Talk:Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)

Just so you know
Hi everyone! I have gone through the first half of the article and fixed all the grammatical mistakes I found. In addition, I plan to create an article for "Kura," a deity referenced as being worshipped by the people of Ebla. The only mention of this deity is in a table, and while there is a link, it's a redlink. Any extra info or sources on the subject of Kura is appreciated. Thanks!

WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia). 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/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/20100701185936/http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2005/07/lyre_of_ur.htm to http://www.liv.ac.uk/news/press_releases/2005/07/lyre_of_ur.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers. —  InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits
I've reverted edits by as I feel they were not an improvement to the article. Concerns are: The reason I've taken this step to revert all of it instead of trying to fix the edit is that reverting is less work and still results in a better version. It would be great if other editors can chime in as well and give feedback. Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) editing style (e.g. over-use of punctuation, links, spelling out every detail, etc.) does not comply with MoS
 * 2) copy-vio (this is a recurring problem; the recent edits came from editor's sandbox; which contains many copy-pasted texts from other articles)
 * 3) organisation of article into too many section, including sections that don't really make any sense
 * 4) giving too much attention to material that's either better covered in other articles, or not at all relevant to the topic at hand.


 * Could you at the very least have specified as to which parts, exactly, of my edit you didn't like? My edit wasn't all that significantly different from what the article looked like before. I wasn't even copying and pasting content from other articles within English Wikipedia. I decided to go the route of the French version of this article (as you suggested), by, for example, using bullet points as they did for their "Periodization" subsection rather than using that table that you'd rather be using for the English version of the article. But you decided to get rid of the bullet points altogether and go back to using your table instead without really specifying as to why you think the table looks better.


 * You even completely removed the paragraphs describing both of the ED IIIa and ED IIIb subperiods. And the current revision doesn't even go into any detail describing the ED IIIb whatsoever.


 * You've also told me that it's OK to copy and paste from Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article, but it's not OK to copy and paste from within other articles of English Wikipedia.


 * I'm looking at Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article right now and I'm still finding it very difficult to make sense out of much it. Much of it is still left poorly translated, if even translated at all.


 * I've also noticed while attempting to make sense of Google Translate's translation of the French version of this article how similar the words are to the words used in other articles throughout English Wikipedia. For example: the translation for the French version's "Writing and its uses" section uses some words remarkably similar to the English article for Cuneiform script. So I have to look over on the article for Cuneiform script to help me develop a sense of context to make sense as to what, exactly, I'm supposed to be looking at over the French version of the article for the Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia. — SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Translation
Hello. I've noticed this article contains a translation of the french article on the same topic. Since I wrote the french article, I can help you if you have trouble translating or understanding some parts of it. My english level is not good enough to make a translation myself. Feel free to contact me on one of my discussion pages, french or english. Regards, Zunkir (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference to von Oppenheim
In the section Neighboring regions | Upper Mesopotamia and Central Syria, we have the sentence:
 * "German archaeologist Max von Oppenheim called them “Kranzhügel”, or “cup-and-saucer-hills”."

We need to source this. I did find this (http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=etd, page 1) and it may be enough, but it doesn't exactly say that:
 * "“Kranzhügel” was the term German explorer Max von Oppenheim gave to a number of North Syrian, “wreath-shaped” sites upon their discovery early last century (Oppenheim 1933; Moortgat-Correns 1972). The kranzhügel, or “wreath-mound,” settlement type refers to a “circular shape with a fortified [and elevated] upper as well as lower town” (Meyer 2007:131), or more simply “cup-and-saucer shaped” (Castel and Peltenberg 2007:611)."

And so it might be more accurate to use the term "wreath-shaped" or "wreath-mound". Or possibly "Kranzhügel" literally translates to "cup-and-saucer hills", but a German speaker would need to verify. If we keep it, I suggest we use "cup-and-saucer hills" for correct hyphenation. Pursuedbybaer (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification in Ensi paragraph
Under Government and economy | Administration, the paragraph used to read:
 * "Ensí" (Sumerian:  , meaning "Lord of the Plowland")[39] is a Sumerian language title designating the ruler or prince of a city-state. The énsí was considered a representative of a city-state's patron deity.[40] Ensí may have originally been a designation of the ruler restricted to the city-states of Lagash and Umma.[41] However, in later periods the title presupposed subordinance to a lugal. Although an énsí may have normally been seen as subordinate to a lugal, nevertheless; some rulers of the Second Dynasty of Lagash were satisfied with the title “énsí”. Interestingly, the énsís of the city-state Lagash would sometimes refer to their city's patron deity (Ningirsu) as their “lugal”.

I have removed the second-to-last sentence:
 * Although an énsí may have normally been seen as subordinate to a lugal, nevertheless; some rulers of the Second Dynasty of Lagash were satisfied with the title “énsí”.

Not sure what is being said, and we certainly cannot know what was in the minds of the ensi. I'd suggest leaving it out unless it can be clarified. Perhaps it means they didn't go to war over it? Pursuedbybaer (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Ensi"
We should be consistent in how we refer to énsí. It varies from ensi to énsí. Which is the correct term? We should apply it across the board, even when it is capitalized "Ensi". Pursuedbybaer (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)