Talk:History of Mesopotamia

Untitled
Gross mistake, Sarmatian culture cited as pre-Sumerian, changed into Ubaid and Uruk

Shouldn't this page be renamed/moved to "History of Mesopotamia"?
This is not a timeline at all. 144.92.104.181 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be merged, but it would quite long on the main page. I would suggest inserting a summary on the main page, Mesopotamia, and then link the subtopic to the actual history of Mesopotamia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.65.31 (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of ancient Mesopotamia → History of Mesopotamia — This page is a narrative history, rather than a timeline. —Sumerophile (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Mesopotamia - History of Mesopotamia - History of Sumer
It has been proposed earlier (and not by me) that History of Mesopotamia be merged with Mesopotamia. I don't think that is necessary. I would suggest to make Mesopotamia a page that deals purely with Mesopotamia as a geographical entity, i.e., which countries are included and which not. The History of Mesopotamia page can then give an overview of its history. I would argue, though, that History of Sumer should be merged into History of Mesopotamia. Sumer is an ill-defined, oldfashioned term that is best not used. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sumer is an ill-defined, oldfashioned term that is best not used." Really? Says who? Did you just make that one up yourself? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, that was put a little bit simplistic. But fact is, that these pages suggest that there is something like a Sumerian culture, even though all we have are texts in Sumerian. Anyway, the more important argument is that History of Sumer and History of Mesopotamia are virtual copies (or should be) for the 4th-3rd millennium. Please respond to that argument. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vehemently oppose. Mesopotamia is a larger concept than Sumer, which nonetheless is a coherent concept. — LlywelynII  01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I must oppose this merge proposal since both are full articles of different scope, without much overlapping information, and both are long enough already, so there seems no need for a mere. Best to keep them separate. Sumer is only one of the brief subtopics on this page, which also covers a lot of other entities from other timeperiods.  The other page preserves more in-depth political history that has been accumulated by historians over the past century or so. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what you mean by "of different scope". And am I correct in assuming that if these pages had a large overlap, you would not oppose a merge? -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I said no such thing. If you ever studied logic, that is exactly how a false premise gets started. The bottom line is, I opposed the merge.  And, do you really expect me to have to explain what terms like "scope" mean? I see there is WP:SCOPE that does a pretty adequate job.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You like throwing around "arguments" like wp:scope, don't you? But that was not what I asked (I have noticed before that responding to what I say is not your strongest point). I asked you: explain what you mean by saying that these two articles are "of different scope". I am not asking for some generic answer, I am asking about these two pages. Be more specific.
 * Anyway, since I don't like discussions like this (and especially since you seem to have a habit of not wanting to cooperate or think constructively about anything I suggest in any possible way), I suggest we keep this open until more opinions come in.-- Zoeperkoe (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I despise conversations like this too. All you are doing is pointing the finger at me and trying to bait me with condescending, judgemental personal attacks like telling me what is not my "strongest point".  Who the hell made you my critic?  Who do you think you are, anyway? I have already stated exactly why these two articles have "different scope", in terms that should be easy enough for most anyone to understand. Here it is again: Sumer is only one of the brief subtopics on this page, which also covers a lot of other entities from other timeperiods.  The other page preserves more in-depth political history that has been accumulated by historians over the past century or so. What part of that did you not get? I have already stated that I oppose the merge proposal. I don't know what else you want from me, or why you continue to hector me. I have nothing further to say and will not be baited further by you into saying something inappropriate, no matter how my patience is tried. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means we are going to wait and see what others are going to say. -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose. Sumer is recognised internationally as both a geographic region (for example as the most southern part of citified southern Iraq of the 3rd millennium) and a time period.  Since there does not seem to be any serious agreement that it should be merged into the larger region of Mesopotamia, I am deleting the discussion label at the front of the article.  John D. Croft (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Result discussion: deleted merge templates for Mesopotamia/History of Mesopotamia/History of Sumer; no consensus was reached so pages stay as they are.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT use modern maps
Removed this map from mainspace: We should not be using any modern maps to depict ancient Mesopotamia. The rivers and especially shoreline were completely different at the time. — LlywelynII  01:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC) heh heh whats up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.42.220 (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have taken the liberty to return the map; even a modern map is better than no map. Plus, open any general-audience or scientific book on Mesopotamia and they almost all use modern maps. There is no need for WP to be more pious than the pope.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Article fails to show any comprehension of the division between "history" and "prehistory"
This article is a total mess. Over half of it is preoccupied with the Prehistory of Mesopotamia, which should probably be split to a different article of that name. The History of Mesopotamia properly begins with the beginning of literacy and historical records, which is somewhere around section 5.2 in the current scheme. Before historical records begin, there are no historical records (duh!) -- so it is therefore called "prehistory", since in the absence of anything like records, all we have are hypotheses (often competing ones) based around limited archaeological data. Whoever wrote this article seems to have either no understanding of "prehistory", or else is ignoring the meaning of "prehistory" in a rather unconventional manner. Much work is needed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Article still says term Mesopotamia dates to 2nd Century AD
The article still says the term "Mesopotamia" was first recorded in the 2nd century AD. This is not at all correct or relies on a sloppy source. The Greek word "Mesopotamia" is found throughout the LXX Septuagint Old Testament, which dates to the 2nd century BC. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Should this be named differently?
This isn't really effective as an encyclopedia entry. The various sub-eras aren't in the interest of parsability. I see there's some discussion above, I think it's wrong 1325king (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)