Talk:Neo-Babylonian Empire/Archive 1

Sources?
Where are the sources? I just added one from www.livius.org, correcting an ignorant statement that said Gobryas was the governor of "Kurdistan", a territory which of course did not exist at the time. There are other strange parts which say that Cambyses accompanied Belshazzar's corpse to the tomb. Sentences like these must be reliably sourced. Who's in charge of this article? --Šarukinu 19:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue has been addressed in part; still needs improvement.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd imbalance
Oddly enough the bulk of the article treats the Achaemenids after the demise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Said: Rursus (☻) 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Very odd article, not informative at all, no references, and did not tell us anything at all about Neo-Babylonian Empire, it only talked about Achaemenids...It should be deleted! Zeiad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.206.56 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More should be written about actual Babylonian history during this period, it includes too much about the Achaeminids and only cursory info about the dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.101.129 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Article
I have greatly expanded this article, as it originally contained only scant information about the neo Babylonian Empire, and a large amount about the Achaemenids.

Somebody appears to be trying to revert some of what i have written, possibly due to their own POV. Sources i have used are Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, Oppenheim's Ancient Mesopotamia and Proffessor Simo Parpola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. it needed more details. but be careful with the bias please. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think there has been any bias, where?

Some people do not like the fact that the actual Chaldean dynasty may not have lasted past 2 kings, but its up for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the reference that Nabonidus was Assyrian? you know there is actually not such thing as 'Assyrian' because they/we were one Akkadian people. do you try to divide us. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong. There actually were such things as 'Assyrian', and 'Babylonian' in antiquity. They were not "one Akkadian" people they, like everyone in the region form Arabs to Phonecians, were all related people, and in the cases of Assyria and Babylonia they were more closely related, and spoke or at least wrote related dialects of Akkadian. But they were seperate kingdoms, identifying as seperake people, seen as seperate people by each other when they invaded and slaughtered each other, and seen as seperate people by outsiders looking in. *Related* certainly, but "one people" ? Hardly, and claiming otherwise is either outright lying or ignorance. Take your pick.

And when you say "We" you presume that you are actually their direct descendants, rather than a descendant of any number of other semitic people from the region from varying tribes and nations. Why is it that modern "Assyrians" (a term that modern Chaldeans reject, by the way, and claim to have been the outcome of British imperial meddling) do not speak Akkadian or anything recognizably descendant from Akkadian. They speak neo-Aramaic dialects which aren't even fully mutually intelligible? (And only a few speak Western or Eastern neo-Aramaic as birth tongues anyway, a large percentage of people identifying as Assyrian speak Syrian Arabic dialects as their birth tongues and effectively have to learn "Assyrian" in adulthood..)

Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, not a place for modern nationalists to bleat their biased and politicized modern nationalistic claims that had no meaning in antiquity.. Let's keep it objective. 208.65.192.1 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking your lead, I've also greatly expanded the article. still needs alot of work though. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It needs a lot of references - surely not too hard to find? PiCo (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nabonidus
I cannot see anything wrong with pointing out that Nabonidus was from Assyria, after all he WAS! Harran was an integral part of Assyria, and Assyria's last capital. His ethnicity is not mentioned for sure, but logically it is more than likely he was an Assyrian, he was an Akkadian speaker, had a Mesopotamian name and a devotee of the Assyrio-Babylonian god Sin, so it is unlikely he was a neo-Hittite or Mede etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.116.120 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable Sources and citations must be used, not speculation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Blue map
Although the map is "correct", am I the only person who thinks a map of an area with land and water that is all in several shades blue is slightly odd looking, or is it just me? Although I know the shape of the coast well here it took my eyes a second to adjust to blue land and blue sea, and for me to understand what I was looking at, could someone make and upload a recoloured map where the land is not blue? Carlwev (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * the map is wrong, the desert of the arabic peninsula is not part of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.190.230.70.120 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection for the article -
I am going to add some references to bring the citation balance of this article more "up to snuff" - however, recently there has been several anon IP vandalism issues with the article, and don't want to be fighting that while working on it. Please restrict the editing to registered users only for a period of two weeks. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there has been no vandalism to this article since the 1st, so policies stops it from being protected. I'll put it on my watchlist though. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doug. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have tweaked a few things here and there, and added many references to the Nabonidus section. I would classify the article as a good article (barely) but it needs fleshing out. Other subject-matter expert editors help in this area would be great. I don't know if I really want to take the entire enterprise on, but the Chaldean Babylonian Empire is an important subject and it would be nice to get this up to FA status.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cyclic link to precursor state
Just a note - The link to the precursor state (top right) links to the Chaldean Empire, which redirects back to this page. Perhaps is should link to at least the Neo-Assyrian (which links to this as a successor state), possibly others. Sawatts (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed out-of-scope content
I have removed content related to the Achaemenid period that went considerably beyond explaining the end of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, which ended in 539 BCE. Beyond a suitable amount of detail about the fall of Babylon to the Persians&mdash;which has been left intact&mdash;the subsequent gradual decline of Babylon as a city in the centuries that followed is not directly related to the Neo-Babylonian period, and is out of scope.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Same as Chaldean Dynasty?
The page redirects here. This redirect was set up over a decade ago by user:Dbachmann and user:Stevertigo. Back then the article did treat the two synonymously, as the article began "The term Neo-Babylonian or Chaldean ...", But the term "Chaldean" was removed from there in 2010 with an edit declared "minor". The current article does not discuss any correspondence or difference between the two terms. &mdash; Sebastian 13:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)