This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Iraq Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian- related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This section needs to adopt the accepted periodisation into Early Dynastic I, II and III, and explain the differences and developments over these periods. For example, walled cities appear to have developed only towards the end of the Early Dynastic II period, with the construction of the walls of Uruk - attributed to Enmerkar.

John D. Croft 22:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm sure this can be done without deleting or suppressing any existing information. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 23:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC) reply

User Sumerophile is living up to his reputation for imposing his own idiosyncracies on articles over the guidelines and other editors... There are several problems with his version but he is resisting my attempts to correct them:

1) The standard guideline on Wikipedia is to bypass redirects and link directly to the articles, not to redirects of alternate spellings. If you feel the Oxford spellings are the only proper ones, you can propose moves on the relevant pages. Otherwise, the only way according to guidelines to make those spellings show up here is to use a pipe. If you don't know what "bypass" and "pipe" means I will try to find the relevant guidelines for you and post links to them.

2) Adding a bunch of pictures to sections that consist only of a "see main article" totally messes up the appearance of the article as well as the edit links, it becomes difficult to hunt for the appropriate edit link. If the sections are to be expanded, try adding the pictures afterwards.

3) I dispute your changes to the Aratta information, this is not the place to fork your POV in contradiction to the Aratta article.

4) What is the objection to linking the Sumerian flood account to Deluge (mythology)? I take it you have reached the conclusion that Aratta is unhistorical, while the Ziusudra epic is historical? (Correct me if I am wrong or assuming too much.) Even if your conclusion is right, we have to neutrally reflect the various opinions in reliable, published sources on all sides, not push our personal conclusions and dismiss those sources that disagree with those conclusions. There is no consensus that Aratta is unhistorical and / or Ziusudra is historical. The evidence for Aratta is just as strong as that of any other country only mentioned in Sumerian texts and maps. Dilmun, etc. are also only known in Sumerian texts and maps, but scholars don't assume it didn't exist, and have felt free to conjecture about its historical location. Same with Aratta. Don't suppress these scholars because you don't agree with them. I myself disagree with several of them but as I understand the neutrality policy, we are supposed to keep out our own opinions as much as possible and faithfully report what all the published opinions are.

Normally whenever changes are disputed, what we do is discuss them on the talkpage and try to work out a compromise or consensus with other concerned editors, so in the meantime I will refrain from further edit warring or reverting until these issues are resolved, hopefully to everyone's satistfaction. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

1) I use the spelling I know; Oxford is a good standard source, and it links to the correct article. You can add pipes to that if you wish, rather than calling another editor names.

2) Complete the sections instead of removing pictures.

3-4) Yes, you are assuming too much. Administrator User:Dbachmann can tell you that I know there is no historic evidence for the Sumerian flood allegory. Nor is Aratta as yet attested. You have now edited the article to make the flood allegory historical, and removed mention of Aratta not being attested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumerophile ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sumerophile ( talk) 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

1) The decision to use Oxford spelling as our standard seems to be unilateral on your part; otherwise the articles themselves would probably be located at those names. (If you want to move them, please propose this on their talkpages first as it could be potentially disruptive to move them without first allowing for discussion or consensus). Bypassing redirects with a direct link to the actual article is so standard here, that we even have robots that will come along and change all the links back to the article names, so pointing them to redirects is futile. Learn how wikipedia works and use a pipe instead of expecting other editors to continually clean up behind you.

2) As I mentioned, adding the pics BEFORE the sections are expanded creates issues with the page and the edit links; but you did not address this matter in your reply other than to obstinately say "my way os right". I am curious to know what other editors might think about this matter.

3) Aratta is attested in Sumerian texts and maps, just like Dilmun is. Many prominent scholars have speculated on the historical location of both of these. Why suppress these scholars in the case of Aratta because of your personal theory? And again, I ask (to which you did not answer): "What is the objection to linking the Sumerian flood account to Deluge (mythology)?" Please help me understand why you object to this. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Er, my version says: According to the kinglist, the kingship was resumed at Kish following the Deluge.

Your version says: After a flood occurred in Sumer, kingship is said to have resumed at Kish.

Now which one of us is trying to "make the flood allegory historical"?? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yours, I didn't link the king list to the Deluge (mythology). Sumerophile ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

1) There is no standard, but Oxford is a reputable reference, and just like US spelling, that's the spelling I know. Add pipes to my spelling if you wish.

2) You could add material youself, rather than complaining that there's something relevant there.

3) Yep, we know the name Aratta from Sumerian legend, and people speculate about what might be meant by it. The existence of Dilmun by contrast is attested by a great many records, seals and other archaeological artifacts. Stating that Aratta is as yet unattested is factual.

Sumerophile ( talk) 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Just because there's more evidence to suggest one does not negate the evidence for the other. Although a city in the southeast is attested to in many records, we don't know that settlement or region is dilmun, even if it uses the same name. Look at how much the Babylonians changed the meaning of Sumerian names, for example. There's no reason to negate theories about Aratta if you're going to speculate about Dilmun.It seems, Sumerophile, that your goal is often to change for the sake of making it the way you want it. NJMauthor ( talk) 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Who said evidence suggesting one thing negates anything else? I'm not even speculating about Dilmun - where is this comming from?? At least it's existance is attested, and what does "Babylonians changing the meaning of Sumerian words" have to do with it's existance, or location for that matter?

My "goal" is use facts, not speculation, which yes is the way it should be. WP:RS

Sumerophile ( talk) 23:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

But Aratta IS attested - it is attested in Sumerian texts and maps. That is a far different thing from what you are saying, that it is "not attested". If you mean to say "not attested outside of Sumerian texts and maps", say that. And the same could be said for the name "Dilmun", I believe, not to mention Meluhha and other examples. Many prominent scholars have speculated on Aratta's hitoricity and location, not to exclude the most famous Sumerologist, the great Samuel Kramer, now you I or others may well disagree with Kramer et al., but we don't say we are smarter than he is therefore we don't need to mention his views.

Another issue is the subsection on the Akkadian Empire. For the entire existence of this article, a "see main also" has been sufficient. This is largely because Sumer and Akkad are conventionally treated as distinct entities. I would have preferred to see some discussion among multiple editors here, before expanding this section into yet another copy of the same dynastic list that is of limited value here. But if the consensus is to have all this in the Akkad subsection, I will abide by that. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Aratta is mentioned in Myth. Dilmun is attested through archaeological evidence: records, seals etc, which I mentioned above. "Aratta is as yet not attested through archaeological evidence".

The Akkadian empire should be summed up like the rest of the sections. A section should not be made just to have a redirect. This is part of Sumerian history. The table is to have information available until the narrative gets written. And it puts the pictures in place, which you've been complaining about. Sumerophile ( talk) 00:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Question: Is the exact name "Dilmun" attested through archaeology outside of the Sumerian texts or maps that have been discovered? (although Sumerian texts are of course also "archaeological" in their own right) You speak of seals, but when I tried to examine this, all I was able to verify is that seals with the same pattern were found in both Indus Valley and in Bahrain. If the word "Dilmun" actually appears on any of these seals, it would be a different story that should remove any lingering doubt about Dilmun's existence and location. But how do we even know the name "Dilmun" outside of Sumerian literature? Where is this name specifically attested? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This is not about the location of Dilmun. If you want to start arguing Dilmun, take it to the Dilmun page. Sumerophile ( talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

OK, well the point is that the "archaeological attestation" for the name "Aratta" is equally as strong as that for Dilmun or Meluhha: These names AFAIK appear only in Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, and we are certainly allowed to quote the numerous Sumerologists such as Samuel Kramer who have offered their views on their location. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Nor is this the place for Aratta agendas. Sumerophile ( talk) 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It appears that your arguement for archaeological evidence for Dilmun is also an agenda, being as there is none. NJMauthor ( talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The only source or reference we have for the presumptuous statement "There is as yet no evidence for Aratta's existence" is User:Sumerophile. If Sumerophile feels this is so important to point out, he should be able to point to a minimum of ONE published source that has actually made such an explicit statement, to be able to include it. Otherwise, unreferenced statements may be tagged or removed as original research. User Sumerophile also dismisses and blanks out references to Samuel Kramer, because he apparently feels he is smarter than Kramer and that User:Sumerophile's own quirky, unpublished theories somehow trump anything Kramer may have written, to the point of not being allowed to even mention Kramer's views. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You are creating arguments, Til Eulenspiegel. This is neither the Dilmun nor the Aratta article. Sumerophile ( talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Then remove data related to Aratta AND Dilmun. NJMauthor ( talk) 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't put them there; they were there before me. What I did was to give them NPOV wording, especially the pro-Ararat-theory Aratta:

Dilmun:

"The Sumerians claimed that their civilization had been brought, fully formed, to the city of Eridu (possibly from Dilmun, later identified with Bahrain) by their god Enki or by his advisor or Abgallu (from Ab=water, Gal=great, Lu=man), Adapa U-an (the Oannes of Berossus). This claim may be in part based upon fact, as Eridu was then on the coastline of the Persian Gulf, and was the oldest city of southern Mesopotamia."

-->

"The Sumerians claimed that their civilization had been brought, fully formed, to the city of Eridu by their god Enki or by his advisor (or Abgallu from Ab=water, Gal=great, Lu=man), Adapa U-an (the Oannes of Berossus). ... (footnote:)Some versions of Sumerian myths may also suggest Dilmun as a possible place of origin, although they may simply be refering to an idealized paradise. Most Sumerian mythology simply refers to the Mesopotamian region, suggesting their origins were there."

Aratta:

"Aratta, often considered an early form of the name Urartu (but speculated by some Iranian archaeologists to have been a reference to the newly-discovered Jiroft civilization although it cannot be reached by river from Sumer)"

(The original version was a pro-NW Iranian location [1]: "Aratta, thought by some to have been an early mention of Mount Ararat, but believed by most archaeologists to have been a nearby and still unknown Iranian kingdom", which was changed to the pro-Ararat location above [2] more than a year ago.)

-->

"There is as yet no evidence for Aratta's existence. Nevertheless, some Armenian archaeologists have speculated that Aratta is an early name for Urartu or Ararat although the area lacks the minerals associated with Aratta, and some Iranian archaeologists have speculated this to be the newly-discovered Jiroft civilization although it cannot be reached by river from Sumer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumerophile ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Our articles are supposed to be factually accurate. "Armenian archaeologists" is NOT factually accurate, because not all of the authors who have speculated this are Armenian, nor are they all archaeologists. Unless Merlin Stone, Ian Wilson, and David Rohl (just to name three such sources) are Armenian archaeologists, which would be news to me. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, no kidding, these claims are not all coming from archaeologists.

David Rohl is an Egyptologist. Merlin Stone is a sculptor and feminist historian. Neither are exactly mainstream. Having never heard of an Ian Wilson, I looked him up on amazon.com - is this the author of books like [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Flood-Biblical-Changed-Civilization/dp/0312319711/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204077715&sr=1-6 Before the Flood: The Biblical Flood as a Real Event] and [http://www.amazon.com/After-Death-Experience-Physics-Non-Physical/dp/0688080006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204077951&sr=1-1 The After Death Experience: The Physics of the Non-Physical]?? What the hey?

You also have nowhere cited these authors, so we don't know what they actually say about Aratta. Anybody can make offhand conjectures, but no reputable archaeologist makes claims about unattested places. WP:V WP:RS

Sumerophile ( talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

And we still are waiting for you to cite EVEN ONE 'reputable archaeologist' or even any kind of source at all, that backs up your own assertions about Aratta, but I'm not holding my breath. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 02:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

It's no assertion at all: There simply isn't any archaeological evidence at this point to attest Aratta's existance. Sumerophile ( talk) 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

To back up that assertion, you need to find at least one published source that makes that very point. If it is as self-evident as you seem to feel, there will be some author somewhere who has noted as much. If there is not, you conducted your own original research to arrive at that unpublished conclusion and summary pronouncement. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 03:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The original scholar to identify Aratta and Urartu was, guess who, yes, that's right, none other than Samuel Noah Kramer himself, the eminent authority who first translated Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta in his 1952 monograph. In his stating that "Aratta" is the Sumerian equivalent of "Urartu", he was only the first of MANY authors (Armenian or otherwise) to do so.

If you actually bother to look up scholarly literature on the subject of Aratta, all you will find is speculations about its actual geographic location based on the actual geographic clues given in the epics. We have yet to see even ONE source backing up User:Sumerophile's OR assertion.

However, with an arrogance I have never seen here in 3 years of editing, Sumerophile will not admit Prof. Kramer's referenced view into this article, and insists on substituting his own unreferenced view in its place, refusing to cite it and even removing standard requests for cites. User Sumerophile, our articles are not supposed to contain our own personal opinions, they are supposed to contain references reflecting the same published opinions that anyone researching would find in the scholarly literature - EVEN IF YOU DO NOT 'LIKE' THEM. That's usually about the first thing one learns from editing Wikipedia for any length of time, but you still just do not seem to get it. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Did Kramer really say that? Apparently this has this not been cited anywhere, while some very off-topic sources have been cited instead. And the next step of equating Urartu with Ararat, or the Biblical Mountains of Ararat for that matter, is also speculation, I should point out.

You are exactly right, location is all speculation.

Your persistant and repeated name-calling of editors who question your sources is uncivil. WP:Civility. Sumerophile ( talk) 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The only name I believe I have called you is Sumerophile... I apologise for any other names that might have slipped through, but I usually look over my edits before hitting send. I have shown you equal respect to what you have shown me by constantly reverting and refusing to listen to what I am trying to say. If I am not mistaken, this was one of the main reasons SN Kramer gave for placing "Aratta" near Lake Urmia in NW Iran, in the territory of later "Urartu", in his breakthrough 1952 monograph, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of IRAQ and IRAN (hint hint: he was so assured of this, that he included these very geographic references in the title of the first ever English translation to be published...!) Even if this view had later been unanimously rejected, which it hasn't, it would still deserve mention out of historiographic interest. There have been many scholarly views published on the question, and it is hard to support suppressing all mention of those views you personally disagree with, as you determine. That attitude is enough to ruffle my feathers. I only want the article to accurately reflect the scholarly literature, with references, and have never once stated what my own theory on Aratta is, if any... I have never seen anyone even once trying to draw a link here with "Mountains of Ararat", that must be in your head what you are fighting against to accuse me of some kind of "agenda", but my only agenda is that we all leave our personal views and uncited opinions out as editors, and instead reflect what the actual, scholarly, published sources say. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 04:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Urartu was centered on lake Van in Anatolia, not Iran. Subsequent to this early translation, and his Urartu speculation, Kramer himself has since speculated Iran. And speculation it is.

Sumerophile ( talk) 20:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Excuse me, have you ever actually read Kramer? Just where have you been getting all of your knowledgeable "facts" that you continually grace us with anyway, I have yet to see you refer to a SINGLE source! If you read these things somewhere, we'd love to know where! The fact is that Kramer never changed his location of Aratta: He always placed it in NORTHWEST IRAN. Which is exactly where my edit said he placed it. Which is sourced to his 1952 monograph, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: An Epic Tale of Iraq AND IRAN; his later 1963 words could also be added. Sure it's speculation, but it's also referenced, relevant, and nobody ever said it was anything other than speculation. How have I misquoted him? How hard-headed can you get when you don't have any references for your position, and the ones you keep removing, refute your unreferenced position? What more would it possibly take for you to get it? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You stated above, that Kramer, in his early translation of the Enmerkar myth, said that Aratta is the Sumerian equivalent of Urartu, which was in Anatolia. I have not read this translation, and am taking your word for it. (My reference for translations of Sumerian materials is Oxford, which I highly recommend to anyone.) Sumerophile ( talk) 21:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for "taking my word for it", but why then do you keep removing the easily-verifiable reference to Kramer's consistent view that Aratta is in Northwest Iran? I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about whether or not Urartu extended as far as east of Lake Urmia, we have other article that should hopefully enlighten you on that. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Selecting speculations to ostensibly "verify" opinions is not how citation works. And neither is placing citation tags on any NPOV that might chip away at your views.

And yes I know, 2 millenia later, the Urartu extended an empire as far east as Lake Urmia.

Sumerophile ( talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what you are accusing me of but the only thing I am trying to verify with this edit is: Samuel Kramer, who first translated them (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, 1952) believed 'Aratta' to have referred to a location in NW Iran. That is not an opinion, it is an easily verifiable statement, and removing it without cause is against policy. But thanks for your expert advice on "how citation works", maybe next time you will come to the table with a few of your own instead of relying on your personal authority. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I was not looking for a link to the Aratta myth; what I am asking for is just one reliable cite that specifically says Armenia lacks the "minerals" (eg lapis lazuli or "Armenian stone") mentioned in the Aratta myth. I have found plenty of sources that contradict you on that very point, but I have been patiently asking for just one that supports you. The statement that needs a citation, is the one in the article. If you cannot cite this dubious claim to any kind of source, it will soon again be removed from the article, per WP:V. Repeatedly re-adding the same OR claim without citations every time it is removed, will not help anything at all in the long run. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You need reliable sources, not folks like Ian Wilson, and reliable sources need to be cited properly, not speculation cited as belief or fact.

Armenian stone is different from lapis lazuli; if you cite armenian stone, you will also need to show that it was used in Sumer.

Sumerophile ( talk) 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

The statement that requires citation to remain in the article, is the one now in the article, that is marked with a "fact" tag. I am not required to furnish any citations whatsoever in order to remove plainly uncited material, please read WP:V. If you still have trouble understanding Wikipedia cornerstone policies, I can get an admin to explain them to you anytime you're ready. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 03:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

So, you feel you are not required to find references proving the OR statements are verifiable, for you to keep sticking them back in the article, however that *I* am required to find references proving those same statements false, in order to remove them? User:Sumerophile, you are too funny! The statement in the article is dubious, it has been challenged, it has not been cited, is it unverifiable, it is being removed. Adding the dubious OR statement in yet again, without any kind of reference for it aside from your personal authority, would be a serious blunder on your part, and will surely lead to an RFC of one kind or another. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This sentence has been there for over a year, with an (unsourced) Ararat-location slant. When someone NPOV's the sentence, and you then add citation tags the words that disclaim the Ararat theory (based on the only source we have - the myth itself), that is pushing an Ararat theory POV, and POV it is because there is no reliable source for it. Sumerophile ( talk) 20:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see the above debate and the recent edit war regarding unsourced statements in the footnote. I have come to the conclusion that the entire footnote is off-topic anyway; there's no need to have a footnote if it's going to be a POV fork about Aratta that conflicts with the wikipedia article Aratta; all we need here is a link to that article itself, if readers wish to know what various scholars have said about it. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the Aratta article is full of agenda with unreliable sources. This footnote was even fine with you until it's wording got NPOVed. The source for information about Aratta is the myth; there is no other evidence even for its existance, much less a location on Ararat. Sumerophile ( talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You are under the false impression that I have been "arguing" that Aratta is "really" located on Ararat. I really don't know what gave you that idea, must be demons inside your own head that you are arguing against. The fact is, I have only been trying to remove your uncited and unverifiable statements from the article, and you keep re-adding them. I have never once stated any opinion on where Aratta may have been, if anywhere, because our opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is that various scholars have placed it anywhere from Urartu to Afghanistan. And even that is of dubious relevance to this article, since we can just link the main article and that should be enough, with no footnote at all. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

'Demons in my head' would explain the above discussion, and what you've edited on the Aratta page? WP:Civility WP:Fringe Sumerophile ( talk) 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Show me once where I have ever stated a personal opinion on where Aratta existed. I only use references to published opinions on the matter, which as I have shown range anywhere from Urartu to Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm still pateiently waiting for you to come up with even a solitary reference backing up the uncited statements you keep readding (now with identical text in two totally unrelated places). Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, okay, calm down you two! I admit that Til Eulenspiegel asked me to have a look. However, after five minutes of trying to figure out what the problem is here the one item that stands out is that the two of you are at each other's throats. I don't know who is right her, but I suggest both of you step back, relax & maybe work somewhere else on Wikipedia while the RfC on this article is discussed. And please note: an RfC is not a punishment on anyone, it is an attempt to bring in an uninvolved (& hopefully objective) editor to evaluate the conflicting claims & offer some comments. Once these opinions are presented, I expect both of you will then consider them in a level-headed & calm manner. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Sumerophile ( talk) 22:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

For the record, the Aratta footnote is listed twice. The first footnote should be a different footnote which was also removed at some point.

Some versions of Sumerian myths may also suggest Dilmun as a possible place of origin, although they may simply be refering to an idealized paradise. Most Sumerian mythology simply refers to the Mesopotamian region, suggesting their origins were there.

Sumerophile ( talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

• User:Sumerophile, would you have anything remotely resembling a quote, a citation, a reference, or a reliable source making any such statement as "the area (ie Urartu) lacks the minerals associated with Aratta" ??? Or are we just supposed to take your authority and expertise for it? If you don't have an RS, that statement is unverifiable, and should be removed.
• Question #2: Would you have anything remotely resembling a quote, a citation, a reference, or a reliable source making any such statement as "There is at this time no archaeolgical evidence to attest Aratta's actual existence" ??? Or are we just supposed to take your authority and expertise for it? If you don't have an RS, that statement is unverifiable, and should be removed.
• Question #3: To what end were you repeatedly removing my referenced citation of the epic's original translator, Professor Kramer's published opinion that Aratta is in IRAN? All in the name of fighting my imaginary, supposed "Aratta = Ararat agenda"?? Huh?? You're really tilting at windmills there, buddy... Or do I have to point out that Mt. Ararat is not in Iran at all, but in Turkey? So assuming I did have an "Aratta = Ararat agenda" like you accuse me (which I haven't), why would I add Professor Kramer's view, and more importantly, why wouldn't you allow Professor Kramer's view even to be mentioned? This behaviour of removing valid sources while insisting on your own uncited OR, is truly bizarre and illogical. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

1.-2. You have provided no WP:RSs for your assertions. If there were archaeological evidence, or Aratta minerals in the Armenian Highland, you would be able to show it, if it existed, but you have not.

3. The above discussion, the discussion on the ANE project talk page [3], your edits of the Aratta article, and your selection of where to add citation tags on this page. You have also confused Kramer's statements in your citations. You do not need to throw vitriol and insult here.

Sumerophile ( talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You still totally fail to comprehend our cornerstone policies. Have you actually bothered to read WP:V? If not, this would be a very good time to read it. The statements that need to be verified are the ones actually appearing in the article. The reason I do not have to provide reliable sources for "Aratta minerals in the Armenian Highland", is because I am not trying to add any such statement into the article saying there were. Now if I were trying to add a statement saying that into the article, THEN I would be required by policy to find sources backing that up. On the contrary, I am trying to REMOVE a statement saying there were NO such minerals, because this statement is unverifiable in the absence of any published source stating there are no such minerals. The only authority we have for this dubious "information" is User:Sumerophile, thus the statement is "original research" and should not be repeatedly returned to the article when it is removed. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

No you are trying to remove a statement that was NPOVed. If you wish to make changes, such as removing the disclaimer for Ararat [4], which is in the myth - the only source for Ararat at this point, you need to provide evidence for it. Sumerophile ( talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sumerophile -- I don't know much about the details of this fight. And I strongly urge Til Eulenspiegel to stop using attacks such as "demons in your head", that is clearly not helpful. However, you are simply wrong on this point -- no one needs to provide evidence to remove an unproven point from an article. If something is disputed and does not have a reliable source, it should always be removed. It's always better to say less, reliably, than to say more uncertainly. Msalt ( talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I want to say a few of things to this -

Somebody can just cynically citation-tag every word in something they don't like, and disrupt editing - at what point does common sense come in?

Also, it is a simple matter to cite the presence of something, like archaeological facts, but nobody writes about the absence of things for easy quotation, people write about their actual ongoing projects. The onus is really on the person asserting the presence of something to show it's actually there. This sounds silly, but we have POVs that want myths to be real - this seems to happen frequently in the Ancient Near East articles. How would you cite, for instance, that Cinderella is not known to be a real person?

Sumerophile ( talk) 01:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sumerophile, the absence of something cannot be put into an article in Wikipedia unless a reliable source states that it is absent. And the absence of these minerals can not be used to disprove that Arrata = Uartu, even if you find a source saying they are absent, unless the SOURCE says that it disproves that link. Otherwise it's original research by you, specifically Synthesis. Read WP:SYN if that doesn't make sense.

Cinderella is an interesting example. The Wikipedia article on Cinderella does not say she is not known to be a real person. Why? Because no one provided a reliable source that said so. The article does provide a number of scholarly sources saying that it is a very old myth, going back at least to the first century B.C. The point is, wikipedia editors aren't allowed to prove anything, even by finding sources. They quote or paraphrase reliable sources who prove things. Got it? Msalt ( talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What do you do when someone claims, say, that Cinderella is from Ottumwa Iowa and then asks you to disprove it. Sumerophile ( talk) 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It depends who says it -- a Wikipedia editor, or a reliable source. Can you please be specific about the part of the article that you object to? By the way, it is considered rude around here not to indent your comments. I responded to you by typing a colon : at the start of my reply, which indented it compared to yours. For your reply, you should type two colons :: before it, which will indent again so people know who you are replying to. Thank you! Msalt ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

OK I obviously did not know that and was not trying to be rude. "Got it?" - That was a bit rude. User:Til Eulenspiegel is extremely rude. And I'm very tired of having other people's behaviors thrown at me.

There are theories, sometimes with a nationalistic bent, that Aratta is either 1) on Ararat, or in Urartu (as in the Aratta article), or 2) the Jiroft civilization, but Aratta is not known to us outside of the myth, and the "clues" from the myth itself don't accord with either of these theories, or to anywhere.

Sumerophile ( talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Sumerophile. That's very helpful (and well indented :) ). I agree that rudeness is unhelpful and a problem here. But I'm pretty sure we can move forward and get past it. Similarly, I'm confident we can work to some consensus wording here without letting anyone make a case for (or against) nationalistic theories.

There's nothing wrong with controversies over things like this; but we should reflect them on the page, with impeccably reliable sources, and give appropriate weight to different arguments based on the verifiable, (in this case) scientific/historical information available. And if there are arguments, we need to find a SOURCE that makes the argument, instead of us editors making the argument and finding facts to support them. Make sense?

In the case at hand, if this is a current controversy among historians and scientists studying this issue, then it shouldn't be too hard to find scholarly sources making the argument you have made here, that the lack of certain minerals proves a lack of connection between these ancient place names. But you need to find that source before we can put the argument in. Looking at it the other way -- do you have any reason to say that Samuel Kramer is not a scholar qualified to discuss this subject? At first glance it looks like he is, in which case you really should not remove him from the article. The better approach is to say (when you have found a rebutting source) "Kramer says X, though SoAndSo disagrees because Y." This assumes that SoAndSo is qualified and represents a significant view in the scholarly community, not a fringe. Msalt ( talk) 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I reworded the first phrase to simply refer to the myth. In the two theories on location, the locations don't accord with the myth, our only source for this entity, and the sources show very clearly how they don't accord.

Kramer is more than qualified. He initially speculated that Aratta might mean Urartu, a tribe that shows up 2 millenia later in modern Turkey, then subsequently speculated it might be in modern Iran. There were 2 things wrong with the Kramer citation 1) the source cited was the old one, but the opinion expressed was his later speculation and 2) his statements were speculation, not belief or fact - he like any professional doesn't present unknown things as belief or fact.

Sumerophile ( talk) 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting. Why don't you and Til Eulenspiegel each draft a new version of that paragraph that expresses all of that, and post it here for comparison? Since I know next to nothing about the subject, I'll be a good representative of the general reading public to look them over.  :) Msalt ( talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

My re-draft is in the article now. Sumerophile ( talk) 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Sumerophile is mistaken; Samuel Kramer consistently placed Aratta in the same location in all of his publications; namely, the region between Lake Urmiah and the Caspian in NW Iran. He was so convinced of this view that he titled his original monograph "An Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran". He indicated his belief so unambiguously that I seriously wonder if Sumerophile has ever even read even one of Kramer's works on the subject. How can you possibly claim that Kramer ever "changed his mind" about Aratta's location? Where is the evidence? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

With your latest changes to your response above, it is more apparent than ever that you are not familiar with Prof. Kramer's published views and know not of which you speak. Prof. Kramer certainly never said anything like Aratta is in Turkey. He always consistently placed it in NW Iran, and never changed his opinion. That is why his original 1952 monograph was entitled "An Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran", instead of "An Epic Tale of Iraq and Turkey". Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

In the early translation you have been citing, Kramer speculated Aratta to be an early name for Urartu, a tribe that shows up much later in Anatolia. Sumerophile ( talk) 17:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Please don't continue to tell us what Kramer's 1952 translation says when it's so painfully obvious you have not read it. If you had actually read it, you wouldn't keep trying to pretend that he placed Aratta in Turkey, Anatolia, or anywhere else but in NW Iran. Heck, if you had even read the title of his translation, you might know this -- but just in case you have still missed it, here it is, once more again: Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: an Epic Tale of IRAQ and IRAN. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Til Eulenspiegel, it is very unhelpful for you to keep using insulting language. Please stop. You keep repeating the title but it doesn't prove anything to me. Each of you keep repeating points. It would be much more helpful for you each to post here on Talk the language that you think is more accurate, and tell me WHAT PAGE you are using as a citation. It might be also helpful for you to type a bigger chunk of the original text you are quoting here for us all to look at. Then we can see the context. Thank you. Msalt ( talk) 23:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

But I'm not asserting the presence of anything here. I'm pointing out that this argument is original research, because it is an argument nobody as far as we can tell has ever made before. Even if it is a perfectly correct and good argument (which I am personally doubtful that it is), we still cannot conduct original research. If it is an argument you read once somewhere, do tell us where. If it is not an argument you read anywhere but on wikipedia, we have to assume it is an arguent that a wikipedian came up with, so it has to go. We are only allowed to use arguments that have appeared in the published literature, not make up our own and cobble them together with half-baked references that don't even mention the topic. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You obviously have not read WP:V yet. Please read it. Quite simply, I am not required to find any sources whatsoever in order to be able to remove an unsourced statement from the article. You, User:Sumerophile, are the only authority we have for this unsourced statement in the article, you categorically refuse to provide sources for the unsourced statement, and instead demand that I find sources that contradict you. This same nonsense has been going on for days, but it isn't going to continue indefinitely, because we have cornerstone policies, and they are not negotiable. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Due to the bickering over one small part of this article, the passages mentioning Aratta have gotten mangled. I removed one footnote that discusses the existence of Aratta, which not only duplicates material appearing later in this article but links to an unrelated passage at the beginning! (Since it's possible that there was a citation here that was later lost, I put a "fact" tag as a clue to a future editor.) Likewise, the section which mentions Aratta -- which consists of about two or three sentences in this entire article & has been viciously fought over by both of you -- needed its references matched to the proper statements. Blindly reverting other editors is not going to make this article better! -- llywrch ( talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply

User:Sumerophile, did you read our policy on WP:SYNT? What we will need is a published author who has specifically written something like "Urartu is a poor match for Aratta, because it lacks the materials mentioned in the myth". If anyone has ever published such a statement before, it can be used. If no one has ever published such a statement before, we, by policy, cannot be the first to make this argument, because it is Original Research. Is that simple enough? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I think WP:Synth is what is going on in the Aratta article. Sumerophile ( talk) 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, but this is the page to discuss this article; Talk:Aratta is the place to discuss changes to that article. But now that you mention it, I admit I did add some refs that would not stand up to the same scrutiny, so to be fair I am now going there and remove them myself. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The sources given in this article are reliable and relevant and there is no synthesis going on here.

The Aratta article is still full of synthesis. You also changed the Lapis armenus article [5] to accord with your synthesis, when no archaeologist would consider it synonymous with Lapis lazuli.

Sumerophile ( talk) 16:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Now that someone has introduced Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq to this article, would you both look at note 18 on page 116. In case you don't have a copy of this work (accepted by many as being an accurate account of the mainstream consensus on Mesopotamian history), it offers a number of identifications for Aratta: "located near lake Urmiah by E. I. Gordon, Bi. Or., XVII (1960), p. 132, n. 63; near Kerman, in central Iran, by V. Madjizadeh, JNES, XXXV (1976), p. 107; around Shahr-i-Sokhta, in eastern Iran, by J.F. Hansman, JNES, XXXVII (1978), pp. 331-6." In other words, Aratta is considered to have existed. Further, in his The Sumerians, Kramer notes that Aratta appears in 4 of the 5 most important epic poems (p. 37). Add the information to the article, & move to working on another part of the article. -- llywrch ( talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Roux quote shows that the most popular possible location for Aratta is one's own dig site.

I can mention the other myths, but they just mention Aratta and give little information about it.

Sumerophile ( talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sumerophile, if you are going to allege that there is synthesis in this article, please be specific; quote the line, quote the source, and demonstrate what the Wikipedia editor has added that is not in the original source. You realize, right, that on Wikipedia, synthesis means taking true facts from reliable sources but using them to construct an argument that isn't actually in those sources. You see? You may have a great source saying that certain minerals are not at a certain location, but you can't say in this article that this proves that Arratta is not Uartu unless you have a reliable source that says so.

I would also appreciate it if you would stop using the word "myths" for statements that are considered by many to be facts or scientific hypotheses. Llywrch has presented solid science from a reliable source. Unless you can do the same, this discussion is pretty much settled, until you can find some. And even when and if you do, the solution is not deleting the existing information, but presenting both and noting the presence of a disagreement among experts. Msalt ( talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

"There is no synethesis going on here"?? Obviously you still are not clear on the concept, after numerous wikipedians have tried to explain it to you. There is most certainly WP:SYNT going on in the claims regarding the presence or absence of minerals in the Aratta region, since that argument appears in no published source we know of, and appears to be a "wikipedia original", AKA "original research". Sometimes you have very stubborn editors and it takes a crowbar to get the original research out of the article, but it always comes out in the end. Oh, and this is not the correct page to discuss what you feel is original syntheis at another article. If you feel there is synthesis at some other article, first bring it up on the talk page there, then it can be discussed by a consensus of editors on those pages. This page is for discussing the synth problems at THIS article. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I just looked over the disputed text again. There is no evidence for the statement "is known only from myth." The footnote (to the electronic corpus, which I love) only shows that it is present in ancient texts, not that it is absent from science. Unless someone can provide a better source soon, I will remove that statement. Msalt ( talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

These are myths ("epic poems"). If there is any other evidence for it, it has to be produced.

If our sole sources for Aratta describe it as being a source of lapis lazuli, then a possible location for it has to meet that criterium.

The quotes are like saying you've found a possible Atlantis or Noah's Ark. People say things like that for press, but nothing more comes of it.

Sumerophile ( talk) 00:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that edit -- it's certainly better without "only." How about this -- until we can work this issue out, how about removing all of the stuff about the historicity of Aratta? That is, the stuff in parentheses? In the short run at least, I think the less said the better. Once we hammer out a statement that expresses such controversy as we can support with reliable sources, we can add that statement. Does that work for everyone? Msalt ( talk) 00:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The stuff in the parentheses is what this is all about. It is very important that its mythical nature be expressed, otherwise we get non-factual assumptions. Sumerophile ( talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

MSalt, at one point I actually tried that solution you suggest - see [6] figuring all we really need here is a link to Aratta, not a POV fork from that article. It was quickly reverted along with the usual accusation that my edits were pushing an "Aratta = Ararat POV" (which I have never once stated to be my POV, and actually I have really tried unsuccessfully for some time to add Kramer's referenced view that it is in NW Iran, which would rule out Ararat when you really think about it - but who cares about little details like that when it's so easy to lob POV accusations?) Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

This is what you've been asserting about Kramer [7]. Sumerophile ( talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, to be technical, this is what I've been asserting about Prof. Kramer, and what you keep inexplicably removing from the article (my version of the 'footnote'):

There is as yet no evidence for Aratta's existence outside of the Sumerian epics; Samuel Kramer, who first translated them (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, 1952) believed 'Aratta' to have referred to a location in NW Iran. Several scholars including Armenian archaeologists have speculated that it is an early name for Urartu or Ararat, while others have speculated that it lay somewhere farther to the east, such as the newly-discovered Jiroft civilization in Iran. [8]

Note the presence of RS and lack of OR in my suggested wording - which is continually reverted in favor of a version where OR is present and RS is lacking. So then what else can I do? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

That's not a citation: you mention Kramer's translation of the myth, and then quote him "believing" something without giving a page number. You also removed the disclaimers showing how these locales don't accord with the myths.

Sumerophile ( talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Then, whom are we to attribute or credit with first pointing out these "disclaimers" that nobody has ever seen in print before?

Wikipedia editors?

Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The myths specify a feature, which is RS-verified not to be true of a given locale. Sumerophile ( talk) 18:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

MSalt and Llywrch, do you see what I mean now? This guy just absolutely will not, no-how, no matter what, and no matter how many editors patiently explain, accept what Wikipedia Policy says at WP:SYN. Good luck, I give up beating my head against a brick wall for days and days on end here. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Til Eulenspiegel, it seems clear that there is a personal issue between you and Sumerophile. And while I think I understand the points you are making, in my opinion you also continue to use inflammatory language against Sumerophile, so perhaps your instinct to take a break is best for all concerned. Care to join the fray at Prem Rawat? :) That article could sure use some more uninvolved editors. Msalt ( talk) 18:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you can tell us all, Til Eulenspiegel, where on earth you see synth in any of this. Sumerophile ( talk) 00:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Can we agree on this?

1) the dispute over any modern locations that may or may not be identified with Aratta should stay in the footnote rather than the main text;

2) I removed the word "only", which Sumerophile had removed before. I think this should be a good starting point for resolving this dispute. Sumerophile, what do you think? Others? Msalt ( talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's supposed to be a footnote, but I had moved it to the main text when I was trying to add refs and it messed up the formatting.

I have no idea what issues are going on with Til Eulenspiegel, but if you have any idea what kind of point he was trying to made, other than locating Aratta somewhere, I'd like to know what it was. He has come out swinging at me on several occasions before, as well as throwing tantrums on noticeboards and talk pages. This kind of behavior can serve no good in a collective encyclopedia.

Sumerophile ( talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Sumerophile, I get that you and Til Eulenspiegel are not fond of each other. Let's ignore that for the time being. I proposed a starting point for a compromise just now. Can you tell me if you think that is fair? (modern identifications of Aratta in footnote, not main text, and remove the word "only" from "only in myth.") Thank you. Msalt ( talk) 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

NOTE: Before the page can be unprotected without another edit war immediately resuming, there are a number of other disputes on this article ASIDE from the Aratta footnote, that have also arisen from Sumerophile's unilateral changes that seem to be pushing a personal POV. For example, notice how he tried to blank out an entire dynasty, the Akshak dynasty, because he summarily declared it in the edit summary as "not that important" in his own judgment? What kind of pretext is that for suppressing encyclopedic information? Just because a single user decides without discussion that it's "not that important"? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Msalt, it's not a matter of fondness, or personality clashes or anything else. How would you like the above happening to you, or this: "ALl of your edits are disputed and will not happen without a lengthy discussion of their merits". This is threatening an editor's ability to do anything, and his behavior has been nothing but disruptive.

Yes, I have no problem with the sentence being a footnote, that's where it should be.

My own personal view is that I would prefer a stronger statement with "only", but I can live without it - I removed it myself.

Sumerophile ( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I think we have a good start for moving forward. Are others (who know more about this stuff than I do) comfortable with this as a starting point? Msalt ( talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I am not sure we really need any footnote about Aratta at all, since this is after all the History of Sumer, and a certain someone has been trying to use the "footnote" as a POV fork in direct contradiction to our well-referenced article at Aratta. But, if there is to be any commentary on Aratta here, I agree that it should be in a footnote, and I also feel strongly that this footnote should strenuously avoid making controversial and novel-research statements that simply do not appear anywhere in the vast body of citeable literature that has already been written on the very subject of Aratta's possible location. Therefore, once again, I have proposed that the footnote, if one is necessary, look like this:

There is as yet no evidence for Aratta's existence outside of the Sumerian epics; Samuel Kramer, who first translated them (Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta: a Sumerian Epic Tale of Iraq and Iran, 1952) believed 'Aratta' to have referred to a location in NW Iran. Several scholars including Armenian archaeologists have speculated that it is an early name for Urartu or Ararat, while others have speculated that it lay somewhere farther to the east, such as the newly-discovered Jiroft civilization in Iran. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The more sources you look up on Aratta, the more you will see a consensus among authors that it was probably somewhere in Iran. You will also find those who point out that the name "Aratta" has been attested in ancient Sanskrit works like the Mahabharata as being a location in Afghanistan or Punjab, but there is much disagreement in the sources as to whether or not this has anything to do with the Aratta of the Sumerian epics. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting. No footnote at all seems like it might be cleaner. Certainly, given the controversy here, I think it's fair to say that any footnote needs to be carefully sourced. Msalt ( talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

It's better to hash out the footnote, than to do away with it. Til Eulenspiegel, you didn't answer the question. In fact in your suggestion, the first phrase, which we are working on here, was derived from one of my earlier edits and has a strongly worded statement of Aratta's lack of evidence. Sumerophile ( talk) 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Why is it better to have a footnote? As it stands, the page makes no statement about whether Aratta corresponds to any location in the modern world. What statement do you want to make, and what is your evidence for it? Msalt ( talk) 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

To point out that these statements are being made. The footnote was there before I came along, and I changed it from a pro-Ararat bias to NPOV, which seems to have precipitated this whole thing. Sumerophile ( talk) 02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Being made by who? And where? If we don't repeat the statements in our article, I don't understand why we need to debate whether they are true or not. Let's just blow by them. Or, if the controversy is significant, we should summarize it in a footnote. But all sides will need to be given appropriate weight in that summary. You get that, right? Msalt ( talk) 15:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Footnotes 3-10 in the Aratta article are examples of these statements being made. Sumerophile ( talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

If you have a problem with the Aratta page, then you should go there and work on it. Putting a comment here is WP:SOAP soapboxing, which is something we don't do. Msalt ( talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, that's working like a charm. And he knows bad behavior works. Sumerophile ( talk) 01:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Personal attack ignored - User is now adding the same identical WP:SYNT argument tothe Aratta article that multiple editors here have cautioned him against here. Assistance in explaining WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V cornerstone policies is urgently needed. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Following is the WIkipedia policy definition of "Original synthesis":

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The argument that Aratta is a poor match for Urartu because of an alleged lack of minerals, even assuming it were a solid and correct argument, meets the definition of "ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS" because this argument has never before appeared in any published source we know of. Wikipedia is by policy not allowed to be used as a publishing website for new theories that have never appeared in print, therefore policy says this novel research argument HAS TO GO. One editor is insisting that this novel research be allowed to remain in the article even though nobody before Wikipedia has ever before published such an argument, but at least three editors have explained why this contradicts policy, to no avail. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The ongoing content dispute has now turned into a full fledged edit war. I submit that the two users involved hammer it out here as the effect on the article is wholly disruptive. Strongly recommend consulting WP:3O or WP:RFM to help reach a consensus between the editors. Wisdom89 _{( T / ^C)} 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Msalt ( talk) 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

You would think that an editor harassing and wholesale disrupting another editor's work would be slapped on the wrist for his behavior, but now we have a footnote removed which was his entire aim in the first place. Disruption and tantrums are the way to go. Sadly, I'm not very good at that. Sumerophile ( talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

A question for Sumerophile. When you refer simply to "Oxford" what book do you mean? the article currently refers to a book published by Oxford University Press entitled "Egypt, Greece and Rome". It's an important question because books from that publisher are definitely within the category of reliable sources. But full references are always needed. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Probably the ETCSL? (I'm not exactly sure where you're referring to.) It's a compilation of Sumerian literature put together by Oxford University. The reference to it in the article has been removed now. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/ Sumerophile ( talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that the sections on Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Bau and Akshak seem to have got out of chronological sequence, after being moved around quite a lot. Lugal-Zage-Si followed directly on Urukagina of Lagash, as the text correctly indicates, whereas Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Bau and Akshak came before Lagash and were right after Enshakushanna (2nd Uruk), also as the text indicates. Could an admin please restore those three sections to before Lagash? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 03:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually they are (and always were) arranged by dynasty - it's far clearer to keep the dynasties together, than to split up the 1st Lagash dynasty and have to come back to it repeatedly. Sumerophile ( talk) 03:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It is not "clearer", it is misleading and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that the two "Lugals" who dominated Mesopotamia (Lugal-Anne-Mundu and Lugal-Zage-Si) came together in sequence, when in fact they were separated by the entire dynasty of Lagash coming in between them. It is also misleading and makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that Lugal-Anne-Mundu, Kug-Baba and Akshak intervened directly between Urukagina and Lugal-Zage-Si, when Lugal-Zage-Si was Urukagina's direct successor. And no, that's NOT the way this article has "always" been -- I originally wrote most of the basic outline for this article myself, I should know. This request is for an admin, who can easily become satisfied of these facts by reading what the sections in question themselves do say. I am not asking the admin to split up the Lagash dynasty, that is NOT what I am suggesting at all. Leave the Lagash dynasty intact, let's just get the sequence correct, it looks so sloppy now. First Enshakushanna (2nd Uruk) dominated Mesopotamia, then Lugal-Anne-Mundu dominated Mesopotamia (Kug-Bau and Akshak also arose at this time, before Lagash), THEN the Lagash dynasty dominated Mesopotamia, and THEN Lugal-Zage-Si dominated Mesopotamia, then Sargon and the Akkadians. These facts are indisputable, and we can do better than present a skewed, inaccurate picture.

This article has been on full protection for two months, but given the total lack of cooperative spirit among editors that led to its being locked, I do not think it would be wise to unlock it any time soon. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 11:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This page was blocked on March 5 to end an edit war between two editors. The editors bickered a little on talk for the next two days, and now in four months there has been virtually no edits to the talk page, and no discussion whatsoever. WP:edit war says page protection is useful "when there is reason to believe that the involved parties will take the opportunity to resolve the conflict. Blocks are preferred when there is evidence that a user cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior."

It is clear that protecting this page for months has not resolved any disputes, and its time to use other methods of enforcement to deal with disruptive editing - and again allow other people to contribute useful information to the article after a four-month hiatus. Brando130 ( talk) 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Though unbeknownst to me when I added my comment, other methods of enforcement have already been used, and one of the users that was involved in the edit war is already permanently blocked. All the more reason to resume useful contributions, imo. Brando130 ( talk) 19:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree with you that the page should be unlocked, but should add a caveat: despite being permanently blocked, that same user has continued to edit-war with numerous sockpuppets in violation / evasion of his block, including some still active accounts which are known now, and will surely be blocked again if it tries to resume the edit wars here. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have removed the full protection from the article, to allow the page to progress. I left the semi-protection and full-move protection to help prevent sock edits. Let's now focus on improving the article! « Gonzo fan2007 ( talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I removed an unsourced claim that the educated in Babylonian society began to reject Babylonian myths. The claim appears to be one that would be very difficult to prove or support. I have no problem with keeping it there if there's any evidence. Til, if you have any, I'm fine with keeping it, but please source it. NJMauthor ( talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Huh? The sentence in question, that you removed and I restored, doesn't say that at all; rather, it says:

A few historians assert that some Sumerians managed to preserve their identity in a sense, by forming the Magi, or hereditary priestly caste, noted among the later Medes.

I grant that this assertion isn't currently sourced either, but before we look for the source, let's at least clarify what it is we're looking for! Regards, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Whoops! I thought this was the Mesopotamian mythology page. My mistake.

As to the edit you're referring to, it seems like conspiracy theory vandalism and, since it's unsourced, I don't think it belongs here. NJMauthor ( talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

That sentence was added by Codex Sinaitacus -- hi Til, that's you, you added it! Doug Weller ( talk) 15:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I may have been consolidating information from another article when I added that; this article has a strange history that is difficult to track across the GFDLs. It started out ca. 2000 as part of a mammoth dump of an outdated 1911 EB article on "Babylonia and Assyria", that became the grandfather of several others when it was later broken up into smaller component parts. One part was about the "princes of Lagash" or some such, and I eventually used that as the framework for this article. The hypothesized Sumerian-Magi connection sounds like something that may possibly have originated in the old 1911 EB article, but I will take another look and see what the sources are, or perhaps "were"... Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 16:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I didn't know you added it. It struck me as Persian Nationalism rearing its ugly head in a wiki article again. It doesn't sound like a valid connection; Medes had priests, Sumerians had priests, therefore there's a connection? NJMauthor ( talk) 19:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have found some older sources and encyclopedias pointing out that Magi, "Chaldean" and Sumerian priests were all learned in very similar lore and astrology, giving rise to such speculation among historians. The Magi were a hereditary caste, who did not intermarry with the other Mede tribes; also the Sumerian name for their own language was Emegir. But so far I have not found any really good, current sources that explore this connection. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 22:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Similar lore/astrology? How? That sounds like a conspiracy theory. NJMauthor ( talk) 05:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I am beginning to think you don't know what a "conspiracy theory" is. A "conspiracy theory" is a theory that says there is a conspiracy. I do indeed see the theory here being promoted by various scholars over the years (most of these point back to Friedrich Delitzsch, who derived the name "Magi" from a Sumerian word) but please, where is the conspiracy in it? Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

There are a number of groups who believe that ancient cults conspired to continue some sort of religious line throughout various cultures in human history; without knowing who put that bit of information on the page, I assumed it was one of those conspiracy theorists. I meant no offense. Should we remove the material, as there appears to be no valid source? NJMauthor ( talk) 02:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

No valid source... no ref or citation means remove the material. There are no shortage of those conspiracy people putting up misleading or inaccurate belief system opinion material. As an encyclopedia that deals in facts ... that is precluded... and accurate information is the only information that is usable or suitable. If it fails that test... then take it down. skip sievert ( talk) 18:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I already stated that I have indeed found some references relating to this information, which as was already stated, I added myself. Are you calling me "conspiracy people"? Are you alleging that I have a theory that there is some "conspiracy" here? Or are you accusing me of fomenting some conspiracy? Either way, your remarks are needlessly provocative and do not seem to assume good faith on my part. I assure you, there are no end of sources one can find with a very little effort, tracing all the connections and correspondences between the Sumerians, Chaldeans, and the later Magi, and their lore. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 18:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The "Chaldeans" are a non-issue, because the term refers to a Babylonian dynasty or Mesopotamia in general. Obviously the later Babylonians borrowed mythology and knowledge from the Amorite Babylonians, who borrowed it from the Akkadians, who in turn borrowed from the Sumerians.

However, there is no direct connection between the Medes and the Sumerians or the later Babylonians and the Sumerians. Are you referring to the Medes in terms of knowledge obtained by the Persian Empire after Cyrus captured Babylon? Because that would make sense, but was not implied by the piece you inserted into the article.

What you wrote implied that the Medes obtained not Babylonian, but Sumerian technological knowledge and mythology. At that later date any such surviving knowledge had been disseminated beyond the Near East anyway, so it seems a moot point. You might as well add every civilization that existed post-500 BCE to that list. NJMauthor ( talk) 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not really that important to this particular article, otherwise I might have bothered to more diligently defend it by providing the many reliable sources that have suggested that Sumerians survived among "Chaldeans" (which word holds many other meanings beside the one you just named) etc.. But for editors to keep suggesting that there is any "conspiracy theory" involved, let alone any "conspiracy" is beginning to be beyond belief. There is neither any "conspiracy", nor is there any theory of one, having anything whatsoever to do with any of this, and no RSS ever said there is one. And if there were one, it would probably, on its own, be worthy of encyclopedic mention. Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 19:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

"In the possibly mythical pre-dynastic period" Does anyone know the intent of this statement? Is the info we have about this time based entirely on myths? Don't we have any hard data regarding pre-dynastic city-states? Logically if there is a dynastic there is a pre and post-dynastic period. Finally, how is this different than the Uruk Period? Nitpyck ( talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I do understand the meaning of the statement "possibly mythical pre-dynastic period". The meaning is this: all the info we have about this time, consists entirely of names of kings supposed to have reigned before the time of the "Great Flood" or Sumerian Deluge myth, according to the Sumerian king list, as well as legendary sources. It is not certain or agreed by anyone if these kings represent historical figures who were actual kings, or something else, or if their names were greatly distorted over time, or if they are pure invented names as part of the myth. There is no agreement on any of these questions, only conjecture. That's all you can find in sources regarding these kings, and we do have to reflect the sources. Nothing archaeological attesting connected with any of these names or kings at all, at least so far. Of course all of this assumes the normal understanding of "mythical" ie something that did not happen. The most we can safely say, is that these kings, or names, are "possibly mythical" dynasty. B'er Rabbit ( talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Would it be ok with you if I move the modifier "possibly mythical" from pre-dynastic period to Sumerian Kings List. That way it says (to me) that the period is real but the writings that exist are mythical rather than factual. (Didn't a lot of these early kings live for 3,600 years?) If this seems picky just see my chosen name. Oh if it's not ok I won't touch it. Nitpyck ( talk) 06:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That would not be ok, because many of the later periods in the Sumerian King List include archaeologically attested kings. Sargon I for example. Three reasons why it is appropriate to say the pre-dynastic kings are "possibly mythical" are (1) the impossibly large numbers that you mentioned, (2) the fact that none of the pre-dynastic kings have been identified with kings for which archaeological evidence has been found, and (3) it was customary in the pre-dynastic periods to sign documents with cylinder seals that contained geometrical designs, but not personal names. Hence, even if the grave of one of the pre-dynastic kings were found with his unique seals buried with him, there would be no way to identify him with a personal name in the king list. The pre-dynastic names may have been nicknames coined by pre-dynastic story tellers, telling stories that were orally transmitted until about 2600 BCE when writing was capable of recording the full flow of human speech. Later names in the king list that have smaller but impossible ages were probably mistranslations. One of the impressive things that was learned in the past 20 years by archaeologists who deciphered early clay tablets containing numbers, is the fact that there was no one standard number system in Sumer. Each city had multiple number systems which differed from city to city until numbers were standardized as the sexagesimal system. See History of writing ancient numbers. Greensburger ( talk) 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

good enough for me- thanks Nitpyck ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Re: the following text: The first settlement in southern Mesopotamia was Eridu. The Sumerians claimed that their civilization had been brought, fully formed, to the city of Eridu by their god Enki or by his advisor (or Abgallu from ab=water, gal=big, lu=man), I intend to delete the text in parentheses on an alleged Sumerian word, Abgallu. The author of this statement seems to have conflated the Sumerian abgal with its Akkadian translation, Apkallu, and to further have assumed, incorrectly, that the Sumerian was spelled syllabically, and that one could derive an etymology from such syllables. The Sumerian word, however, is abgal, not abgallu, and it is a reading of a compound logogram spelled with the 2 signs NUN-ME, for which see the standard academically-accepted work on signs and their readings, Rykle Borger (2004), Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexicon, Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, s.v. NUN, no. 143, p. 283. The exact same information, i.e. that abgal is spelled NUN-ME may also be found in another academically-respected work on signs, Rene Labat 1994), Manuel d'Epigraphie Akkadienne, Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, S.A., s.v abgal in the index.--Mother of Otherness 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother of Otherness ( talk • contribs)

I modified this, using the extensive list in Andrew George's work, which I included in the footnotes. -Mother of Otherness 07:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother of Otherness ( talk • contribs)

The graph about Sumerian cities is completely pointless when it is not indicated which colour stands for what.-- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 17:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I've removed it, it's apparently original research, I see no factors despite the caption anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I would have thought an article on the history of Sumer, of all places, would NOT perpetrate the common idiotic assumption that people build cities the minute they stop being hunter-gatherers. But no.

"Permanent year-round urban settlement was probably prompted by intensive agricultural practices and the work required in maintaining the irrigation canals, and the surplus food this economy produced allowed the population to settle in one place, rather than follow herds or forage for food."

The first half of this sentence is one of the standard theories about why Sumer urbanised, but the second half is egregious. People in nearby regions had been living in one place year-round for several millennia before the Ubaid period, let alone the Uruk; they'd even been doing it before they started farming. I happen to be reading about the southern Levant at the moment so I'll only cite Ain Mallaha and Jericho, but I'm pretty sure the northern Levant, Anatolia (where several sites offer Jericho and Uruk stiff competition in the "first city" sweepstakes), Assyria, and various parts of Iran all offer further examples.

The thing that makes Sumer distinctive, even great, is precisely the city. If you assume that any year-round settlement (even the isolated Neolithic houses found in some Israeli wadis?) is a city, then studying Sumerian history becomes more or less pointless.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com 70.97.20.246 ( talk) 12:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with your objections. A small city and a large tribal village with the same population are distinct, because each city has a full-time government, but a village does not have one. Large annual grain surpluses and the resulting large population do not automatically result in cities, because settled farmers and ranchers eventually lose their land, produce, and herds to nomadic thieves. That explains why cities were a relatively recent invention. See "Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City" by Gwendolyn Leick. I suggest revising the sentence like this:

"Permanent year-round urban settlement was probably prompted by intensive agricultural practices and the work required in maintaining irrigation canals. The surplus food this economy produced allowed division of labor, craft specialization, and full-time governments that included central graineries that could be easily guarded, professional police and soldiers to prevent theft of domesticated animals and surplus food, experienced planners, multi-level management, and skilled negotiators to settle disputes and make deals with neighboring cities." Greensburger ( talk) 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. I posted an edit right away to get rid of the nonsense, and was too tired to do anything but follow the track the original sentence pointed to, the hydraulic theory, so I cited Wittfogel but also backed away from him.

I like your suggestion but am concerned that you seem to be a little close to a unicausal explanation for urban origins yourself. To unpack: "Urban origins" was, from about 1960 to about 1980, the name of an active debate in anthropology, archaeology, and history. (I studied this debate in the mid-1980s, which is why the conventional idiotic belief that urban origins never happened bothers me so much.) Anyway, much of this debate happened in active reaction to Wittfogel's 1950s publications, although Wittfogel himself was more concerned with more recent periods of history. Some people liked Wittfogel's ideas and advanced "the hydraulic theory" as necessary and sufficient explanation for urban origins. Other people attacked this, and typically objected to any unicausal explanation. This created a stupid dynamic for the length of the debate: if Joe Schmo said "I think X was one of the multiple causes of urban origins", he would immediately be attacked as advocating the "unicausal X theory of urban origins", and he'd have to wait until someone else weighed in saying something like "While Joe Schmo's unicausal X theory is overreaching, in fact X was one of the multiple causes." And THEN X would become respectable. Stupid, stupid academics.

Anyway. So Robert Carneiro was actually relatively close to being a genuine unicausal theorist when he argued that "circumscription" was a cause. Argument: even if you're not *physically* circumscribed (as in the mountainous terrain of Mexico and Peru), you're circumscribed by the fact that you have sunk costs in your irrigation works, or that you're on the best land, or whatever. So you have to defend your circumscribed territory, and this prompts stronger political organisation, which carries cities along with it. (Urban origins was always competing with "state origins" over which was the primary, which the secondary, phenomenon.) There's nothing intrinsically unicausal about this argument, but Carneiro was pretty aggressive in making it.

So your suggested explanation is rather Carneiro-ish, and there are hints of that in your suggested text, which is what triggered my own knee-jerk anti-unicausal reaction. But it's still better than what I did, which focuses on a fifty-years-dead theory. Let's see:

"The surplus food this economy produced allowed division of labor, craft specialization, and full-time governments that included central granaries that could be easily guarded, professional police and soldiers to prevent theft of domesticated animals and surplus food, experienced planners, multi-level management, and skilled negotiators to settle disputes and make deals with neighboring cities."

The focus on specialisation is exactly right; anybody who knows anything agrees that you can't have cities without specialisation. (This is the argument *against* Jericho, and I think also Catal Huyuk.) So...

"The work required in maintaining irrigation canals called for, and the resulting surplus food enabled, relatively concentrated populations. In such populations some people could work full-time on things other than food production; in anthropology, such a division of labour defines a city, as opposed to a village. Sumerian cities in particular tended to have granaries with guards and record-keepers, temples with priests, and political leaders (sometimes called ' lugal')."

Your turn.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com 70.97.20.246 ( talk) 18:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Oops, forgot something. Since I'm not a registered Wikipedian, I can't start articles, and I'd hesitate anyway before jumping into these deep waters. But I'm dissatisfied with the confused treatment of urban origins in City, and seriously dissatisfied with the trivial treatment of state origins in State. If articles already exist on these topics, there should be redirects from "urban origins" and "state origins", and if they don't, maybe they should, or at least something like "History of cities" and/or "History of states".

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com 70.97.20.246 ( talk) 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC) reply

The ancient text opens the historical record. The archaeological record opens with the archaeological evidence. This needs to be corrected in the intro. -- J. D. Redding 01:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The "ancient text" being the Sumerian kinglist does not actually open up the historical record. The copies we have were compiled much later as they go all the way to Damiq-ilushu and Larsa. It is the earliest datable tablets, to the reign of Enmebaragesi, that open up the historical record. As for archaeological evidence and the archaeological record, it covers all of prehistory long before history begins with Enmebaragesi. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 02:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

The written record opens history, even if that history is "mythical" , "lengendary", etc (similar to the legendary history of Rome and Greece) ... The "date-able" non-written items belong to archaeological record. This is being mixed up and conflated in the intro.

The archaeological record covers non-writing and archaeological finds. Recorded history covers the written evidence. -- J. D. Redding 02:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Um, no... Beginning with the aforementioned tablets of Enmebaragesi, we have contemporary historical records... that's what we mean by the historical record opening. A tablet from 1000 years later than that, talking about mythological events happening 1000 years earlier than that, is not taken as opening the historical record. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 02:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

We? Got a frog in your pocket? Whatever ... it'll have be corrected later, as you seem to be hovering over this article ...

Archaeology is not the only applicable field. And is not what history only is. There are other facets in history than just the archaeological record. -- J. D. Redding 02:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

What? You're waiting for me to leave? It might be a long wait since I wrote much of this article. If Greek legends were taken as beginning recorded history in Greece as you suggest, you may as well say Greek history begins chronologically in 2500 BC with the first king of Sicyon, Aegialeus (King of Sicyon). Of course nobody says that today, because there are no archaeological records for his reign. Rather, Greek history is said to begin with the earliest known contemporary records. Til Eulenspiegel / talk/ 02:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Then it stuck in edit hell till alternatives are arrived at to fix the article. Not new on some articles in wikipedia ...

Chronologically, the history is delineated that way. And that is NOT Ancient Greece, it's Helladic Greece. But when one conflates ideas and facts, it's not easy to write about history. -- J. D. Redding 03:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Til is correct. History does not start just because a thousand years after the first contemporary records someone recorded what they thought happened long before those records were written. Not the first time Reddi has insisted his understanding is correct. Dougweller ( talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply

I have just been 'chasing down' a personal query on a city/place-name I have not previously encountered - Larak - clearly shown situated on the middle Tigris on the accompanying map. However, when I type in the name "Larak" Wiki takes me to Larsa, which is of course in a quite different location. I am puzzled: could someone please clarify this discrepancy? Geoff Powers ( talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Sumer. 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/20101107074610/http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf to http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904172740/http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=556&journal=1&type=pdf to http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php?pub_id=556&journal=1&type=pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901081739/http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022500.html to http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc022500.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716162233/http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm to http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I posted an edit indicating that the conversation is about that which is recorded, only to see it reverted with the message "“Supposed” is the right word to reflect that they may be mythical". Whether the recorded material is mythical or not is not the issue. The fact is that it is recorded. There is no evidence indicating that it is mythical or not. People 4000 years from now might find it difficult to believe that humans actually used 100 year old combustion technology after having developed quantum technology. They might consider the records of it "mythical", but they would still be records (and also true). The possibility of something being mythical doesn't nullify the fact that it is recorded. If the idea is to make a claim that something is possibly false, then it should be stated clearly. The reason this revert should be due to unsourced material that changes the idea, but in this case, there need be no source. The article and section both clearly indicate that the conversation is about recorded material (Sumerian History and King List). If the idea is to question whether the recorded material is potentially false, then this should be clearly stated, rather than being hidden in verbiage. A much better word to describe the thought would be "potentially mythical". But again, this is conjecture, until it can be proven that either reigns are real, or fake. To say something might be false carries a burden of proof. Of the 2 references provided in the text, there appears to be no evidence substantiating whether the record is true or false. To say that it is "potentially false" is to make an unsupported assumption, thereby slanting the article one way as opposed to another, violating article neutrality, making it seem as though there is no way the length of reigns could be accurate. We do have the record. We do not have proof whether it is true or false. If the proof existed, I am sure the author of the source would be only too happy to inform the world.

What I was doing is called sticking to the facts as sourced. If someone is aware of a source that indicates the truth or falsehood of the accuracy of the list, that is irrelevant in terms of conveying the fact that the King List exists, but I would like to see the evidence, should it exist. If there is no source that can determine whether the information in the King List is accurate, my single word edit should stand. Of the reviews I am aware of for a source ( https://www.librarything.com/work/1090200/reviews/173029788), there was concern that the author took the liberty to partake in speculation. That is what I see when using the words "supposedly mythical" to describe a record. In fact, I would be more likely to accept the usage "supposedly (or 'possibly') mythical lengths of reign", than "their supposed reign lengths". There is much more clarity when stating the issue clearly, but it also provides less cover for conjecture. If the source can't establish the truth or falsehood conclusively, any statements yea, nay, or anything in between are speculation, and could easily be construed as bending articles to suit an agenda, even if that agenda is skepticism. There is room for skepticism, yet the fact that the King List is a record resides well within the confines of the sources in particular, and the article, generally. Invoking skepticism takes neutrality out of the article (and trust away from Wikipedia), and places nothing but question marks in the mind, but every question inferred by the original text is one of doubt that is unsubstantiated. If a reader is unable to resolve a conflict of doubt in their own mind, the idea might be "We can help". In actuality, the doubt being "clarified" in a single direction - out of balance. A reliable source will have researched well enough to make positive statements. "Could be", "might be", "possibly", and yes, "supposed" are not positive. Making statements using the aforementioned words falls outside the domain of what can be called "reliable". It would be an entirely different matter if there were no record. All would be speculation. The potential state of reigns is not known. The actual state of their being documented is fully known. The record "may be mythical", but it is a record.

In view of the above, my edit referring to the actual known state is sourced in context, and the most accurate description by referent to the record. I would like to revert. BRealAlways ( talk) 16:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

To be honest, most of what's in the sections History of Sumer#Sumerian King List and History of Sumer#Antediluvian rulers should just simply be deleted from this article. These sections were copy-pasted into this article in 2018 ( this edit and the next none) from other articles that have since been heavily revised to reflect the fact that, at least for the Early Dynastic period, the Sumerian King List has virtually nothing to do with history, and the antediluvian rulers are just purely fictional. Zoeperkoe ( talk) 17:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Zoeperkoe: I agree. Guidance at WP:SUMMARY. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I agree too. I did wonder how it got there - there’s way too much coverage on these mythological rulers. DeCausa ( talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Update: a combination of edits from myself, Zoeperkoe, SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits has excised the mythology and replaced it with a more historical and concise sub-section here. DeCausa ( talk) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I added a link to the SKl. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Isn't mythology roughly equivalent to 'pseudoscience', pseudohistory' (fringe history), or 'pseudoarchaeology'? That is basically the same as saying it is a false representation of the truth. That is not to say that anything that is recorded should be stricken from the record, but if one myth is to go, then why not be consistent and eliminate all myths? To eliminate the King List is to pretend it doesn't exist. It does. Those who aren't aware of its existence would be none the wiser after reading WP. I thought the idea was to report on reliable sources (the King List being one) without prejudice. Opening a dialog to its mythical character only means the actual state of its truth is unknown. 75.86.176.155 ( talk) 02:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

If you haven't already, you might want to read Sumerian King List and the literure mentioned in the references there to see why the SKL is not considered a reliable historical source for anything before the Akkadian period. Best, Zoeperkoe ( talk) 08:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Zoeperkoe: as User:BRealAlways was editing at around the same time as the IP, he probably hadn't logged in yet. In any case, a referral to mythology is useful. And of course a big difference is that pseudoscience, etc are things people practice today. You don't practice mythology, people don't write myths. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

A better way might maybe be to include a section on "available sources", where the usefulness of the SKL (and other documents) could be discussed. Best, Zoeperkoe ( talk) 12:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm not happy with that as a section heading and am not sure how to source it. I like the idea in general though. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

At least for the ED period I read an article with a good section on exactly this topic (which, by the way, again includes the remark that the SKL should not be used for this period), and I think it can be found for other periods as well. There is also quite a bit of discussion to be found, for example, on the usefulness of royal steles. Wikipedia could certainly benefit from such a section - here or somewhere else. Zoeperkoe ( talk) 12:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I think it’s a good idea. Michalowski’s chapter in the Oxford History of Historical Writng may be a useful starting point. But to be perfectly honest, that’s the least this article needs. It’s really a terrible article and needs a complete re-write. A lot of work though. DeCausa ( talk) 12:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm confused. How do you discuss the usefulness of mythology? BRealAlways ( talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

An example: origin myths help build a national identity. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply