Talk:Ur of the Chaldees

message: I'll get to this later.  But basically, the dispute is that the view that Ur is Ur is far, far more widespread among scholars and archaeologists today than any theory that ever identified it with Edessa.  Also. you have to provide some more kind of source from anyone that says the Biblical Ur was Edessa, I seriously doubt it can be called a "traditional" view in anyone's tradition at any time.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edessa is the traditional site of Abraham's birthplace which is an Islamic shrine although the tradition is not exclusively Muslim and was upheld by Jews of the area and is also the earliest view in Christian sources. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The traditional site of Abraham's birth is placed in ... Edessa." This needs a cite. Also, the last ¶ mentioning Eusebius indicates that it is apparently not part of his tradition which seems to favors Tell el-Mukayyan. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Identifying Ur

message: This page is currently a de facto pov fork. Although not necesarrily created this way, This page is always going to be focusing on the "northern ur" theory, because no one would ever think to come to this page unless they already held doubts about normal Ur being Ur of the Chaldees. Adherants to Ur of sumerian fame in the Ur III period would just consider ur of the chaldees to be Ur and go there accordingly. Perhaps the page would be more appropriatly named "Northern Ur Theory" or somthing, since such a page could justifiably be all about Gordon's theory. Thanatosimii 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a defacto pov fork 

message: Apparently to distinguish it from similar names (in Hebrew?), the writer of the scripture called it the "Ur of the Chaldees." But it was written down long after Moses left. So long indeed, that the writer did not know that the Chaldees had not lived there "forever." Most scholars today agree that Ur was not inhabited by the Chaldees when any usual chronological Moses lived there. This "little" point about scholarly disagreement should be pointed out somewhere. The fact that not everyone concurs with their assessment can be pointed out indirectly. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this has come up over the years at Talk:Chaldea.  To be accurate, the scripture called it "Ur Kasdim", not "Chaldees".  The form "Kasdim" is believed to derive from meaning "descendants of Kesed", himself a descendant of Arphachsad. The form "Kaldi" (Chaldea) is quite late (9th century BC when Adad-Nirari first uses it), and some viewpoints hold that it is actually of a totally different derivation than "Kasdim", but that much later they both became merged in people's minds as "Chaldees".  Another common view takes the position that the form Kasdim was later changed to Kaldim (the later form being "Chaldees"). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ur "of the Chaldees"

message: NOT Ur! Böri (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urfa! 

message: Someone deleted explanation embedded within the following:
"The Book of Jubilees states that Ur Kaśdim was founded in 1687 Anno Mundi (about 2073 B.C.E.) by "'Ur, son of Keśed", presumably the offspring of Arphaxad, adding that wars began on Earth that same year." The 2073 BCE was deleted.
Of course, most of us don't have calendars with Anno Mundi on them, but rather calendars (see my signature below) with CE, or, in this case BCE. A look at the article Anno Mundi will show base year 0 (or maybe 1) as 3750 to 5500 BCE. 1687 subtracted from one of these two, or an average will yield the BCE number. Which is needed, since it is meaningless without it. Take whichever you like, but put it into modern terminology or it is useless. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and restored it. Also, I'd missed the change from BCE to BC in a couple of places done by an IP and reverted them as WP:ERA requires agreement here to make such changes - this is a BCE article and has been for about 10 years. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Student7 I've taken this to WPNORN#Is it OR to translate an Anno Mundi into a possible BC/BCE date? as I've been reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of material yielding meaningful date

message: I believe this photo was deleted recently due to the fact that its a recently reconstructed "unrepresentative" structure. but don't you think it should be included as it is actually there now regardless of its legitimacy? The structure was built based on an original structure so i don't see harm in including it while making it clear that this whole Abraham connection is made up? i don't see why an image of another alleged site in turkey was included but not this? Aziz1005 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who alleges this? And in any case I doubt that it is a single "house".  Doug Weller talk 05:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo deletion

message: I recently removed the following from the end of the lead paragraph:
"Recent archaeology work places the location in present day Nasiriyah, Iraq where the ancient Ziggurat of Ur is located."http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0404/Home-of-Abraham-Ur-unearthed-by-archaeologists-in-Iraqhttp://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2011/article/birthplace-of-abraham-gets-a-new-lease-on-lifehttp://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text/2
The reason I removed it is because it is entirely misleading. Not a single one of the sources address the location of Ur Kasdim; they all refer to archeological work at the Sumerian city of Ur and then mention that Ur is also referenced in the Bible as the birthplace of Abraham. Essentially, this is not new archeology discovering the site of Ur Kasdim or even proving a connection between Ur Kasim and Ur of Sumeria. It was simply archeological work at the already known location of Ur in Sumeria and then mentioning the popular theory that the Ur in Sumeria is the same Ur mentioned in the Bible. I'm preserving the original sentence and references here in case they can be reworked into the article.108.46.147.132 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The first article is titled "Home of Abraham, Ur, unearthed by archaeologists in Iraq".  and it is a Christian News Source.  If that isn't a good enough reliable source, I have no idea what is.  You edit is WP:OR unless you have more recent sources that refute this source and even then, both the old and new sources should probably be in the article as long as there is a controversy among reliable sources.  Lipsquid (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. I have no interest in getting into a further edit war. I get it, based on the article history, you edited it in in the first place and thus have a personal investment in keeping it there. Revert it, keep it, I don't care as I have better things to do with my time. I'll just say this, including the lead like that, as is, is deliberately misleading. It has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources. The fact of the matter is that not one of those sources mention anything about proving Ur in the Bible is the Ur of Sumeria, as the removed sentences states. None of them discuses "placing the location" anywhere; they simply presuppose the location based on the popular theorized connection between the two sites. The articles are simply about archeological work done at Ur of Sumeria NOT archeological work to identify the location of the Biblical Ur.108.46.147.132 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any secondary sources that state these opinions on the primary sources or is it original resource?  You can make silly attac±ks if you like and blame others for you lack of clarity on how Wikipedia works, but my questions are reasonable regardless of who wrote any text in the article.  If you have sources to back-up your assertion, by all means add them.  Anything that makes the article more Encyclopedic is my only goal.  I will wait for your reply to make any edits.  Lipsquid (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed end of the lead 

message: The Chaldeans only became associated with Southern Mesopotamia due to the expansion of Aramaic-speakers resulting from the decline of Assyria in the centuries around 1000 B.C.  So the modifier "of the Chaldees" presupposes a southern Mesopotamian location, but is 500 years or more anachronistic to the period when Abraham would have lived.  AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be mentioned 

message: joshua 24:3 But I took your father Abraham from the land beyond the Euphrates and led him throughout Canaan. 
İndicates was West of the Euphrates. Usernamestress (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ur