Talk:Dagon

message: I read that Dagon was the same as Vishnu. An illustration of him showed him as having the face of Vishnu, four arms, and the tail of a fish. The article also said that there was also a pagoda dedicated to Dagon in India. Is this for real or was the author making it up? Auric The Rad 23:25, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
:The author didn't realize that the people he heard this from were making it up... --Wetman 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "hat." Will we ever get all the world's nonsense into Wikipedia, where we want it, I wonder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 December 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "and it is therefore interesting to note that he gave oracles, that he had a circular temple, where he was sometimes worshipped by human sacrifices, that there were wells in the sacred circuit, and that there was also a place of adoration to him situated, as was usual, outside, the town. Certain marmora in the temple, which might not be, approached, especially by women, may perhaps be connected with the miptān which must be leapt over and not trodden upon." (That "place of adoration" outside of town was the Christian church, according to Marcus Diaconis, the only written source! Some 19th century Baptist had been staying up too late reading Salammbo eh.) --Wetman 21:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed overheated 19th century fantasy

message: I'd love it if someone could get a proper quote and reference that lovely 'Samson' episode of Pinky and the Brain in which the Phillistines demand Samson bow down before their 'giant papier-mache weasel-god' Dagon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.38.130 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dagon might be relevant to a deeper understanding of that episode of "Pinky and the Brain" but the episode isn't relevant to Dagon. ...but you already knew that! --Wetman 18:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Fiction

message: The section is growing a bit long, and is quite pointless (trivia sections are now officially discouraged).  I propose we remove it.  I'll start a vote soon.  Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.15.221 (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we ought to move the Biblical references to the "In Fiction" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.15.221 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your intent to move the "Biblical Commentaries" to the "In Fiction" section so that it can be deleted? The historical veracity of Biblical sources is still a matter of intense scholastic debate. This is in stark contrast to the works listed in the "In Fiction" section, in which there are no credible debates addressing their intent to do anything more than entertain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanhere (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a reply to the original proposal: I agree the list is long. That doesn't mean the section should be removed altogether "for being trivia". We should aim to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Be bold and pick half a dozen examples or so that you feel cover the whole range of references, then remove the rest! :-) CapnZapp (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fiction 

message: Someone who never took Comparative Religion 101 has deleted, for lack of a supportive citation, the following bromide: "This position as major god of the enemies of the Ancient Israelites led to Dagon's demonization in the Hebrew Bible.". Can we get an improved and expanded version of this familiar statement, supported by some apt quotations, back into the article?--Wetman (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonizing Dagon 

message: the following books...
* http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-keywords=&field-author=&field-title=Dagon&field-isbn=&field-publisher=&node=&url=&field-feature_browse-bin=&field-binding_browse-bin=&field-subject=&field-language=&field-dateop=&field-datemod=&field-dateyear=&sort=relevancerank&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=16&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=14
--124.78.214.145 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for critical review of ... 

message: Böri (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semitic Dagan and Indo-European *dheghom related words? 

message: :
Why is there an apostrophe beside the Hebrew word? —Tamfang (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why the apostrophe is there, but it should not be; I'll remove it. A Georgian (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo? 

message: The first image is very likely not an image of Dagon :File:Illustrerad Verldshistoria band I Ill 032.jpg - as a better annoted version makes clear - ie see :File:Chaos_Monster_and_Sun_God.png - the image is a drawing from a bas-relief from the temple of Ninurta in Nimroud - and the image is almost certainly of a Apkallu. (The description in the 19th century text does state it might be Dagon - but such - fish/dagon associations are now though erroneous.
You can see (Image 55) that modern scholarship considers this to be an image of an Apkallu ie p.5 on http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_illustrations_apkallu.pdf (home page http://www.religionswissenschaft.uzh.ch/idd/index.php )
The second image :File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e6 915-0.jpg is not an image of "Oannes" - the description of Oannes in Berossus makes it clear that this creature was not a "mer-man" - ie it had human legs. (eg see translation in https://archive.org/stream/ancientfragments00coryuoft#page/n5/mode/2up ) .. the image might more likely be of a Kulullû , or more likely - a 19th century invention - intended to look like what the author thought Dagon looked like - the image doesn't appear to actually by from an ancient source.
The lead image is a bad joke though. It isn't Dagon. 5.198.10.236 (talk)
:Hello. I am the editor who has been trying to clean up the articles about ancient Mesopotamian deities; most of them are generally a complete mess in every way. No one has bothered to clean them up or take care of them and they are full of uncited statement. Their accuracy is often poor and their comprehensiveness even worse. I saw your edit to the article Ninurta and followed you here. I have actually known that fish-man image was spurious for quite a while now, but I have not gotten around to working on this article (or the article about Ninurta) yet because I have not had time, so I had not bothered to remove it. I have now removed the image, but there seems to be another image that automatically appears in the infobox if no other image is placed there and I can find no way to remove it because, somehow, it does not appear in the wikitext. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Dagon has more candidates for images of Dagon. I'm just guessing, but possibly it's coming from the Wikidata page for Dagon.--Auric talk 19:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, all those pictures are either different representations of the same fish-garbed figure I just removed or Bible illustrations from the Middle Ages and later that reflect later Christian notions about Dagon, rather than how he was conceived by the ancient peoples who actually worshipped him. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: File:Dagon1.jpg is the image at Wikidata (Q623065). I can't view that version of the page to see if that was what you were seeing.--Auric talk 19:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the second image that popped up after I removed the first one, which was this one. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the image from Wikidata and undid your edit. As I thought, neither image now appears.--Auric talk 20:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix images please

message: I find the (most plausible/probable/likely) linguistic connection between the Mesopotamian civilization's God Dagon (during the period of time of their kingdoms-one early king name of whom is: Hammurabi) & African God Dogon Tribe in Mali, Africa fascinating. In relation to/connection with it, I should also add the the form of the God Dagon being half human & half fish well coincides with/co-relates to the Henrew language word for fish: Dag! 
AK63 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What you find "likely" is completely useless here; Wiki operates off what is stated in Reliable Sources. Nor is this a forum for your idle speculation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.31.194 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural similarities

message: The primary subject of the article is the god Dagan as he was envisioned by inhabitants of Bronze Age Syria and Mesopotamia, not a vaguely related account from the Bible or a character from Lovecraft's novels, the sources responsible for the predominance of the spelling "Dagon." In publications related to Bronze Age Syrian religion, including the most extensive study of Dagan to date, Feliu's God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria, the default spelling is Dagan, not Dagon. At the moment "Dagan (god)" is a redirect while "Dagon" is the title of the page - I think they should be switched around to better reflect the history of the deity in mention. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming proposal

message: I am not sure if there really is a need for a sub-section dedicated to Marnas. Some of the information from Terpstra's book was already here when I started working on the article long ago, but this author actually does not mention Dagan at all, and considers Marnas' origin to be unknown. The connection was only made by Itamar Singer in an earlier article completely unrelated to this study (it's absent from Terpstra's bibliography) and I am so far unable to find a single author addressing his theory directly - I assumed it might have found some support and that's why someone included Terpstra here in the first place, but that does not seem to be the case. The purported connection is not mentioned in Feliu's Dagan's monograph, arguably the defining study of this deity, even though he does discuss Singer's other proposals. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence of Marnas in the article 

message: It doesn't seem like this article should be considered Top-importance? It does not appear to meet that qualification from the assessment scale at all. I would think it would be Low-importance, or maybe Mid. Luke10.27 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-importance in WikiProject Religion?