Jump to content

Talk:Mesopotamia/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Getting Consensus First

Izzedine, your continued attempts to add "Ancient Iraq" to this article are controversial and have been reverted by other editors. You need to gain consensus here on the Talk Page before continuing to add that information into the article. The WP:BRD process has moved past the "be bold" point since you have been reverted by multiple editors and so you now must discuss your changes before just editing them in. Also, your comment about "Greater Syria" is totally inappropriate here. I think you got confused because that is the inappropriate comment I deleted from Middle East, not from here. Right now, you stand alone in your insistence so you need to build a consensus or leave the article alone. (Taivo (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, Wikipedia is not a democracy. What I have added passes Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion, and simply because a couple of people don't like it, it doesn't justify mass-deleting the references and citations. I am all for working towards concensus, and have demonstrated that earlier with you, but you don't seem to reciprocate. Izzedine 14:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Izzedine, you are alone in your opinions as can be seen from the previous section where several editors are in opposition to your edits. You need to build consensus before you add that material to the article since you have not demonstrated that you are using anything more than the titles of those books as "evidence". You are, in essence, finding James Joyce's Ulysses and listing it as a reference for the article on the Odyssey. You don't understand Wikipedia's process in the least and you have been warned before about edit warring without trying to get a consensus first. (Taivo (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
Concerning "democracy", you don't understand the meaning. Wikipedia works on "consensus"--that means that everyone comes to the same opinion and agrees. It does not mean, "one editor thinks so despite what everyone else thinks". Wikipedia's injunctions against democracy are when 5 people agree and 4 people disagree--that isn't consensus and means that more discussion and compromise needs to happen so that all or nearly all of the editors agree. It doesn't mean that you can make your changes when all the other editors disagree with you. In this case, the strong consensus is that your edits should not be made. (Taivo (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
There is yourself and Athenean. dab conceded the term has use (not that it makes a difference because references are what counts). Athenean has a conflict of interest viz-a-viz this because he has clearly breached one of Wikipedia's core policies - neutral point of view, by saying things like this -
"modern Iraqi culture has nothing in common with that of ancient Mesopotamia. Iraq has been conquered by too many people over too many millenia for there to be any meaningful connection to ancient Mesopotamia. 20th century "Iraqis" had not lost even the memory of Mesopotamia, which is why the main archeological (as in abandoned, and uninhabited) had to be re-discovered in the 19-20th century by Western archeologists. Iraq's claim to being a country is also tenuous at best: It is just 3 former Ottoman provinces cobbled together by the British and labeled "Iraq". Yet another of those colonial-era monstrosities where people that have nothing in common with each other are forced to get along, like Nigeria and Congo. The incessant strife we are witnessing bears proof of that. Iraq may well not survive. How sad that some people have fallen for this 20th century colonial concoction and are now perpetuating the hoax. The only thing that Iraq and Mesopotamia have in common is geography. Nothing else."
His initiation of this thread itself was in bad faith and wasn't focussed on improving the article but on "de-emphasizing" Iraq - the principal component of the article's subject. Izzedine 15:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud Taivo please stop lying. Otherwise I will report you for it and point out what you've been doing.

Here are the references I added:

  • Roger, Peter and Stuart Moorey (1976), "Ancient Iraq: (Assyria and Babylonia)", Ashmolean Museum, ISBN 0900090367
  • Steele, Philip (2007), "Ancient Iraq", Dorling Kindersley, ISBN 1405318589
  • Roux, Georges (1980), "Ancient Iraq", Penguin Group, ISBN 0883074419
  • Foster, Karen Polinger (2009), "Civilizations of Ancient Iraq", Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691137226
  • Karsh, Efraim and Inari Rautsi (2003), "Saddam Hussein: a political biography", p–122, Grove Press, ISBN 0802139787
  • Giovanni Curatola et al (2007), "The Art and Architecture of Mesopotamia", Intro, Abbeville Press, ISBN 0789209217
  • Library of Congress Article on Ancient Iraq.
  • Hawass, Zahi (2002), "Bibliotheca Alexandrina: the Archaeology Museum", p–53, American University in Cairo Press, ISBN 9773053261
  • Malam, John (2004), "Mesopotamia (Ancient Iraq) (Your Homework Helper)", TickTock Media, ISBN 1860075436

These reliable references are ample verifiable evidence of the alternative term "Ancient Iraq". Izzedine 14:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Titles of books are not reliable sources, quotes from those books which say "Mesopotamia was Ancient Iraq" or "Ancient Iraq was Mesopotamia" are more important. Unless the books use the term "Ancient Iraq" (capitalized) as an ancient entity, then the titles are meaningless. As I have said many times before, there are books on "Ancient Utah" and "Ancient New York", but that doesn't mean that those terms represent any ancient entity. (Taivo (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
Here are quotes -
It isn't a case of "ancient entity" Taivo. There was no "entity" called Mesopotamia, it's just a name for a region, not an entity. Izzedine 15:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
But it's an ancient, well-recognized, and fairly well-defined name for the region. It is not coterminous with the boundaries of modern Iraq. It is a different entity than what the very modern term "Ancient Iraq" means. The boundaries of Mesopotamia do not equal the boundaries of Iraq. (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
Yes. That is why the article is titled "Mesopotamia" and not "Ancient Iraq", but "Ancient Iraq" is an alternative term and there is verifiable evidence for this, so all that I have proposed is that the alternative term is included, it doesn't supersede the term "Mesopotamia" in any way. The reason why it's "Ancient Iraq" is because the antiquity was based in and ruled from the Iraqi region of the Tigris and Euphrates, which is the vast majority. Iraq is not just the name of the state by the way, it's also the name of the region, they didn't "invent" the name Iraq in 1932, it is attested since as early as the 3rd/4th century when Arabs began migrating into the region. Izzedine 15:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I keep asking you for quotes from these books you keep citing, but you have still not given any evidence that "Ancient Iraq" equals "Mesopotamia". That's the requirement for a synonym: X equals Y. So now you're claiming that "Ancient Iraq" includes northeastern Syria and southeastern Turkey? Both of these areas are clearly part of "Mesopotamia". Unless these books cover the regions of Mari and Harran, then you can't really say that they are about Mesopotamia at all--just about the Iraqi part of Mesopotamia. (Taivo (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
These three books cover Mari, the latter two also cover Harran, they cover the whole of Mesopotamia, within books titled Ancient Iraq -
So let's have some quotes from them. Or did you just find "Mari" listed in the index? Are there chapters on Mari and Harran? If so, then you have a point. But if you only found Mari mentioned in the index (without looking at the actual text), then you might very well find "Jerusalem", "Susa", "Damascus", "Tyre", etc. as well. Is Mari treated like one of the cities of "Ancient Iraq" or is it just a neighboring city? (Taivo (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
The cities don't have whole chapters devoted to them. All three books treat Mari as part of the subject (and how could you not?). Here have a look. Izzedine 16:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
That's not "evidence". Once again, you have just looked things up on Google Books without actually examining them. Check this out. Using your technique, then Jerusalem is part of "Ancient Iraq" as well. Just because the books mention Mari doesn't mean that they put Mari within the confines of "Ancient Iraq". They mention Jerusalem as well. What I'm talking about is treating the regions of Mari and Harran as part of ancient Iraq. Do they give equal weight to Mari and Harran? Clearly they also give equal weight to Jerusalem as well. Read the comments about Nineveh and Babylon in comparison and you will find section headings, their names in lists of chronological periods, detailed site evaluations, etc. The references to Mari are nothing on that order--they are just comments like, "He went to Mari from there", "He conquered Mari". They are all in reference to something or someone else. They are not about Mari, they are about something else and simply use Mari as a geographical reference. You cannot just "count cites" here, you must evaluate the evidence as well. So far you have presented no evidence that Mari and Harran, two clear Mesopotamian cities, are included in discussions of "Ancient Iraq". (Taivo (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) Babylon and Nineveh were two of the most major cities so of course more reference is made to them. You are mistaken about Mari here Taivo, it is treated as part of the main subject matter, the books are covering the subject of "Mesopotamia" under the title "Ancient Iraq". It's quite simple to see. You would never find a book titled "Ancient Syria" dedicated to Mesopotamia. If what you are saying is true, there would not be books covering "Mesopotamia" under the name "Ancient Iraq". I have also provided quotes above which verify the term. I have more aswell, quite a few more, but I didn't want to overcite it to a ridiculous degree, but why are you are trying to subject this to a forensic analysis. Izzedine 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, Izzedine, read the quotes in your Google Books search (you still don't seem to understand that Google Books is not the same as actually reading the book) and you will see that none of them are about Mari. They are all about something else and simply use Mari as a point of geographical reference. Read the quotes about Nineveh and Babylon and you will see that many of them (if not most) are about Nineveh and Babylon, not about something else. Look carefully and you will see that over half of the Mari references in the book are actually bibliographical titles and not in the text itself. And the fact that the book has nearly as many references to Jerusalem as it does to Mari is pretty telling. Some of those Google quotes actually seem to be about Jerusalem as well (although without the book in my hands, it's hard to tell). Put the book in your hands and find something that says, "Mari was part of Ancient Iraq". I doubt that you can because Mari, Harran, and Susa were part of Mesopotamia, but not part of "Ancient Iraq". (after ec) You haven't provided a single quote which equates "ancient Iraq" with "Mesopotamia", you have just given links to searches you did on Google Books, none of which say that. I've been very clear on the fact that you are not evaluating your evidence, you are simply doing searches on Google Books without actually reading the books or citing a single quote that says, "Ancient Iraq and Mesopotamia are the same thing." (Taivo (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

But at this point it time, it's clear that you have a firmly-entrenched POV and you don't have the right kinds of evidence to convince me. So let others offer their thoughts on the issue. I'll post a request for comment and we will wait to see what others have to offer. (Taivo (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

I understand what you are saying and I want to offer a suggestion that might satisfy us both. As you are saying Ancient Iraq isn't a synonym for Mesopotamia, we can reword my edit to indicate this in some way, we can agree on the exact wording here on the talk page beforehand, is that reasonable? Izzedine 17:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This does not have to be finalized today. Wait a few days and see if the community has a consensus on the issue. (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
Well this a new third option, separate from the question in the RFC. Does it sound like a reasonable compromise? Izzedine 17:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wait for a few days and see what the community thinks about the issue. (Taivo (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
BTW, we don't restate the whole argument in the Request for Comment section. We let that section alone for community comment. All your arguments are already stated here and in the preceding section. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Ancient Iraq references

Here are the references I added as a reminder:

These reliable references are ample verifiable evidence of the alternative term "Ancient Iraq". Izzedine 11:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of Wikipedia's 3 core policies) states that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and reliability. I think this is in ample satisfaction of the policy. Izzedine 17:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

And just as a reminder, titles found in Google Books alone without evaluating what they actually say is not a reliable source. None of these sources equate "Mesopotamia" with "Ancient Iraq", but only discuss that portion of Mesopotamia lying within the boundaries of modern Iraq. That's the fundamental issue. "Ancient Iraq" is not a synonym for "Mesopotamia", which includes sites and regions outside the borders of modern Iraq. (Taivo (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
I own Roux's and Peter Roger's books and have them next to me. Foster's book is available to read on Google books. Why have you been avoiding Karsh and Rautsi's book? Izzedine 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have them, then you can provide a quote from each of them that says "Mari, Haran, and Susa were in Ancient Iraq", or "Mesopotamia is the same as Ancient Iraq" or something like that. Shouldn't be a problem if those books actually say that. (Taivo (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
I will add more quotes later this evening (searching a physical book takes time). However, fabricating unlikely and arbitrary statements like the one above and expecting them to be available is ridiculous. You seem to question whether the books are about "Mesopotamia", but they are comprehensively about Mesopotamia. And Yes there are many reliable sources to verify it is an alternative term. Izzedine 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I was clear that "something like that" is perfectly acceptable. I'm in no hurry. I was the one above who said that we should allow a few days for community comment. (Taivo (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Here is a quote from page 2 of Georges Roux's book explaining the scope of his book "Ancient Iraq":

Here is a quote from the next page of the same book:

These quotes testify that this is a book covering the civilization of ancient Mesopotamia, bearing the title Ancient Iraq. The terms "ancient Iraqis" and "ancient Iraq" appear throughout the book on every few pages to describe the "Mesopotamians" and "Mesopotamia" respectively. I will provide further quotes from the books shortly. Remember, it is not for you to agree with a reference, but for the reference to be verifiable for readers. Izzedine 18:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The first quote calls this area "Mesopotamia", not "Ancient Iraq". The second quote doesn't even mention "Ancient Iraq", but "modern Iraq". Your final comment shows that you don't seem to fully comprehend the problem--"ancient Iraq" is not the same as "Ancient Iraq". The author is not using "Ancient Iraq" as a proper noun or true synonym for "Mesopotamia", but simply using the adjective "ancient" to modify the proper noun "Iraq". The two phrases "ancient Iraq" and "Ancient Iraq" are not the same thing. "Mesopotamia" might have "Ancient Iraq" as a synonym (although you still haven't proven it), but not "ancient Iraq". Think of the difference between "white house" and "White House" or between "old L'viv" (generic for the city before the 20th century) and "Old L'viv" (only the specific part within the former city walls). You need to be more careful in selecting your quotes. (Taivo (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
No Taivo, you are switching your standards so they cannot be met. First you say "it is just descriptive there was no entity "Ancient Iraq"", then when I point out that there was no entity "Mesopotamia" either – that they are both just names, you switch to "the scope of the book doesn't cover Mesopotamia it only covers what is within Iraq's borders", so then I quote you evidence that the book covers Mesopotamia and then you switch back to "it is just descriptive". No Taivo. This is a book on Mesopotamia with the title Ancient Iraq. It covers all of Mesopotamia, it has the title Ancient Iraq, and it uses this term throughout the book. There was no entity of "Mesopotamia" nor "Ancient Iraq" – these are both just names for the ancient Tigris–Euphrates region. I'm not saying the name of the article should be changed to Ancient Iraq (I could understand the resistance in that case), all I'm saying is that the alternative term can be included in there. Izzedine 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
You don't understand what a name is. "Mesopotamia" is a proper name, "Ancient Iraq" is a proper name, but "ancient Iraq" is not a proper name, "Iraq" is the name in that case. The title is not "Ancient Iraq" as a name, but "ancient Iraq" as an adjective with a name. "Ancient" is capitalized in the title only because it is the first word of the title. If the author actually meant "Ancient Iraq" as a proper name, then he would have written it thus in the text. That's just another proof that titles are not "evidence". The text of the book only says "ancient Iraq" which is not a synonym for "Mesopotamia". If the books have "Ancient Iraq" (capitalized), then it is a proper name. I haven't changed my argument one bit--"Mesopotamia" does not equal "Ancient Iraq" and you have no quotes that say that it does. "Ancient Iraq" is not the same as "ancient Iraq" as far as names go--"Ancient Iraq" would be a name, but "ancient Iraq" is not. Only two names can be synonyms for one another. (Taivo (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
Why do you keep avoiding Karsh and Rautsi's book? This is a book titled Mathematics in Ancient Iraq: A Social History and it deals with Mesopotamian mathematics. Time to consider my third option? instead of clinging to petty technicalities? Izzedine 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The link you gave me to the Karsh and Rautsi book is not a link, but an advertisement. Advertisements are not reliable sources. There's nothing in that advertisement about "Ancient Iraq" or even "ancient Iraq". So you think that the difference between "white house" and "White House" is a technicality? Sorry, but you need to review your basic English grammar and lexicon if you think so. Look up the section on "proper names" or "proper nouns". What is to be done now? Exactly what I told you several hours ago--wait patiently for a few days and see what the request for comment brings. Nothing needs to be decided now. (Taivo (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
It isn't an advertisement it is a highlighted citation from page 122 of the book. Izzedine 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the link on that advertisement to a .pdf of the first chapter. I didn't have to look at more than the very first sentence to see "The mathematics of ancient Iraq". In other words, they are not talking about "Ancient Iraq" (proper name), but "ancient Iraq" ("Iraq" is the proper name). Thus it also proves my point--that the proper name "Mesopotamia" might be synonymous with the proper name "Ancient Iraq" if you could offer any proof that such a proper name exists in the literature, but there is no such proper name in any of the references you have offered so far. "Iraq" is not synonymous with "Mesopotamia" and so far that is the only proper name that any of your references use since "ancient" is not part of the proper name in these cases, but only a simple adjective modifying the proper name "Iraq". (Taivo (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt – throughout the text of the book "ancient Egypt"
The Oxford history of ancient Egypt – throughout the text of the book "ancient Egypt"
The art of ancient Egypt – check the book overview "ancient Egypt"
Life in ancient Egypt – throughout the text of the book "ancient Egypt"
The pharaohs of ancient Egypt – throughout the text of the book "ancient Egypt"
The traveler's key to ancient Egypt – throughout the text of the book "ancient Egypt"
It is no different Taivo. Izzedine 06:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since you like to quote Wikipedia policy, check out WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is a major difference between Egypt (and Greece) and Iraq. Egypt (and Greece) actually existed in the ancient world and were known to their inhabitants (and neighbors) as "Egypt" and "Greece" (the Egyptian and Greek equivalents of those English words at least). Iraq did not exist in the ancient world and no region was known by its inhabitants as "Iraq". "Iraq" is a modern entity. Both Greece and Egypt as named entities predate Iraq by at least three millennia (Egypt by at least four and a half millennia). Apples and oranges. (Taivo (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Can you provide proof for these claims please. Izzedine 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) That actually just makes my point. Using "Egypt" for antiquity means that the entire ancient kingdom can be discussed under the heading "Ancient Egypt" because at different times in its history, the border of Egypt did extend beyond the borders of modern Egypt. Same with "Ancient Greece"--at different times in antiquity, Greek communities were found beyond the borders of modern Greece. That's the upside of using the terms from antiquity--we are not tied to the borders of a modern country. With "Iraq" it is totally different since there was no entity called Iraq in antiquity, so we are completely tied to the modern borders when talking about it. Therefore, since the modern borders of Iraq are not coterminous with the borders of ancient Mesopotamia, the two are not synonymous. (Taivo (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Mesopotamia is just a name - not an entity. There was no entity called "Mesopotamia". And howcome there are numerous books about "Mesopotamia" entitled "Ancient Iraq". then? Izzedine 06:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The term in French. Izzedine 06:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Proof that there were ancient entities called "Egypt" and "Greece"? Now you're just being argumentative. And this is the English Wikipedia, so French doesn't count. I've told you at least half a dozen times now to let this lie until others have had a chance to comment. Your "evidence" is not sufficient to prove your point. Let others weigh in. (Taivo (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Is it right that you insist on subjecting my argument to a forensic examination, but when I ask you to provide proof for your claims, you say "Now, you're just being argumentative". Irony? Izzedine 11:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

More Ancient Iraq references

Stories from Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamian mythology)
A Story from Ancient Iraq
"from ancient Iraq (also called Mesopotamia)"
"Ancient Iraq | Heritage Key"
Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient Iraq – Kokushikan University.
"archaeological sites of Iraq (ancient Mesopotamia)" – Archaeological Institute of America. Izzedine 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
None of these demonstrate that "Ancient Iraq" is a proper name equivalent to "Mesopotamia". The phrase "ancient Iraq" is a descriptive phrase, not a proper name which would be a synonym for the proper name "Mesopotamia". (Taivo (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Professor Thorkild Jacobsen's view

"Ancient Mesopotamia is the country now called Iraq" – Thorkild Jacobsen, Macmillan Publishers
So what? This still doesn't prove that "Ancient Iraq" is a proper name. Only a proper name can be listed as a synonym for another proper name, "Mesopotamia". (Taivo (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Professor McGuire Gibson's view

These would only demonstrate that "Mesopotamia" is synonymous with "Iraq" (which is even more unjustified), not that "Ancient Iraq" is a proper name equivalent to "Mesopotamia". (Taivo (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

BBC citation on Iraq etymology

Further cited in in print. Izzedine 08:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Another citation —

Izzedine 08:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these are reliable sources when it comes to linguistic etymology. (Taivo (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Reliable sources isn't tailored to subject specialists, it is whether the source has a reliable reputation. From WP:RS - "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." The BBC and Oxford University Press are definitely reliable sources. Izzedine 10:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You still don't understand what a reliable source is, Izzedine. Reliable sources don't involve uncritical parroting. Reliable sources are primarily peer-reviewed, academic, secondary sources. Mainstream news organizations are there if there is an absence of peer-reviewed, academic secondary sources. Everything you have listed as a source since your first list of references is a waste of time since none of them meet the primary criteria for reliable sources on Wikipedia. You have not listed a peer-reviewed academic secondary source for that etymology. And, yes, Izzedine, specialist sources trump the popular press all day and all night as reliable sources. And you asked me above to provide quotes that ancient Egypt and ancient Greece existed. I'm going to assume that you were just being facetious in the middle of the night. (Taivo (talk) 13:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Request for Comment

Can "Ancient Iraq" be listed as a synonym for "Mesopotamia"? (Taivo (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Arguments for and against this from the editors involved in the dispute are discussed in the previous two sections. (Taivo (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
To all participants: There is currently another, related discussion on Talk:Iraq, as to whether the lead sentence of that article should begin with "Iraq, also known as Mesopotamia...". --Athenean (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not at all a specialist of Mesopotamia but maybe I can contribute the following: it seems to me that Wikipedia policy is to use words as they are used commonly. When I was at school learning history (in France), I was told of Mesopotamia, not "Ancient Iraq". We commonly say "Ancient Greece' or "Ancient Egypt" but we say for example "Gaul", not "Ancient France", or "Hispania", not "Ancient Spain". I don't think there is much to argue here. Our encyclopedia should use common language. Voui (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You are right about common language Voui, but the question here isn't whether the article should be renamed from Mesopotamia to Ancient Iraq, it is merely whether the term Ancient Iraq can be *included* as a synonym in the article. WP:Verifiability (one of Wikipedia's 3 core policies) states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations".. Izzedine 10:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
But, Izzedine, your sources all use "ancient Iraq", which is not a proper name, but a simple description. When listing synonyms, we cannot equate a proper name, "Mesopotamia", with a descriptive phrase "ancient Iraq", otherwise we could equate "United States" with "land of the free and home of the brave", a very common descriptive phrase, but not a proper name. (Taivo (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
  • I also learnt about Mesopotamia and the culture of Sumeria. It would be useful to know how major archaeological museums like that in the University of Pennsylvania (which has a large collection of cuneiform clay tablets from Ur) address these issues. Here is a direct link to that museum [1], the Penn Museum. They don't seem to use the term "Ancient Iraq". Their exhibition on Ur is entitled "Iraq's Ancient Past: Rediscovering Ur's Royal Cemetery". The title does admittedly contain the two word "ancient" and "Iraq", but not in that order. In the English language, Mesopotamia is the word used to describe the area in antiquity between the Tigris and the Euphrates. as the Greek name suggests; geographically this area is largely subsumed in modern-day Iraq. The British Museum, another museum specializing in this era, uses the word Mesopotamia. [2] Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We are not required to waste time with the childish idiosyncracy of a single user. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. If Izzedine is so obsessed about a single term, let him publish his own blog or something. This has gone on far too long, and people really should learn to avoid rewarding this kind of behaviour with their attention. --dab (𒁳) 22:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  • What the...? I'd say, that Mesopotamia can be listed as a synonym for Ancient Iraq! So of course I am for this...

What a question -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.211.113 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have to act fast ya ahlan

Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ir...Mesopotamia.22

- (add a vote of support)

Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Me...st_for_Comment

- (add a vote of support)

Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

- If you see that somebody has removed the reference, *click undo*

& Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=334456294

- See what he is doing to our beloved Muntadhar. *revert him*

(the above is copy and paste from the forum whose cache is in the link - cached because the actual posts have been removed probably due to a discussion at ANI). Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the most one-sided argument I have ever seen listed at RFC; most RFCs at least have valid points on each side. The best midcentury synopsis of this topic was entitled Ancient Iraq (Georges Roux, published by George Allen & Unwin in 64, republished as a Penquin Book in 72), 480 pages, covering from the Neolithic to the Parthian periods. In the preface the author discusses the title, compares it to a book about Ancient France or Gaul, and defends the title. I cannot imagine why any of you would object to at least acknowledging that Ancient Iraq and Mesopotamia refer to the same region. alteripse (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they don't. It's like saying that Ancient Italy equals the Roman Empire, or Ancient Britain equals Wessex. (Taivo (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

With all due respect, remind yourself the best use of RFC: it's not to gather allies in an edit war, but to get a dispassionate view from someone whose emotions have not been engaged. Your judgement on this simple issue is being distorted by at least one, and probably 2 factors. First, forget the subjunctive: it doesnt matter whether you think the terms should be synonymous, but whether other reasonable people (i.e., published reliable sources) already think so. Second, you might be overreacting to too many interactions with the historical chauvinists you complain about on your talk page. I have no dog in this fight and will not endeavor to argue further, but you must decide whether to yield gracefully in the face of indisputable evidence that you are wrong. The best of us have had to do so. This issue isn't that important. alteripse (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Charletan, 31 March 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change

Parthians

to

Parthians

Please format the first use of 'Parthians' as a Wikipedia reference (Wikilink) to Parthia. I would do it myself, but I do not have enough Wikipedia cred.

'Parthians' is formatted as a Wikipedia reference to Parthia far down in the article (in the Astronomy section). Since the Astronomy reference is distant from the first use of 'Parthians', I have no objection to leaving the Astronomy reference. But the first use of 'Parthians' is the most important place to make a Wikipedia reference.


Charletan (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanx --JokerXtreme (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Small typo

{{editsemiprotected}} I need some one to change

Sargon of Akkad—conqueror of Mesopotamia and creator the first empire that outlived its founder.

to

Sargon of Akkad—conqueror of Mesopotamia and creator *of* the first empire that outlived its founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderlustking7171 (talk • contribs)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Crawford

Anyone know who "Crawford" is or was? References 35 and 36 refer to a "Crawford, page 73", but there's no other mention in the article, nor has there been since a now-banned editor introduced the text in this edit

It might be O. G. S. Crawford, as he's the only archaeologist mentioned on the Crawford (name) page, but there's no mention of him working in Mesopotamia. Rojomoke (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.51.208.164, 23 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 


sexuality is life forever

24.51.208.164 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: this is not an edit request. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Christian states in the 1st century BC???

"A number of primarily Christian native Mesopotamian states existed between the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD, including Adiabene, Oshroene and Hatra."

I am no expert on the matter, so I would rather not edit. But this strikes me as rather... prophetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornrelius (talk • contribs) 07:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Original name.

This is redicilous. In the article it says meso in greek means the middle in greek. thats nonsense. The realname Of mesopotamia is Mezo Botan, which means the land of Botan. Botan is a region in Kurdistan, today its in the south eastern turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkurdistan (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

U r missing something.... Treatment of women... wat about that?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.16.47 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious assertion

This is dubious:

The oldest known occurrence of the name Mesopotamia dates to the late second century AD, when it was used in the Anabasis Alexandri to designate the land east of the Euphrates in north Syria.

The word Mesopotamia occurs throughout the Greek Septuagint (in the established sense of between the Tigris and Euphrates), and that dates to more like the second century BC. The above misinformation needs to be corrected. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

mesopotamia

why is mesopotamia so small ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.240.210 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia

I have made a proposal to reorganize Template:Ancient Mesopotamia. See here for the discussion; see here for the actual new draft. Your input is appreciated!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Significance in Genesis

The biblical Patriarch Abraham, known as Abram at that time, recieved divine instruction to leave Ur Kaśdim (Ur of the Chaldees) and travel to Cannan. Genesis 11:26-32 reports that Abram's father Terah led the expedition as far as Haram, and records the participants as Terah, Abram, Lot (Abrams nephew), and Sarai (Abrams wife and half sister who was later renamed Sarah), all descendants of Arpachshad (one of Noah's son Shem's 5 sons). They broke the journey and settled at Haran (meaning parched and also know as Paddan Aram and Aram Naharaim) where Terah later died. Abram stayed there until he was 75 years old before continuing his journey to Cannan. Other children of Terah flourished in Paddan-Aram, as indicated by Genesis 27:42-43, where Abraham's grandson Jacob is recorded as returning in order to seek a bride from the daughters of Laban, a brother of Abraham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary prophet (talk • contribs) 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious statement

"Later, the term Mesopotamia was more generally applied to the all the lands between the Euphrates and the Tigris, thereby incorporating not only parts of Syria but also almost all of Iraq and southeastern Turkey."

Inspection of the map reveals that "all the lands between the Euphrates and the Tigris"... includes only about 25% of the land area of Iraq, which is rather different to "almost all of Iraq".

Perhaps this statement should be changed to read "most of the inhabitable region of Iraq", or something similar to that.Eregli bob (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Iraq

An interesting question is why some histories of the Ancient Near East talk about the Babylonians, Sumerians etc. as being in Mesopotamia, they baulk at using the modern term Iraq? But Mesopotamia is a Greek term, it was only applied to the region long after some of these civilizations. Also nobody baulks at talking about the history of ancient Egypt, Greece etc. even referring to periods long before these terms were applied to these countries. PatGallacher 02:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but Egypt is also a Greek term (the Egyptian word is Kemet) and the Greek name for Greece is actually Hellas. We use terms like Egypt, Greece and Mesopotamia, not because we're racist, but because we've been doing so for hundreds if not thousands of year. Changing them leads to resistance because long standing traditions are not easily overthrown. ath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.45.144 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why people baulk at using a term like "Ancient Iraq" is because it's misleading. Firstly, from a geographic perspective it implies that Mesopotamia somehow corresponded geographically to modern-day Jordon, when this patently isn't the case. I've already raised this issue below because this article is presently perpetuating this myth, but Iraq's present day borders were drawn up by British civil servants in the 20th century. There's more than a touch of irony about someone claiming that denying modern day Iraq's heritage is some sort of western-imperialist brand of racism, when the borders of Iraq itself (and the heterogeneous people we have consequently shoved together under the label of "Iraqis") owe their modern identity to western civil servants.
Secondly, there was no such thing as a homogeneous race of "Mesopotamians" who correspond in any way with the people we refer to as "Iraqis" today. The Assyrians and Babylonians were a semitic people, whilst the Sumerians spoke a language that was completely unrelated in its origins. Implying that a race of Mesopotamians gradually evolved into the Iraqis of today is therefore completely misleading. Neither are modern day Iraqis a homogeneous race of people either. To try and claim that somehow the descendants of Semitic peoples (Assyrians and Babylonians), the linguistically unique Sumerians, Indo-Europeans (Kurds), Arabs and the other peoples who presently occupy Iraq are somehow one group descended from a non-existent race termed "Mesopotamians" is an exercise in confusion.
The only grounds for calling Mesopotamia "Ancient Iraq" are linguistic ones. Trying to make the above argument about modern-day Iraqis all sharing a Mesopotamian heritage is just a piece of nonsense. Blankfrackis (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I could write a large response and critique all the errors you just made, but that would be time consuming and pointless, so here's something very short instead.

Todays Iraqis should be known as Mesopotamians, in the same way as Iranians are known as Persians, Ancient Iraq is Modern Iraq's history and heritage, and if you are not convinced of this, cest la vie, after all more than half of the human race worships their imagination so what does it matter? Iraq - Over 8000 Years of History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.210.78 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no parallel with the example of Persians and Iranians. The Persians were a distinct ethnic group with a common language, culture and history. In contrast there was no "Mesopotamian" ethnicity and no common Mesopotamian language or culture, far less one which is the heritage of present day Iraqis - the vast majority of whom speak Arabic and Kurdish, not Akkadian or Sumerian or descendants of these languages. Not that we refer to Iranians as ethnically Persian in the west in any case, we refer to the ethnic group of Persians as distinct from Iranians as is illustrated here -Iran naming dispute.
Incidentally, there would be nothing pointless about you taking issue with the points raised above - that's what this page is for - and I'd encourage you to voice your opinions. Blankfrackis (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If modern day Iraqis didn't descend from Mesopotamian peoples, who did? Someone must carry the genes of these ethnicities, unless they were all victims of a holocaust that no one has ever heard of. So Blankfrackis, if modern day Iraqis aren't descendants of ancient Mesopotamian peoples, what modern day people would be your best guess? These ancient bloodlines must have gone somewhere. What on earth would make their genes travel further than the land between the two rivers? So be my guest, holocaust or migration? I think we should stick to the consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.157.214 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned said "migrations or Holocaust, that no one had ever heard of" how about both, 10,000 times, that everyone has heard of? Everyone who studies the peoples that have lived in that area without grudge or brainwashing knows this, all the inscriptions refer to dozens of migrations and holocausts you gotta be joking to say "no one has ever heard of". Latin history, the Greek writings on the territory, A WHOLE BOOK OF THE BIBLE'S OLD TESTAMENT (Lamentations, hint its the one book of the Bible no scholar is in dispute actually happened) almost every other book of the Bible mentions wars with and between the Aramaic speaking peoples, every stone inscription without exception, flood stories, (Gilgamesh, Noah), famine stories, Roman Empire salting the earth stories, Alexander the Great genocide stories, ethnic cleansing stories, the fact that almost every (NO NO NO, excuse me EVERY) people that was once described as being there no longer exists, not one of its original religions exists, not one of its original languages exists as spoken. We are not talking about Britain here this place has no contiguous line of heritage, it was the birthplace of real war (besides the good things). Assyria moved whole peoples in their time to take away their attachments to land and nationalism (and they were probably the good ones because they recorded this policy at least). NATO style or Hitler/Stalin style pacts started there, Mohammed a native called it Taqiyya look it up referring to his temporary alliances in the Koranic wars. (and i know no one is going to believe me but I!, not a real scholar was the first to describe Mesopotamia as the 'cradle of civilization' on Wikipedia in this article about 6 years ago believe it or not under a different name, actually that was 10 names ago, I stole the term from the tv shows and books about Western Civilization by real scholar the Romanian scholar of France, Eugene Weber referring to Western Europe's evolution from Mesopotamia as 'the cradle of civilization', no one is going to believe me, evil always wins on Wikipedia, I believe it was from the late Mr. Weber's book 'Reflections on The Jews of France' or 'The Harbinger of Fascism' he uses his great phrase to describe Mesopotamia that I randomly put on Wikipedia before that name was banned by some racist bigot bully who knows how to twist all things against Jews). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryester (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Maryester what long angry salad of letters that doesn't make a single coherent argument, and since when was the Bible a history book let alone a sholarly source? 21:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If people would do simple mathematical calculations based on the power of two, they would see how many billion branches there are in both directions between now and 800 AD, enough for every person today to easily be descended from nearly every single person then who left issue of every nationality, then they would see how silly it sounds when they would talk about the earliest common ancestor long before that. Just like the projected myth that genes always stayed put within a fifty mile radius, century after century, everywhere. Gaspard de Coligny is a good example because records of his ancestry are unusually complete going to about 300 AD, by that time they include the royalty and nobility of every entity in the then known world, as do everyone else's of course. So who's descended from the Ancient Sumerians and Egyptians? Well undoubtedly we all are, but in varying proportions of course. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
We all undoubtedly are, in varying proportions of course, but the inhabitants of the geographical locations where the ancient civilization historically existed are the most likely of modern humans to be descended from them. This isn't an exercise in "simple mathematical calculations based on the power of two", but rather simple logic. 23:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Based on the mathematical realities I mentioned, the most technically accurate statement then would be "the inhabitants of the geographic locations where the ancient civilization historically existed are the most likely of modern humans to have the highest proportions of descent from them. Even then, there are exceptions to that rule, as large-scale migrations of entire populations have been more common over the centuries than you apparently think. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Including Kuwait in Meso

So user:Agrso has a few sources backing up the claim that Kuwait should be included in the definition of Mesopotamia, and they even added it to the lede. I am no expert, but I think the fact a tiny island off the coast of Kuwait merits such a drastic change in the geographic definition of an area usually confined north of Kuwait. What do others think?

Cheers, Λuα (Operibus anteire) 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


It's not just a few sources and Kuwait (not Failaka) is identified as part of Mesopotamia by many sources, for example:

Quote: With Babylon and Seleucia secured, Mehrdad turned to Charax in southern Mesopotamia (modern south Iraq and Kuwait).

Quote:Mesopotamia refers to a region and a not a civilization, a region covering, roughly, present day Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of Syria.

Quote: The earliest texts so far derive from Uruk, a site in lower Mesopotamia known today as Warka and in the Old Testament as Erech (Gen 10:10). The language of these documents is largely Sumerian, which suggests the peoples of Uruk and elsewhere in the region were Sumerians. Their ultimate origin is a mystery; but these non-Semitic dwellers of the marshlands were clearly endowed with cultural, technical and political skills that enabled them to create a high urban civilization that flourished in what is now southern Iraq and Kuwait from 3200 (or earlier) to 2360 BC and then again from 2100 and 1800 BC.

Quote: We also refer to this region as Mesopotamia, which means, "between the rivers". The greater area of this region today is encompassed by the countries of Iraq, Kuwait and Iran.

Quote: The Mesopotamian region encompasses present-day Iraq and Kuwait.

  • Barbara Marciniak (1994). Earth. p. 78.

Quote: ......in an area called Mesopotamia, located between the ancient rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern day Iraq and Kuwait.

[Mesopotamia occupied present-day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait]

The region occupied by the Sumerians was between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now Iraq/Kuwait and, until recently has always been known as Mesopotamia.

Carter posits that the boat dates back to 7000 BCE when present-day Kuwait and Iraq formed the region of Mesopotamia.

Often referred to as the Fertile Crescent, the lands of ancient Mesopotamia included some of the territory we now know as Kuwait, Settlements uncovered in the present-day country reveal that ancient peoples related to the Sumerians once inhabited territories there, just as they had in present-day Iraq. Sumerians were known to have organized a stable workforce, grown a variety of crops, and raised livestock for food. Ancient settlements found in Kuwait were most likely as sophisticated as those in southern Iraq.

Mesopotamia: Greek for "land between the rivers," the Arabic word is "Ma Bayn Nahrain." Both refer to the region known in the West as the Cradle of Civilization. Watered by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, this area saw the rise of the Sumerian, Akkadian-Babylonian, and Assyrian civilizations. It is now part of the nations of Iraq and Kuwait and includes parts of Iran, Turkey, and Syria.

Quote: This map shows Sumer and the Fertile Crescent area located in Mesopotamia, which forms parts of current day Iraq and Kuwait. User:Agrso (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Map Observation

Um…have you guys noticed that map of Mesopotamia that's in this article's introduction is in German or some Germanic language more closely related to German than English is?  
— RandomDSdevel (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's in German. But it seems to be the best map around of Mesopotamia, and most names are not that different in German or English. So at least I don't think it's a problem.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

wdeqdedwsfwesjfhxjm

dwwswsasqwdedss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.11.135 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mesopotamia/Archive_2&oldid=1142337513"