Talk:Battle of Uruk

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assyria Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Classical

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Concerns about this article

I have two concerns about this article:

The term "Battle of Uruk" (in English at least) appears nowhere on the Internet except in this article. While I realize that you enjoy writing new articles, there is nothing in this article that is already in the article on Sargon the Great. Therefore, I am wondering whether we shouldn't just redirect this article into Sargon the Great.
I am having a difficult time interpreting the only reference. Apparently it is something entitled "History" published by the Instituto Geografico De Agostini. I can find no mention of this on the internet. Can you provide more information?

Also, please read this section on how to cite references. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I agree, this should be a redirect. A quote from this 'History' would be helpful also (and Egyptzo, please note that you need page numbers for books).--Doug Weller (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find nothing about it on the net because everyone mentiones this battle as a battle in which Sargon defeated his rival. A book provided much more details on this subject. in Fact, I was amused to discover how much details it had about ancient Sumeria and Akkad. You have a page number in the references. It is important that Wikipedia has this battle in a seperate article because it was the first time in history that we historicaly know that an important and decisive military conflict took place. Although it may not be bad to rename the article to - Battle at Uruk. Egyptzo (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, lots of books take a few fragments of text or an inscription and build a narrative around that, which isn't adding facts but interpretation. I see no reason for this to be a separate article. And I also would like a quote. Please provide one, because so far, I can see no reason why this shouldn't be a redirect 'important' isn't a Wikipedia argument. I certainly agree that it should be 'Battle at Uruk'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found the reference. It's to a Partwork, in this case a 20 volume encyclopedia. Each volume is an impressive 832 pages. Enrico Cravetto seems to be the editor, not the author. "After the first Volume free, 'From prehistory all'antico Egypt', the volumes will be in a kiosk at 9.90 euros, plus the price of weekly." [1] and [2]

But I don't see the point of that as a source. Not just that it is virtually inaccessible, but all that we know about this is from an inscription at Nippur, and there shouldn't have been any problems finding an accessible source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]