Talk:Sumerian King List

Section

[cut entire text copied from:] http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v12n3_sumerian.asp

Main article

See Talk:Chronology of the Ancient Orient

Name

This page should be renamed List of Sumerian Kings. freestylefrappe 05:00, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

no it shouldn't. A "list of sumerian kings" would be something compiled by wikipedians. "The Sumerian king list" is a specific (actually, several versions) ancient document. This isn't just another "List of" article. This is an article about a notable list. dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. freestylefrappe 17:16, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Who are the ancestors of Alulim?

Title

Given that this is a proper noun, shouldn't this be titled "Sumerian King List". AdamBiswanger1 23:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so. SamEV (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but an administrator needs to do it. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, as nominator. As per the above discussion, this is a proper name, and should be capitalized. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no evidence that there is anything with a formal title of "Sumerian King List". Even the sources refer to it as "Sumerian king list". I might even support a move to List of Sumerian kings or List of Kings of Sumer or the like. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The other ancient king lists (Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite etc.) are compilations of different lists, and/or archaeological findings, and are titled List of xxx kings. This article describes and tabulates the actual document, for instance leaving out the dynasties that are not included in this list. It is an important document as it stands, because we have little other information about Sumerian rulers. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not doubting the importance of the document. But what is its title? "Sumerian King List"? Or "Sumerian Kings List"? Or "List of Sumerian Kings"? Or something else? If it doesn't have an official name - which I gather it doesn't - then its article shouldn't have capitalized words in its title. The historic document is simply the main source for the list article. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Here it is, capitalized, [1], like Behistun Inscription, Sennacherib's Prism, the Weld-Blundell Prism mentioned in this article, Enûma Eliš and any other ANE document. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
• Additional Comment: The move-template had been up for an entire week to ilicit this kind of discussion, why is this discussion starting now?? Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well that's a little better. Why on earth aren't those referenced in this article? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the article needs more inline references. No, I don't have time now. And no, I will not reference 691 books with the capitalized name. Yes, I will reference the article, because I want to submit it for Featured List review. When? When I have time.
• Anyone actually involved in editing ANE articles would recognize that documents like this are given capitalized titles in Wikipedia.
• (And, happily, as I was typing the above response, another admin was moving the article where it belonged.) Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Information about the list?

It would be really nice to see some information about the list other than contents of the list. Like, where was it found, who found it, what did it look like, etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.50.122 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, current article merely discusses what is written on the artefact and does not discuss its origins and or what it is. This section needs to expanded, or the tile of the article should be changed to reflect this. Moughera (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Early Dynastic I, II and III periods

The statement "Their rules are measured in sars - periods of 3600 years - the next unit up after 60 in Sumerian counting (3600 = 60x60), and in ners - units of 600." does not fit with Sumerian numerology. A vertical wedge could mean either 1, 60 or 3600 depending on place value. From my own study it is apparent that each unit should be listed as 60 not 3600. Each of the Early Bronze Age I, II and III length of rule down to Gilgamesh should be divided by 60. If you do the math everything else fits into place. SeanT June 7th 2008 12:47AM MST -7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krkr8m (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The archeological periods are somewhat off in the article: before the flood, there were the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods. Then the early Dynastic I and II overlap the first two dynasties, and Early Dynastic III starts with the First Dynasty of Ur.Nicklausse (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The river flood you refer to has been radio-carbon dated to about 2900 BCE. Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr period was found immediately below the 2900 BCE flood layer. Kish artifacts were found immediately above the 2900 BCE flood layer. Hence the mythical kings that are listed in the Sumerian King List immediately before the sentence about the flood correspond to the Jemdet Nasr period, even though none of them have been identified in artifacts. The Early Dynastic I period is not represented in the Sumerian King List and is distinguished from ED II only by the shape of cylinder seals. I will rename the mythical kings as Jemdet Nasr kings and cite references if that is acceptable. Greensburger (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually corrected the article right away - I somehow got logged out, so it doesn't show that I did it. Nicklausse (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence was deleted: "No inscriptions have yet been found verifying kings from the Early Dynastic I period. ref Cambridge Ancient History, third edition, Vol I, part 2, page 244. /ref" What is your reference for ED I inscriptions being found? Greensburger (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's trivial, because the actual earliest inscription is mentioned several times. Sumerophile (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Was that inscription in Kish? Are some ED I kings now known? If memory serves, there is no clear distinction between ED I and II except for the shape of cylinder seals. Greensburger (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that inscription with Enmebaragesi, which is the earliest attested so far, so by implication earlier kings have not yet been attested, no matter what size their cylinder seals. Sumerophile (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thorkild Jacobsen

It seems like there should be a reference or footnote for Jacobsen, being the definitive (though not final) authority on the SKL i.e.

  Thorkild Jacobsen. The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies, no. 11.
  Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (1939) ISBN 0-226-62273-8.

Ploversegg (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)ploveregg

This list comes from the Oxford compilation: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, but I agree that we shouldn't just gloss over Jacobsen. Perhaps something could be added about his contribution to our knowledge of the king list.

Sumerophile (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the link to Chronology of the Acient Orient warps to Chronology of the Ancient Near East anyway, so it might make sense to just make it that. And I think that the reign of Sargon is really around 55 years (and the kings up to the end of his line should add to 157 years).

Ploversegg (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

Any years given come from archaeology, but the lengths of reigns (including the long reigns of earlier kings) are the traditional lengths given in the king list itself. Sumerophile (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section2/tr211.htm seemed like a decent translation of the SKL to me, but I'm newish to WP so I'll defer to your judgement. Ploversegg (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)ploversegg

It doesn't mean the traditional lengths of rule are correct, but the document exists as it is, and shouldn't be altered. I added the archaeological years for ease of reference. Sumerophile (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Early kings

This article is about the king list and what it states.

Discussion about the historicity of any of the kings belongs in the introduction, not in the midst of the list itself. In any case, there is no reason to assume there isn't a grain of truth to any of the unattested kings or to dismiss them as fictional. It would be more likely that figures with legends surrounding them, such as Gilgamesh, would be fictional additions to a king list, rather than figures with no other background that we know of. Either way, we have no way of knowing whether or not these early kings have any historical basis; the king list gives these names and it should be left at that. The introduction mentions their possibly mythical nature, but doesn't make statements beyond the information we have.

IansAwesomePizza (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely. SamEV (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If the first king reigned 28000 years based on sun cycle this is mind boggling... it makes better since he reigned in moon cycles....30 days for moon cycle x 12 months is 360. Divide 360 into 28000 and this would be 78 is his term instead....they studied the moon more than the sun for fear of being blinded by the sun God Katasbury (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Parallels to lifespans in Genesis

While there is a brief mention of the similar chronologies of the Sumerian King List and biblical narrative in Chronology of the ancient Near East, I think that it would be significant to note within this article that the pre-flood lifespans mentioned in this list parallel (despite their length) the pre-flood lifespans listed in Genesis 5. Whether or not the biblical narrative borrowed from this much earlier source is irrelevant to the topic; however, I think that some note regarding these similarities would help round out the article in matters of historical significance. Eloise872 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you make that edit, please source it, even though the parallel has been remarked on since antiquity. SamEV (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What parallel? Someone the Person (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone added a mention of the parallel, but they put that "It has been suggested that this manuscript could serve to support certain details that are set forth in the Book of Genesis, where, similarly, individuals live for an extraordinary length of time prior to a great flood, and then for a lesser amount of time after said flood." While the parallel is certainly worth noting, because the cultures may have influenced each other, saying that the Sumerian King List supports the factuality of Genesis is not in any way supported by the evidence or mainstream scholars. Also, "It has been suggested" is weasel words. Basically, until a better source about the parallel is found, the sentence should be removed.Punkrockrunner (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Could Early Kings Chronology Represent Months Not Years?

I have long had a theory that the early chronology of the kings lists are flawed because they somehow mistook months for years as if you break this down by months, 900 years would equal 75 years if those 900 years were actually 900 months. It would not be unreasonable to think they measured time differently (as they obviously did) and maybe instead of counting years, they counted months in relation to a kings rule so that while mere commoners counted their lives in annual cycles, kings and royals counted their years by monthly cycles to make them appear more godlike? That would make sense and then at some point, they too shift to annual cycles. There would be no break in how they recorded their age as possibly they just kept records but didn't revise them.

If you count their years in monthly cycles, suddenly this makes sense. This is a discussion about the Sumerian kings and chronology is important in this regard. Examine what I said and suddenly, the age of the kings makes some sort of sense. King Zamug, for instance, ruled for 120 years it says. Break it down by months and he ruled 11 years and 8 months. While King Etana would be listed as ruling for 1500 months or 125 years, maybe this was two kings with the son bearing his fathers name and in their time, they didn't separate kings who bore their fathers names and ruled after them because the people only knew that King Etana ruled and not that the son replaced the father?

Some food for thought maybe. (Armorbeast (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

We can't do much with it here, what with the WP:NOR policy and all. We have to stick to whatever analysis published sources give. Even so, nobody can assume too much about how the figures got that way, so many theories are possible. Mine is that some of them were originally counting from Enmerkar, while others were exaggerated in favor of Kish, and others were simply corrupted in the different copies. But that's also irrelevant, unless a published source held a similar view. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually beleive their days, which makes the reing fo the 8 Antedeluvian kings begin 670 years before The Flood. Lined up with Bible's pre Flood chrnlogy that's a year before Enoch was taken out of the Earth.

• days, not years. see the latest section "greetings from germany,..." -Andreas Wittner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8070:A1B6:7A00:E03E:ACFA:C757:7D9 (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Middle Chronology Vs Short

Now I'm hearing the Middle Chronology is once agian favored yet this page still only lists the Short dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.80 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Impopssibillity

LOL irt is impossible, that one ruled between the 35th und 30th century BC for 28.000 years.--217.13.79.226 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

manuscript?

Is it proper to call cuneiform tablets manuscripts? BTW Jacobson is here: https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as11.pdf 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why wouldn't an inscription made manually be a manuscript? 71.246.147.22 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of "conjectured" dates for fantastic figures

I object to User:SamEV's repeated insertion of "conjectural" dates for mythological or fantastic antediluvian figures on the list from Alulim to Ziusudra, in default of any reliable scholarly sources who consider these characters to be historical figures who really lived, let alone calculate any precise date for their supposed existence. If such a source can be found, it would be one matter. However, User:SamEV is insisting that these are the correct dates for the mythological figures arrived at by "consensus" by the wikipedia article authors, and no scholarly source specifically dating these figures is required. Apart from "WP:Ignore all rules" I can't imagine any possible justification for history being written and dates fabricated by wikipedia consensus. Per the WP:OR Original research and WP:VER Verifiability policies, we must stick to presenting only views that appear cited in independent scholarship. User SamEV has repeatedly reverted the dates back in, without addressing this or discussing, saying only in the edit summary that I need to bring it here to discussion first. Now that I've done so, if the falsified dates continue to be asserted against OR, I suggest it ought to be taken to the incident board. Philip Mexico (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to give proper discussion a chance.

What I have entered in the date field is exactly what scholars and the article claim: that the alleged antediluvians, whether they existed or not, are "purported" to correspond to the time of the Jemdet Nasr Period or earlier, i.e. before 2900 BCE, the date SCHOLARS dertermine to be that of the flood deposits found in Mesopotamia at the end of the Jemdet Nasr.

As the article already states, Enmebaragesi of Kish, a post-diluvian king on the List, has been attested archaeologically, and so it is proposed that King Gilgamesh, his near-contemporary/enemy in mythology, may also prove to have been real. It is especially in light of that that my wording preserves neutrality in regards to the antediluvians. Calling them 'mythological' outright is self-evidently not neutral.

Also, please refrain from using words like "falsified", as they violate the policy to Assume Good Faith WP:AGF. SamEV (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you have reverted again to edit war and are continuing to insist your original research is sufficient, and a source providing any such dates for these specific kings is not required, this will now have to go to ANI. While you may have a source for the "Jemdet Nasr" period, you have failed to come up with any source making the same claim you are making, that Alulim is thought by anyone to be a real king who would have reigned at the specific time you arbitrarily chose through original research. Please read the inviolable WP:OR page carefully and particularly the policy on WP:SYNTH and you will see I am correct. Philip Mexico (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

When did I claim that the antediluvians are real? SamEV (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: The verifiability of Enmebaragesi, dated more like 2400 BC, is thought by reputable scholars to lend credibility to the historicity of his "postdiluvian" contemporaries such as Gilgamesh, but not in any way has anyone suggested that Alulim through Ziusudra were historical on the basis of Enmebaragesi's existence. Without any source objecting to their universally agreed mythologicical status or showing that some scholars believe them historical, it does not seem that anyone but you has ever objected to it. Philip Mexico (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN, which is a policy here, specifically indicates that it is the responsibility of anyone seeking to add information to provide a reason for the inclusion of the information. It is any editor's right to question the inclusion of that information, and, if insufficient response is received, to even remove it. Therefore, I suggest that SamEv more clearly act in accord with our conventions here and provide himself evidence that the figures in question are counted as historical. I am going to assume that there are more than a few RS's which discuss this matter, some of them probably easily available, and it shouldn't be difficult to find sources which talk about them one way or another. If anyone has any problems finding such sources, WP:RX can help in acquiring some. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Something in the Sargon - Ur-Zababa chronology is very wrong. I dont know whether its Sargon having been inflated into a bigger than life figure, or simply Sargon is an anachronism. It's one or the other, as the narrative as it stands with the Kingdom of Kish continuing along merrily according to the table on this page, after Sargon has taken over is incoherent and makes no sense. Either Sargon has been inserted into this part of history, where he does not belong, or his founding legend is fictitious. I suspect the former as at the end of this 4th dynasty which should not exist if Sargon happens in this timeframe, the kingship apparently reverts to Unug.ki. What? Where is Akkad? This is simply not kosher. A large disclaimer should be added to this list, its nonsense.Coldcall (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Could Early Kings Chronology List Numbers of Kings per Dynasty?

Could the list of antediluvian rulers actually be a list of dynasties, with the length of the reign being the number of kings in each dynasty? There are a few reasons why this might be the case:

• The conversion factors used are sar=3,600 and ner=600. But also "sar" means "king", as in Sargon. (BTW, the sar count adds up to 66.) Specifically, "šarru" means "king" in Akkadian, per Sargon_of_Akkad. Could the scribe have chosen to write the number 3600 because it was a homophone of "king" that was easier to write (with fewer stylus markings)?
• The chronology shows the capital falling after 5 of the 8 reigns. Such a disruptive event seems more likely occur at the end of a dynasty than at the end of so many individual reigns within a dynasty.
• It seems an extremely unusual that 6 of the 8 reigns would happen to last a multiple of 3600 years. Small whole numbers suggest something discrete being counted.

However, this re-interpretation gives rise to at least two questions:

• What would the number of "ners" for the last two antediluvian kings (En-men-dur-ana and Ubara-Tutu) suggest, if not groups of 600 years? From an online search I found the book Sumerian Hymns from Cuneiform Texts in the British Museum, which seems to indicate that "ner" has something to do with "light". Could this represent a number of days (sun-lights), months (moon-lights), or years between dynasties?
• I don't want to violate WP:NOR (besides, I'm not a Sumerian scholar), so does someone know if this idea has already been published somewhere? Or considered and rejected for a good reason?

Dotyoyo (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

greetings from germany, please wake up dear 'murican slowies!

you missunderstood the numbers. if 1 sars is 3600 units and the first king with 28800 units is thought to be...well, VERY old...why the fuck did nobody of you guys EVER think of just dividing those "unit-numbers" through the 365 of 1 year? if you would do so, the first king was ~79 years old. does make much more sense. and yes, i do believe that it is possible to become over 160 years old; wolfberry for example ist the greatest "public secret" of the asian guy that went 230-256 years old. --Andreas Wittner

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sumerian King List. 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/20101107074610/http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf to http://www.etana.org/coretexts/20340.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Link

The link in the name of the city of Larag is wrong (it takes to the page of Larsa instead of Larak), but I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.101.190.155 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of this article

The major problem with with article is that it misunderstands the name of the work, which is not called "List of Sumerian Kings", "Sumerian King List". (Which itself is something of a misnomer, because many of the kings named are not Sumerian, but the work is written in the Sumerian language so the name is not entirely mistaken.) However, countless editors have assumed this is nothing more than a list of kings & thus turned this into a list article.

The significance of this work is that it is the earliest surviving work of history, & whether or not this fact is stated, the work should be presented as a work of history. There are clear examples of editorial opinion in this work. The author believed that Sumer -- the lower part of Mesopotamia, in distinction of the northern part known as Babylonia -- only ever had one king at a time. He ignores a number of kings otherwise attested, both of the cities he includes (e.g., Kish, Uruk, Kish), & entirely ignores rulers of other cities. Experts have proposed reasons for the composition of this work (namely, to provide legitimacy for certain rulers). They have even identified the parts of this text that were written first, & which parts were added to it.

In short, it is difficult not to conclude this article needs a fairly thorough re-writing. Such details as date & place of creation, as well as its reliability -- i.e., personages excluded, the issue of fabulously long dates for the earliest kings -- & all of the space devoted to listing kings removed. (Dynasties of Sumerian & other Mesopotamian kings can be offloaded to other articles.) If no one else does this, I will add it to my list of things to do when I get the time. -- llywrch (talk) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

1) I would say that the top, non-list, part of the article is pretty good. Naturally it could be expanded but then the same could be said of many wiki articles

2) The really long regnal dates are indeed unlikely but that is what is written on the tablet ie "16 SAR" or whatever. One might wish that was not true but that is not for us to change, no more than I could decide that the Sermon on the Mount actually said "Blessed Are the Cheesemakers".

3) And to the point, I would say that the "kings list" is an entity in it's own right, independent of the many scribal treatments, errors, and slants, that occured over the milenia. There has been an near pedantic movement on the wiki that articles are articles and lists are lists but never the twain shall meet but I would say that there are going to be Exceptions to that "rule" and that the SKL may be one of those exceptions. So I would think it best to leave it as is. Naturally if the Consenus is for spliting it up that I am fine with that.

4) At a glance it appears "most" of the rulers are indeed Sumerian. I suppose we could do a head count. :-) Ploversegg (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, Debrett's Peerage should be primarily a list of names, amplified with comments not found in the work. -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Llywrch: I've taken the liberty of changing the article type. I agree that this is not a list article, but an article about a literary composition that happens to list rulers. It would be better to compare this article to articles about novels: rather than just repeating what's in the novel (as this article does at the moment), the article should be about when, where, why and by whom the composition was created and changed. The complete text is available elsewhere (it's even linked in this article), so Wikipedia has no need to repeat its entire contents, just as it does not repeat the entire contents of a novel. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's an interesting example of the kind of article that this one about the Sumerian King List could be: Lebor Gabála Érenn. That article summarizes the content of the text instead of repeating it verbatim, and provides a lot more detail on when and why it was composed, and the different versions that exist. Just to give an idea of what's possible... --Zoeperkoe (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Bold revision and update

I've done a thorough update and revision of the entire article to include scholarship on the Sumerian King List from the last few decades, notably the point that the list is not anymore considered an important source for the reconstruction of the political history of Mesopotamia during the Early Dynastic period, but that it should rather be considered as some sort of political pamphlet to legitimize the claims to power of several Mesopotamian city-states. The changes I've made can be summarized as follows:

• intro: completely rewritten
• section on naming conventions: where does the name SKL come from, and how is the term dynasty used
• section on sources: rewritten to better summarize where the texts came from, how many there are and how they are different from each other
• section on contents: this section was previously a table listing every king mentioned in the king list with an estimate of when they were supposed to have ruled. In line with how many other Wikipedia articles on ancient/medieval/older texts are structured (i.e. not include an entire text but summarize and describe its contents), I've replaced these tables with a written summary of the contents of the SKL, focussing on the repetitive character of the text, providing a sample quote and some other interesting details. Details on individual kings are still available in the respective articles so I don't think much information is lost from WP by removing the tables.
• discussion section: extensive discussion of when, where and why the Sumerian King List was created and how it was edited over time, discussion of how estimates of when each king reigned were made in the past, and discussion of why the list is not anymore considered a reliable historical source
• references: updated to include a number of important studies that were not used in the previous version of this article. The article is now also fully referenced.
• template:sumerian king list: updated to include links to every dynasty and king where available, so this is now the main tool to "navigate" through the kinst list.

Best, --Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This last change was very bad in that it erased the complete list. That is very useful information, in fact is the core of what this article should be about and I dare to say, exactly what people look for when they search for "Sumerian King List". Please restore the original list.

Hard disagree on that the list should be included; the SKL is a document. I'm working on creating a separate "List of Sumerian rulers" which would be more appropriate. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

There really aren't many Sumerian Rulers aside from UR III. Lots of rulers of Sumer but many, perhaps most of them weren't Sumerian. Anyway, to address the point, is there a good pointer to the actual list, perhaps an External Link even, that can be added to the SKL article so people can find it if that is what they want? In that case including the actual list would be not required.Ploversegg (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if I ever complete the list it would be "kings/rulers of Sumer", not "Sumerian kings/rulers". I think your suggestion is good - I've added two external links to decent online translations of the SKL (the ETCSL and Livius.org). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

While this article is mostly about the document, the reason I searched for it in the first place was to find the list of Kings and I assume many other people do the same. This article is much poorer without the list itself. If this article will not contain the list, then a new article should be created called "List of Sumerian kings and dynasties" or something similar. While most of the kings in the list cannot be historically attested, the same is true for example for the early Chinese dynasties like the Xia and we have articles with the list of all the Xia kings such as "List of Chinese monarchs".

Many of the kings in the SKL are not just "not attested" but also have to be fictional or greatly exaggerated. I agree that a "List of Sumerian kings and dynasties" should be created, and work is being done but slowly because of the great amount of kings and the sources needed. Just adding in the list here, unsourced at that, is detrimental and could easily be seen as implying that the list's content is historically factual. The summary style used here now is the superior option. It is worth pointing out that we already have the List of Mesopotamian dynasties, though it's in a quite poor state at the moment, and the "Rulers in the Sumerian King List" template at the bottom of this article, that links to all the rulers in the list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the historicity of the list and how many of the kings could have just been invented by later authors, the same can be said of the earlier Chinese dynasties, the kings of Rome, etc. For example the article "List of Kings of Sparta" includes Menelaus along later historical kings. The list that we had before here contained valuable information such as noticing for example that Enmebaragesi was the first king of the list to be attested in archaeology. Ideally we should have a list that includes both the attested and non-attested kings while noticing which ones have been attested by archaeology and which ones cannot be proven to be more than legendary. This is the norm in other Wikipedia articles of ancient dynasties and lists of rulers.

I agree, but the valuable information was almost completely unsourced, which is a big no-no. An article on the Sumerian King List should in my opinion focus on the actual document rather than containing a full account or transcript of its content. The information could be added either in a completely new list article ("List of dynasties and rulers of Sumer" or something similar), an expanded List of Mesopotamian dynasties or any of the other articles and lists mentioned in this discussion. As mentioned, the full sequence of rulers is contained in the template at the bottom and the external links include two links to full translations of the list, so it does not seem like a pressing issue to me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Short_chronology is pretty good from 2300BC. And there are a slew of individual ones like List of kings of Akkad. Plus the odd Chart of ancient Near East rulers. And I'm not even going to mention stuff like List_of_state_leaders_in_the_19th_century_BC. Ploversegg (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was the Actual Kings List removed?

For years that's what I came to this page for. And no one else on the internet the various Dynasties out in an as easy to read fashion.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The "discussion" is you repeatedly saying you want this to be your way, ie removing the actual list, with everyone elseo disagreeing with you. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

Looks to me as if there is one person disagreeing and two people agreeing. There is no good reason to include the actual list here (the full content of ancient documents is rarely included in such a way) as an unsourced mess and it's still here in the form of the template, not to mention the external links to full versions. If we should have a list similar to the old one it should be in a separate article, not clogging up the article about the document. Ichthyovenator (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ichthyovenator. The actual list was removed from the article in July. Given that only 1 or 2 people have indicated that they think the list should be there, I would say that the majority of readers and the 263 editors who have this article on their watchlist actually think that the current article is an improvement or at least not worse than it was when the list was still included. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're taking opinions, I would also like the list to be on here. I was confused why it was absent the first time I came to this page. I think it should be included for clarity purposes, and anything about the list itself that's inherently unclear or misleading can be emphasized in accompanying text. Tisnec (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia contain the entire content of this ancient document when it does not do this for any other document? The mainstream scholarly opinion is that the vast majority of the list is at least unreliable, if not outright fictional. Including the list here as it was before does a very poor job at illustrating that. The full list can be accessed through the external links, and the rulers featured within it can be accessed through the template at the bottom. I've today also spent time improving the List of Mesopotamian dynasties (which is advertised at the top of this page as the place to go to get an actual lists of rulers and not a discussion on the document) - it now includes all Mesopotamian kings, including a collapsible option to display the rulers in the Sumerian King List - including any list here would IMO be inappropriate and now redundant. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a full breakdown for the Magna Carta and facsimile copies of the entire Voynich manuscript, which were the first comparable documents I thought of. Is there a formal guideline for Wikipedia style that would favor including or excluding the source information on this page? Tisnec (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason to have a list of rulers here since that is already covered by the List of Mesopotamian dynasties, linked at the very top (not to mention the template at the bottom and the external links). Second of all, including the rulers here, especially in the form they were before, very easily becomes misleading because 1) much of it is probably fictional and 2) there are different versions of the SKL (in particular there is variation when it comes to the lengths of the reigns). Third of all, the Magna Carta article has a full breakdown, but it's a discussion of the document based on scholarly sources, not a full inclusion of the document itself, and the Voynich manuscript article is similarly an encyclopedic discussion of the manuscript, rather than a full inclusion (so these examples favor having this article as it is now rather than including a table of the entire list). Even if you don't care about any of that I would argue that including the list here would at the very least go against WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:NOTREPOSITORY (see point 3, on "public domain or other source material"). If this were a popular culture (and not history) subject it would also go against WP:FANCRUFT. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I agree that's fair. Tisnec (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

We should keep the list

I believe the list (as in this version) is rather useful and even necessary for readers interested in the Sumerian King List. It is appropriately much more detailed than the List of Mesopotamian dynasties and has explanations and illustrations for many of the rulers. It is quite impossible to understand what the SKL is about without this information. If anything, it should be improved on, rather than just deleted. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinging past contributors to this discussion: @Tisnec, Ichthyovenator, Zoeperkoe, and JaredMithrandir: पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that the list is useful and necessary for readers? Which aspect of the SKL will they not understand if the list is not there? Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree: I maintain everything I said in the past. It is misleading to include a table in the way it was done previously, as the consensus is that a lot of the kings are made up (or at the very least have no basis in historical evidence). It is still poorly sourced, there's some WP:OR and I question most of the approx. dates. This article should be about the document itself, not needlessly fully repeat its content (something we don't do for any other historical document). Furthermore, the List of Mesopotamian dynasties includes the names of all the rulers, all of the rulers are included in a template at the bottom (why would we need to have all of the rulers again for a third time) and there are links to two full translations at the bottom. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is called the "Sumerian King List"... so the first thing I would expect is indeed a factual, close description of this famous list... of Sumerian Kings. This is the single most important, most basic information I would expect: not just a list of name, but a documented description of the rulers and dynasties mentioned in the inscription. Once this is done, we can of course go to the commentaries. I guess this is why the rulers mentioned in the SKL have been listed all along from the very beginning of this article [2] nearly 20 years ago. The rest is important, but secondary (historicity, sources, discussion...), and, honestly, I am not sure many people even read it. This was a bold reversal of a 20 year-long status quo, so please self-revert, and do a proper RfC so that consensus can be established. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I agree with almost nothing of what you say here but I am in the process of putting together a proper RfC. I won't keep arguing if the consensus of that goes in favor of including the list. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC on including/excluding the full list of kings

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

:: After reviewing the discussion, there is no consensus regarding this particular RfC, and after careful consideration of the question of status quo, the status quo should be the inclusion of the list. The table was removed as part of a “bold overhaul”. While it was a thorough overhaul, it was still a bold removal. According to Bold, Revert, Discuss, since it was a bold removal, (and the editor who removed it called it “bold”), the onus should lie on them to start a discussion for the removal after the bold edit was reverted (which it eventually was). Instead, there was edit warring, and an RfC was started to add the list back in. The list should remain, and a separate RfC could be started, or reinstated but reworded, and given a chance to form a stronger consensus, but it should be noted that it has been discussed at length already in this RfC and there was no clear consensus.

The RfC was a complex discussion, and everyone appeared to be arguing in good faith. There was no clear consensus, however.

Sample of some of the considerations in this RfC:

The RfC is technically for “should the article be added back?”

Is the content already covered elsewhere in List of Mesopotamian dynasties and Template:Sumerian King List?

Has the table been synthesized either within or outside of Wikipedia?

Is the table essential information a reader would hope to find, or is it unnecessary detail and/or original research?

Is the Sumerian King List a “self-contained” document such as Turin King List or the Abydos King List, or is it a synthesized list of rulers that already exists in better form as the List of Mesopotamian Dynasties?

Should the list be made into a separate article as a compromise?

Is the Sumerian King List literature and should it be treated as such? If so, then will it confuse readers into thinking it is a factual list of rulers?

Are we qualified as non-experts to argue against is validity and inclusion?

If the list is to be included, could/should it be recreated with better sources, etc. before adding back?

Some (but not all) arguments for yes:

A reader would expect to find this table

Should be improved on, not deleted

It’s NOT duplicated from templates

Other versions on the web don’t have Wikilinks

WP:NOFULLTEXT has exception for shorter texts

Guidelines such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EXCESSDETAIL are subjective and not necessarily justified

For any article about a list, the list should be a part of that article

Regarding WP:NOTREPOSITORY, it’s not an original historical document, but fragments

Wikisource is not a better place for the table

Some (but not all) arguments for no:

There’s already templates/other articles that cover most of the list’s content

Not verifiable

Different variations mean it will be a mess to include/maintain

Excessive detail

This is not a list article like other king lists, but an article about a text called Sumerian King List

The importance list is not in its exact contents which vary, but in its composition and context

Complete translations are freely available elsewehere online.

Regarding WP:NOTREPOSITORY, it speaks against including "Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, ..."

Wikisource is a better place for the table

Guidelines frequently cited in this discussion:

WP:NOTREPOSITORY

WP:EXCESSDETAIL

WP:NOFULLTEXT

WP:NOTPAPER

WP:OR

WP:SYNTH

WP:PRESERVE

Head count and after vote analysis:

NOTE: One editor believed another editor’s vote should not count on the basis that they “misunderstood” what the article was about. When a second editor tried to clarify confusion, there was no response or striking of the vote. My judgment is to award this a half vote (0.5), because though they are potentially misunderstanding the purpose of the article, they are not misunderstanding a Wikipedia policy, and their vote should hold some weight, especially given the general lack of independent participation in this RfC.

Yes: 5.5

No: 4

Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Should a series of tables containing the full list of names and reign lengths etc. in the king list (as in this edit) be inluded? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I personally think no: such a list will 1) be difficult to properly source 2) needlessly mostly repeat content that can already be found in the Template:Sumerian King List and the List of Mesopotamian dynasties 3) run a high risk of being misinterpreted as a List of kings of Sumer (i.e. a record of historical kings) if it is in the same style as one of the actual lists of monarchs - the consensus among scholars (see here for instance) is that the majority names mentioned in the king lists are either invented later, names of contemporary rather than succeeding kings, or simply not historically verified. As can be gathered from the online translations linked at the bottom of the article (see here) different ancient versions of the list can also differ a bit (especially in the lengths of the reigns ascribed to different kings) - should we include all variations? Should we specify which version gives what reign length? It'll be a mess...

Furthermore, including the entire sequence of names and the extra information in this way will essentially equate to including a full transcription of the content of the list, something that we don't do for any other ancient document since this violates WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I believe that including the entire list would in no way offer more benefit than what is currently offered through the Template:Sumerian King List and the List of Mesopotamian dynasties as well as linking full translations at the bottom and I don't see what Wikipedia policy would be in support of including the entire thing. I would argue that in addition to WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:EXCESSDETAIL could also be seen as speaking against including the whole thing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes This is called the "Sumerian King List"... so the first thing I would expect is indeed a factual, close description of this famous list... of Sumerian Kings. This is the single most important, most basic information I would expect: not just a list of names, but a documented description of the rulers and dynasties mentioned in the inscription, something significantly more detailed and informative than the generic List of Mesopotamian dynasties for example. Once this is done, we can of course go to the commentaries. This is probably why the rulers mentioned in the SKL have been listed all along from the very beginning of this article [3] nearly 20 years ago, until this "Bold" deletion on July 3rd 2021 [4]. I believe this content is useful and even necessary for readers interested in the Sumerian King List. If anything, it should be improved on, rather than just deleted. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to mention another major king list, which includes many legendary kings, from South Asia this time: the Rajatarangini. It is very natural in that article too to mention in table format all the kings presented in this work, with brief mentions for each. It is simply understood as an adequate way to properly report the content of the book, although historicity is only confirmed for a few of these 50 or so kings. It is also very useful, for anybody interested in the history of the region. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is WP:OTHERSTUFF; per what I said I don't think there should be a massive table there either. I'm not familiar with the Rajatarangini but the article also makes it seem like it's a more extensive historical chronicle, and not just a simple list (could be wrong). Does the Rajatarangini also have multiple copies with inconsistencies in regard to each other? I still don't understand why a table of kings who probably did not exist is very useful, for anybody interested in the history of the region. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• 'Ambivalent I will make two points. One is that Wikipedia is clearly ok with either answer. Consider United States Constitution which clearly does not include the text of same. The individual Article articles DO contain the actual text Article Three of the United States Constitution. Two, WHICH SKL? The SKL is in a bunch of mostly broken, sometimes barely legible tables. Is there actually a "definitive" SKL that can go in the article? Thats all.Ploversegg (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No, the reproduction in its entirety is tremendously excessive detail, and it also seems that there is substantial doubt over its accuracy. A laundry list does not place anything like that in context. A complete transcription of the list would be much more appropriate for Wikisource than Wikipedia; the purpose of the article should instead be to explain what the list is and why it is significant, not to provide an exhaustive word-for-word copy of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No per Ichthyovenator and Seraphimblade. This is not a list article like List of kings of Munster but an article about a text called Sumerian King List. The contents of this text are summarized (factually and close, I would say) in Sumerian King List#Contents, which does a better job than a plain list. Also, the importance of this text lies not in its exact contents (which varies between copies), but in the nature of its composition and the time and context in which it was composed. Also, complete translations are freely available elsewehere online. Zoeperkoe (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. The tables are excessive. Following Zoeperkoe, Ceci n'est pas une pipe. An article about a concerto summarizes the sources; it does not provide sheet music. Regulov (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Abstain. I was pinged for this, but I honestly don't want to get involved again. Tisnec (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. I'm not convinced by the arguments against having the list.
  • It's not duplicated by Template:Sumerian King List which doesn't have reign times and comments.
  • It's not duplicated by List of Mesopotamian dynasties which lists historical rulers.
  • Online translations don't have wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles.
  • If there are variations one variation can be used for the table and the existence of others should be noted in the text.

Alaexis_¿question? 11:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This did not address the bigger arguments I raised against including the list. What about WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:EXCESSDETAIL and the concern that it risks being misleading? List of Mesopotamian dynasties does contain all the names in the king list as well but it omits reign times and comments, again per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the NOTREPOSITORY argument, WP:NOFULLTEXT has an exception for shorter texts. Whether it's misleading or not is subjective. The article discusses the reliability of the list at length. Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOFULLTEXT gives as examples of shorter texts the Gettysburg Address and texts of national hymns. I would say that including the entire SKL based on this exception would really be stretching the concept of "short text"... Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:NOTPAPER and the justifications for removing it being weak - this is a useful list and one of the first things I'd look for when loading up an article like this to read. I can go to the ETCSL to see it, but that doesn't quickly tell me who the kings referenced actually are from other Sumerian literature, and the names don't exactly match their wikipage names - so as someone who is not an expert in Sumer (pinged from WP:LIT) I don't know who Alulim or Alaljar are; it's very convenient to have wikilinks to their relevant articles. There's already a great section about how the list is and is not historically accurate, and I'm not sure there's much risk of misleading people that any of these kings really ruled for 28800(!) years. I think this also is better served here than the list at List of Mesopotamian dynasties since the antediluvian rulers are not historical - if not for this talk page discussion I wouldn't know to go look there for what are admittedly ahistoric, mythological rulers. I'm also not sure how WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:EXCESSDETAIL fit here - it's certainly not trivial or indiscriminate, and "excessive" is a subjective value judgement that needs its own justification, which I just don't see outlined here in any of the posts above. - car chasm (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  It is interesting that you mention WP:NOTPAPER since one if the key arguments there seems to be: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I appealed to WP:NOTREPOSITORY because including the list in table form would essentially equate to transcribing the list - we'd include the names, the reign lengths and the comments the list makes. For the vast majority of the "kings" nothing else can be said than the list's contents because most of them are not generally believed to have been real people. WP:NOTREPOSITORY speaks against including "Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, ...". I would for that matter not oppose adding a table or a transcription at Wikisource, where links could effortlessly be added to relevant Wikipedia articles. For an example I'll point to Magna Carta, which is an analysis of the document with the contents itself (in different translations no less) being here on Wikisource. I'll grant that WP:EXCESSDETAIL is subjective but I can't imagine in what way including the entire thing is not excessive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator and Zoeperkoe: The table of the SKL kings that has been provided in the article [5] is certainly not an "original historical document". As someone said previously, there is no complete list in existence, only about 27 fragments and variations of it, so the table we have had for about 20 years is actually an elaborate reconstruction based on available knowledge. There is also a lot of encyclopedic value added to it: it is structured per (mostly historical) dynasties, a brief description of each ruler is given in the "Comment" column when useful, images are provided when available for known historical rulers. All of that would not be appropriate on Wikisource, where only raw documents are provided. Suppressing this reconstruction of the kings of the Sumerian King List is a disservice to readers wanting to learn about this subject. The table could probably be better designed and more compact, but it is an important component of this article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: The revision you link to is as I've said, more or less an organized transcription of the list. The addition of a handful of images and comments does not change that. It is also IMO problematic because it contains what appears to be a lot of unsourced information, such as aporoximate regnal dates (problematic not only because they are WP:OR without a source but also because rulers who scholars appear to treat as legendary or fictional are at times given approx. dates). I don't think dates like these are given for most of the legendary kings in any recent scholarly sources. The Weld-Blundell Prism is a fairly complete version of the list, so there's that. That there are numerous fragments that conflict with it is IMO one of the big issues with having a table like this.

That you refer to the table in the version you link as an "elaborate reconstruction based on available knowledge" is concerning since I question whether it, or elements of it, in that case does not qualify as WP:OR? I also question your assessment that most of the dynasties are historical since this appears to be at odds with the common conception that most of the names are either outright invented or simply not historically verified. Since academics rarely discuss the individual names in the list I believe including the entire thing is undue and I just don't understand what value is obtained by doing so. The comment column is useful for historical kings, yes, but as can be seen in the version you linked it is completely empty in most cases because there is nothing additional that can be said. What additional value and information is in your opinion provided to readers by a table than could be given in, say, an annotated transcription at Wikisource? Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Now this is a different matter.... There are definitely many ways we can improve on this table: better sourcing, more comments on historical kings or not, better formatting. Actually, about half of the kings in the list have been confirmed as historical, a few are considered as purely legendary, many remain conjectural. We owe our readers a clear understanding of what the Sumerian King List is about, with adequate and reliable commentaries about its actual content. This is not a job for Wikisource. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: It's not a different matter because I also responded to the other things you wrote. My concern is that I believe it is impossible to produce a well-sourced table similar to the one you link to due to the nature of how scholarly sources treat the document and its content. I think readers already get a clear understanding of what the SKL is and what it is about from the article as it stands now without the table. It's content is commented upon. We cannot add our own comments if they are not cited to a source since that's WP:OR. Marchesi (2010) states that only seven of the names before Sargon of Akkad are actually attested in sources from the Early Dynastic period and many of their names accord poorly with known contemporary names of the period. Kings after Sargon of Akkad are more reliable, but those are already covered in other articles. I also still believe a full table is inappropriate in regards to WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wikisource would not be appropriate for this - the translation of the Sumerian King List by ETCSL is not in the public domain, it is copyrighted as shown here. I think that's also a fair demonstration of why the list as it was included isn't just a transcription of that document - if it were, it would be copyrighted material and need to be removed. To wit, the word count of the transcription from ETCSL is 3373 words, whereas the proposed text on the wiki page, including comments and headers that are not part of the document, is only 2379. Having checked that, I'm kind of curious why you're saying this is a transcription of the document? Because it apparently just isn't that, which makes a lot of the arguments above in favor of removal invalid? - car chasm (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I never suggested that the ETCSL version should be put on Wikisource or that the table was a complete transcription of the ETCSL version. We could easily put a transcription of this public domain translation on Wikisource and link + annotate it (i.e. note which kings are historical etc.) where appropriate. If you look at the ETCSL version you will see that a lot of words are added because they include variations between versions and comment on which version give what variation. This is by the way IMO another thing that speaks against including a table because this would not look good in table form.

In my mind there are two options here and neither seems like it gives rationale for including the list; the utility of which I feel has still not been explained. Either the table is essentially a transcription of the document in so far as it relates all of its content (names, reign length, cities, epithets and comments given by the list) and it falls under WP:NOTREPOSITORY (and IMO WP:EXCESSDETAIL) (this is my view) or it is not a transcription of any specific SKL version and instead an "elaborate reconstruction based on available knowledge" which I can't see not falling under WP:OR or WP:SYNTH since no such elaborate reconstruction can be found in any WP:RS. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the distinction between different versions, I can see how some of the shorter versions are both in the public domain and are closer to what's in the wiki page. As someone who is in the latter group you outline (it's a reconstruction), I'm think I'm a little bit more optimistic that a reliable source can be found - I just can't imagine that nobody outside wikipedia ever tried to reconstruct it. It looks like "The Sumerian King List" by Thorkild Jacobsen (here) might contain the research that's needed. There's a few other sources outline here that might be useful, too. Since these sources seemingly exist I think that justifies the utility as well - if academic researchers though it was worthwhile to construct, it's useful to have it. - car chasm (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked and Jacobsen's The Sumerian King List (originally published in 1939) has been uploaded in full for free by the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago here. On account of its age I am not sure it holds up to current scholarship (as a straightforward example he dates Ur-Nammu's accession on page 202 to 2392 BC, whereas it is nowadays typically placed in 2112 BC; he also appears more accepting of the list as containing historical info than recent scholars) - his work is even criticized in the current version of this article under "Reliability as a historical source". I would thus personally prefer a more recent source that's similar but you are correct in that he did attempt quite a bit of reconstruction (pages 165 onwards). I haven't read through it in full but the majority of the work (before page 165) seems to be about describing all the fragments of the list, among other things noting consistencies and inconsistencies. I don't deny that a lot of research has been done on the Sumerian King List but I doubt that much research has been done on each of the names listed in the document, or that recent work has been done to synthetize a "standard version" or something to that effect (as would be the case for this article). This might be a question of optimism, as you say. I still maintain my no vote and the arguments I've given; if this RfC swings to supporting inclusion of a table I at least think that it should be thoroughly cited (moreso than the revision that has been provided in this discussion) and that it needs to have more commentary in order to justify it over a simple transcription at Wikisource. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm: You argue that if researchers thought it [the SKL] was useful to reconstruct, it's useful to have it [here on Wikipedia]. I would argue that this still goes against WP:NOTPAPER (which you mentioned earlier). This states that "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered under § Encyclopedic content below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion [...]". The paragraph that is linked in that part of the guidelines goes on to say that: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." And I would say that the current version (without the tables) aligns much more closely to these guidelines than the one with tables. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that a compiled list of the various sumerian king lists that includes all of the kings matched up with the corresponding figures is a useful part of the summary of accepted knowledge, assuming it can be backed up by reliable sources. My first thought upon seeing the page without the list would be "okay, but where's the list, then?". Compare this page to, for example, Genealogies_of_Genesis, which does include the information being discussed here.

I'd even go so far as to say that for any wiki page about a list, where the list itself is not sufficiently long, that the list should be a part of that wiki page. I believe that the spirit of WP:NOTPAPER justifies that automatically. I'm a lot less interested in debating the finer points of wiki policy than just talking about what makes it a good article or not. - car chasm (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we disagree on the scope of WP:NOTPAPER, then. "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details" leaves no room for the tables in my opinion. It is too easy to just brush that aside as a "finer point". As for your question "okay, but where's the list, then?"; did you actually notice that the current version has a section Sumerian King List#Contents which actually tells you exactly what the contents of this manuscript are? Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: Objectively, the fact that major reliable sources have bothered to reconstruct this list of kings and discuss it in detail, is all the proof we need that this reconstruction is important to the subject of the "Sumerian King List", academically relevant, and certainly not "an insignificant detail". पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never said that the reconstruction is not important. This is why this reconstruction was summarized in the section Sumerian King List#Contents. However, what is under discussion here, is whether the details in the tables are needed in this article. For example: could you explain why it is critical that Sumerian King List tells us that King La-ba'shum ruled for 9 nine years during the First Dynasty of Uruk? Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a historian in the 1930s who believes the list is accurate (a belief not held by modern historians) reconstructing it counts as major reliable sources reconstructing it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes'. i work on later periods of history, but: The material can be understood best when it's together. Documents need context. If we separated it we would have to essential repeat much of the information for the article on the document to have context. As for the question of whether the list itself is encyclopedic content, a list together with reliably sourced 3rd party discussions of it is always encyclopedic content. The confusion is because the name is similar to the way we name Lists of .... , but it's not a list in the usual WP sense but a document. What would go in Wikisource is the plain text only, which unless you already know the nature of the list, cannot be understood. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Clearly relevant, helpful, and certainly normal on wikipedia to see lists of kings for a particular ancient culture on the pertinent article. A simple list of kings of a country, with years of reign, is in no way WP:EXCESSDETAIL Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify; a more or less complete list of Mesopotamian/Sumerian kings is found at List of Mesopotamian dynasties. This article is not a list article as such, but an article about a document called Sumerian King list. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Per arguments above, and in particular DGG said pretty much exactly what I wanted to say. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: create List of kings in the Sumerian King List

@Deathlibrarian, DGG, पाटलिपुत्र, Carchasm, Ichthyovenator, Alaexis, Tisnec, Regulov, Seraphimblade, and Ploversegg: (ping to participants) I've been thinking about this. Why don't we create a separate article List of kings in the Sumerian King List similar to something like List of characters in the Mahabharata? This new article can be structured like a proper Wikipedia List of... article and can include the tables. I think this can elegantly solve most if not all of the issues that have been raised by different editors. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea, but in my opinion the best location for the (improved) table is still in the Sumerian King List. Doesn't "List of kings in the Sumerian King List" sound a bit like a set of Russian dolls? I am afraid this would be unnecessarily layered and convoluted for such a narrow subject. Looking at the way the RfC is going, there will probably not be a consensus to remove the table of Kings, i.e. the 20-year status quo with the table in place will have to be reinstated. If on the contrary there is a consensus to remove the table from the Sumerian King List article, then I agree "List of kings in the Sumerian King List" is a better option than any kind of Wikisource page. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think in any case we can let this RfC sit for a while longer until we determine what the outcome is. It's not as if such a list could not be titled something different, Rulers in the Sumerian King List or something to that effect maybe. The SKL is already an unnecessarily layered and convoluted subject. We have individual articles on many of the names that only appear in the SKL and are generally agreed not to be historical rulers, see for instance En-men-gal-ana, Mashda, Babum etc. I think creating a new article for the list deals with all my concerns while still keeping the list on Wikipedia; I imagine splitting it in this way would also allow for more detail on the document itself here as well as more detail in the improved list. Such a new list could be linked right at the top as we've done for List of Mesopotamian dynasties. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Zoeperkoe, sounds good, maybe change the name slightly. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Do you have any suggestions? Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List rulers? Alaexis_¿question? 10:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if that would be better since it would deviate from the established List of... format. But List of rulers in the Sumerian King List or List of rulers mentioned in the Sumerian King List (for example, there's List of people mentioned in the works of Tacitus) could be other options. Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For the bible it's List of biblical names, so that could be List of names in the Sumerian King List. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a far better idea than keeping a list here and a decent compromise - this allows this article to continue to be devoted to the document itself but also allows us to keep a list for those who want it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confused now by this proposal (but I also don't hate it...)- wasn't the argument for not including the list that it would be non-encyclopedic content and potentially misleading historically? If that was the case, wouldn't it not be any more appropriate on it's own page? In other words, what's the main argument for still having the list, but not having it on this page? If it's just a matter of clutter for this page, the list could be still included on this page but be put in a collapsible wikitable rather than being on a whole other page... - car chasm (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For reasons I have made clear I would personally prefer not having the list at all but since the WP:NOTREPOSITORY argument does not appear to be convincing for the yes voters, having the list on its own page would in my mind deal with the WP:EXCESSDETAIL argument since this article on the document itself could then not be argued to be excessively detailed. I also think having the table in an actual list article makes more sense than having it here. In any case where the table is kept in some form on Wikipedia I think it needs a lot more sourcing and commentary than the proposed revision but if it's in its own Names in the Sumerian King List or something similar, I think this article can be kept focused on the document itself and studies of it (as articles on other historical documents). The table could then also be expanded with more information (for instance what fragments of the list say what, historical evidence, which rulers are attested elsewhere) without taking up a disproportionate chunk of space here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm more or less with Ichthyovenator on this; not having the tables at all is better. However, some editors seem to want to keep them. Because of that, moving the tables to their own article will solve various issues such as WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTPAPER on the Sumerian King List article, while still keeping the tables on Wikipedia. However, even if the tables are kept in another article; they still need a lot of work to make sure that issues such as WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH (and still WP:NOTREPOSITORY) do not apply. Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I assume this new article would use the Long Chronology!!! :-) Ok, I'm still ambivalent but 1) I am interested in the idea of using a collapsible wikitable to have the SKL available in the SKL article but not showing unless you want it to but don't quite understand how that works, 2) If the new article is consensus and assistance is needed I could pitch in, and 3) with the resumption of excavation in Mesopotamia I predict that at least, hm, two unattested rulers in the SKL will get inscriptional (sic) support in the coming years.Ploversegg (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm thick; why doesn't the List of Mesopotamian dynasties suffice? I still don't understand just what it is we gain by retaining this version of the information, whether here or elsewhere. This version appears inferior to that at List of Mesopotamian dynasties along a few dimensions: it is a subset of the latter version, it conceals OR synthesis and editorial decisions, it is sparsely cited, and appears to rely more heavily on outdated sources. I acknowledge that I lack anything like domain expertise, but it seems to me also that we risk falsely reifying "the List" here. Is there such a thing as the Sumerian King List, strictly speaking? It only becomes an issue if we insist on "transcribing" (that is, constructing) it. If we confine ourselves to discussing it, it suffices to inform the reader of the fragmentary and conflicting nature of the evidence; if we present an edition of "the List", we must source it, preferably to a source less than 80 years old. But all this is kind of beside the point, because as far as I can see the work has already been done, over at List of Mesopotamian dynasties. Again, why isn't that enough? Why don't we just point readers over there? What is the special sauce? With respect, is this just fetishizing the ancient clay with the booming resonant name? THE SUMERIAN KING LIST [gong splash]. I'm being funny, but I'm also actually asking. What am I missing? Regulov (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For a parallel, have a look at the Abydos King List for example. This is an Egyptian archaeological artefact with its own list of rulers, which is provided in detail, with images and comments in the form of a multi-column table, for the reader who wants to understand what that specific ancient document is all about. Because of the omission of some rulers, etc... it is significally different from the "modern" List of pharaohs, which is based on a multiplicity of other sources and academic considerations. Same thing with the Turin King List, Saqqara Tablet, Karnak King List.... The original table given in the Sumerian King List article [6] (nearly 20 years in the article, but still to be improved), also describes in detail the content of this specific historical document written about 4000 years ago. It has commentaries and images and is well structured, which is important for people who want to know what this ancient set of documents is all about. It's all about giving proper information about a historical document, and goes significantly beyond just making a conventional Wikipedia template list with a row of kings without any explanation as in List of Mesopotamian dynasties. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the articles you link could also be construed as problematic but a key difference of which you are aware is that the SKL is not a single document and the table was thus a reconstruction, with a not insignificant amount of WP:OR. The version without the list also "describes in detail the content of this specific historical document written about 4000 years ago". The images do not add a lot IMO (most don't have them and they depict all kinds of stuff) and I think you'll agree that the commentary as it stood before this article was revised was quite lackluster. You keep saying that the table was yet to be improved but what could in your view be done to it? As it was prior it was a undersourced mismatch of WP:OR and info from the SKL more similar to work done by 1930s scholars than modern ones. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Describing in detail" is what the Turin King List or the Abydos King List articles do: giving a detailed description of the content of the inscriptions with a listing of each king, in addition to analysis and commentaries in the body of the article. As for improvements, the format of the Sumerian King List article could follow the same style as these articles (neat and compact), and for the content, there are plenty of modern sources ([7] [8] [9] [10]) to update Langdon. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important to realise that Abydos King List (and the others you link) is an article about one artefact with one inscription on it. Sumerian King List on the other hand is an article about a text that is recorded in different versions on multiple artefacts. This means that the "Sumerian" equivalent of Abydos King List is not Sumerian King List, but it is Weld-Blundell Prism or Scheil dynastic tablet, which each describe single artefacts with a single text recorded on them. This means that if you want to add tables with king names because they are in Abydos King List, they should be added to Weld-Blundell Prism or Scheil dynastic tablet, and not to Sumerian King List. But in those cases, the lists should only contain the names recorded on those respective artefacts. And I also think that, if you really want to have a table with names (which I still don't think is necessary), adding them to these existing artefact articles might even be a better solution than having them in yet another article List of names in the Sumerian King List, as I proposed earlier. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: You now seem to be arguing against the very existence of a Sumerian King List, claiming that there are only diverse and irreconciliable fragments. This view is in contradiction with the very reconstruction that you have been promoting in List of Mesopotamian dynasties#Pre-Akkadian rulers in the Sumerian King List, which already gives the full list of SKL rulers starting with the antediluvian kings. It is also in contradiction with academic research which works on the reconstitution of the "Sumerian King List" (not "Sumerian King Lists" in the plural!) in effect consolidating a composite Sumerian King List based on individual variations. The most recent and reliable reconstruction seems to be the one by the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford [11], on top of the work done by their predecessors Langdon and Jacobsen. If reliable sources are confident enough to provide and publish such composite reconstructions, so can Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I do not argue that the Sumerian King list does not exist and I don't understand at all how you get that from my reply. I just argued that the equivalent of the article Abydos King List (which you used to argue for inclusion of the tables) is the article Weld-Blundell Prism and not the article Sumerian King List. Do you understand what I mean by that? Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zoeperkoe: One does not exclude the other. This is not an argument to deny a presentation of the reconstructed list of kings of the Sumerian King List, as reliable sources do such a reconstruction without any issue, as in The Sumerian King List per the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. Of course, we can also have lists corresponding to each single artefact, but that might be too much and too repetitive in my opinion (assuming someone would have the courage to tackle this task...). पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Abydos King List and the others are also repetitive in that they (partially) cover the same dynasties, but that doesn't seem to bother you? Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Though I still don't see the necessity I also think having the tables in the lists of the individual artefacts would be a better solution than having them here - this also allows for less cluttered information than would be required in a single table since differences between the artefacts then do not have to be taken into account. This is another plausible option for a compromise solution. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a bit disingenuous. Are you suggesting that this article without the table does not offer a detailed description as to what the list is about and what it contains? If we have a "neat and compact" king list table here that it means it has to cut back on the commentary even more, which makes it even more of a WP:NOTREPOSITORY case. The modern sources you link are translations and transcriptions (1 and 2), a bibliography (3) and a JSTOR search for mentions of "sumerian king list" (4). I have never denied that there has been a lot of research done on the SKL - I am denying that there is enough research done on each of the names in it to justify including a table of them here. What commentary could be offered on the kings of Awan? On Hadanish of Hamazi? On the vast majority of the pre-Sargon rulers? The SKL is not seen by modern historians as a reliable source of historical information so I still don't see why such a detailed transcription with commentary is necessary in the first place. Since you ignored that part of my reply I'll say again that the SKL differs from all the other examples you linked since it's not a single document and the table was thus a reconstruction, with a not insignificant amount of WP:OR. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Stangely enough, you seemed quite satisfied with the reconstruction of the Sumerian King List when you introduced it complete with all the antediluvian kings in the List of Mesopotamian dynasties barely a month ago [12]. But it is a watered-down version, with minimal informational value, and the original should remain in the SKL article rather than be replaced by a remote and skeletal scrolldown template. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the inclusion of the list there is already the result of a compromise, if I remember correctly... Read Talk:Sumerian King List#Bold revision and update and you'll see the same arguments as in this discussion, and the same solution as is being discussed here. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: This reply makes me believe that you are not arguing in good faith here because you're no longer replying to what I'm saying. I don't know why this would be a "gotcha" like you seem to think - as Zoeperkoe states it was put there precisely to avoid the trouble of having a full list here. If we were to make a new list article of names in the SKL or add the individual lists to the different artefacts I'll remove it from List of Mesopotamian dynasties. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Regulov: I don't think you're missing anything; you're asking valid questions. This was an attempt to achieve a compromise (which usually always has drawbacks) between those who want the tables gone (including me), and those who want to keep them. Having the tables in a separate article is a slightly better solution than having them in this article because it solves the problems the tables cause in this article (such as WP:EXCESSDETAIL etc. However, as I (and you) mentioned above, the problems with the tables themselves (such as WP:OR) remain, even if you move them to their own article. And as I suggested above, there might be a better solution than creating a new article - if the consensus is going to be that these tables should be preserved in some way. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Some context for people who don't usually work in the ANE. The List of Mesopotamian Dynasties is a fine article but it is guesswork, the best guess of historians today. Some of it will turn out to be very wrong. The SKL was not some fictional Gulliver's Travels type thing. It was the best guess of historians 4000 years ago. If Wikipedia existed 4K years ago that would have been the LoMD. And before you dismiss them remember that those old historians had access to a lot of sources that have long since crumbled to dust, are buried under the ground, or been broken up to build huts. Yes, parts of the SKL are probably wrong, just like parts of the LoMD. PS People talk about the Weld-Blundell prism as being the definititive source for the SKL but in practice its kinda gnarly. [13] You can now resume the argument in progress.Ploversegg (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It's fine to believe that the scribes making the SKL had access to older sources that are no longer with us, they probably did, but on Wikipedia we have to cater to the current academic consensus, which is to not regard the SKL as particularly valuable as a source for the rulers of the Early Dynastic Period since it omits rulers we know existed and includes rulers that are not mentioned anywhere else and whose names etymologically do not really match names that are attested in the Early Dynastic Period. It is also important to remember that the scribes of the SKL knowingly made some distortions (putting the rulers in sequential order when they knew certain rulers were contemporaries for instance) and that it was likely primarily a political (not historical) document meant to reinforce the legitimacy of the final dynasty in the list. I don't think it's fair to suggest that our modern perception of Mesopotamian history is just guesswork. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of any of that, Ploversegg. Sure, the past is fundamentally unknowable. Fine; but that doesn't put all conjectures on a level plain such that we can't arrive at any judgements at all about what is more or less plausible. I don't like the rhetorical move you're making when you dismiss the current state of the scholarship as guesswork just because future work is likely to cast some of it in doubt. You conjure up vanished sources available to the ancient scribes. Very well, what did they say? Did they support the list or did they undermine it? Or were these sources that have long since crumbled to dust maybe just faintly dirty jokes circulated around the office? Hard to say, right? Further up, you predict the discovery of materials supporting any two (pick a card! any card!) unattested kings in the next couple years. I feel this kind of talk is buying on margin. It sounds like it is bolstering the case for the reliability of the ancient list, but in reality it's pretty tough to cite sources that only exist in the future.

To the extent that WP's List of Mesopotamian dynasties accurately represents the current scholarly consensus, that page should be where readers naturally arrive when they come here looking for names and regnal dates for Sumerian kings. We should be sending them there, not setting up a sort of government-in-exile of parallel but discredited facts. Regulov (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Regulov:, in case you did not notice, the List of Mesopotamian dynasties DOES provide your full set of so-called "discredited facts", i.e all the Sumerian King List rulers starting with the legendary antediluvian kings under List of Mesopotamian dynasties#Pre-Akkadian rulers in the Sumerian King List. That list simply reflects the composite Sumerian King List as established from the multiplicity of fragments, including the dozens of rulers who are not confirmed historically. This is not different from the list which has been provided in this article with a better structure and slightly more details. The point is that the Sumerian King List is acknowledged as a historical document of value, whose regnal list is highly worthy of publication, despite having shortcomings regarding historicity and archaeological confirmation (as do all ancient documents, such as the Egyptian regnal lists above). Just because ancient regnal lists are inaccurate is not, and has never been, a reason to deny them a clear description, including academic ruler-by-ruler reconstructions, on Wikipedia. They simply are valuable archaeological artefacts in their own right, that deserve precise reporting. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I noticed. That is essentially my point. The information readers seek is already there, better sourced. I will ask again: what is it about the tables we are discussing that you are so committed to preserving? Why aren't you satisfied with pointing readers toward the List of Mesopotamian dynasties? In what way is it inadequate? Why not head over to Talk:List of Mesopotamian dynasties and argue there for a better structure and slightly more details? Regulov (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am glad you are dropping the "discredited facts" argument... Now, about the List of Mesopotamian dynasties#Pre-Akkadian rulers in the Sumerian King List: the fact is that it is not better sourced, it is just a skeleton with little informational value, and it actually is a mere watered-down copy of the original list of the Sumerian King List article, introduced 1 month ago by User:Ichthyovenator [14]. What needs to stay in the Sumerian King List article (and has been present for nearly 20 years) is the list with the details on the respective kings when available, more sources, even alternative dates etc... (as per Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford for example). Details about the list belong to the Sumerian King List article, and cannot be replaced by a remote scrolldown template which only presents the bare minimum. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Let's try and get away from these yes-no discussions. Two points:

• Let's look at what's exactly in these tables. I've asked this before but you did not answer then, so I'll ask again: could you explain why it is critical that the article on Sumerian King List tells us that King La-ba'shum ruled for 9 nine years during the First Dynasty of Uruk? What is so important about this detail that understanding of the SKL is not possible without this detail being in the article?
• And two: why don't you make a mockup in your sandbox of how you think that the improved table should look like? You mention "alternative dates", "more sources", etc. Please show us in your sandbox how you think those should be incorporated. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not spend days working on something that you seem so intent to erase. We are in the middle of an RfC. So let's see if your bold removal of content from last July [15] can obtain a consensus here. If not, we'll return to the 20 year status quo with the list of rulers, and I will be glad to add references, comments, alternative facts per reliable sources such as Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I will not spend days working on something that you seem so intent to erase because it's not possible to put together a well-sourced table with commentary for all the names. It was not a bold removal of content, it was a rework and overhaul - the table was replaced with the text summarizing it not removed as such. This is more in line with how researchers treat the list (as a document rather than a historical source). The ETCSL website is a single website and I don't think it makes a strong case that reconstructing the list is a big thing in modern scholarship. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र Please tone down a bit. There was willingness to compromise even before this RfC (see the table in List of Mesopotamian dynasties, and see Template:Sumerian King List), so it would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that, instead of accusing editors of wanting to "erase" stuff. What could really help in this discussion is if you could show us why the content in the tables is so important. You argue that it's a "20 year consensus" and that it is "useful". But why? Why is it critical that the article on Sumerian King List tells us that King La-ba'shum ruled for 9 nine years during the First Dynasty of Uruk? What is so important about this detail that understanding of the SKL is not possible without this detail being in the article? Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I already responded to the names being in the List of Mesopotamian dynasties above. "What needs to stay in the Sumerian King List article" why does it need to stay? and has been present for nearly 20 years you keep saying this but this does not matter - articles are edited, overhauled and reworked all the time, here the table was simply replaced with a scholarly summary that offers the same insight but better reflects how the SKL is treated by historians. with the details on the respective kings when available, more sources... you have not yet demonstrated if this would be possible, as I pointed out somewhere above, for the majority of pre-Sargon names we wouldn't be able to offer any commentary. You mention above that the Sumerian King List is acknowledged as a historical document of value but is it? Modern historians don't use it for historical reconstruction. You can't use Jacobsen as an example because he wrote in the 1930s and his work has been discredited; I think you need to evaluate if you're not assigning more importance to this document's historical value than academics are. I also question why a table would need to be here specifically - during this discussion two possible compromise solutions have been proposed yet you seem determined to refuse both of them. You did not properly respond to this so I'll say it again: it's not a case comparable to Turin King List or Abydos King List since the SKL is not a single document (and treating it as such through a reconstruction risks falling into WP:OR, which the previous table definitely did). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose any compromise short of reinstating the list. I've found a list of sources, available here for a reconstruction of the list. The ETSCL list is also arguably a reliable source since it's published by subject matter experts. Any argument to the contrary is WP:OR - car chasm (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

But one of the proposed compromises is reinstating the list, albeit in its own article. That bibliography demonstrates only that research has been done on the list, not that including a full reconstruction is worthwile. The ETSCL list is the only recently published scholarly reconstruction of the list. Doing our own reconstruction very much risks falling into WP:OR territory - it's ridiculous to suggest that not including the table would be WP:OR. It's a glorified combined transcription, not an elaborate table and including all the differences in a table would be difficult to do in a manner that does not look cluttered. No one has yet to respond to the concern that most of the entries before Sargon will not be able to have any commentary whatsoever. A good version of the table would need extensive commentary to justify its existence, it would need to include all variations and it would need to note which parts are sourced from which ancient copy/fragment. I am also still concerned that it places undue value on this document since it is no longer seen as a valuable source of historical information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you look at the list of sources I linked? It addresses your concerns about ante-diluvian kings, though I admit my own German is not great enough to confidently read half of them if I could personally find a copy. I also have to ask - what are your and @Zoeperkoe:'s backgrounds in ANE? Because just from my own research this past week (on an unrelated article) I'm starting to realize that the academic consensus in Sumerian literature is that these works can be reconstructed and that it's one of the few fairly non-controversial things in the field. I'm not actually sure why anyone would think the king list on the face of it was historically valuable - it seems to be widely considered a literary work that may provide some but not much useful information. I'm not sure even William Hallo argues much in favor of it, and he seems to have been the most strongly maximalist person in the field (?). If you need an introductory text, I've been reading Black's "The Literature of Ancient Sumer" recently (which is why I first commented on this page at all) - if you can grab a copy of it I recommend it: it doesn't cover the King list in too much detail, but it does talk a lot about how these sorts of literary works are reconstructed and how historical criticism is applied to them, which might address many of your concerns. It's also fairly well written, and an entertaining read.

I hope you understand that I'm not going to give any of your arguments much weight compared to those of some of the leading, widely cited experts in the field, unless you also happen to be someone of a similar level of expertise and have works of your own you can point me to that can be used as references. Otherwise, my opinion is that the Sumerian King List is a literary work that should have a wikipedia page containg all of the legendary, fictional, and historical people who have found their way on to the version recompiled by scholars, that historical information should be on the List of Mesopotamian dynasties page, and that I will not change my mind on any of that unless someone cites reliable sources arguing otherwise. - car chasm (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you did not intend for this to come off this way but this reply reads like you're suggesting I don't know anything about the Ancient Near East which is pretty hurtful. I wholeheartedly disagree with पाटलिपुत्र's opinion on whether a table should be included here but I don't question their knowledge on the topic or that they are a valuable contributor to ANE articles. I'm not a scholar of ancient Mesopotamia but I'm pretty sure none of the people commenting here are. I am a participant in the ANE WikiProject and the author of 29 ANE good articles and 1 ANE featured article. I've read up on the subject extensively and taken university-level courses on it. I would not be replying as extensively as I have been here if I was not passionately interested in the topic and invested in keeping the quality of relevant articles as high as possible.

I hope you understand that I'm not going to give any of your arguments much weight compared to those of some of the leading, widely cited experts in the field, unless you also happen to be someone of a similar level of expertise and have works of your own you can point me to that can be used as references I have throughout this discussion chiefly appealed to Wikipedia policies and concerns that tables would be misleading, difficult to cite well, and that a lot of the earlier names in the list would not be able to be commented on to any real extent. By and large, I based much of my reasoning pretty solidly in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You might disagree with how I interpret those guidelines, but not giving it much weight? Though you in effect say here that you don't care for what I have to say, I still feel the need to point out that I don't think the bibliography you linked demonstrates that there could be much commentary for all (or even most) of the kings (out of whom the Antediluvian kings account for only 8 names, mind you). They're made-up names in a list. Otherwise, my opinion is that the Sumerian King List is a literary work that should have a wikipedia page containing all of the legendary, fictional, and historical people who have found their way on to the version recompiled by scholars there is no policy reason given for this and I still don't understand why the table is a necessary component of this article. I don't know what kind of references you're asking me to provide? I've already provided references that the SKL is not regarded as being of much value when it comes to relaying historical information (which you appear to agree with) - am I supposed to cite someone saying that it's not worthwile to reconstruct the list? That's absurd. That so few researchers bother with SKL reconstructions should in of itself stand as evidence for this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you don't know anything about the Ancient Near East (and you do appear to know quite a bit) but it's a pretty large field, and it does come across that you're speaking about a specific subtopic, Sumerian Literature, that maybe you were asserting more background knowledge on then you really knew. Or, how I see it is: if the people who write the secondary sources that are published by academic presses are saying one thing about the viability of reconstructing the list, and in fact citing the other academic sources they worked with in order to do so, and on the other hand, you are continuing to talk about how there can't be enough sources to reliably construct the list, or setting an arbitrarily high barrier for how much commentary needs to included to reinstate the list, it does make it seem (to me) like you might be speaking outside your own area of expertise. Also, the list and bibliography were published on that web page by the same people who wrote "The Literature of Ancient Sumer" published by Oxford, which seems like the sort of thing you couldn't do if you weren't one of the most impactful groups in the field, so it doesn't make sense to just dismiss the list like that. For another source, William W. Hallo, another expert in Sumerian literature, who usually disagrees with the Black et al. camp, also speaks of a single "king list" as a unified literary work, and he goes into quite a bit of detail about it. Samuel Noah Kramer, who has similar problems to Jacobsen, also discusses it in depth in multiple works, which at least can be mined for works that cite them. As far as I can tell, although it is a pretty small field, the idea that the literary works cannot be reconstructed somehow, or that there's somehow a shortage of reliable sources on who the kings in the king list are, when that's one of the most notable pieces of Sumerian literature, just doesn't match anything I've read from the apparent best sources in the field. It's always "The sumerian king list" as a unified work, referenced by its ETCSL number.

Which is why, if you do believe that to be the case (i.e. why you are pessimistic about being able to find sources), that I'm asking you to provide sources to back up those claims. Because it just doesn't square with absolutely everything else I'm seeing from an entire field of study of people who actually do that. If it turns out the Sumerian literature folks are the black sheep of ANE studies and there's review articles about how they all don't do real academic work, or something similar, I'll back down. But I didn't find anything like that in the sources I dug up for Enheduanna this week, so I'm skeptical that it's there. - car chasm (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand the shift car chasm wants to make, here. The list is not to be understood as a historical document: car chasm concedes that it contains little useful historical information. Rather, we must treat it as a literary object. Objections to the tables on any grounds criticizing their historical utility, then, are void. Of course it has no historical validity. It is now something more like a poem. Well, okay.

But it sure looks like historical information, doesn't it? If it should not be treated as a historical document, but it strongly resembles a historical document, don't we have a pretty exacting duty to protect the lay reader from misperception on that score? Think of detergent pods, whose appetizing appearance itself constitutes a message, possibly in conflict with the warnings on the box.

Car chasm is at pains to establish that the list is a unified thing, that scholars reconstruct it, and that it is therefore okay for us to reconstruct it ourselves, at WP. I think the tables as they stood made decisions about which versions of the text to present and which to suppress, without citation, and thus clearly constituted original research. I think the tables, in their very format, make an implicit, unmerited, claim to thoroughness, to authoritativeness, which cannot help but mislead the lay reader.

At the considerable risk of speaking when I should be silent, I, who know next to nothing about Sumerian literature, maintain the tables are too long, too empty, too sparsely sourced, and rendered largely redundant for purposes of learning about Sumerian kings by the List of Mesopotamian dynasties. I don't think the Sumerian King List's status as a composite literary object has much bearing on these demerits. Zoeperkoe earlier cited Lebor Gabála Érenn as an example of an article treating a similarly fragmentary document in a thoroughgoing way without resorting to transcription. I agree that that article represents a good model.

As for car chasm's anxiety over whether opponents of the tables are qualified to have an opinion, I am not impressed. The grounds of this controversy are not so narrow as to admit only those who read cuneiform. Regulov (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the issues debated on this page are exactly the ones that are debated in the scholarly literature! And absolutely none of us are qualified to have any opinions on them that don't proceed from the relevant academic sources. There's a lot of confusion higher up on the page about whether this is a historical document or not... well, there's a lot of confusion in the early scholarship about that too! Which doesn't mean we hide the list away on a different page or delete it entirely to prevent users from being confused. It means we properly cite the relevant scholarly research, and all arguments about what content is factually accurate or what conclusions can be drawn from it need to be taken from secondary sources.

There's a lot of anxiety on this page (from well before I got here as well) about what sort of conclusions are valid to draw from the Sumerian King List. Well, quite frankly, I don't think any of us can or should draw any conclusions on our own about that. That's pure WP:SYNTH, whether we put it on the page or just use it to guide what things to include in the article. And since I'll wager that none of us have a PhD in Assyriology, we're all laughably underqualified to do so even if it wasn't against policy. But thankfully, people who do have those PhDs write papers about those concerns we have, and other PhDs write books about those papers. Those are secondary sources, which are what we cite in writing the list, and the only thing that any of us underqualified hobbyist volunteers should concern ourselves with. That's... kind of just what research is, no matter what field of study it is?

What I'm shifting the debate to here is that creating a correct synthesis of the facts is not our job and debating the correct synthesis all down the talk page for months isn't either. Finding the correct syntheses and citing them is. And that only comes from secondary, reliable, (unbiased!) sources from WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Not from wiki editors' own views, my own included. I'm convinced now that no part of this RfC really ever had anything to do with any wiki policy like WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:EXCESSDETAIL or any of that. It has to do with an inability to form a consensus on interpretation of the facts, because we are not subject matter experts. The next step there is research, not finding whatever wiki policy we can to twist the "letter of the law" into agreement with our point of view. - car chasm (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

But I do object to the tables on grounds that Wikipedia is not a repository of ancient texts and that they constitute excessive detail. Regulov (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm: When you say The next step there is research, you are giving the impression that you did not actually read the article as it stands today at all. If you compare the references in the last version when the tables were still there (link) with the references that have been used in the current version, you will see that this next step has already been done: most relevant current scholarship has already been included in the current version. By me, to be precise. And while I certainly don't claim to have written the "definitive" article on the SKL; I certainly do claim that the current discussion on what the SKL is and isn't, is by miles better than what has been in this article the past 20 years. And it is exactly because of this that I (as the one who removed the tables as part of the overhaul of this article, see this summary for what I changed and why) was confident that the tables are WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EXCESSDETAIL, and that they are not necessary for a good understanding of what the Sumerian King List is, what it is about, and why or why not the SKL is relevant in the study of the wider ANE.

As for your questioning of my backgrounds in ANE, I will just say that my background is more than sufficient.

Now, let me ask you the same question that I asked पाटलिपुत्र but that he/she did not yet answer: since you want the tables restored, you probably believe that the details in these tables are important. So let's look at those details, then: Why is it critical that the article on Sumerian King List tells us that King La-ba'shum ruled for 9 nine years during the First Dynasty of Uruk? What is so important about this detail (which was in the tables but now removed from the article) that understanding of the SKL is not possible without this detail being in the article? Zoeperkoe (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The tables need to be there because they're useful context, especially for that discussion that you wrote about historical value. For questions a reader might have like "Why did Jacobsen think it was of potential historical value?" Something like a king who only ruled 9 years, followed by one of 8, 36, 6,etc. after a bunch who ruled for preposterous numbers of years is a clear illustration of that, that only a table can show as easily. It lets you look at the list the way Jacobsen did and see why he might have thought that way instead of just discrediting him as an old, out-of-date researcher who was too credulous for his own good.

If you don't have any concerns about being able to find reliable secondary sources for commentary for the names on the king list, and you share none of the concerns that others have put forward about people misinterpreting the list as historical, then the comment about research wasn't directed at you. In fact, looking at the article most of the sources that you added seem fine, which makes it odd to me that @Ichthyovenator: would bring up any concerns about lack of sources. This is sort of a difficult thing to debate because I think the people oppose the list's inclusion for entirely different reasons - it can be hard to keep track of who argued what. But since you have done the research I'm sure you know that there's enough verifiable information on what parts of the list correspond to actual or plausible history, even if it shouldn't be trusted as a historical source in its own right.

I do think that restoring the list in a collapsed form makes more sense if you don't want to detract from the commentary on it. I also think it needs more detail, and that everything other than kings and their reigns , historical dates for real kings, and comments, can be removed. But that alone is not a justification for removing the whole list. I've mocked up what that looks like here. I think that this sort of approach would also benefit from weaving the questions of historicity into the discussion of the contents in addition to or instead of having a separate section. For example, the later dynasties are generally considered historically accurate (to some extent) and having the discussions about that near the actual contents of the list will help people who are not familiar with the history of sumer contextualize that. On their own, both sections are also somewhat dry, and having the list itself as the hinge that ties them together will make the article flow much better.

As an example, since you mentioned it in your edit summary, if I had simply removed everything about Enheduanna's authorship and said that it was generally not verifiably historical, I'd get flayed alive, even though that wouldn't technically be wrong and there's no shortage of reliable sources I could find to support it. But instead, I didn't push my changes out until I was sure I'd included everything I possibly could from the original article and that the article was as neutral as possible, reflecting academic consensus. Also, it may not be obvious based on how much I reworded or resourced, but most of the article's original content is still there, whereas you have removed the vast majority of the kings on the list. I've kept an even more detailed record of everything I removed than I posted there, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing I removed, other than bad sourcing, bad wording, and copyright violations, that I wouldn't be okay with adding back under the right context.

Back to this article - it's clear that many (at least six or seven on this talk page so far...) people do find value in the list also being on this article, in table format, and that you got pushback on removing it from the first instance of doing so. If you really do want to compromise in good faith, you should figure out what changes need to be made to the list for you to be happy with it being reinstated along with the rest of your changes, not look through wiki policy for something that you can roughly apply to this specific circumstance so that only the work that you did on this article stays. That's not fair to the other people who worked on this article before you. And as my linked example above shows, there are certainly ways to integrate that content, which we've already well established as verifiable even if poorly cited, into this page. - car chasm (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still very much not amused by the previous attempt to discredit my opinion and arguments on the basis that I would not be knowledgeable on the subject matter; it's pretty clear that nothing I say will convince you but not look through wiki policy for something that you can roughly apply to this specific circumstance is not fair - I think the concerns I've raised are legitimate concerns based in Wikipedia policy that have not been properly responded to and I don't think there have been any sound policy-based arguments for including the list. It lets you look at the list the way Jacobsen did and see why he might have thought that way instead of just discrediting him as an old, out-of-date researcher who was too credulous for his own good is a problematic comment to me because modern researchers do discredit Jacobsen's work and we should not encourage readers to follow in his footsteps. I have explained my reasoning for questioning the amount of commentary can be added pretty well already - I've said multiple times that I do not deny that a lot of research has been made on the list, but that I question if much research has been done on most of the names in it. What commentary could be added for the kings of Awan? The second dynasty of Kish? Hadanish of Hamazi? I don't think If you really do want to compromise in good faith is very fair either. If you treat the SKL as a literary work and the names as "characters", it is completely normal for Wikipedia to divide commentary on the work into one article and the characters into another. It's easy to claim someone is not willing to compromise in good faith when you reject any compromise that isn't pretty much going back to the way things were.

But to respond to this: what changes need to be made to the list for you to be happy with it being reinstated. Do you agree that the list as it was when it was added back in most recently (link) is not sufficient? If we reach no consensus (which seems likely) or a decision to add the list back would you and/or पाटलिपुत्र commit to creating a version that is better before it is added back in?

A good version of a table of these names would be a lot of work (and more than I think possible with the WP:RS that exist): every entry should preferrably have citation(s) (good lists have this, see for instance List of English monarchs and List of emperors of the Han dynasty), there needs to be commentary for at least the majority of the entries (especially on the names that precede Sargon of Akkad, since the later historical portions are repeated elsewhere), it needs to explicitly indicate which portions come from which ancient copy of the list, it needs to include points where these copies differ from each other and most importantly it needs to in some way indicate what few names also appear in contemporary sources (and what sources those are) and explicitly indicate others as either being fictional or not being historically verified (thus dealing with the issue of not being misleading). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear all, I am not interested in endless arguing, and I have removed this page from my watchlist. I am not reading the comments anymore, but I have made my position clear, and it is obvious to me that the table of kings is needed to properly report what the Sumerian King List is about. When the table is reinstated, which will be the natural consequence of restoring the 20-year status quo following the absence of a consensus for removing it, I will of course be glad to try to improve it within my modest capabilities. I will not respond further. Namaste to all.... पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we probably won't agree on policy - which is, I think a good enough reason on its own to not base decisions in any potentially controversial policy alone in this instance. I agree that that's largely moot at this point, though. Responding to would you and/or पाटलिपुत्र commit to creating a version that is better before it is added back in? - I have no objections to more sources being added, and also I think the example lists you gave are good models. The best way to prove WP:Verifiability is to verify. One of the best sources for matching format of the Han dynasty page is in fact, already cited on the page, though: I think Michalowski is at least a good preliminary source for the lack of historicity of most of the kings, and his paper cited on the page has been cited 152 times in Google Scholar, many of which are books, so I'm sure a neutral review of it can be found is anyone wants to improve the source later. I also think that the list and the contents parts should be integrated, and some of the historical debate included within both, so that it doesn't look like two disjoint efforts on one page. If there are no objections to this I will add this back in according to those guidelines when the RfC is closed. - car chasm (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

To clarify I'm asking not only if you would be willing to improve the list in the event that the conclusion is for it to regrettably be added back in, but also if you would be willing to do so in userspace (at User:Carchasm/sandbox/SKL for instance) before adding it back in, at least to ensure that no WP:OR (such as invented regnal dates and unsourced commentary) would make its way back? If you want to split the table up after the headings in the summary I'd suggest you have one collapsible table per heading instead of multiple (to avoid cluttering). It is possible to put the headers for the different dynasties within the table itself - as in List of Byzantine emperors for instance.

I think we can pretty safely say that this discussion is beginning to fulfill WP:WHENCLOSE so there will be the issue of determining the outcome and what it means. It's pretty clearly leaning towards no consensus if we count votes (4 against the list, 4 for the list; I'm not counting Deathlibrarian's yes vote because they appear to have misunderstood this article as a list of rulers of Sumer - does this not illustrate the risk of being misleading??). Something that's going to be contentious: since this RfC is asking whether the list should be added back, could it not be construed that the status quo in the event of no consensus would be to not add it back? With this in mind, and because discussions are not merely decided on the number of votes but also by the (uninvolved) closer based on the arguments made, I will put in a formal request at Wikipedia:Closure requests for an administrator to review and close this in a few days unless the state of the discussion changes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to note with annoyance that to characterize an editor's work as "look[ing] through wiki policy for something that you can roughly apply to this specific circumstance so that only the work that you did on this article stays" is more or less exactly the opposite of assuming good faith. I have seen criticism of the tables levelled under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and that portion of WP:NOTPAPER stipulating that just because we can include things a traditional encyclopedia could not does not mean we should—and I think all of these policies are germane. I think even if the tables represented the information from only a single source (the W-B prism, say), that would constitute transcription of a lengthy primary source, and would properly belong at Wikisource, if it could be made to fit Wikisource's policies. I think in any case the argument that no one can understand the article without seeing all the names march by is specious, and the argument that 20 years of status quo entitles the tables to be forever grandfathered in is stultifying. I do object to interleaving the tables with the text, thereby making the article less readable. Regulov (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record I could not agree with this more. I did not decide to oppose the list and then look for policy I could use in defense of that, I built my initial argument in this RfC directly on policy (also for the record it seems to me that keeping the list has mainly been argued to be justified through attempting to refute these policies rather than offering policy-based arguments for having the list); I assume Zoeperkoe reasoned similarly. This has been an exhausting discussion and I'm tired of repeating the same arguments because they don't get addressed and I'm still surprised that the argument was made that me not being a scholar would effectively invalidate both my opinion and my (policy-based) arguments but here we are. Unless something very dramatic happens I'll keep out of arguing much more because it's clearly not leading anywhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

These policies very well might be germane - but it's hard to believe that those are the important reasons when the editors who put them forth then readily accepted a proposed compromise that would also violate those same policies by the same logic. WP:NOTREPOSITORY and certainly WP:OR/WP:SYNTH do not excuse simply moving the non-encyclopedic content to another page! If those were the core reasons for this RFC, why propose or accept a compromise that also violates them just as much? Really, I think if everyone from prior to the RfC had communicated and stuck to their own initial reasons for accepting or rejecting the inclusion of the list from higher up the page (which are honestly the more valid concerns imo), and left out the "broad policy"-based justifications entirely, I think this would have all gone much more pleasantly for everyone involved. - car chasm (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have consistently made clear that I'm against the list and I've stuck with the policy-based arguments throughout the discussion. The only reason I supported a compromise is that I believe virtually any compromise solution would be superior to just chucking in the table again. I still don't understand what's so important about it but clearly some feel it is. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns are remedied if there would be individual tables for different copies of the list in those respective articles (in the sense of not creating our own Frankensteined reconstructed list). A new list article for the names would keep policy violations out of this article. I believe WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:NOTREPOSITORY are violated regardless but clearly you don't feel the same way. Discussions like this ought to be based in Wikipedia policy and not in saying that the table is necessary for understanding the SKL without explaining why and without appealing to policy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Give me a break, @Carchasm: now you're upset that your counterparties haven't argued the way you want? Sheesh. Regulov (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm: The single reason I put forth a compromise is because these discussions are incredibly draining. I prefer a compromise over this. And Wikipedia exists by virtue of compromises, not by one party or the other having their way. I think that if you look closely at the article as it was and as it is now, that only one thing is missing: the reigns of individual kings and their nicknames. Everything else is preserved in Template:Sumerian King List (which records the order of kings as presented in ETCSL and as present in the now-removed tables), and reigns and nicknames are still preserved in the individual Wikipedia-articles on the kings - which are linked through the template. But I am happy to wait for the closing editor and go from there. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm: Since Ichthyovenator is going to ask for closure (and I wholeheartedly agree with this) I am just going to point out some things:

For questions a reader might have like "Why did Jacobsen think it was of potential historical value?" The best solution here is to add a sentence like "Jacobsen thought the list was historical because [reason].

Something like a king who only ruled 9 years, followed by one of 8, 36, 6,etc. after a bunch who ruled for preposterous numbers of years is a clear illustration of that, that only a table can show as easily. This is just not true. The curent content summary does this perfectly fine: Individual reigns vary in length, from 1200 years for Lugalbanda of Uruk, to six years for another king of Uruk and several kings of Akshak. On average, the number of regnal years decreases down the list. Some city names, such as Uruk, Ur and Kish, appear more than once in the Sumerian King List. In what way does this not tell readers exactly what you want them to know?

This is sort of a difficult thing to debate because I think the people oppose the list's inclusion for entirely different reasons - it can be hard to keep track of who argued what. It's pretty clear that there have been three reasons from the beginning, as you can read from my bold update summary: WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTPAPER. You have not responded to any of those, except arguing that these are cherry-picked disputed policies - which I find quite troubling.

On their own, both sections are also somewhat dry, and having the list itself as the hinge that ties them together will make the article flow much better. This is just shifting goal posts. I'm fine with the comment that the article is dry and doesn't flow; but the solution there is to improve the prose of the article, not adding endless tables. You, as someone who seems to be interested in literature, should know that.

But instead, I didn't push my changes out until I was sure I'd included everything I possibly could from the original article and that the article was as neutral as possible, reflecting academic consensus. Also, it may not be obvious based on how much I reworded or resourced, but most of the article's original content is still there, whereas you have removed the vast majority of the kings on the list. This is strictly not true. As you could have read in my edit summary, all king names are still in the article in the template at the bottom. The details on the kings are still preserved in their respective articles - whether (some of) those articles should exist at all is another matter. So again, we're left with policy: are the tables WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTPAPER or not?

Back to this article - it's clear that many (at least six or seven on this talk page so far...) people do find value in the list also being on this article, in table format, and that you got pushback on removing it from the first instance of doing so. Yes, people find value in it, but the problem is that some of them clearly find value in it for the wrong reasons (because they think this is a real list with historical kings - which is now covered in List of Mesopotamian dynasties), and some of them fail to explain why they find value in it. Also, as has been pointed out before, just because we can include something doesn't mean we have to. Which leaves us again with policy: such as WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTPAPER. Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to respond to this post, not the other one so we don't divide things. Broadly, I'd summarize my position as not "anti-policy" or "anti-compromise" in the abstract. But I think that the best form of compromise is one where both sides agree that the policies are not violated, if there's disagreement about whether a specific policy applies in a specific circumstance. I don't like compromises where both sides actually think the policy is violated - that just confuses other uninvolved editors who encounter it down the line without the context of the discussion.

As requested, I'll summarize my views on each policy discussed so that anyone reading this doesn't have to read the whole page.

• WP:EXCESSDETAIL - I really do believe that this could go either way here. It's subjective by nature - I don't think we can do much other than collect votes and see if there's overwhelming consensus for one side. My main objection to this being cited as a policy was that it's fundamentally incompatible with the proposed solution/compromise of adding more details and citations to the list.
• WP:NOTREPOSITORY - This one is also subjective. There are plenty of full poems on wikipedia, all shorter than this work. There are plenty of "pared down" versions of works similar to this one. But again, this is not compatible with the proposed compromise of creating a new, separate page. Pretty sure that's also a violation of WP:CFORK.
• WP:NOTPAPER - I was the one who brought this up, so I'll go ahead and say that while including the list as it was is generally fine, I don't think the list in it's current form would belong on a WP:GA or WP:FA version of this article. It needs a lot of improvement, much much more than the prose sections that you contributed. But I think that removing it does go against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, even if the information is available elsewhere and large parts of it are summarized - especially when objections were raised by other editors. I think working with the editors who originally added that material to add it back in in a better cited, more readable format on the same article would have avoided any edit wars or RfCs or really any of this. And I think that that could have been done in a way that everyone who read the article agreed does not violate any of the above policies.
• WP:OR/WP:SYNTH - I know you aren't the one who brought this up, but it was also mentioned so I'm putting my views here. I don't think these apply here at all - the compilation of the list was done by the assyriologists who maintain the ETCSL, and they translated the names in a way that's readily identifiable with the names of those figures (e.g. Dumuzid/Tammuz) on Wikipedia. The ETCSL folks are some of the leading experts in the field, and they also cited their work with numerous references. While an additional, secondary source would be better, the primary source here is fine for bare matters of WP:V. - car chasm (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the last comment I add here before I submit a request for closing this. I think we can all at least agree that this discussion is no longer productive and that we are not getting anywhere. In this last reply, car chasm is again not so subtly trying to imply that those who are voting to keep the table removed do not actually care about policy and are instead using it as a justification in their blind hatred towards the table, again without car chasm providing any of their own policy-based justifications for including the table other than appealing to WP:PRESERVE. I have yet to see a good explanation as to why an elaborate table transcribing the list and sporadically offering commentary is necessary, or even how it improves the article. The concern that including the list is going to mislead people has not been adequately addressed either, but dismissed as unlikely even though we had an editor voting in this very discussion be misled in this way. I don't think WP:PRESERVE applies here since that policy states should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research - there was a distinct lack of citations and a lot of original research in the removed table. Both WP:PRESERVE and WP:ONUS can also be argued to offer support for the idea to split the table off into its own article, rather than adding it back here. I maintain my opinion that any argument for adding the table back here, especially in the state it was when it was removed and in the most recent attempt to add it back, outright contradicts WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:OR. Per WP:DISCARD those should be discarded.

• It is obvious to me that WP:EXCESSDETAIL applies here. That policy says Other times, readers might question how so much detail on something is important to the topic. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of every single fact about a subject. The voters who wish to add the table back have not explained how including every single name (many of whom nothing more can be said about them than what is actually in the list) is important to the topic, and what additional insight readers get by us doing so. This article is about the literary work Sumerian King List, it is not a List of names in the Sumerian King List. Should Lord of the Rings include a table of all the characters? Should it transcribe the appendices of the books? My main objection to this being cited as a policy was that it's fundamentally incompatible with the proposed solution/compromise of adding more details and citations to the list This was not a proposed compromise; in the event that it is decided to add the table back in it is a requirement to add more details and citations to the list. Without more details it blatantly fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY and uncited information being a big no-no is Wikipedia 101. The WP:EXCESSDETAIL concern would be fully remedied by the proposed compromise to split the table off into its own article - but you opposed that.
• WP:NOTREPOSITORY is not a subjective policy. It outright states that original historical documents should not go on Wikipedia. Your appeal to there being full poems on Wikipedia shorter than this work is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument - if a poem the length of the SKL is included on Wikipedia that is also a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The table is not a "pared down" version of the SKL - in the removed form it almost completely repeated the list. Yes; adding the removed table to an article of its own would still violate WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which is why I've also been pushing that the table would require major improvements and the addition of a large amount of sourced commentary to justify its existence (and move it away from being a simple transcription). I don't think the appeal to WP:CFORK holds much weight since the articles Sumerian King List and Names in the Sumerian King List (or whatever the title would be) would not be treating the same subject - one would be on the ancient document, its history, analysis of it, preferrably more details on the different copies found and their histories of discovery and translation etc., the other would be on the names in these documents, analysis on them, if they compare to what we know of historical Mesopotamia etc.
• I don't see how the removed table was generally fine by any standard. I am also concerned with how quick you dismiss the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH concerns. Both the table that was removed six months ago (1) and the table that was added in and removed most recently (2) have a large amount of uncited information and no indication as to which version of the SKL has been followed or why. That's directly against WP:OR. For two direct examples of WP:OR in the latest version, that table says that Nanni, a ruler who is not historically attested (i.e. for all intents and purposes fictional) ruled in the 23rd century BC and it claims that Hadanish (another such ruler) ruled around 2500 BC. The compilation at ETCSL was done by respected scholars, but the Wikipedia table clearly was not. In my opinion that you can find a single modern reconstruction of a unified SKL is not a strong argument (why is there only one?) and that version clearly illustrates that the different copies disagree on quite a lot of details. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Carchasm: Thanks for clarifying your position on the policies. I have nothing to add to what Ichthyovenator said in response to you so am happy to wait for the closing statement and go from there. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relevant discussion at Talk:History of Sumer#Sumerian King List

It hinges around calling the list describes their "supposed reign or "recorded reign".[16] Doug Weller talk 17:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)