Talk:Ila-kabkabu

Reverts by Philip Mexico

Philip repeatedly reverted my edits - most recently in this edit - in a extremely hostile manner, as can be seen by the edit summary "rv continued harassment, bring it up on discussion if you seriously think you have a real valid WP:POINT to make here".

To that I want to note three things:

1. Philipp misuses WP:POINT, which he obviously hasn't read
2. I have in my recent conflicts with Philip repeatedly posted on the talk page, Philipp however, if I may use understatement, not so much.
3. What he calls harassment was my call to >>provide sources (academic secondary sources)<< to support his claims.

First he insited on calling one section of the Assyrian King List (AKL) as "Kings whose fathers are known" instead of "kings who are ancestors" and the interpretation of that section as the ancestors of Shamsi-Adad was only held by SOME scholars and only SOMETIMES.

I granted him that probably both translations are possible - both were sourced to academic references - and hence included both translations [1].

Philip didn't revert to his favoured translation in his most recent edits but he still insists that the interpretation of that section as the ancestors of Shamsi-Adad is only held by SOME scholars.

The way I see it, it is the consensus view. I base my view on Meissner's article in the Realenzyklopädie der Assyriologie 6, published in 1990 in Berlin. This is a recognized work of reference in the field and hence the assumption is that its contents are not minority views - as Philip suggests - but, more or less, the consensus.

Sure, the work is now 25 years old and the consensus might have changed. But then it is Philip's job to provide equally valid source for such a contention.

However, thus far Philip has provided literally NOTHING at all in regard to this issue. At the same time he wants to push the only sourced interpretation into a position of minority view.

It is quite simple: if an alternative interpretation (note that Philipp never gives one, he just rejects the scholarly interpretation) should be included we would need a source for this. As longs as there is no source at all, the interpretation presented in the Realenzyklopedie must be regarded as the view held by Assyriologists in general.

In anticipation of Philip providing a source, I will now restore the scholarly view to its proper place. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The literal rendering of the Assyrian line in question is "Altogether ten kings, their fathers are there." Grayson, the Assyriologist involved in the translation, is the reliable source who phrased it more smoothly as "kings whose fathers are known". It refers to the fact that this is the first section for which the fathers names are there. From what I can tell it was someone writing at Cambridge who suggested the hypothesis that if there are two Ila-kabkabus on the list, they both must be Shamshi'Adad's father and thus it refer to "who are ancestors", but that theory's awaiting confirmation in any other texts discovered, and not actually what the Assyrian says anyway. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That might be so but we have two other, academically sourced translations. WP doesn't decided which academic is right, we simply report them all.

Your posting here is a step in the right direction but it is still lacking if you don't address the actually contentious point, your trying to present the only sourced interpretation of that section (which is quite unrelated to this or that translation of the title) as a minority view without providing a sourced alternative, let alone a sourced "real" mainstream view.

Whether the two Ila-kabkabus are one and the same also is a question distinct of the interpretation of the section as SA's ancestors. (I will not delve into my own thoughts on the matter as you didn't respond well to that the last time.)

So please provide an source with a differing viewpoint or self-revert.

Str1977 ^(talk) 15:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to get it. It is not at all a distinct question, because the entire strength of the "kings who are ancestors" mistranslation and theory rests on the presumption that one of the names, Ila-kabkabu, is nearly the same as that given for Shashi-Adad's father way down the list, Ila-kabkabi. That's it. There is zero other evidence for that proposal, so it is still a proposal, yes pushed strongly in some secondary sources, and there is no grounds for you moving it over into the "consensus" or "established fact" category. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are distinct issues though they (the issues) might be related. One can easily deduce that the 2nd section gives SA's ancestors without equating the two Ila-kabkabu. And one can also hold that 2nd section gives SA's ancestors while calling that section "kings whose fathers are known" - Meissner does just that!

Anyway, it is not up to us to decide any of these questions but to the actual scholars who publish their findings. I have quoted one eminent work of Assyriology, you have quoted nothing. And nothing will come from nothing. If you want to argue about this go to some forum on the net or enter a course on Assyriology, there you can argue as much as you want. But here, we must stick to PUBLISHED SOURCES.

Note, I never moved it into "established fact" but always said that it "is interpreted/considered by scholars" and that "scholars hold". I never said "it is a list of SA's ancestors". Meissner said that, not me.

You however added that downgrading "sometimes" and "some" for which you have no source. You have not a single source that disgarees with Meissner and now you even admit that his view is "pushed strongly in some secondary sources". Unless you provide a source to the contrary, I must insist on you to stop your POV pushing on the matter. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

okay, this seems to be the problem. I am simply adding the qualifying words "some" and "sometimes" to the article, which would seem to be to be a perfectly rational, reasonable, and accurate assessment since after all there are indeed some (but by no means all Assyrianologists) who have written on Assyrianology topics, who have taken on this hypothesis, that if there were two Ila-kabkabus (or rather one Ila-kabkabu and one Ila-kabkabi) in two different places, therefore they must be the same. This is exactly how I see pet hypotheses get solidified into concrete fact specially on wikipedia without any archaeology required, just have everyone "agree" it happened your way, and attack anyone trying to leave it an open question. However I have NEVER heard anyone before describe words like "sometimes" and "some" as "downgrading" or make such a fuss about them on such a minor point, they are perfectly neutral scholarly words and more so than your version wrongly implying this is all agreed to by everyone as factual. Philip Mexico (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, "some scholars say A" implies "other scholars say B" and thus far I haven't seen any that say B. If someone (you or anybody else) provided any dissenting voices I wouldn't have issue at all with including them and then "some" would be justified. BTW, I am very much in favour of avoiding turning "universally (at best) held scholarly views" into facts. The facts are what the list says, scholarly interpretation something else.

You brought up in your last two posts another issue: that the two names are not actually the same. If the names are not the same we shouldn't make it appear so in the article. (And I personally don't think they are one and the same person, given that the first person of that name has a son and a grandson on the list, which can't be brother and nephew to SA).

So, it appears we have progressed at least a tiny step further. What is still lacking is a sourced dissenting view to justify your use of "some". Can you provide that? Str1977 ^(talk) 22:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here is the main source for the theory that explains what the proposal is, without endorsing it, discusses some of the major weaknesses with it, and concludes however that it "is possible". http://librarun.org/book/55827/770 That isn't any different from what can be said, or what I think we should say, so I will offer that as my source for the theory too. (although he does accept the "ancestors" translation part) Philip Mexico (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it looks like he doesn't even call the Shamshi-Adad theory "possible", he is actually saying it is more possible they are the ancestors of Sulili instead. So presumably there's your dissenter. Philip Mexico (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Philip. Thanks for contributing the source and a link to it. I have now worked Hildegard Levy's view into the article and reworded the contentious "sometimes" to "often, but not universally", which I think fairly sums up the opinion in the field. What do you think? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

No, But I am beginning to realize now how absolutely determined you are to use semantics to skirt NPOV and portray this hypothesis as popular and attractive to scholarship. Why exactly is this so important to you? Philip Mexico (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Philip, you are completely twisting what is actually happening with this article. Time and again I have asked you to join the discussion, to contribute source etc. You have finally, after much asking on my part, provided a single source, which I have readily incrporated into the article. All to no avail, since you keep on reverting back to your version, which will allow ongly for "some" who hold that interpretation (even though you know that is held, "pushed" as you say, by many).

I am absolutely determined not to allow a misrepresentation of sources to suit a POV. I will not present the "SA's ancestor" as fact but neither will I have it swept under the carpet as some minority opinion held by "some".

It's about time you come down from your high horse and compromise. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What is my 'POV'?

Str1977 keeps writing that I am editing with a pov, I wonder what does he suppose my "POV" is? Please correct where if I am wrong, but my POV is only based on what reliable sources say, which I understand to be, more or less:

On the "Assyrian kinglist', right after the "kings who lived in tents" section we find ten kings from last to first, along with their fathers' names, in two copies this is followed by napkhar ashar sharanim, ani sha abum shununi, which is usually translated 'altogether ten kings whose fathers are known', however there have been other proponents of translating it "kings who are ancestors", somewhat less literally. One of these bears the name of Ila-kabkabu, which seems to be an Akkadian, Assyrian and Amorite name. He is the father of Aminu, usually agreed to be intended as the one named as the father of the next king in the next dynasty, Sulili. We have Levi who takes this at face value, discounting the notion that they are really ancestors of Shamshi-Adad merely because Ila-kabkabu's name is similar or the same as his father's. She did not originally speculate that Puzur-Asshur is in the same dynasty, because that's already how the list has it. However, others have speculated that Sulili, and his two successors did not have Assyrian or indeed Semitic and possibly, even Hurrian names, and that Puzur-Asshur started a new dynasty of native rulers following three non-Semitic ones. If you think scholarly consensus sees this differently, please let me know. Perhaps it is just a matter of delineating which information is more pertinent here, and which belongs at Puzur-Asshur, since by all accounts he is in a different dynasty altogether and very little is known about him relative to his successors, but the question of Amorite kings is not pertinent to his article (though it may be here if there is a source for it). Philip Mexico (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

While I'm not copmpletely sure where you are coming from or why you do the things you do, it is quite clear that you want the articles to include certains things and keep other things out. However, you don't do that in line with the sources or WP policies. Here are some examples:

• You want the the article to say Puzur-Ashur started a dynasty (currently no source) and want to include his relationship to his successors (sourced to various inscriptions and later to the kinglist) and his distinction by language from his predecessors (currently without a source, but surely one exists somewhere, as we have sources discussing the interpretation of the non-Semitic names). The previous, unsourced part borders on WP:SYNTH as it is stitched together from little sourced parts. I have no problem with the passage, however it is inconsistent with your complaining about SYNTH in other places.
• You insist on removed the "Amorite names" because they are unsoured (currently) but yourself inserted a passage about Zariqum that is without source. Why don't you remove that latter passage too (which is not even about Puzzur-Ashur).
• OTOH, you refuse to include Hildgard Levy's view that Puzur-Ashur was part of a dynasty started by Sulili. Contrary to your claim that she only speculates about "what possible could be" this is unequivocally her view. Why do you oppose including this?
  You now claim that "She did not originally speculate that Puzur-Asshur is in the same dynasty, because that's already how the list has it." -- That's NOT TRUE! Though she takes the AKL more or less at at face value with Ila-kabkabu fathering Aminu who fathers Sulili, her further opinion that Puzur-Ashur is a descendant of Sulili is NOT included in the AKL text. The AKL doesn't indicate a relation, neither from Sulili to his immediate successors nor to Puzur-Ashur. The AKL includes them in one section, which is defined by the lack of eponyms not by being a "dynasty", a concept not found in the AKL. Just because Sulili and Puzur-Ashur are in the same section doesn't mean that they are one dynasty.

Even if Mrs Levy took the AKL at face value (in fact, as I have just shown, she goes beyond it) that doesn't give her view any special prominence. Wikipedia records what published secondary sources say and it doesn't matter if a secondary source (a scholar) stays close to the source in an interpretation or pushes his narrative to greater lengths. They are all similarly interpretations of sources. Furthermore, history is an merely a retelling or exegesis of sources, most certainly not of one single source. So report the picture various scholars paint and we give prominence to the ones more widely accepted, not the ones we like best (for whatever reasons)

You seem to be confused about a few things in the following passage:

"However, others have speculated that Sulili, and his two successors did not have Assyrian or indeed Semitic and possibly, even Hurrian names,"

No, that they do have non-Semitic names is not speculation but fact. That they are Hurrian is an outdated speculation. However, just because they are non-Semitic doesn't mean that these rulers have to be foreigners - if an Englishman calls his sons Jacques and Etienne, the children will not be French. We don't know why Sulili is called that way. His name doesn't contradict Mrs Levy's view, though it may support those that see them as foreigners, which would then lead to the interpretation:

"and that Puzur-Asshur started a new dynasty of native rulers following three non-Semitic ones."

Both are possible and we report both. We don't pretend Levy's thesis of a Sulili-started dynasty could be reconciled with one started by Puzur-Ashur. Also we don't sweep Levy under the carpet.

"If you think scholarly consensus sees this differently, please let me know."

Right now, we are not talking about the consensus but about what individual scholars are saying. I think scholarly consensus considers the "kings whose fathers are known" as Amorite ancestors of Shamsi-Adad.

"Perhaps it is just a matter of delineating which information is more pertinent here"

Sure, that is always a question - if I remember correctly I said as much when you were still an IP and were adamánt to keep the Amorite names in the article - that some information might be better covered in the AKL or other articles. This is the question no source can answer for us, we must decided that ourselves - by consensus.

"Puzur-Asshur, since by all accounts he is in a different dynasty altogether"

I don't know what you mean by that? A dynasty different from what?

"and very little is known about him relative to his successors"

Little, but thanks to the inscriptions (which fill gaps left in the AKL) we know that there's a genealogical line from Puzur-Ashur to Erishum II.

"the question of Amorite kings is not pertinent to his article (though it may be here if there is a source for it)."

Whether the question is pertinent here is a distinct issue from whether it's sourced. It should be sourced of course, but I don't see you calling for the removal of the unsourced paragraph about Zariqum.

Whether the whole discussion about a Puzur-Ashur dynasty is pertinent however is just as questionable.

The Amorite-ness of some kings are pertinent to this discussion. If Puzur-Ashur is "in a different dynasty altogether, anything that might distinguish him from the kings before him or after - this includes the non-Semite names of his immediate predecessors but it also includes non-Assyrian names by the kings further above or below on the list. Every dynasty has BOTH a beginning and an end.

To return to the upper part of this posting - I have not completely fathomed what your POV is but it is clear that you are removing or including material based not on Wikipedia's principles but on something else. That is your POV. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. There is one element of your POV that is clearly visible: you reject the idea that the "Kings whose fathers are known" could be the ancestors of Shamsi-Adad.

Hence, you insist on translating napkhar ashar sharanim, ani sha abum shununi (if that is the correct Assyrian) as "altogether ten kings whose fathers are known" AND NOT "kings who are ancestors". Both translations are sourced to scholars.

You base your preference on the former translation being more literal than the other - now, I can't read Assyrian, nor am I an Assyriologist but are you? If you were (a claim nobody could substantiate) it wouldn't matter because it is not our own research that counts but what the scholars have published - that can be substantiated.

You give one more indication of another argument - you say the Assyrian phrase is USUALLY translated that way. Can you substantiate that? What's your proof for that claim. (I have my own idea what it could be but I will not state it at the moment - I want to know how you come to think that way.) So what is it that makes "Kings whose fathers are known" the more USUAL translation. 17:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Levy is the main source I have offered so far to represent what I see as the mainstream view, so I don't follow how i am sweeping her under the rug. When I say the list has Sulili and Puzur-Ashur I in the same 'dynasty' I mean the section entitled 'kings whose eponyms are not known', we are still lacking any information on a relationship between the two. If you think there is a "scholarly consensus" that the KWFANK are identified as specifically Amorite names, there must be at least one scholar, let's see it, or where that unsourced pov comes from? Philip Mexico (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You provided the Levy article but thus far you are cherry-picking from it as you repeteadly removed the the following passages:

• from this article: "Hildegard Levy, writing in the Cambridge Ancient History, rejected this interpretation and instead interpreted the section as the ancestors of Sulili, the kings mentioned immediately afterwards. (See Hildegard Levy, "Assyria c. 2600-1816 B.C.", Cambridge Ancient History. Volume 1, Part 2: Early History of the Middle East, 729-770, p. 745-746.)"
• from the Puzur-Ashur article: "Hildegard Levy, writing in the Cambridge Ancient History, rejects this interpretation and sees Puzzur-Ashur as part of a longer dynasty started by one of his predecessors, Sulili"

"When I say the list has Sulili and Puzur-Ashur I in the same 'dynasty' I mean the section entitled 'kings whose eponyms are not known', we are still lacking any information on a relationship between the two."

You may use the word dynasty any way you like but you cannot take your idiosyncratic usage and identify it with the usage employed by Mrs Levy, who uses it to denote a family of kings.

"If you think there is a "scholarly consensus" that the KWFANK are identified as specifically Amorite names"

Which I never claimed. In fact this identification was present in this article before I came along. I removed it and you, as an IP, reverted me twice on this. Then I compromised and made the scope of the PA article more comphrensive.

So if it is unsourced POV it doesn't come from me.

In fact, I could do without the Amorite names in the PA article but I will not do without the Meissner view that the KWFAK are the ancestors of Shamsi-Adad (which I think is the mainstream view in Assyriology) getting their proper place in THIS article. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am the one who has been trying to get that synth out of Puzur-Ashur I for ten days now and you are the one who has reverted it back in each time. Philip Mexico (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So you were not responsible for this edit, which restored the following (emphasis mine):

>>Puzur Aššur I was an Assyrian king who ruled c. 2025 BC. He was the first ruler of the city of Assur to bear an Akkadian name (although the earlier pastoralist kings did also) and he is thought to have been the founder of a local dynasty, as his three immediate predecessors bore names of Hurrian or, in the case of the first twelve of the “kings who lived in tents,” being shared with the genealogy of Ḫammu-rapī< ref > and the “kings whose fathers are known,” the ancestors of Šamši-Adad I,< ref > an Amorite origin.<<

Was that an edit of yours? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• That was before I decided to make an account and straighten it up, I objected specifically (and still do) to the removal of the Hurrian names part because I know that part has at least appeared in literature in connection with the subject puzur-Ashur! i hadn't looked closely at the source at that point but quickly realized discussion of either Shamshi-adad or Hammurabi's ancestors on his page is gratuitous. Philip Mexico (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)