Jump to content

Talk:Mesopotamia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:02, 28 August 2023 (Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Mesopotamia/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mesopotamian Government: Akkad fell to Gutians?

I could be wrong, but wasn't it the Gutians, not the Babylonians who conquered the Akkadian empire? There should be some mention of Lugal-zage-si too, as he was the one who fell to Sargon. To imply that Eannatum and his descendants were the last Sumerian rulers before the Akkadians is false. Lugal-zage-si was even from Umma, Lagash's main rival.

Sumer is the proper term for the region, not Sumeria, correct?

Factual error in section 9.1: Kings

The section states that "The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the City of Gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods."

This is a significant misquoting of the source, which actually says, "The Mesopotamian people believed that their kings and queens were descendants from the city gods [emphasis added], but the people never believed–as did the Egyptians–that their rulers were divine gods." The full text of the cited source can be found here.

There was no "City of Gods" in Mesopotamian mythology. Rather, the ancient Mesopotamians generally believed that a king was descended from his city's patron god. For example, a Babylonian king would have been regarded as a descendant of that city's patron god, Marduk, while the king of Ur would have been seen as Nanna's descendant, and so on.

I have no expertise with Wikipedia editing, so I hope that someone in a position to do so will correct this factual error. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a38f:3300:9d36:118c:30f7:6b99 (talk) 10:59, September 9, 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

104.219.99.109 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Hello, I am a student at Thetford Academy, VT. I am doing a research paper which includes Mesopotamia/Sumer. I couldn't help but notice that note saying that the page needs to be expanded. Therefore, I would like to add some valid, information from reliable sources such as Khan Academy, ABC-CLIO, and Dartmouth College Archives.[reply]
ok then 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will accept.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to please add the content which was from reliable sources Gagan Raman (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your paper looks good so far 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why are you not done with your paper because if you do not get done with it you are going to get a F got it Gagan Raman 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Add some content:(Redacted) [1] (Redacted)[2] Gagan Raman (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: That is a copyright violation. You cannot copy prose from sources. Additionally, those sources are not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what are you doing right now 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you copying things from texts from places 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/trade/home_set.html
  2. ^ "Mesopotamia Trade: Merchants and Traders" History on the Net © 2000-2022, Salem Media. May 11, 2022 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/mesopotamian-merchants-and-traders>

Plate Tectonics

I want you people to watch videos on Plate Tectonics and find a text and write notes on it ok and write a paper on it. 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enheduanna

How about a link in the literature section to the Wiki entry about Enheduanna, a Sumerian priestess and daughter of Sargon of Akkad, who has been credited with being the world's first named author? 135.180.55.213 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mesopotamia

The history section has a sentence with "...as far back as Mesopotamia...". Are we to assume Mesopotamia no longer exists? That it existed for a distinct time period? This makes no sense. Even worse is the fact that this is article's subject is that exact subject. It's like saying "Saddles have existed since saddles were used." The same sentence goes on with " ancient Egypt" and almost the same problem exists. ("Ancient Egypt" existed for 6000 years! So would "as far back as" mean back ~1400 years ago (to when it became part of the Byzantium Empire) or 6000 years ago??174.130.71.156 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The development of writing

Give me big paragraph 2405:201:680F:C041:345A:7AE8:BB18:9C8E (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022: Incorrect information about "City of Gods"

CURRENT: The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the City of Gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods. SUGGESTED: The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the city gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods.

The current wording clearly distorts the source, which states, "The Mesopotamian people believed that their kings and queens were descendants from the city gods, but the people never believed–as did the Egyptians–that their rulers were divine gods." Indeed, the ancient Mesopotamians did not believe in a City of Gods at all; rather, each city had a patron deity often referred to as a "city god." Please correct this error, which I've noticed has been replicated elsewhere on the internet—no doubt because of the inaccuracy in this article. Altestans (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Change "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." to honestly I think just scrap the sentence entirely


The third paragraph of the philosophy sub-header under the religion and philosophy section say "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes."

citing Dow, Sheila C. (April 2005). "Axioms and Babylonian thought: A reply". Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. 27 (3): 385–391. doi:10.1080/01603477.2005.11051453. S2CID 153637070. Archived from the original on 3 August 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2019.


That actual journal abstract has the sentence as "This note explains Babylonian thought, not as the dual of classical logic but as another form of logic that is rigorous in light of the nonergodic nature of social systems, and the uncertainty this entails."


Which changes the meaning significantly, from the sentence saying 'Babylonian social systems were nonergodic because they used logic', as in the wikipedia article, to 'Babylonian logic is rigorous because of the nonergodic nature of social systems', as in the cited article.


Also of note is that the cited journal says "It is argued that Babylonian thought is one way of understanding Keynes's "ordinary logic," while Davidson's use of the term "axiomatic" appears problematic. But the ergodic axiom is so compatible with the open-systems ontology on which Babylonian thought is based that there is, in fact, scope for broad agreement."

which presents Keynes's "ordinary logic" and Davidson's term "axiomatic" as conflicting ideas which can be married together on the basis that Babylonian thought is based on an open systems ontology which is very compatible with the ergodic axiom. This notably does not present Babylonian thought as axiomatic


While the wikipedia article says "Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." Which calls Babylonian thought axiomatic and directly compares that axiomatic thought to ordinary logic Oddnumberseven (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Majore"

"They also played majore, a game similar to the sport rugby, but played with a ball made of wood."

There doesn't appear to be a source for this anywhere. Linguistically the word does not resemble Mesopotamian languages of any kind.

I believe this either needs a specific, preferably primary, citation, or should be removed. Palmerjwm (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Removed text. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesopotamia&oldid=1172591615"