Talk:Ziggurat of Ur

Better Picture?

I have a much, much better picture...extremely high resolution image of the front of the structure. How can I add it?--65.188.55.90 05:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you're certain it's free to use -- for instance, if you took it yourself -- see Wikipedia:Uploading images for a guide to uploading, and WP:XIMG for how to add it to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Images Reversed?

When you look at the photograph of the "reconstructed facade of the ziggurat", it appears to be a mirror image of the graphic of "Reconstruction of Ur-Nammu's ziggurat". In the photograph, the steps against the wall lead off to the left. In the reconstruction, the steps lead off to the right. The photo of the US soldiers ascending the steps agrees with the photo of the reconstructed facade. So, is the graphic reversed by accident? --99.236.229.36 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

About My Huge Revert (October 2, 2007)

A few minutes ago I reverted this article back to an older version dated September 23, 2007 (September 22, 2007 my time zone). here is my edit. I did this because the more than two dozen edits that happened since then included a whole lot of vandalism that hadn't been completely reverted, and one possible copyright violation (if there were any good edits, they must have either been clobbered by all the vandalism, or else they were attempts to fix it).

The copyrighted material in question seems to have come from [1] (in particular see [2]). I wasn't able to determine what the copyright terms of the site were. So it's possible that we are allowed to use the material. At any rate, it looks like it might be a useful source (as long as it's unbiased and reliable). But just having a large chunk of it copied in by one editor (see [3]) sort of raises a red flag for me.

I don't think anyone else's good edits got caught up in this whirlwind of questionable edits. If they did, I apologise. -- Why Not A Duck 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring back all that other information please, the article isnt as good without it. Terrasidius (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Move

I am going to move this to Ziggurat of Ur (from Great Ziggurat of Ur). Scientific reason: none of the four quoted sources for this article use "Great" when they talk about this ziggurat. Non-scientific reason: a quick google shows that most people (except this article) do not use this title informally either. Quietbritishjim (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The name is "Great Ziggurat of Ur" [4] [5] User:Izzedine (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that nobody uses the title "Great", just that it was the less common title. Going out and specifically choosing sources that call it that proves nothing: if only 1% of people call it that you could still find the odd source (which is trivial to do because of course you can just Google for the one you want). On the other hand out of the four sources and three external links on the page none use the word "Great" (some use the title Ziggurat of Ur, others just say the ziggurat at Ur), and they were chosen randomly (well, for their relevance and reliability presumably, which just adds to my point). The chances of a majority term, or even a significant minority term, not being used in any of seven random sources is very low. Besides, I would say that "Great" is enough of an emotive (promotional, even) title that the weight of evidence should be in significantly its favour to be used as the main title, when in this case the evidence is stacked against it.

The move back was a violation of WP:MOVE by the way, since this is clearly a controversial move. (I was going to move it because I thought at the time that there would be no resistance, for the reasons I've just given.) Quietbritishjim (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of the mentions of 'great ziggurat' I found are just using 'great' as an adjective, not as part of a title. I agree it should be moved. Google books gives 951 hits for ziggurat ur -"Great Ziggurat", ie searching for pages that mention Ur and ziggurat but not 'Great Ziggurat'. It should be moved. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop this attack on Iraqi heritage. It is called Great Ziggurat of Ur because it is the greatest ziggurat, a la Great Pyramid of Giza. Why do we call it Great Britain and not just Britain. Haven't you got anything better to do than dig away at a destroyed nation's cultural heritage. (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No one is attacking anyone's heritage, we are just trying to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). So far as I can see, it is not commonly called 'Great Ziggurat of Ur' -- see the discussion above. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Pyramid of Giza" has a higher search count on Google than "Great Pyramid of Giza" so if you want to move this you must also move Great Pyramid of Giza to Pyramid of Giza. I will not stand for this abasement of Iraqi heritage. The title is used in archaeology circles and by reliable sources. The actual way it is referred to is "Great Ziggurat at Ur" which has many more search results (over 8,000) than "Great Ziggurat of Ur" and only slightly less than "Ziggurat of Ur". "Great Ziggurat at Ur". Here are some sources using the title - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Izzedine (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Three comments for Izzedine (all have to go here because you just delete and ignore things on your user page):

Your behaviour: Well if the problem was that the title I was comparing against was incorrect (with "of" instead of "at"), you should have just raised that instead of irrationally fighting the move. The backhanded tactics you use (removing the section below, ignoring the requested move procedure, blanking my comment on your talk page) actually makes your argument a lot weaker than if you just tried to be civil; I consider it vandelism. I notice from your talk page's history that you do this a lot; please consider how much time people must waste chasing you up in good faith. I, for example, have wasted A LOT of time on this, and I don't even really care about this monument... I just like Wikipedia to be correct, rather than inaccurate because one person can't accept they might be wrong.

The process: To repeat some of my comment that you removed from your talk page, it is not up to Wikipedia to make decisions about names (or indeed any other matter) and impose them upon the world, but merely to report knowledge as it currently stands. This applies even if the status quo seems unjust or incorrect, for example if some lesser monument is generally known as "Great ...". You can always add information that informs about this sort of issue, for example in this article you add information that proves that the monument is great (e.g. "the oldest ..." or similar).

The actual subject: Your comparison with Great Pyramid is not like-for-like; if you use Dougweller's method you'll get something like 4.5 million vs. 8000 in support of "Great Pyramid". Unfortunately Google's page counting is not accurate, and it turns out that your "about 8000" figure from Google is really 49 (try clicking on page 6 of the results). The fact that "Great Ziggurat at Ur" is a highly infrequently used title and yet you found all those sources for it just proves my original point, that you find any number of references for any title that is used at all (this is called selection bias). Quietbritishjim (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok my last comment looks a bit silly because I had assumed that the links Izzedine had posted were actually in support of his point, when they were not (the ones I checked use "Great Ziggurat of Ur" or just "Great Ziggurat"). But the selection bias point still stands. Quietbritishjim (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are entitled to remove from their talk pages whatever they want. It is my business what I have on my talk page and removing a comment doesn't infer it wasn't read. The naming is comparable to Great Pyramid of Giza and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. This monument is afforded the title "Great" as frequently as it is not, you are trying to abase Iraqi heritage either through jealousy or chauvinism. Why don't you go and do something more worthwhile. User:Izzedine (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine, do not move this again. Common English usage prevails in Wikipedia. Get consensus first. (Taivo (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I restored the original page. The original page should be restored until the debate has matured. Izzedine (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now, five different editors have either made comments here in support of "Ziggurat" or have moved the article to "Ziggurat". One editor continues to insist on "Great". That's a fairly strong consensus at this point for plain "Ziggurat" and not "Great". (Taivo (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Two editors have commented in support of moving the page. Izzedine (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to make the same point. (Does that mean I'm part of the conspiracy to attack Iraqi cultural heritage?) Izzedine, ask s.o. else this time. I don't think you're acting reasonably, even though you can obviously be cooperative when you want to be. kwami (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you are all friends helping each other out. Izzedine (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Izzedine is once again creating wikidrama and wasting the time of good editors for no good reason. "attack on Iraqi heritage", give me a break.

The Great Pyramid of Giza, Mr. Genius, is called "Great" because there are two lesser pyramids right next to it. Is it an "attack on Egyptian heritage" to mention that the pyramids of Menkaure and Khafre are actually smaller than the "Great" pyramid of Khufu? If there were three ziggurats of Ur, one larger than the other two, I have no doubt the largest would conventionally be called "Great" too.

How about putting your zeal to some actual use to Iraqi heritage and begin learning how to write encyclopedic articles?

for example, if you want to celebrate the ancient heritage of Iraq, why not go and write the Palace of Ur-Nammu or Royal Mausolea of Ur articles, both of which are missing, and both of which are about monuments of great importance, instead of causing random and fruitless disruption at existing articles. put your money where your mouth is and let us see you do some actual work in our coverage of Iraq's ancient monuments, ok? --dab (𒁳) 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's been blocked for 48 hours - he's been repeatedly adding speedy tags to two articles after the tags were declined. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

name translation

Sumerian E-temen-nigur literally translates to "house of foundations of awe". "E" (house) here means temple, and "terror" is a somewhat unhappy translation of "nigur". In fact, I find "nigur" only in the meaning "to be clad in awesome luminosity"[15], suggesting a translation of "temple whose foundations are clad in awesome luminosity".

That the foundations are supposed to "inspire" or "create" "terror" is an interpretation, not a literal reading, just like Etemenanki isn't necessarily the "house whose foundations create heaven and earth".

I realise we cannot make up our own translation but have to stick what we find in sources, but the present translation isn't exactly solidly referenced. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out the cuneiform spelling,

𒂍𒋼𒉎𒅍𒊒 É.TEMEN.NÍ.GÙR.RU

𒂍𒋼𒉎𒅍 É.TEMEN.NÍ.GÙR(U)

--dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

reconstruction

the article used to claim the ZoU is the "only major remainder of Ur". This, I suspect, is nonsense. If the ziggurat is today the most imposing feature of the site, it is because it has been reconstructed, not because it was in any way better preserved than the other ruins of the city. Or else this needs substatiantion from some credible reference. It would also be worth noting when it was rebuilt and under whose authority. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

calling the building in the photograph a "4100 year old building" is a joke. The facade and staircase have been built under Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. The bulk of the remains that would be visible but for Saddam's building is the Neo-Babylonian reconstruction, aged 2500 years. Only the lowest level (the fundament) is a remnant of the original Neo-Babylonian ziggurat. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is what is looked like during excavation [16]. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

excellent find! Might this image be in the public domain? The remains are indeed spectacularly well-preserved, but they are of course the remnants of Nabonidus', not Ur-Nammu's ziggurat. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, no idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

well, the image must date to after 1927, so we can't assume it is in the PD by default. We would need to figure out where it was published. We can stash it under EL for now. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What the Ziggurat of Ur was used for

Hello Im a sophmore in highschool i have a semester exam comming up i need to know what the Ziggurat of Ur was also used for besides a place for sacrifice and worship. please respond

• The article states: "The ziggurat was a piece in a temple complex that served as an administrative center for the city, and which was a shrine of the moon god Nanna, the patron deity of Ur."

In the next paragraph, it states:"The construction of the ziggurat was finished in the 21st century BC by King Shulgi, who, in order to win the allegiance of cities, proclaimed himself a god". A large monument like that would have helped to validate the king's claim of divinity. In addition, such monuments in the ancient world (as now) were expressions of power, not only for the ruler but also for the people, and a testament to their organizational capabilities. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I consistently wonder why these structures - ziggurats, pyramids, henges and mott and bailey's - are always presented as spiritually relevant structures first when it seems patently obvious to me that they were all built to provide a bronze age defensive position in case of attack by outside powers. When I look for such interpretations I am inevitably met with conspiracy theory sites and people who are obviously not open-minded - i mean really, you can't link to an article as a source when in the same article or one or two "next to" it talk about crop circles as the work of aliens... Is it not at least in the spirit of wikipedia to present the possibility that these structures were not built solely to chaperone the soul into the afterlife? They provide an obvious military advantage against an attacking force, in this particular case, higher ground. We don't do original research but what if the bulk of the currently available citable research is actually already tainted by prior notions? 68.115.35.110 (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)