Talk:Mesopotamia/Archive 1

Mitanni
I take exception to this statement: "The Mitanni were an eastern Indo-European people (belonging to the linguistic "satem" group)". Most certainly not.

Having said this, a chariot-using Indo-Aryan group seems to have imposed itself on the Mitanni, leaving scant linguistic remnants in otherwise non-IE documents, and in particular a famous horse-care manual, but the Mitanni themselves were not IE speaking. --FourthAve 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Origin of name

I understood it that the name means "between two rivers" in Greek. Is it possible that this name is simply an indigenous development to Greek? I once visited a village on the island of Naxos in Greece called "Mesapotamia" or something like that, which was between two rivers.

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)

- - - - - -

In answer to your questions, Mesopotamia is indeed a Greek term. No such name was ever used by the various peoples of Mesopotamia themselves. Many simply called it "The Land."

Additionally, I do not find it odd that Assyriologists resist using the term Iraq to designate Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is not confined to Iraq; it also encompassed, at varying times, parts of Iran and Syria. Also, the different peoples of Mesopotamia you mentioned usually lived in specific parts of the region. The Sumerians, for instance, lived in the south, and it would be therefore somewhat incorrect to speak of the entirety of Iraq as their home. Traditionally, as far as I see it, many scholars use the term 'Near East' to refer to Mesopotamia, the Levant, and parts of Iran; scholars will name specific kingdoms or parts of the Near East to talk about certain peoples. This simply allows them to be more specific. --KTN

Old Persian word Miyanrudan
Mesopotamia (Greek: Μεσοποταμία, translated from Old Persian Miyanrudan "the fertile cresent"; Aramaic name being Beth-Nahrain "House of Two Rivers") Miyanrudan seems to mean "between rivers'' i.e Miyan(between)+rud(river)+an(plural sign). Can we check the sources which translate this word as "the fertile cresent", I feel sure thats not the literal meaning of the word.Pasha 19:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I checked some sources and found that Miyanrudan actually means what I suggested above "between rivers" which is understood as "a land between rivers".Pasha 12:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
A related topic, History of the world is currently a nomination on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote to improve its quality. --Fenice 14:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions
Naming conventions (numbers and dates): "For years BC, the format is " BC", for example 44 BC." --JFK 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
this article requires some serious work, and a plan. It just won't do to list the value of a shekel in various units, or individual laws of Hammurabi on an overview article on Mesopotamia. Write flowing, coherent summary paragraphs of the various sub-articles, and weed out all the flotsam that appears to have accreted here. dab (&#5839;) 16:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. I'll work on it as much as possible, or, if others are interested, we could do a complete rewrite. -b 06:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
Dbachmann has proposed that History of Ancient Mesopotamia be merged into Mesopotamia. I have corrected the merge tags as the editor had only tagged the History of Ancient Mesopotamia page. I have no strong thoughts on this proposal, but I would like to point out that, based on the current article sizes, the resulting article will be close to or slightly exceed the recommended article size limit. Road Wizard 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. The Mesopotamia article could do with some expansion in several sections, while the History of Ancient Mesopotamia article could as well, but mainly, would suffer greatly if downsized.  A merger makes no sense, based on article size.  Wikipedia has is fair share History of articles.  I can't see a reason to get rid of it.  *shrug* -b 06:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. Articles that try to cover too much become long and overly complicated to read. Basically I like the Mesopotamia article. Although it could benefit from some expansion and clarification, it is a good summary article. Mattisse 10:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the point is that as the ToC was organized, the 'history' article is the "main" article of about 90% of this article. That doesn't make sense. Maybe change "history" to "timeline", and make this one the "ancient Mesopotamia" article. dab (&#5839;) 11:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. I am just learning about Mesopotamia through reading these articles and I found this article the most helpful (to me) of the ones I have come across so far. I have not read all of them but some are almost incomprehensible to an uninformed person. Mattisse 12:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Law examples
On this page (under "Laws") there were about 30 examples of laws from the Code of Hammurabi. I have moved them to the article Code of Hammurabi, since I think that is their proper place. I really think that article should contain the entire set of laws (since it is not so big), and I will probably make an effort to do this (but not right now). If someone else feel the urge, it would be greatly appreciated. The entire set can be found here:


 * English translation of the code

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 11:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Enlil
Under the section on Mesopotamian gods, it is stated that Enlil is the most important god in the Mesopotamian region. I believe that statement is somewhat misleading. To my knowledge, over the thousands of years of Mesopotamian history, that honor changed hands quite a few times depending on what particular group held power. It should either be qualified or changed; if I have some time later, I will try to come up with a more constructive suggestion for changing it, but for now I wanted to pose it to discussion group to make sure I wasn't just splitting hairs. Any thoughts? Porlesa 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Textbook?
HUGE parts of this article looks as if it's been copy right out of a textbook. Especially the Religion part... Could someone fix this. 71.135.55.211 07:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Map
We need a better map for this article. The current one doesn't even include Eridu. JDG 19:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Eridu is seven miles from Ur. There is only so much detail you can cram into a thumbnail overview map. But you are welcome to fire up the GIMP, of course. dab (&#5839;) 11:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A map of Mesopotamia with the current political boundaries would be beneficial in giving people a better understanding of its location. Mikemill 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kings of Lagash
its mentioned in the article that the kings rulling from 2494-2351 is from Lagash, but im pretty sure that in fact they were all from the city of Kish. also the last king Uruinimgina is also called Urukagina. 80.62.121.24 18:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would that matter, as long as they call themselves ensi of Lagash? The Hellenistic kings of Pergamon were all from the Black Sea. That doesn't negate the fact that they were Attalids of Pergamon --Warpalawas 03:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates
These dates can't be right...
 * 1) Akkadian Empire (ca 2350 BC - 2193 BC).
 * 2) Third dynasty of Ur ("Sumerian Renaissance" or "Neo-Sumerian Period") (ca 2119 BC - 2204 BC)

Can someone correct them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.52.105 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't see any problem w/ them. They appear to be correct. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert move
Need to undo this weird move... siafu 21:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed.195.137.85.173 23:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Agriculture
I just found that the Agriculture section talks nothing about the farming of the land in its subtitles. I might be wrong about the meaning of agriculture, so I think that someone else should do it. Thx. leujohn 12:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

meso
with the exeption of religous ceromonies when did they play music? also i do not see any imformation on family and kin!!! please can anyone help!--209.129.228.126 21:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.209.57 (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Table too large
Whoever added the table in the article messed up. Please go back and fix what you've done so that the Etymology section of the article can be read without inducing headaches. TheMadChild (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, please add text to the "trends" section so that the table isn't just hanging there by itself. TheMadChild (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you make the introduction longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.9.123 (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Need better first image
I propose the first image should be a clear map of the area, ancient and modern. The present 'Trends in Ancient Mesopotamia' is overly complex, and should only be included at all if that aspect is discussed in the text. It certainly shouldn't be first. 219.78.119.85 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Loss of List of Rulers
Sumerophile deleted the list of Mesopotamian Rulers. I feel this is a loss in an encyclopedia, especially since the list is not found anywhere else on the internet - if a Wikipedia list exists, could it have a pointer under "Kings". For this reason I would propose undoing the change. Thoughts anyone?

John D. Croft (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The list was rather random. The whole Sumerian king list is at Sumerian king list. None of the Lagash dynasties, or the later Larsa dynasty are included on the actual list, but they are linked to it. I'll add a link to the king list to this article. Sumerophile (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ancient mesopotamia timeline factual problem
"Ancient Mesopotamia" includes the period from the late 6th millennium BC until the rise of the Achaemenid Persians in the 6th century BC. This long period may be divided as follows:

Well that is the correct definiton, therefore the achamaneid empire should not be included in the timeline of ancient mesopotamia, The Achamaneid empire belongs to a different era,specially since it was not a distinctive mesopotamian civilization, please correct this...

* Late Neolithic: o Hassuna, Samarra and Halaf "cultures"

* Chalcolithic: o Ubaid period (ca 5900 BC–4000 BC) o Uruk period (ca 4000 BC–3100 BC) + Jemdet Nasr Period (ca 3100 BC–2900 BC)

* Early Bronze Age o Early Dynastic city states (ca 2900 BC–2350 BC) o Akkadian Empire (ca 2350 BC–2193 BC). o Third dynasty of Ur ("Sumerian Renaissance" or "Neo-Sumerian Period") (ca 2119 BC–2004 BC)

* Middle Bronze Age o Early Assyrian kingdom (20th to 18th c. BC) o First Babylonian Dynasty (18th to 17th c. BC)

* Late Bronze Age o Kassite dynasty, Middle Assyrian period (16th to 12th c. BC)

* Iron Age o Syro-Hittite or Neo-Hittite regional states (11th–7th c. BC) o Neo-Assyrian Empire (10th to 7th c. BC) o Neo-Babylonian Empire (7th to 6th c. BC) o Achaemenid Persian Empire (6th-4th c. BC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.119.112 (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit the article, you know... Sumerophile (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision of the lead
I found the old version confusing as it is hard to figure out how the two bits of who ruled what fit together. It is also more accurate to mention Mesopotamia as a whole as 'cradle of civilization', a phrase which is also used to describe other areas elsewhere in the world in any case.Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I too found myself abit confused with the old version. Chaldean (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Mesopotamian Technology
Why was my edit reverted? Didn't Al-Haytham and Al-Jazari's inventions and tecnology set the stage for the modern era? This is common knowledge. InternetHero (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Al-Jazari long post-dates Mesopotamia's existence as a polity. This information belongs under Medieval Muslim/Arabic topics. Sumerophile (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. InternetHero (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic Style
Is it just me or is the style of the section on Babylonian philosophy far too academic for Wikipedia. I'm not a very stupid person, or uneducated -- I have written three well-received books -- but for the life of me, I can't get my head round passages like these:

The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes. Babylonian thought was also based on an open-systems ontology which is compatible with ergodic axioms.[21] ... In particular, the Babylonian text Dialog of Pessimism contains similarities to the agonistic thought of the sophists, the Heraclitean doctrine of contrasts, and the dialectic and dialogs of Plato, as well as a precursor to the maieutic Socratic method of Socrates.[22]

Can somebody please be kind and translate into everyday language.

Krivuk (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally. This section is semi-protected, why? Wikipedia's own page on "ergotic" in no way suggests what it might mean in a philosophical or social organization context. I know we're not supposed to vent, but this section seems laughably pretentious. Lemccan (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Economy?
Someone screwed up the economy section... needs to be expanded/revised!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.74.87 (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

History?
somebody write a history article about this???? Teeninvestor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teeninvestor (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Geography
Should be more specific on location and should include climate. Should tell what causes things to change the geography and how it changes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.133.240 (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Technology
Should give examples of technologies- especially important ones Should tell who made things, when things were made, how things were made, etc. Should tell importance of technologies made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.133.240 (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to Historical Names e.g. Neolithic and Chalcolithic
Could it be possible to link these difficult words to their counterparts in Wikipedia or even have the information in brackets behind the word. I would be really helpful, I am investigating the subject with my son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanmcguinness (talk • contribs) 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've made some links (note that terms are only linked once, hopefully the first time they are used). Doug Weller (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

== UMmmm == were did you get the information about all this?Skyfaerie11 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 16
What's up with footnote 16?

16. ^ Eves, Chapter 2ghghghghg

--Fpmfpm (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, (I guess, a pain trying to straighten this out). WHen added last year it just said Eves, chapter 2, but I think I've found the source. dougweller (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Danny Twinkie
"Anu was the Sumerian god of the sky. He was married to Danny twinkie Pisarino, but in some other Mesopotamian religions he has a wife called Uraš. "

It doesn't sound quite right that he was married to "Danny Twinkie Pisarino", but I don't have better information to replace this with —Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusimo (talk • contribs) 11:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah you are probably right. The word twinkle is probably not in cunieform. Thx for pointing it out, but I really can't find info on it. Can someone help? leujohn 14:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Anu's wife was typically Ki, goddess of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.55 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is all wrong. How would they know about twinkies back then?? they were lucky if they found bread let alone icing!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.191.50 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Language and Writing section cleanup
This section's three subheadings all have minor to major issues. The first sentence under Literature and Mythology, e.g., is an incomprehensible run-on, and the final sentence under Philosophy just cuts off mid-line. Some tone and word-choice issues persist elsewhere in the section. Busy writing a paper about this stuff at the moment or I'd fix it myself. Does anyone at least have time to fix the serious issues with readability? LeSaint (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Did a school paper get added to this article?
I'm not much of a wiki expert, but about halfway through the last entry (on Ziggurats) the style of the article changed to sound like a middle-school paper on the topic, with no references. ("If the wheel had not been invented, modern life would be very different." Indeed.) I'll leave it up to someone else to decide if there's anything there that should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.6.58 (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

 * Further information: Babylonian literature: Philosophy

The origins of philosophy can be traced back to early Mesopotamian wisdom, which embodied certain philosophies of life, particularly ethics, in the forms of dialectic, dialogs, epic poetry, folklore, hymns, lyrics, prose, and proverbs. Babylonian reasoning and rationality developed beyond empirical observation.

The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes. Babylonian thought was also based on an open-systems ontology which is compatible with ergodic axioms. Logic was employed to some extent in Babylonian astronomy and medicine.

Babylonian thought had a considerable influence on early Greek philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy. In particular, the Babylonian text Dialog of Pessimism contains similarities to the agonistic thought of the sophists, the Heraclitean doctrine of contrasts, and the dialectic and dialogs of Plato, as well as a precursor to the maieutic Socratic method of Socrates. The GREEK85.72.79.167 (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Phoenicia]]n philosopher Thales is also

Irrelevant
It is not clear why there is an irrelevant reference to an economist in the section about Mesopotamian philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.27.34 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ziggurats
I suggest moving ziggurat section from religion to architecture. In fact I plan to create a subheading Temples and Sanctuaries under Architecture. Ziggurats should probably go under that. Any disagreements? --Warpalawas 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone has nonsensified the section on Ziggurats by entering general information about Mesopotamia after the correct information regarding Ziggurats. Ideally this extra entry should be edited out or transferred to where it really belongs. AND, this extra entry itself is badly in need of being tidied up. donkeyhotey 20.35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)Donkeyhotey (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Mesopotamia Family Life
Please I need help with a report and its due very soon. What types of common names were there is the Mesopotamian times? If your describing the adress of a Mesopotamian home, where or what would you say? I just need some basic city-state names. If any of you can help answer these please do. I apperciate your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.40.230 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the real and correct reference of the etymology of the name Mesopotamia?
Why did the writer only showed the Aramaic and Arabic version of the name Mesopotamia? The name is Greek, from the word < > (middle) and < >(river). Any reason for that?

mesopotamia was a long lost city-state in the ancenit times. they ivented the code of hammurabi and most inportant our alphabet. they called it cuneiform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.237.97.96 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sumarian religion
The Sumarian word for heaven was 'An' according to E.M. Parr writing to Robert Graves. Graves surmises that since the root 'An,' or Anna' is the basis for many goddess names such as Athena, (Ath (enna) an inversion of Anatha, Mari(anna) (the fruitful mother) and Arianrhod (from Ar-ri-an - 'high fruitful mother,) the god 'An' is therefore a masculinization of the Sumerian goddess 'Anna-Nin, often abbreviated to 'Nana.' This process of masculinizing female names to male ones was in the tradition that also produced the Sumerian god 'Bel' out of 'Belili.'  According to Graves this change was well known to Virgil and Ovid.  Anna-Nin was further identified by J Przbuski in the 'Revue de l'Histoire des Relgions (1933)  with 'Ana-hita the Goddess of the Avesta, whom the Greeks called 'Anaitis and the Persians called 'Anahid.'  James Joyce in his 'Anna Livia Purabelle' celebrates Anna's universality.  According to Graves if there is one single, inclusive name for the Great Goddess 'Anna' is the best choice. (White Goddess copyright 1948, First American edition 1966 PP 370-371.) It was likely that the Goddess An was originally female, and was the original Mesopotamian symbol of creation. The idea of a creator being the offspring of a prior god and goddess was a rather late invention and careful scholarship should be presented before accepting that for the peoples of Mesopotamia 'An' as male and 'Ki' as female, with and a male offspring who took over, represented the whole of their religious tradition.

Marriage occurred much later in time than this society - in the western world men joined with women in their system of 'marriage' (Mari - age) to each other in the middle and late Greek period around 300 B.C. It is prejudicial to say 'women as well as men knew how to read' as is stated in the historical part of the article, because there is no credible evidence that literacy was the prerogative of men, which the structure of the statement implies. Reading would not be necessary to science however since oral history was a highly regulated undertaking requiring endless formal memorization.

For instance, the very title of Graves' book - 'White Goddess' - is one of the oldest most ubiquitous references in oral myth, and most likely refers not to 'woman' or 'goddess' but to 'ice ages' and therefore was probably an anthropomorphic  term in the science of climate. (C.S. Lewis depicts this concept in the Narnia Chronicles.) Though over time the original meaning of 'white goddess' has been lost, it is likely that women, acting as the sole parents of children, and concerned about survival in conditions that almost wiped out humans in Europe, carefully taught climatic information to their daughters who taught it to their daughters, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chejou (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq
Looking at the very top of the article, we see "''Ancient Iraq" redirects here. See also: History of Iraq.''. Iraq is then boldfaced in the first line of the lead. See also: History of Iraq is also referenced in the History section. I'd like to know if anyone else finds this Iraq-mania here a bit odd, or if it's just me. --Athenean (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a history of Iraqophilia on the part of some of the editors of this page. But the majority of Mesopotamia was within the boundaries of modern Iraq so we would expect a lot of Iraq to direct here.  HOWEVER, I agree that the other countries of Mesopotamia are sorely underrepresented and ignored here.  We need some other links, especially to Syria, whose ancient history pedigree is nearly as long as Iraq's and no less prestigious (Ebla, Mari, etc.).  (Taivo (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I added some relevant Syria and Turkey (Anatolia) references and removed a couple of Iraq references that were duplicated by Mesopotamia references. That should help to balance out the links to other countries within Mesopotamia.  (Taivo (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

This is Iraq. pre-Achaemenid "Ancient Mesopotamia" was never ruled from outside Iraq. Only minor parts of Syria and Turkey are in the region, and those parts were merely settlement extensions of the states based in Iraq. We don't "emphasize" the Turkish and other non-Greek geography of Ancient Greece - rather the opposite seems to be the case. Izzedine 07:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Syria is as important to Mesopotamia as Iraq.  I see absolutely no reason why Iraq should be emphasized to the death.  And you're dead wrong about ancient Greece.  Magna Grecia and Ionia are as important to ancient Greece as mainland Greece itself (although they were neither "Italian" or "Turkish" in any sense).  So you just defeated your own argument.  --Athenean (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Syria is as important to" is different to "Syria is". Syria is a much lesser component however. I have some (reliable) references citing that Greece has been considered to be in the Middle East, and partly in Asia too, but I have not the inclination to include them. Izzedine 08:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mesopotamia also known as ancient Iraq". Wow.  You've really gone too far this time.  Seems like your response to this discussion was "You dare to challenge the equation Mesopotamia=Iraq?  I'll show you!".  Clearly, there is no point in trying to reason with you.  --Athenean (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've known you to assume better faith than that Athenean. "Mesopotamia" is your ancient country's name for my ancient country. Izzedine 08:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh. If only things were that simple.  There were no countries in the 3rd millenium BC.  Ok, then what your "ancient country's" name for itself?  Bet it wasn't Iraq.  Some of the most important Mesopotamian sites, such as Ebla and Mari are not located in Iraq, but in Syria.  Wheat was first domesticated in Anatolia.  I'm sorry, but the equation Mesoptamia=Iraq=Mesopotamia is just not going to work.   --Athenean (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant country in the geocultural sense, as in; 'country of the two rivers'. Of course the Greek and Iraqi Republics didn't exist in the 3rd millennium BC. Our ancient country's name is ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪ̈ܝܢ (Bet Nahrain). Ebla was a Levantine city near the Syrian coast, Mari was almost on the present Iraqi-Syrian border, on the Syrian side yes. I believe the earliest evidence of wheat domestication is from northeast Syria (Abu Hureyra). Polybius coined the name Mesopotamia during the Seleucid period in the 2nd century BCE . Izzedine 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mesopotamia does not equal Iraq. Sorry, Izzedine, while most of Mesopotamia (which, by the way, had no exact boundaries other than the watersheds of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) is within modern Iraq, it was not entirely within modern Iraq.  There is a significant chunk of the Euphrates that runs through Syria and Turkey.  You are trying to overemphasize the "Iraqness" of Mesopotamia.  There was no Iraq in antiquity.  (Taivo (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Mesopotamia isn't exclusively Iraq, you are right; the region the name applies to also includes chunks of Syria and Turkey, and I have left the tags to the history and geography of Syria and Turkey that you added. Iraq comprises the overwhelming majority of the region however, as you said, and more besides geographical precedence. Izzedine 12:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Izzedine, this article is not about Iraq, it's about Mesopotamia. Stop overemphasizing Iraq by bolding or calling this region "Ancient Iraq". It's not. Books are published on "Ancient New York", for example, but all that means is talking about antiquity within a modern boundary. There was no "ancient New York" any more than there was an "ancient Iraq". Iraq is a modern country with modern boundaries that do not correspond in any way to Mesopotamia. The Islamic conquest was also not of "Iraq", but of Persia (the wikilink even points to Islamic conquest of Persia). The Muslim Arabs did not overrun "Iraq", but Persia. If you disagree, then pursue Wikipedia dispute resolution by seeking a third opinion. But for now you are in the minority view. (Taivo (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Stop making this personal please, I concur that Iraq doesn't need to be bolded and have de-bolded it. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, I have provided numerous reliable references for the alternative terms Ancient Iraq and Muslim conquest of Iraq. You do not own the article Taivo. Izzedine 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't personal, Izzedine. If there were more editors than just you who objected to de-emphasizing Iraq here, then I could address "you" as a group.  But since you are the only editor who is on the other side, then it is singular "you".  1) Just because I can find books called "Ancient New York" doesn't mean that there was one.  Look at the books you are citing for "Ancient Iraq" and you will find that they have nothing to do with an ancient entity, but with simply describing antiquity within a modern boundary.  None of them will equate "Mesopotamia" with the boundaries of modern Iraq.  You fail to grasp this distinction.  2) The Arabs did not attack "Iraq".  Just as with "Ancient Iraq", the sources you cite do not describe any entity in the 7th century called "Iraq", but simply describe the Islamic conquest in terms of a modern political boundary.  There was no such thing as "Iraq" in the 7th century.  The wikilink that you think keep inserting doesn't even exist--it's just a redirect to Islamic conquest of Persia because that's what the Arabs attacked--Persia and not Iraq.  (Taivo (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Ok Taivo, I concur with your second point and have restored your edit. The alternative term Ancient Iraq is used because Iraq has geographic and cultural precedence here. A comparison with New York is incorrect. The name Iraq for the river valley is attested since the early Sassanid period, and some etymologies trace it to the Akkadian name for Uruk. What is verifiable from reliable sources passes the threshold for inclusion, there are different viewpoints on concepts, we have to accept that. Izzedine 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, those are folk etymologies without any validity. Taivo is right.  The "name" Iraq is not attested till after the Islamic conquest, and the country of Iraq did not exist until 1922.  Modern-day Iraqis speak Arabic and are Muslims, they are considered Arabs, and 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.  To claim an organic continuity between ancient Mesopotamia and modern-day Iraq is simply fringe.  --Athenean (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a very offensive and vicious polemic against a whole nation, and crosses the line. It is sad that you know so little about Iraq. If you have time watch this documentary . Izzedine 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no "nation". The Kurds want nothing to do with Iraq.  Neither do the shiites in the south.  The only thing that kept the place together was Saddam's iron fist.  That's the reality.  Nothing vicious or polemic.  I'm sorry if you're offended, but that's just how it is.  --Athenean (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Izzedine, if there is no "organic continuity", then there is no such thing as "Ancient Iraq", only modern Iraq. Whether the modern country is valid/survives/whatever isn't really relevant here.  What is relevant is that since you have, yourself, admitted that there is no continuity, there is no such thing as ancient Iraq in any other sense than exists for the term "ancient New York"--that is, it is just a way to geographically limit the scope of the book being published to that archeology which exists within the borders of modern Iraq--there is no ancient reality whatsoever.  Indeed, I doubt that you have read any of the "Ancient Iraq" books which you cite (if you have then please provide a quote about their "scope").  You have used Google searches in the past to justify your comments so I think you simply looked up a bunch of titles on Amazon or Google Books without reading them to find out that the authors are using "Ancient Iraq" to mean exactly that--not "Mesopotamia", but whatever lies within the borders of the modern country.  (I don't cite books unless I'm holding them in my hands.)  WP:RS is all well and good, but it doesn't mean titles, only content.  If you can find a quote within those books that says, "Mesopotamia is Ancient Iraq" or "Ancient Iraq is Mesopotamia", then you have a point.  If it just says, "Ancient Iraq lay within Mesopotamia" or "This book is about ancient Mesopotamia within Iraq", etc., then "Ancient Iraq" does not equal "Mesopotamia".  Your last reference actually calls its scope "ancient Mesopotamia, within the borders of Iraq".  It doesn't even use the term "Ancient Iraq".  Indeed, books on the archeology of "ancient Iraq" will exclude major Mesopotamian cities such as Harran (in Turkey) and Mari (in Syria).  Thus, it's very, very clear that "Ancient Iraq" is not a synonym of "Mesopotamia".  (Taivo (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I agree. I think references to "ancient Iraq" should be removed.  Any attempts to equate Mesopotamia with ancient Iraq need to go.  --Athenean (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

fwiiw, "ancient Iraq" does see some use in the sense of "Mesopotamia". It's a marginal term (I get about 800 vs.22,000 hits on google books). Izzedine has been told as much several times over, and he has been warned about going back on one of his patriotic rampages. If he insists on wasting people's time over this I will support a community ban. This has been going on long enough. --dab (𒁳) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I had exactly the same thought. In fact I came >>>>>>>>this<<<<<<<< close to requesting a community ban a bit earlier.  I will wait till after the holidays, however, and give Izzedine one last chance to clean up his act.  Like you said, this has been going on long enough.  --Athenean (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I removed "Ancient Iraq" one more time based on this discussion. (Taivo (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

There are two sides here. One side is claiming that Ancient Iraq is an alternative term and has provided numerous reliable, verifiable published sources to support the claim. The other side is opposing this and resorting to threats and bullying.

According to this page, Wikipedia has three core content policies:


 * ✅ Neutral point of view


 * ✅ Verifiability


 * ✅ No original research

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Verifiability states - Wikipedia:No original research states - Izzedine 09:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments made above by Athenean demonstrate a strong negative point of view.
 * "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."
 * "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
 * Izzedine, concerning reliable sources, you have provided no true reliable sources. You have only provided titles of books.  As I said above, I suspect you have simply found the titles of these books on Google Books and are using their titles as "evidence" they they equate Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq.  WP:RS only applies to the content of sources, not to their titles.  Show us some quotes from those books that say "Mesopotamia and Ancient Iraq are the same thing" and you will have more of a foundation to stand on (not that it will be a convincing foundation, but it will at least be a foundation).  (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
 * No, I have provided various references, including books with the title and citations explicitly verifying it, you need to check things closer. I own several of these books aswell (not that it makes any difference). You are trying everything you can to move the goalposts just to oppose this, but I have provided substantial reliable and verifiable sources for it, so there is no reason at all why it cannot remain included. You shouldn't mass-delete reliable sources just because you don't like them and you shouldn't alter citations, like you did with the original cited definition of Mesopotamia. Izzedine 14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)