Humanities desk
< September 18	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 19

How did the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism created the Dalit/untouchables in Indian society?

Were most or all high-class Hindu priests downgraded to the Dalit caste, and then from then on, their descendants all became Dalits? How did the Untouchables become the Untouchables? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles at Dalit and untouchability to start your research. The answer to your first question seems to depend on whom you ask. If I understand it correctly, B. R. Ambedkar would seem to agree with that hypothesis, but as a Buddhist convert, I'm not sure how unbiased he was. This seems to be as close as we come to directly answering your question. Matt Deres (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. . . I just came from that webpage Dalit and asked a question here based on that specific paragraph. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50.4.236.25 -- The article only mentions a few individuals who underwent caste degradations; it seems implausible that that's the origin of all untouchability. Also, "class" is not the same as "caste". And a standard disclaimer: Most outsiders think of caste as varna, but for Indians jāti is usually what has been important in their daily lives (while varna can be rather theoretical).

One of the main processes of formation of lower castes over history seems to have been when groups of unacculturated or isolated "tribals" are incorporated into larger society. Such groups tend to be assigned a low status at first, and then can try to raise their status over time through a process of Sanskritisation... AnonMoos (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship aiming

Back in the era of ships armed with artillery, how did the fire directors tell between shells fired from different guns and turrets and relay correct adjustments to the gunners? If the main battery guns are of the same calibre, don't they leave the same trace as they fly towards the target? I've heard somewhere before that one of the solutions used was to add colour tracers but those didn't work well. What did they do in the end to solve the problem? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shell splashes. But this was a major problem with pre-dreadnoughts and a major reason for the introduction of an all-big-gun setup in the first dreadnoughts: nobody could tell the 12-inch shell splashes apart from the 9.2-inch shell splashes, for example. I don't understand the rest of the difficulty; the director's already going to be ensuring that all guns are firing together. The most basic issues are range and aim; the director's responsible for telling the gunlayers what range to specify, but they're responsible for actually setting it, and between the facts that you can see the target and that the shell goes extremely fast compared to its target (and that the direction will be different for each turrent), aiming is the responsibility of the gunlayers. After all, aside from the physical labor of loading the gun, extracting empty casings, etc., setting the aim and range is the only real reason to have a turret crew. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An outgunned ship can make smoke to obscure aiming.
Sleigh (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ship gun fire-control system is a good place for the OP to start their research. --Jayron 32 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be quite a comprehensive article. The Japanese and some other navies used coloured dyes, so that the shell splashes from different guns would be different colours (they were not tracers in the way that machine guns use, it was all about the splash). In the Battle of the Denmark Strait, the Hood and the Prince of Wales alternated their salvoes to avoid confusion. Initially, the director would set all his guns at a different elevation so that a line of splashes (a "ladder") would be visible, the hope was that the first or second salvo would "bracket" the target ship, some "over" and some "under", so that the correct range could be established. To help with this, the ship had enormous coincidence range finders and also after about 1940, radar range-finding too; larger ships also had an analogue computer which could calculate where the target was likely to be when the shells actually landed, taking into account that the ship doing the firing was moving too and there was likely to be wind as well (the British version was called the Admiralty Fire Control Table). The captain of the target ship would try to steer to where the incoming shells had just landed, on the principle that shells from a moving ship were unlikely to hit the same place twice. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An account of the German battleship Bismarck's ranging techniques is at Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era by Norman Friedman (p. 174). Alansplodge (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is The Onion fake news?

I never heard Trump says that "The Onion" is fake news. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion might have information on The Onion. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion is a satirical website written in a news format. A similar concept is mockumentary. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't consider the president of the United States to be a reliable source on what is and is not fake news. For that we need an assistant professor at a tiny college who decides what is and is not fake news by the tried and true "I know it when I see it" method... :( --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that the president is not an RS for the question. However, the OP said that the president had not said that The Onion was fake news, so the relevance of that fact is unclear, as is the reason for the question in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The president is only a reliable source for what words he said, not for the truth of what he said. As for the Onion, I doubt it has ever claimed to be "real" news, so anyone calling it "fake" news might be asked, "And what's your point?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "fake news" because it isn't intended to be serious. Fake news is, by definition, a hoax and a fraud, it uses misinformation deliberately as a form of propaganda to mislead people. The Onion is satire, the intent is to make people laugh. It's all in intent. --Jayron 32 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only the dumbest despots would think it's supposed to be real. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how seriously to take the question, but no, The Onion is not fake news, but rather satire. The difference is that fake news is meant to deceive people, whereas satire is meant ... to deceive people who aren't in the know, but only temporarily, so as to have a good laugh at them afterwards. I guess it's subtler than I might have thought.

There are some outfits, like NewsLo, that seem to like to play it a bit closer to the line than The Onion does. --Trovatore (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone missed it, The Onion has a news report about Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is "Hard To Tell If Wikipedia Entry On Dada Has Been Vandalized Or Not"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question is actually somewhat hard to answer. Many of the fake news reports come from sites that pretty much admit that they publish made-up content. Which is what The Onion does. But the "true" fake news sites have articles that are better suited to be reposted around the web by people who take them seriously than most of the Onion, which tends to be more comedic in tone. Wnt (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driving a stationery vehicle

Friday's Daily Telegraph reports that a lorry driver who stopped his vehicle in the slow lane of a motorway and fell asleep has been charged with "causing death by dangerous driving", "causing serious injury by dangerous driving", and "causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed drink-driving limit". I can understand if a driver stopped his vehicle thereby causing an accident, but how can a sleeping man commit a driving offence? People have been convicted for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle when asleep having removed the key from the ignition. Some years ago a man driving at night near Selby in north Yorkshire fell asleep. His car rolled off the road and onto a railway line, where a train collided with it. The driver was not charged with any offence. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was death/serious injury caused because he stopped his vehicle on the throroughfare? Was he also intoxicated when he did so? When one oversimplifies a news story, it can sound fantastical, because key details have been left out. "Man charged with crime for taking a nap" is different than "Drunk man passes out on freeway and causes the deaths of several motorists" --Jayron 32 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Heck rail crash. He was charged and convicted. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UK motorway Rule 270 You MUST NOT stop on the carriageway,..except in an emergency, or when told to do so by the police, traffic officers in uniform, an emergency sign or by flashing red light signals. Since no mitigating circumstance is mentioned, it's clear the driver was convicted for "driving without the due care and attention" required to obey Rule 270. Possibly he had a solicitor who merely irritated the prosecutor with by quibbling "how can a sleeping man commit a driving offence?" Blooteuth (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI, the legal nicety is not that he caused death whilst asleep, but that he either went to sleep in the wrong place, or entered a motorway in a condition where he was unfit to drive owing to prior lack of sleep. He would not be culpable for causing death whilst asleep (it's difficult to prove mens rea in such a condition) but going to sleep is sufficient to make him legally culpable, as a consequent action of his acts. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it then be a form of negligence, that is allowing himself to fall asleep is not taking due care to avoid accidents, and thus makes him thus culpable? --Jayron 32 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the viewpoint of the police (in UK at least) it's very simple - if you are asleep you're not fully in control of your vehicle. There might be mitigating circumstances like a medical condition, but it's not like, for example a cardiac arrest, where control is lost through no direct fault of the driver. The Highway Code has advice on taking regular rest breaks. And we have even have overhead matrix gantry signs on motorways reminding drivers: "Tiredness kills - take a break". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's UK, so it's "causing death by", which is deliberately open-ended as to the mechanism by which it happens (it was introduced after protests when drivers were cleared of some deaths in past years, owing to a lack of the clear culpable intent needed for other laws). It carries a potentially heavy punishment, but it also requires a death to be caused, not merely a close accident.

We've just had a case where a cyclist killed a pedestrian,[1] partly because they were riding a track bike with no brakes. They've been convicted under an ancient rule for "furious cycling" (hardly used since a notorious case 30 years ago). There are now calls to introduce a similar "causing death by use of a bicycle" law, as a similar catch-all. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really keen - here's a handy government CPS guide. There is, in fact, a charge of "Gross Negligence Manslaughter". Martinevans123 (talk) 16 :38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand why legislators pass new laws, when they generally do so in response to prosecutors who have just come up with a new way to put people in jail. Is it based in a need to appear relevant? Wnt (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such new laws in response to prosecutors and new ways to jail people. Rather (at least in the UK) it's in response to cases where this didn't happen, and there's then a hysterical response from newspaper editors. UK politicians are far too beholden to hysterical newspapers. Several of our worst and most unworkable laws, the Dangerous Dogs Act, TWOCing and a bunch of tightening to already tight firearms laws have been such a response. It's well recognised that such laws are rarely well thought out, or work effectively in practice. The dog law in particular, and its tight definition by breed rather than injury, makes it a serious offence to be licked by one particular but poorly-defined breed, but barely a misdemeanour to have your leg chewed off by a more popular breed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's Causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving, and it was originally meant for horse-drawn carriages. Rojomoke (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the driver involved in the Selby rail crash was sentenced to five years in prison.2A02:C7D:7854:B000:50D0:45A2:2E6F:707A (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by the picture... although it's possible it was a stationery vehicle, more likely it was stationary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen stationary stationery vehicles.

Anecdote time: A couple of years ago in a town near me someone set up a shop which they proudly called "The Confectionary Shop". Being who I am, I greeted the new owner, wished him well, and pointed out the spelling error in his signage. He said I wasn't the first to notice it, but they had chosen it deliberately because, he said, the -ary version is a place where the -ery version is made or sold, the -ery version being restricted to the sweet stuff itself. I'd never heard of such a distinction, and asked him where he read this. He said, "Oh, my wife looked it up on the internet". <** cough **> I checked, and confirmed he and his wife were sadly mistaken. They've since gone out of business. Lesson: Get your signage right, and your business will flourish. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Right you Я! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah? --69.159.60.147 (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: And yet wikt:confectionary lists precisely this shopkeeper's definition. True, it says it is "obsolete", and obsolescence generally has to be enforced, but he was in the right, even if it wasn't the Rite Aid kind of right. I shall hope, if without much confidence, that the reason for his failure is merely that more than 60% of Australian small businesses close within the first three years, rather than the usual hounding of great minds. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska law: If you are over the .08, in the drivers seat (whether awake or asleep) and the keys are in the ingtion, you can be charged with DWI. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the CPS guidance, I note that it states

The offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs under section 3A of the RTA 1988 is defined as being committed when a mechanically propelled motor vehicle is driven on a road ... The suspect's driving must have been a "cause of death".

When applying for motor insurance, a proposer must disclose all motoring convictions within a specified period. One man stated that he had been convicted for the offence of "carless driving".

R v Hughes (2013)

The Supreme Court held "that there has to be some act or omission in the control of the car ... the word 'causing' involves more than simply placing a car on a road."

Also, "Similarly, for causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified etc a person must be driving a motor vehicle ... a person may also be using a motor vehicle (Elliott v Grey [1959] 3 W.L.R. 956) a vehicle is in use on the road even when it is stationary and unattended.

The judges asked: "Has a driver caused the death of another person by his driving:

(a) whenever he is on the road at the wheel and a fatal accident involving his vehicle occurs? or

(b) when he has done or omitted to do something in his control of the vehicle ..."

In paragraph 17 of the judgment they ask "whether the intention was to attach criminal responsibility for a death to those whose driving had nothing to do with that death beyond being available on the road to be struck."

(a) was answered in the negative. In paragraph 33 they say "... there must be something open to proper criticism in the driving of the defendant, beyond the mere presence of the vehicle on the road ..."

Planton v DPP (2001)

The judges stated:

(23) In seeking to challenge the finding of the justices that the claimant was driving, Mr Hodivala submits that the law draws a distinction between the driving of a vehicle and being in charge of that vehicle. On the facts found the justices could hold no more than that the claimant was in charge of the vehicle. Mr Hodivala relies upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v MacDonagh [1974] 1 QB 448. In that case Lord Widgery, CJ, stated at page 451D: "The essence of driving is the use of the driver's controls in order to direct the movement, however that movement is produced... Although the word 'drive' must be given a wide meaning, the courts must be alert to see that the net is not thrown so widely that it includes activities which cannot be said to be driving a motor vehicle in any ordinary use of that word in the English language."

(24) ... It is a question of fact and degree as to whether the cessation of movement has been for so long and in such circumstances that it cannot reasonably be said that the person in the driving seat is driving.

Conviction quashed. 82.12.63.55 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal sentencing and deterrence

Are there any studies which attempt to measure the actual deterrent effect of different criminal sentences for a given crime, for different crimes? As in, e.g. how much less likely is someone to commit a murder if they'll "only" get 30 years jail if caught, versus if getting caught means life without parole? Or e.g. if getting caught with cannabis "merely" earns a $20,000 fine, versus a short sentence of actual imprisonment, how much more (or less) likely are people to be deterred from using it?

How would a criminologist attempt to quantify the relative deterrent effect of the different sentencing regimens, and different sentences? And what notable conclusions have they come up with?

(I know that criminal sentencing includes considerations beyond deterrence, but for the purpose of this question, I'm limiting it to the actual general deterrence effect). I imagine such data would be useful for crafting sentencing laws (e.g. locking people up is expensive, and has damaging social side effects, so it's useful to know how when it's necessary, and for how long, as far as deterring the public is concerned), so I'm curious what criminology or forensic psychology has to say on this question. I've heard of studies looking at the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent, but not on the broader question. I would be surprised if no such studies exist, so can anyone point me in the right direction? Eliyohub (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4]. You can find all of these and more by typing the phrase "deterrent effect of sentences" into Google: [5]. --Jayron 32 16:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS-13 initiation question

Is it true that the MS-13 gang requires new members to kill a random teenage girl as part of initiation? I'm just curious because that's what I've heard, there have been killings of teenage girls by MS-13 covered in the news, and, to me, that's just plain sick if it's true. 73.91.1.8 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an urban legend that has been circulating for years. There are numerous variants, all of which involve killing an innocent stranger as an initiation ritual: [6] [7] [8] [9] CodeTalker (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Killing as an initiation "ritual" is hardly unknown among criminal gangs. For a frightening example which sticks in my mind, see Billy Giles. He was told to murder his (Catholic) best friend. He did it, but never recovered, and ultimately committed suicide once released from prison. Eliyohub (talk)

It's known, but so rare as to stand out as unusual, which is why you can name Billy Giles. The practice as "standard" has been debunked for a long time, note the articles above. The rumors of its existance is used as a scare tactic, especially by white people to demonize minority gangs. --Jayron 32 11:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"By white people"? μηδείς (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've never heard of racism by white people? Interesting. --Jayron 32 17:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in saying "especially white people". I think you said once you lived in Carolina. I lived in the South too, but moved to NJ when I was 4 1/2, so I don't remember Southern racism. My mother is a racist, but she hid it from us as we were growing up. I had to drive from NYC to Blackwood, New Jersey to take my sister to the prom, since she went with a black guy. My sister died at 20, never having talked to my mother after that, although a week before she died she told me she had forgiven her. There was no actual racism where I grew up, but it was a 98% white town, and the one black girl in my Grade, a Ms. Tiller code switched, so she "sounded" white at school and black at home. Her younger brother was called "Tigger" for the obvious reasons, but it was a nickname, and he was never excluded from tag or pick-up games or picked on for anything as far as I observed. In fact, since he lived at the end of the street, "Go get Tigger" was a common announcement when we played tag all summer.

It wasn't until I moved to NYC that I really encountered racism, and from all sides--Korean store owners didn't want blacks in their shops, the Irish and the police were racist against everyone (I was stopped regularly, and given two tickets for "disorderly conduct" for being white in black neighborhoods.) Blacks and Hispanics and Asians were all mutually hostile. Perhaps our backgrounds differ. But where I grew up, white people of my age were the least racist of any group. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh and his Asherah

I have done research about the early worship of Yahweh and Asherah in ancient Israel. Some have said that after the exile, worship of Asherah was abolished because it was dubbed idolatry. But has any research paper or publication considered this: Asherah was El's wife in Canaanite religion, not the storm god Hadad's wife. So if Yahweh had been the storm god son of El (in Israelite tradition), then worship of Asherah as his wife would've been equivalent to making him an adulterer. As well as saying that he committed incest. Is there any reason to think that this would have played a part in to cut down Asherah statues, poles? -- 22:48, 19 September 2017 Idielive

You seem to be operating on the assumption that Yahweh and Hadad were the same deity, but that isn't necessarily the case. Certainly, at some point Yahweh was identified with El, because in Second Temple Judaism they're different names for the same deity. If Yahweh and El were thought to be the same god at the time that Asherah was still being worshipped, that would explain why Yahweh and Asherah were husband and wife. No incest or adultery would be involved.

That said, there's a lot of uncertainty in the relationship between Yahweh and Hadad. The worship of Baal is treated in the Bible as the greatest threat to monotheistic worship of Yahweh. "Baal" means "lord" in the West Semitic languages and can be a title for many male gods, but it was often applied to Hadad, so scholars often assume that the Baal of the Bible is Hadad. If so, Yahweh and Hadad would seem to be entirely different. Both The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (2003) by Mark S. Smith and Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2002) by John Day think the following explanation is most plausible. Yahweh and Baal-Hadad were always different deities, but they both storm gods, and Yahweh gradually absorbed elements of Baal-Hadad's mythology, like the battles with sea monsters. Baal-Hadad was found throughout the Syria-Canaan region, whereas faint traces in the Bible suggest he came from the region of Midian, a decidedly different area from Baal-Hadad's largely coastal territory. Smith also suggests that Yahweh may have been a god of dry desert storms, unlike the rain-bringing storms connected with Baal-Hadad. On the other hand, from what I can tell from the limited Google Books preview, The Invention of God (2015) by Thomas Römer suggests that the Baal in the Bible is a different form of Yahweh rather than a totally distinct deity. What that might mean for Yahweh's relationship with Hadad, I do not know.

If you really want to research the relationship between these deities, all three books I mentioned above are solid academic sources. Did God Have a Wife? (2005) by William Dever, which discusses Asherah, may also help. A. Parrot (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I did not mean to suggest that Hadad and Yahweh were the same deities, sorry about that. I don't understand the desert storm part though, I've never read anything in the Tanakh description of Yahweh that would suggest that. If he had come from some desert region in Midian, wouldn't rain be associated with him. Desert peoples would surely need a rain god right? Idielive (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I misremembered a bit. Here is what Smith says (p. 146): "The presumed original location of Yahwistic cult in the far southern region (in southern Edom or the Hegaz), if correct, does not seem propitious as a home for a storm-god such as Baal, because this region has relatively low annual rainfall in contrast to the high rainfall for the Levantine coast. Judges 5:4–5 reflects a god that provide rains, but does this rain necessarily reflect the standard repertoire of a coastal storm-god, or does the passage reflect the storm and flash floods of desert areas?… Battle and precipitation may have been features original to Yahweh’s profile, but perhaps Yahweh’s original character approximated the profile of Athtar, a warrior- and precipitation-producing god associated with mostly inland desert sites with less rainfall. Perhaps this profile was rendered secondarily in the highlands in the local language and imagery associated with the coastal storm-god. Such a deity would have characteristics of both power and fertility, but with a different set of associations from Baal."

In any case, such ideas are speculative, because there are so few traces of what Yahweh might have been before his identity merged with that of El. In fact, Smith points out that some scholars think Yahweh was always a title of El and never an independent deity. Based on Smith's footnotes, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973) by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 60–75, seems to make the most detailed argument for that hypothesis. Smith also refers the reader to the entry on Yahweh in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, which summarizes the reasons for believing that Yahweh came from the south and counters Cross's arguments. A. Parrot (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any connection between Yahweh and Enki of the Sumerians, who was called Ea by Assyrians? I know that some have equated Enki with the god Yam, but in my opinion Yam and Tiamat are much more compatible. In the Enuma Elish, Tiamat is murdered by Enki's son Marduk. And if Yahweh and Enki are connected, then what Canaanite god can be equated, or said to resemble, Enlil? Idielive (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idielive: It depends what you mean by "connection". If you mean that Yahweh and Enki/Ea had the same origin, some scholars suggested that in the 1950s, (see Enki#Ea and West Semitic deities), but it does not seem to be a widely accepted hypothesis and may be obsolete today. When comparing the Mesopotamian and West Semitic pantheons, there are some deities who have a common origin; most obviously, the names of Ishtar and Astarte are the same word, changed by the divergence between the East and West Semitic languages, and with Ishtar's nature as a deity influenced by the Sumerian Inanna. But that doesn't mean that every West Semitic deity had a Mesopotamian counterpart.

However, the Mesopotamian flood myth is obviously related to the myth of Noah's Ark, and in the Noah story, Yahweh plays the role of both Enlil (as the god who sends the flood to destroy humanity) and Ea (as the god who warns the human who survives). The Israelites are assumed to have absorbed the story from the Mesopotamian version, possibly during the Babylonian exile, and adapted it to fit their belief system. That is the only undoubted connection between Yahweh and Ea. A. Parrot (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]