Talk:Mesopotamia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

reality of Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia starts from south-east of Turkey and goes down to syria and iraq. It is not a specific place where kurdish people live. Most of kurdish live in area where it is currently Iran. There are many other nations that live in Mesopotamia.

Please unlink this article from any kurdish or terrorist links. Mesopotamia is never a kurdish area.

Mesopotamia is the region which Kurds do live and lived for over 5000 years. 87.194.65.125 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Not correct, Assyrians have been living 6757 years after the fall of the Assyrian empire til this day. Assyrians are the Indegenous people of Mesopotamia along with the Ancient Akkadians (Ancestors of the Assyrians), Sumerians, Babylonians & also Arameans (in which had intermarried with Assyrians & Babylonians)ILLeSt 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is so correct. Mesopotamia has always been characterised by ethnic diversity. Kurdish people have been living in the area since pre-historic times, and are thought to have developed from an Iranian admixture over a Hurro-Urartuan population. These people, as Subartu, havebeen dwelling in northern Mesopotamia since before the Sumerian period. It is thought the Halaf culture (5,500 BCE) may have been Hurrian speaking. John D. Croft 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Kurdish people have been living in their area for thousands of years. Not only that, I also believe the part that is considered Mesopotamia in modern-day Turkey is Kurdish. Denying that won't change the history, it only will make Wikipedia inaccurate, so take your hatred elsewhere.XxDestinyxX (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect, Kurds, as an ethnic group and NOT a social class in Islamic persia, did not exist in Northern Iraq until well into the 1100s ܐܵܬܘܿܪܵܝܵܐ 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As this seems to be just a forum style argument and this isn't a forum, if you can't bring any sources to bear on this I may delete the section. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

119.237.121.2 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The request you have made is blank. Stickee (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

The entire section titled "Philosophy" should be deleted. Much of it is gibberish -- e.g.:

- 'Babylonian reasoning and rationality developed beyond empirical observation';

- 'The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems'; and,

- 'Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes. Babylonian thought was also based on an open-systems ontology which is compatible with ergodic axioms.'

There is, unfortunately, little that can be said with confidence about Mesopotamian philosophy, but what can be said overlaps not at all with anything in this section as it currently stands. This suggests to me that the rest of the article - which falls outside my area of expertise - merits close scrutiny, too.

The only reference provided in the section as it stands is to a note by an economic methodologist who in no way purports to be doing history of philosophy (she uses "Babylonian" to characterize a style of contemporary economic theorizing). That her note is ahistorical is perfectly clear from the 2nd and 3rd quotes, above: the concept of an ergodic dynamical system only emerged in the 19th century.

In place of the entire section as it now stands, the following might be put:

"Very little is known about Babylonian philosophy. It has been suggested that Ionian philosophy, in particular, drew from previous Sumerian and Babylonian thought, especially as concerns astronomy and the idea of a first principle or ultimate substance ("The Babylonian Conception of the Logos", S. Langdon, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (Jul., 1918), pp. 433-449, on pp.435-436)."

Johnarthurjohnson (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: -The whole section is sourced to reliable sources. If you disagree them please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mesopotamia#Medicine

The section on Medicine may be expanded with text translated from fr:Médecine en Mésopotamie a 25k-long article on the subject. 67.101.5.184 (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

bilād al-rāfidayn

The consonant of the Arabic definite article assimilates to following coronals (except j, historically not a coronal and still not so in some modern dialects), so this name in the first paragraph should preferably be transliterated as bilād ar-rāfidayn instead. Skomakar'n (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Original Mesopotamia

The west Part of Iran it is not originally Mesopotamia it was conquered by Mesopotamia (Khuzestan) just like Mesopotamia conquered Sham, Egypt and so on, so saying the west part of Iran is Mesopotamia is officially wrong, and I added strong sources prove that (I don’t need to because everyone know it) but I have to because some members insets to repeat the mistakes, and the strong sources are Mesopotamia official website, The British Museum and New York Museum… Mussav (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed the Elam and other Iranian based dynasties where also partly Mesopotamian. Achaemenid Empire has been Mesopotamian in art and literature.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Fallah, what are you talking about is true, they were part of Mesopotamia but my point was about the Original Mesopotamia, Mesopotamia Invaded/conquered nations and Nations Conquered/Invaded Mesopotamia, but the other Nations aren’t Originally Mesopotamian, didn't you read your own sources? "Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, Kassite, Neo-Babylonian, and Assyrian invasions periodically crossed Khuzestan...etc". That proves my point, and enter here Susa, it says (Šušan was incorporated by Sargon the Great into his Akkadian Empire in approximately 2330 BC) so officially it wasn’t Originally Mesopotamian. Peace Mussav (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"Mesopotamia" was never at any time the name of any political unit, thus it never had political boundaries, it is only the name of a geographic region, which usually has arbitrary boundaries established by convention (agreement) although in this case one can say the conventional boundaries are far less arbitrary and far more delineable than for most other geographic regions. But since it's a concept relying on conventional usage, it seems an error to speak in terms of "proving" where its limits extended to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It is only sensible to consider Western Iran as part of Mesopotamia. Parts of Iran are usually included in part of defining Mesopotamia. Actually, many scholars believe Susa (not the same as Elam) was a colony of Sumeria, from pre-history and into written history. Elam has mentioned from the earliest Sumerian scripts. And of course there is clearly an influence from the Zagros range into sumerian culture. For example, proto-elamite (or more properly, "Susianian") art, clearly influenced Sumerian art. The oldest counting tokens and ziggaruat, and pottery come from Western Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Western Iran, and perhaps up until central Iran, can and should, only be considered Mesopotamian. Here is a great snippet from Algaze and Guillermo, "The Uruk World System":

"The results of the various surveys and excavations in Susiana show that by the later part of the Uruk sequence (Middle/Late Uruk in local terminology) the plain had become part and parcel of the Mesopotamian world, an extension eastward of the culture and institutions prevalent in the lowlands of southern Iraq. The surveys of Wright and Johnson, in particular, document with precision the pattern of Uruk settlement in Susiana at this time: in the Middle Uruk period the principal centers were Susa and Chogha Mish on opposite ends of the plain. The former is situated on the Shaur River, a small tributary of the Dez, and at some 25 hec- tares commanded the western portion of the plain. Chogha Mish was also positioned along a tributary of the Dez, the Shureh River. At 18 hectares, Chogha Mish was only slightly smaller than Susa and dominated the eastern portion of the Susiana plain (Johnson 1973, 1987). Surrounding these central occupations and scattered across the plain were numerous subsidiary sites and villages (fig. 2). By the final phase of the Uruk period, however, important changes had taken place. Overall regional settlement density declined as many villages were abandoned along a 15-kilometer- wide band of territory roughly equidistant to each of the two principal centers, resulting in sharply polarized settlement clusters at either end of the Susiana plain. Johnson (1987) interprets these changes as reflecting the onset of intraregional conflict in Susiana. The size of Susa may have declined at this time, but this is unclear. 1 Just before the very end of this phase, however, Chogha Mish was either abandoned or contracted significantly (Dittmann 1986a:344). In spite of the settlement pattern changes just noted between the Middle and Late Uruk phases, there is little change in the size range attested for Uruk sites across Susiana. Included in each phase are numerous small agricultural villages 1-2 hectares in size, larger villages averaging 5-7 hectares, small "towns" in the 10-12 hectare range, and the small urban centers of Susa and Chogha Mish (Johnson 1973). The material culture of these sites is homogeneous throughout the plain. Excavations at both the largest centers and smaller sites in their vicinity indicate that the artifactual assemblages of Middle/Late Uruk sites across Susiana and contemporary sites in the Mesopotamian alluvium are analogous (Amiet 1986), allowing us to equate the Susa Acropolis I (Levels [20?]19-17) and Chogha Mish (Protoliterate B) sequences in Susiana with the Eanna VI-IV (Warka) and Inanna XX-XV (Nippur) sequences of southern Iraq (Strommenger 1980b:486). 3 Parallels between the two areas are not limited to ceramic assemblages that are largely identical (e.g., fig. 3A-H) — although a few types in southwestern Iran do betray contacts with the nearby highlands — but include conspicuous similarities in glyptic practices, accounting procedures (tokens, balls, bullae, and tablets), and iconography as well. Moreover, if we may extrapolate from depictions in Uruk glyptic in Susiana, traditions of monumental and religious architecture also appear to have been uniform across the two areas (fig. 3Y-BB). The striking parallels that may be observed between the material culture of the Mesopotamian alluvium and the Susiana plain in the later part of the Uruk period have important implications for our conceptualization of the development of Susiana in the second half of the fourth millennium. Equivalent sealing and accounting practices in each of the two regions indicate uniform record keeping and administrative procedures (Schmandt-Besserat 1986) (fig. 3S-X). In turn, this may suggest the existence of largely analogous institutions — particularly if Nissen (1977) is correct in seeing the schematic seals that are common to both areas (often depicting pigtailed women at work, e.g., fig. 3N, Q) as lower-level institutional seals. Comparable modes of social organization are also suggested by iconographical similarities in the fully modeled glyptic repertoires of each area: in each case it is the same larger-than-life male figure wearing his hair in a chignon who is depicted at the apex of the administrative and religious hierarchy (e.g., fig. 3M, P). 5 Other iconographic parallels evince a shared mythology (e.g., fig. 3I-L), and possibly even the existence of common religious rituals, as may be inferred from representations of apparently identical offerings brought into temples (e.g., fig. 30, R). The evidence just outlined leaves little doubt that in the later part of the Uruk period Susiana was culturally as much a part of the Mesopotamian world as the alluvium itself. Any consideration of the emergence of Uruk civilization, therefore, must take into account the role of Susiana in that process"

All this means that before and through the historical period, Western Iran was part of Sumerian civilization, let alone Mesopotamian history. Hopefully that ends the Mesopotamia/Iran debate. 73.21.249.45 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WHERE DO I FIND INFO OF DAILY LIFE!!! OMG!

WHERE DO I FIND IT!!! PLEASE TYPE IT BELOW!!! By rr97khl ___________________________________________________________go to classzone.com make an account click S.S Middle school NJ then click on the book__World History: Ancient and Early Modern Times online book and read the first and second chapter. ___________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.229.197 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And in the future, please don't ask questions on article talk pages, but go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and ask. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

daily life was a time where you either work or die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.191.50 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, haven't you people ever heard of a "line break"? – SarahTehCat (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Mesopotamia as synonym for Iraq

I would like to add a line to the opening paragraph to the effect that some commentators (eg NY Times[1], Slate[2]) use Mesopotamia as a synonym for (modern) Iraq. (This is mostly some sections of the US media, but is widespread enough to be noted.)

The present article makes very little of any modern sense of the term (though see the first discussion in this talk section).

Any comment?

Earthlyreason (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The biggest danger with this article as far as I'm concerned is that we erroneously suggest that Mesopotamia is a "nation" that modern day Iraqis are descended from. There's a great deal of confusion about this subject amongst many people (the media included) so if you want to make this point it has to be exceptionally clear that Mesopotamia is not the historical predecessor of Iraq. Blankfrackis (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Soooooo it's not the historical predecessor of Iraq? – SarahTehCat (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Era Style

Given its context, this article would be better to use the BCE/CE format. This article is not about Christianity or Christianity-related topics, after all. – SarahTehCat (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

While this might be true, it is also common usage to leave articles in the style (so BCE or BC) in which they were started. And in this case, it's BC. I have no preference either way, but making these changes is just too much work while it doesn't improve the article one bit. See also wp:era on making these kind of changes.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

,mm jn nm kmj mn nmjn

Burials

I have added a link to Catalhoyuk pointing out that it's people also buried their dead underneath their homes. 17 July 2007

the people of Mesopotamia believed that the spirit of the dead was reincarnated into another body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.248.0.226 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

The first sentence of the second paragraph reads, "...considered to be the one of the...", when it should be, "...considered to be one of the...." There's an extra "the" as it stands. Thanks! Felder.william (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

Why no mention of Edessa? Has its own independent entry, so presumably of some importance. Elston Mayrie (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

",Bronze Age, Mesopotamia included.."

2º paragraph: "Widely considered to be one of the cradles of civilization by the Western world, Bronze Age, Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian...".

Shouldn't be: "Widely considered to be one of the cradles of civilization by the Western world, Bronze Age Mesopotamia included Sumer and the Akkadian..." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gottliber (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. This comma makes nonsense of this prominent sentence. I would have edited it out but it looks as if I can't. I'm disappointed that no-one has responded to the comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.114.125 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mesopotamia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070721235759/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49xB8x1920/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49xB8x1920/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121055457/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49xB8x1920/1f to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49xB8x1920/1f/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050525231213/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/ds49x2xm465d/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49x2xM465D/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906055955/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49x2xM465D/1f/dweller_in_mesopotamia.pdf to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS49x2xM465D/1f/dweller_in_mesopotamia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The Two Rivers redirects here, so should have a hatnote. Please add

{{redirect|The Two Rivers|other uses|Two Rivers (disambiguation)}}

"The Two Rivers" redirects here. For other uses, see Two Rivers (disambiguation).

-- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Economy and agriculture

The sentence "In the early period down to Ur III temples owned up to one third of the available land, declining over time as royal and other private holdings increased in frequency" should read "In the early period down to Ur III, temples owned up to one third of the available land. This fraction declined over time as royal and other private holdings increased." (Adding one comma and a sentence break, and removing "in frequency.") Thanks. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

In the section Geography, the second paragraph begins:

"The arid environment which ranges from the northern areas of rain-fed agriculture to the south where irrigation of agriculture is essential if a surplus energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is to be obtained."

This either states "The arid environment . . . is essential . . . .", which is nonsensical, or perhaps is missing text after ". . . obtained". The latter seems plausible, but would mean a clumsily long subordinate clause. Perhaps someone with access to the purported sole source for this entire section (Ref 11] could check it and correct as necessary? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.212.173 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2017

In this article in the section called "Etymology" the editor put "Which literally means the land between two rivers". I believe a better phrasing would be "Which translates to the land between two rivers" Gsjj5 (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

There is an obvious spelling error in the sentence of the "Economy and agriculture", third paragraph: "With irrigation, the food supply in Mesopotamia was compabale to the Canadian prairies." My suggested correction would be to replace "compabale" with "comparable".

Also the paragraph itself seems rather too large, and could be further subdivided to improve readability, IMHO. 24.85.111.223 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected the spelling error and broken up the paragraph. --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

section on mathematics: "if p were fixed at three" should probably be "if Pi were fixed at three" or include the mathematical symbol for Pi. 2A02:AA10:E280:80:4CA4:674C:828C:C205 (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The Greek symbol renders correctly on my computer. Perhaps this is an issue with your specific browser/computer. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Ionian

change ((Ionian)) to ((Ionia))n

 Question: Where? Which section? qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 16:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. It actually was a dab describing the philosopher Thales which I changed to Ionian. Doug Weller talk 16:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Largely Corresponding to Iraq

- - - - -

Games

I doubt that "Cuniform was fun too." in the 5.2 Games section is quite up to the finest quality one could hope in such a page. Could someone consider this?

wiki spam

There was some wiki spam in this that I took out. It was somehow triggered or near this code (see the source under "edit" of this page - which I couldn't get to reproduce.. ??:

.

References

Social classes

Should show social classes and why they are what they are and what the people in each social class does. Should name some important people from the social classes and explain their importance.

Geography of Mesopotamia

|needhelp=<Mesopotamia> needhelp=<Mesopotamia> needhelp=Mesopotamia

"Mesopotamia encompasses the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, both of which have their headwaters in the Armenian Highlands."

Doesn't the above sentence give the impression that the Euphrates and Tigris rivers originate in Armenia? The Armenian Highlands is such a big region. It lies mainly in Turkey, occupies all of Armenia, and includes southern Georgia, western Azerbaijan, and northwestern Iran. Why not say South East Turkey instead of Armenian Highlands or at least mention that the part of the Armenian Highlands where the Euphrates and Tigris rivers originate are in present-day Turkey.

Bibliography

Can this article be extended with a list of well-known standard works on Mesopotamia and its history? Would be nice, thanks Kaitlin Is The best person ever and she is amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.241.26 (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Erasure

How many people are aware of the declaration of Ancient city of Babylon designated Unesco World Heritage Site, and how many are aware that it has almost been bombed to dust and still getting bombed? It may still survive like Europe did after the 2 World Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.156.246 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2019

akkadians long ago conquered sumer took control. sargon led his armies in their charriots they rolled by the euphrated river. 96.4.116.244 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Highway 89 (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019

I will add citations Siodegaard. (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideau^talk 16:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Wikipedia is a horrible resource for essays. 2605:A601:AE7C:300:82B:B151:BE2C:31CB (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Irisagrig

Could we add an article about the city of Irisagrig? Article 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Add link to Assyria page

There is a reference to Assyria in the 'Power' section, but it is not hyper-linked to the Assyria page. Can someone fix this? Apricot2000 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Syriac name

Mesopotamia isn’t in Arabia but the arabic name of it is still included yet the Syriac name (ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪܝܢ) isn’t. The Syriac word for it should definetly be added and also akkadian and sumerian if possible Ashuraya145 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I added Syriac Johannesgabrielsson (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A Proposal to add Low-Middle Chronology Dates along with Middle Chronology ones

Here on Wikipedia the middle chronology is most frequently used (most others have been rendered obsolete), but the low middle chronology is hardly mentioned. Seeing as almost every scholar in the field of chronology perceives it as more likely, or at the bare minimum an acceptable option, I would like to propose we add it as an alternative to all middle chronology dates.

Ur-Pabilsag (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be mentioned at Middle chronology. You should start there (I'd do a similar talk request), with lots of references. We should adjust the most specialized articles first, before changing here, so History of Mesopotamia before this. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't really see why specialist articles should be edited first, so as far I am concerned, go ahead - especially if relevant, up to date sources are provided. However, I would suggest that if there's one article that needs to be taken care of first, it probably has to be Chronology of the ancient Near East. Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Typo on History Section - "The pre2history"

"The pre2history" under the history Section should be "The pre-history" I think. I dont think I can edit or suggest an edit on a page like this.

Erictcook (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Capitalise "Jews", please

Etymology, first paragraph, one-but-last sentence. 46.114.168.57 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2021

Mushroom grow in Mesopotamia 99.26.255.201 (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Proposal to add more definition to Polytheistic

01:37 PM,  23 November 2021

If possible, could you add the definition of Polytheistic IN the text? Like 'Polytheistic, which means to believe in more then one God' or something similar. It is in paragraph 1 under Religion and Philosophy. I am aware if you hover over the word, it shows the definition, but for tablet or cellphone readers, they have to click on it to view, so I think you should add the definition to the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.183.153 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dianazh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2022

there is alot of words 208.85.181.52 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is within Wikipedia's size guidelines, and your request is non-specific. If you have a specific request, please say what text X you want to change to text Y. --Mvqr (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The road separating the ruins of Babylon The effects of the city of Babylon.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

what 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Royal Game of Ur 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

you have nothing on your paper you need to get it done right now! what are you going to write about 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Dating Error in Introduction, third paragraph

The last sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction dates the independent christian city states incorrectly to the first to third centuries BC, while they should be AD.

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/edessa

Xenophon789 (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

what do you have on a page 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

what is this 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

104.219.99.109 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Hello, I am a student at Thetford Academy, VT. I am doing a research paper which includes Mesopotamia/Sumer. I couldn't help but notice that note saying that the page needs to be expanded. Therefore, I would like to add some valid, information from reliable sources such as Khan Academy, ABC-CLIO, and Dartmouth College Archives. 

ok then 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I hope you will accept.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I wanted you to please add the content which was from reliable sources Gagan Raman (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

your paper looks good so far 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

why are you not done with your paper because if you do not get done with it you are going to get a F got it Gagan Raman 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Add some content:(Redacted) (Redacted) Gagan Raman (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That is a copyright violation. You cannot copy prose from sources. Additionally, those sources are not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

what are you doing right now 208.85.181.52 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you work 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Why are you copying things from texts from places 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Plate Tectonics

I want you people to watch videos on Plate Tectonics and find a text and write notes on it ok and write a paper on it. 208.85.181.52 (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Enheduanna

How about a link in the literature section to the Wiki entry about Enheduanna, a Sumerian priestess and daughter of Sargon of Akkad, who has been credited with being the world's first named author? 135.180.55.213 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Mesopotamia

The history section has a sentence with "...as far back as Mesopotamia...". Are we to assume Mesopotamia no longer exists? That it existed for a distinct time period? This makes no sense. Even worse is the fact that this is article's subject is that exact subject. It's like saying "Saddles have existed since saddles were used." The same sentence goes on with " ancient Egypt" and almost the same problem exists. ("Ancient Egypt" existed for 6000 years! So would "as far back as" mean back ~1400 years ago (to when it became part of the Byzantium Empire) or 6000 years ago??174.130.71.156 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The development of writing

Give me big paragraph 2405:201:680F:C041:345A:7AE8:BB18:9C8E (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022: Incorrect information about "City of Gods"

CURRENT: The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the City of Gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods. SUGGESTED: The Mesopotamians believed their kings and queens were descended from the city gods, but, unlike the ancient Egyptians, they never believed their kings were real gods.

The current wording clearly distorts the source, which states, "The Mesopotamian people believed that their kings and queens were descendants from the city gods, but the people never believed–as did the Egyptians–that their rulers were divine gods." Indeed, the ancient Mesopotamians did not believe in a City of Gods at all; rather, each city had a patron deity often referred to as a "city god." Please correct this error, which I've noticed has been replicated elsewhere on the internet—no doubt because of the inaccuracy in this article. Altestans (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Change "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." to honestly I think just scrap the sentence entirely

The third paragraph of the philosophy sub-header under the religion and philosophy section say "The earliest form of logic was developed by the Babylonians, notably in the rigorous nonergodic nature of their social systems. Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes."

citing Dow, Sheila C. (April 2005). "Axioms and Babylonian thought: A reply". Journal of Post Keynesian Economics. 27 (3): 385–391. doi:10.1080/01603477.2005.11051453. S2CID 153637070. Archived from the original on 3 August 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2019.

That actual journal abstract has the sentence as "This note explains Babylonian thought, not as the dual of classical logic but as another form of logic that is rigorous in light of the nonergodic nature of social systems, and the uncertainty this entails."

Which changes the meaning significantly, from the sentence saying 'Babylonian social systems were nonergodic because they used logic', as in the wikipedia article, to 'Babylonian logic is rigorous because of the nonergodic nature of social systems', as in the cited article.

Also of note is that the cited journal says "It is argued that Babylonian thought is one way of understanding Keynes's "ordinary logic," while Davidson's use of the term "axiomatic" appears problematic. But the ergodic axiom is so compatible with the open-systems ontology on which Babylonian thought is based that there is, in fact, scope for broad agreement."

which presents Keynes's "ordinary logic" and Davidson's term "axiomatic" as conflicting ideas which can be married together on the basis that Babylonian thought is based on an open systems ontology which is very compatible with the ergodic axiom. This notably does not present Babylonian thought as axiomatic

While the wikipedia article says "Babylonian thought was axiomatic and is comparable to the "ordinary logic" described by John Maynard Keynes." Which calls Babylonian thought axiomatic and directly compares that axiomatic thought to ordinary logic Oddnumberseven (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Zoeperkoe (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Majore"

"They also played majore, a game similar to the sport rugby, but played with a ball made of wood."

There doesn't appear to be a source for this anywhere. Linguistically the word does not resemble Mesopotamian languages of any kind.

I believe this either needs a specific, preferably primary, citation, or should be removed. Palmerjwm (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Removed text. Zoeperkoe (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)