Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sargon II/archive1

Sargon II

 * Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most successful ancient Assyrian kings. Sargon II was an imperialist conqueror under whom the Assyrian war machine tightened its grasp on the Middle East but he was also unusually progressive, especially for his time. He worked to maintain justice in his empire, increased the status of women and minority groups, and fostered good relations with both foreign rulers and the peoples he conquered. His primary goal was to initiate a new world order and be remembered for eternity, a dream which was trashed when the theologically problematic manner of his death made his son conduct an extensive damnatio memoriae campaign. Sargon's dream of reverance and remembrance among future generations was not fulfilled until his capital city Dur-Sharrukin was rediscovered by modern archaeologists in the 19th century and he was remembered once again. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * File:Sargon II proclaimed king.png, File:Capture of Carchemish.png — need to state author's date of death to use PD-old-70. Not old enough for PD-old-unknown
 * I will see if I can track down the name and date of death of the artist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the artist's name and date of death. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I am not convinced that all of the images help the reader understand the subject better, and think the article would be better off with somewhat fewer of them. I would remove some of the reliefs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed two images; I don't want the article to feel too barren of images at any point either - are there any particular images of the ones left that you feel should be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Other comments
 * I am not really sure what is meant exactly by "new world order" here, since Sargon only controlled a relatively small part of the world. This phrase has virtually no usage in English before the twentieth century, so I guess it seems a bit out of place in an article about ancient history. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Elayi (2017) p. 207 states The inscriptions relating to Khorsabad evoke a kind of new golden age initiated by Sargon, the foundation of a new world order and a new Assyrian Empire so use of the term in relation to Sargon is not something I made up. I would argue that Sargon's actual area of control has no bearing on his wishes or aspirations to inaugurate a new world order – the Assyrians also believed that the Neo-Assyrian Empire did cover the majority of the world. He expanded the Assyrian Empire by quite a lot (in his mind getting closer to completing the world conquest), instituted various quite sudden changes in policy and founded a new enormous capital named after himself. I think "new world order" describes all this pretty well and can't come up with an alternative term that carries the same effect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review
All the sources look acceptable to me. There is a heavy reliance on Elayi 2017, but I cannot find other sources to cite. Spot checks tbd (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one page from Melville 2016 is cited. Why is this book being ignored compared to Elayi?
 * This book by Grant Frame could also be used to diversify referencing. I have access to it and could send chapters as desired.
 * I'm concerned that these omissions affect the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. For example, Frame has a different theory on Sargon's lineage than is presented in the article; he argues that there's no evidence of illegitimacy. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why the article heavily relies on Elayi is that Elayi's book is the only one I can access in its entirety. I'm not sure neutrality is greatly affected; the article does say that Most historians cautiously accept that he was Tiglath-Pileser's son and it is true that most regard him to have been a usurper (which does not imply that no one regards him to have been legitimate). I agree that adding in these different viewpoints would be good from a comprehensiveness perspective. As for Frame's book, is it not largely a collection of translations or is there a large amount of relevant historical content as well (you're welcome to send if there is and I can incorporate it into the article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can send you the introduction, which does give an overview of Sargon's life. Wikimail me and I'll attach the pdf. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have sent a wikimail :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Melville 2019: this is a book review, which is not really ideal, but acceptable imo if you can't access the original source.
 * I also have access to the original source; it is a book review but it also contains some of Melville's own research and analysis. Svärd and Melville in a few cases slightly different views on the influence and power of Assyrian women so it felt good to source both since they agree on the statements made here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "which grew in size and diversity under Sargon's successors. These units were part of the military might of the empire and participated in campaigns." don't think this supported
 * It is supported by the sources cited: Svärd (which is also cited here) writes extensively on the growing size and the extra units being added to the queen's forces over the course of the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal on pages 163–166. On page 166 she writes ...seems plausible that these units were more than just an honor guard of the queen — they were part of the military might of Assyria. Melville, referencing Svärd, writes on page 691: As an example, let us consider the queen and queen mother’s association with military units. Svärd has pointed out that the Sargonid period saw a progressive increase in the number and types of troops attached to royal women, and further, that these were active combat units, not just bodyguards. As an example of partaking in military campaigns, Svärd on page 164 mentions the chariot driver Marduk-sarru-usur, part of the queen's forces, who partook in defeating Ashurbanipal's brother Shamash-shum-ukin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Bagg 2016, pp. 59, 71.
 * I don't see how page 71 has any bearing on the content. Page 59 does have a table, but it seems synthy to derive this statement from a table rather than prose. Also, a statement like this should probably be dated since it is always possible that more inscriptions may be discovered in the future, right?
 * "In terms of the variety of acts enacted against enemies, Sargon's inscriptions make him out to be significantly less brutal than many other Assyrian kings" I don't accept that this is supported since the cited source just has a table of recorded acts; it does not say that Sargon is less brutal than others.
 * You're right - page 71 does not seem relevant here. I agree that the writing of the passage in question is somewhat synthy based on the source. I've replaced it as follows: Atrocities enacted by Assyrian kings were in most known cases directed only towards soldiers and elites; as of 2016 none of the known inscriptions or reliefs of Sargon mention or show harm being done to civilians - the first part is supported by the prose and the second is supported partly by the prose and by the table (no longer says less brutal or makes a comparison of its own, just that neither medium records damage to civilians). I've also added a more proper mention of this to the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As a sidenote I've tracked down one source that explicitly calls Sargon "more lenient and less oppressive" but it's a weird fringe historical revisionist book so that can't really be used to cite anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This is out of 7 refs checked. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but this nomination has timed out.