" 
 All of the following dieties are listed in the Simon Necronomicon (though not a complete list):  Marduk, Shammash, Enki, Anu, Enlil, Inanna, Ereshkigal, Nanna, Nergal, etc.  These are just a few of the gods listed in Simon's book.  Oh and guess what, all of them are mesopotamian.  Let us not also forget that a good portion of the book is used to list 50 spirits.  They too are mesopotamian and can be found in the Enuma Elish to be exact.  It is quite obvious to me that you have never even opened the Simon Necronomicon.  Your right on one point though, the fact that I read books (a foriegn concept it seems) does not give any more credulence to what I am saying.  What does give it more credulence is that I teach courses over the Simon Necronomicon and the process by with magick works in the system.  I do not see how you can say that it is a ""fact"" that the Simon Necronomicon is supposed to be, or even claims to be, the same version that HP Lovecraft spoke of.  Their are only two instances of there being any parallel between the two (except of course the name ""Necronomicon"".)  The first is the similarities that Simon mentions between HP Lovecraft's work, his Necronomicon, and some of the works of Aleister Crowly.  Next is the marketing scheme slaped on the back of the paperback edition by Avon Publishing Co.  You saying that the Simon Necronomicon is a ""fake"" version of HP Lovecraft's work is like saying that a pencil is a fake pen.  At best, it is simply illogical.  Even when we look to ""Dead Names,"" only a possibility is mentioned and that is fact not by Simon's own mouth but rather him citing Kenneth Grant's theories who worked with both the Simon Necronomicon and the HP Lovecraft Necronomicon as magickal paradigms.  Sorry to disapoint, but HP's Necrononicon and Simon's are in two different ball parks.  You go on to state that a ""Necronomicon"" never existed, yet there is much archeological evidence to suggest that the summerian tradition lived on well into the time that the Simon Necronomicon claims to have been written.  At best you can say two things.  First, you could state that naming Simon's work ""Necronomicon"" was only a marketing tactic.  Fine.  That still doesnt mean that ""Simon Necronomicon"" should just be a ""stub"" like article about HP's work.  If I name my cat ""Dog,"" it is still a cat.  Next you will say that there is no evidence that Simon's book is indeed based off of an ancient manuscript (right now, whether or not that manuscripts name was ""Necronomicon"" is irrelevant.)  I have two answers.  First is that you can not prove that there isn't.  Next I will say, once again, that almost all magickal grimoires claim origins that are not entirly accurate, yet none of them are called ""fake"" on wikipedia.  All I am looking for is some consistency.  To get back on point though.  Let us say for a moment that Simon's book claims origins that arent accurate.  Even so, it is still a valid magickal system.  (Not a reproduction of HP Lovecraft's work, a magickal system)  Here is why.  We know that at least 95% of the dieties and spirits in the book have appeared, indisputably, in ancient mesopotamia.  We also know that Simon was well versed in Enochian and many other forms of cerimonial magick.  We know still that we can sucessfuly translate the sumerian parts of the book (you can validate this yourself via Penn. University, the leading college of Sumerology.)  Put it all together and you have a working magickal system.  Again, all I am asking for is consistency within wikipedia.  While the Simon Necronomicon's origins can not be proven one way or the other, it is still one of the most influencial cerimonial magickal systems of the 21st century.  To further go on, under your line of reasoning that the Simon Necronomicon and HP's Necronomicon have like themes, one could say (again, using your line of thought) that the Christian's belief in revelation is nothing more than a fake copy of HP's work.  They both speak a hellacious world full of evil with big monsters.  Well heck, if it talks about evil and monsters than it MUST be a fake Necronomicon.  I guess Moby dick is a fake Necronomicon too.  It has a big and scary monster.  Furthermore I want to back up a second.  How can Simon's book be fake when it is sitting right next to me.  Let us look of the definition of ""fake.""  Fake, defined by meriam webster as ""one that is not what it purports to be.""  What does the Simon Necronomicon purport to be exactly?  ""Necronomicon"" of ""Book of dead names""  Since the Dieties invoked and called upon in the book had not been talked about for some 4-5 thousand years (with the exception of a few scholars in during the 19th and 20th century,) it is safe to say that Simon's book is indeed a book of dead names.  Dead - no longer in use or no longer active (again, merriam webster.)  It seems like to me, at least grammatically, that the name ""Necronomicon"" fits very well as the title to a mag