Talk:Eridu

message: I cut  since it was wrong. "Eridu" is an approximation of the Sumerian word for this place, and Sumerian was not, of course, written in Arabic script. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Eridu dates to the earliest phase of the Ubaid period 5,300 BCE - a lot older than 3,900 BCE. John D. Croft (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But how can it be older than the world? Remember that god created the earth 4004 BC. Can we please avoid putting such obviously false claims into a encyclopedia intended to be reliable?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.201.182 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The equation of Eridu (coming from Eridug, 5400 BCE with modern Hungarian of the 20th century is an example of the False Entomological Method (FEM) John D. Croft (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of Eridu

message: 7 miles is approximately 12 kilometers.  Since Wikipedia is not just an American encyclopedia, I suggest we use both miles and kilometers John D. Croft (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Distances

message: I did my best to match the organization of this article to the other sumerian city articles for a consistent style.  I moved some text around, but deleted nothing.  However, this article still needs a rewrite for clarity contrast it to Uruk and Nippur for example.--Gurdjieff (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup needed 

message: In which governorate and municipal district is Eridu located in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Eridu/Tell Abu Shahrain

message: Currently the article lists NUN.KI as a Sumerogram for Eridu's name. But Eridu WAS a Sumerian city. It's not like Hittite or Akkadian where they would write the Sumerian name and presumably still pronounce and decline it as though they were writing the name in their own language. Nunki would've simply been another name or nickname for the place, and the article still needs the cuneiform for Eridu(g). -LlywelynII (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, KI is simply used as a marker to show a place is being discussed. How sure are scholars that the town is being called Nunki, "The Mighty Place," instead of Nun, "The Mighty" (place)? Is there anything about the grammar that shows us it's one instead of the other? -LlywelynII (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Native Names

message: Did someone honestly just try and claim European Vinca Culture created cities? Herpaderpa. Vinca is impressive for neolithic Europe but its no Eridu. And by the way neither is Eridu Semitic (if so only moderately) as Sumerians (for the most part though it now seems Akkadian Semitics mixed with from the start) are not Semitic.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.154.255 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no older city in Siberia.  You are working with Pseudoscience here. Even the Vinca culture is not acknowledged as having built anything bigger than a small town. See Gwendolyn Leich, "Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City".  John D. Croft (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Oldest city in the world" 

message: This article has been getting worse and worse as time goes on.
for example in the intro:
"His temple was called E-Abzu, as Enki was believed to live in Abzu ("Deep Ocean")" 
then within the same article E-Abzu is spelled three different ways and the meaning of Deep Ocean/aquifer/whatever is repeated another three times.
We need to be very precise and CONSISTENT about the names not in the least because it is a translation so here are the variants
 1. "E-Abzu Temple" this is a double signal since "E" means temple already
 2. "E-Abzu" better but incorrect Sumerian transcription
 3. "House of the Aquifer" literal English translation
 4. "Abzu Temple" merges sumerian transcription and english
 5. "E2-Abzu" correct sumerian
The Ziggurat is listed as being built by Ur-Nammu and Amar Sin which one was it?
--Gurdjieff (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The first issue you mentioned probably isn't controversial, just use the best notation, and leave enough room on the line to explain that E means temple. As for the ziggurat, Ur-Nammu came before Amar-Sin and I'm pretty sure both are said to have expanded or renovated existing structures, these are in the Neo-Sumerian period after the main site was nearly abandoned. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets De-Crap the article 

message: Eru = Impregnate  
http://www.ping.de/sites/systemcoder/necro/info/sumerian.htm>--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for discussing this first. That is from something called the Necromicon research group. We need academic sources that meet WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Etymology

message: Eridu (Eri+du), similar with "İridağ" or "Eridi", comparing with modern Turkish, "iri" (means "big", "great" in Turkish), "dağ" (means "mountain" in Turkish, also "tog", "tu", "duh", "taw" in Uzbek, Kazakh, Karachay and many other Altaic/Turkic-Uralic languages)("dağ" pronounciation with Turkish "ğ" according to English: "daah"). So, Eridu might mean "Great Mountain (land)" with that. Thanks. K₳R₳US (K₳R₳US) 03:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology, close similarity with [[Ural–Altaic languages|UraloAltaica]] 

message: I'm confused by this site being described as "near Basra" since the spot marked on the map on this page and spot marked on the map for Basra's page look pretty far apart to me.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near Basra??? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I am gonna rearrange the sections to match wikiarticles Uruk Nippur Kish.  Every sumerian city should have the same structure.  Generally 1. Etytmology followed by 2. History followed by 3. Archeology Gurdjieff (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Commonality is good though I don't know there actually is much in the way of Etymology for places like Kish and Eridu. They just were what the Sumerians named them way back whenever the Sumerians actually appeared. Thats AFAIK anyway. I mean yes, Nippur is thought to mean "Enlil City" but thats a bit thin to support an article section. Granted, Sumerian language is not my strong suitPloversegg (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

text: My two cents; not sure if the History-Archaeology division is always the best. I know some editors use this format a lot, but I think in some cases good arguments can be made to divide articles (slightly) differently, if needed. Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Well, in the early days of Wikipedia they used this format Khafajah. This moved to the newer format of History-archaeology-whatever, which I am partly to blame for.:-) My view is that this should be the default EXCEPT for exceptions where it shouldn't. Places with modern cities on top will lead with the modern stuff (until we can move all those pesky people off and excavate). If all we know of history is "we found some Mitanni pottery shards so they must have been here" then feel free to move the archaeology to the top. If they found the Lost Ark at a site then clearly it should be the top section. Etc. So I guess we are in agreement. Really, even I break my rule sometimes as in Kurd Qaburstan.Ploversegg (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match to existing format 

message: Hi team, I added back the geographic names that got deleted.  Lets keep these in, it was A LOT of research to find a source these in English.  The unique geographic context of Eridu is written about in every popular book on the subject.  I think it is notable and important to have the names and details for the site physical geography and ecology.  If this (somehow) controversial to you, lets work it out here on the talk page. Gurdjieff (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: it was good stuff you little not slay idiots 216.241.207.58 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of your edit was disruptive to the article, introducing formatting errors and incorrectly changing a link. The content you added was not sourced. Newly added content that is not supported by citations to reliable sources is routinely reverted. Please note that users are required to observe civility in communicating with other users. Donald Albury 23:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  dude why did you delete my stuff