Talk:List of kings of Babylon

Ancient Near East List‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria List‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Assyria, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyria articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Iraq Unassessed

	Iraq portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Section

The numbering scheme article gives no useful information with respect to numbering of monarchs. We shouldn't include irrelevant links. john 04:32, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not linked as [[numbering scheme|numbering of monarchs]], but as [[numbering scheme]] it would be highly unusal if it would. Obviously if there were one, this would be a better link. The article lacks wikification BTW. -- User:Docu

In the meantime I added a bit to numbering scheme and I even found the specialized article. Please contribute to the list. -- User:Docu

[ro4444]:

When I edited the Sealand dynasty kings list, there was a nonspecific [5 Kings] in between Gulkishar and Ea-Gamil. I found another list that had four kings in between the two, and edited those in. However, there still may be a king missing from the list.

ok, we are getting to a point where sources should be cited: There are various contradictory lists, and rather than just blending them together, we should explain the situation, and make clear which lists have what. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.hostkingdom.net/ancmesop.html#Babylon

hostkingdom generally has reliable lists, which is why I use it.User:Ro4444

I'm afraid you don't understand. With 'sources' I don't mean web pages. I mean manuscripts, i.e. the actual lists. the website you give is horribly unencyclopedic, they don't even say which chronology they use. (Middle Chronology?) See [1] for an example of a 'reliable' source, which gives manuscript readings. I honestly don't know how you can decide whether 'hostkingom' is 'reliable', seeing that they give not a single source... dab

(ᛏ) 09:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it has a whole list of sources:

http://www.hostkingdom.net/append.html

With at least a few covering ancient times. Also, the original list was definately created from this webpage: http://www.friesian.com/notes/newking.htm#babylonia Ro4444

Writing conventions and fonts

All the special signs used by Assyriologist when transcribing words from the Akkadian language is not found at Wikipedia, and are very rare fonts anyhow. We should better limit our use to the letters in the English alphabet. This make the words more easy to find and use in an encyclopedia for non-experts. The velar h and the emphatic s and t are better written with plain h, s and t. It is doubtful even if š should be used in favour of sh, at least not in entries without a redirection to -sh-.

I have edited the king list in according to the above. --JFK 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, š / Š is included on most Microsoft Windows systems... AnonMoos 08:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Babylon

I was reading an article some time ago and I cannot quote what exactly was said: something to the affect One of kings something trying to rule these people with there many beliefs and reasonings had to be done harshly? I realize it is not much to go on but can anyone remember the king and the exact comment? stat_transfer@ hotmail.com 82.214.223.1 09:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Chris William[reply]

History will look back and view today this way:

As of 2003: the King of Babylon is George W. Bush who is a satrap for the Halliburton Empire under the dominance of his excellencey Emperor Richard Cheney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sargonious (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 February 2007

There's already enough political crap in the world without this silliness. I blocked you for 24h for adding this into the article. As an understatement, I'd call it 'unencyclopaedic'. There is political comment — journalistic — and political satire — comedy — but, Sargonious, you are neither a good or original writer, nor funny. Give politics a rest. — Gareth Hughes 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, lighten up. I don't really care. I was BEING silly. I've made countless productive edits to Wikipedia. I can't believe some of the crap that actually goes undetected that gets published here. I like keeping everyone on their toes and entertaining myself at the same time.The Tsar is Gone but I am King 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasties

There are two Ninth Dynasties. I suspect that the first group is actually part of Dynasty VIII--the website mentioned above as the original source of this list has these kings listed under Dynasty VIII--but I have no knowledge of the subject beyond that page and this, so if someone can back me up on this and fix it, that would be great.

That would clear up the following problem with Dynasty VIII, however, regarding Dynasty VII: a single ruler is not a dynasty. A dynasty is by definition a series of rulers. Perhaps someone could suggest an alternative nomenclature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.66.104 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short chronology, Tables

Would there be a problem if I tabulated the king lists and converted them to short chronology? (like the Sumerian king list) Categorystuff (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nabonidus.jpg

The image Image:Nabonidus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer

Lucifer is mentioned in the Bible as the king of Babylon. Obviously Lucifer wasn't his real name, because the Bible refers to him as "the Lucifer" (a designation of sort). But which king is Lucifer from this list? Is there a clue? 178.201.17.154 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]