Talk:Enki

Uniter of languages

The sources are too similar: and don't shine light on the changes Enki made, the languages are one: "[all] proclaimed Enlil in a single language" & "To Enlil in one tongue [spoke]." implies the languages are one in both sources prior to anything Enki does. The imploring to unite the languages is unclear in both sources. Ea/Enki didn't unite anything at all in either source. Essentially, current source lacks imploring, lacks prior context, has poor wording. But I am unable to change it due to wikipedia revert hounds. An92 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Unless I receive prompt reply I am going to revert it back to an translation that makes sense from a primary source with a thought provoking and more usable description of the spell/incantation (even without analysis), over a secondary analytical source about "Translation as Scholarship" that essentially repeats the source under it with 1 line being slightly different. An92 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You made a bold edit, the edit was reverted, and now it's your turn to build consensus for your changes. Woodroar (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

First of all what an incredibly condescending reply, it's no wonder the average person is scared to edit pages on this website. Secondly please explain in what ways the previous edit is superior? Rather than being incredibly pretentious and reverting without calm explanation. An92 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my initial message was curt, but what you were doing is called edit warring, and it's not how we do things on Wikipedia.

@Remsense reverted your edits because the initial edit summary wasn't clear, and because you were replacing a translation without a good reason. You repeated that initial message above, and I agree that it's difficult to parse.

In addition, it sounds like you're favoring analysis of a primary source over summarizing a secondary source. This is also something we don't do on Wikipedia. We're here to summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources say about our subjects. We don't do original research, including analysis or interpretation of primary (or other) sources.

Now, it's entirely possible that we can add Cohen's translation alongside that of Crisostomo. I doubt it, as we tend to prefer newer sources from established scholars over a dissertation from (at the time) a graduate student, but all of this depends entirely on what reliable, secondary sources say about the translations. This is all covered in our neutral point of view policy, which I linked on your Talk page. I can try to answer any questions you have, but I strongly suggest reading that and the other links on your Talk page first. Woodroar (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Should 'is' be changed to 'was'?

Most related/similar articles discussing the Sumerian pantheon say '___ was an ancient Sumerian god/deity', while some others (this one included) are still written in present tense. Is there a reason for this, or should it be changed to past tense since the religion died out so long ago? Jimbee2 (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)