# Talk:Ninurta

Found this in an HTML comment:

Image with unknown copyright status removed:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by QVanillaQ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of nuclear war fought in Southern Iraq, before the use of depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf War.
John D. Croft 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ninurta is the Foremost son of Enlil mothered by his half-sister, Ninmah/Ninharsag not Ninlil. Z. Sitchin "Lost Book of Enki"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.134.242 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 
-- Please provide a reference to said 'lost book', seeing as Sitchin's work is fiction. 109.176.174.178 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

People seeking to identify Enmerkar with Nimrod have said Enmerkar was identified with Ninurta when he was deified.  Can that claim be verified independently of making Nimrod connections for either one?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it can. In fact, mainstream scholarship widely attests that Mesopotamian kings were often associated with and/or named after Sumerian deities (a relevant factor which I can't even find mention of in this article), so it's rather sketchy that the author of this article would have gone to such great lengths to promote the scholastic minority view (which is, in fact, contrary to archeological and anthropological evidence) that the god Ninurta and the king Nimrod were one and the same, especially considering that the records show that Ninurta was worshipped long before Nimrod ruled (i.e, before Nimrod was even born). Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a cuneiform rendering of the name? CielProfond (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Various credible scholarly sources translate Ninurta as "Lord [of] Barley". Unfortunately, however, none of them seem to be currently available/accessible online. Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ninurta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Kato. I'm back again.

@Farang Rak Tham: Welcome back! --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


### Introduction and limitations
Talking maces, formidable warriors, and more. Another well-written and interesting article.


### Overview
I have assessed the article at B.

1. Prose:
No copyright violations.
You might want to add some subsections to the last section Later influence. That's one large chunk of a section.
Done. I have divided it into two subsections of roughly equal lengths entitled "In antiquity" and "In modernity." --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
The article reads well, detailed review follows.
2. MOS: Correct.
3. References layout: No dead links, references can be identified.
4. Reliable sources: Yes.
5. Original research: None found.
6. Broadness: Yes.
7. Focus: yes.
8. Neutral: Yes.
9. Stable: article is stable.
10-11. Pics: Please add a US tag to File:Chaos Monster and Sun God.png. Though not much of an issue for GA, you might want to check whether all of the works of art can be released under a cc license, because there are some in France, with ambiguous freedom of panorama. In many countries, reliefs are considered 3d works of art. These would need a tag to the effect that the copyright of the artwork has lapsed.
I have added the template. Technically the image is actually an engraving of the relief from Austen Henry Layard's Monuments of Nineveh, which was published in 1853, so the image is, in fact, a work of public domain two-dimensional art. A modern photograph of the same relief this engraving is taken from can be found here, although I am not aware of any version of it that is available in the public domain. As you can see, the actual relief today is far more worn than the engraving would appear to suggest and there is actually cuneiform writing inscribed across the entire face of it that is not shown in the engraving. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, great.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 20:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


### Detailed review per section
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own.


#### Lead
... never fully preserved nowhere fully preserved?
Black & Green 1992 describes it as "a myth several times alluded to but nowhere preserved in full" (emphasis added). So yes, that is exactly what is meant. What they are saying is that there are enough allusions and references to it scattered throughout ancient texts that we can more-or-less reconstruct it, but we do not have a complete account of the myth preserved in any one text, like we do for most other myths. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I will review the lead at the end. Reviewed—well-written.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Worship
There is British spelling such as worshipped, but this is not indicated in the hat of the article.
I am fairly certain "worshipped" is not just a British spelling. I am from the United States and I use "worshipped," though I have discovered during my time here at Wikipedia that I apparently have a tendency to mix spellings. For instance, I always used the spelling "Graeco-Roman" until I learned here that apparently that is a British spelling and, in the United States, we are supposed to use "Greco-Roman." I suppose I can switch it to "worshiped" if you prefer. I know I used American spellings throughout the rest of the article, so, if "worshipped" is indeed an exclusively British spelling, it would be more consistent to switch it out for the American spelling. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
That's what the dictionaries say, but apparently there is some variation in the US ... I got reverted once because of the same word exactly, though.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 20:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
he is commonly invoked in spells It isn't quite clear why you are switching to the present tense here.
It was because I was thinking of the literary present tense, because there are surviving texts recording spells of this variety. Now that I think about it, though, this sentence is actually talking about the performing of the spells rather than the surviving texts describing them, so that past tense would probably make more sense. I have now switched it to past tense. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In the late seventh century BC, the temple staff witnessed legal documents ... Not sure what you are saying here. Was witness in legal procedures?
The source reads: "In the late seventh century, many of these men witnessed legal documents together with their counterparts at Nabu's temple Ezida, and the two temples shared a qēpu-official." As I understand it, certain types of legal documents, even today, require witnesses to be present when they are approved to confirm that both parties genuinely agree to the terms. The source, therefore, is saying that the staff in the temple would serve as witnesses when important documents were being approved. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, very well then.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 10:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
::: Please rephrase this to make it more easily understandable in the current context.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 05:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The two temples shared a qēpu-official. How is this relevant?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Edited.--11:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I think is the relevance is made more clearly evident in the source, which explains that, as Ninurta's prominence in the pantheon declined, Nabu's increased. The fact that the temples of Ninurta and Nabu shared a qēpu (that is, an official who acted as a liaison between the temple and the king, a subject which is explained in further detail in this article from the same source) is therefore significant because it illustrates the relationship between two prominent deities. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This explanation does not follow from just this sentence—it would need to be explained, or the sentence removed. Same holds for who were supported by a cook, a steward, and a porter. The relevance should be indicated, or otherwise removed to keep focus.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 05:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Improved now, but it is still unclear to me why it is relevant that the temple of Ninurta hired the poor and destitute as employees and why the temple was  supported by a cook, a steward, and a porter.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
That is important information about the temple and hence the god worshipped there. The part about hiring the "poor and destitute" shows that Ninurta's cult had a charitable aspect. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Family
Too short paragraph, merge per MOS:PARA.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 06:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I added more information and expanded the section. It was missing information about Ninurta's offspring, which I have now added. I believe the section is now of an adequate length and no longer needs to be merged. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Great! Good response and well-researched. Please don't forget to disambiguate Nanna.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


#### Akkadian
This section reads like a science fiction film ...

In the Old, Middle, and Late Babylonian myth ... 7 commas in one sentence—perhaps simplify a little, or split.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 06:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now split the sentence into two, per your request. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
because the writing on the Tablet of Destinies could be changed So when did it change then?
The source is somewhat ambiguous regarding exactly which aspect of the story it is referring to. I am guessing it is either interpreting Anzû turning Ninurta's weapons back into the respective basic elements as a rewriting of the Tablet, or it may simply be making a general inference that, if the tablets could be stolen, then they could also be altered. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Mm.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 05:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there some way we can remove the parts that aren't clear?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 06:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I have now removed the part about the writing on the Tablet of Destinies being changed and ended the section with merely a brief statement regarding the story's popularity. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


#### In modernity
ISIL may have destroyed the temple to use for future propaganda ... You mean use the destruction for future propaganda?
Fixed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


### July 2018
Just two last remaining two issues above.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
After you fixed those, I will take a final look at the lead and we can wrap it up.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: I believe I have now addressed all the criticisms you have presented. I apologize for taking so long. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Passing. Another good, Good Article. If you do a DYK, i'd go for the time-reverting thingie. 
if you have time, i'd appreciate you review one of my articles at WP:GAR#REL. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 13:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


### GA Progress
The page Ninib redirects here, but there's no sense of why that redirect is applicable. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't speak for the author of the article (who I assume created that redirect), but it stands to reason that it's because, in the inscriptions found at Lagash, Ninib appears as Ningirsu, the alternate Sumerian name for Ninurta. Brian B. Smith (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)