Talk:Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ashurbanipal (sculpture). 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/20121103033541/http://www.auaf.us:80/Ashurbanipal%20king/Ashurbanipal%20king.htm to http://www.auaf.us/Ashurbanipal%20king/Ashurbanipal%20king.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925005058/http://www.faridparhadart.com:80/view044.htm to http://www.faridparhadart.com/view044.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) 18:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Background section?
Do any other editors have thoughts on this addition of a Background section? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, I reverted this edit so the caption matches the article's prose. I hope you'd agree? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not for that reason - we are talking about 2 completely different statues. It was originally Enkidu, but I see the image is the lead one at Gilgamesh. Someone should find out what the Louvre actually thinks. I'm fine with the background section, without which context the article is hard to follow. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod I guess I'm confused. Should the article's text and caption say Enkidu, Gilgamesh, or both? I am unable to view the inline citations to confirm what sources actually say. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I don't now know which is correct - it might well be both, but a source is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Johnbod Oh, I was under the impression you added the content being discussed and might have source access. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that bit - Enkidu it is then, unless the experts have changed their minds, which is possible. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ashurbanipal (sculpture). 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/20131029200831/http://www.auaf.us/Who%20is%20who/Art/Art.htm to http://www.auaf.us/Who%20is%20who/Art/Art.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.auaf.us/Ashurbanipal%20king/Ashurbanipal%20king.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.faridparhadart.com/view044.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Ashurbanipal (sculpture) → Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco) – WP:VAMOS has been updated and now says: "" Since there are other statues of Ashurbanipal (see Category:Cultural depictions of Ashurbanipal), we must use a more specific location. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edit
Can you please provide context and sourcing to explain this edit? Thank you! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I revised the two places that mention Maureen Gallery Kovacs. Instead of what appeared to be an unattributed and somewhat disparaging quotation from a newspaper article, I gave a short factual description based on my firsthand personal knowledge of Dr. Kovacs, who was working on her doctorate in Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Yale at the same time I was working on my doctorate in Linguistics at Yale. Her publication is a matter of public record and can be easily verified in any number of on-line library catalogues. Philologer, 4/27/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philologer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The Is It Him controversy
Without in any way meaning to weigh in on the dispute, I must say the way the whole thing is described here is just odd. Is is fine for Kovacs to voice an opinion, and it is equally fine for present-day Assyrians to speak up, although I am not quite sure how they relate ethnically and culturally to the civilisation of Assur almost 3000 years ago. Let me offer an analogy that I hope serves to illustrate the oddness. The famous painter Salvador Dalí painted Christ of Saint John of The Cross. Christians may well baulk at the accuracy of how Christ is depicted: as having blond curls, with the rather implausible physique of the body builder who posed for the masterpiece. The fishermen look like they belong in early 20th century Spain rather than the Sea of Galilee (which itself looks like what Dalí saw looking at his window). Well of course, there is no such controversy and nobody has objected in this manner. If anyone got it into their heads to make a stink, a reasonably person would reply that it is Dalí's personal vision, of another man's mystic vision, of the suffering of Christ. It is a work that can be judged on its artistic merits as well as on the genuineness of its religious sentiment. How is the under discussion statue any different? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20E5:D38C:221A:CA9C (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)