Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 27 February 2008

Welcome!

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

laurap414 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Eridu Genesis

Yes, Thorkild Jacobsen called the Ziusudra Epic "The Eridu Genesis" and yes, Genesis has material that is also found in the Zisudra Epic. But it is unwise to call it Eridu Genesis because the word Genesis reinforces a prejudice that the Ziusudra Epic was entirely mythical, instead of being based on an actual river flood at the end of the reign of an actual king Ziusudra. It is difficult enough to get people to treat Gilgamesh as an actual king, because of the fictional Epic that used his name. Even more so with Ziusudra. In case you haven't noticed, reputable Ancient Near East scholars distance themselves from Genesis, because they do not want anti-religious prejudices to discredit their work. It would be better to rename the Eridu Genesis article as Sumerian Flood Myth. Not just a link, but rename. Greensburger (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the Genesis name either, because it makes the Sumerian story sound derivative of a later work. I'm happy to rename it Sumerian flood myth. Or better Sumerian flood legend? The only qualm I had about that was that the text also includes a creation myth, and I can't think of a title that reflects the two themes. (And, no, I'm not an unnoticing person. And Gilgamesh still has no archaeological evidence.) Sumerophile (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "Sumerian origin legend"? Sumerophile (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you ignore the creation myth and not duplicate the Ziusudra article, there is not much remaining from the Ziusudra tablet. Maybe the new article could be renamed "Sumerian river flood (2900 BCE)" to refocus on what is archaeologically attested and Ziusudra would be mentioned only briefly to link the later legends to the Sumerian King List flood? Greensburger (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're proposing. I do know you that can't ignor away one part of the tablet and just focus on one thing. I'll move the stuff from Ziusudra pertaining to it (or you can do it too). This is a famous archeological document, and shouldn't be buried in with king lists and such in the Ziusudra article, and the article has to encompass the whole tablet. Sumerophile (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Stub templates

Please do not add redundant stub templates to articles. For instance, {{MEast-royal-stub}} is specific and already implies {{MEast-hist-stub}}, which implies the generic {{hist-stub}}. –Pomte 10:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Sumer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the ongoing dispute and it's well beyond the point of being disruptive to the article. I suggest WP:RFC or WP:3O. If these fail, I would try something more formal. If the edit warring continues, someone will probably be reported to WP:3RR. This is not a threat mind you. However, it's gotten to the point where it is completely disruptive to the project. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits in History of Sumer

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as those in History of Sumer, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to History of Sumer. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wisdom86, I discussed this on the WP:ANI board, which you referred me to! Sumerophile (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are adding unsourced information to the article, while undoing edits which include citations. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 20:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation was mis-quoted, as I pointed out in the summery, on the talk page and on the noticeboard. Mis-using citations does not work. Sumerophile (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My referenced edit in question that you removed says: "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." This information is easily verifiable, since not only Kramer's writings but numerous later scholars have made note of the same belief of Kramer's. In fact anything you can possibly find on the subject is probably going to mention Kramer's views somewhere, since he first translated the epic. I have tried on the article talkpage to give you the opportunity to explain exactly how this is "mis-quoted" before I restore the reference. If you cannot do so shortly, I will restore the reference as is proper. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, my reference for Sumerian translations is Oxford, and I have not read this early translation of Enmerkar. You yourself stated Kramer said that Aratta is the Sumerian equivalent of Urartu. This is in Anatolia. And selecting speculations to ostensibly "verify" an opinion is not how citation works.

So you reverted my referenced edit, which was 100% factually correct, on the basis of something completely different that I stated on the talk page? My sentence regarding Prof. Kramer's speculation / belief as seen above does not even mention Urartu or Anatolia. It is referenced, it is verifiable, and reverting it just for contention sake is against policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Speculation and Belief are two very different things. 2) The work you cited stated something other than what you wrote.

And citing speculation to verify an unattested place, or its location, is not WP:RS.

Sumerophile (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well step back just a little bit, clear your head, and look at the edit again: it is not verifying an "unattested" place, it is quoting the view of an expert as to where this place attested in Sumerian epics is located. He could be right, he could be wrong, but his view is significant to the matter, and you don't have to crack open too many books to find out that this is indeed his view, so why can't wikipedians find out the same thing about Kramer's views here as they would everywhere else? Why the cover-up? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to verify a location for, what you put in quotes, an unattested place. Kramer's speculations, at best, belong on the Samuel Noah Kramer article, not on the History of Sumer article. Sumerophile (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)