Talk:Kingu

Cleaning

I have recently cleaned up the information within the page, as it contained an unnecessary amount of pop reference links and have added additional information. I have also removed the text stating Anu as the slayer of Kingu, as this is not referenced in any other text I am in possession of. 64.179.37.3 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

I updated the reference links and added a few modern references, and tried to clarify the section relating to Z. Sitchin. I also removed the Stub tag.Ms408 06:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sitchin/Book of Nod

The Book of Nod is a fictional document. What's more I don't see any reference to Kingu in my copy. If there is a reference, feel free to revert.

I also edited the section on Sitchin to reflect the controversial nature of his work. He goes well beyond just working on Sumerian Astrology, he reinterprets Sumerian mythology into a von Danikenite theory of ancient astronauts and alien invasions.

Ancient astronomy

This article needs information about the Sumerian cosmology in regards to the celestial body Kingu.

For those of you who are being cynical about this, the Sumerians were similar to many other cultures, such as the Romans, who named celestial bodies after their gods (or vice versa!!!)--AI 02:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed unsourced text

This text seems contradictory to all historical evidence. The Sumerian endonym in no way stems from Kingu. And Shumer was an Akkadian exonym derived from Shumeru.

"Kingu is the eponymous source of the Sumerian endonym for themselves (Sumer being an exonym derived from Subartu)." NJMauthor (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please fix reference

Reference "Tablet of Destinies", cites a modern science fiction book. This could not possibly be a source for the Enuma Elish, which is 3700 years older. Perhaps there is some other "Tablet" this refers to. Someone needs to decide to fix this or remove it.

Moon?

Needs fixing:

Kingu is the original name given to our moon.^{[citation needed]}

"The original"? No name before that? That must have been when language was invented, about 200,000 yrs or about 2 myrs ago. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Zechariah Sitchin

"modern day NASA probes and professional astronomers are finally starting to realize Sitchin may be right and started backing away from previous held disbeliefs" How does that article in the link prove anything Sitchin said? Or maybe you can find a more reliable source. And "finally starting to realize"? Sounds like a Sitchin believer trying to use wiki to get his belief across(neutral(and reliably sourced(and facts)) would be nice .lol.). Why not something like "But some modern day astronomers think he may be right". Nothing has been proven yet. All It is, is still "good" theory.Anonni (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a really bad theory, if a theory at all. The proto-Earth/proto-Moon collision has nothing to do with the asteroid belt. I rather think that the Sitchin theory is a delusional crackpot imagination that is shoe-horning the finding of real science into a preconcieved pattern, which is in disaccord with scientific method. We're mentioning him here because pseudoscience has a place in an encyclopedia too. For us ultra-sceptics, he provides entertainment. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article on Zecharia Sitchin I realise there is less coincidence between his imaginations and the Giant impact hypothesis (GIH) than I expected. According to Sitchin, Nibiru is a highly eccentric orbit planet in the outer solar system, while Theia (Nibirus or Tiamats alleged counterpart) was a planet in the same circular orbit as Proto-Earth in Lagrange point L4. In GIH there is no Tiamat. In Sitchin saga Tiamat was in the asteroid belt. In conclusion: no shoehorning whatsoever will make the sane mind perceive any similarity between Sitchin saga and GIH whatsoever. Saying "finally starting to realize" is a blatant lie, beside being a typo. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing main section

The intro superficially tells us about Kingu and his role in the Mesopotamian mythology, but the article itself does not. It should. There is a deep, fundamental, capital, communal and blatant need of a main section describing Kingu. interpretations and analyses, such as Dr. Y in Mesopotamology, claims that Kingu represents a farmer rebellion ... [just an example, not real!]. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)