Talk:Mesopotamia

Mesopotamian Government: Akkad fell to Gutians?

I could be wrong, but wasn't it the Gutians, not the Babylonians who conquered the Akkadian empire? There should be some mention of Lugal-zage-si too, as he was the one who fell to Sargon. To imply that Eannatum and his descendants were the last Sumerian rulers before the Akkadians is false. Lugal-zage-si was even from Umma, Lagash's main rival.

Sumer is the proper term for the region, not Sumeria, correct?

Factual error in section 9.1: Kings

The section states that "The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the City of Gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods."

This is a significant misquoting of the source, which actually says, "The Mesopotamian people believed that their kings and queens were descendants from the city gods [emphasis added], but the people never believed–as did the Egyptians–that their rulers were divine gods." The full text of the cited source can be found here.

There was no "City of Gods" in Mesopotamian mythology. Rather, the ancient Mesopotamians generally believed that a king was descended from his city's patron god. For example, a Babylonian king would have been regarded as a descendant of that city's patron god, Marduk, while the king of Ur would have been seen as Nanna's descendant, and so on.

I have no expertise with Wikipedia editing, so I hope that someone in a position to do so will correct this factual error. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:a38f:3300:9d36:118c:30f7:6b99 (talk) 10:59, September 9, 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Change "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." to honestly I think just scrap the sentence entirely

The third paragraph of the philosophy sub-header under the religion and philosophy section say "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes."

citing Dow, Sheila C. (April 2005). "Axioms and Babylonian thought: A reply". Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. 27 (3): 385–391. doi:10.1080/01603477.2005.11051453. S2CID 153637070. Archived from the original on 3 August 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2019.

That actual journal abstract has the sentence as "This note explains Babylonian thought, not as the dual of classical logic but as another form of logic that is rigorous in light of the nonergodic nature of social systems, and the uncertainty this entails."

Which changes the meaning significantly, from the sentence saying 'Babylonian social systems were nonergodic because they used logic', as in the wikipedia article, to 'Babylonian logic is rigorous because of the nonergodic nature of social systems', as in the cited article.

Also of note is that the cited journal says "It is argued that Babylonian thought is one way of understanding Keynes's "ordinary logic," while Davidson's use of the term "axiomatic" appears problematic. But the ergodic axiom is so compatible with the open-systems ontology on which Babylonian thought is based that there is, in fact, scope for broad agreement."

which presents Keynes's "ordinary logic" and Davidson's term "axiomatic" as conflicting ideas which can be married together on the basis that Babylonian thought is based on an open systems ontology which is very compatible with the ergodic axiom. This notably does not present Babylonian thought as axiomatic

While the wikipedia article says "Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." Which calls Babylonian thought axiomatic and directly compares that axiomatic thought to ordinary logic Oddnumberseven (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Majore"

"They also played majore, a game similar to the sport rugby, but played with a ball made of wood."

There doesn't appear to be a source for this anywhere. Linguistically the word does not resemble Mesopotamian languages of any kind.

I believe this either needs a specific, preferably primary, citation, or should be removed. Palmerjwm (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Removed text. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Which accent Mesopotamia civilization covered modern day Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq?

mesopotamia 67.177.247.74 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

edit request 12.189.68.50 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakadians long ago conquired sumer took controll sargon and his