Talk:Puzur-Ashur I

Hurrians and Amorites

Let's tackle this issue one by one, beginning at the "Amorite end":

The article claims:

"in the case of the first twelve of the “kings who lived in tents,” being shared with the genealogy of Ḫammu-rapī< ref >Finkelstein, J. J. (1966). "The Genealogy of the Hammurabi Dynasty". Journal of Cuneiform Studies. 20 (3): 95–118. doi:10.2307/1359643.</ ref > and the “kings whose fathers are known,” the ancestors of Šamši-Adad I,< ref name ="Reallexikon">Meissner, Bruno (1990). Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Vol. 6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 101–102. ISBN 3-11-010051-7.< /ref > an Amorite origin.

It is true that the "kings who lived in tents" show similarities to the genealogy of Hammurapi, es first found out by J. Finkelstein. But even the claim that the names are simply shared is not substantiated by Finkelstein's article. The lists are not simply copies of one another but it takes some thinking to see the parallels. I don't recall right now if Finkelstein identifies the names in the AKL as Amorite but note that there is no source given for that last claim.

The "Kings whose fathers are known" are linked to Meissner's article in the Reallexikon but while that article gives these names and explains them as the ancestors of Samsi-Adad in reverse order, it nowhere claims that the names are Amorites.

Hence, there currently is no source for the Amorite claim. Anyway - and that was my major point all along - this general discussion of the AKL belongs into the AKL article, which already contains all the sourced material.

BTW, the conclusion of this article that Puzur-Ashur started a new dynasty because all his predecessors had names of non-Assyrian origin, is also not sourced and might as well be OR.

Consequently, I will now remove the Amorite part of the sentence. I will deal with the Hurrian part later. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, let's focus on the "Hurrian element". The article states:

"he is thought to have been the founder of a local dynasty, as his three immediate predecessors bore names of Hurrian origin"

Having stripped away the statements about Amorite names (see above), we can clearly see that the sentence is totally unsourced. So any objections, as voiced by the IP that reverted my previous changes, that removing this would remove sourced statements is false. But let's compare this with what I found in the German Wikipedia.

Puzzur-Ashur has no article yet and the article on the AKL (de:Liste_der_assyrischen_Könige) contains no claim about Hurrian names. However, two articles on individual kings, mention this. These are:

• de:Ušpia: "Ušpia ist ein halblegendärer König von Aššur. Er ist hauptsächlich aus der Assyrischen Königsliste bekannt, wo er als 16. Herrscher geführt wird. Der Name wurde von Arthur Ungnad als hurritisch gedeutet (BA VI, 5, S. 13), eine These, die sich heute nicht mehr halten lässt."
  Ušpia is a semi-legendary king of Aššur. He is mainly known from the Assyrian Kinglist, where he is listed as the 16th ruler. The name was interpreted by Arthur Ungnad as Hurrian (BA VI, 5, S. 13), a thesis that can no longer be sustained nowadays.
• de:Kikkia: "Der Name wurde von Arthur Ungnad, wie der von Ušpia als hurritisch gedeutet (BA VI, 5, S. 13), eine These, die sich heute nicht mehr halten lässt. Schon Poebel hielt dies für wenig überzeugend[ A. Poebel, The Assyrian King List from Khorsabad, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 1/3, 1942, 253.]."
  The name was interpreted by Arthur Ungnad, just as the one of Ušpia as Hurrian (BA VI, 5, S. 13), a thesis that can no longer be sustained nowadays. Poebel already considered this thesis unconvincing. [ref see above]

Now, I admit that both articles lack a in-line ref for the claim that the thesis is outdated. (Unfortunately, the German WP is particular bad at in-line citation, especially in articles that don't draw as much interest as others). However, they at least reference the initial, positive claim about the Hurrian thesis (something the English articles failed to do) and the Kikkia-article references Arno Poebel as an earlier critic of the Hurrian identification.

(It should be noted that the mentioned Arthur Ungnad had a much grander theory of the role of the Hurrians - so boiling this down to a few interlooping Assyrian kings is at least close to a misrepresentation.)

Given that the positive claim here has no ref whatsover and that the conclusion that Puzzur-Ashur therefore founded a dynasty might very well be OR, I am also removing this part of the sentence. I already included sentences similar to the ones cited above in German to the articles of Ushpia and Kikkia. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten what I originally had in mind even more and tried to include as much as possible from the previous version and from Philip's contribution which I had not seen when I made my previous edits.

In particular, I have distinguished between two angles: that some of PA's predecessors had non-semitic names (which still holds true) and Ungnad's interpretation as Hurrian, which is outdated. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

May I suggest you do some more research first, and then come back and try to edit the article, perhaps then this won't be such a painful process of pointless edit-warring over simple facts. Philip Mexico (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you do the following things:

1. Inform yourself about how WP works. Note that it doesn't work by shouting down others, calling any changes to their contribution "edit-warring" etc., voicing indignation and never stating your objections. That is what talk pages are for. And if one comments on a different issue one starts a new section (which I have done now)

2. Do more reasearch too. It is not "some" who think that the "kings who are ancestors" are Shamshi-Adad's (claimed) ancestors - it is the Reallexikon who thinks that.

Having said that, I guess I must give you an explanation for the obvious. My version reads like this:

"Puzur Ashur's clearly Assyrian name (meaning "servant of Ashur") distinguishes him from his three immediate predecessors on the Assyrian Kinglist, who bore non-Semitic names. Arthur Ungnad interpreted these names as Hurrian (BA VI, 5, S. 13) but Ungnad's thesis can no longer be sustained nowadays[citation needed] and was rejected as unconvincing by Arno Poebel as early as 1942.[2] Puzur Ashur may have started a native Assyrian dynasty that endured for 9 generations until Erišum II was overthrown by the Amorite Shamshi-Adad I. 'The Assyrian Kinglist includes Puzur-Ashur among the Kings whose Eponyms are not Known, who are distinct from the earlier "Kings who are ancestors", generally considered to be a list of Shamshi-Adad's ancestors.[3] However, the Kinglist does not state whether Puzur-Ashur was related to any of his successors."

I wrote the disputed sentences in bold. You want to switch them around, asking why Shamsi-Adad's ancestors are even relevant.

Well, they are relevant. The case for a Puzur-Ashur I. to Erishum II. dynasty rests on two arguments:

1. The main one is, of course, that there is a dynasty involving these kings; that Puzur-Ashur I. was related to the following kings. We know that after Ilu-shuma son followed father down to Erishumg II, but we don't know that for certain for the link between Puzur Ashur I and Ilu-shuma - that is the "However".
2. That Puzur-Ashur I. started a dynasty of his own and wasn't merely another link in the chain. For that, he mustn't be related to his predecessors.
   1. Most important are his immediate predecessors: That Puzur-Ashur's predecessors have non-Semitic names (fact) and therefore might be non-Semitic (interpretation, not fact) while Puzur-Ashur's name is Assyrian and therefore he is (argubaly) not related to his (arguably) non-Semitic predecessors.
   2. But not only the immediate predecessors are important. If Puzur-Ashur would be related to the "Kings who are ancestors", he wouldn't be the founder of a dynasty but a restorer of the old line.
   3. This would also make his dynasty related to their eventual over-thrower Shamsi-Adad. The whole idea of a separate dynasty from Puzur-Ashur I. to Erishum II. - distinct from the kings before and after would reduce itself to a mere part of a greater dynasty. This is why it's relevant that Puzur-Ashur is not among the "Kings who are ancestors".

I deduce from your edits that you hold that dynasty to be true. You might think I made the edits I did because I think it false. But I don't!

I think it quite likely that Puzur-Ashur rose to the throne after the rule of Zariqum, the UrIII governor, restoring Assyrian independence. This might involve an nativist emphasis and this would explain his Assyrian name after the non-Semitic names of his predecessors (even if they were natives with foreign names).

I also think it quite likely that Puzur-Ashur I was related to Erishum I and his descendants which after all included Puzur-Ashur II. But we do NOT know that. It might well be that the Erishum family wanted to co-opt the first Puzur-Ashur into their family, especially if he was the restorer of independence.

However, we must state the issue neutrally - first state all the arguments for such a dynasty

"Puzur Ashur's clearly Assyrian name (meaning "servant of Ashur") distinguishes him from his three immediate predecessors on the Assyrian Kinglist, who bore non-Semitic names. ... Puzur Ashur may have started a native Assyrian dynasty that endured for 9 generations until Erišum II was overthrown by the Amorite Shamshi-Adad I. 'The Assyrian Kinglist includes Puzur-Ashur among the Kings whose Eponyms are not Known, who are distinct from the earlier "Kings who are ancestors", generally considered to be a list of Shamshi-Adad's ancestors."

and then the objections:

"However, the Kinglist does not state whether Puzur-Ashur was related to any of his successors."

This is my case. I am willing to listen to yours or your objection. But you will have to voice them here. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, your original research deductions are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what reliable sources say about this specific topic. What you think, and what you think I think, doesn't make a hill of beans. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As are yours, as are yours! I will not accept such arrogance from someone who has been on Wikipedia for three days!

Furthermore, reliable sources will not tell us whether we should place this sentence or that sentence first.

But if you insist that "The only thing that is relevant is what reliable sources say" then maybe I should delete what you wrote about Zariqum and your translation of Puzur-Ashur's name and insist that you clearly state the source for "he renewed the city walls" which you added without a source? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Philipp,

you will have to state your objections here, especially if you blanket revert to a previous version that indicate your objections have not yet been covered. Oh, and "all my hardwork" is not an argument - other editors work hard too and I'm quite sure you are comfortably seated in your chair.

Also, your last revert erased a ref I provided (Reallexikon) and turned the statement based on it (the general view in the field) to something else (your POV). Also, you reverted my correction - based on Jean-Jacques Glassner's book - of the term "kings who are ancestors" to "Kings whose Fathers are Known" (which is not what Glassner says).

Finally, I don't know why you insist on the pointless addition: "as there are no contemporary ones to confirm his reign archaeologically." - We should restrict ourselves to what is, not what is not or we will have to greatly expand the article. Especially since the phrase "known only from ..." already indicates that there is no other source aprt from those mentioned. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. You asked >>how are you going to REPEATEDLY undo all of my hard work and yet falsely state "i am not edit warring"???<<

I said that - quite truthfully - because Ispent quite some energy to include your contributions and always retained almost all of it - yet you say I "undo ALL (emphasis mine) of your hardwork". Never did I blanket revert your changes intentionally (and only once unintentionally) - you on the other hand have done exactly that. So please come down and talk. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Philipp, why don't you use the talk page to communicate on these issues. It would make things a whole lot easier. As for the one subtantial element of your edit summary: "Shalim-ahum's inscription is cited in Grayson": It is the job of the editor who inserts a claim into the article to provide the source, not anybody else's. And including the reference into another article doesn't free you from the obligation to do the same here. I have now gleaned from your edits over there where the claim comes from and not only added claim and reference back into this article, which I also reworded accordingly. If you haven't realised, the last inscription closed the gap between Puzur-Ashur and the rest of his successors. Str1977 ^(talk) 05:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What Mrs Levy actually says

Contrary to Philip's objection, this is what Mrs Levy writes for the CAH:

Yet it is difficult to see why the compiler should not have inserted Shamshi-Adad's ancestors immediately before Shamshi-Adad, but should have separated two allegedly consecutive generations by at least ten other persons. Moreover, the name Ila-kabkabu is not unique, other bearers in the period of continuous West Semitic immigration into Mesopotamia being well attested. Since, on the other hand, the list continues with a section beginning with Sulili, the son of Aminu, Aminu being the last of the 'ancestors', it need not be doubted that the men listed in inverse order were the ancestors of this Sulili. The reason for this insertion is not difficult to guess: the dynasty which begins with Sulili was eventually overthrown and replaced by Shamshi-Adad I who, in turn, was succeeded by his son, Ishme-Dagan. After Ishme-Dagan's death, a lengthy struggle between competing contenders appears to have taken place and it is therefore possible that a partisan of the Sulili—Puzur-Ashur dynasty should have inserted the long line of their ancestors in order to prove that they were the legitimate successors of Ushpia.

It cannot be any plainer than "the dynasty which begins with Sulili" and "the Sulili—Puzur-Ashur dynasty" - if that dynasty lasted until Shamshi-Adad I, it must include Puzzur-Ashur. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It cannot be any plainer than "it is therefore possible" but this totally does not substantiate writing in the article that she "assumes" anything - which I believe she is careful not to do but simply to leave it open. She is merely pointing out the obvious, that the Shamshi Adad theory is flawed, in scholarly language that is as neutral as possible - and a good reminder to us to be on the same level and not always try to slant everything on wikipedia. Philip Mexico (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"it need not be doubted" is a pretty confident statement

"the dynasty which begins with Sulili" contains no element of uncertainty either

The ""t is therefore possible" you quote refers to the possibility that "a partisan of the Sulili—Puzur-Ashur dynasty should have inserted the long line of their ancestors in order to prove that they were the legitimate successors of Ushpia" an not to the existence of such a dynasty.

Your tendency of misrespresenting sources is getting annoying. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit is typical of the problem

This edit is typical of the problem here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puzur-Ashur_I&diff=663963008&oldid=663961487

Note that Str77 is repeatedly ad nauseam inserting the following information:

and from the earlier, [[Amorite]]-named "Kings who are ancestors", often interpreted as a list of Shamshi-Adad's ancestors.<ref name="Reallexikon">{{cite book|last=Meissner|first=Bruno |title=Reallexikon der Assyriologie |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |location=Berlin |year=1990 |volume=6 |pages=101–102 |isbn=3110100517 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=OIeiZaIo91IC&printsec=frontcover&cad=0#PPA101,M1}}

Please note that the reference included as support for this statement, in fact says nothing of the sort. The reference translates the Assyrian specifically as "Kings whose fathers are known", yet Str77 edit wars to make it say his favored translation. Further, the reference does not say anything about the subject of this article, Puzur-Ashur I, in support of the OR point being made. The page on WP:OR clearly says the point being made must be in the reference. The entire hypothesis of SHamshi-Adad's ancestry belongs on another article, as there are no sources synthesizing that hypothesis with this ruler. Philip Mexico (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Meissner's article sources the interpretation of this section of the AKL as Shamshi-Adad's ancestors. I have no objection about also inclucing the other translation of the section (please don't pretend that you don't know that both translations are sourced). The Amorite names of the section - do you dispute that they are Amorite names? - were in this article long before I came along. But I don't see why we should delete information just because you don't like it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

NOT "just because I don't like it", but because it is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. It's off-topic. We still have NOTHING establishing the significance of your cherished Shamshi-Adad / Ila-kabkabu identification, to any knowledge about THIS ruler, Puzur-Asshur I, who is a completely different ruler. Meissner's article doesn't do it. The assertion that those other kings (who aren't even relevant on this page) are specifically Amorite names, as opposed to Assyrian names (I don't know how they pretend to know the difference since they are also certainly Assyrian names), is original research and unsourced, but beyond that, IT BELONGS ON ANOTHER PAGE. I hope I'm communicating clearly enough for you now. If you want to include an observation contrasting the subject of THIS article with your supposed "Amorite" names, you are REQUIRED to have a source making this point (Meissner does not) or you are desperately promoting Original Research to the point of 5RR and 6RR and refuse to listen. Philip Mexico (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because you don't like it because you have no qualms about introducing or letting stand things that would be just as much WP:SYNTH under the standard you apply above, pretty much the entire paragraph - if you want that, I can do that for you.

Furthermore, the next paragraph would have to go too because a title Puzur Ashur did not use is hardly on topic.

Also, the passage about Zariqum must be deleted because it is unsourced.

At the same time, you keep on deleting Hildgegard Levy's Sulili-Puzur Ashur dynasty for some POV reason.

Finally, your blindly reverting everything, even the off-topic flag which is a no-no! Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No more unsourced, no more SYNTH, no more off topic - are you happy now? Str1977 ^(talk) 10:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am about two more shakes away from taking this entire dispute to ANI. Your repeated stubborn insertion of OR here is unbelievable. This isn't a policy you can skirt around or defeat with your conception of "logic". Simply put, you can use any observations here that scholars have made specifically about Puzur-Ashur I. You cannot keep the article filled with a bunch of gratuitous junk as you have been doing. If you research and find where a scholar has had something to say about "Puzur-Asshur I", then by all means bring it up here for inclusion. The "Amorite names" theory contrasted with Puzur-Ashur's name, needs a source to appear here, bottom line, no way around it, and using Mr. Meissner and calling this "referenced" is prevarication. Philip Mexico (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you even read the article before spouting your accusations here? I removed the (unsourced) Amorite names but I also removed the (equally unsourced) non-Semitic names, the (unsourced Zariqum) and the (sourced but off-topic) passage about titles Puzur-Ashur never used. I restored the (sourced and relevant) passage that Mrs Levy considers him part of a dynasty started by Sulili, which you removed!

Basically, I just removed everything that isn't sourced. It is you who wishes to insert OR and SYNTH when it suits you and remove it when it doesn't. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Philipp, I've had it with your double standards. You claim in an edit summary to revert to the "latest stable version", which just by coincidence happens to be version which includes everything you like (sourced and unsourced) and leaves out everything you do not like (sourced or unsourced).

I've time and again worked to find a compromise with you but to no avail. Now you talk of "middle ground" - your POV is not that middle ground. I will suspend reasoning with you as long as it seems fruitless. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

I'm a bit puzzled by the last sentence which reads:

The title išši’ak aššur, vice regent of Assur, was borne by his successors, in conjunction with the rank usually written in Sumerian as PA.TE.SI, meaning ÉNSI, "governor".[3]

That surely is true but why do we include it with Puzzur-Ashur when the title was used by his successors? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, User:Philip Mexico, reply here if you object to my removal of that passage. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Philip, state your objections here, not just in an edit summary. How is this title pertinent to Zariqum, whom you mentioned in your edit summary. Maybe you should first research the literature on this matter and then post it.

However, I will not for the moment remove it again as it already has been tagged. 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I will have to write an article for Zariqum as well, but it takes time... Philip Mexico (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)