Talk:Ancient Mesopotamia

I've changed the old redirect to Mesopotamia into a full-fledged article -- hopefully some kind souls will expand it now. --Dmcdevit 03:49, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * you do realize Mesopotamia was exactly about that, and the disambiguation notice said as much, before you changed it. At best, you could argue for a move of Mesopotamia to Ancient Mesopotamia. But: do a web search on Mesopotamia. How many links do you see that do not refer to Ancient Mesopotamia. I know that Mesopotamia means "land between rivers". It is, however, an ancient word for "land between rivers", and usually refers to said land in ancient times. The geographical article (if anybody writes one) could be at Euphrates-Tigris alluvial plain or similar. I suggest you move things back to how they were (unless you are really into writing about the alluvial plain, and insist that your article be at Mesopotamia) dab (&#5839;) 16:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this must have come out of the blue for you unless you saw the nomination at WP:COTW. It made sense that since we wanted to focus on Ancient Mesopotamia, rather than a region, to start the page. The disambiguation page implied it was a region mainly, but also the name of a civilization, the first sentence of the article is "Mesopotamia...is a region of Southwest Asia." Therefore this page will deal exclusively with the civilization, and the general "Mesopotamia" will deal with the region, etc. If this page is successfully expanded it will make much more sense. I hope everyone agrees with the move? --Dmcdevit 22:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Ancient Mesopotamia" isn't "a civilization" any more than "Mesopotamia". The term refers to a cultural continuity in the region, roughly from 3500 BC to 500 BC (i.e. spanning 3000 years). Compare Ancient Near East. I don't care if the article is at Ancient Mesopotamia or at Mesopotamia, I just object to the split. Either of these should be a redirect. Any article on the civilizations of Ancient Mesopotamia will have to start with describing the region, and saying that the term means "between rivers" etc. I'm only telling you things you can read at Mesopotamia, here. Please refer also to WikiProject Ancient Near East for discussions of categorization and arrangement, and for establishing standards. dab (&#5839;) 12:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I've read Mesopotamia. Again, it seemed to imply that Mesopotamia is a region, and not only a region of ancient times but also in the modern world. If this is wrong (and I am by noi means claiming to be an expert), then either I'm stupid, and please direct me to where it says that in the article or the Mesopotamia article needs to be revised. And if so, I would appreciate it if this decision was made by more than just the both of us, but I would definitely accept a change back. Also, articles exist at both Ancient Near East and Near East, analogous to what I thought these articles should be. And, you know, this started out as a reaction to the nomination at WP:COTW, so if you discuss it at the nomination there will be others to comment (and you can vote!)--Dmcdevit 22:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)