Talk:Geb

Untitled

Need some citation for the relationship between Geb, fatness and so on quoted in the article. Apepch7 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Added the following to the top:

For the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, see Gödel, Escher, Bach.

Slicksurfer1898 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

trying to fix up the article flow

Wow, that is kind of sort of a really bad start to an article. Not sure how it got mungled up so bad (not to mention there is no need to include "Other pagan religions did this" at the beginning) or is not in the right format. I'll try and fix it. 204.112.158.144 (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

More Human Terms?

"Ptah and Ra, creator deites, usually begin the list of divine ancestors. There is speculation between Shu and Geb and who was the first god-king of Egypt. The story of how Shu, Geb, and Nut were separated in order to create the cosmos is now being interpreted in more human terms; exposing the hostility and sexual jealousy. Between the father son jealously and Shu rebelling against the divine order, Geb challenges Shu’s leadership. Geb takes Shu’s mother, Tefnut, as his chief queen, separating Shu from his sister-wife. Just as Shu had previously done to him."

I'll admit, I haven't done much extensive reading on Egyptian Mythology lately, but this is the first I ever heard about something like this, particularly those last few sentences. The lack of citations/sources doesn't really help. Can anyone else confirm this? 2601:281:C901:4400:1478:FD80:2BB8:22B (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Geb / Goose

A very interesting section but the way of phrasing should be tidied up. There are often strongly competing hypotheses in Egyptology. The details on the Geb Goose attribution are fascinating, and (as a non-Egyptologist) quite possibly correct I have no doubt, but they are not proof -- there are far too many cross-overs and allusions to say "This theory is assumed to be incorrect" unless saying who says it, how and where (the passive tense suggests that it is a generally accepted theory). The statements of the authors would be helpful as that is the way forward to academic certainty. Richard H Wilkinson is a very well-known authority. Does he defend his position or has he withdrawn it? Either way it would be good practice to re-phrase. You could say that " [Egyptologist X] says that the popular theory that "Geb was associated with a mythological divine creator goose" is incorrect. Make the author of the statement the subject. (Rather than the way that it is phrased now, which sounds like a personal attack on R.H. Wilkinson et al) Then towards the end of the paragraph you can say, "contra: Richard H Wilkinson (or whoever)however states that, ..." and make an exact quote.

Wikipedia is perhaps not the place for personal attacks. There's probably no need to mention these other Egyptologists by name unless you can quote them and make a joined-up case in an proper academic fashion.

I've glanced through a few of Prof. Wilkinson's books on my shelf and can't find a statement to the effect you claim. The closest I found was in an internet search which quoted in relation to 'Goose and snake as earth god' from “Reading Egyptian Art: A hieroglyphic guide to ancient Egyptian painting and sculpture” (which I don't have) p.97: "With these achievements in its résumé, the Goose landed several high-profile and long-term jobs. From the earliest times on, a goose was the emblem of the earth god Geb and sacred to him." http://phaistosgame.com/Phaistos24.htm

It doesn't say " mythological divine creator goose", just "goose".

Good luck.

Parzivalamfortas 00:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)