Talk:Tiamat

message: Does the trivia stuff about the game belong in this article? It does not look encyclopedic to me. Leibniz 14:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: game etc

message: I added a disambiguation page, as the two lines at the top were kind of crowded, and it made a good place to mention the alleged ancient astronomy claim. Since the alleged reference isn't what this article is about, listing it on the disambig page was more appropriate and should satify anyone who claims to be worried about POV. DreamGuy 20:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have read the story, and didn't some other gods beg her to help them fight the other gods? They brought up the death of her husband and son, and said that she was powerful enough to help them overcome the ruling gods. And so she made an army of monsters but lost anyways. The article just simply stated that she was angry.
And this is completely random and my POV, but does anyone else feel sorry for Tiamat? I mean, She seemed more reasonable than her husband and son, and the younger gods were being bothersome, and the new rule seemed harsh. The rebellion was just, and they almost made it but then the powerful son of that whatever just creamed ther armies with his magic. I feel sorry for Tiamat. :( Blueaster 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig page

message: This is not a big deal to me, fella. The most I'm claiming is that a number of current specialists in the field even now consider that the cylinder seal in question may portray Tiamat, probably portrays Tiamat, or does portray Tiamat. I am not claiming that she was most often depicted as a serpentine or dragon-like creature. If my claim is wrong (specified above), big f***ing deal. I am not even claiming myself that that creature is necessarily Tiamat; it might even be Enki for all anyone knows, who was at times a vehicle of Marduk. Or it could just be one of Tiamat's spawn. Different interpretations there may well be, but at least three books:
:British Museum, The Babylonian legends of the creation and the fight between Bel and the dragon. With 24 illustrations. Available online, see page 16.
:Ernest Ingersoll. Dragons and dragon lore. Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1968.
:Professor Reverend Canon J. R. Porter, The Middle East section in World Mythology, Henry Holt, 1996.
As well as this link:
:[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10
::[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10/MYTHIMAGES.html
:::[http://philo.ucdavis.edu/home/callan/CLA10/ancient%20near%20east.htm
indicate that the serpentine monster in the cylinder seal either probably is Tiamat, or is Tiamat. In the meanwhile, no references have been provided for this particular seal (the same cylinder seal in all cases) by the other party. It is a well-known seal. I'm sure that a self-styled eclectic scholar should at least know of it, and better yet have the most up-to-date references on its interpretation. Alexander 007 08:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The cylinder seal

message: The Sumerian name Tiamat probably is of Malayo-Polynesian origin.  Malayo-Polynesian was the language of an ancient seafaring people who sailed the Pacific and Indian oceans, and even settled the island of Madagascar near Africa.  In some Malayo-Polynesian languages spoken in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Madagascar, the words dayat or dagat, which mean the salt-water "sea" or "ocean," appear to have a word correspondence, in both sound and meaning, to the Sumerian name Tiamat, who is known as a goddess of the salt-water sea or ocean. The Sumerian god/goddess Tiamat is probably just the salt-water sea or ocean deified.
:Please, stop this nonsense. — Gareth Hughes 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiamat and Malayo-Polynesian ''Dayat'' Word Correspondence

message: The disambiguation page this article is linked to is a mess. Red links, tons of referances all to the same concept of the D&D Tiamat appearing in other video games as a dragon; these need to be on the Tiamat page. Clearly all roleplaying referances stem from the D&D version. They are multiheaded, evil dragons. This kind of information genrally appears as an "In popular culture" or in literature" sort of section. Why it is on a disambiguation page is beyond me. Mrwuggs 18:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role playing info belongs in one simple section

message: To me, this page is a test case for WP: is it possible to have an article on Tiamat, or will it drown in crackpot theories and gamecruft? There is a struggle every few months. Leibniz 21:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same problem with nearly every other article on Wikipedia. There's no reason why Tiamat should be any more of a problem than any other page, other than, perhaps, the topics in fields with fewer scholarly editors with proven trackrecords watching them. Evolution should do OK, with the dedicated team watching that area, but when people who know what they are doing watch some of the smaller areas it becomes more of a fight to keep things going. Many other articles have apparently already lost the fight, as if I don't check them they don;t seem to ever be fixed until I check again months later. DreamGuy 00:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic content

message: Can someone explain what "earlier sources" associate Tiamat with Lotan? Obviously this statement needs to be sourced with at least one of them. Mrwuggs 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier sources

message: There is an alternative West Semitic Etymology that may help explain why Tiamat was described as Serpentine.  In the fragmentary myth of "Astarte and the Tribute of the Sea" there is mention of "Ta-yam-t", which seems to be a reference to a female (*-t, feminine terminator) serpent (*Ta, *Tan) of the Sea (*Yam).  If this etymology is correct, it would explain the connection between Tiamat and Lo-tan (Leviathan?), and the veiled hint at Tiamat, which many Biblical scholars see as a reference to Tehwom (=the Deeps), as a cognate for "Tiamat".  Certainly the link between Tiamat and Tehwom/Tehom (See Catherine Keller at  needs to be included, as it is often pointed to by conventional Biblical scholars.  John D. Croft 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Etymologies

message: Since User:DreamGuy continues to make the baffling assertion that Tiamat is not a goddess, I thought I'd supply yet another scholarly source that says she is (in addition to Forsyth, Fontenrose, and Dalley above). I quote Bruce Louden, The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and Meaning (Johns Hopkins 2006), p. 211: "Out of many Near Eastern instances of divine rebellion, the Enuma Elish offers the most relevant parallels to the Iliad, Tiamat serving as a close parallel to Hera. Both female deities lead rebellions; much as Hera in the Iliad, Tiamat is thematically depicted as having a fierce wrath..." (emphasis mine). "female deity", obviously, is equivalent to "goddess". --Akhilleus (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not obviously at all. A deity implies a whole class of gods and god-like beings, goddess has a specific meaning. I have no problem referencing her as a deity, but goddess is a value-laden word that is misleading. DreamGuy 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can supply a reference for your distinction between god(dess) and deity. As another editor points out above, the standard dictionary definitions say that the words mean the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It represents the kind of info that a student would write but certainly is not a reliable source for anything. DreamGuy 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I acknowledged that. However, you still haven't supplied a single source for your assertion that Tiamat isn't a goddess (nor for your assertion that "female deity" is different than "goddess"), so I've reverted your edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source for Tiamat as a goddess

message: User:203.59.173.219, apparently a multiple-user IP, at 09:25, 18 February 2006 inserted an authentic article citation (Jacobsen, Thorkild, (1968) "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat" Journal of the American Oriental Society, 88.1 (January-March 1968), pp 104-108) in support of a doubtful Sumerian etymology, for which a citation had long been requested. I am now looking at the article (JSTOR), which supports the Burkert Akkadian etymology I inserted a while back, and does not mention any supposed Sumerian etymology at all. I am removing the following text here: Her name seems ultimately to have been a Sumerian one, as in that language ti = Life, and ama = Mother, suggesting her original name may have been "the mother of all life". If the citation is bogus, and an Akkadian etymology is well supported, this is apparently bogus etymology-babble. --Wetman 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning house: a bogus citation

message: Barry Powell, Classical Myth (Prentice Hall 2004), p. 98 (this is from a summary of the Enuma Elish): "The poem opens with the gods of the primordial waters, male Apsu, fresh water, and female Tiamat, salt water, mingled together in an indeterminate mass..." Now, it seems quite obvious to me that when you're speaking of "gods of primordial waters", and one is male, one female, you have a god and a goddess. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more source for "goddess" 

message: The Tiamat/dragon association made by Gary Gygax in the 1977 Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual was his own. I inquired Gary about the origin a few years ago. 
A medieval dragon legend (the Tarrasque) had said that the Tarrasque was the offspring of the Leviathan. It implied that Leviathan was a dragon or at least a source of dragons. Gary had said that he was going to name the ruler of evil dragons as "Leviathan" and then have the good dragons ruled by "Behemoth". In development, he thought otherwise as they were too well known so he used names that were slightly associated with them in comparative mythology "Tiamat" for "Leviathan" and "Bahamut" for "Behemoth".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneWeigel (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WOuld be wonderful to get a reliable source for this. We need it to have been written in a published source somewhere. Maybe someone from WOTC is reading this ... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Gygax on Tiamat 

message: After being alerted to the extensive debate regarding the two images I inserted into the article, I have no agenda regarding inclusion of them except for holding the opinion that it might be better to show them and discuss the problems regarding applicability to Tiamat... I suggest a new heading reserved for the controversy. What is of interest to so many editors, is likely to be of interest to our readers. 
I sought images for the article in the commons and on other-language Wikipedia sites and expect that others may as well. My intention was to emphasize the differences in authentic indigenous cultural imagery used to convey the concept of Tiamat among adherents to the religion, which may have changed with time. Given the period of time during which she played a pivotal role in these religious beliefs, one would expect to find authentic images portraying the goddess, not merely a written, abstract, concept—but obviously, they have eluded scholars—perhaps, having been suppressed in ancient times. The uncertainty about the images sometimes attributed to be of Tiamat, however, is a relevant fact that we can examine. 
Creating a section that declares the issues, would prevent having to chase them repeatedly. Explication once—seems easier than having to monitor constantly, and it seems ill-advised to attempt to suppress images that have some validity for other uses. It also would educate our readers about the controversy, providing information that encyclopedias ought to present about the topic.  
Sorry about the inconvenience to other editors, having more edits I desire to make, than time available, I rarely access the discussions about pages of interest to me before editing. Usually, I only resort to discussion pages if resolution is sought regarding problems or differences arising with other editors (such as this). Will watch to see whether some consensus about this is reached, and if so, I'll help with the edit of that as well as the rest of the article. In the meantime, I shall continue to seek authentic images that might apply—believing that images usually improve articles. ---- 83d40m (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that included the info that these images that have been referred to as Tiamat either clearly are not or have been disputed would be better than not mentioning them at all, we have a problem with sourcing on the topic right now. Hopefully that'll clear up soon as we check through references, which could directly refer to the topic and solve the problems for us. (Edit to add: I don't think a new heading would be needed, as the appearance section should be able to handle it.) DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial images deserve appropriate discussion in article 

message: The intro must be improved to provide factual information, not wrap it behind some kind of preconceived analysis:
:In Babylonian mythology, Tiamat is a goddess who personifies the sea.
...good so far...
:There are two parts to the Tiamat mythos, the first in which Tiamat is 'creatrix'
Grr! Use "creator godess"!
:through a "Sacred marriage" between salt and fresh water
Push downwards, this is an analysis not a description!
:peacefully creating the cosmos through successive generations.
Analysis, not a description: push down.
:In the second "Chaoskampf"
Ridiculous! There must be an English term, such as "Chaos battle"
:Tiamat is considered the monstrous embodiment of primordial chaos.
Analysis, not a description: push down.
:This shift in cosmological metaphors has been linked to the rise of Patriarchal power structures and the assumption of power by the monarchial "lugal" (Lu = Man, Gal = Big)
Except that I simply don't believe this kind of modern anachronistical interpretations based on a prejudice about a nonattested original female godess ruling everywhere, this is an analysis, and should be treated in a separate paragraph or section, not in the descriptive intro.
:during the Early Dynastic period of Sumerian History, and the institutionalisation of warfare[2].
Yeah, sure! It would be nice to require real proofs from religion historicians, like for example the proofs required from normal historicians. This is not science! This is invention of fictional religions that never existed. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed myself! Those who dislike my changes can always challenge me on digital arm-wrestling on my talk page. The one who can write the most Q:s per second on his computer (no cheating with key-repetition!) will win the digital arm-wrestling contest. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nauseating intro

message: Per this, my preference is that if a notable writer such as Graves is in error, maybe a better way of doing this is including it and including a reliably sourced rebuttal, otherwise folks are going to keep adding it. I can't imagine this article is ever going to be a huge one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so bothered with that as the fact that none of the sources say 'outstanding example', and every time I remove the word it gets replaced. I'll start another section on the citation problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Graves and matriarchy/patriarchy analogy 

message: Although I have given the IP adding new citations a link to a quick guide for referencing, these citations are still not referenced in line with the rest of the citations, and page numbers have not been given. I'm particularly interested in the page number(s) for the book by Cynthia Eller, as she tends to throw cold water on some of these ideas, and the limited search facility at Amazon.com didn't help. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New citations & citation template 

message: Why is there a sentence on Greek mythology here, and in particular, why the sentence about Tiamat and Python having "their body divided into two halves"? Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek mythology and 'two halves' 

message: As the article points out, whether Tiamat was ever depicted as a snake- or dragon-like being in period sources is disputed, with some scholars holding it to be the creation of modern authors. Saying that Tiamat also has the "mythological symbolism" of a snake requires a source, and in any even would be better handled in the article itself rather than by both simply accepting the claim as given and by using an unintuitive linking strategy (see WP:EASTEREGG). Ergative rlt (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serpent symbolism and link 

message: Quote from the article:
In the Enûma Eliš she opposes when Abzû conspires to kill the younger gods, and she warns the most powerful of those, Ea, who puts Abzû under a spell and kills him.
There is no mentioning of Tiamat warning Ea in the L.W. King Translation. You can't write something in a summary, which isn't there in the original text!
Junihausen (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored a modified version of an earlier lead. Still needs work. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: False Summary

message: The only source listed (Fontenrose) to back this up mentioned that Heidel believes that "dragon form can not be imputed to Tiamat with certainty", but the same source finds Heidel's claims "not convincing" and concludes that "There is reason to believe that Tiamat was sometimes, not necessarily always, conceived as a dragoness". Quite the opposite of what this article claims. 
Meanwhile one of the original myths collected in Leonard William King's "The Seven Tablets of Creation" (p. 116-117) unambiguously identify Tiamat as a dragon ("5. Who was the dragon [...]? / 6. Tiamat was the dragon [...]!"). So, unless there is reason to doubt King's translation, this article's claims that "no ancient texts exist in which there is a clear association with those kinds of creatures" and that "there are no early precedents for it" are not only O.R., but also clearly wrong and contradicting the sources. --Painocus (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has raised any objections I'll edit the page accordingly. (Edit: Or I would but suddenly trying to edit main pages just gives me an error message. Edit 2: And it is done.) --Painocus (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The claim that "Tiamat as dragon" is a modern construct seems to be Original Research. 

message: The myth states that Abzu was killed.  Earlier versions say he was confined by Enki, imprisoned in irrigation canals or held prisoner beneath the E Abzu, the temple or House (=E) of Abzu in Eridu.  Thus the statement that he was killed misses the etiological nature of the Mesopotamian myth.  The appearance of Lahm and Lahmu (the muddy ones), where freshwater met salt, describes the deposition of silt as the velocity of water flow changes.John D. Croft (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Abzu killed or confined?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tiamat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206224718/http://www.tali-virtualmidrash.org.il/ArticleEng.aspx?art=3 to http://www.tali-virtualmidrash.org.il/ArticleEng.aspx?art=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: there is some talk about marduk .. but the connection to planet x / nibiru regarding sitchin is missing Nedmira (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need, since that connection is only been drawn by Zecharia Sitchin, a layman and crackpot who published outside the scientific community and who is not taken seriously by any experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  planet x nibiru 

message: The article claims that Marija Gimbutas's theories were drawn from Robert Graves, which I can find no evidence of, and conflates her theories with him and Merlin Stone. Robert Graves and Merlin Stone were both artists, but Marija Gimbutas was a highly respected archaeologist. Her most well-known theory, the Kurgan hypothesis, is now supported by genetic tests performed after her death. This conflation, as well as the fact that the opposition is described as "academic" while Gimbutas's science background goes unmentioned, resembles a 
smear campaign launched against Gimbutas by her politically powerful opponents. One of the academics listed, Cynthia Ellis, is specifically referenced in the linked article, which states: "At a conference on 'Gender and Archaeology' at Sonoma State University in October 2002, presenters included Conkey, Tringham, and Eller. Eller gave a slide presentation mocking Gimbutas and the 'Goddess movement' with dripping sarcasm, which caused most of the archaeologists in the audience to whoop with derisive laughter. Several archaeology professors then gave enthusiastic testimonials expressing gratitude for Eller’s book, which many of them actually used in their archaeology classes, for what they assumed is an accurate depiction the 'Goddess movement,' Gimbutas’ work, and the purported causal link between them. During these testimonials, Gimbutas was labeled a 'fundamentalist matriarchalist'—in spite of the fact that Gimbutas herself had rejected in print the label 'matriarchy' for the non-Indo- European cultures." Gimbutas wrote a series of books in which she interpreted archeological evidence as related to a goddess or goddesses, but she herself was not a part of the Goddess movement.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.92.88.98 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Marija Gimbutas and Great Goddess theory

message: The  ancient Greek name alleged here for Tiamat, Θαλαττη, seems dubious. I cannot find this form as a nominative anywhere in ancient Greek literature, as distinct from the similar dative. I find it in some reference works, but I suspect they're wrong. I find it in transcriptions from manuscripts and elsewhere where it is clearly a sloppily written dative. The real nominative forms, of course, are θαλαττα and θαλασσα. I think a classicist should check it out (referring to ancient texts, not encyclopedias) and perhaps correct it. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Θαλαττη