Talk:Susa

message: Please ensure that this article remains consistent in the use of BCE/CE as a dating convention so that others may not change to BC/AD. Editors wishing to comment on this issue are welcome to do so. SouthernComfort 12:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Worth noting that this article started out life as a BC/AD article. On that basis, it should be a BC/AD article. Greenshed 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: I made some basic changes to clean up all the garbage that has accumulated in this article. I think we can use the sumer city articles as a guideline to write this one
*grouped history section by theme and date
*moved location info from modern to lead-in
*temp. storage of images in gallery until we can get a good text to image ratio
*replaced map with more relevant map from elam article stored the old one here
--Gurdjieff (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think that was any improvement, so I went back to the old layout.    If the section is titled "history" why do we need to start of with "literature" and then only talk about history in the 3rd paragraph?  Surely keeping it in chronological order would be more logical.  And what is with the super-long quote in praise of Ahura Mazda?  I can see maybe quoting the lines that mention Susa, but the whole thing? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  fixes 

message: What about mentioning the references to the city in the old bible? It was referenced in Daniel, Nehemiah, and Book of Esther...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviadbd (talk • contribs) 18:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bible reference 

message: Looks good Colin. Nice addition to the Susa page. Sara  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slfitzpa (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANE wikiproject feedback 

message: The first part of the article was quite disorganized. I tried to put things in the right sequence. Still needs some improvement. Y-barton (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  General re-edit 

message: All my edits were removed by User:Wikaviani and User:Doug Weller based on a disagreement on a single factoid in each case: 
(1) The age of Susa. Actually my source is from the article itself:
Archeologists have dated the first traces of an inhabited Neolithic village to c 7000 BCE. Evidence of a painted-pottery civilization has been dated to c 5000 BCE.[17] 
(2) On the second point, there is no historical evidence that the events in the Book of Esther occurred during the Achaemenid or Sassanid periods, and no sources have been provided to support this in any article. Asking an editor to provide a source to this is like asking someone to provide a source to prove Extra Terrestrial life doesn't exist - both ideas are conjectures and neither has been proven with evidence
Again please don't undo an entire edit based on one personal disagreement.Xoltron (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for wikipedia. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

text: On point 2, the Book of Esther was written in the 4th century BC; it is included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which was made in the 3rd century BC. The Sassanid period began in the 3rd century AD. The conjecture is bogus. Furius (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a decent source. I see it says that "7L first period of occupation at Susa, from about 4200 to 3700 8.C., is known as Susa I." See also  and . One thing I do note that this article says is that it was destroyed 3 times. We really need a source for "one of the oldest cities" but it is clearly not one of the oldest continuously occupied cities. I'm very dubious pottery civilization at 5000 BCE bit and the source was added long after. As every mention I've seen of pottery there does not mention Susa but the area,  and we have sources saying Susa started after 5000, I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 17:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot - the sources the OP says were in the article don't claim it was a city at either point. And of course 7000 BCE is something you won't find in the sources and even if there was something there, that doesn't mean it was there in 6900 BCE. Doug Weller talk 17:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of first settlement 

message: The word "testifie" appears in an incomplete sentence " A mosque was built, but also Nestorian bishops are still testifie."
What is the definition of this word? It does not seem to be an English dictionary entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.229.51.105 (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, “...bishops are still testifie[d to]....“
Or 
”... testifie[d to, by apparently credible records. ...]”, etc.—JerzyA (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Testifie" 

message: The photo of the river at the top of the article is not of Susa, but is instead a photo of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System, located thirty miles to the east  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1A10:7820:E096:13F2:21A7:95F0 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect photo at the top 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Elamites are fine and all but it looks like a big chunk of the Elamites article was cargo culted into the Susa article at some point. The tail should not be wagging the dog. :-) The heavy Elamite focus needs to be cleaned out or at least toned down.Ploversegg (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elamites