# Talk:Sargon II

are we sure the image is "Sargon and a dignitary"? I would consider the possibility that it is actually Sargon and a god. dab (ᛏ) 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the "Sargon and a god" thing too, associated with this particular image, but the new description came with the commons image, so I assumed that knowledge has improved since I read Near Eastern archaeology. It would be good to get the original source, or a paper addressing the possibilities. Stan 09:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
According to 'Une archéologie des peuples du Proche-Orient'by Huot, it is Sargon and a dignitary. Hope that helps. I think a god is unlikely, one would expect it to wear a horned crown. Djaser 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Most Assyriologists agree that it's Sargon and the crowned prince, Sennacherib. Assyrian gods and other divine beings were depicted with specific features, i.e. horns, wings, etc. Note the long cloth hanging from his headdress, which is similar to that of Sargon. This was only worn by members of the royal family. --Šarukinu 06:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Did his reign begin 5674  BC?  The date at the top says 721, but the article uses 722.
---
This article should be broken into subsections.  It'd make for easier reading than the currenty block-o'-text approach.

Why is the Syriac present? AnonMoos 08:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG!! Someone needs to deal with the red links! Either create the pages for the links, or take out the links
--BatzMonkey 18:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to do any of these things, I'm new to Wikipedia. But I would like to report plagiarism. See http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Sargon_II_of_Assyria.html  -note how many of the words are the same, such as "...he took his own life with his own iron sword, like a pig." 
Please check this out!
Thanks!
EDIT: I think in fact the other site plagiarized Wikipedia, hopefully someone smarter than me can sort this out.
thanks again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.163.139 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 

I've removed the refimprove tag from the top of the article.  It's been there three years.  It is much easier to find some citations if other editors add "citation needed" tags instead to specific statements that need support than to try and guess where others think support is needed.ANE.Scholar (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
I find the quoted block below, from the "Military Campaigns" chapter a bit confusing.

1
First of all, the chapter runs chronologically, but this block is almost in the end, though refers to events in the begining of Sargon's rule. So it could be attached to the begining.

2
I would refer to the three years siege of Samaria differently. It should be more unambigous, that he did his part in the end of that three years (inasmuch as it was really so).  Perhaps sources would be also good to show.

3
The Bible - 2 Kings 18:9-11. - does not say anything about the resettlement of Samaria by Assyrian ethnics. It speaks only about the fact of the deportation of the Israelites. (Read it!) The resettling of Samaria is described e.g. in ch. 17. Furthermore, concerning the deportation the text is formulated a bit ambigiously. (verse 11.) The "King of Assyria" is not so exact definition. It could be also Salmaneser's successor Sargon I.
The current form of the block to which I refer:
"Under his rule, the Assyrians completed the defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, capturing Samaria after a siege of three years and exiling the inhabitants. This became the basis of the legends of the Lost Ten Tribes. According to the Bible, other people were brought to Samaria, the Samaritans, under his predecessor Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 18). Sargon's name actually appears in the Bible only once, at Isaiah 20:1, which records the Assyrian capture of Ashdod in 711 BC."
Radsek (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to edit into the text of the headline, but I doubt, that the translation is right. 
Propably someone, who is responsible somehow for it, should change it. But, I think it is more simple : 
šarru  means "king", kânu : means "to be firm". The adjective is kīnu. The king's name means : "legal king", and nothing more.
(Of course, it REALLY means more, for e.g., that propably he wasn't the legal king, but it doesn't belongs here) 
The "Šarru-ukin = he [= the god] made firm the king" can't be OK, first of all, because of the "spelling" and writing of the name in the historical texts is different, secondly, because it's grammar is not acceptable, as the "šarru" is still in nominative, and not in accusative.

Additionally, refering the Akkadian Sargon as "who had founded the first Semitic Empire" is a bit misleading, because even the ruler dynasty was Semitic (as Akkadian is a Semitic language indeed), it would be better to say the first empire in the region, mentioned, that united under Semitic rule (if it matters, because at the time it does not).
Because of the definition of "empire", it contains not only more countries (or city states too, at this time) but different people as well (at this time akkadian and sumerian - mainly). I am not too familiar about the editing of Wikipedia, so this, propably bit indifferent sentence wouldn't really matter, and the discussion maybe better belongs to the "Akkadian Empire" page.
In this case, it is just an additional opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.47.11 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC) 

In the section on the death of Sargon, it says that "Sargon fell while driving the Cimmerians from Ancient Iran".  I know of no source that says that that was how Sargon ended his days - not ARAB, not Olmstead, not Roux.  The footnote for the statement is apparently to an old British Museum page.  The British Museum has redesigned its website and the link is no longer appropriate. Please provide a proper citation or correct this statement.  Miriam.2109 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sargon II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice range of editing interests you have there! I'll review soon, but at first glance I see a bunch of duplinks throughout, which can be highlighted with the usual tool.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! Yeah, had to take a historical detour but I'll make it back to paleontology eventually :)
I removed the duplinks but ignored those that were registered due to being in the lede or in image captions and also kept the one duplink to Sennacherib in the family section since I think that one's fine. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Before I continue with the text, some image issues. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Source that could be cited for the information in this map's description?[2]
Likewise for this map?[3]
So this is really strange. This map does identify another commons image which was used and does state an original source for the information used - Histoire d'Armenie by Pierre Brosset - but I can't seem to track down info on when that was published or find a way to look at a copy. Maybe the info is wrong? Maybe Pierre Brosset is actually Marie-Félicité Brosset, a 19th-century French orientalist specialized in studies on ancient Georgia and Armenia? Really lost on this one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Mistakes are rife on Commons. Not that important now, but should probably be sovled before an eventual FAC, if you're going that route. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
How do we know this Britannica image[4] was first published in Iraq?
Hmm. If there are licensing issues with this image that would have pretty large ramifications since it is used in hundreds of articles in several different languages. Looking at the journal article referenced in the description at Commons (Mallowan 1936) the same image (albeit less bright and with a ruler to indicate size) definitely appears inbetween pages 106 and 107 (as Plate VI), but Mallowan 1936 is from a British journal (albeit one called Iraq), published in London. Though Mallowan states that Sargon's head was written about in some form when it was discovered in 1931, this seems to have been in a British journal as well (he says it was in the journal A.A.A. - not sure what that is) and he talks about the head being cleaned since then, which leads me to believe that Mallowan 1936 is the original source of the image. I'm not familiar enough with British copyright law to think up how to proceed here, the image was probably taken in Iraq (since the head is in Iraq and is referenced as being in the Iraq Museum by Mallowan, but it looks like it was published in a British journal. Mallowan died in 1978 so the classic author's life + 70 years doesn't apply (if it applies to this type of image?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the Commons caption mentions the 1936 publication, but also says "Photograph: c. 1960s", which puts the PD status into question. Photos taken more than 70 years ago by unknown authors appear to be PD-UK[5], so if there is no photographer credit, we might be able to run with that for the 1936 version. But I don't think the 1960s version is going to survive a FAC. A way to find out is simply nominating it for deletion and see if someone finds a loophole... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The Commons caption has to be wrong since the picture in the 1936 journal is 100 % the same picture, the one on Commons just has the background removed. Does removing the background of an image constitute "creating" a new image (i.e. could we just change the date to 1936)? I couldn't see a photographer credit in the journal (though presumably it's Mallowan himself, though this is not specified) so maybe the Commons page could just be modified to put the date as 1936 and we could add PD-UK? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we could just link to the original source and change the date (changing a background wouldn't be enough to change copyright, by the way), and then we might get away with the PD-UK anonymous tag. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Added the source as Mallowan's paper, the date of the photo as 1936 and the PD-UK anonymous tag. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this drawing[6] needs more specific copyright info. Who drew it, and when did that person die?
I looked through the book from which the image is but couldn't find any illustrator info, the book is part of a massive 24-volume series on the entire history of mankind which has a Wikipedia article itself, A History of All Nations from the Earliest Times, but that article doesn't mention who the illustrator(s) is/are either. I tried googling around as well but still couldn't find anything. Not entirely sure how to proceed here but I believe the identification of Charles Chipiez as the creator of the original reconstruction is correct (will investigate that too), his work should be the basis of the image used here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed the book was first published in the US, so I added a more specific PD-US tag; US copyright was pretty loose back in the day, so a lot is public domain now, compared to for example Europe. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
"of modern Assyrians excavating the ruins" As you may know, modern Syriacs/Assyrians/Chaldeans/etc. have a huge, pointless rivalry about what to term themselves; the Commons description says Chaldean, but the caption says Assyrians, and saying either would be POV. I think it might be best to just leave out any ethnic term in the caption?
Oh yes, I used "Assyrians" since I figured that fit with an Assyrian king and that those that call themselves Chaldeans would at least agree that those that call themselves Assyrians are the same group as themselves but I did not consider that it might be POV to use either term. I've removed the ethnic term altogether. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The article has many impressive images, and I'm sure more can be found on Commons and Flickr, so it seems a shame that the space under "Titles" isn't used for one image?
Added an image which I think was pretty cool, depicting eunuchs carrying his throne. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Nice for the context, too! FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
"Sargon does sometime reference Tiglath-Pileser. He explicitly identifies himself as Tiglath-Pileser's son in only two of his many inscriptions and refers to his "royal fathers" in one of his stelae" Why is this present tense when the surrounding text is past tense? Probably look for this throughout.
Yeah, no idea why parts are in present tense. Fixed this instance and another one I found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't the possibility that Tiglath-Pileser was his father be mentioned already in the background section?
Yeah that makes sense. Added "After a reign of only five years, Tiglath-Pileser's son Shalmaneser V was replaced as king by Sargon II, supposedly another of Tiglath-Pileser's sons." in the first section. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"Sargon does sometime reference" Shouldn't this be "sometimes"?
Yes, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Link Harran?
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"References as late as the 670s, during the reign of Sargon's grandson Esarhaddon, to the possibility that "descendants of former royalty" might try to seize the throne suggests that" I think a comma is needed before "suggests that", the very long sentence is a bit difficult to parse.
I split the sentence into two, maybe that works better? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Link Mesopotamia in intro.
Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"Sargon II sharing the name of one of Mesopotamia's greatest ancient conquerors" Should the other Sargon perhaps be mentioned and linked here already?
He probably should be, yes. I moved the sentence introducing Sargon I and Sargon of Akkad to before this one, so that the previous kings are introduced before his name is discussed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but the lamassu image under "Legacy and assessment by historians" is a bit similar to that under "Construction of Dur-Sharrukin". Perhaps use one of these[7][8] also from the Louvre, they look dramatic and give a better sense of scale/structure?
Yeah, I agree. Went with the first image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the name section should state whether the number after his name is one applied by historians, and if possible, by who.
This one's a little tricky. Regnal numbers as they are used today appear to have been first used by the Popes in the Middle Ages (c. 12th century onwards) so the explicit designation Sargon II, which I assume is used to distinguish him from the earlier Assyrian king Sargon I, should be modern (and should be from after Sargon I was discovered). But as said in the article, Sargon also at least once explicitly called himself Šarru-kīn arkû which means "the second Sargon", effectively Sargon II, but he probably referenced Sargon of Akkad with that. I'll look around though and see if I can find the first instance of someone explicitly calling him "Sargon II" in modern times (the early examples which are mentioned in the "legacy..." section just call him "Sargon"). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
So I haven't found much on this. In the 1886 Encyclopedia Britannica, Sargon II is just "Sargon" and is given a very brief entry, which just says that he was King of Assyria from 722 to 705 BC. In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica he is given a much longer entry, which correctly points out that he took his name from Sargon of Akkad (though calls Sargon of Akkad "a famous king of Babylonia"). In 1911, Sargon II was still just "Sargon" and seemingly more famous than Sargon of Akkad (who doesn't have his own entry in the encyclopedia). It's clear that were still some problems in Assyrian chronology in 1911, Shalmaneser V is numbered Shalmaneser IV in Sargon's encyclopedia entry. I assume the chronology was settled (and Sargon I discovered?) with the discovery of the Assyrian King List, but I can't seem to find out when it was found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
In this regard, you are inconssitent in whether you refer to him as just Sargon or Sargon II, not sure how important that is.
Yeah, that's true. Looking at GAs/FACs of other monarchs with numbers, such as Gubazes II of Lazica, Manuel I Komnenos it looks like the standard way to do it is to just refer to them without numeral after they've been introduced in the lede (though there seems to be exceptions - Alexios V Doukas is referred to as "Alexios V" throughout his article). I've changed things around and removed the number from some places since I think it's clear who "Sargon" refers to most of the time, I've kept it in image captions and in cases where some disambiguation is needed since multiple Sargons are discussed (i.e. under "name", "character" and "legacy"). Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"when the Assyrians invaded the Urartians" Could need a comma before "the Urartians".
Yeah, added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if measurements should have conversions, or whether it is only for science articles.
No idea, figured that it would be good to have the conversions but they might be unnecessary? Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Km won't make much sense for American readers, for example, so might be good. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think terms in captions should only be linked at first occurrence, but no big deal.
I always just link everything in the captions, not sure if there is something in the MOS on that, but I can remove some of the links if you want. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"proclaimed as the composing the territory" One the too many?
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
"dug a new canal from Borsippa to Babylon and defeated a people" could need a comma before "and defeated".
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"He participated in the Babylonian New Year's festivals" Akitu?
Yeah, that'd be the Akitu. Linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This photo[9] of the Sargon Stele seems far superior to the one used.
Yes, I agree. The only edge the one in the article has is that it's the original stele while the one in this other image is a cast. That said, I've replaced the image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahh, I didn't notice that... Hmmm, tough one then, in a way I also think it's best to show the originals. I'd say do whichever option you personally like the best. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the cast can be used here since there is a significant quality difference, so keeping that in. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"present on his campaigns" Present during?
Changed to "during". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"Since there exists no records" Exist I think, since records is plural.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"His soldiers, familiar with these things" Things seems very informal, these actions maybe?
Yeah, changed to "actions". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The Sargon Stele seems interesting, but there is little discussion of it or why it ended up on Cyprus, perhaps worth some text?
Added more on the stele, pretty interesting stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"which didn't give" Contractions are discouraged, perhaps look for other cases.
Fixed this one and another case I found. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
"The site in Khorsabad suffered extensive damage during the Syrian civil war" But isn't it in Iraq? I know the expanse of ISIS is of course linked to Syria, but something like Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017) might be a better link.
Yeah it's in Iraq, changed link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You state he is mentioned in the Bible, and that most that is known about him is Assyrian letters, but are the other historical accounts form other places that mention him?
I'm not sure there are other historical accounts notable enough to point out in this article. There aren't as many non-Assyrian accounts of Sargon as there are for some other kings, such as Sennacherib (who besieged Jerusalem and razed Babylon, events with huge ramifications) or Ashurbanipal (who figures in Persian accounts as the destroyer of Elam). He's bound to be discussed in Babylonian documents (because he was apparently quite good at being Babylon's king), but again, not sure they would be notable and significant enough to bring up here. Until Dur-Sharrukin was found, even Assyrian sources were lacking (the great tragedy of Sargon is that everything he did was so that he would be remembered, but his death and its consequences made everyone forget him). Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That should be it, very nice to see some more articles about the ancient Near East get some attention, previously this had been all up to Attar-Aram syria. I think this could go to FAC, but perhaps a copy edit could be helpful first. FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I noticed that some of the Near East figures were not as comprehensively written about as they could be. I've addressed all the text issues (except one, but see above) and I've only got the image issues left, I'm not sure how necessary those are to rectify for GA, but of course they should be taken care of sooner rather than later. I will definitely have this go through a copy edit in the future and thanks for thinking this could go to FAC! I've got some other things I want to get up there first but yeah, I hope Sargon will get there one day. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking great, so I'll go ahead and promote. And yeah, those image issues are not essential at this stage. Assyrians and eurypterids, what a combination, hehe... I see a Dino Riders or Cadillacs and Dinosaurs spin-off coming. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator:@Antiquistik: Dear both! You know how greatly I appreciate all your fantastic contributions, but it seems our Neo-Assyrian pages have ended up using Akkadian cuneiform rather than Neo-Assyrian cuneiform for original names, an anachronism of more than a thousand years. It is especially disturbing when seeing the descriptive "Neo-Assyrian cuneiform:" followed by Akkadian cuneiform in the very first lines of these articles. I myself like to use Akkadian in notes to provide etymology, but I find it very confusing to let a script appear as what it is not in major pages. Now I am aware that it is probably a matter of installing supplementary fonts (namely Neo-Assyrian) in our operating systems, but I am pretty sure that 99.9999% of our readers don't, and will never do so... Would you agree to 1) revert to jpeg renderings of proper Neo-Assyrian when possible, until Microsoft finds a way to provide Neo-Assyrian unicode as a standard? 2) Keep the Akkadian rendering when appropriate for notes? Should Antiquistik be so inclined, since he seems to have the proper fonts, he could even do some excellent jpeg or svg renderings of the Neo-Assyrian script, and replace some of my clumsy scans... पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र:@Ichthyovenator: I am ok with this arrangement. Antiquistik (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र:@Antiquistik: I'm also okay with this - the correct contemporary rendition should be presented and it's unfortunate that the unicode implementation of Akkadian fails to cover the often quite different versions. I don't think a majority of readers are likely to install supplementary fonts. Hopefully a proper unicode implementation is added in the future for both Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)