Talk:Sargon of Akkad

MILHIST assessment
Assessed at C, because of ongoing dispute in Comparative section. Once this is resolved, B2 can be checked for B.Monstrelet (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Content Deletion
I noticed some previous versions have had content deleted, and then reverted, but not to the original content. “This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John of Reading (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 1 January 2013. It may differ significantly from the current revision.” “This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.206.121.142 (talk) at 05:14, 6 January 2013. It may differ significantly from the current revision.” “This is an old revision of this page, as edited by W.stanovsky (talk | contribs) at 20:54, 6 January 2013. It may differ significantly from the current revision.” Specifically, the "Comparative Mythology" section has been completely omitted and removed. Why? I found the previous information and citations there to be extremely helpful and would like it replaced and restored, unless there's a specific reason it was deleted, omitted or removed, please.
 * Contents
 * 1 Origins and rise to power
 * 2 Formation of the Akkadian Empire
 * 3 Wars in the northwest and east
 * 4 Later reign
 * 5 Legacy
 * 6 Family
 * 7 In comparative mythology
 * 8 See also
 * 9 Notes
 * 10 References
 * 11 Further reading
 * Contents
 * 1 Origins and rise to power
 * 2 Formation of the Akkadian Empire
 * 3 Wars in the northwest and east
 * 4 Later reign
 * 5 Legacy
 * 6 Family
 * Contents
 * 1 Origins and rise to power
 * 2 Formation of the Akkadian Empire
 * 3 Wars in the northwest and east
 * 4 Later reign
 * 5 Legacy
 * 6 Family
 * 7 See also
 * 8 Notes
 * 9 References
 * 10 Further reading

I have to add that I've noticed this trend on several such articles containing historically relevant but religiously sensitive information that seems to be removed simply because someone disagrees with it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.202.167 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too, and I've restored the missing section, and reworked it a bit. It would be good to have some discussion of the "neutrality of this section is disputed" tag, to find out if anybody still disputes the section, and what exactly they are disputing. Personally, I'm not sure about the line: Some think that the legend of king Sargon's birth is irrelevant as a source of the Book of Exodus, since it's addressing a line of thought that the article doesn't express anymore, and isn't backed up with academic citations. Horatio (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there should be more detail about what Brian Lewis and Joseph Campbell wrote. I don't have access to their works. Horatio (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Innovations
We should put more about his innovations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Genius 10 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

"the Great"
The origin of this epithet isn't clear, but judging from google books it became much more frequently used in popular literature after 2005, when it had been introduced to Wikipedia. He is called "Sargon the Great" in this 2002 publication which, via Wikipedia, may be the origin of the now more widespread use of this epithet. --dab (𒁳) 09:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This ruler bust is not to be confused with Yahweh. Sargon the Great may have been of Hamito- Semitic descent. Page 12, Willie F.., 1929- The encyclopedia of African History and Culture 160.72.81.2 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we please erase "the great"? None of the cueniform texts mentioning this, even from the neo-Assyrian period. He had a tons of royal titulaturies, but "great" was not among them. 213.222.140.245 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Chronology
I think the reign dates being given in the short chronology was originally introduced by myself, back in 2004. I had no idea what I was doing at the time, except that I knew that a claim of "2334 BC-2279 BC" is completely meaningless unless you specified which chronology you are talking about. The date range itself had been added in March 2004, of course without the citation of any reference or source.

2334 BC-2279 BC (short chronology) apparently stood until 2010, when it was changed "to match sidebar". Nobody ever consulted or cited any reference for this. Naturally, the dates given on Wikipedia have found their way into countless "works" by journalists and other online writers. It is always with a certain grim satisfaction that I note published books can be dated according to the mistakes they copied from Wikipedia.

The chronology needs to be reviewed completely based on recent scholarly sources. There are several conflated issues:
 * 1) the dates cannot be given with accuracy, even within a specified chronology, because there is no clean king list with unambiguous regnal years prior to Ur III
 * 2) the estimated dates vary depending on which chronology is chosen by the respective writer; this is mixed up beyond recovery by Wikipedia editors copying snippets from disparate sources into the page
 * 3) there appears to be a recent suggestion for revising NE chronology which is close to but not idenitical with the middle chronology, afaics based on the Mari Eponym Chronicle  based on an idea by Michel (2002) and recently reported in journalism because it was the subject of a talk by Werner Nahm. Some pages on Wikipedia now appear to use this chronology, which will not at all lead to complete breakdown of any attempt at understanding which numbers refer to which chronology in any of Wikipedia's ANE articles.

As for explicit dates given in recent scholarly literature: We do need to find an academic source that explicitly addresses this question. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gough (2006) has "ca. 2340-2284 B.C." but it isn't clear which chronology this is supposed to be in
 * This (2012) has 2334-2279 BC as "Middle Chronology". No "ca.", no source, no caveats, and exactly the range given, for dodgy reasons, on Wikipedia since 2010. It's academically published, so I can only pray that this author didn't copy-paste her stuff from Wikipedia.


 * Good points. Most importantly, we should stop trying to find one single date and neglect other proposals. Just list the dates that have been proposed by different scholars; this is what I've been doing lately. For example, I added the section on chronology to the article on the ED period, and just listed the different chronologies in a table. In my mind, this is a much better solution. BTW, I think where the 2334-2279 dates come from, but I need to look it up to be sure. To be continued... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeperkoe (talk • contribs)
 * I have no doubt "2334 BC-2279 BC" is a published proposal by some scholar, we just don't know by whom (unless you can figure it out). Whoever did propose it would of course have added an explanation in proper context (e.g. it assumes the "55 year" reign from the SKL majority variants, while minority readings have 54 or 56 years, all probably based on a misreading for "37 years" anyway; etc.)  --dab (𒁳) 18:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * goes back to the 1970s at least, found this reference from 1972. --dab (𒁳) 18:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1952: "2340-2284 BC" --dab (𒁳) 15:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's in J.A. Brinkman, "Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical Period", an appendix in A.L. Oppenheim (1964, rev.ed. 1977) "Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization". Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not an expert, so I'm going to ask if my rewording is accurate
Is my rewording of a phrase acceptable? Courteously, Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 04:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to phrase it more accurately, I imagine your objection was to "Sargon survives as". Sorry about the snarky edit summary. --dab (𒁳) 09:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've further adjusted your adjustment. Please let me know if you have a problem with it. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, by the way. Hospitably, Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 01:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I no longer think there was anything wrong at all about my original phrasing. Regards, Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC) 12:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Replacing  "A legendary figure based upon Sargon appears in the ..." with "Out of him a legendary Sargon was created by and for the ..." is such a bad edit I reverted is as vandalism. Meters (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the older version that actually makes sense. I'm also going to concur with you Meters. LittleDipper's edit was most likely vandalism. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, English is not my original language and I'm just not used to it; in fact me editing here is the result of trying to improve my English. I'm going to restore an earlier, possibly less controversial edit of mine. No vandalism intended. If there are any grammatical mistakes or there simply is a lack of coherent meaning, please let me know. Thank you.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)23:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * LittleDipper, the section of the article you are editing is the lead which is supposed to summarize the subject of the article. Your edit, "A legendary figure based upon Sargon appears in the Neo-Assyrian literature". What legendary figure? Your edit doesn't make much sense as it creates obscurity. As to my version, "Sargon appears as a legendary figure in Neo-Assyrian literature". And the lead continues on to mention Sargon Birth Legend, an ancient work of literature. Please read WP:LEAD to have a better understanding. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that "appears as a legendary figure" is preferable. Since that is the long-standing version of the lede I will restore that version pending any new consensus to change it. Meters (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2019
I am not qualified to perform edits. When reading this article, the name "Sargon" rang a bell. If some qualified editor thinks this should be reworded and added ....

In Pop Culture - Sargon was one of three god-like beings in the Star Trek episode "Return to Tomorrow". Nothing related to the actual Sargon. 24.28.26.20 (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The character is mentioned on the disambiguation page Sargon and doesn't seem relevant to Sargon of Akkad. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sargon Semitic Etymology
The name more than likely a later West Semitic (Aramaic & Hebrew) title that became more famous than the name, the Neo-Assyrains & Hebrew come used the West Semitic variants & they are the oldest source of the name (title) Sargon.

"Sar" in Semitic means root with varied related derivatives in Central Semitic the focus was on the hidden nature of the root, while in West Semitic & South Semitic the derivatives are based on the nature of the root, so East Semitic being much older will be closer to the upstream etymology.

The opposite of "Sar" in Semitic will be uprooting in the political sense, which gives a closer idea of what the title actually meant.

Root - Origin - Established (West Semitic) Root - Routine - Harvest (South Semitic Path-A) Root - Routine - Regime (South Semitic Path-B) Root - Routine - Work (South Semitic Path-C) Root - Hidden - Secret (Central Semitic Path-A) Root - Hidden - Became (Central Semitic Path-B) Root - Hidden - Mirage (Central Semitic Path-C)SarunHadad (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible original research and lack of consistency
The article transliterates this king's contemporary name as Šarrugi but the source cited for this information (the CDLI) only provides szar-ru-gi which suggests that the former is original research. Furthermore, the "Name" section contradicts both the (presumably original research) Šarrugi and the CDLI's szar-ru-gi and states that the name is normalized as Šarru-ukīn or Šarru-kēn. Some consistency would be nice here. Didomido123 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I won't change anything until I find a good source, but I think you're right that Šarru-ukīn and Šarru-kēn are probably indefensible and the article should be changed.
 * The signs used by Sargon in his own inscriptions for his own name are 𒊬𒌝𒄀 in Sumerian and 𒊬𒊒𒄀 in Akkadian (see Frayne's RIME). The intricacies of Sumerian and Akkadain are beyond my amateur linguistic abilities to fully understand nor fully explain, but it's common knowledge in the assyriology that Akkadian used Sumerian cuneiform signs for both phonetically transcribing spoken Akkadian and for logograpically representing Akkadian words as so-called "Sumerograms".
 * The final sign in Sargon's name in both Sumerian and Akkadian is 𒄀. 𒄀 can be transcribed and prounounced as: (gi, /gi/), (sig17 /sig/, sissig /sissig/), (gin6 /gin/) in Sumerian; and (gi, /gi/), (GI, /qanûm/, /šalāmum/, /kânum/, /kīnum/, & /epēšum/) in Akkadian (see https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%84%80).
 * Because Sumerian (gi, /gi/) and Akkadian (GI, /kīnum/) are etymologically and semantically related, it's almost certain that (/gi/ and /kīnum/) are the correct pronunciations of this sign in Sargon's name in their respective languages.
 * This would render 𒊬𒌝𒄀 (i.e. Sargon in Sumerian) as "sar-um-GI" which should be normalized as "Sarum-gi" not as "Šar-u[m]kīn[um]" because "Sarum" is merely the closest Sumerian pronunciation of the Akkadian "šarru(m)" and not a native Sumerian word.
 * Tangentially, and this is my own speculative independant research, but I think it's obvious that the signs used to write Sargon's name in Sumerian are responsible for the legands and SKL saying that his father was a gardener. 𒊬 /sar/ literally means "garden plot" in Sumerian; you can even see how the 𒊬 sign looks like a square garden next to an irrigation ditch. Hopelessly Quixotic Misanthrope (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2024
Remove the “far” from “far-right” when describing Carl Benjamin. 1.158.223.104 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted it to "right-wing" to match the description used on his Wikipedia page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Akkadian language problems
1. Šamaš-šuma-ukīn means "Shamash established the name", not the "heir". The "heir" would be "aplum" or "kudurru" (eldest son). 2. The king's name written usually with the -"gi" sign, and this is not indicated. 3. The "numbering" is not explained well : Sargon I is not the Akkadian Sargon, but a king of Assyria. 4. Šarru-ukīn : this is surely somebody's modification who understand some Akkadian, but there is no indication of the meaning of the name. This is "the king is legitimate", and thats it (from the "be firm, legit", kanum" adjective). It is clearly understandable by reading the syllables... After the LUGAL (Šarru) sign there is no "u" again in the texts. Usually there is a "gi", or "kin". As I am new here, I don't want to edit immediately, I will wait for the opininion of yours. Ilumael (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If you have a source that confirms what you're saying; feel free to edit the article (and add the source)! Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I have to collect the sources, and then I will edit it. Ilumael (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)