stress that this is a basic outline. Much more is needed, of course, but that will take time =) --Šarukinu 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)- As I've pointed out now, Assyriologists' work on ancient Assyria, is highly valuable to me as an Assyrian. I am not in any way trying to condescend the effort they've put into studying our forefathers. But, as it is today, we Assyrians still exists. We happen to be few, and we may go under as an ethnic people because of the diaspora, and we have our internal problems; some of us have rejected their Assyrian identity in lieu of trying to be Aramaeans, Chaldeans (Babylonians i.e.), etcetera, and our people is suffering tremendously right now in Iraq, and the world is just watching passively observing it and refuse to give us any recognition... Whatever the case, the Assyrian people still exist. We are still alive, and we are trying (at least some of us) to get back on our feet. We Assyrians, are entitled to name our ancient religion. No one has the right to come here and take that right away from us. We have already been bereft of our ancestral homeland, and this little right, you want to take away from us as well? No way. We have named it Ashurism, deal with it. It's not like we're trying to rejuvenate the ancient Assyrain religion or something. We have just given it a name. And it's a carefully chosen name, on rational grammatical grounds. The Assyrians who practised this religion, were called Ashurites. This is like I've pointed out before, in the bible. Hence, it nullifies any need of academic opinion on the matter. "Religion in Ancient Assyria" is not the name of the religion. That's a generic term, a politically correct term, I guess. It's a politically correct term implying that the Assyrians didn't have any specific religion. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:34 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I'm going to have to go with "Religion in ancient Assyria" or some variant thereof. Admittedly there's a potential problem in that not everyone in the various Assyrian states/empires worshiped the same gods and observed the same religious practices, there's an even bigger problem with the word "Ashurism"--it implies that ancient Assyrian religion was a religion in the same sense that Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc. is. As Sarkinu has already illustrated, the ancient Assyrians didn't conceive of religion in that way--they didn't even have a word for it. The situation is similar in ancient Greece, and you'll notice we don't have Zeusism--we just have Religion in ancient Greece. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's hardly the same case. Greeks didn't call themselves after Zeus, neither did they call their country, or city states, after Zeus. Although, to be fair, they did call Athens after Athena, and its inhabitants, Athenians. Here's the main difference however: the Ashur worshippers, were called, Ashurites. Why is this fact, obviously being ignored here? Another minor hypocrisy, is that Garzo objects to the lack of Assyriologist opinion on this matter. However, in the case of Syriacs, which clearly exists several unanimous Assyriologists who all say they're Assyrians (of which, Simo Parpola is one of them), that's still not a good enough reason for Garzo to accept it. Right, Mr. anti-Assyrian. Also, let me remind you, that Ashurism was a henotheism religion. So it's technically, not wrong to call it Ashurism. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:54 07 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm English, so this means that I can invent the term Wodenism — but I'm not an historian of ancient Britain, so to do so would be idiotic, and certainly not encyclopaedic. By the way, האשורי translates as 'Assyrian' or 'of Assur': it would still be a leap to say that this word indicates that 'Ashurism' is a obvious construct. The argument against Religion in ancient Assyria seems based on the multiplicity of religious practice in the empire at its greatest extent. However, Assyrians did have an official religion of their own, borrowing elements of Babylonian and Sumerian religion. It is perfectly reasonable to call this Assyrian religion. It is clear that this cannot mean Zoroastrianism, as this is an Iranian religion; it cannot mean Judaism, as this is a religion of Israel. This sounds specific and clear to me. What is the objection to it? — Gareth Hughes 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think "Ancient Assyrian Religion" would be more suitable, as "Assyrian Religion" also includes Christianity, and to use that term as a header for Ashurism would give people the wrong idea about modern Assyrians. Gareth, "Assyrian" is simply the Greek attempt at pronouncing "Ashurian" (the Akkadian and Hebrew equivalent). And to refer to the ancient Assyrian religion as Ashurism is not "idiotic", as you may have suggested with your analogy about "Wodenism". There's nothing wrong with the term Ashurism except for its absence in academic literature, and absence in mainstream culture - nobody can doubt the value or accuracy of the term. But still, this is a tough issue.
Akhilleus, the closest parallel (in terms of structure) to Ashurism is Hinduism - they are both henotheistic religions. Ashurism was arguably a religion on the same level as, and a precursor to, many of our modern religions. --Šarukinu 05:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think "Ancient Assyrian Religion" would be more suitable, as "Assyrian Religion" also includes Christianity, and to use that term as a header for Ashurism would give people the wrong idea about modern Assyrians. Gareth, "Assyrian" is simply the Greek attempt at pronouncing "Ashurian" (the Akkadian and Hebrew equivalent). And to refer to the ancient Assyrian religion as Ashurism is not "idiotic", as you may have suggested with your analogy about "Wodenism". There's nothing wrong with the term Ashurism except for its absence in academic literature, and absence in mainstream culture - nobody can doubt the value or accuracy of the term. But still, this is a tough issue.
- I'm English, so this means that I can invent the term Wodenism — but I'm not an historian of ancient Britain, so to do so would be idiotic, and certainly not encyclopaedic. By the way, האשורי translates as 'Assyrian' or 'of Assur': it would still be a leap to say that this word indicates that 'Ashurism' is a obvious construct. The argument against Religion in ancient Assyria seems based on the multiplicity of religious practice in the empire at its greatest extent. However, Assyrians did have an official religion of their own, borrowing elements of Babylonian and Sumerian religion. It is perfectly reasonable to call this Assyrian religion. It is clear that this cannot mean Zoroastrianism, as this is an Iranian religion; it cannot mean Judaism, as this is a religion of Israel. This sounds specific and clear to me. What is the objection to it? — Gareth Hughes 19:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Ashurites
I just read a Swedish translation of the verse where Ashurites are mentioned (2 Samuel 2:9). It appears, that Ashurite, is an equivalent of Israelite. That said, I don't think it has to do with Ashur worshippers; it's actually, Assyrian citizens. Stupid of me to not have figured this out earlier. Though of course, most Ashurites were probably Ashur worshippers anyway. So, what's your opinion on this? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:37 12 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- It may have nothing to do with Assyria. It may be a corruption of Gerushites (attested in mss). It is one sentence. How much do you really think you can make out of it? — Gareth Hughes 01:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that it might be the Geshurites, but until there is evidence to prove that claim, all we can do as Wikipedia editors is to assume that it refers to the worshipers of Ashur. Anyways, I just received word from my professor of Assyriology - he has never heard of the term "Ashurism" before, and says that the standard term is "Assyrian Religion". In this case, what I propose is that "Assyrian Religion" be the title of the article, and have a hatnote at the top of the page which links to Assyrian/Syriac Christianity. I personally feel that ancient Assyrian religion is better, but I'm certainly no authority. Let me know what you guys think. I will start doing some work on this article very soon. --Šarukinu 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aziza Elias, can you give me a reason for your revert? Basima. --Šarukinu 15:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- To preserve the article history, this article should be moved to the new name rather than cut and pasted. Depending on the state of the new location you may need an admin to make the move. — Gareth Hughes 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Like Garzo points out, you can't just redirect from this article to another article. You should move the article, along with its associated talk page, and entire history. That's how we can keep track of articles, by moving them instead of just redirecting. It by default includes the history of the article. On all Wikipedia articles (unless they're locked), there is a move button. Hope that helps :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:46 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, I've never moved an article before ;) So there are no objections to the actual move? --Šarukinu 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Like Garzo points out, you can't just redirect from this article to another article. You should move the article, along with its associated talk page, and entire history. That's how we can keep track of articles, by moving them instead of just redirecting. It by default includes the history of the article. On all Wikipedia articles (unless they're locked), there is a move button. Hope that helps :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:46 14 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- To preserve the article history, this article should be moved to the new name rather than cut and pasted. Depending on the state of the new location you may need an admin to make the move. — Gareth Hughes 16:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aziza Elias, can you give me a reason for your revert? Basima. --Šarukinu 15:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that it might be the Geshurites, but until there is evidence to prove that claim, all we can do as Wikipedia editors is to assume that it refers to the worshipers of Ashur. Anyways, I just received word from my professor of Assyriology - he has never heard of the term "Ashurism" before, and says that the standard term is "Assyrian Religion". In this case, what I propose is that "Assyrian Religion" be the title of the article, and have a hatnote at the top of the page which links to Assyrian/Syriac Christianity. I personally feel that ancient Assyrian religion is better, but I'm certainly no authority. Let me know what you guys think. I will start doing some work on this article very soon. --Šarukinu 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I now can't find the alternative reading — giving Gerushites — but another commentary sugests that Asherites fits the geography. — Gareth Hughes 22:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- No Garzo, Ashurites means lands of the Assyrians (at least according to the Swedish translation of that verse). Asherites, denotes a Jewish tribe, which is not the same thing. My mistake, I should've written an Assyrian equivalent of Israelites in the first sentence. As for moving the article, hold on, I need to contact Simo Parpola first and see what he has to say about it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:28 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand me. If the text were clear, it would have been translated 'Assyrian'. The reason why 'Ashurite' is used is because it is a difficult reading that doesn't suggest that its meaning is 'Assyrian'. That is the reason for looking at alternative readings. Also, this verse is pointed with a hatuph-pathach in the Masoretic text, which isn't the usual pointing (plain pathach) for 'Assyrian'. The point is that this is an unusual word because it is generally reckoned not to mean 'Assyrian'. — Gareth Hughes 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here's what's written in Swedish, 1917 version of the Swedish bible: och gjorde honom till konung i Gilead och asuréernas land och Jisreel. And English: and he made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel. The Assyrians called it Land of Ashur. Make what you want out of it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:50 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- For some reason, it's translated as Asher in the Swedish 2000 version of the Bible. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:53 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Elias, isn't "Assyria" translated in Swedish supposed to be "Assyriska"? Leaving that aside, on to some more translations: According to this site, the Latin, Spanish, and French versions translate it roughly as Gesuri, Gessuri, and Gueschuriens, respectively, thus lending some support to Gareth's suggestion that what's written as "Ashurites" was really a corruption of "Geshurites". When reading surrounding passages from the bible, it makes little sense that they would be talking about Ashur worshipers, unless the Geshurites, or whoever else this is supposed to be, followed the ancient Assyrian religion. :) --Šarukinu 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's most likely a corruption of Asherites. That said, Ashurites has nothing to do with Ashurism. Assyriska is a fairly modern word for the Assyrian language. Assyrier is the Swedish equivalent of Assyrians. That version of the bible was written in 1917, and there were no Assyrian immigrants here back then. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that this ancient Assyrian religion, must be given a name (in hindsight, of course). As it seems, the tiny Assyrian community interested in this religion, has given it the name Ashurism. It's a logical choice, just as Hindus gave the name Hinduism to their religion, and Jews gave their religion the name Judaism. But, I happen to agree with Garzo that Assyriology is indeed, the preserve of Assyriologists. What if, we contacted a few Assyriologists (more than just Parpola), and asked them to offically name this religion? Would that be okay with Wikipedia's standards in mind? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:29 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- Here's what's written in Swedish, 1917 version of the Swedish bible: och gjorde honom till konung i Gilead och asuréernas land och Jisreel. And English: and he made him king over Gilead, and over the Ashurites, and over Jezreel. The Assyrians called it Land of Ashur. Make what you want out of it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:50 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand me. If the text were clear, it would have been translated 'Assyrian'. The reason why 'Ashurite' is used is because it is a difficult reading that doesn't suggest that its meaning is 'Assyrian'. That is the reason for looking at alternative readings. Also, this verse is pointed with a hatuph-pathach in the Masoretic text, which isn't the usual pointing (plain pathach) for 'Assyrian'. The point is that this is an unusual word because it is generally reckoned not to mean 'Assyrian'. — Gareth Hughes 22:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- No Garzo, Ashurites means lands of the Assyrians (at least according to the Swedish translation of that verse). Asherites, denotes a Jewish tribe, which is not the same thing. My mistake, I should've written an Assyrian equivalent of Israelites in the first sentence. As for moving the article, hold on, I need to contact Simo Parpola first and see what he has to say about it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:28 15 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
The process isn't that easy. A series of dissertation papers have to be written, heavily scrutinized, reviewed, possibly rewritten, and a consensus among Assyriologists reached. You're looking at a process that could potentially take up to several years, even more. But as my professor stated, the standard term is "Assyrian Religion", which he said is a regional variant of "Mesopotamian Religion", just as "Sumerian-" and "Babylonian religion". I think after 150 years, Assyriologists are content with the term they have stuck with. But of course "Ashurism" is a very logical term, there's actually no better term for the religion, in my opinion. I guess we should get more input from more experts on the field. --Šarukinu 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are we ready to move this?
Are we now ready to move this to ancient Assyrian religion? Naturally, proponents of the Ashurism haven't found any evidence for it as a technical term. Once moved, the article would need to be written properly, and, perhaps, have a section mentioning that modern Assyrians have coined the term Ashurism to refer to the religion of ancient Assyria. I think that's all above board and reflects the reality of the situation. Once again, I say that Wikipedia is here to present a reflection of the facts as best known, not to make a new understanding of them. — Gareth Hughes 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Ashurism" is a term like Odinism or Hellenismos, and may have neopagan implications. Ashur may get his own section, but it is pointless to treat "Assyrian religion" apart from Babylonian-Assyrian polytheism in general. dab (𒁳) 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
merge
this hardly addresses Assyrian religion at all (all we learn is that Ashur was the main deity, and that Assyrian religion is somehow wedged between Sumerian and Abrahamic religions), and instead dwells on dusty (early 20th century German scholarship) topics like Panbabylonism or Urmonotheismus. Merge into Ancient Semitic religion, or perhaps directly into Mesopotamian religion. dab (𒁳) 11:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Could you at least give it a chance to expand? — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:24 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I do hope it will expand, into a beautiful and comprehensive article on Babylonian-Assyrian polytheism (which should probably be the title of the merger). dab (𒁳) 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there an urgent need for this article to be grouped together with other religions? Have we not just settled the naming conflict? Did the Babylonians worship together with the Assyrians? Were their gods best friends? Did the Babylonian religion survive post-Christianity? Also, how is Ashurism related to inspiring Jesus? Where did you get that from? I'm getting the feeling that this is an anti-religion sentiment of yours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:24 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- this hardly addresses Assyrian religion at all (all we learn is that Ashur was the main deity, and that Assyrian religion is somehow wedged between Sumerian and Abrahamic religions) — That's because YOU REWROTE THE ARTICLE LIKE THAT. Now you want to merge it with another favourite topic of yours, because you rewrote the article to address some other religions, and you did it without citing sources. Nice try, forget it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:50 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- less aggressive display, more encyclopedic work please. WP:ENC. Surprise me and turn this into a good article. So far, I haven't seen you doing anything useful. I didn't "rewrite" the article, I merely cut out some unsourced and offtopic stuff. You show little awareness of the actual topic so far, all you want to show is that your beloved Assyrians somehow deserve credit for Abrahamic monotheism. A brief glance at your sources (not a single academic source that would actually address the article's topic) shows where you are coming from. This article as it stands has no value at all. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Now you're beginning to really piss me off with your bullshit accusations. I haven't even added anything about Abrahamic monotheism in this article; why are you making this shit up? You did, or someone else; don't blame it on me. I created this article, because I want to understand my forefathers history better. I want to learn a little about what kind of religion we had pre-Christianity. Not that I ever want to revive this religion, but because I want to know more about it. Are you going to help out, or are you just going to keep on trying to ruin this article with more unsourced crap? By the way, if you want to create an article about Babylonian-Assyrian polytheism, fine, go ahead. But why must this article be merged into that one? Why can't you start from scratch and work from there? You're doing this on purpose. Stop being such a disingenuous pain in the ass. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:33 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- A brief glance at your sources (not a single academic source that would actually address the article's topic) shows where you are coming from. — Right. Do you know who Simo Parpola is? He's an Assyriologist (that's a science, mind you). If he's not an academic scholar on Assyriology, no one is. Here, go ahead and watch him read ancient Assyrian Akkadian at the end of the clip: [10] Perhaps you should just stop pestering me with your incessant nagging? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:39 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I actually added that information basing it on legends and I also have a book titled the "History of God" which I will begin to add soon as a source as soon as I have time to skim through the book and find the actual pages. It is a work of non-fiction. Sharru Kinnu III 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is it academic stuff? If not, I don't think we should use it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:51 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I actually added that information basing it on legends and I also have a book titled the "History of God" which I will begin to add soon as a source as soon as I have time to skim through the book and find the actual pages. It is a work of non-fiction. Sharru Kinnu III 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- A brief glance at your sources (not a single academic source that would actually address the article's topic) shows where you are coming from. — Right. Do you know who Simo Parpola is? He's an Assyriologist (that's a science, mind you). If he's not an academic scholar on Assyriology, no one is. Here, go ahead and watch him read ancient Assyrian Akkadian at the end of the clip: [10] Perhaps you should just stop pestering me with your incessant nagging? — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:39 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Now you're beginning to really piss me off with your bullshit accusations. I haven't even added anything about Abrahamic monotheism in this article; why are you making this shit up? You did, or someone else; don't blame it on me. I created this article, because I want to understand my forefathers history better. I want to learn a little about what kind of religion we had pre-Christianity. Not that I ever want to revive this religion, but because I want to know more about it. Are you going to help out, or are you just going to keep on trying to ruin this article with more unsourced crap? By the way, if you want to create an article about Babylonian-Assyrian polytheism, fine, go ahead. But why must this article be merged into that one? Why can't you start from scratch and work from there? You're doing this on purpose. Stop being such a disingenuous pain in the ass. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:33 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- less aggressive display, more encyclopedic work please. WP:ENC. Surprise me and turn this into a good article. So far, I haven't seen you doing anything useful. I didn't "rewrite" the article, I merely cut out some unsourced and offtopic stuff. You show little awareness of the actual topic so far, all you want to show is that your beloved Assyrians somehow deserve credit for Abrahamic monotheism. A brief glance at your sources (not a single academic source that would actually address the article's topic) shows where you are coming from. This article as it stands has no value at all. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- this hardly addresses Assyrian religion at all (all we learn is that Ashur was the main deity, and that Assyrian religion is somehow wedged between Sumerian and Abrahamic religions) — That's because YOU REWROTE THE ARTICLE LIKE THAT. Now you want to merge it with another favourite topic of yours, because you rewrote the article to address some other religions, and you did it without citing sources. Nice try, forget it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:50 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Why is there an urgent need for this article to be grouped together with other religions? Have we not just settled the naming conflict? Did the Babylonians worship together with the Assyrians? Were their gods best friends? Did the Babylonian religion survive post-Christianity? Also, how is Ashurism related to inspiring Jesus? Where did you get that from? I'm getting the feeling that this is an anti-religion sentiment of yours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:24 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- I do hope it will expand, into a beautiful and comprehensive article on Babylonian-Assyrian polytheism (which should probably be the title of the merger). dab (𒁳) 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
nobody says that Ancient Assyrian religion isn't a valid topic. But there is no information here. This should be merged into Ancient Semitic religion, of which it is a subtopic, until somebody sits down and adds an actual discussion of Assyrian religion. All we are saying so far is (1) it is part of Mesopotamian religion in general, (2) they worshipped Ashur, and (3) it had an influence on Abrahamic religion. All of this wouldn't make for more than a brief paragraph at the main article. dab (𒁳) 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you in such a rush? We are working on several articles here, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to merge every article into another article. We could expand this article more if we decided to delve into Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies or something, they most likely have lots of information available about this religion. And since this is a valid topic per se, there is no need to merge it. Yes, it needs to improve, and expand, but at the very least, give us a chance to do it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:42 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
meta:mergism. Once you have expanded the Ancient Semitic religion#Assyria section to a long and detailed account, we can always branch it out again. Do some work first. --dab (𒁳) 12:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Where in Wikipedia's policies does it say that it is a an absolut MUST for articles to be merged if some editor isn't satisfied with the current version? I thought so. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:13 22 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
More material
It seems that Tourskin has found some interesting concepts of how the ancient Assyrians viewed their Kings (servants of Ashur). I think this should be included in the article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:44 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I will be on it ASAP. So no one do nothing!Tourskin 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)