Talk:Gutian rule in Mesopotamia

message: Most famous of the Gutian kings is Gudea, a famous builder of temples and irrigation canals. — no he isn't. Or if he was, his article doesn't say so, nor is he mentioned in the King list. Please provide evidence. dab (ᛏ) 08:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: December 23, 2004

message: <BR>Not true : Gudea was not a Gutian king (he is not in the Gutian kings list).
<BR>Gudea was king of Lagash who ruled ca. 2144 - 2124 BC.
<BR>His city was small, independant and was not ruled by the Gutians.
<BR>He was a small king of a small town, not a high-king or "lugal".
:::There is no evidence that Gudea was not a Gutian. Indeed his name is a strong indication that he was Gutian at least by lineage. Blimet 07:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gudea was not a Gutian king

message: I have made a few changes.  I have capitalized  ethnic and language names whether nouns or adjectives, as this is the norm in English.  I wrote "Indo-European" in the form used in its own article, and added links to it and to "Kurdish" and "Tocharian".
I have added the word "linguistically" to the phrase on "related", to emphasize that the point here is relations of languages. "Related" in some other, perhaps genetic, sense would be meaningless under such simplistic terms when relating groups spread out over thousands of years in this mixed and turbulent region.
I changed "were long gone" to "would be long gone" to make it clearer that it is a custom, and "by the time" to better evoke the situation.
I changed "Guti's", which would mean "of a single Guti", to Guti, one of two interchangeable plurals used in the article. (The other is "Gutians"-- I suggest being systematic in the use of these two terms--what's the difference?)
The paragraph on the relations of the words "Guti", "Kurd", and "Hurrian" is garbled.  On what basis do you call an association of words "impossible"?  And if it is impossible, how does changing the direction of change make it likely? And why are you arguing against a claim that you don't cite? The phrase "it sounds more logical" is far too subjective.  For now I have changed "logical" (truth derived from premises) to "plausible", (an evaluation of possible reality), and tried to soften the opinion language.  Likewise on the evaluation of an opinion as "nationalistic".  I assume more tweaking would be good here.
Patience please, I am a newbie, Sukkoth 11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are perfectly right, the "Langauges" section was indeed completely garbled and unsourced. That's the sort of thing confused people add to Wikipedia, and it is best to just remove, per WP:CITE, WP:RS. If people want to make statements about the Guti language, they are welcome to cite their sources. dab (ᛏ) 12:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some edits, Nov 18 2006

message: According to the page on Lugal-Zage-Si, he was the last Sag-giga ('black-headed' or 'Sumerian') king. It was the Akkadians under Sargon the Great that defeated the Sag-giga ruler and were in turn defeated some 120 years later by the Gutians. The Gutians did not defeat the Sumerians when they destroyed Akkad, they defeated the Akkadians. The third paragraph read "Sumerian King Melem of Unug ..." I have corrected this to "Akkadian King Melem of Unug ...". Gabrieli 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed Sumerian to Akkadian

message: I suggest to change the title of the article into Gutis. Gutian peiod is a small period of Gutians History. Blimet 08:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment the article is at Gutian dynasty of Sumer, but I think it should reside at Gutium with the text currently there merged in with this one.  There's little enough on Gutium as a whole, let alone enough info for just the dynasty to warrant a separate article. Til Eulenspiegel 22:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gutis

message: Can we please get a decent amount of sources here? ancient articles that are important cannot be filled in with crap. --Nimrud 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I have just added some more sources. Til Eulenspiegel 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Having contributed to parts of both articles, I have for a long time noticed that some of the info here at Gutian dynasty of Sumer would better belong at Gutian people / Gutium, and vice versa.  I intend to try to straighten out the two articles, by transferring some info from one to the other, without losing any. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Transfer of info

message: The user said that the languages ​​of the Kurds are Iranian and have nothing to do with Guti.However, Gutians are known to be unclassified language and are classified as "unclassifiable language" in all Etymology codes. In other words, it is completely illogical to say that the Guti cannot be the ancestor of the Kurds because the Kurds are Iranians.Because the language of Gutians is unclassified and the user who said that Gutians cannot be Kurdish added his own comment and added that Kurds are Iranians and said that the Gutians cannot be the ancestors of the Kurds.But many modern historians and past historians agree that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Kurds. See: Soviet encyclopedia. You can see this in the sources already given, and there are many other sources stating that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Kurds. In fact, the places where the Gutian and the Kurds appeared are the same "Zagros Mountains". So there is a possibility that the Gutians are from Iran. But the Gutians are not classified, that is, to say that the language of the Guti is not Iranian and not Kurdish is just subjective opinion. And it is ridiculous to think about which nationality they are from according to the spoken language because people who speak Zaza are defined as ethnic Kurds, so I mean, according to the spoken language, it is absurd to say from that nation. All of the linguists said that Gutian language has nothing to do with tocharian. In etymology:  El-Karduhoi (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern connection theories

message: The article currently claims that this period was a Dark Age for Mesopotamia, but a golden age for at least one Mesopotamian city (Lagash), citing the same two pages in an "Illustrated History" (so, a tertiary source) for both claims. The two claims seem contradictory. Furius (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Dark Age