# Talk:Statue of Ashurbanipal (San Francisco)

Do any other editors have thoughts on this addition of a Background section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Just an FYI, I reverted this edit so the caption matches the article's prose. I hope you'd agree? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Not for that reason - we are talking about 2 completely different statues. It was originally Enkidu, but I see the image is the lead one at Gilgamesh. Someone should find out what the Louvre actually thinks. I'm fine with the background section, without which context the article is hard to follow. Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod I guess I'm confused. Should the article's text and caption say Enkidu, Gilgamesh, or both? I am unable to view the inline citations to confirm what sources actually say. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Well I don't now know which is correct - it might well be both, but a source is needed. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod Oh, I was under the impression you added the content being discussed and might have source access. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that bit - Enkidu it is then, unless the experts have changed their minds, which is possible. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Philologer: Can you please provide context and sourcing to explain this edit? Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I revised the two places that mention Maureen Gallery Kovacs.  Instead of what appeared to be an unattributed and somewhat disparaging quotation from a newspaper article, I gave a short factual description based on my firsthand personal knowledge of Dr. Kovacs, who was working on her doctorate in Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations at Yale at the same time I was working on my doctorate in Linguistics at Yale.  Her publication is a matter of public record and can be easily verified in any number of on-line library catalogues. Philologer, 4/27/2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philologer (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 

Without in any way meaning to weigh in on the dispute, I must say the way the whole thing is described here is just odd. Is is fine for Kovacs to voice an opinion, and it is equally fine for present-day Assyrians to speak up, although I am not quite sure how they relate ethnically and culturally to the civilisation of Assur almost 3000 years ago. Let me offer an analogy that I hope serves to illustrate the oddness. The famous painter Salvador Dalí painted Christ of Saint John of The Cross. Christians may well baulk at the accuracy of how Christ is depicted: as having blond curls, with the rather implausible physique of the body builder who posed for the masterpiece. The fishermen look like they belong in early 20th century Spain rather than the Sea of Galilee (which itself looks like what Dalí saw looking at his window). Well of course, there is no such controversy and nobody has objected in this manner. If anyone got it into their heads to make a stink, a reasonably person would reply that it is Dalí's personal vision, of another man's mystic vision, of the suffering of Christ. It is a work that can be judged on its artistic merits as well as on the genuineness of its religious sentiment. How is the under discussion statue any different? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:20E5:D38C:221A:CA9C (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)