Talk:Sargon of Akkad/Archive 1

older entries
How does a guy rule from 2270-2215 BC and die in 2279 BC according to short chronology. So much for Wikepedia awards for best articles. What does that say about lesser articles. Other sources say 2334-2279 BC. I submit the following. Narmer was born to Cush in the city Kish in 2270 BC. This is the Narmer who created Pharaoh in Year 350 (2020 BC Noah's death) and after dying in 1770 BC in Abydos as Mena (Adams year 2256) he was known to Moses 1594-1514 BC as Nimrod. Thus the 56 years could mean he was 56 in 2215 BC when he took authority. This authority however, is 26 years after he started building Babel in 2240 BC at age 30. The significance of 56 years is known to be lunar dated Venus (20,437 - 20,440 days) 56 years of 360 days and 277 / 280 days. However since 13 year Mars is more prominant as Dumuzi the Leader of the Calendar it is more significant that it is 26 years of Babel (2x13 years) just as Babel was 130x 360 days because 10x 13 year Mars is 13x 10 year decades, then add the 2x 13 years to total 156 years of Mars (156 x 360 days). (Year 602) Oct 1 of 2368 BC to his birth in Year 702to (Year 732 as Babel) Nov 18 of 2240 BC to (Year 748 as Sargon) July 5 of 2214 BC. This makes sense compared to Ur's first king in 2207 BC Reu-Aanipada, son of Peleg Mesanipada.

Sargon was born illegitimate : his mother left him in a basket down the Euphrate river like Mose. The farmer Akki raised him. He defeated king Lugalzaggesi of Uruk and conquered all the babylonian cities. He also conquered Elam, Syria and Libanon. He created the capital : Agad. He also had the biggest zigurrad built in Agad.


 * There would be no end to the original research you could submit based on your own calculations, if we allowed that here. Unfortunately, policy prohibits us from using any of it, unless you can find some published Reliable source who has said the same things.  There may well be other venues on the internet where OR is welcome, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is another legend of Sargon...
The last sentence of the article: "There is another legend of Sargon, perhaps Assyrian." And then it just stops. Does anyone know what the legend is, because simply saying there is one and then ending the article is just awkward. --Rob117 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Image is gone
Does anyone know how to restore it?--Rob117 23:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because it had no copyright tag on it. If it's your picture, why don't you try uploading it again, and tagging it properly?-- Violin  G  irl ♪ 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine and I didn't upload it; I just thought it was a cool picture and was surprised when it was gone.--Rob117 05:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The head currently pictured is the head of Sargon's grandson Naram-Sîn. There was quite some discussion about it, but a consensus has been formed of a sort based on iconographical and other evidence that this is not Sargon. There is an unpublished head made from diorite that was found in Tello/Girsu that is an exact replica of the bronze head and the stone head can supposedly be ascribed to Naram-Sîn. An image of Sargon can be viewed on one of his..., how do you say "Weiheplatte"? - dedication tablet for the building or restoration of a temple? I'll see if I can scan one in the library. Djinn al-Q. (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

big change

 * Hi, please tell me what you think...


 * I think that this is the main idea, simple and clear...


 * but needs some more work, please help.

--sharrukin 07:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In theory, I think it is better than the previous version of the article. In actuality, it needs so much work just to be halfway understandable that I was about to revert it to the previous version. Seriously, I don't even know what some of the words in the article are supposed to mean. I think I'll work on it though, to the extent that I can, as I have time.Tommstein 10:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

improvement
This page is not so clear, and there is wome work to do, maybe I will try later. Saggiga One photo of Sargon is missing, I will look for this and add it. I will also try to clean up the article and keep only scientific facts.

GA Review
This article needs clean up. "Sargon had a number of documented children." If they were undocumented, how do you know they existed? I will come back in about 7 days and see if the article has been improved and then will either pass or fail it. Argos&#39;Dad 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The language is not well-written. Examples: "While it is unknown exactly how Sargon came to power, he soon attacked Uruk, where reigned Lugal-zage-si of Umma," and Lugal-zage-si, was defeated, captured and brought to Nippur "in a carcan". What's a carcan?
 * The comment in the Later wars section ("(= Keftiu? (usually associated with Crete but here supposedly possibly Cyprus))" needs to be cleaned up.
 * I have failed this GA nomination as it has been on hold for 15 days with no response. Mike Christie (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I I have cleaned up the second part. I made extensive modifications per Argos' suggestions which were apparently ignored by Mike Christie. I am re-listing. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I see that Mike already re-listed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Language is still very choppy especially in the second part and I have tagged with a template to clean up to encyclopedic standards.-- VS talk 09:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review
There are problems with this article for which I have to fail it.

''1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct''
 * The prose and grammar are problematic in areas.
 * The founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, Sargon reigned for 56 years. There's a term for this kind of grammatical construction (I think it's "dangling somthing-or-another"). They should be avoided. --Thanatosimii 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a "dangling modifier", and there is no such rule in English. This formulation is perfectly acceptable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You rely to heavily on quotes. This interrupts the prose and makes things awkward. If you need information from the quotes, summarize it and work it into the paragraphs more smoothly.
 * As Sargon's early life as castaway river baby predates the early story of biblical Moses, a theory of reflected story lines is possible. This sentance flys out of nowhere. I can see how it relates to the section it's in, however it should be more towards the early end of the early life section, not the later end of early life. Chronologically seperate the birth stories from the early service stories. It doesn't make any sense to go flying back and forth in the narrative in a confusing manner.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * The lead doesn't summarize his life and reign very well. You shouldn't have major sections like origins and rise to power if you're not going to touch on them in the lead.

''2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles; ''
 * You need more inline citations. I could go through this page and flood it with Fact tags. Particularly in the "Rule over the Middle East" section. That's arguably the crux of the article, and you have two citations. Also, you shouldn't use ibid in wikipedia artices. The volitile way they can be edited means that the citations are quite subject to being re-ordered if a major edit happened and paragraphs were moved around. The ibid would be invalid if that happened.

Further, I question if the picture of the statue, since it isn't public domain or GFDL, is defendable. I agree an image should be used, but are you sure you can't find any kind of free replacement?

This is on its way to GA, but it's not there yet. Thanatosimii 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed many of these concerns, including correcting the inaccurate copyright tag for the image (which is not eligible for copyright in the US). Frankly I think that this article has been held to a higher standard to get to GA than many are held to get to FA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, I have to disagree with you. Each of the problems listed needed to be corrected, and many of them have, as you point out.  That said, the question is not whether other articles are being held to lower standards (this is not a competition or a race to the bottom) but whether the editors and reviewers are satisified this article meets the GA critieria.  On a seperate note, I have had better success waiting a while before renominating, but I am confident that the right outcome will be reached. Argos&#39;Dad 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
This article has improved a lot since the last reviews. I think there are only some minor issues that need to be resolved before passing it as a GA, as follows:


 * The article needs an infobox, I would suggest the use of Template:Infobox Monarch, leaving in blank entries which are not applicable
 * The last few sections should be reordered per Guide to layout. Thus, instead of "See also, External links, Notes, References", it should go "See also, Notes, References, External links"
 * Per Footnotes, footnotes should be located after punctuation marks such that there is no space in between; check the lead section.
 * The quote on the "Wars in the north west and east" section is only partially in italics, it should be all in italics.
 * The "Legacy" sections starts "Sargon's empire immediately revolted upon hearing of the king's death". However, Sargon's death has not been previously mentioned, it should be.
 * The chart of the Royal House of Akkad would be better placed under the "Family" subsection.

Per WP:GAC guidelines the editors of the article have 7 days to deal with this issues. You can contact me if you finish before that and I'll check the article again. Good luck, --Victor12 03:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work! I've now passed the article. Congratulations, --Victor12 13:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas for expansion
I compared our article with the one currently featured in the Britannica. There are some additional bits of information which, when rephrased, may be incorporated into the text of our page:


 * Very little is known about Sargon for certain: "Neither the number of years during which he lived nor the point in time at which he ruled can be fixed exactly". Furthermore, "his own name during his childhood is also unknown".
 * "The capital city of Agade, which he built, has never been located and excavated".
 * The rulers of Akkad wielded control over much of Mesopotamia prior to Sargon's coming to power: "The briefly recorded information of his predecessor Lugalzaggisi shows that expansion beyond the Sumerian homeland had already begun".
 * Sargon was the first Mesopotamian ruler "for whom, rather than Sumerian, a Semitic tongue was natural from birth", which makes it likely that he "established the region's first Semitic dynasty". It is known that "two later Assyrian kings were named in his honour".
 * "During Sargon's rule Akkadian became adapted to the script that previously had been used in the Sumerian language, and the new spirit of calligraphy that is visible upon the clay tablets of this dynasty is also clearly seen on contemporary cylinder seals, with their beautifully arranged and executed scenes of mythology and festive life".
 * Sargon's empire maintained commercial connections "with the Indus Valley, the coast of Oman, the islands and shores of the Persian Gulf, the lapis lazuli mines of Badakhshan, the cedars of Lebanon, the silver-rich Taurus Mountains, Cappadocia, Crete, and perhaps even Greece".
 * "Such was his fame that some merchants in an Anatolian city, probably in central Turkey, begged him to intervene in a local quarrel, and, according to the legend, Sargon, with a band of warriors, made a fabulous journey to the still-unlocated city of Burushanda (Purshahanda), at the end of which little more than his appearance was needed to settle the dispute".
 * Later literature ascribes the rebellions that overshadowed the latter part of his reign "to sacrilegious acts that he is supposed to have committed", but this "can be discounted as the standard cause assigned to all disasters by Sumerians and Akkadians alike".
 * The causes for the disintegration of his empire: "The troubles, in fact, were probably caused by the inability of one man, however energetic, to control so vast an empire without a developed and well-tried administration. There is no evidence to suggest that he was particularly harsh, nor that the Sumerians disliked him for being a Semite". --Ghirla-трёп- 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better to be able to attribute these to a reputable secondary source rather than a tertiary source like an encyclopedia. I'll dig around and see what I can find. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

in place of a bibliography, the EB has:
 * C.J. Gadd, “The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion,” in the Cambridge Ancient History, rev. ed., vol. 1, ch. 19 (1963), contains both general and particular bibliographies.

I think we're doing quite well at beating the EB at this one. dab (𒁳) 19:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made many of these additions, though a few were already in the text in some form or other. Will keep on incorporating them as feasible. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

EB doesn't refer to Gadd for specific claims. The approach of EB, unlike WP, is that the article is written by people who know what they're talking about, and hence don't need to cite their sources at every turn. Gadd is merely cited as a source for a more extensive bibliography. dab (𒁳) 22:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Britannica biography was penned by "Stephanie Mary Dalley. Senior Research Fellow, Somerville College, Oxford; Shillito Fellow in Assyriology, Oriental Institute, University of Oxford". She is known for such scholarly papers as "Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sargon II", so I guess we may safely cite her as an authority. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sargon I of Assyria
Appearently, some have suggested that Sargon of Akkad and Sargon I of Assyria could be the same. Anyone who knows more about this? I think this should be discussed in the text, with sources. Summer Song 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

They lived centuries apart. I know of no serious archaeologist who suggests this. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's that "some" again. Dr. Franz Willibald Some is quoted throughout Wikipedia; some editors seem to rely upon him. --Wetman 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did some digging around after Summer first posted. I found a couple of conspiracy-theory/historical-revisionist websites making this claim (one claims that Sargon of Akkad and Sargon I are both fictional inventions of Sargon II) but nothing scholarly or that would be considered a reliable source. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Appearently, this king list does. http://www.aina.org/aol/kinglist It seems that Sargon and his successors are placed where Sargon I is normally placed. Summer Song 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but how is that a scholarly or reliable source? It's just a list that appears on a website with no citation. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuneiform
The cuneiform seems to be broken. The sources only contain question marks; the list of fonts only includes rare fonts. What's the usual way to deal with this? Cema (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image of an Akkadian ruler
Is there any rationale for adding 'probably Sargon' to the image description?--Doug Weller (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Everyone belives it is Sargon, of his successor Naram Sin.Egyptzo (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Googling 'everyone' and Sargon doesn't come up with a reference.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Google Sargon image!78.2.78.95 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Flat earth brings up hits too. Categorystuff (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Polluted with shoes?
The source says that Sargon was stopped at the gate because he was "polluted with blood;" however, the article says "polluted with shoes." Could this possibly be a mistake? Someone the Person (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Time-traveling daughter
I looked at this page because I was perplexed by the lifespan given En-hedu-ana on her own page. That lifespan (2285-2250 BC) is sort of consistent with the short-chronology dating here. But this same daughter is asserted, at the bottom of the Sargon page, to have lived several decades *before* her father came to the throne, as early as the 24th century BC. (She also gets, there, the old spelling Enheduanna.)

So. Did she live a middle chronology life but have a father who lived a short chronology life? Or does something need fixing? I don't know enough about Mesopotamian chronology to venture fixing it myself, but I can tell there's a problem.

Joe Bernstein

75.165.61.131 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, I'll look into it if I have time today. Tomorrow I have two fingers operated on for trigger finger, so that will hamper me a bit. By the way, please don't leave email addresses on Wikipedia. You can set up an account, highly recommended, and enable email so that people can email you from your talk page -- look at mine, menus on the left hand side. Nice to see you here, let me know if you want any help. I hate these chronology problems as we don't deal with them adequately, due to lack of experitise I guess. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, its a mess, but I've been slowly plugging away at the chrono problem. Created Short chronology timeline to try and anchor everything to some consistent framework buthere are lots of old middle (and even long) chronology dates lying around, mainly because of all the 1911 encyclopedia content that still litters the ANE area.Ploversegg (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * The Suez Canal article is full of junk from 1911 that needs to be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no agreed-upon exact dates for anything at all, until about 711 BC -- especially for anything that happened in the 3rd millennium! I always think we should point this out, rather than give the impression it is known precisely and certainly in what year something occurred. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, people still even argue about a year or two being off here and there after 711 BC. There is a lot of value in having a standard set of dates to be used for ANE articles, but I agree completely that we shouldn't let people get the impression that ANY of these dates are exact.Ploversegg (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * I'm not convinced a standard set of dates is the way to go - it would have to be decided at project level (they seem to have done that for Ancient Egypt on the German Wikipedia by the way). Even if we do, articles should include the range of dates for Pharaohs, etc so that people don't get confused because Wikipedia doesn't match something else authoritative. Dougweller (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For Egypt there is a single set of researchers - Egyptologists. And there is a standard chronology (from Kitchen) that while people have issues with it in places everyone follows it because thats the agreed baseline. It's different in the rest of the ANE. There are seperate sets of researchers for the Levant, and Anatolia, and Mesopotamia etc. And the was never any Kitchen-like chronolgy for everyone to sign on to. It's bad enought that you have the short versus long issue (see Short Chronology) but different areas of the ANE have different takes on chronology. There is also a lot of freelancing by people assigning dates to events/people in the rest of the ANE. The bottom line is that the "real world" ANE (non-egypt) chronology is a jumbled mess. So I guess the question for the project is does it a) ignore having a coherent chronology and just let the individual editors pick the date they like b) don't use dates but just vague "circa" figures for everything, or c) have a standard timeline to keep everything organized. I'm not advocating any of the three, but one should be selected.Ploversegg (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ploversegg
 * 1 handed typing take a look here for instance, an example frpm that site:

Snefru

2655 		- 2607 2670-2620 (Krauss) 2649-2609 (Redford) 2614-2579 (von Beckerath) 2613-2589 (Shaw) 2600-2555 (Arnold) 2597-2547 (Dodson) 2575-2551 (Allen) 2573-2549 (Malek) Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.153.161 (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

where is the image?
why is the image missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.11.75 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

A GREAT WORK
THANK YOU FOR WRIETING THIS ARTICEL I ENJOYED VERY MUCH MR.WIKI IT IS SO GOOOD TO LEARN HISTORY FR FREE KEEP IT UP MY GOOD MAN SIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.162.12 (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.239.109 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

ETYMOLOGY
Shar-u-kin literally means Sir (Shar=>Sha=>Zar=>Cesar=>Kaiser) - of (u) - kings (Kin), that is EMPEROR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.239.109 (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sargon's Father
Can anyone point me to citation for the bit about Sargon's father being named La'Ibum? I have been studying Sargon for several years now and have seen the Sargon legend in english translation in many places. They all say about the same thing about Sargon's parents

"My mother was lowly; my father I did not know" or "My mother was a changeling; my father I knew not

I have never seen the version that says, "My mother was lowly; my father's name was La'Ibum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brienp (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

after much search I found this

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.2.1.4#

It is titled "Sargon and Ur Zababa" which is different from the Legend of Sargon. The two docs seem to have opposing information about Sargon's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brienp (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Nimrod
"This theory is less common today,[citation needed] as it appears certain these places were already in existence in the pre-Sargonic era." - I've added a fact tag as I can still see sources not only arguing the inspiration angle but some arguing that Sargon and Nimrod are identical. We also need a citation for the explanation as to why it is less common if we can source that it is less common. These may need attribution. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

FA?
I feel that there are some issues with this article that are unfortunately sufficiently problematic that it might eventually end up at WP:FAR. Because raising these issues on the talk page is part of taking an article to FAR, I will list issues that violate the WP:FA Criteria and therefore need to be addressed:
 * 1b comprehensiveness: there is for example no discussion of when Sargon lived and how we know (short vs middle; discussion of archaeological and literary evidence), or a survey of the contemporary or later sources that we have (which would, given the general lack and unreliability of these sources, not be a bad idea).
 * 1c well-researched: the article relies primarily on older sources. A handbook like Sallaberger & Westenholz 1999: Mesopotamien. Akkade Zeit und Ur-III Zeit is not even mentioned. There are questionable claims, for example in the lead: "Sargon's vast empire is known to have extended from Elam to the Mediterranean Sea" It is not; it is actually doubted whether his trip to Lebanon was anything more than a raid.
 * 2a concise lead: no. A lead should only summarize; this lead contains info that is not found anywhere else in the article.
 * 2b appropriate structure: no.
 * The section "Formation of the Akkadian Empire" contains completely irrelevant info (at least, for that section) on Sargon's daughter or how he respected Sumerian religion.
 * The section on "Wars in the northwest and east" contains info on the development of Akkadian; again irrelevant for the section's topic.
 * 2c consistent citations: the notes/references sections are - to put it bluntly - a mess:
 * Different citation systems are used in the notes (Kramer, Sumerians,p.xxx; Oppenheim xxx (without year); Britannica (without article title, year, or page numbers); complete citations (n. 40, 41).
 * As far as I am aware, things like "passim" are not used (or at least not encouraged) in WP.
 * The notes section should be split up in general notes and references/bibliography. In general, there is probably too much text in these footnotes anyway; if it is that important it must be incorporated in the main text.
 * The references section is full of sources that are not cited (for example all refs to Parrot; why are they there in the first place?); they should go to further reading or be removed completely.
 * References section is not consistently edited; ISBN/OCLC are mostly lacking; DOIs absent; publishers are only occasionally mentioned
 * 3 media: the infobox presents a head of Sargon and then states that it might just as well (and maybe even more likely) Naram-Sin. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I tend to agree with you. The article was featured in 2007. Our standards have changed. What was an FA in 2007 is today more likely to be considered a "GA". So yes, this is still a good article, and there aren't any glaring problems with it, but as you say, it isn't really outstanding. Personally, I have given up worrying about Wikipedia's grading system long ago. It is broken, and it attracts entirely the wrong sort of people. People who spend much time grading articles tend to get kick out of wielding "power" over other people's work, and most of the time they do not have the first idea on the topic they happen to be reviewing. This leads to the most glaring mistakes, broken articles being promoted and actual brilliant articles written by experts being rejected on flimsy grounds. So I really do not care whether this article is considered an "FA" just as long as it isn't completely broken as so may other ANE topics.

That said, your complaint about "media" (the bronze head) is without merit. It is in the nature of Bronze Age history topics that there is always a high degree of uncertainty. This isn't the article's fault. The bronze head is widely associated with Sargon in the relevant literature, so it is perfectly fair to do the same in the article. The head is still mostly associated with Sargon rather than Naram-Sin, it is just necessary to say that it is "possibly" or "perhaps" or "likely" intended to represent Sargon, as there is never going to be any way to be sure. --dab (𒁳) 10:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * also, I am surprised that the ancient biblical-literacy crank Til Eulenspiegel is back to haunt Wikipedia? I had been under the impression that these topics had been rid of this particular scourge at least? Til has shown incredible potential for disruption in past years, and it is imperative to frustrate  this renewed attack as much as possible. --dab (𒁳) 14:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to discuss the reason why I contest your edits civilly. But if you only follow the tactic of turning this into your usual personal attack fest, simply because you have admin status, I am quite prepared to take the issue further. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is my first look under the hood of a Wikipedia article, so please forgive me if I step in something that I shouldn't. I can see how the wording of the Comparative Mythology section might seem like a subtle poke at those who have an alternate point of view.  The Hebrew Bible sentence should probably be re-worded to be more neutral and certainly deserves a big "Citation Needed".  However I think the content of the section is accurate and it's relevent to show how the history of Sargon is intertwined with mythology and superstition of that era and how that has evolved into the mythology and superstition of our era (forgive the no-so-subtle poke). 50.53.39.150 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)