Talk:Battle of Uruk

Concerns about this article
I have two concerns about this article:


 * The term "Battle of Uruk" (in English at least) appears nowhere on the Internet except in this article. While I realize that you enjoy writing new articles, there is nothing in this article that is already in the article on Sargon the Great.  Therefore, I am wondering whether we shouldn't just redirect this article into Sargon the Great.
 * I am having a difficult time interpreting the only reference. Apparently it is something entitled "History" published by the Instituto Geografico De Agostini.  I can find no mention of this on the internet.  Can you provide more information?

Also, please read this section on how to cite references. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it. I agree, this should be a redirect. A quote from this 'History' would be helpful also (and Egyptzo, please note that you need page numbers for books).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find nothing about it on the net because everyone mentiones this battle as a battle in which Sargon defeated his rival. A book provided much more details on this subject. in Fact, I was amused to discover how much details it had about ancient Sumeria and Akkad. You have a page number in the references. It is important that Wikipedia has this battle in a seperate article because it was the first time in history that we historicaly know that an important and decisive military conflict took place. Although it may not be bad to rename the article to - Battle at Uruk. Egyptzo (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, lots of books take a few fragments of text or an inscription and build a narrative around that, which isn't adding facts but interpretation. I see no reason for this to be a separate article. And I also would like a quote. Please provide one, because so far, I can see no reason why this shouldn't be a redirect 'important' isn't a Wikipedia argument. I certainly agree that it should be 'Battle at Uruk'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Found the reference. It's to a Partwork, in this case a 20 volume encyclopedia. Each volume is an impressive 832 pages. Enrico Cravetto seems to be the editor, not the author. "After the first Volume free, 'From prehistory all'antico Egypt', the volumes will be in a kiosk at 9.90 euros, plus the price of weekly."  and

But I don't see the point of that as a source. Not just that it is virtually inaccessible, but all that we know about this is from an inscription at Nippur, and there shouldn't have been any problems finding an accessible source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)