Talk:Burney Relief

The Anzû
You still are not listening to what I have been saying. By including the part about the Anzû relief in this article, which is about the Burney Relief, not the Anzû, you are making a comparison between them. Even though you do not mention the Burney Relief in the sentence you added, the comparison is still implied because the Burney Relief is the subject of this article. What you are doing is known as original synthesis; you are taking already published ideas, but organizing them in your own way to make your own, original comparison. In order to include the part about the Anzû in this article, you need to provide a citation to a reliable source that directly makes a comparison between the relief of the Anzû and the Burney Relief. It has to mention both in order to count.

The British Museum source you keep citing says nothing at all about the Burney Relief; it only talks about the Anzû. The source therefore fails to establish relevance for the sentence about the Anzû relief in this article. You are welcome to add the statement that the Anzû is shown in a relief facing forward standing on the backs of two stags in the article Anzû, but you can only put it in this article if you provide a source that directly relates this to the Burney Relief. I am not trying to be mean or anything; I am just trying to keep this article in line with policy. Since this article is currently recognized as a "Good Article" under the Good Article criteria, it is especially important to keep it up to standard. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The sentence before the edit from the wiki is: "In this episode, Inanna's holy Huluppu tree is invaded by malevolent spirits.", and I only added the following sentence: "One of the spirits named Imdugud or Anzû, is shown facing forward, winged, on two stags." I'm not including any new malevolent spirit to the article. It is the same, and a continuing from the former sentence. I didn't include Anzû also being displayed standing on two lions, as that isn't the point I'm making now. The British Museum source you removed only needs to show the malevolent spirit. Even though we can still see similarities, that isn't the point now, nor is it a fault in itself. The new point cannot be: it's too similar to the article for it to be included. NC360 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring what I have been saying, which is that the source provides no warrant for why the relief ought to be mentioned in an article about the Burney Relief. Nonetheless, I am tired of arguing, so I am just going to give up and let you have what you want, even though it is against policy and, in my view, detracts from the quality of the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Katolophyromai - please don't re-add the stuff without a source that explicitly links the two. Johnbod (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Dead links from a template?
There are 2 dead links (1, 2) on this page, but I'm not sure whether to replace them with links to the functional page because I think they're from a template. OwlsTalon (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, replace them, and on the template if you can find it. Where are they? Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one is in the external links section (uses Template:British-Museum-object and the second one is in the infobox (uses Template:British-Museum-db). Going by Template talk:British-Museum-db, they're both broken due to the British Museum website having been redesigned at some point. I've fixed the infobox one by changing the ID, but I have not done the same for the external links one because that URL is more dissimilar to that of the functional page than the one in the infobox was. OwlsTalon (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)