Talk:Ziggurat of Ur

message: I have a much, much better picture...extremely high resolution image of the front of the structure. How can I add it?--65.188.55.90 05:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you're certain it's free to use -- for instance, if you took it yourself -- see Wikipedia:Uploading images for a guide to uploading, and WP:XIMG for how to add it to the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Picture? 

message: When you look at the photograph of the "reconstructed facade of the ziggurat", it appears to be a mirror image of the graphic of "Reconstruction of Ur-Nammu's ziggurat". In the photograph, the steps against the wall lead off to the left. In the reconstruction, the steps lead off to the right. The photo of the US soldiers ascending the steps agrees with the photo of the reconstructed facade. So, is the graphic reversed by accident?
--99.236.229.36 (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images Reversed? 

message: A few minutes ago I reverted this article back to an older version dated September 23, 2007 (September 22, 2007 my time zone).  here is my edit.  I did this because the more than two dozen edits that happened since then included a whole lot of vandalism that hadn't been completely reverted, and one possible copyright violation (if there were any good edits, they must have either been clobbered by all the vandalism, or else there were vacumes to fix it).
The copyrighted material in question seems to have come from  (in particular see ).  I wasn't able to determine what the copyright terms of the site were.  So it's possible that we are allowed to use the material.  At any rate, it looks like it might be a useful source (as long as it's unbiased and reliable).  But just having a large chunk of it copied in by one editor (see ) sort of raises a red flag for me. 
I don't think anyone else's good edits got caught up in this whirlwind of questionable edits.  If they did, I apologise.
-- Why Not A Duck 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring back all that other information please, the article isnt as good without it. Terrasidius (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About My Huge Revert (October 2, 2007) 

message: Izzedine you are correct. Majority doesnt mean truth. It means manipulation and control. The scripting on the Kephren pyramid calls it the Great Pyramid and no where on Keops pyramid is the title Great inscribed. Yet majority for centuries call Keops pyramid the great one for its mass, and height from base tho its peak elevation is lower than the peak of Kephren's pyramid. Izzedine, did you know that German WikiPedia has facts that English WikiPedia contradicts on the Venus Tablets of Aizaduga, and on the star Sothis. That's because apparently there is a bad spirit in those who control the English WikiPedia. So do not let them tell you they win truth because they are English in support of English. This hypocricy also ignores that many traditions claim the Great Pyramid of Giza is the tower of Babylon Egypt (Coptic Cairo); just as other traditions claim Nimrod's tower is in Damascus. The fact is Ur means THE CITY and that it would be labeled as Babel is no different than when Jeremiah condemned Jerusalem saying it too had also become Babylon, labeled as Babel. Thus I have no doubt the Iraqis call Ur's ziggurat as The Great One. Majority rule is not truth. If Babel's tower was started before Ur's, or before Giza, then at some early stage of Giza, the Babel tower had been taller than first stage pyramids. Most people use the word ironic as something weird when it means something opposite. Most people claim the reflective shaft of Giza's pyramid is equal, when it is not; it shows a precession angle of 92 years in angular minutes. As 2012 drew closer it was the media that chose and favored December 21 because they wanted a winter solstice ignoring the other epochs which very from August 10 to August 13. People say Giza like goose, but all Arabic forms on maps say Jeezah, and so do books 100 years ago. Movies for the 500 years of Columbus pronounced in 1992 the common modern (wrong way) of Cipango as Sipango instead of the correct way Chipango (Japango). Wiccas deny the word is pronounces as Witchas. Majority is so often wrong but it is a war they will win because they kill when they say they dont kill. They always remove my comments anywhere, even in TALK, so i copy them as the judgment against WikiPedia when it goes down. Isnt it sad that the crap has to bring the good down with it! The names that do it are frequently the same. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Elijah, this page is solely for the discussion of the Wikipedia article on the (Great) Ziggurat of Ur. Please try to stay on topic. As far as names are concerned, it is the policy of English Wikipedia to use the most common English names for things as article titles. If you disagree with this policy then a specific article is not the place to discuss it. If people are removing your comments then it's because you're misusing the talk pages for discussing things other than improving the corresponding articles in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The comment you have just posted is an example of this. Quietbritishjim (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion in 2014 

message: the article used to claim the ZoU is the "only major remainder of Ur". This, I suspect, is nonsense. If the ziggurat is today the most imposing feature of the site, it is because it has been reconstructed, not because it was in any way better preserved than the other ruins of the city. Or else this needs substatiantion from some credible reference. It would also be worth noting when it was rebuilt and under whose authority. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what is looked like during excavation . Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent find! Might this image be in the public domain? The remains are indeed spectacularly well-preserved, but they are of course the remnants of Nabonidus', not Ur-Nammu's ziggurat. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, no idea. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: well, the image must date to after 1927, so we can't assume it is in the PD by default. We would need to figure out where it was published. We can stash it under EL for now. --dab (𒁳) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: reconstruction

message: Hello Im a sophmore in highschool i have a semester exam comming up i need to know what the Ziggurat of Ur was also used for besides a place for sacrifice and worship. please respond
:*The article states: "The ziggurat was a piece in a temple complex that served as an administrative center for the city, and which was a shrine of the moon god Nanna, the patron deity of Ur."
:In the next paragraph, it states:"The construction of the ziggurat was finished in the 21st century BC by King Shulgi, who, in order to win the allegiance of cities, proclaimed himself a god". A large monument like that would have helped to validate the king's claim of divinity. In addition, such monuments in the ancient world (as now) were expressions of power, not only for the ruler but also for the people, and a testament to their organizational capabilities. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, we don't do original research. All we do is present what reliable sources have to say, and if you can find some, fine. But I'm annoyed with your post because it made me look at what Ziggurat says, and it's short section on purposes is pathetic and needs work, and now I know that I feel obliged to do it. Curses! Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This might help. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Ziggurat of Ur was used for  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ziggurat of 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20050623085340/http://www.islamonline.net:80/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/07/article_02.shtml to http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/Iraq_Aftermath/2003/07/article_02.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified