Talk:Neo-Assyrian Empire

message: It seems that far too much is made of biblical references in this section. Surely a book which contains so much fiction can hardly be referenced as a reliable and/or academic source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.126.162 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible happens to be one of our main sources of historical data for this period that is outside of Assyrian records -- which some also suspect of including plenty of "fiction".  If you took away all the primary sources on grounds they may be inaccurate, there would be nothing left.  So what we do as an encyclopedia is try to include multiple perspectives whenever possible, and note where they corroborate each other, and where they do not. (We also try to avoid directly opining that major religious works followed today such as the Bible or Koran etc. are "fiction", on account of our neutrality policy!) Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I generally agree with most of that, from the section Tiglath-Pileser III, 744-727 BC onwards this reads like it's sourced solely from the bible.  That's very not cool for an article purporting to be historic.  150.203.35.193 (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References to the bible

message: I wanna break the main body of text into more sections. That means that I will be making "Sargonid dynasty" a heading rather than a subheading. Tourskin 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made more sections so it will be easier to expand this article. Then when I have finished expanding, I;ll see what refereces can be added.Tourskin 21:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: Section consists of bold statements without any sources. The continuous existence of Assyrian culture is a disputed matter. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The irony is that Akkadian language, cuneiform script, and Sumero-Akkadian religion/culture all survived for much longer in Babylonia than in Assyria. The 1st century AD 'youngest' Akkadian cuneiform tablet is from Babylonia. It is well understood that Babylonia was the Sumero-Akkadian mother country, and that Assyria; for most of the time outside the Neo-Assyrian period, a rebellious northern province of Sumer and Akkad. Babylonia was actually called "Sumer and Akkad" and not the modern name Babylonia. Assyrians revered Babylonia as a much older twin-culture. All these things have been forgotten/ignored by modern 'Assyrians'. and Assyria adopted Aramaic-ways long before Babylonia adopted Arabic-ways.. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyria after the fall 

message: The article currently has 934 BC as the start date, however the britannica article on Ashurnasirpal II says:
king of Assyria 883–859 bc, whose major accomplishment was the consolidation of the conquests of his father, Tukulti-Ninurta II, leading to the establishment of the New Assyrian Empire.
New Assyrian Empire is hyperlinked to Neo-Assyrian Empire, where it says:
The Neo-Assyrian Empire (746–609)
Is 934 BC as the date correct? it seems too early from this. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This Google Books search shows that several kings are credited as the founder, but Tiglath-Pileser III's name turns up most often. He ruled c. 745 BC -. So 934 might not be the date to use in this article. SamEV (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Establishment date

message: I changed 'nation' to 'state' as most historians regard the word 'nation' as denoting an "imagined community" of the type that did not exist before the 18th century.  I'm more interested however in the general claim that "Assyria assumed a position as the most powerful nation on earth."  This claims seems fascinating but somewhat difficult to verify historically.  It would require a comparison between ancient Middle Eastern empires and those found in the ancient Far East and elsewhere.  I've never seen such a comparison so I would love to know where this claim came from.
:Whenever I see the phrase "most historians regard ____"  I know I'm in for a good laugh at someone's POV pushing.  Historians in every country have rarely ever agreed unanimously on ANYTHING.  So now, "most historians" agree that the word "nation" means something that didn't exist before 1700 AD.  Just accept it, don't question it - after all, you sure don't want to run afoul of "most historians".  Strangely enough, without being a nation, they had a code of laws, they had a government, they had a language... but no nation, obviously - for they lived before 1700 AD, so how could they be a nation?  Didn't we just "TELL" you that the unanimous verdict of historians is that there were no nations before 1700?  Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time, it is considered that neither China nor any of the steppe-confederacies could project armed force in the way Assyria could - which is why some historians make such claims.  China was not yet organized enough as a state, with many internal troubles yet to resolve. Now, NATION - does not mean STATE.  "Nation" means ethnicity - not "citizenship," usually determined by the language that people speak and have spoken for centuries or more - this breaks down in areas such as the Balkans, where the subtle differences between Serbs and Croats - who speak different dialects of the same language but are divided by religion more than anything else, results in two separate nationalities.  When a state is composed primarily of one people/nation, the term for it is "nation-state" - like Germany or France.  We could not call Austria a nation-state as the Austrian citizens are made up of Germans, Swiss and Italians to much more than a minor degree, even if the German language predominates there politically.  Now this is a tricky business because sometimes the issue isn't always so black and white.  At what point does the percentage of a minority ethnicity in a state (country) rise to the level of making said country a multi-ethnic state?  The debates can be quite passionate.  I am English, but now also an American that lives in America and as an American I cringe every time someone says "this nation" - it is pure imagination to hope that all these melting pot "nations" are fused into "one nation" - American - but that's the historian in me. But it is an example of where the confusion comes from the technical definition of what nationality is and what the popular idea of what it is comes from.  When reading scholarly texts, identify nation=ethnicity and state=country and you'll be on the correct path.  Cheers! HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

text: The correct answer is, it's easy for anyone at all to come on here and make hypothetical, grandiose claims pitting the Assyrians against the Chinese. If anyone has any reliable sources where scholars have actually engaged in a peer-reviewed discussion of who would win between the Assyrians and the Chinese Empires, then I suppose it might be fair game for inclusion here, given due weight.  Otherwise, why are we talking about it? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Powerful Nation on Earth 

message: The Assyrian empire was brutal and militaristic even by the standards of its own time.  Colin McEvedy says in his Penguin Atlas of Ancient History: "The continual revolts that plagued the Assyrian Empire imply a harshness that the inscriptions of their monarchs amply confirm: they habitually make a boast of terrorism. Considering the over-extension of Assyrian resources, this seems short-sighted as well as unattractive." Similarly, the Bible contains passages rejoicing at the downfall of Nineveh, etc.  There should be something about this on the article page... AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Still very little about this on the article page, except the sentence "The Assyrians began boasting in their ruthlessness around this time" (which isn't even good English). AnonMoos (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics of Assyrian rule

message: The pic. "Examples of Aramaic Alphabet" exhibits a relatively modern alphabet instead of the early or even imperial one. 
Toraumada (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aramaic Alphabet 

message: on this page there's some claims that appear to be false/contradicts:
""and was, according to many historians, the first real empire in history"
-> Saragon of Akkad's [empire] only happend in an alternate universe / is a myth, i guess?"
"The Assyrians were the first to be armed with iron weapons"
-> from the [Hittites] wikipedia page:
"the Hittites were the forerunners of the Iron Age, developing the manufacture of iron artifacts from as early as the 18th century BC"
-> from the [Assyrian people's history]
"The earliest Neolithic sites in Assyria belonged to the Jarmo culture c. 7100 BC"
Unless people claim the Neanderthals or humans/people from before 7100 BC etc in Assyria where capable of manufacturing Iron items,
then the claim on either this page or the Hittite page is wrong and should be changed.
--Byzantios (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really! You aren't very clear, but these statements conflict much less than you think. Scholarship has been shifting on the start of the Iron Age, & we could do with much better refs here. Actually the Hittite claim looks questionable - Meteoric iron is one issue. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  claims on the page 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Does the article say that Aramaic remained the lingua franca in the region for seven hundred years after the Arab conquests in the 7th century? It survived of course, but as *the* regional lingua franca? This is a startling claim, which requires support. The reference given here, Filoni's The Church in Iraq (p. 37), does not seem to have any connection. Nor does the entire book, as far as I can see, except in a general statement about continued use in Christian communities. This statement should be deleted, or revised significantly with sufficient references. 2603:7081:5D41:6723:8918:74F5:A8BE:FB02 (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   Aramaic as the regional lingua franca until the 14th century AD 

message: Is this really a “better” map than the old one? It doesn’t even show the whole empire or have any dates like the old one. Shouldn’t we at least use a map that shows the entire empire? SaturatedFatts (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map 

message: At nearly 20k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The "readable prose size" of the article is currently 19,806 words or 126 kB -  WP:SIZERULE states that if an article is > 15,000 words or > 100 kB  (both of which it is) the article "Almost certainly should be divided". This needs to be discussed, not hidden by repeatedly deleting the template. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Length