Talk:History of Sumer

Sumerian King List

I posted an edit indicating that the conversation is about that which is recorded, only to see it reverted with the message "“Supposed” is the right word to reflect that they may be mythical". Whether the recorded material is mythical or not is not the issue. The fact is that it is recorded. There is no evidence indicating that it is mythical or not. People 4000 years from now might find it difficult to believe that humans actually used 100 year old combustion technology after having developed quantum technology. They might consider the records of it "mythical", but they would still be records (and also true). The possibility of something being mythical doesn't nullify the fact that it is recorded. If the idea is to make a claim that something is possibly false, then it should be stated clearly. The reason this revert should be due to unsourced material that changes the idea, but in this case, there need be no source. The article and section both clearly indicate that the conversation is about recorded material (Sumerian History and King List). If the idea is to question whether the recorded material is potentially false, then this should be clearly stated, rather than being hidden in verbiage. A much better word to describe the thought would be "potentially mythical". But again, this is conjecture, until it can be proven that either reigns are real, or fake. To say something might be false carries a burden of proof. Of the 2 references provided in the text, there appears to be no evidence substantiating whether the record is true or false. To say that it is "potentially false" is to make an unsupported assumption, thereby slanting the article one way as opposed to another, violating article neutrality, making it seem as though there is no way the length of reigns could be accurate. We do have the record. We do not have proof whether it is true or false. If the proof existed, I am sure the author of the source would be only too happy to inform the world.

What I was doing is called sticking to the facts as sourced. If someone is aware of a source that indicates the truth or falsehood of the accuracy of the list, that is irrelevant in terms of conveying the fact that the King List exists, but I would like to see the evidence, should it exist. If there is no source that can determine whether the information in the King List is accurate, my single word edit should stand. Of the reviews I am aware of for a source (https://www.librarything.com/work/1090200/reviews/173029788), there was concern that the author took the liberty to partake in speculation. That is what I see when using the words "supposedly mythical" to describe a record. In fact, I would be more likely to accept the usage "supposedly (or 'possibly') mythical lengths of reign", than "their supposed reign lengths". There is much more clarity when stating the issue clearly, but it also provides less cover for conjecture. If the source can't establish the truth or falsehood conclusively, any statements yea, nay, or anything in between are speculation, and could easily be construed as bending articles to suit an agenda, even if that agenda is skepticism. There is room for skepticism, yet the fact that the King List is a record resides well within the confines of the sources in particular, and the article, generally. Invoking skepticism takes neutrality out of the article (and trust away from Wikipedia), and places nothing but question marks in the mind, but every question inferred by the original text is one of doubt that is unsubstantiated. If a reader is unable to resolve a conflict of doubt in their own mind, the idea might be "We can help". In actuality, the doubt being "clarified" in a single direction - out of balance. A reliable source will have researched well enough to make positive statements. "Could be", "might be", "possibly", and yes, "supposed" are not positive. Making statements using the aforementioned words falls outside the domain of what can be called "reliable". It would be an entirely different matter if there were no record. All would be speculation. The potential state of reigns is not known. The actual state of their being documented is fully known. The record "may be mythical", but it is a record.

In view of the above, my edit referring to the actual known state is sourced in context, and the most accurate description by referent to the record. I would like to revert. BRealAlways (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, most of what's in the sections History of Sumer#Sumerian King List and History of Sumer#Antediluvian rulers should just simply be deleted from this article. These sections were copy-pasted into this article in 2018 (this edit and the next none) from other articles that have since been heavily revised to reflect the fact that, at least for the Early Dynastic period, the Sumerian King List has virtually nothing to do with history, and the antediluvian rulers are just purely fictional. Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: I agree. Guidance at WP:SUMMARY. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree too. I did wonder how it got there - there’s way too much coverage on these mythological rulers. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: a combination of edits from myself, Zoeperkoe, SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits has excised the mythology and replaced it with a more historical and concise sub-section here. DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a link to the SKl. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't mythology roughly equivalent to 'pseudoscience', pseudohistory' (fringe history), or 'pseudoarchaeology'? That is basically the same as saying it is a false representation of the truth. That is not to say that anything that is recorded should be stricken from the record, but if one myth is to go, then why not be consistent and eliminate all myths? To eliminate the King List is to pretend it doesn't exist. It does. Those who aren't aware of its existence would be none the wiser after reading WP. I thought the idea was to report on reliable sources (the King List being one) without prejudice. Opening a dialog to its mythical character only means the actual state of its truth is unknown. 75.86.176.155 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might want to read Sumerian King List and the literure mentioned in the references there to see why the SKL is not considered a reliable historical source for anything before the Akkadian period. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: as User:BRealAlways was editing at around the same time as the IP, he probably hadn't logged in yet. In any case, a referral to mythology is useful. And of course a big difference is that pseudoscience, etc are things people practice today. You don't practice mythology, people don't write myths. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A better way might maybe be to include a section on "available sources", where the usefulness of the SKL (and other documents) could be discussed. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that as a section heading and am not sure how to source it. I like the idea in general though. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

At least for the ED period I read an article with a good section on exactly this topic (which, by the way, again includes the remark that the SKL should not be used for this period), and I think it can be found for other periods as well. There is also quite a bit of discussion to be found, for example, on the usefulness of royal steles. Wikipedia could certainly benefit from such a section - here or somewhere else. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s a good idea. Michalowski’s chapter in the Oxford History of Historical Writng may be a useful starting point. But to be perfectly honest, that’s the least this article needs. It’s really a terrible article and needs a complete re-write. A lot of work though. DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do you discuss the usefulness of mythology? BRealAlways (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

An example: origin myths help build a national identity. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Overhaul Needed (Please Comment)

It seems to me that this article should cover the 4th millennium in greater detail. Of course that is theoretically "Prehistory" but does that distinction really makes sense in the context of Mesopotamia?

Furthermore, and more importantly, it should reflect the recent shift in thinking away from the traditional "hydraulic" hypothesis and towards more culture-centric hypotheses on the emergence of the city as expounded by Klaus Schmidt, Hans Nissen and others. It seems that "multi-causal" models which blend environmental factors with cultural ones (temples as "sacred magnets" and so on) have become sufficiently consensual among specialists to serve as a basis for an encyclopedic article.

Ideas? Nreimen (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I will start the overhaul next week-end. Nreimen (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is how I would begin, if anyone cares to read ...

Historically identified as the "Cradle of Civilization," Mesopotamia witnessed the first transition from scattered Neolithic villages into complex, stratified urban centers during the fourth millennium BCE. This development was defined by a series of transformative social and technological shifts—most notably the mastery of irrigation, the invention of cuneiform script, and the rise of a sophisticated administrative bureaucracy centered around monumental temples. Over three millennia, the region was the stage for a shifting mosaic of powers, from the early Sumerian city-states to the vast Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian empires, whose legacies in law, mathematics, and literature laid the foundational structures of the ancient world.

This history is presented here by moving beyond the traditionally dominant "Hydraulic Hypothesis." Formulated most famously by Karl Wittfogel in his 1957 work Oriental Despotism, this materialistic theory argued that the logistical demands of large-scale irrigation forced the creation of centralized, authoritarian states. Modern scholarship, however, increasingly views this model as obsolete, noting that urban growth often preceded massive canal engineering. Instead, current consensus favors a multi-factor approach that integrates environmental advantages with the "Temple-Magnet" theory. This perspective posits that cities like Eridu, Uruk, and Nippur emerged not merely as survival mechanisms, but as intentional "sacred magnets"—ideological and ritual centers that leveraged the region’s unique ecological surplus to attract, organize, and unify early human populations through a shared cosmic identity. Nreimen (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's wise to start with theories; especially the "hydraulic" one, which is outdated (and has never really been that "dominant" in Assyriology/Sumerology). If it's for a lead section, a brief overview of "Sumerian" history would be enough, in my opinion. Zunkir (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir In many cases, I agree that "theories" have no place in an introduction, but I think the history of Sumer is an exception (at least in the present situation). The shift from a materialist worldview (natural circumstances created the city) to an intentional one (the Temple created the city, as Schmidt puts it) is a deep paradigm shift which requires a warning sign. The reader needs to be told that he is going to encounter something he does not expect, and receive an explanation as to why that is. I am using the "Hydraulic Hypothesis" here as a synecdoche for the various base-and-superstructure type of approaches which have dominated Archeology in the second half of the 20th century. These have given way over the last couple of decades to the so called "multi-factor" approaches which, without neglecting the role of the environment, undreline the crucial role of intentional/symbolic/sociological innovations which gave rise to Temple worship as the focus and the genitor of the city. Although the field is now generally sold on these approaches, the general public is not widely aware of them and must therefore be forewarned of the shift in emphasis, I feel. Nreimen (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nreimen Rather than rewriting the whole article, it sounds like you should first write a paragraph about alternative ways of approaching Sumerian history (like "New approaches of Sumerian history"), with their main conclusions, and with detailed references. Pataliputra (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र The problem is that the current article is still written according to the old-style theories and it would be inconsistent to keep it if I mention the new ones in the intro Nreimen (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, it is poorly rated generally speaking (B-class) and deserves an overhaul to make it better Nreimen (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Nreimen In my opinion, don't touch to the intro, just try your hand at a paragraph or a chapter at the end of the article where you can present new theories. The article is still small (30k), so you have plenty of space to present new approaches. It doesn't seem that there is a universally-agreed way of understanding Sumerian history anyway, so presenting one or several alternatives seems to be the best way... If you work is very relevant, it will naturally outgrow the rest of the article. If you want to start from scratch, you can work on your own article in yous "Sandbox", but it might be hard to paste everything back in without opposition. You seem to be a very new user, so I would suggest you start small, and grow from that. Pataliputra (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र I have already started in my own sandbox. Could you please have a look and tell me what you think? Most of the discussion on the shift to "multi-factor" approaches is in the "Historiography" section, that I plan to keep at the end. Nreimen (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I confirm you should probably focus on a "Historiography" section. At present, your content is too theoretical and literary to replace the current, more down-to-the-facts, article. Well written though, but possibly better suited to a book than to our clunky encyclopedic style! Best (I have to go) Pataliputra (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र Could you please tell me more about why you think my text is too "theoretical" and "literary" (is it a matter of style?). Could you please focus especially on the "Paleolithic" section? Is there something wrong with it? It seems to me that I am talking only about the bare facts in it, am I not? Please take your time to answer. I am a retiree and have all the time in the world Nreimen (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

For a first approach, it's better to focus on facts before theory. So a broad description of the phases of Sumerian history. There should also be some words on chronological issues (middle/low chronology, cf. ARCANE). This seems to me to be a higher priority than writing about Temple State or Hydraulic State theories. But it doesn't mean no theory at all. You can rely on this, a very good model: https://www.academia.edu/2765905/History_and_Chronology_in_The_Sumerian_World Zunkir (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir This source seems to treat the fourth millennium in a quite cavalier and frankly inconsistent manner. On the one hand it says that most scholars are dubious about dates before 3500 BC, yet it has a chronological table with dates from long before that. I have found many sources (including undergraduate level manuals) which clearly place urban emergence at Uruk in the early 4th millennium BC (LC-1 to LC-2 transition) and consider these dates to be secure. Urban emergence at Eridu is even earlier (LC-1) A few examples:

Marro, Catherine. (2012). After the Ubaid: Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization (4500-3500 BC). Summary: Focuses on the village-to-city "transition" between the 5th and 4th millennia. It is critical for understanding why Eridu (an Ubaid powerhouse) began to be eclipsed by Uruk during the 4th millennium.

Nissen, Hans J., and Heine, Peter. (2009). From Mesopotamia to Iraq: A Concise History. University of Chicago Press. Summary: Nissen, who spent decades excavating Uruk, provides an updated look at the stratigraphic sequence of the Eanna district and how it compares to the much older foundations of Eridu. Recent Carbon-14 dates are routinely mentioned and considered secure.

To me, the book in the link above reflects the view of late 20th century Assyriology and not the most current archaeological consensus (last 20 to 30 years). IMO, the article would benefit greatly from the incorporation of this more recent research. Nreimen (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want something more recent about the 4th millennium, you can see this: https://academic.oup.com/book/37433 Nissen and Heine must be good too, and the article by Brisch seems good to me, even though it's not perfect. The best thing to do is to start from broad descriptions. If you don't start with the basics, I think it will get too complicated and you will not be able to stick to NPOV. Defining the Ubaid-Uruk transition is a work in progress, this period is still too poorly known in Southern Mesopotamia, so you won't find a "most current archaeological consensus", since there is no such thing as consensus. Zunkir (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, that you recommended, contains the following passage:

"Approaching Uruk-type objects as more than just material relics representing a culture and recognizing them as an active means for constituting and reflecting social relationships has dominated recent attempts to understand the Uruk phenomenon. In this vein, one might claim that the worldview of the southern Mesopotamian people created the Uruk phenomenon. Metaphysical concepts are crucial in this regard, as they arguably represent and constitute major aspects of the Uruk belief system" (Section, "The Uruk Phenomenon", p 207)

It seems that this reflects exactly the consensus I was referring to.

In order to guide us in writing Wikipedia articles, I think that it is worth remembering what the point of an Encyclopedia is: informing the educated public. We must therefore ask ourselves what the public wants to know about a particular topic. Here, it seems quite clear that the first question one asks oneself about early Mesopotamian history is this: Why did cities appear here first (as opposed to elsewhere) and what mecanisms led to their appearance? Fortunately recent works by many specialists have converged on a common answer: an exceptionally favorable environment + a key societal/cultural/symbolic innovation: The "big God" (a la Norenzayan) in his "House", i.e. the Temple. Even the OHANE, stuffy and conservative as it is, agrees!

For the moment, the article does not reflect this recent advance at all. What I propose is to rewrite its structure so that it does. Doing so does not in any way constitute an original work. I have already quoted many works which follow this now common line of approach. and I can quote many more. What is required here is symply to synthesize these works (another key facet of Encyclopedic work) in order to compress the gist of the matter to the size of a Wikipedia article. Nreimen (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

If I had to choose a priority between how and why, I'd choose the former. So I would like to inform first about when and where, and a description, then an attempt of explanation. And I'm not sure that the consensus you infer actually exists, you seem to be overinterpreting what Selz wrote. If you want to write this article according to Norenzayan theories, which are not consensual and not used in syntheses about Ancient Near East, then you won't respect NPOV. That's your personal opinion, not a neutral synthesis, especially if you reject references that don't get along with your personal opinion. If you can write something like the OHANE is "stuffy and conservative", that's not a good sign of neutrality. So you won't find approval here.

But maybe that's not even the main issue: what is the scope of this article? Are you really informing about "History of Sumer"? You're main interest seems to be in state formation or first urbanization, so not specifically "History of Sumer" (since you would at least have to visit Northern Iraq and Susiana). That's why I first pointed to Nicole Birsch's article which deals exactly with the topic of Sumerian History. I would expect developments about the "Sumerian Question", first writing systems, city-state formation, first empires, early long distance trade, etc. The 4th millennium is only part of this story, and one could argue about its “Sumerian” character. Zunkir (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Major alteration to the page planned.

I have posted on my personal user sandbox possible modifications I intend to add to the page; I would insert the "Neolithic Period" and "Village to city transition" to replace the current short section on this subject. The "Historiography" section will go to the end of the article. Please comment. Nreimen (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The responses to my proposals on the other thread ("Page Overhaul Considered") are unfortunately quite noticeably tinged with WP.OWN issues (attempts by incumbent editors to discourage a newcomer). I will therefore proceed with the edits and hope an edit war will no ensue Nreimen (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

No WP:OWN reactions please ...

I have done some of the modifications I intended. Please do not react in a knee-jerk WP:OWN way. If you disagree with my additions please say so here. Nreimen (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you're the one doing WP:OWN, by doing what you intended, rejecting the opinion of other contributors (not just me) and accusing solid academic publications of being "conservative". Not what I call a collaborative mindset. As I said before, I don't see why an article labelled "History of Sumer" would have sections about the Neolithic Period. And your references are too broad: e.g. "Charvát, P. (2002). Mesopotamia Before History. Routledge." No references to pages? How are we suppose to control the information? Instead of playing the victim, you should be more rigourous, starting by defining the subject. Otherwise, you will have no excuse to complain if other people delete what you have written. Zunkir (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir I cannot fall under WP:OWN, since I am a newcomer here. If you do not understand why an article on the history of Sumer should include the LC and its predecessors, I am afraid it means you do not understand very well what the history of Sumer is about. The distinction between "history" and "the Neolithic" is a completely artificial one in Mesopotamia, introduced as a result of Academic disciplinary boundaries. In fact, The period from LC-1 to the end of the ED is one big historical period during which city-based polities emerged and started to evolve. The fact that writing appears in the middle of this long stretch of time (in LC-4,5) does not warrant in any way the introduction of a break there. Writing was a secondary administrative tool in the begining and complex systems of resource distributions existed long before it appeared. The artificial breakdownd into late Ubaid, Uruk, JN and ED is due to the accidents of historiography and digging. In the last 40 to 30 years, it has become increasingly clear that the emergence of the city, then of writing, then of the use of writing as a cultural narratives transmission medium (as opposed to a purely administrative one) are phenomena that are by-products of a single seamless period of human cultural evolution: Early Sumer. Of course, the periods need to be mentioned in the article because they are still used as milestones by specialists of the field, but they should not lure us (and the reader) into the false impression of discontinuity. The role of the encyclopedic writer is to synthesize the work of academic specialists in order to make it available to the educated public. For that reason, the quirks of the specialist's jargon (like the historiographic distinction between Uruk, JD and ED, for example) should be transcended as much as possible in order to present a legible picture of the current state of the art. Nreimen (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Once again you misinterpret what I wrote. LC is not Neolithic, since it means "Late Chalcolithic", so I wasn't talking about LC at all, of course Uruk period should be included in this article. Neolithisation does not fall within the scope of an article about "History of Sumer", or just as a brief mention.

And you did not address the (much bigger) issue of the issue of the references, way too imprecise. Seems like you write what you want to write, and then give two or three entire books to justify it. You should be more rigourous in the way you cite your sources, if not what you just wrote will be overwritten, because that's what may happen if an article is not properly referenced and verifiable. That would not be WP:OWN (another unfounded accusation from you, since I did not write this article either). Just good old WP:NPOV. Basics. Read and learn Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also Wikipedia:No original research, because it looks like what you're currently doing (sloppy references are a major red flag).

Note that the name of Butterlin 2003 is Les temps proto-urbains de Mésopotamie. Contacts et acculturation à l'époque d'Uruk au Moyen-Orient, not Les temps d'Uruk. Zunkir (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir You react in a typical WP:OWN way:

• Discouraging a newcomer
• Resisting improvements that could bring an article from Class-B to Class-A
• Shooting a wall of text full of Wikipedia policy references as an intimidation tactic.

Many highly qualified specialists from various fields have been reported to have left Wikipedia in disgust as a result of such tactics. I can quote many studies on the subject by reputed sociologists and organizational behavior specialists who have studied the dynamics of Wikipedia, if you are interested.

regarding WP:CS and WP:V, the material I have introduced quite clearly meets them (your quoting them is thus obviously an intimidation tactic). Regarding, WP:NOR, the application of which is always quite subjective anyways, Wikipedia allows the author quite lot of leeway to reformulate academic language in plain English for readability's sake.

Here is a summary of those policies that I got from Google Gemini:

Wikipedia offers a surprisingly specific balance between accessibility and academic rigor. While the platform encourages "plain English" for the non-specialist, it enforces strict boundaries to prevent an author's personal "voice" or interpretations from creeping in.

The leeway given to an author exists within the tension of three core policies: No Original Research (NOR), Verifiability, and Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

==The "Plain English" Mandate (Readability)==

Wikipedia explicitly encourages authors to simplify complex academic jargon. Per the guideline "Make technical articles understandable," authors have the leeway to:

• Substitute Jargon: You may replace technical terms with common equivalents if no precision is lost (e.g., using "vehicle emissions" instead of "vehicular emissions").
• Use "Lies-to-Children" (with caution): Editors can use simplified analogies or generalizations to aid understanding, provided they preface them with caveats like "Generally..." or "With some exceptions..." to ensure the reader knows there is underlying complexity.
• Vary Sentence Structure: Authors are encouraged to use shorter sentences and active voice, which often requires significant restructuring of dense academic prose.

==The Hard Limit: Original Synthesis==

The most significant restriction is the ban on Original Synthesis. While you can reformulate how something is said, you cannot reformulate what it means.

• The "A + B = C" Rule: If Source A says one thing and Source B says another, you cannot join them to imply a Conclusion C that neither source explicitly states.
• Example: You cannot summarize a study on Neolithic tools and a study on early climate change to conclude that "climate change drove tool innovation" unless a secondary source has already made that specific connection.
• Leeway: Your role is that of a curator, not a creator. You have the freedom to reorganize information for flow, but the "intellectual leap" must always be backed by a citation.

==Avoiding "Close Paraphrasing" (Copyright vs. Clarity)==

Ironically, Wikipedia requires you to reformulate academic material to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• Creative Reformulation: To avoid Close Paraphrasing, you must move beyond the source’s sentence structure. If you follow the source’s logic and word choice too closely, it’s flagged as a policy violation.
• The Goal: You are expected to digest the academic material and rewrite it in your own words. This gives you high linguistic leeway (style, tone, vocabulary) but zero interpretive leeway (the facts must remain identical).

Nreimen (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Too confuse. Let's stick to the article. You haven't addressed how you cite your sources. How how readers suppose to find more information on what you wrote if you justify one sentence with two or three full books that contain a lot of information? Where have you seen this way of citing sources on Wikipedia? Nobody does that on Wikipedia. Because that's the best way to do original research. And, by the way, for someone who criticize recent syntheses of being "conservative", your references are not that recent (I read most of them 20 years ago). Being new doesn't excuse a lack of effort to follow the guidelines. You're simply looking for every possible way to ignore more experienced contributors and write whatever you want without respecting established conventions.

E.g. Ubaid period: are you sure a section on "Neolithic" is appropriate? Presently it is considered Early and Middle (and Late in the end) Chalcolithic. You give information about beginning of metallurgy, citing the whole Moorey's book, but not precisely where you can find the information. That not sufficient. Same for the rest of the citations. And no citation at all for the section about "monumentalization of the sacred".

"Uruk and Nippur" section. You wrote: "A similar but more expansive trajectory occurred at Uruk (modern Warka) during the fourth millennium BC. While Eridu provided the spiritual prototype, Uruk represented the first true metropolization of the landscape": where exactly did you find this information in Algaze's book? Further, for the sentence about bevelled-rim bowl, is it appropriate to cite three books that cover all the Uruk period (or much more in the case of Forest's book)? Can't you find better sources or at least provide more precise citation? "Nippur’s transition from village to city was dictated by its cosmological status as the "mooring post" of heaven and earth (Dur-an-ki)": in the 4th millennium? Where did you find this information exactly ine the two books you cited?

I could go on for a long time. I don't see any excuse to those sloppy citations. You should try to fix that instead of wasting your time trying to justify what's not possible to justify on Wikipedia. Zunkir (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nreimen. At the very least, you need to adhere to basic rules of Wikipedia referencing: almost each of your sentences needs to be referenced with page numbers so that they can be double-checked by other users. This is what makes Wikipedia a valuable tool, rather than just a series of blogs. It is even recommended that you add direct quotations from the sources, in order to increase verifiability:

• Per WP:ANNOTATION: "A footnote may also contain a relevant quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible."
• By the way "Footnotes" here refers to what many of us call "References" (such as those with <ref> tags), per WP:FOOTNOTES: "the word "Footnotes" refers to the Wikipedia-specific manner of documenting an article's sources and providing tangential information, and should not be confused with the general concept of footnotes." (...) "Footnotes are created using the Cite software extension. This extension adds the HTML-like elements <ref>...</ref>, <references />"
• A typical reference with quotes will look like this (in an example from Naqada III): <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Josephson |first1=Jack |title=Naqada IId, Birth of an Empire |journal=Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt |date=29 November 2015 |issue=51 |page=165 |doi=10.5913/JARCE.51.2015.A007 |url=https://www.academia.edu/19179915 |quote=Most of Dynasty 0 was spent at war with the Delta people, presumably to control and protect trade routes from the Levant, the source of invaluable wood, wine, and other commodities.}}</ref>. When attached to a sentence, this will look like this:

The period was characterized by constant conflict with the people of the Nile Delta, probably for the control of valuable trade routes with the Levant.

References

Of course, this constrains what you can write on Wikipedia: you can only write things that have been expressly said by academic sources, although using your own vocabulary and turns-of-phrases. But if you can backup each of your sentences with refs, pages numbers and even quotes when necessary, then nobody will object. On the contrary, if you do not follow the rules, your edits will have to be reverted. Pataliputra (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र and @Zunkir many articles on Wikipedia have sources just like mine (including some in this very article). Furthermore, mentioning a relatively obscure WP rule under threat of reversion is a typical WP:OWN tactic (genrally called "wikilawyering", look it up). Of course I will provide proper Wikipeda-compliant citations/quotations, but you cannot bully me into doing so within a set time frame. Go fix other non-compliant references first! Nreimen (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@NreimenYou asked for comments above ("Overhaul Needed (Please Comment)"), so we obliged and are giving... comments. Since you seem to be very new, we are happy to respond and help provide guidance. Please don't take it defensively. We're only trying to help. You are obviously capable of writing good prose, your work is very welcome, but you need to strengthen referencing considerably, and probably write much closer to the sources. Best Pataliputra (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र If you give advice in that spirit, that's fine ... Nreimen (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@NreimenSame impressions as पाटलिपुत्र: Why do you consistently play the victim and reply with unfounded accusation? WP:OWN is irrelevant here, you should stop that, it's only making things worse. To date, no one has deleted what you wrote, no one has set a deadline; we have simply expressed our disapproval and suggested ways to improve. Nothing unusual, and certainly nothing offensive. So it's up to you. If you always overreact to every negative comment, you will waste a lot of time. Zunkir (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir Fine. Sinon, J'ai vu que tu étais Français. Tu sais qu'il y a des tonnes de sociologues qui ont étudié Wikipedia ces dernières années et qui ont conclu que Wikipedia était "cristallisé" du fait de l'hostilité des contributeurs "installés" qui font tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour augmenter les barrières a l'entrée pour les nouveaux-venus, meme lorsqu'ils améliorent objectivement les articles. Il y a de nombreux cas documentés de spécialistes de leur domaine qui ont été dégoûtes de Wikipedia et l'ont quitté pour cette raison. Il est clair que montrer que la période allant du LC-1 a la fin de l'ED est sans discontinuité majeure est en phase avec la recherche de ces 30 dernières années et aide grandement a comprendre le phénomène de la "naissance de la civilization". Le découpage en périodes (Ubaid, Uruk, JD, ED) est un résidu des aléas de l'historiographie mais surtout a été longtemps maintenu par les frontières des disciplines universitaires (histoire vs. archéologie). Heureusement ce clivage est devenu moindre ces dernières décennies et une vision unifiée de l'histoire Sumérienne est en train d’émerger. Etant donne que la mission de Wikipedia est d'informer le public, il est grand temps que les articles au sujet de la Mésopotamie ancienne commence a refléter cette nouvelle vision. Nreimen (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

On WP:en, I only write in English. A Talk page is also intended for future contributors. The problem in your reasoning is that WP rules tend to favor current state of research, not something that is changing, or that a contributor assumes changes. That's why a lot of people that try to contribute to WP with a "scholar" mindset fail and leave, because they do original research, and WP is not the place for that. Anyway, as I wrote before, looking at your bibliography you don't seem as up-to-date as you pretend to be (but I'm not criticizing choosing those books). And you're not explicit about what you think is the new (or future?) vision of Sumerian history. If it's about reducing opposition between texts and archaeology, people like Liverani, Stone or Postgate were doing it more than 30 years ago. And for the periods you're talking about, epigraphy is very limited. Zunkir (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Zunkir I am not trying to be up to the minute. That would indeed not be appropriate for Wikipedia. My goal is just to integrate the major trends of the last 30+ years. Nreimen (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nreimen Please note that we do not Bold words in sentences, these have to be removed. Please add page numbers to your refs, many are still missing. Pataliputra (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Will do Nreimen (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)