Talk:Ubara-Tutu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ubara-Tutu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph of Ubara-Tutu be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Iraq may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Original research in the Ubara-Tutu article
editThe sections about the lengths of reign being "mistranslated" is unsourced original research.
The sentence Hence, Ubara TuTu could mean that the king was a protégé of the highpriest and under the protection of the temple. is unsourced original research - the sources give the translation of the name, but don't draw any further conclusions about it.
The quote from the 1873 source simply states that Ubara-Tutu doesn't sound like Berossus' Ardates, and then states that conclusions can't be drawn because they don't know enough about pronouncing the cuneiform symbols in 1873. This says nothing and adds no information to article.
Sumerophile (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
References:
- Today's standard compilation of king lists from Oxford: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature
- WP:RS
- WP:Original research
- WP:POV
- WP:Fringe
Lamech died a few years before The Flood in the Genesis Chronology.
editI think Methuselah is who was meant, being also the Eight.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Abandoned user draft
editPlease would an interested editor assess the reference links added at User:SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits/Ubara-Tutu, incorporate what is useful, then blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? Note that a similar version was already rejected by Zoeperkoe on 13 October 2022 as cleanup, although some new citations were then reinstated. – Fayenatic London 15:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)