Talk:Achaemenid Assyria/Archive 1

Start

Well I well talk about later developments when I have time. Tourskin 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin, you've done a good job. However, the way you cited your references was not Wiki standard. I've fixed it, but, it would be nice if you could use the quote feature wherever you've added your references, so that the article has a little bit more clarity. Otherwise, everyone can add references, without the references cited being credible. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:28 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favor of removing the reference to the 'known world'. In-as-much as this might be referring to as-yet-unknown world parallel to our own, the reference in obvious. If it is implying the 'known' by the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim) legacy of the world then let the writer be reminded that members of the other legacies are active readers and contributors to this text.TalBurt 14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made it all B class because I think its a good article. Tourskin 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article?

I think this is brilliant for a good article. Tourskin 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we nominate it then? — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeh its nominated. Tourskin 02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, stupid me, I didn't even notice. So, what more improvements does it need? — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it needs improving much at all, it looks great to me. Tourskin 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, I ask then: should we FA it? — Mega Man (talk · contribs) 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question but if we do that its more likely to fail than to pass. So IMHO I think we should increase its status one level at a time. From GA we can go to FA. Tourskin 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But if we nominate it for FA and it fails, we'll get the reasons why, and we can improve on that. — Devil May Cry (talk · contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I don't really know, I just wanna improve the status of the article for now, for boasting purposes!! Whatever you suggest, I have no strong opinion either way. Tourskin 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see how it turns out. It sure does seem to take some time though until someone gets here and checks it up. — Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone. This is especially critical for paragraphs that are their own Level 3 heading.
2. Susa-destruction.jpg needs to improve the caption to place the image in context. What am I looking at and from what period? I would recommend removing the second part of the caption and replacing it with something along the lines of "The event is shown here in X dating from Y." Similar concern with Sphinx Darius Louvre.jpg.
3. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must summarize every major point (Level 2 or 3 heading is a good guideline for "major point") made in the article. For an article of this size, a rough guideline would be about 2-3 paragraphs, although it could be more if you deem it necessary.
4. This isn't necessary for a GA pass, but it would be helpful if the citations were rendered horizontally rather than vertically, to make it easier for other editors to work on the page.
5. Some statements require citations:

   The "Sacking of Assyria" section requires more citations, especially since the material is potentially challengeable.

   "Wars would wear down this resource but the population remained high nonetheless. Therefore it is unlikely that so many people were killed, despite the violent sackings of the Assyrian Capitals." (Assyrian survival)

   "The revolt was quickly suppressed. However, the rebellion illustrates a number of points - the rebellion of both states indicates close ties between them. Although separated they rebelled at the same time in the hope of regaining political independence. It also illustrates the obvious point of the people still recognizing their own distinct way of life since. The rebellion was suppressed but Assyrians continued to serve the Empire after." (Revolt of Assyria, 520 BC) Sounds very ORish without proper citation.

   "When Alexander the Great died, the Greek successor state of the Seleucid Empire retained control of much of the Persian Empire. This new Greek Empire relied upon the administrative system put in place by the Persians to govern these new lands; consequently, the Assyrian lands of Athura and Mada were administrated as such by their own Satraps." (Campaigns of Alexander the Great, 334 BC - 323 BC)

   The first paragraph of "Assyria under Parthian rule 2nd century BC"

   Most of Roman-Persian Wars

6. In "Sacking of Assyria," "Sidney Smith" requires some context, no more than a sentence worth. Who is he and why is he qualified to tell me about Assyrian history? Something good might be along the lines of "Sidney Smith, a scholar of X" or "Sidney Smith, who published the work Y"
7. The article is supposed to be a broad overview of the entire province, but it only contains information on the history. There's little, if anything, on subjects such as culture or economics. If information on these subjects is not available, or you do not which to discuss them in this article, it may be more appropriate to rename this article "History of Assyria (Persian province)." As it stands, the article fails for broadness of coverage given the intended scope of the article based on the title. In addition, the tone of the article is somewhat worrisome, as sections of it read like an essay on the subject, rather than an encyclopedic article, which raises OR concerns (an example is noted above)

I am going to put the article on an unofficial hold, partially to allow for the minor concerns to be met, but also to hear the response to concern number seven. Right now, this is very close to a fail, but I do want to hear the response to that concern before I do so. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the comments. I ask that you please give me at least one week on hold for this article to be improved. Thank youTourskin 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give you your one week, but #7 really does need to be addressed. Cheers, CP 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review improvement (if any)

1. Done.

   What about the one under "Fall of Assyria" or the two under "Roman-Persian Wars" or the sections under "Assyria as a Seleucid province?" Not to mention that your introduction of broadness created more as well (see below)

2. Ehh, its quite self-explanatory. It shows a city being destroyed by the Assyrians, who in 50 years from that date will be destroyed themselves. If you look to your left, you will see a section about Asyria being sacked.

   I think you missed my point. I'm not asking for clarification about what's IN the image, I'm asking for clarification ABOUT the image. What is the medium and when was it made, for example. Please see Wikipedia:Captions.

3. The lead has been expanded to cover the article over all.

   I can tell that the lead still fails WP:LEAD without even checking to make sure every major point is covered because it introduces facts that are not covered in the main body of the article. For example, there's no mention in the body about the Eastern and Western halves.

If you had read it you'll know that in the Article its refered to collectively as Assyria. Tourskin (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Only one citation is vertical and I think thats not really needed to be changed.
2. The things you said need citation, in mu opinion don't - most of this can be found from wikipedia articles which have the same info that is cited. It is well known that Alexander retained the Persian admin system and the Romans and Persians went back and forth in their wars.

   Well know to whom? Experts? I'm a graduate student in Middle Eastern Studies and I didn't know that. You can't assume that anyone reading this will have any background beyond that of an individual of reasonable intellect. Knowing about Persian administration systems is highly specialized knowledge. If the statements can be found in other Wikipedia articles, then it should be even easier to cite these facts – just borrow the citations from there. Furthermore, there are "citation needed" tags that need to be dealt with. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, a lot of this sounds like original research without a citation. Cheers, CP 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Sidney Smith is an Assyriologist but unfortunately not much else is known from the reference

   That's fine. Cheers, CP 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

4. This issue has been addressed partially, but of all goes to pot on this one I will change the name. Other than, give me your opinion if this can pass or fail? Tourskin (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   I would consult with the projects that this article falls under about renaming. Since there's an Assyrian culture article, it strikes me as this should be the "Assyrian history" article, but I'm in no way associated with the projects and articles should not be renamed at the behest of a GA Reviewer without a sensible consensus. As it stands, however, the attempts to "broaden the coverage" of this article were wholly inadequate, especially without citations. Sorry, but this article is not really even close to being a GA and the concerns are such that I do not feel that they can (or even should, as the broadness of coverage should be dealt with as a consensus, not the decision of you or I) be addressed by Thursday. For that reason, I am going to fail the article now. Once these concerns have been addressed, you may renominate the article. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to good article reassessment. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the length of the article, the nature of the topic and the status of many Assyrian articles, I believe this GA review has been too demanding. Tourskin (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scope?

the above is a perfect example of the GA process being broken. What do they use to evaluate articles, a bot?

• this article fails to make clear its scope. It states in the beginning that there were two provinces that are for some reason considered a single province. Huh? Why? By whom?
• assuming this concerns the "Athura" satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, note how this article fails to give a single source at all related to the Achaemenid period. Instead, it insists on coatracking about Assyrian culture and Assyrian nationalism.

the article needs to cite some source related to its topic, and cut down for pertinence. dab (𒁳) 15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about dude, theres plenty of references. I don't know what edits you've made, but you should revert them if you haven't discussed them. I know this artcile isn't great but then again neither is this nonesense theory of Syriacs. Tourskin (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

was there, or was there not, an Achaemenid province called "Assyria". If there was not, why do you insist on keeping an article at "Assyria (Persian province)"? --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There was for all intents and purposes one province, but it was divided into two provinces. It would not make sense to make two articles on two provinces with the same material and references. You yourself commented about such overlap in the past with regards to Chaldean Christians article and Chaldean Catholic Church. Tourskin (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"There was for all intents and purposes one province, but it was divided into two provinces" -- what nonsense. It was two provinces. Which between themselves included, I grant you, the region of Mesopotamia. It may indeed make sense to discuss Mesopotamia under Persian rule in context rather than divided in two articles on the idividual satrapes. Which is why I moved the article to Persian Mesopotamia: I am not suggesting a split, I am merely moving the article to an acceptable title. thanks, dab (𒁳) 10:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only seen sources of a Persian province named Assyria. Where are you sources to claim the province being named something else? Chaldean (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, Dbachmann's issue is that the article does not cite any sources to back the claim that there was a province named Assyria under the Persians. If such sources exist, please provide them. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found this:

[1] which, for instance, says "We know little of the political status of Assyria in the decades following its fall, but it seems that the western part of the Empire as far as the Tigris fell into the hands of the Babylonians, while the eastern Transtigridian areas, including the Assyrian heartland north of Assur, came under Median rule. Under the Achaemenid Empire, the western areas annexed to Babylonia formed a satrapy called Athura (a loanword from Imperial Aramaic Athur, "Assyria"), while the Assyrian heartland remained incorporated in the satrapy of Mada (Old Persian for "Media"). Both satrapies paid yearly tribute and contributed men for the military campaigns and building projects of the Persian kings. Assyrian soldiers participated in the expedition of Xerxes against Greece (480 BC) according to Herodotus, and Assyrians from both Athura and Mada participated in the construction of the palace of Darius at Susa (500-490 BC)." But the revolt or rebellion is not at all as described in the article -or at least Darius thought it was something quite different :-) - See [2] for some detail. I'm not sure of the implications of using 'Mada' insted of the usual 'Medea', something nationalist probably. Or the use of 'Athura' instead of 'Assyria. (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Iran says no: "So when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC the Persians acquired another empire [including Assyria]. Babylonian documents show that at first the whole was administered as one combined satrapy of Babylon and Abarnahara. But at some later date than the sixth year and probably after the middle of Darius I's reign it was split in two; and in Herodotus we find one nomos (the 9th) comprising 'Babylon and the rest of Assyria [...] The Old Persian dahyāva lists name Babylon [...and ...] include a name Athurā, which corresponds to the old name Ashur (Assyria). This name was known to later Greeks, who recognized a region of Atouria, apparently in the Assyrian homeland around Nineveh. The name Athurā has caused great difficulty in the minds of scholars who believe the dahyāva to be satrapies. Despite the documentary evidence some have followed Meyer in regarding it as the official name of the satrapy (Herodotus' 9th nomos). But the discovery of copies of Darius' building text Susa f revealed that people of Athurā (explained as Ebinari, i.e. Abarnahara, in the babylonian version) brought timber from Mt Lebanon to Babylon, and a historically ill-conceived identification of Athurā with the satrapy of Abarnahara became prevalent. From Cameron's re-reading of the Behistun inscription in 1948 it is now certain that a name cited in connection with Darius' Armenian campaign and as being a district in Athurā is in fact Izalā, the mountain that lies behind Nisibis; and so there can no longer be doubt that Athurā had a foot in high Mesopotamia. Since Abarnahara cannot have included Izalā, it is now certain that Athurā cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian empire" (Vol.2 p.261-2).--Folantin (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. My library needs improving! You removed a University of London School of Oriental & African Studies link, why was that?--Doug Weller (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Cambridge History, I simply read it online at Google books, I removed that link because I got an odd message saying that the site had been blacklisted by a spam filter and it wouldn't let me post my comment unless I got rid of it. Don't know why. --Folantin (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, "Assyria" was "the empire of Assur", and it collapsed in 612 BC. After that, there was the Median Empire, and the Neo-Babylonian empire. After that there was Achaemenid Mesopotamia, consisting of the two provinces of Media and Babylonia. There was no "Assyria", because that entity had collapsed, as I just said, in 612. some 700 years later, the Babylonian province was renamed to Asuristan. From this it follows, that "Persian Mesopotamia", or more precisely "Achaemenid Mesopotamia" is the correct title for this article. "Persian Assyria" is just an oxymoron. Tourskin, I hope you can take a clue from Folantin, who just showed how to properly research articles. As opposed to, you know, calling people dude and posting angry rants on their talkpages. That never achieved anything on Wikipedia except winning you a reputation as a problem editor. dab (𒁳) 08:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I did not post an "angry rant". All I did was inform you that you are quite annoying, a view shared y many other editors.
• Secondly, Mesopotamia is a made up word for the Ancient times, it did not exist until the Greeks under the Selucid empire. Mesopotamia therefore is incorrect, the region as indicated by the sources was called Athura or Assyria.
• I call everyone dude, if thats offensive to you thats too bad, I'm sure wikipedia does not consider it offensive.
• Dab, take your own advice for research, Assyria is a well known geographic term, as well known as Mesopotamia (perhaps slightly less).

Tourskin (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we know where Assyria was, but it's not not what the area is called today. And the article is not simply about a geographic area, it is about a specific historical period.

I've just managed to lift up my Oxford Dictionary. 'Assyria' -- an ancient country in what is now northern Iraq. This article is not about that country. 'Mesopotamia' - an ancient region of SW Asia in present Iraq, lying between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Its alluvial plains were the site of the civilizations of Akkad, Sumer, Babylonia and Assyria. This article's title is simply wrong. And when the name Mesopotamia was coined is irrelevant except to nationalists.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The time period requires the word Assyria, as the article does because the Persians called it Athura too. Furthermoore, Mesopotamia under Persian rule can mean Safavid Persia too, which is not what this is about. Tourskin (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary also has the words "Thomas a Becket", a very wrong name for Thomas Becket, martyr of Canterbury. So you see the Oxfrd dictionary is not infallible. Tourskin (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, its not about mesopotamia region because that includes large amounts of southern turkey and eastern Syria, parts which were never part of the Persian "administrative region" (or whatever you wanna call it) of Athura. I don't know why people are ignoring the references provided, in which the region was called Athura by Persians. People, athura and assyria are synonymous. Tourskin (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it isn't about Mesopotamia in general, it's about "Persian Mesopotamia", or more precisely "Achaemenid Mesopotamia". What it is not about is an extinct Assyria. And whether Strype was right nor not is irrelevant to the issue. You are just playing word games all over the place. --Doug Weller (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of anything; comment on content not on the user. I stand by what I say because I have references. Will you go against the references in place which state that the region was called Athura? Tourskin (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the title as it is, what is it you wish to change it to? I am willing to give some leeway. Tourskin (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

With regards to this comment [3], more room for expansion? The article is pretty lenthy as it is already. I don't even know how this is even an issue. Of course I do, its dab; the Anti-Assyrian is willing to do anything to erase Assyrian history (for other users, I urge you to see the problems he has gotten himself into with other users with his over abusing admin powers.) The name of the province was called Athura, period. What is the problem? Chaldean (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Chaldean, so far as I can see Dab simply doesn't like nationalism -- nor do I. Guidelines say "Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors." and you are ignoring them.

As for the title of this article, there are guidelines for naming which I think should be followed. WP:NAME in particular, which says "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."

I am a bit confused, by the way, how an article that starts with the title "The Persian Empire of the Achaemenid Dynasty" gets to have the title it has now. ALthough since there is an Achaemenid article, that title seemed to be a duplicate. As there is a Babylonian article, that time period for the area might be considered covered. IF this needs a separate article, I'd go for "Achaemenid Mesopotamia" as being as NPOV as can be (in my opinion of course). The article would then need editing to cut out any redundant bits.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyria does not violate a NPOV because the land at the time was of Assyria. Dougweller, Chaldean and I have followed guidlines for assuming good faith before, you can check out both of our contributions which show a pretty impressive list of non-biased historical works. Can the same be said of Dab, who attacked this article with rudeness at the beginning and made changes without discussion? No! I don't see how Assyria offends anyone at all; the country was inhabited mostly by Assyrians and the region was called Athura. Remember this, Kings of Persia claimed lineage to the Kings of the earlierst Sargonid dynasty. Tell me exactly what is so bad about using the word Assyria! Who does it offend? How is Mesopotamia, a made up word that did not exist until Alexander's conquest, how does this word help at all? Besides, this article also talks about Assyria under Sassanid rule too. Tourskin (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is pushing a nationalist agenda, however you cloak it in words. And please don't pretend that scholars don't use the word Mesopotamia without problems.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no nationalist agenda here. Did I say that Mesopotamia has something wrong with it? No! But you don't fix whats not broken. Will you not answer my point regarding the references, including the Cambridge History of Iran? Tourskin (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Doog, I don't think you understand the situation of dab. You want me to assume good faith about his edits, how do you want me to do that when he has pubicly embrassed me [(for asking to cite his sources)] ([over and over again]), makes a mockery [[4]] of my people. He creates his own "guideline" and then try to use it to win arguments elsewhere [[5]]. And you want me to assume good faith? This isn't a recent issue, dab has been like this for years. He will edit drastically, and then discuss it on the talk page. Not that the discussion matters to him, because whenever someone else even thinks of touching the article, he will revert the work. This article is about Assyrians under the Persian Empire. If this title is POV, then Armenians in the Persian Empire should get the same scrutiny as well. Now I have seen only one source stating that maybe Athura did not province status, but other sources state differently [[6]]. Chaldean (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in your conflicts with Dab and his Bold style, but I find it interesting that you think there is a similarity with Armenia. From what I know, Assyria disappears in 612BC, whereas Armenia has had a number of periods of independence. But that is a pretty poor article and I've tagged it as needing citations.

I'm not terribly interested in your conflicts with Dab - I did not ask you to be so, but just stated why anybody that has dealt with him previously would find it hard to assume he hs good faith. I do find it funny you calling his style bold but when a non-admin user uses the language he does and breaks the wiki rules he breaks, he would be quickly condemned by the wiki community and banned for life.

From what I know, Assyria disappears in 612BC - Yes that is a popular, but a false belief as well. Many Assyriologist rebuke this; The destruction of the Assyrian empire did not wipe out its population. They were predominantly peasant farmers, and since Assyria contains some of the best wheat land in the Near East, descendants of the Assyrian peasants would, as opportunity permitted, build new villages over the old cities and carry on with agricultural life, remembering traditions of the former cities. After seven or eight centuries and various vicissitudes, these people became Christians - H.W.F. Saggs. Chaldean (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about Assyria as an independent nation. Your quote does say descendants, and 'these people', it doesn't call them Assyrians, so I'm not sure what your point is.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So if the Armenians never had achieved independence, we wouldn't look at them the same way? What a ridiculous argument that makes no sense; the Armenians were well known in America during the Genocide of 1915 - 1920 and yet they never had an independent state since Medieval times (America was not around then!). So now you are jumping at a new point that we are not the descendants of the Assyrians? What the hell do you think we should call the descendants of these Imperial defeated Assyrians? How about just regular Assyrians? If we're not related to them fine - your point is quite ridiculous, of course it follows that the descendents of the ancient Assyrians are called Assyrians!! Just as the Ancient Greek descendents are called Greeks today, as with every other nation! What other nonesense arguments would you like me to shred? Tourskin (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Assyrians did resurface - as Osroene. Tourskin (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the Assyrian Empire was not wiped out in 612 BC; the Assyrians fled to Syria and established Harran and Carchemish as their capitals with Egyptian aid. People, know your facts, organize your arguments and think of new ways of trolling, not the whole nationalistic agenda thing. Do not hide your poor arguments by changing the subject. Tourskin (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about Assyria as an independent nation. - I don't even know what you arguement is anymore. We are not talking about an independent nation, but a province of the Persian Empire between 500 BC to 100 ce BC. Chaldean (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, now if Tourskin can agree on that, maybe some progress can be made. But he doesn't seem to agree.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What the $%^& ar you taking about? I never said Assyria was an independent nation after 605 BC; do not twist my words, when did I say this? Myabe if you can argue something, we might get somewhere rather than just randomly say nonsense. Tourskin (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're good at insults, aren't you? Which shows that you really don't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I no longer know what you are trying to say above. Can we then agree that after 612 BC there was no Assyrian nation in the area that was until the Assyrian rulers were fled in 612 (not the 'Assyrians' in general) known as Assyria?--Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just frustrated as to why we have moved on to another point. Let me clarify. Assyria continued to exist as an independent nation, outside fo Iraq until 605 BC when it was conquered. It was an independent nation in Iraq until 612 BC. I think we both meant to say this.Tourskin (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And don't you Dare make yourself seem innocent; you're the one who got personal and said, "now if Tourskin can agree on that, maybe some progress can be made". I agree on all historical points.

That was not an insult. I meant it. I also think that the fact that the upper class and army (or rather probably some of them) managed to conquer another area means that Assyria continued as an independent nation, unless you simply ignore the mass of the people who lived there. (Nation is the wrong word here anyway, its an anachronism). Who did the Assyrian royal family rules when they fled their country?--Doug Weller (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We are all getting off topic. We need to get back to why dab starts the conversation at the talk page and then moves the page only 20 minutes later, without hearing anyone else's view. Assyria (Persian province) is the right name of this artilce. Athura is the topic of this page, not all of Mesopotamia (keeping in mind that Assyria is part of Mesopotamia geographically.) Chaldean (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Assyria (Persian province) is the right name of this artilce". But how does this square with the statement I quoted from the Cambridge Histoy of Iran above that "it is now certain that Athurā cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian empire"? There were Assyrians under the Persian Empire but it's far from clear to me there was anything called "Assyria". --Folantin (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Cambridge calls it Athura (Assyria) and so does Sima Parpola and the other references? Tourskin (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped the word "Province" from my argument and I think "Assyria under the Persian Empire" is the best name, especially considering that all references call it Assyria. Tourskin (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it was not a province, who cares, thats no longer an issue. We have yet again changed the topic of the argument. Tourskin (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cambridge History does not equate Athura with Assyria. It says (page 262) that the meaning of the name is far from certain but suggests that "the ethnic Athuriya comprised Assyrians/Syrians of the former Assyrian kingdom". --Folantin (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I have seen only one source saying it may not have province status, but that one source should not overshadow the 10 of other sources [[7]] that state otherwise. Chaldean (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because that "one source" is the Cambridge History of Iran. That carries a certain weight. The "ten other sources" are unsorted as to authoritativeness - some of them go back to the 19th century and some of them equate "Athura" with Assyria/Syria. --Folantin (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, in this case I think the article should reflect modern usage. Not Atcura or Athura or Assyria or Norshirakan :-)--Doug Weller (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, you make it sound as if that is the name of an institute. That is just the name of a book. Argueing my source is better then your source isn't going to get us anywhere. Generally, most of Google's book search list Athura as a Satrap. Having one single book stating otherwise, should not be the reason given to move the page to something else. Chaldean (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Folatin, are you being funny? Maybe you are not being funny. Ok, let make this clear. If the Cambridge encyclopedia of Iran or whatever it is doesn't know what Athura means then it really is not living up to its name. Athura in Aramaic means "Assyria". Athuraya means that one is Assyrian ethnically speaking. I thought that was obvious but clearly not. Its like Ottoman and Osman. The th replaces the s due to different pronounciations. Athur is to Assur, just as Athura is to Assyria and Suraya is to Athuraya. Tourskin (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Province or not, its Assyria. Now anyways, theres more references saying it was a province than not. Tourskin (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a geographical area, not an ethnicity.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a geographical area and its people, of whom compromise an ethnic group. Chaldean (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug, Assyria is the name of the region. Stop going around in circles. Tourskin (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

if Assyria is a region, it is part of Mesopotamia. This article ostensibly concerns all of Mesopotamia, including the Media province. Now stop being silly about this. Also, stop trying to shape our coverage of Iron Age Mesopotamia by providing soundbites from the same tired old 2004 Parpola article. This is one paper. We cannot write an encyclopedia based on a single academic paper, we need context. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you, a rogue admin who has no beneificial editting experience here and took no part in its construction or conception, think you know what this article is about? Elias and I did it to cover the period in Assyrian history under Persian rule. Why do u continue to piss me off and move things without waiting for a response?!!Tourskin (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dab continues to break WP:CON and yet no other admin steps in his way. Same ol story over and over again. Chaldean (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Athura as a Satrap

The arguement given by the opposition is that a single source stated Athura could not have been a Satrapy (Province) under the Persian Empire. But other sources state otherwise. In fact, after looking to see if there was further sources stating Athura was not a province, I could still only find that single source. IMO, I don't think that single source should not overshadow what the historian community thinks; that is indeed it was a province. Here a few sources stating that Athura was indeed a province

• Ten satrapies in the West; Uvaya, Elam, Babylon-Chaldea, ....Athura (the ancient kingdom of Assyria.) - Passing of the Empires 850 BC to 330 BC By Gaston Maspero [[8]]
• Technically both Syria and Palestine lay within the Persian satrapy of Athura (Assyria) - The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations - Page 129 by Arthur Cotterell
• Persian province of Assyria - Turkey: A Past and a Future By Arnold Joseph Toynbee, page 72.
• In Greek texts, both variants are usually freely interchangeable and can refer to both the Persian province Athura - The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians - Page 175 by Emmet John Sweeney
• ...Assyrian method was taken over by Cyrus, and the first satrap were successors of the Assyrian military governors. -The Ancient History of the Near East: From the Earliest Times to the Battle ... By Harry Reginald Hall[[9]]
• Another reference to Athura as a province; The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians By Emmet John Sweeney. Page 177. [[10]]

Now Dab's arguement is wrong as well in that, even if the article covers all of Mesopotamia, the title of the article should still remain Assyria (Persian province) in that Athura was a province that eventually would include "all of Mesopotamia; A wide ranging administrative district known as Athura (Assyria) that included all of Mesopotamia" - Phoenicians By Glenn Markoe [[11]]

Whats funny is that, dab claims the article covers all of Mesopotamia. This wasn't the case until dab changed all Assyrian references to Mesopotamian.
An example;
In the beginning of the article, it previously said;
Despite a few rebellions the Assyrian province functioned as an important part of the Persian Empire. [[12]]
After dab removing all Assyrian references to Mesopotamian, it currently says;
Despite a few rebellions the Mesopotamian provinces functioned as an important part of the Persian Empire.
After making these edits, now dab puts the arguement of see, the article covers all of Mesopotamia, not just Athura. I would think the user that has single-handedly (User:Tourskin) wrote this article would know what he was writing about. If he says the article is about the Athura province, then that is what the article was intended to be. The article should either stay at its current title of Assyrians under the Persian Empire or Assyria (Persian province) Chaldean (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

if there was an Achaemenid province called "Athura", the article sure as hell didn't make that clear, nor is Wikipedia aware of it anywhere. But let's give this the benefit of doubt. I understand you just did a google books search. If you look at the Toynbee quote in context, you will see that "Persian province of Assyria" is in scare quotes, referring to a misunderstanding on the part of Herodotus. Would it be too much to ask of you to research this on your own? Because I get the feeling it will be left to me once again to find out the truth of the matter once more, while you stand by idly shouting "Assyria Assyria" from time to time. dab (𒁳) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the discussion in Sweeney is on the Greek term Syria and would belong in Syria (name). Seriously, Chaldean, did you actually look at the hits you got at google books, or did you just search for "Athura" and copy-paste the results here? dab (𒁳) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, it turns out that there was some debate on the nature of Athura down to the 1940s. We can discuss this in a Athura article if desired. Ilya Gershevitch (1985) states: "it is now certain that Athura cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian Empire"[13] The confusion appears to have been due to misunderstandings on the part of Greek geographers. dab (𒁳) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just another example of you not willing to work with others. We are having a debate on the issue yet you continue to move the page. I have shown the King himself, Darius I, declared it as a Province, what more do you want? Was the King misunderstanding like Herodotus too? Unreal. Chaldean (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

you have shown no such thing. If you cannot be bothered to research a topic, why are you making noise on talkpages? dab (𒁳) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

dab, please take a look at the buttom dicussion me and Doug are having. If I must copy and paste it for you, I might as well; The Behistun Inscription. In it, King Darius I states: "While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria". [[14]] Also, the two Kings after him also mention Athura (Again, look below at the discussion.) Chaldean (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Athura" is mentioned in the Behistun inscription, true. Now why, instead of feeding us soundbites, don't you give a coherent account of how actual scholars reconstruct the administrative divisions of the Achaemenid Empire? Who are you, Randy from Boise? Or perhaps you don't care about writing encyclopedia articles, and you just want to litter Wikipedia with Assyrian patriotic sentiment? dab (𒁳) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop accusing me and labeling me on every discussion we have? Why are you disrespecting me in labeling me a Kid with your edit summary? We have the Scholar Herodotus; you have already seen Districts of the Achaemenid Empire and the source it uses is this page. Again, it states Assyria as one of the divisions. Chaldean (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

'Ownership' of this article

It's pretty clear you are making claims that Tourskin has some sort of right to this article and no on should change it in any way he (and apparently you) don't like. No one owns a Wikipedia article. And articles change, expand their scope, etc. It looks like a large part of this problem is 'I wrote it so you mustn't change it'. Wikipedia has some clear statements on this. WP:OWNERSHIP says: Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia. You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: * If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. You two are acting as though no one has any right to edit this article unless they follow your party (nationalist) line.

Doog, nobody is claiming ownership of any articles, but suggested that the admin should not abuse his powers in that moving the pags constantly when there is a legit discussion going on in the talk page. You know very well dab is breaking the WP:CON policy. Also, I would like for you to comment on the sources that I have brought up. ThanksChaldean (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling me Doog? Anyway, you wrote " I would think the user that has single-handedly (User:Tourskin) wrote this article would know what he was writing about. If he says the article is about the Athura province, then that is what the article was intended to be. The article should either stay at its current title of Assyrians under the Persian Empire or Assyria (Persian province) Chaldean" which to me looked like claiming ownership. The problem with WP:CON is that if anyone starts editing from a fixed POV (which I have said in this case looks like a nationalist one to me), consensus can become impossible. It looks as though you and Tourskin have taken an entrenched position about the title of the article including the word Assyria, so if anyone disagrees for whatever reason how can there be consensus? Doug Weller (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I am disagreeing because sources state otherwise, not because of "whatever reason" or nationalist interest. You have still not discussed the sources I have brought up. Here is another exellent source; The Behistun Inscription. In it, King Darius I states: "While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria". [[15]] Now we even have the King himself aknowledging that indeed there was a Persian province of Assyria. In fact, the source dab is working with in the Districts of the Achaemenid Empire, lists Assyria as one of hte provinces [[16]]. Now keep in mind that Darius ruled between 522 BC to 485 BC. So this suggests that Athura became an province immediatly after the Persians took over. Now his succeding ruler, Xerxes (reigned 485–465 BC) writes in his inscription that Athura (Assyria) was one of the countries (ie province) he ruled. [[17]]. His successor, Artaxerxes II (reigned 404 – 358 BC,) also mentions Athura in his own inscriptions. Now we have a 150 year period where Athura (Assyria) was significant enough in that it was mentioned by all three kings. The facts are overwhelmingly against what dab has suggested. Also, I would still like for you to discuss the other sources I have brought up as well. Thanks for your time. Chaldean (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found the Darius stuff on line a little while ago. I will try to find time to look at the sources but probably not today, I've been busy elsewhere on the Net plus all the little things that take up time -- walk the dogs, iron the shirts(while wife is working), cook (my job, I like cooking), etc and it's dog agility tonight all evening.Doug Weller (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Take your time, we all have lives. I only request that this page should not be moved any longer until we all have reached a concent in the talk page. Chaldean (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My apoligies (yeah right) for changing the name of the article but somehow Dab did something that stopped me from moving the article back to the original name and he isn't interested in our discussion, instead preferring to dismiss them as "irrelevant" or "not interesting". Do you not find it funny that you go on and on about how we're nationalistic nazis? Tourskin (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no way that I find at all amusing your accusation that I have called you a Nazi. So far as I am concerned, your insults (flagrant violations of Wikipedia guidelines) and in this case what looks like a like about what I have written, make it crystal clear that you are not interested in consensus. My concern is not that you and Chaldean are nationalists but that you are imposing a nationalist POV an an article (well, actually articles). There is a major difference. Doug Weller (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, can we please tackle the subject and not go in this back-and-forth fighting? Chaldean (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, but it isn't me that is the source of the insults - and as I've written above, with Tourskin taking the attitude he's taking, there isn't much hope of a rational discussion.Doug Weller (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I have asked Tourskin in his talk page to change his use of tone and not get into minningless arguements. Chaldean (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

that's really sad. Chaldean, how about you spend your time more productively. E.g. learning to spell. dab (𒁳) 15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your previous tactics of trying to emotionally hurt me with words will not work anymore. However, if you like to continue to discuss the issue in a civil manner, I will be waiting for you. Chaldean (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish you were more stable emotionally, not less. It would save us much mindless activity on many talkpages. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a search on JSTOR from 1980 on, nothing on Athura and the Persian empire. I did find The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur J. N. Postgate World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3, Archaeology of Empires. (Feb., 1992), pp. 247-263. "The Assyrian state had its origins early in the second millennium, as the small self-governing merchant city of Assur. became a territorial power in the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC, and survived until 605 BC, by which time it had created an empire which set the pattern for its successors: Babylon, Persia and Macedon....For our purposes, Assyria's territorial history can be divided into four phases: the creation and original expansion in the period 1400-1200 BC, a long recession of varying intensity from 1200 to 900 BC, the progressive re-establishment of the earlier borders from about 900 to 745 BC, and then the final phase of expansion far beyond these borders into Egypt and Iran, 745 to 605 BC"Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't explain what King Darius and the Kings following him have said. The quote you have brought up is talking strictly about the Assyrian empire, which we know ended in 605 BC. Chaldean (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If I have been uncivil, its because I have been lured into such a trap. I salute Chaldean for being the only one to remain civil so far. Doug, stop accusing me and focus on arguing for your point. The references you continue to provide are not relevant. As Chaldean pointed out, the reference talks about the Assyrian Empire, not about Assyria under Persian rule.

Now Dab, I too have been insulting to you, but you have been very snide. You constantly move the article away. You are not suppose to move it from the original title until a concensus has been reached. A concensus is what I seek (talking to you Doug). You take actions without discussion, edtting the article to say Babylonia and Media when clearly the reference says Athura. You fail to answer these accusations and instead go personal, calling me a teenager, mocking my spelling of u and of Chaldean's spelling. Furthermoore, you are a hypocrite saying in the edit history that you are "stopping" this war moving when you started it and continue to participate. I will not move it again, until we reach a concensus.

For the sake of consistency, lets leave the discussion at this page. Tourskin (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Darius and the Behistun Inscription

I've been trying to find something modern. I found this after a lot of work: "Darius introduces, in his narrative, the nine men under whose leadership armies defeated some of his rebellious opponents in different parts of the empire: the Persian Hydarnes (Vidarna) in Media (DB 25); the Armenian Dadarshi in Armenia (DB 26-8); the Persian Omises (Vaumisa) in Armenia (DB 29-30); the Mede Takhmaspada in Sagartia (DB 33); the Persian Dadarshi in Margiana (DB 38), satrap in Baktria; the Persian Artavardiya in Persia (DB 41-2); the Persian Vivana in Arachosia (DB 45-7), satrap of the region; the Persian Intaphernes (Vi[n]dafarna) in Babylon (DB 50) and finally the Persian Gobryas (Gaubaruva) in Elam (DB 71)." Δον̑λος τον̑ βασιλέως: The Politics of Translation Anna Missiou The Classical Quarterly > New Series, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1993), pp. 377-391Doug Weller (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Babylon, at some of the scripts, was used as a reference to a part of Athura according Herudotus. This makes sense, the name of the empire before the Persians arrived was Babylonian (Chaldean dynasty) Check this out; "His (Darius I) march was delayed by a rebellion which broke out in Babylon. The ancient capital of Assyria (Nineveh) had been secretly preparing for a revolt during the troubles that followed the fall of Magian" - A Classical Dictionary: Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Athurs By Charles Anthon. Page 415 [[18]]. The Babylon-Assyria naming goes back to the Districts_of_the_Achaemenid_Empire#Ninth_district, where Herododus states the 9th district was Assyria, including Babylon (The Geography of Herodotus, page 206.,) and not the other way around. Actually, I'd like for you to look at the following page, page 207 and take a look at the map, it clearly suggests it was a province. Regardless of this arguement Doug, it still doesn't dismiss the fact that Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes II all labelled Athura as of some kind of Satrap throughout their respective rule. Chaldean (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin and Doug

Syria is in the context of Antiquity is a Greek misprounciation of Assyria. Can you see the syria in Assyria? No? How bout the fact that modern day present Syria is the location of post-612 BC Assyrian Kingoms, like Osroene, Harran, Carchemish etc. Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that it's just a mispronouncation, why did you give a specific link to Sweeney who disagrees with you? Also see Assyria and Syria: Synonyms, Richard N. Frye Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 281-285 which specifically disputes Tvedtnes and the arguments that the use of 'Assyria' as a term began only in the 19th century and that Assyria and Syria are synonyms. I've got the article, I didn't just Google it.

The connection of the word "Assyrian" with the empires of ancient Assyria, on the other hand, probably was emphasized by Western missionaries and was then eagerly accepted by many eastern Neo-Syriac speaking Christians. The discoveries of ancient Assyrian sites and cuneiform records about the rulers of ancient Assyria stimulated interest among local Christians who had only heard about Assyrian kings from the Bible. This modern history of the usage of "Assyrian," however, is not our concern here. The early historical record of the usage of "Assyrian/Syrian" shows two facts clearly, first, confusion in Western usage between Syria for the western part of the Fertile Crescent, and Assyria for the ancient land east of the Euphrates, and, second, the Eastern usage, which did not differentiate between the two except under Western influence or for other external reasons. The Easterners retained historical usage of their own until the modern period. Archaeological discoveries of the end of the nineteenth century together with the adoption of Western terms, particularly from the period of post-World War I colonial mandates, when terminology was fixed according to Western usage, changed the old Eastern usage. Doug Weller (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I am not saying you did this deliberately, but anyone not checking would think that someone new, called Assyrian and Proud of it, had entered the debate.

Ooops sorry. I changed my name because Dab said that my old name Tourskin, was too nationalistic. You don't think my new name is nationalistic, do you? Oh and lets forget the whole syria thing and focus on our arguments for or against Assyrian province status. Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did say anyone not checking, right? Arguing about province status is a red herring.Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Assyrian and proud of it is Tourskin. Lol, some revelation there - dude, you can tell its me because when you hover you're mouse over my name it says "Tourskin". Assyrian and proud of it. (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in Mesopotamia. Arguments over the meaning of "Athura" can be dealt with in a sub-section of the article. --Folantin (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current title does not represent what the article was suppose to mean. The article was about Assyria under Persian rule. Note Mesopotamia. There's a difference in that one is a real geopolitical term well known and well used in the Persian times and the other is a Greek fabrication, the inspiration of a disastrous monstrosity known as iRaq. I am a neutral editor (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

THIRD OPINION

This section is for Wikipedia:Third Opinion. It requires only 2 users to present there case, and no more. If a third users jumps in, then no Third Opinion will be given. Seeing me and Doug as the most active in this discussion, me and him will present our case.
A third opinion has been requested, so I will present my argument in its entirety. The current title is not representing the article properly, in that the article is about the Assyrian (Athura in Persian times) province (Satrap) of the Achaemenid Empire; a 220 year period (559 BC to 330 BC.) User dab and Doug have challenged the existence of the province because a book has raised dought in its status as a province. My argument is that;

• The Achaemenid King Darius I (Reign 522 BC to 485 BC) declared it as a province in the Behistun Inscription;
  • "These are the countries which came to me; by the favor of Ahuramazda I was king of them: Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Sardis, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka: in all, 23 provinces" [[19]]
  • "While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media, Assyria". [[20]]
• In another inscription, the following King, Xerxes (reigned 485–465 BC) writes Athura (Assyria) was one of the countries (ie province) he ruled. [[21]].
• King Artaxerxes II (reigned 404 – 358 BC,) also mentions the Assyrians of Athura in his own inscriptions.[[22]]
• The ancient scholar Herodotus states the 9th of the 20 provinces was Assyria, including Babylon. (The Geography of Herodotus, page 206.) and on the next page we see a sketch of Herododu's 20 Provinces.]
• Modern scholars also label Assyria as a Satrap (Province.)
  • Ten satrapies in the West; Uvaya, Elam, Babylon-Chaldea, ....Athura (the ancient kingdom of Assyria.) - "Passing of the Empires 850 BC to 330 BC" By Gaston Maspero
  • Technically both Syria and Palestine lay within the Persian satrapy of Athura (Assyria) - "The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations" - Page 129 by Arthur Cotterell
  • Persian Satrapy of Athura - "Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions" By John David Hawkins. Page 126
  • Persian province of Assyria - "Turkey: A Past and a Future By Arnold" Joseph Toynbee, page 72.
  • In Greek texts, both variants are usually freely interchangeable and can refer to both the Persian province Athura.. - "The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians" - Page 175 by Emmet John Sweeney
  • ...Assyrian method was taken over by Cyrus, and the first satrap were successors of the Assyrian military governors. -"The Ancient History of the Near East: From the Earliest Times to the Battle ..." By Harry Reginald Hall[[23]]
  • A wide ranging administrative district known as Athura (Assyria) that included all of Mesopotamia - "Phoenicians" By Glenn Markoe.
  • Another reference to Athura as a province; The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians By Emmet John Sweeney. Page 177. [[24]]

My conclusion is that with all taken into consideration, the article should the very least be moved back to Assyria (Persian province) (or more correctly Athura (satrap), Assyria (satrapy) to follow other pages like Aria (satrapy), Gedrosia (satrapy), Carmania (satrapy). Chaldean (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

About the page move warring (all timestamps 2008 UTC, and I may have missed some):

• 16:07, 26 March Dbachmann moved Assyria (Persian province) to Persian Mesopotamia
• 16:18, 26 March Tourskin moved Persian Mesopotamia to Assyria (Persian Province)
• 10:09, 27 March Dbachmann moved Assyria (Persian Province) to Persian Mesopotamia
• 02:08, 28 March Tourskin moved Persian Mesopotamia to Assyria under the Perisan Empire
• 11:17, 28 March Folantin moved Assyria under the Perisan Empire to Assyria under the Persian Empire
• 11:05, 31 March Dbachmann moved Assyria under the Persian Empire to Achaemenid Mesopotamia
• 13:23, 31 March Tourskin moved Persian Mesopotamia to Assyrians under the Persian Empire
• 15:06, 01 April Dbachmann moved Assyrians under the Persian Empire to Persian Mesopotamia

I'd say the situation needs help from uninvolved editors ... — Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that dab began this discussion at 15:44, 26 March, and moved the page only 20 minutes later on 16:07. When asked to move the page back as we are discussing the issue, he summarized his move as "no meaningful argument is being presented on talk" [[25]]. He has clearly violated WP:CON, but that is beyond the issue. Chaldean (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We could equally called it Syria instead of Assyria according to several sources (eg Sweeney), but that would be confusing. The current title is clear and has no implications of any POV (in this specific case a nationlist one - both objectors are, as they have every right to be, Assyrian nationalists). The argument should not be about what Darius, Xerxes, or Herodotus called it, but what Wikipedia ahould call it.Doug Weller (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Syria? That term wasn't even used in the period (560 BC - 330 BC) we are talking about. Sweeney refers to the province as Assyria (I referenced it above), so I'm not sure what you are indicating. Asking for the page to be named properly isn't POV. I am asking for the page to follow other Satrap's articles, such as Aria (satrapy), Gedrosia (satrapy), Carmania (satrapy), etc. And your comments of "but what Wikipedia should call it." doesn't make any sense, Wikipedia doesn't decide on history, history explains itself. Rather accusing me of nothing but nationalist interest in the issue and dismissing what the Kings refer to the province for no given reason at all, is not a good argument. Chaldean (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the argument has been really not to the point and I think has just confused the issue over the best title for the article. The title is clear, won't confuse anyone, in line with current usage, etc. The argument about Athura, whether or not Assyria was a synomym for Syria during this period, etc. can be in sub-sections.Doug Weller (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current title is way too vaugh. The Assyrian province didn't always include all of Mesopotamia in the Achaemenid Empire. Throughout the period, Babylon was a saperate Satrap. And besides, this article is only focusing about the Assyrian portion of Mesopotamia. Also, "Persian" is a refence to the complete Empire, that goes beyond 330 BC (Persian Empire.) This article is strictly about 559 BC to 330 BC. Chaldean (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chaldean, the article covers the dates 612 BC to the seventh century AD. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does, so that isn't a problem. There is no reason not to expand it to cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persian empire, which would make it a better article. Also, isn't there a pretty good argument that the Persian empire indeed ended in 330 BC when Alexander conquered it?Doug Weller (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, it only gives a summary of the fate of the area after the Achaemenid Period. And no the Persian Empire didn't ended in 330 BC, please have a look at the page of Persian Empire. The Greeks did not take control of the entire empire, thus that is why the Parthians (see --Parthian Empire) resurrected the empire so quickly. Which then was followed by yet another Persian empire; the Sassanid Empire - it would eventually take control of the land back. In regards of having the rest of Mesopotamia in the future included in the article, would still not change the fact of the name of the province was Assyria. When all of Mesopotamia was incorperated into one province, instead of two, it was still named Athura (Assyria); "9th of the 20 provinces was Assyria, including Babylon" - Herodotus ([page 206]) Chaldean (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a read of the article and the arguments set out above. It's difficult to comment because it seems to me that only one side of the argument has been made - can someone explain why they think the article should refer to Mesopotamia rather than Assyria? As a matter of principle, article wording should follow the Wikipedia:Naming convention which states it should follow "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - not necessarily the most technically correct. It strikes me that Persian Mesopotamia could be ambiguous as it would surely also include Persian Babylonia? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Athura looks like being largely the same word as Assyria with the latter more widely recognised, so I would maybe suggest Persian Assyria as a compromise? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Persian Assyria is that we would have to incorperate Adiabene, Assuristan, among others. It would still be too ambiguous. Achaemenid Assyria? Chaldean (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion (response)

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

For what it's worth, my view is that Persian Mesopotamia, the present name of the article, is more useful than any of the proposed alternative article names. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You certianly didn't break down the decision, nor did you address how the article is NOT about A) Mesopotamia as a whole, B) all of Persia's rule from 539 BC to 634 AD. Chaldean (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

It's a little strange that this article doesn't mention the rise of Christianity in Persian Mesopotamia except as part of a convoluted discussion of a dispute over ethnic continuity (which would seem to belong on some article other than this one). AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither ethnic continuity or Christianity should be in an article that isn't meant to cover past the 4th century BC, should it?Doug Weller (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this cover the Arsacid and Sassanid periods too? That would take it up to the 7th century AD. --Folantin (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the article's scope is between 559 BC to 330 BC, the period of the Acheamenids, but the current title is misleading. For Christianity in "Persian Mesopotamia", one would have to look at Osroene and Adiabene. Chaldean (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why is there a whole section on "Roman-Persian wars"?? AnonMoos (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes user Tourskin added that, originally intending to summarize the fate of the province in the years that came after, but perhaps it can be shorten. Chaldean (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And once again we have "Athura" being described as a "satrap", in spite of the dissenting opinion I quoted at great length on this page. This is not NPOV. The designation of Athura as a "satrap" rather than a "satrapy" doesn't inspire much confidence either. --Folantin (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been researching this topic for 3 days completly; sources are against what you have suggested overwhelmingly. It is "desribed as a satrap" because that is what history is telling us, not because of POV. I am beginning to think you want to disagree just for the sake of, well no reason, since you are not putting up any kind of legit arguement. Chaldean (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the writer of that particular chapter of the Cambridge History of Iran had probably researched the subject for a bit longer than three days. That's where my "legit argument" came from. As for "satrap", I sincerely hope you know what the difference between a "satrap" and a "satrapy" is. --Folantin (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And what is the difference? Wikipedia makes no such distinction. I am a neutral editor (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also certian that Perpola, Sweeney, among others, have also researched the subject longer then three days. I have read the Cambridge History of Iran quote many times; no where does it address the issue of Achaemenid Kindgs declaring it as a province, nor Herodutos's writing. The argument he has presented is weak. Chaldean (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, what gives you the idea that the writers of Cambridge History of Iran, who have to write on so many topics and are not infallible, would have more time than 3 days to research on one relatively tiny aspect of a Rich Persian history? Being Cambridge does not mean quality at all costs, over time taken and the need for other articles too.I am a neutral editor (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What gives me the idea that a professor of ancient history writing in the Cambridge History of the Iran (published by Cambridge University Press) giving a lengthy explanation why "Athura" and "Assyria" are not the same knows more about the subject than a Wikipedia editor who can't distinguish between "satrap" and "satrapy"? I dunno. You've got me beat there. --Folantin (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are just smearing. My argument isn't "me a wikipedia editior knowns more then the author" but rather all these facts are countering what he has suggested. A lenghty explanation? Just because its lenthy (which last time I checked 3-4 sentences isn't lenthy), doesn't make it right. If you can't support your argument with other sources, then perhaps your single source is false. Chaldean (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between "satrap" and "satrapy" there's very little chance of you being able to weigh varying academic claims about the history of the ancient Near East accurately. Of course, you've already decided which version of the "truth" you want and merely assess the sources accordingly, because this is more about soapboxing and coatracking than an attempt to provide an objective account of Achaemenid Mesopotamia. --Folantin (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are only going in circles without even addressing the issue. When you show you have some kind of interest in the page, please by all means, let me know, so that we can work together constructively. Chaldean (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The only one dodging the issue here is you. --Folantin (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Try learning the difference between primary and secondary sources. Following Wikipedia policy, I quoted a secondary source which examines the meaning of the primary sources available. WP:OR says that you don't get to interpret the primary sources (e.g. inscriptions - especially translated inscriptions) yourself. Of course, the basic problem with this article is that it's been hijacked by nationalist soapboxing. --Folantin (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can continue accusing me of nationalist interest, but I ask you to please assume good faith. The sources and facts speak for themselves. No Folantin, I didn't get to interpret the inscriptions myself, but rather the 8 other scholars I have presented have done that for us. I will let the Wiki community decided on the fate of the title. Chaldean (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have a vested interest in this subject (without much knowledge of it). You can't dismiss a highly notable and reliable source just because it doesn't fit your desired conclusion. --Folantin (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't dimissed your single source, as I have included in the article, but on the other hand you have blown off the 8 other reliable sources, without giving any reason. Chaldean (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that Athura and Assyria are not the same? I have already demonstrated the point. This revolving argument is just going round in circles ; all thats happening now is that your unrelated arguments are being repeated and corrected. I am a neutral editor (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, the reliable source you are so advocating was written in 1985. It seems Cambridge has re-written the text in 2000, and has taken a less of a strong stance against Athura being a Satrapy. What do you think of this? Chaldean (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I think its safe to say that all of their arguments have now been laid to rest, since they were clinging on to an older reference that now no longer backs their stance. As it stands, we have all the references and they don't. Assyrian and proud of it (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"It seems Cambridge has re-written the text in 2000, and has taken a less of a strong stance against Athura being a Satrapy". Er, those are two completely different books. The Cambridge History of Iran extract shows the author is well aware that many scholars regard "Athura" as a satrapy and spends time countering their arguments. Some scholars obviously still do regard "Athura" as an Achaemenid satrapy. But you want to present this debate as more clear-cut than it actually is. In other words, this article should have a section debating whether Athura was in fact an official province. As I wrote above: "The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in Mesopotamia. Arguments over the meaning of 'Athura' can be dealt with in a sub-section of the article". But rather than presenting the history of this obscure period in all its ambiguity, it's obvious from the last comment by "Assyrian and proud of it" that we're here to do some "them and us" fighting for the Cause. I'm sorry, I have no interest in turning articles into nationalist battlegrounds. (By the way, you should also follow the article link to Xenephon - read the last sentence there) --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't let my username which was a joke change the argument. This is not a nationalistic battle ground. There is indeed an "us" and "they" - it stands for those in favor of my argument and those not; do you have a problem with me abbreviating the arguers in this discussion? Next time I'll just write the whole list of names.Tourskin (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "By the way, you should also follow the article link to Xenephon - read the last sentence there" - Taking shots like this rather then helping in improving the page is more important to you? You should've corrected the mistake, but it sees that you are more interested keeping this circle going round.
  
• "But you want to present this debate as more clear-cut than it actually is." - I have done that by stating the two sides in the second sentence of the article? You need to stop smearing, please.
  
• "In other words, this article should have a section debating whether Athura was in fact an official province." - that is fine. Would you like to start that section?
  
• "As I wrote above: "The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in Mesopotamia." - by your idiology, we should move Neo-Assyrian Empire to Mesopotamian Empire. This article is about Assyria during a specific period, and not the other satrapy of Babylonia.

And for the last time, I will ask you to please assume good faith, rather then accuse people of interest. Chaldean (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's trying (and failing) to understand what's actually going on here, could someone actually explain to me - someone who's in no way an expert on Iraq, Assyria, ancient history, for that matter history, or for that matter anything else other than my day job of accountancy - what is the difference between a "satrap" and a "satrapy" and what 'is the difference between "Assyria" and "Athura". It might seem obvious to you, but its not obvious to anyone else. and why is it relevant to the question of what article name it should have? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, as sourced in the page, Athura is just the Old Persian name for Assyria (and more technically a loanword from Imperial Aramaic word Athur (Assyria.)) This isn't disputed, and it isn't an issue here. Chaldean (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Folantin seems convinced that theres a fundamental difference between Satrapy and satrap but I can find none, not on wikipedia anyway. Tourskin (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hint: what's the difference between "province" and "governor"? --Folantin (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In either way, this should not effect the title of the page as Achaemenid Assyria. Will you be addresing the points that I made above? Chaldean (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of trying to show off how much more you know, you could have just told us so that we know what it is. Stop being snide, you knew that the argument put forward is that Assyria was a province. Satrapy, or satrap; you know what issue in this subject is, stop trying to divert the argument. Tourskin (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A satrapy is a province, a satrap is a governor. I hope you are satisfied. Tourskin (talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Status of Athura satrapy

Having read the divergent source, I think I understand what it is trying to say. Could I suggest that the first paragraph is changed from:

• "while Ilya Gershevitch has disputed the level of administrative unit control"

To:

• "while one historian claims Athura was part of the satrapy of Babylon"

Have I understood this correctly? If so, I think this would characterise the difference of opinion more precisely. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. We still haven't solved the title. I am stepped down from having province or satrapy on the title, just for the sake of trying ot work together. Is Achaemenid Assyria in anyway inappropriate? Chaldean (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to second Chaldean's proposal. Its more specific but its not too different from the proposed "Persian Assyria" given by Andrew. Tourskin (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I only worry that Persian Assyria might be too ambiguous. Chaldean (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with you. To me Persia is far too ambiguous and should never be used in a temporal-political sense but rather a geographical sense. Tourskin (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2008 (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 to Achaemenid Assyria. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Persian Mesopotamia → Achaemenid Assyria, Assyrians in the Achaemenid Empire, or Assyria (satrapy) — Proper name of the article. It should follow other pages of its kind like Aria (satrapy), Gedrosia (satrapy), Carmania (satrapy). Its current title, after a long argument, is too ambiguous. Persian - There were two major Persian empires: this article talks about the first one. For the second Persian empire rule over Assyria, one must look at Assuristan, Adiabene, Osroene, among others.
Mesopotamia is to ambiguous in that the article's scope is only on a part of Mesopotamia, not the whole. —Chaldean (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support--Tubesship (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• SupportTourskin (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per the points I have made above and below and User:AndrewRT's third opinion. Chaldean (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support move to Assyria, would prefer Assyria (satrapy). Achaemenid Assyria is not usage, and would imply either that Assyria was Persian, or that part of it was ruled by somebody else, like Persian Armenia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Assyria (satrapy) would be the most appropriate and would follow others like Maka (satrapy), Parthia (satrapy), Cilicia (satrapy), but the opposition has disputed it because of a book has disputed the level of control it had. Chaldean (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: we can't use Assyria (satrapy) since Assyria was not a satrapy! I think the best options are either Achaemenid Assyria, Assyria in Achaemenid times or Assyria under Achaemenid rule (see bellow). Amizzoni (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Sources are saying that it is a satrapy (called Athura, which means Assyria) Hmmm... to me nothing suggests that it was definately not a satrapy.Tourskin (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we will ever truely know, but for the sake of trying to work together, I think the most accepted title is Achaemenid Assyria. Chaldean (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as per User:Athaenara below why has given a 3rd opinion and should be considered, present name is more useful. Satrapy definitely not a good idea.Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not stated why it is "definately not a good idea". Such strong words. Such weak arguments. Tourskin (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• The original argument was weather or not to keep the article at its then name Assyria (Persian province). User:Folantin, User:Dbachmann, User:Dougweller‎‎ suggested no, since a book challanged if Assyria (Athura) was a province or not. Since the argument, I have removed my request of moving the page to its original name, that included the word province. A WP:TO had been requested, and it suggested Persian Assyria. I have explained to the user how that could be incorrect. I have tried to contact the opposition group [[26]] [[27]] and the neutral party [[28]] with no response as of now. Chaldean (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Theres no question about it. Virtually all references point to this conclusion and a Third neutral opinion has agreed. Tourskin (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Btw, any assertion about "ancient and modern sources" for satrapies has an obligation to cite, and probably quote, Herodotus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Actually that wasn't my reason. I wasn't concerned about province, but I did think that having 'Assyria' in the title name was not a neutral title given that it could be seen as pushing a nationalist POV. Also, it is clear that 'Syria' and 'Assyria' were synonyms until relatively recently. I thnk the article should cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persians. --Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have only sporadic internet access right now and for the next fortnight, which is why I didn't respond immediately.Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "I did think that having 'Assyria' in the title name was not a neutral title given that it could be seen as pushing a nationalist POV" - You thought that. Do you still think thats the case? If so, you can show how it is POV to have the proper name of the article.
  • "Also, it is clear that 'Syria' and 'Assyria' were synonyms until relatively recently. " - The period that is being discussed in the article is 539 BC to 330 BC. The ruling Persians did not know their satrapy as Syria at all what so ever. There was no equal use of Syria and Assyrian during this time, but rather it only became an issue in the beginning of the Roman rule in the 2nd - 1st BC.
  • "I thnk the article should cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persians" - The article is long as it is right now, and I am continuouing adding more information about Athura. The great amoung of events that happen in Babylonia that needs to be described in detail at its own article (Babylon (satrapy). Chaldean (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been told before in other cases not to worry about the length so much.Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well at its current state, the article's scope is only the Assyrian portion of Mesopotamia. When someone has the time to research Babylonia Satrapy and add information, then maybe we should then consider it to move it to a title involving Mesopotamia. Chaldean (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• • More of interest: What nationalist POV?
  • Assyria is the proper English term for the ancient empire, and for the district around Nineveh at its heart. We should use it independently of the relatively modern nationality which has assumed the name, corresponding to the millet of the Church of the East. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Syria for Assyria is Victorian, and was eccentric then; the proper sense of Syria, even before the modern country was erected around 1920, is the Roman Province of Syria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "More of interest: What nationalist POV" - Their argument is that since I'm Assyrian, I only want Assyria in the title because of nationalist interest. They have tried to smear my work as nothing but nationalistic, but if you look at the article right now, it can very well pass a good article test. Chaldean (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Hey Chaldean, I'm not trying to smear your work, or attack you in anyway, I am just discussing the title.Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I said they, but not you in perticular. It was directing more to Folantin and Dab (as you can see by now, they can care less about the subject.) Chaldean (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not, and I agree with the change of title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• The section on Cultural continuity could use a lot of work; and the section on the Assyrian empire does not belong here (one sentence, on its fall, with a link, would be enough; this is not the History of Assyria.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The cultural continuity is the only section that I have not touched on it. Your right, it needs major work. Chaldean (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Assyria/Syria - See "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms" Richard N. Frye Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 281-285. In that, Frye writes "Recent research has shown that the Greeks first used the term Syria/Assyria at the beginning of the seventh century B.C., and their first contacts with the interior of the Near East were with the people of Cilicia and Cappadocia, whom they called Syrians.4 At that time, the whole area was under Assyrian control and the lingua franca of the entire area was Aramaic. The spoken language of the Assyrian court and bureaucracy was also Aramaic.5 Consequently, the Greeks equated the political empire with the Aramaicspeaking population living in it, which was quite logical to the Greeks." and "At some point, however, the Greeks began to distinguish between Syria=the Levant and Assyria=Mesopotamia, and Herodotus may represent a turning point in this separation. After him, the separate designations continued in use until the time of the Romans and to the present in the West. The Romans made a Roman province of Syria with its capital at Antioch under Pompey in 62 B.C. By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians." Nothing to do with Victorians at all.Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"research has shown that the Greeks first used the term Syria/Assyria at the beginning of the seventh century B.C" - What the Greeks called the area is not of significant enough to the point of changing the subject's title. What does what the Greeks called the area has to do with what the Persian named their satrapy? This might be of a side note interest, but it should certianly not decide over what the Persian empire called the area itself. That would be like putting a heavier claim on what the Persians called a province of a Greek state, then what the Greeks called that province of their own. Chaldean (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The reason this is a recent discovery is that hardly any of these mentions of Syria/Assyria survive; they therefore have not affected what English speakers call this region, which is the basis of our naming conventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• We shouldn't use Assyria (satrapy). Acording to G. Cameron ("The Persian satrapies and related matters", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32, 1973, pp. 47-56), the "toponyms" (dahyu) listed in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions (the only place where Old Persian Athura is mentioned) were not satrapies but countries/peoples. He is followed by many authors; Briant wrote that "on the meaning of dahyu in the royal inscriptions, see especially Cameron 1973, whose conclusions have been universally accepted" (From Cyrus to Alexander, p. 909). Briant originally published his book in French in 1996, but three years before G. Gnoli wrote in his Encyclopaedia Iranica article on dahyu that "In Achaemenid inscriptions Old Persian dahyu- means "satrapy" ... The technical connotation of Old Persian dahyu is certain and is confirmed -despite some doubts expressed by George Cameron but refuted by Ilya Gershevitch- by the loanword da-a-ya-u-iš in Elamite". So I'd say that the meaning of dahyu is disputed, or at least it was in the early 90s.

In the Behistun Iscription, where the Old Persian version says Athura, the Babylonian version translate it as Eber-Nari (= the area of the Western bank of the Euphrates). At the time, Eber-Nari was part of a megasatrapy called "Babylonia and Eber-Nari". Parpola refers to this satrapy when he writes "In 539 BC, both became incorporated in the Achaemenid Empire, the western one as the megasatrapy of Assyria (Aθūra), the eastern one as the satrapy of Media (Māda)." There was no other satrapy in the area, so he must be equating satrapy of Athura to satrapy of Babylonia and Eber-Nari. He makes it clearer in "Assyrians after Assyria", where he says: "Interestingly, it was the "Median" Assyrians who executed the gold works and glazing of this palace, whereas the Assyrians from the satrapy of Athura provided the timber for the palace from Mt. Lebanon. In the Babylonian version of the Persian inscription, the name Athura is at this point rendered Eber nari, "land beyond the river (Euphrates)." This shows that the Western, originally Aramean, half of the Assyrian Empire was already at this time firmly identified with Assyria proper, an important issue to which we shall return later on." That is, he's including Eber-Nari in his "satrapy of Athura", and Eber-Nari was part of the satrapy of Babylonia and Eber-Nari. So I think the article should be called either Achaemenid Assyria or Assyria in Achaemenid times.

As for the Syria/Assyria matter, as can be seen in the synopsis made by R. Rollinger ("The terms "Syria" and "Assyria" again", JNES v. 65, no. 4, 2006), most scholars agree on the etymological relation of both terms. See also the Encyclopedia Iranica entry on Assyria (the section "ii. Achaemenid Aθurā" by M. Dandamaev) ([29]). Amizzoni (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • So I think the article should be called either Achaemenid Assyria or Assyria in Achaemenid times. - I'm ok Achaemenid Assyria. Chaldean (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question and suggestion: I see there is a consensus towards the change of the name, but I am not sure if there is a consensus about what this new article's name should be. Am I wrong? Are the supporters of the article's name leaning towards a specific direction?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone seems to be ok with Achaemenid Assyria. I understand what you brought up as an example with Russian Armenia, but I think that was just an isolated situation. Chaldean (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

the target article should be "Achaemenid Mesopotamia". It is pointless to discuss Athura in isolation of the entire region. This article is a pet project of "Assyrianist" ethnic nationalists and needs review and cleanup. dab (𒁳) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As User:Amizzoni cited even if Athura was not a separate satrapy, Babylonia and Assyria were considered two different "countries", thus thats why they were always both listed in the inscripts, rather then only one of them as "mesopotamia." A great deal of things occured in Babylonia (many of the Persian Kings actually lived almost all their lives in Babylonia), and it should be dealt with in a separate article, written in good detail. If you want to write an article about Babylon during Achamenid time, then by all means, do so. I might start on one, when I have time again. Chaldean (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab, my dear freind (not). You may be in unfamiliar territory here. This is called a discussion. Other administrators, neutral third opinion-giving people have arrived. Therefore, unfortunately your constant nationalistic accusations will not work because we are using logic, references and concensus with other users to come to an agreement. You continue to defy the overwhelming logic, references and the fact that there are several times more supports than opposes. May I recommend, that you also use logic in your discussion? Tourskin (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's content might be misleading, but the entry itself (Achaemenid Assyria) must stay. Achaemenid Babylonia is a completely different field of study. During the Achaemenid Empire, there were references to Assyrians and Assyria, and the Assyrian heartland was inhabited. Note that the Encyclopaedia Iranica have an entry for Assyria, and one of its sections is devoted to Athura. It is true that the article overweight continuities and relies too much on Parpola, and it can be seen as nationalistic POV, but in that case the problem is with the article's content as it is now, not with the entry itself. Amizzoni (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's content might be misleading, - May I asked how so? You brought up the article relies too much on Paropla, but out of hte 60 cited sentences, only 5 are cited back to Parpola's page (10%?) I think you have made the intro as neutral as possible with "Although sometimes regarded as a satrapy,[2] [3] Achaemenid royal inscriptions list it as a dahyu, a concept generally interpreted as meaning either a group of people or both a country and its people, without any administrative implication" - good beginning to the article. Encylopaedia Iranica does list it as a province for what its worth [[30]] Chaldean (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's content might be misleading, Parpola's contributions to the study of the last Assyrian Empire are widely recognized, but, right or wrong, his views on the later period aren't mainstream. Many authors that have studied Achaemenid Assyria and are considered mainstream are not cited, but Parpola is the second author more cited. It might be regarded as nationalistic POV, but personally I think that the main reason is that Parpola published his views on the Internet. Furthermore, the article doesn't clearly distinguish between the usage of the term "Assyria" at the time and the situation of the Assyrian heartland (in the E Iranica, Dandamaev even says "After the collapse of the Assyrian empire at the end of the 7th century B.C., its original territory became part of Media, and the name of Assyria was gradually transferred to Syria.", although Curtis view seem to be a bit different). So I feel that it is still a bit misleading, although, as I told you before, generally speaking the article is quite alright, especially the archaeological part. Amizzoni (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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.