Talk:Anu

First paragraph

In the first paragraph, one can learn the following: He was believed to have the power to judge those who had committed crimes, and to have created the stars as soldiers to destroy the wicked. Is there any source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skibbereen4567 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Someone keeps updating this page with some truly weird 'pop culture'. Can someone keep an eye on it and make sure whomever this is gets booted? Kaligraphia (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)kaligraphia

I want to add that Sumerians didn't believed they were gods, they actually said in their own writings that they were an alien race who created humans and rule the world. So, for the sumerians the Anunakis were aliens instead of gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.184.4 (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

People still believe in Sitchin? The man was a con-artist and a charlatan and as a source is far from credible. To learn what those writings actually say, I suggest you learn Sumerian yourself or ask someone well-versed in Sumerian cuneiform, instead of believing con-men who know nothing about ancient languages.--WANAX (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unverified supposition

Someone keeps updating this page with some truly weird 'pop culture'. Can someone keep an eye on it and make sure whomever this is gets booted? Kaligraphia (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

"The oldest reference to the name" cannot be in Sanskrit or Tamil. Sanscrit is believed to have separated from Indo-Iranian about 1,500 BCE. Anu is attested in Sumerian civilisation from 3,000 BCE. The oldest extent work in Tamil dates to 200 BCE. The Brahmi script (the earliest in India) dates from 600BCE and Karoshthi dates from 400BCE. So how can they be the first references. I am deleting this section as it is inaccurate. John D. Croft 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Sorry, but I think Mr Sitchin's theory should be considered as a supposition and not an affirmation.-- The Warlock 10:09 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

History is a supposition.

Khranus

Can someone verify the supposed Sumerian belief here? RickK 23:26, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unless somebody can verify this, I'm going to delete it in about 48 hours. RickK 20:08, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

- Sumerian for "heaven", a sky god, father and king of the gods. He is the son of Anshar and Kishar. He lives in the third heaven. The Eanna in Uruk was dedicated both to him and consort. His first consort was Antu. They produced the Anunnaki - the underworld gods, and the utukki - the seven evil demons. His second consort was Innina (Ishtar). He is a god of monarchs and is not friendly to the common people. He is a "King of the Igigi". He is assigned the sky as his domain in 'Atrahasis'. His 'kishru's (shooting stars) have awesome strength. He has the ability that anything he puts into words, becomes reality. He is Niudimmud's (Ea's) father. When Anzu stole the Tablet of Destinies from Ellil, he called for one of the gods to slay Anzu and thereby greatly increase his reputation.

He gave Marduk the four winds to play with. He made a whirlwind and a flood wave and stirred up Tiamat on purpose. When Tiamat's retaliation for Apsu's death was discovered, Anshar sent him on a peace mission to her, but he returned unsuccessfully. He helps form a princely shrine for Marduk prior to his battle with Tiamat, and gives him the Anu-power of decreeing fates, such that his word is law.

He calls Dumuzi and Gizzida speak on Adapa's behalf.

He and Earth father the Sebitti. He gives them fearsome fates and powers and puts them at Erra's command, to aid in killing noisy, over-populous people and animals.

He agrees to send the Bull of Heaven after Gilgamesh on Ishtar's behalf, if she has made sure that the people of Uruk are properly provisioned for seven years. He decrees that either Gilgamesh or Enkidu must die for the slaying of Humbaba and the Bull of Heaven. He sends Kakka to Kurnugi to tell Ereshkigal to send a messenger to receive a gift from him. (See also the Sumerian An and the Hittite Anus)

Symbol: sacred shine surmounted by the divine horned cap. Sacred number: 60 Astrological region: heavenly equator Sacred animal: the heavenly Bull

here's the link with bibliography. http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/assyrbabyl-faq.html#Anu

The link above cannot be accessed as it is locked.

Last paragraph

...seems irrelevant and isn't cited. Should it be pruned?

I agree with that. If there was some sort of reliable citation attached to it, I suppose it'd be fine, but there isn't. Besides, is there any proof that the name Anu is given profusely in Thailand and is given to mainly dark-skinned people? I really think someone should cut that statement if no one's going to give reasons for stating it. Ryan 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Anu is female name in Finland, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Sumerian pagan god Anu! Anu is Hannah's Finnish diminutive name form, as also Annushka in Russia. 85.156.224.59 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Needing Rewrite

This article seems largely based upon ancient (pre-World War I) material, reflecting a highly obsolete viewpoint.

For example, Is Bel = Marduk or Enlil. The three way dision does not wor as Bel as Enlil (Nippur) = Air, not Earth.

Regards

John D. Croft 11:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe we may need to include something from Stephen H. Langdon, he was post WWI at least.--Faro0485 (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the name "An"

I cleaned up that paragraph and added a citation for the Sumerian cosmogony bit I added. I fail to see how that paragraph has anything to do with the origin of the name. If anyone can help us out with that I would appreciate it. NJMauthor (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anu and Metatron

In comparative religion, I feel that it may be possible to detect common attributes between Anu and Metatron ; I would dare anyone to try. 69.157.239.212 (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In comparative religion, it would be possible to detect common attributes between Anu and The Jade Emperor. What's your point? NJMauthor (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized this article, I plan to return this article to an earlier form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.228.106 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Khashkhamer seal moon worship.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Khashkhamer seal moon worship.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Same as Levantine El and ancient Greek Cronus

Anu -> Enki (Sea) and Enlil (Storm) and Ereshkigal (Death)

Cronus -> Poseidon (Sea) and Zeus (Storm) and Hades (Death)

El -> Yam (Sea) and Hadad (Storm) and Mot (Death)

There are many cross-references in all these mythologies to further establish these facts. Even the Hindu, ancient Egypt, Aztec, Mayan, etc. mythologies ultimately are based on these few deities. The difference is mostly in name and attribute only. We can find these deities even in Norse mythology... 178.201.14.173 (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Font use?

I have been looking at various cuniform pages, most display ok, the unicode (presumably) symbols in the first para here do not display properly (the box with numbers in it). Is this a wiki encoding issue, or do I need another font.

Other pages, when examining the html, show font family e.g.

< span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: Akkadian; transition: transform 1s ease 0s;" title="Classical Sumerian cuneiform" xml:lang="sux-Xsux" lang="sux-Xsux">𒅴𒂠< /span>

Whereas this page has

<span style="transition: transform 1s ease 0s;" xml:lang="akk" lang="akk">𒀭𒀭</span> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimarx (talk • contribs) 23:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Who says that An is not God?

Katolophyromai I have fixed the Category:God description which said that it was restricted to "monotheistic Gods" (i.e. that of Abrahamics). The same definition of "monotheistic God" is nonsense (what is a "monotheistic God"?). Saying that only the God of the monotheistic (i.e. Abrahamic) religions is "God" while the supreme God and begetter of all other gods in any among the polytheistic religions is not "God" is slanted in favor of Abrahamic religions and their idea of God. Indeed, the Category:God, despite the description, already contains many different Category:Conceptions of God, not exclusively those of the Abrahamic religions.--93.71.129.253 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• https://books.google.com/books?id=06We3O2BWVwC&pg=PA178
• https://books.google.com/books?id=hydKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA240

The category was not broken. The word "God" primarily refers to a monotheistic God and that is what most people think of when they hear the word. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the article (and corresponding category) should be about the primary subject. Our article God is about a monotheistic God and Category:God is the corresponding category about Him. We have a separate category for male polytheistic deities: Category:Gods. We should keep the categories distinct; if we start just throwing random male deities into Category:God, we will have two categories devoted to polytheistic deities and no category about the monotheistic God. I have replaced the Category:God that you added to this article with Category:Gods, which is the correct category. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is biased. Your definition of "monotheistic God" versus "polytheistic deities" is biased apart from them being two tautological circularities. An and the other concepts of supreme God in polytheistic religions are not "random male deities", they are the supreme God which is the same conceived in Abrahamic religions. The only difference is that polytheistic religions accept that the world is made up by a multitude of gods who are facets or offsprings of the supreme God (thus, it is immanent), while monotheistic religions conceive God as transcendent and distinct from the world.--93.71.129.253 (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see you are a philosopher. Obviously, there are ways that one could make a philosophical argument that monotheism and polytheism are really the same, but WP:OR states that we are not supposed to put our own arguments or opinions into our articles. We must abide by the traditional definitions of words; this is an encyclopedia, not a transformation speech. Anu belongs under Category:Gods, not Category:God. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• Attempt at middle ground: Category:God does not include deities on the basis of being a facet of The Divine, but The Divine in Itself. It overlaps with Category:Singular God (which covers henotheistic deities), which demonstrates that it's not just monotheistic deities but still the transcendent ones.

So, the criteria is transcendence (or being the Ground of all being), but not necessarily monotheism. Anu was the highest of the gods, and almost the first God. Now, whether or not they viewed the relationship between Nammu and Anu as potential vs active Divinity, the article doesn't really spell out. We to read that relationship somewhere into the article (even though that'd be original research, which we don't do), it would be easier to apply it to Anu (potential) and Enlil (active) -- after all Enlil was the one who got the worship.

Including Anu in the God category would require a source that shows that he was regarded as transcendent or the Ground of all being. That's currently not present, but can't be ruled out. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, looking over this source posted earlier, something to this effect ("Supreme God") would be good -- if the source was by a historian and not just psychiatrist. This other source is from pay-to-print publisher Lulu.com and so is useless. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I appreciate your insight, but we seem to be applying modern philosophical terminology to a god that was worshipped roughly 4,500 years ago; the Sumerians had their own sort of philosophy, but most of it was very different from anything a modern philosopher would recognize as such. In particular their whole theology was radically different; to them, a "god" was something completely different from what modern, monotheistic religions believe in. Our modern concept of "God" would have been utterly foreign to them.

For instance, while we today think of "God" as incorporeal and spiritual, textual evidence clearly and conclusively shows that Enlil and Anu were thought of as anthropomorphic and corporeal, albeit far more majestic and terrifying than the ordinary human mind is capable of envisioning. They are rarely, if ever, shown in art in human form, but we can be sure that this is how they were envisioned. Similarly, we tend to think of "God" as limitless and all-powerful, but even Anu and Enlil's powers, while they were indeed considered to be exceedingly great, were always regarded as limited. Likewise, the Sumerians never saw their gods as omnibenevolent or anything close; instead, they were human-like and, while generally benevolent to their worshippers, they could also be cruel and capricious.

The gods were far from being seen as universal; each deity was associated with a particular city or region, where they were thought to hold power, and a god's power depended heavily on the political clout wielded by the city that served as their primary cult center. Even Anu as the chief god was still a regional deity, whose power was mostly confined to the cities where he was worshipped. These gods are scarcely anything at all like the universal, incorporeal, all-powerful, all-loving conception of "God" that modern readers are most likely to be familiar with, which is why they belong in a different category. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Our modern conception of God largely comes from a text that treats God in an anthropomorphic manner -- which most of us read as metaphorical. We picked up that interpretation from the Platonists. Simo Parpola argues that some Assyrians interpreted their myths in a similar fashion as well. But while the average Sumerian certainly would have regarded those figures as invisible crotchety men in the sky, whether or not more subtle views were possible is beside the point, the issue is "what do the sources say?" and in this case, there are none present to support the inclusion of Anu in the God category. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, Katolophyromai Please note that the Category:God contains articles about the conceptions of supreme God of non-Abrahamic religions, for instance Hindu and African ones. The same article "God" is not exclusively about the Abrahamic conception (transcendent), but it includes, for instance, the Hindu conception (manifold immanent manifestation). If An does not fit that category, then it fits the Category:Conceptions of God. An means "Heaven", and therefore it was not conceived as completely transcendent like the Abrahamic god, but manifest in the sky and stars, and indeed it is the "Lord of the Gods and the Constellations".

Also, there is plenty of good sources which clearly discuss such theology (this time I have verified that publishers are academia); An is clearly discussed as the supreme God, and first one of the triad An—Enlil—Enki:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=LQtUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137
• https://books.google.com/books?id=qevX11bQRi8C&pg=PA134

Moreover, which sky are we talking about? An was identified as the north pole in Draco, while Enlil and Enki rotated about it:

• https://books.google.com/books?hl=it&id=zucsAQAAIAAJ - pages 300-301: "As the north pole of heaven, Draco is the seat of Anu ... the circumpolar region is ... assigned to Anu's household"
• https://books.google.com/books?id=XY3pLLsqLJQC&pg=PA29

This astral theology should be explained in our articles, so that the picture of Sumerian religion would become clearer.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You've got it backwards: the concept of transcendence is not limited to the Abrahamic religions. At no point have I claimed that the God category is limited solely to the Abrahamic conception -- you are the only person raising that strawman. You'll notice that the God category doesn't include Yahweh. The figures listed in the God category may well also be immanent, but are still transcendent as well. Having both transcendence and immanence would be a logical consequence of omnipresence (which, regardless of actual location, would be a logical consequence of omniscience, omnipotence, and an eternal nature).

The Delaporte source is closer to what we need, but still doesn't actually say that Anu was transcendent. Supreme, yes, but while transcendence includes supremacy, supremacy is not automatically transcendent. This is why, again, Yahweh is missing from the God category.

The Conceptions of God category still lists figures that are, in some way, the Absolute (i.e. ground of all being). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your argumentation that transcendence is not limited to the Abrahamic religions and that the Category:God should not be limited to the transcendent God. What I meant is that absolute transcendence, and the related idea of creation from nothing, is the distinctive characteristic of the God of the mainstream theology of the Abrahamic religions; I was convinced that it was the criterion used to determine what is "God" and should be included in the category, and what is not "God" and should not.

Anu was probably not conceived as transcendent, but surely as the first, supreme creator. I think that the idea of transcendence does not apply to Nammu—Apsu either, which was the primordial chaos rather than a nothing; it was, we could say, a no-God.

Ultimately, An fits the Category:God (supreme God) even better than Yahweh, a tribal god later proclaimed the "single God". Maybe we could create a Category:Supreme God to resolve all these issues.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Again: you're the one bringing up the Abrahamic religions. You're also the one who brought up creation ex nihilo, which no one else has attempted to use to define the God category. Ahura Mazda, Olorun, and Shangdi are all transcendent such that Christian missionaries have only been able to conclude "same God, different culture" more universally than they have with the more obviously related Allah.

Maybe, if you tried paying attention to what people are saying instead of arguing with your own strawman arguments, this discussion would go somewhere a little faster.

The suggestion of "Category:Supreme God" (or, following the article, Category:Supreme Being) could be a way to resolve this, but would also include Yahweh (as Yahweh was the supreme being among the later Israelites). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I am sorry, I admit that I read your comments only cursorily. What about not restricting the Category:God to the supreme transcendent but opening it also to the supreme immanent? What I see at the moment is a very chaotic categorization (and this is the reason why I did not understand what are the criteria of those categories).

By the way, I have found a strong source that solves the whole issue, H. W. F. Saggs. In Everyday Life in Babylonia & Assyria, p. 191, he identifies An as the supreme, Enlil as the transcendent aspect and Enki as the immanent aspect of divinity. Thus, An may be regarded as reconciling the two, and therefore it is neither transcendent nor immanent. This description also fits the stellar identification of the three gods (see source in previous comment, h 17:37), in which An is the medium path between the inner "path of Enlil" and the outer "path of Enki".--2.34.169.73 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Further addition: Edwin Oliver James, in The Worship of the Sky-god: A Comparative Study in Semitic and Indo-European Religion, p. 140, says: "While in their respective spheres of influence they [the triad An-Enlil-Enki] were co-equal, Anu, 'the one on high' personifying the sky, was the leader of the pantheon and the most important force in the cosmos notwithstanding his transcendental obscurity". Here Anu is identified as "transcendental", which may be different from "transcendent", given the differentiation of the two terms in German idealism: "transcendental" is something transcendent which is constitutive for anything immanent.

So, based on what we can rely upon at the moment, An is defined as "trascendental", Enlil as his/its "transcendent" aspect and Enki as his/its "immanent" aspect.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So, Katolophyromai and Ian.thomson, can you add these important sources and informations to the article and find an appropriate category where An can fit?--2.34.169.73 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added the information myself. I noted that many citations were not working because the respective reference in bibliography did not have the ref=harv parameter. I have fixed the problem. I also note that the article does not contain information about the identification of An with the semitic equivalent concept Ilu. It should be mentioned.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

However, we still have to solve the issue of the category.--2.34.169.73 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Katolophyromai: We still have to solve the category issue.--93.151.216.6 (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, I think that the article needs a little rewording. Given that Anu was always considered the source of divinity, as attested by the fact that other deities were considered to have the An-utu (note that the suffix is utu; variously translated in sources as "Anship", "An-power" or "An-word", given that it was the power of the performative word [I have a good source about this in Italian but I can't find any online material in English]), I wouldn't say that An was replaced by Enlil and later Enlil was in turn replaced by Marduk (who always remained hierarchically below An), also given that in Babylonian astrolabes Enlil (mulApin) and Marduk (mulMarduk) feature side-by-side in the map. The relation between Enlil and Marduk was rather one of identification (with Jupiter being the representative of Enlil among the planets of the Solar System), and they received the cult on behalf of An, as An was probably never worshipped (at least by commoners).--93.151.216.6 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to go along with adding this article to the "God" category if you really insist it needs to be there. I will take a look at the wording and try to adjust it. I also just noticed your note above, which I had forgotten about, regarding An's identification with Ilu, so I will add mention of that as well.

On a side note, I thought I would invite you that you might want to create an account, since you are still editing by your IP address, which keeps changing, making it hard for me to tell when I am talking with the same user and when I am talking to someone different. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

We meet again, Kato. Hope you're not fed up with me yet.

Oh no. I am far from fed up with you; I very much appreciate your help! Thank you for reviewing this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now. Another excellent article.

1. Prose:

* According to this Earwig scan, the section on family is too closely paraphrased. Please rewrite.

I apologize, before I came along, a substantial portion of the article was directly copied and pasted from the site in question. I removed most of the plagiarized material and rephrased the part I kept. Apparently I did not do a good enough job rephrasing it. I will remedy this problem. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have now changed the wording enough to avoid a close paraphrase. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Perfect.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The article reads fluently and makes for an interesting read. You should improve it by explaining names like Sargon of Akkad and Irkalla a bit more when you introduce them for the first time.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• You should somehow make the sections on family and family tree adjacent. Ideally.

I do not know how to do that, but I could perhaps move the family tree underneath the "Family" section. I do not really like the idea of having all that open space in the middle of the article, however. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

2. MOS:

• The family tree should have some sort of short description.

* The lead should only have citations for controversial statements and information not found in the body of the article.

I apologize; the first paragraph of the lead was written by an anonymous user who has been helping me and I do not think he or she was aware of our policy regarding citations in the lead. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I moved the well-cited first paragraph of the lead into the body of the article and revised the lead to make it more of a summary. I believe this issue is now resolved. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It is. Good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout:

• No dead links—good.

*"Halloran 2009" doesn't link to any identifiable source.

I have added the source to the bibliography. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are a number of books mentioned with no ISBN.

I could only find one book source that lacked an ISBN that needed one, but I have now added it. There are several web and journal sources, which obviously do not have ISBNs. James 1963 does not appear to have an ISBN, perhaps because it was published two years before ISBNs were invented. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Then try to find an OCLC number instead. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

4. Reliable sources: In general, sources are excellent.

• The family tree doesn't mention any sources. You can put these in a caption-like format.

The family tree was here before I came. I have largely ignored it until now. I will try to find sources for it, or I may just remove it. At least part of it is now actually a part of this article, but rather an external template that has been inserted, which I suspect will make it hard to add sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the family tree. I think it oversimplifies the issue, since Anu's family varies drastically depending on the historical era. I also think the subject of his family is adequately addressed in the main body of the article, particularly in the "Family" section. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

* Isn't it better to use a more recent version of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica?

The original version of this article before I came along was just copied straight from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is in the public domain and has been for several decades. The sentence that is cited to it is the only place left in the article where the original wording has been preserved. I will try to find a different source and rewrite the sentence using my own words. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The newest online version of the Encyclopaedia should also have an article on the subject.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The entry for Anu on the online Encyclopedia Britannica is surprisingly short and says very little. It does not mention that Anu's name means "sky." Nonetheless, I have found several other sources stating that it means sky and I believe they will do far better than the Britannica since they are both secondary sources written by scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: I've found this article useful.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

7. Focus: focused.

8. Neutral: yes.

9. Stable: There are some recent content disputes, but these have not altered and are unlikely to alter the article significantly.

10-11. Pics: File:Cuneiform_sumer_dingir.svg looks like the wrong copyright tag. Ideally, File:The_Mutiliation_of_Uranus_by_Saturn.jpg should have a USA tag as well, as has been done in the topic picture File:Ea_(Babilonian)_-_EnKi_(Sumerian).jpg.

If the copyright tag is wrong, which one should it have? It looks right to me, but I am certainly no legal expert by any means. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is strictly speaking not the uploader's own work, but rather a historical symbol. I'm not sure what tag that is, but we'll look it up. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The uploader created that particular image of it, though, and, since the image is not an exact, photographic reproduction of an ancient depiction of the symbol, legally speaking, I believe that means it is the uploader's own creation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no copyright issues anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. * You use both BC and BCE. Pick either one.

I am not a fan of the modern dating system; it is inconvenient because it starts roughly three fifths of the way through recorded human history, rather than at the beginning. Furthermore, even though the system is supposed to start with the year Jesus was born, it is off by at least four years, since Jesus could not have been born any later than 4 BC and he was probably actually born sometime between 8 BC and 4 BC. Given the choice between AD/BC and CE/BCE, however, I prefer AD/BC, because I think it is less pretentious. My view is that, if people want a secular dating system, then they should actually create a secular dating system, instead of just taking the Christian dating system, changing the name, and saying "Now it's secular!" --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's weird.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're using both An and Anu as names of the subject. Why is this?

"An" is the original Sumerian form of the name. "Anu" is the later Semiticized form of it. I believe this fact is explained in the article. I have been trying to use "An" when I am talking about Sumerian myths and "Anu" when I am talking about East Semitic myths. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Still, it would read much better if you'd choose one.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

I went with "Anu" since that is the title of the article. I kept the name "An" for the Sumerian sections of the "Mythology" portion, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Mm.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Is it possible to add years or periods to mythological works and the different civilizations you mention?

Mesopotamian mythological texts are often notoriously hard to date with any measure of exactitude, but sometimes very general dates can be determined. The civilizations mentioned can definitely be dated. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Then please do. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I will work on that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have now addressed this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Family

• Wikilink Lagash.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• use or or and instead of "/" per MOS.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mythology

• An was believed to be the highest and outermost of these domes, ... He was the dome, or he was in the dome?

Anu is both the god of the sky and the sky itself. He therefore is the dome; he does not just reside in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

* Anu's father Alalu should be mentioned in the family section.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anu attempted to flee, ... This sentence is too long and should be split off, (unless you're writing for a German audience!)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Later influence

* the caption under the first picture mentions Saturn, which isn't mentioned in the body, and Uranus is spelled differently from the body.

Saturn is the later Roman name for Cronus and Uranus is the Latinized spelling of Ouranos. The Latin names were by far the better-known names in the western world throughout the early modern period and it was not until the twentieth century that the original Greek names started to be used more commonly than the Latin ones. Since the painting was painted in around 1560 by two Italians, its title uses the Latin names --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, but can you add (Ouranus) in brackets? And Saturn should ideally be mentioned in the body to make the connection.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a note to the caption stating that Uranus and Saturn are the Latin names for Ouranos and Kronos respectively. I also added more explanation of who Kronos is and his significance in the myth of Ouranos to the body. I thought I explained who he was, but apparently I did not. I also switched to the Greek spelling Kronos rather than the Latinized Cronus for the sake of consistency with Ouranos, which is the Greek spelling. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• El is king,... is a very long quote which isn't required for the narrative. Better trim, paraphrase and quote some words.

It is a great quote, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Mm. I'll review the policy on this, but in general, long quotes are not encouraged on Wikipedia.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I can cut it if you would really like me to, but I would prefer to keep it. I will not try to fight policy or anything, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but BLOCKQUOTE it, please.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April

Will check for broadness later. Waiting for your response first.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Halloran 2009 is missing from the bibliography. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: No it is not missing; it is right there. I just added it last night. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I see. I apologize. The date must have been wrong. Now I have fixed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Katolophyromai. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the "later influences" section it is said that in Semitic religion "El and Baal ... ruled concurrently". This reflected An and Enlil in Mesopotamian theology. An identification with El is already stated in the article, though it should be deepened in the "later influences" section. I think that the identification of Enlil with Baal (Akkadian Bel) should be clarified too (cf. Britannica's Enlil entry).--2.37.140.36 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Good points. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't understand why the Template:Infobox deity in use in this article has green bands, and I don't understand how to remove the color. I think it would be better in plain black word on white background, also given that the color green is inappropriate for Anu.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The green bands mean that Anu is a Mesopotamian deity. The infoboxes are specifically color-coded to tell the reader which culture the deity is from. All the Mesopotamian deities have dark green bands. All the Greek deities have light green bands. All the Levantine deities have purple bands. All the Hindu deities have orange bands. That is what the colors mean. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly maintain that the colors should be kept, as a useful way of maintaining the distinction between deities of different cultures and to provide consistency for articles about deities from the same culture. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

188.218.122.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), what do you say? And do you have a registered account with a name?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to remain anonymous for now. Regarding the infobox, I would personally prefer simple black on white, since forcing a color in the infoboxes of all the deities of a given culture could result in inappropriate color associations, not to mention that many deities fit into more than one cultural setting. However, I won't challenge the color schemes in the infoboxes, especially if it has a consolidated usage and would require long discussions to change the status quo.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 5th

Great work finding sources and improving the article! There are a few remaining points: * centered in Draco: please add that it is a constellation.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• ...which becomes the driving force for the remaining portion of the epic. Not mentioned in the body. Please rewrite or remove.

I have removed it. It was not really important to the subject of the article anyway. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anu is a former ruler of the gods, who was overthrown by his son Kumarbi, Some of the stories in the article are in the present tense, while others are in past tense. Some paragraphs have both. You need to choose one.
• The section title "Overview" is ambiguous--perhaps "role", "place", "position in Mesopotamian religion" is more specific.

I have combined it as part of the "Worship" section, since that is really what it seems to be about. The title "Overview" must be a leftover from before I started working here, because view has always been that the lead itself is an overview and that there is no need to have a second overview section titled as such. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• The Amoritegod Amurru was sometimes... and Later, during the Seleucid Empire, Anu...: are these in the right section? They don't appear to deal with family.

I have moved them to more apprpriate sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Inanna and Ebih...: please split or rewrite this sentence. It's too long.

It is not really that long, but I have gone ahead and split it into two sentences anyway just to appease you. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• University of California Publications in Semitic Philology has no ISBN number, and apparently no author either.

Huh. That is funny. I was sure I checked all the sources and I thought they had them. I will search for that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• the external link needs a brief description.

I removed the link since the website is already cited in the "Bibliography" and I see no need to link to it twice. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Greenberg's book does not qualify as a reliable source. Do you think it will be difficult to find other sources that are reliable to support the content?

Why does it not qualify? I do not see any problem with it. Is it self-published or something? --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, Sourcebooks is a popular publisher, without much editorial oversight. As for Gary Greenberg, he has no real academic credentials if you analyze his credentials well enough. Neither does he have any position in a university or research institute. Reviews of his works by scholars and reliable news outlets are not very charmed of him: [1][2] Please remove the content supported by his work, or find an alternative source that is reliable.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I have removed all material in the article that was cited to Greenberg, which comprised roughly half of the "Adapa myth" section. I do not know if I will be able to find any of the information that I removed elsewhere, but I will try to look. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are also three remaining points above, which I've underlined.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• I also looked at some sources to check whether the article is broad enough. It turns out you've got it mostly covered. I did find one source with speculations not mentioned in the article, but I'm not certain whether it is mainstream scholarly opinion, since it's cited only four times on Google scholar.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

From a quick glance, it seems to me that this article you have found is definitely not mainstream; it seems to be an Afrocentrist work claiming that the Sumerians were really sub-Saharan Africans, which is definitely not accurate. The Sumerians were Middle Easterners and their closest modern descendants are the Marsh Arabs of southern Iraq. (The Sumerians did call themselves "black-headed ones," but that probably refers to their hair color, not their skin.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i suspected it was African supremacist. "We were here all along". Right, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• I object to the elimination of Anu EB 1911 by Morris Jastrow Jr.. There are, of course, more recent sources to document the same things, however I find it has the merit to be at the same time brief and exhaustive. I personally do not think that old sources become necessarily obsolete. In many cases they are written better than newer ones.--188.218.122.21 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia, we really need to use modern, up-to-date sources, especially in subjects such as the history of ancient Mesopotamia, both as a matter of policy and to ensure that all our sources reflect current scholarly views. In 1911, while our knowledge of the Babylonians and Assyrians was fairly extensive, we basically knew nothing about the Sumerians whatsoever, and some scholars still disputed whether they even existed at all. It has only been over the course of the last hundred years that Sumerian texts have begun to be deciphered. Even sources that are only a few decades old can be outdated on certain issues. For instance, thirty years ago, most scholars seriously thought that the sacred marriage rite (in which the priestess of Inanna was supposed to literally engage in ritualized sexual intercourse with the king as a method of reinforcing his right to rule) was a real Sumerian ritual. Nowadays, however, most scholars see the concept of a "sacred marriage" ritual as nothing more than a "historiographic myth" resulting from a bunch of sex-obsessed male scholars uncritically interpreting Sumerian literary texts with an intense Frazerian preoccupation for interpreting everything as some kind of ritual. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

April, 6th

There are 4 3 issues is one issue remaining that needs fixing, 2 pertaining to reliable sources, one to grammar and one to an isbn. After that, I'm ready to pass the article. See underlined items above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Added OCLC number for the remaining source.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice editing! Please fix the last part (Some of the stories in the article are in the present tense, while others are in past tense. Some paragraphs have both. You need to choose one.), and we're good to go. If it is fixed today, i don't need to put the review on hold, so that would be great.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: All fixed. I believe you are ready to pass the article now, unless there is some other problem you have discovered? --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Having read the article once more, i felt the Anu/An problem isn't completely solved yet. So i just repeated in the Sumerian creation myth section that An is another name for Anu. I am okay with it now, though i would have preferred you'd only use Anu.

As a side note, you might be interested to know that there's a word for 'spiritual power' in ancient Indian Pali language anubhava. Coincidence?

I'm passing the article as GA now. If you're posting a DYK nomination, I'd propose the part on Adam and Eve's predecessors--sounds like a 10,000 hits for sure. Lastly, when available, you're always welcome to review one more of my humble GA's... Hairsplittingly yours.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thank you so much for the review! I always appreciate all the effort you put into these. You are definitely one of the most meticulous reviewers I know of. Regarding your question about the word anubhava, I am no expert on Indic languages, but I do know that Asko Parpola is an Indologist who has argued that early Indic religion may have been influenced by that of the Sumerians. For instance, he compares the Hindu goddess Durga to the earlier Sumerian goddess Inanna, arguing that Durga may be derived from Inanna and that her name may be derived from one of Inanna's epithets. I do not know much about how widely accepted his proposals are, though. Obviously, India is not really my area of expertise. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the tip about Parpola!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

"the three bands of the sky"

The what-is-that-again?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1998JBAA..108....9R. Page 12..

"The three great gods and the three divisions of the heavens were Anu, the ancient god of the heavens; Enlol, son of Anu, god of the air and the forces of nature, and lord of the gods; and Ea, the beneficent god of earth and life, who dwelt in the abyssal waters. The Babylonians divided the sky into three parts named after them. The northern sky was the Way of Enlil; the equator and most of the zodiac occupied the Way of Anu; and the southern sky was the Way of Ea."

(20040302 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC))

Kumarbi or Halki

In the article about Kumarbi, it is said that Kumarbi is a Hurrian god and that the Hittite equivalent is called Halki, but in this article we can read the following:

"In ancient Hittite religion, Anu is a former ruler of the gods, who was overthrown by his son Kumarbi, who bit off his father's genitals and gave birth to the storm god Teshub. Teshub overthrew Kumarbi, avenged Anu's mutilation, and became the new king of the gods. This story was the later basis for the castration of Ouranos in Hesiod's Theogony".

Which page is incorrect? Was this god called Kumarbi or Halki in Hittite? Oddeivind (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Der

The Kudurru of Nebuchadnezzar I (Isin 2) says "From the city Der, the cult centre of the god Anum, he made an incursion to (a distance of) thirty leagues." Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995Ploversegg (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure the references to Anu in texts from Der are a stand-in for Ishtaran. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)