Talk:Ur

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SCoy4542.
:@ 113.203.61.55 (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: "The Kasidim could also refer to the Kassites who were present during the time during which the Exodus occured." Has any historian or archaeologist made this connection? Or is it 19th-century Bible-talk? A source or reference for this would make it more encyclopediable, though a religious website would not be very helpful. Anything? --Wetman 13:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Kasidim" equals [[Kassites]]?

message: I think its great someone cared to edit this entry. I specified tried to write it in 3rd person so others could modify it (especially for grammar). I also largely avoided to make personal opinions, but tried to only report what I saw. I think the latest edit of it, is great, but I also think it has lost some references and some of it is actually not true anymore.
* The tourist part now is a blunt statement. Anyone, say western reading this, with no personal knowledge of this, will think “ahhh that must be like visiting the British museum”. When the fact is, it is pretty far from it. That is why a specified made a reference to Egypt. A place with similarly culture (at least compared to western), and chances is many more people have visited. If somebody reference to Egypt’s tourism as industrial and have visited a western major tourist place, they are more likely to understand the huge different between UR tourism and visiting the British museum. I think the current wording is misleading.
* The graffiti part is now not true. It should be reversed, as it is mostly with pens and occasionally carved. (Except the Ziggurat)
* It is a fact that nobody knows how the top of the Ziggurat is supposed to look.
* The part of the helicopters comes over incorrect to me.  I’m not sure what is wrong with the wording??
* Consolidations of the grave, is an opinion maybe. But anyone seeing it in the real will arrive at the same thought, in seconds. And if the graves some day collapses, this is exactly the kind of information people will be looking for “at what time was the graves in what shape”
* That part of the walls of the graves being filled with pottery debris is also fact. It can un-doubtful be worded better (I’m not an English speaker), but it is 100% facts and I can prove it (Photos). I don’t see why the whole section had to be chopped?
I'm not sure if I should just edit, since I am the original writer of it and it may get the impression that i'm bias and just want my version. Twthmoses 00:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing of your on-site report seemed a little harsh, but you get the idea:slightly more formal in approach and less personal. Do correct the text so it's accurate. --Wetman 03:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: January 2004 entry

message: I hope that everyone can detect the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in which a quote from Genesis is made to look more historical in the following:
:In Genesis xi. 28 and 31 and xv. 7, Ur is described as the birthplace of Abraham, the largest city of Shinar or northern Chaldea, and the principal commercial centre of the country as well as the centre of political power.
This is not in fact how Ur is described in the Genesis quotes, which are alluded to but not actually exhibited. This is a very familiar technique, which  everyone should be aware of. I've left it untouched in the text as a characteristic example. Anyone may edit it out if they like, of course --Wetman 04:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what “rhetorical sleight-of-hand” means, but you are indeed correct this is not what the OT says about UR. In fact is does not even specified say that Abraham is born in UR. Neither does it mention anything about largest city, Shinar (in connection with UR), principal commercial centre or centre of political power. Twthmoses 15:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Falsified Genesis quote

message: Ur means "city' in Sumerian.
But, I 'll suggest an other etymology.
Ur, Ur-uk, Sur-rupak, Er-idu, (Plus compare: greek name "Er-ytra sea" = modern Persian Gulf). What's happen?
Is it possible that these cities may found, in the ante-deluvian era (i.e. 4th or 5th millennium B.C.), by some proto-Hurrians (a hemi-indoeuropean but not semitic people)?
--IonnKorr 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Ur

message: This has been put back although the info is in the Ur Kasdim article. Does it really belong here seeing that as is explained in the Ur Kasdim article, it is not known with certainty that Sumerian Ur was Ur Kasdim, its simply the most favoured conjecture? Kuratowski's Ghost 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical Ur Section

message: Can somebody explain to me the "rumor" about Tallil Airbase overseeing Ur?  Maybe I am not reading the entry right, but Tallil is a stone throw away from Ur.  You can see this by using Google Maps, Earth or any other mapping software.  Now, if the meaning is that Tallil Aribase is conducting surveillance of the site?  That's not a rumor either.  Ur falls under the area of operations/interest for that particular base.  Surveillance of nearby sites is not suspected, it is expected.
user:jerry.mills
:Why not bring the text into line with these facts?--Wetman 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Entry

message: The city is named as 'Urima' in Sumerian cuneiform, and 'Uriwa' in Akkadian cuneiform. No inscriptions have been found naming this city as being "of the Chaldeans". Abraham's 'Ur', which is related to the word in Hebrew for 'fire' or 'light', not 'city', should be searched for in the area which the Bible says is his 'land of nativity', Aram Naharayim, i.e. northern Mesopotamia...not the Biblical Shinar, i.e. Sumer
:And which bible would that be, and what makes you think it is in any way a historical document? 81.235.193.239 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of this city is not even 'Ur'

message: Just removed information about rumors that Talil AB is watching the site.  It is not a rumor. - Jerry.mills 05:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced rumor data in 2004 Entry

message: The "All About Archeology" site has a little bit of information about Ur.  However, the site is not particularly about archeology -- it's a proselytizing site.  I haven't looked closely at the site, but I would be shocked if the site mentioned anything that disagreed with (their interpretation of) the Bible.  Should the site be listed as a reference? Chip Unicorn 17:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the Jewish Encyclopedia is already listed.  You could use exactly the same argument to get rid of that source. But this is wikipedia, so in the interest of neutrality I don't think we are going to get rid of either one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should "All About Archeology" be in the list?

message: The text "Ur at its height had around 30,000 residents' has been deleted by someone. Perhaps a better estimate could be quoted. --Wetman 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Population estimate

message: The article should be updated: "Fly into the American air base of Tallil outside Nasiriya in central Iraq and the flight path is over the great ziggurat of Ur, reputedly the earliest city on earth. Seen from the base in the desert haze or the sand-filled gloom of dusk, the structure is indistinguishable from the mounds of fuel dumps, stores and hangars. Ur is safe within the base compound. But its walls are pockmarked with wartime shrapnel and a blockhouse is being built over an adjacent archaeological site. When the head of Iraq's supposedly sovereign board of antiquities and heritage, Abbas al-Hussaini, tried to inspect the site recently, the Americans refused him access to his own most important monument." (Simon Jenkins in The Guardian, June 8, 2007). --Ghirla-трёп- 06:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the hoax part but the original said that the ziggurat area was closed off to the public. I'm not sure that was useful information even if true, but it had been there awhile without the nonsense of yesterday. Student7 (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you give sources for this statement?? I have no idea where you are getting this from, and it is complete rubbish. There have been no excavations at Ur in decades, and there won't be any new excavations in the first few years either. As for the "giant human skeleton", I really wonder what you are talking about ... Srenette (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is over 2 years old, the editor long gone. Probably refers to some television or other media nonsense. I have seen this someplace but it is bogus. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Update?

message: As of May the area of the ziggurat is entirely closed off to the public because of the recent discovery of the giant human skeleton found. Nobody at all has access to this area, including personnel from nearby Camp Adder. The owners of this area have hired famed archaeologists to find out more of these remains  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.68.125 (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give sources for this statement?? I have no idea where you are getting this from, and it is complete rubbish. There have been no excavations at Ur in decades, and there won't be any new excavations in the first few years either. As for the "giant human skeleton", I really wonder what you are talking about ... Srenette (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is over 2 years old, the editor long gone. Probably refers to some television or other media nonsense. I have seen this someplace but it is bogus. Student7 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2008

message: This seems entirely too chatty, Wiki-Travelish, unencyclopedic and blogish IMO. I think it should be drastically modified and much of it deleted. What's left should go into a site description. We really should not care whether we can visit the site or not. I expect a site on the moon or at the Antarctic or in Orlando, to be equally and logically described without a lot of touristy info. Student7 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written this section to encyclopedic standards. Not a travelog nor WikiTravel either. Please see Acropolis of Athens for comparison, a well-traveled site. The section here is still a bit too "chatty" and blogish. Student7 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Access

message: This needs a lead-in explanatory sentence which maybe the footnote has already. Presumably the US Army was there as a result of the war in 2003. Why did they remain? To protect the ruins? Student7 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The University of Pennsylvania excavated there until 1934. As far as I know there have been no ecavations since, though its always possible that the Iraqis did some work at some point and didn't publish it. Now the university is starting excavations again, which would seem to be a good case for the use of the word resume. :-) I don't think the US Army is involved. Note that the entire Archaeology section was a complete mess and I have been slowly fixing it up. At the end there will be a last pass of wordsmithing to polish it up.Ploversegg (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean by the wording. It says "archaeological work" which could mean classifying stuff that has already been excavated, but what do I know? If you think it needs rewording to clarify, go ahead. No point in digging up more than can be examined, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Resume" work

message: I noticed that all information on Ur's historical background has been removed.  What gives?  Where did all that info go?
:A vandal removed it, I've replaced it. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  You "da boss"!  :D  <Jerodian> (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ?Historical Data

message: Any user here have any knowledge/idea that the most common term for a small town in south Indian languages (has same pronunciation as Ur), Ooru came from (or any connection with) Ur ?Peopledowhattheyoughttodo (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason to think so. Human beings can only make a limited number of sounds with their mouths, and it's not unusual for unrelated cultures, by chance, to come up with similar-sounding words for similar things. It does not prove that one culture borrowed the word from the other. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 21:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Ooru''' in [[Tamil]] and [[Malayalam]]

message: Shouldn't a reference like this be added?  "Ecologically, the agricultural productivity of the Sumerian lands was being compromised as a result of rising salinity. The evaporation of irrigated waters left dissolved salts in the soil, making it increasingly difficult to sustain agriculture. There was a major depopulation of southern Mesopotamia, affecting many of the smaller sites, from about 2000 B.C.E., leading to the collapse of Sumerian culture."    This is simply from the "History/Sumerian Renaissance" section of the New World Encyclopeida.  WLohe (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Unification Church's mirror of Wikipedia, so we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental collapse 

message: According to the short chronology page "most recent work has essentially disproved the short chronology". If that's so why is it used here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.197.121 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  short chronology  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512183750/http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/dahl/dissertation.pdf to http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/dahl/dissertation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101109052317/http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/overview/current_projects/ur_iraq/ to http://globalheritagefund.org/index.php/what_we_do/overview/current_projects/ur_iraq/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206075434/http://www.cooperazioneallosviluppo.esteri.it/ to http://www.cooperazioneallosviluppo.esteri.it/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the introduction showed large red letter type - error at line 361 (if I recall accurately) - (and taking into account the unlikely fact of my having hallucinated this fact, since I couldn't attribute the edit by the previous user to the error observable on the page) - I viewed the diff page afterwards and couldn't see the red-type, obviously I'm concluding the versions page indicates the actual text and error information is an over-lay outside of the functioning of the versions (hoping this makes sense in any case). 23h112e (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit 21:24, 24 December 2017 

message: 23h112e (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new Userbox for you all (well done everybody !) 

message: The article has a UNESCO World Heritage Site tag in the infobox, but none of the actual World Heritage articles list Ur as a confirmed site, it just appears to have been nominated and evaluated along with neighbouring locations. The tag seems a bit misleading. 81.227.48.127 (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heritage site? 

message: Mostly on a formatting note, but I feel like the section on Music should either be fleshed out to include more about the Lyres of Ur, or merged with the section on society and culture with a hyperlink to that specific article. still a little unwilling to edit things, so just wanted to pop this up here before doing anything. Lperkins5825 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: I added some additional information about the Royal tombs and Great death pits that Woolley discovered. Also, I added a photo of a headdress found in the tomb of Puabi from the British Museum. SCoy4542 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit  

message: It looks like a some point someone cargo-culted a chunk about the Woooley excavation over from another web site and stuck it in the Archaeology section. Then with the passage of time it has kind of blended together with what was already there. Hopefully someone with better writing skills then I have can sort it out someday, at least cut down on the duplication.Ploversegg (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeology section duplication 

message: There's a picture captioned "Enthroned King Ur-Nammu (c. 2047–2030 BC)" without any additional context either with the picture or in the article.  Maybe the article can have an explanation of what this image is about.  57.135.233.22 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enthroned King Ur-Nammu (c. 2047–2030 BC)