Talk:Gilgamesh

message: I don't see a substantial reason for the change to Before Christ in a non-Christian related article. Rupert Loup (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The "change" you refer to is merely making the era style in the article consistent in accordance with MOS:ERA. The BC/AD style of dating has been used in the article since its creation in 2002, and the only result of your edit warring is a repeated return of the article to a state in which even the very first paragraph is inconsistent in its use of BC and BCE. Have you actually looked at the article in the state you keep returning it to? Deor (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  MOS:ERA says either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. The context is about a religious figure in Mesopotamian religion. It's not related in any way to Christianity, if an era should have preference then it should be BCE, like it's used in all the other non-christian articles (i.e Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.).  Rupert Loup (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  : are you gonna give a substantial reason for the change? Rupert Loup (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  he is not proposing a change. this article has used BC for at least two years (that's as far back as i looked)WP:ERAsays leave it alone without good cause, no good reason to change so leave it as previous. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, the change was introduced in this edit by पाटलिपुत्र. "no good reason to change" I would say that sensitivity to non-Christians in WP is a good reason. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not wikipedia policy to use AD/BC on Christianity related issues only.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware that there is no established policy, that Ignore all rules is meaningless in the issue, and that the persistent bias in wikipedia hampered any change toward neutrality. And since any discussion on the subject is a sisyphean task I'm not going to engage further in this. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Era style

message: How is it that this article talks about the modern period and the connections between Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible, but in the ancient period, only talks about Gilgamesh influencing the Greeks.  Something is missing in the picture.  There was obviously influence not only on the Greeks, but also on the Hebrews, so whatever historical-phenomenological picture that is currently portrayed in the article, is clearly distorted. Please one of the expert writers of this article fix it.  Thanks.Jimhoward72 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: "In Antiquity" - no mention of Hebrew Bible?

message: He died in 1876.
:Yes, this could be clarified. Apparently, The Chaldean Account of Genesis was first published in 1876; what was published in 1880 was a new edition, edited by Archibald H. Sayce. Unfortunately, I don't have Ziolkowski's Gilgamesh Among Us (to which the information in the text and the caption is sourced) at hand, so I don't feel comfortable just changing the date without checking what the source says. Can anyone help? Deor (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In 1880, the English Assyriologist George Smith (left) published a translation of Tablet XI ..." 

message: In both his main books about Gilgamesh, Andrew R. George names him Bilgames (not Bilgamesh, or Bilgameš). You can review it in his introduction or contents or even in his other book. RousouR (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Deor: RousouR certainly has a point that the article as it stands is a little bit confusing on the language front. Clearly Gilgamesh is the common name, and should remain as such in the text - but also, the article needs to better explain that the standard Akkadian version of the text, featuring "Gilgamesh", is a version that is far from the earliest writing on the Sumerian King, which is indeed in Sumerian, names the king "Bilgames", and is older still. There is no lack of sources for this (e.g.: ). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My main objection is that if the sources we're citing call a poem "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld [or 'Nether World']", we can't simply decide to call it "Bilgames, Enkidu, and the Netherworld". If someone wants to revise the article to use the name Bilgames in all references to Sumerian stories, a revamping of the article's sourcing is needed as well. Deor (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If I could understand the need for undoing all the edits I made, I couldn't understand the need for erasing the note. It fits without revamping of article's sourcing. RousouR (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I wasn't suggesting replacing anything. Gilgamesh is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. However, the Akkadian/Sumerian differentiation is a bit breezed over at present. What really needs adding is some backstory on the Sumerian fragments that we have the predate the standard Akkadian version. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sumerian Texts 

message: If he ruled 2900-2700 bc. Isn’t that the early 3rd millennium BC?  Article says late 2nd millennium. 104.159.160.80 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that the Epic of Gilgamesh was written in the late 2nd millennium BC (long after the time when he is thought to have ruled). Deor (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: The name Gilgamesh also appears in the apocryphal Book of Giants in chapter 8, verse 8. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  name