Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA2

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

As expressed on the article Talk page, and confirmed as part of an early discussion with one of the major contributors to the article, the article's GA status should be reassessed. In comparison to the good article criteria, in its current state,

(i) The article is not broad enough in its coverage. It deliberately omits passages from the sources referenced in favor of a controversial view. Indeed, a fraction of the article seems almost entirely devoted to WP:PROFRINGE.

(ii) The article is not neutral. It seeks to evade consensus about the topic in favor of a controversial view. In fact, in its current state the article represents a means of framing an argument in favor of a controversial view. This should become evident as the title of article, its structure, and the use of sources including very controversial ones are explored.

(iii) The article is not stable. Until coverage and neutrality of the article are addressed, the article cannot be considered stable.

Intent and title

To begin, perhaps the most problematic aspect of the article is its overall intent. As a major contributor claims, “The title does not refer to Isis's cult, but to a ritual or group of rituals within that cult that conformed to the pattern of Greco-Roman mystery rites.” The literature does not support the view that the mysteries of Isis refer exclusively to a ritual or group of rituals within that cult that conformed to the pattern of Greco-Roman mystery rites. The result, as I already highlighted on the talk page, is that the article’s title and content often enter in direct conflict with both content on Wikipedia (e.g. with the passage of the following article and section: "Comparative study shows parallels between these Greek rituals and similar systems—some of them older—in the Near East. Such cults include the mysteries of Isis and Osiris in Egypt") as well as both its own sources and encyclopedic literature. This is not surprising however, as there was admission that the article openly espouses a controversial view. For consistency with all sources, a better title would simply be “Isis Cult and Mysteries”.

As I indicated, in its current state it could be argued that the article presents many characteristics of a WP:POVFORK which effectively serves to frame an argument (whether or not this was originally intended). It anticipates edits about the Isis Cult, which editors could reject on the false basis that this is not an article about the Egyptian cult, rather the Greco-Roman mystery rites. False basis indeed, as the literature unanimously supports that the Ancient Egyptian mystery religion and cult of Isis, including rites and traditions, originated in Egypt before Hellenized. Likewise, the use of the term “mystery” in the article does not reflect the mainstream view.

Article Structure

If the issue of the intent and title are resolved, the article structure should accommodate an Egyptian subsection (separate from the Greek subsection, also under the Origins section), which should be featured chronologically (as it should) above the Greek subsection. There is ample content in the article and in literature to fill such a section. Once again, the mainstream view espouses that the Isis Cult and Mysteries are from Egypt.

Representation of Sources

There are many instances in which sources are used selectively in support of a controversial view. Specifically, Bremmer (2014) acknowledges that in addition to having been adapted to the Greek and Roman world, the “existing rituals derived from the priests’ own Egyptian tradition”. Of aretalogies in the Hellenistic period, he added that Egyptian influence cannot be questioned. Similarly, both Pakkanen (1996) and Pachis (2014) recognize that the Isis cult which flourished in the Hellenistic age is foreign and of Eastern origin and according to Pachis that its rituals initially strictly followed the “Egyptian ritual order”.

A review of Pakkanen’s work truly illustrates how the article, in its current state misuses and (wrongly) strives to broadly ascribe the “mysteries” to the Greco-Roman era. Indeed, Pakkanen claims that “Openness was the characterizing aspect of the thiasos of Egyptian gods in Athens, and thus there was no shared secrecy in this cult that would have made the association clearly one of the mystery-type.” He adds that “the cult of Isis developed into a mystery cult, as it may be called, during Roman times” on the basis that the cult began to feature secrecy then. In other words, according to the author, the Isis cult was not secretive in Greek times and became secretive in Roman times. Most importantly, the distinction and use of the term “mystery” is made by Pakkanen when looking at Greco-Roman times in isolation. In contrast and similarly to other authors, Burkert (1987) claims that “Modem scholars agree that there were initiation rites for priests at various levels in Egypt, and there were secret rites in which only the higher priests were allowed to participate”. It would be very helpful not to omit Pakkanen’s description of practices at a sanctuary on Delos where the post of the priest was hereditary and based on the Egyptian origin, and where the rituals of the cult were much less ‘hellenized’.

Similarly, it would seem appropriate to discuss Burkert (1987) according to which, “The Roman senate was strongly opposed to the cult of Isis for some generations, and as a result the altar of Isis was destroyed repeatedly by the magistrates […] Because the clergy always stressed the relationship with Egypt and the necessity "to worship the gods of the fathers with the rites from home," "the Egyptian" had to be present to perform the sacrifice "with expertise"; therefore at least some of the priests would normally have been Egyptians. They used, and possibly even read, hieroglyphic books and handled sacred water from the Nile.”

Considering Pakkanen’s scholarship, Burkert’s (1987) claim that “there were no mysteria of the Greek style in Egypt, open to the public upon application” emphasizes the ambiguity of the term “mysteries”. Once again according to Pakkanen, in Athens “there was no shared secrecy in this cult that would have made the association clearly one of the mystery-type.”

Lefkowitz

The whole section seeking to pass Lefkowitz’s views from her book (and an author who cites Lefkowitz for a total of 10 citations, i.e., more than half the concentrated fringe section) as mainstream reflects bias, is WP:UNDUE and blatant WP:PROFRINGE. Wherever the views from Lefkowitz’s book are presented, the fact that they originated from a controversial work should be overtly stated. I also suggest dedicating a footnote to the heavy criticism of Lefkowitz’s source. The intent of the article and its title can be understood better in the context of Lefkowitz’s views expressed in her work. Unfortunately, the work does not reflect the mainstream and very clear view (also featured in encyclopedic literature) that the mystery religions (Isis) and the cult of Isis were from Egypt, and they were of Eastern origin before Hellenized. Unsurprisingly, Lefkowitz's work drew heavy criticism from a variety of authors. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The statement according to which the title ""mysteries of Isis", is used in the sources to refer to the kind of rituals described in the article; it does not refer to the ordination of Egyptian priests, and this distinction is clearly addressed and supported by sources in the article" is baseless, as I outlined by thoroughly referencing sources contained both in the article (and there only used selectively) and in the delist nomination. Likewise, if the statement is not consistent with literature, clearly stating "the scope of the article as situated in the Greco-Roman world" is not helpful. While the use of the term "mysteries" is ambiguous in the sources referenced, its use is very clear within mainstream encyclopedic literature. Insisting on pushing a controversial view based on an ambiguous term and against consensus remains both inappropriate and extremely problematic.

In that regard and to my knowledge, I had not mentioned Lefkowitz until the nomination and so that I was asked repeatedly by A. Parrot, in relation to it, "to provide reliable sources that dispute what's currently in the article" is false. As for refutations of Lefkowitz's work and its accurate portrayal as WP:PROFRINGE (not my own), it can easily be provided :

“She regularly slips into the kind of ethnocentric arguments against which she protests elsewhere.” (Howe, 1998)

“The attacks seek to discredit the methodology implicit to the sources by dismissing “eyewitness accounts,” and discounting “indigenous” agents in favor of speculations on fragments and secondary interpretations from much later authors” (Keita, 2000)

“Mary Lefkowitz has produced an intriguing and controversial study entitled Not Out of Africa.” ... “this study is pedestrian and represents vindicationist scholarship.” ... “Unequivocally, this author recognizes her singular view as plural” (Conyers, 1996)

It appears to be a common strategy for some editors and WP:PROFRINGE apologists to resort to unfounded personal attacks and other behaviors, accusing other editors of supporting "Afrocentrism and elements of the Black Egyptian hypothesis" (I personally support neither, or Eurocentrism, and the claim is very offensive) in order to avoid addressing issues in articles. Once again, I assessed the WP:BLUD claim previously, I stand behind my description of the behaviors I observed and denounced. I do not endorse ideologies and I continue to support WP:NPOV and adequate representation of sources. This is not “a stick” or "a battle" as some might like to frame it to the detriment of the platform's community WP:HTBC. There are clear policies regarding Wikipedia articles. If policies are disregarded, and if an article does not reflect WP:NPOV, and WP:PROFRINGE (as evidenced by scholarship) is enforced, for the sake of the platform and its readers, the situation should be identified and addressed. If an article does not meet GA criteria, it should be delisted. I kindly and humbly annotated the article, highlighting some of the areas of concerns and providing suggested changes for your consideration (sources explicitly supporting the modifications and additions are included here). Thank you for your thoughtful reviews and comments. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The annotations are not very impressive, at all, and even less convincing that the above. There are no sources offered to back your claim(s), for example. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: I don't seem able to access whatever text the annotations contain. Please list the sources here. A. Parrot (talk)

I see. Most of the sources you cite are the ones this article is based on; the one exception is Leeming p. 874, which in passing gives the impression (but does not explicitly state) that the mysteries originated in dynastic Egypt. The other sources don't say what you seem to want them to say. You yourself cite Burkert and Pachis as saying that individual initiation upon request only developed in the Isis cult in Hellenistic or Roman times, under Eleusinian influence!

Much of what you cite is irrelevant to the mysteries but about the general cult of Isis in the Greco-Roman world, which is not within the scope of this article. An article on that cult could well be created, as the scholarship on it is voluminous, but for now the best coverage of it on Wikipedia is at Isis#In the Greco-Roman world. As the organization of that article should make clear, and as the text of this article does make clear, the mysteries were only one element of the practices of the Greco-Roman Isis cult.

As for Lefkowitz, general criticisms of Not Out of Africa aren't sufficient to demonstrate that the book is "fringe". Scholars dispute aspects of each other's work all the time, and it doesn't render them fringe. More to the point, to my knowledge nobody has disputed her account of how Sethos influenced later perceptions of ancient Egypt, and Assmann 1997, Macpherson 2004, and Spieth 2007 all support aspects of that account. A. Parrot (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The nuances and ambiguities of Egyptian and Greco-Roman elements are well covered in the article and cited to the strongest sources available. The title, "mysteries of Isis", is used in the sources to refer to the kind of rituals described in the article; it does not refer to the ordination of Egyptian priests, and this distinction is clearly addressed and supported by sources in the article. The article's subject is covered as its own phenomenon in many good sources and described as distinct from the more general cult of Isis, which is covered in the main article about Isis. As for refutations of Lefkowitz and proposals of other theories, Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has been asked repeatedly by A. Parrot to provide reliable sources that dispute what's currently in the article, but has not done so. Ffranc (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Franc. The nominator seems disgruntled that the article is about the Greco-Roman extension of the Isis cult, rather than its Egyptian origins, but the subject is clearly stated and well covered. Since passing GA it has also been submitted at FAC, where it is doing well. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The nominator is misusing WP:PROFRINGE as if it simply meant scholarship he doesn't like. The nominator has also been involved in various other disputes pushing Afrocentrism and elements of the Black Egyptian hypothesis in the past, including getting blocked for it, so I am not inclined to take their criticisms very seriously. The article is well sourced and points to the differences between the worship of Isis per se (obviously of Egyptian origin) and the Greco-Roman mystery cult. Lefkowitz is only "controversial" if you ascribe to the entirely discredited theses of Black Athena.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The OP's reply is classic wp:TLDR: please try to be succinct. Verbosity helps no one. Criticisms of Lefkowitz without any context do not respond to my point at all: she is an entirely respectable academic, and you have failed to provide any evidence that 1) the whole article somehow depends on her, or 2) that there's anything wrong with what she says. A scholar citing a scholar you don't like is not a reason to delist an article either. Furthermore, the first thing that A.Parrot did was ask you for sources if you had a problem with the article content and you haven't really provided any still, besides generalized attacks on Lefkowitz. --Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just to show the absurdity of the OP's focus on Lefkowitz: she is cited 5 times in the whole article. There are numerous other sources in the article that affirm that the mystery rites do not originate in Egypt. There is no "section devoted to the views of Lefkowitz", and its clear from the bulk of sources here that her position on the mysteries of Isis is entirely mainstream.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and please drop this particular stick. I dont find the rational convincing as the scope of the article is clearly stated from the opening sentence ("in the Greco-Roman world"). That the nominator is so willing to misquote policy to drive an agenda is disappointing, to put it nicely. I don't doubt that Nzakimuena is acting with the best of intentions....overall, this is not a well chosen battle. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.