Talk:Assyria

message: I came here hoping to find out the capital of assyria, but I can't find it. What's the point of having an encyclopedia with Assyria if it doesn't explain monty python?
Answer:
:Assyria had different capitals throughout the years. A few of them are Assur, Nineveh, Nimrud to name a few. Chaldean 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A more complete answer: "The four successive capitals of Assyria--Ashur (Qalat Sherqat); Calah (NIMRUD), founded by Ashurnasirpal II; Dur Sharrukin (KHORSABAD), the fortress city of Sargon II; and Nineveh" http://www.assyriannation.com/history/assyrian_history.htm 80.6.106.90 23:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Capital of Assyria? 

message: In the Legacy section, I have an objection to the sentence "The Assyrians themselves were not the greatest innovators in science and culture." Can somebody look for a list of Assyrian achievments, I know they are alot and for the author to state that they were not is not right, Until proof is presented I will remove the sentence. -- 67.166.133.88 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this must be incorrect. Maybe the writer's perception of "Asia" was limited... Brutannica 01:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Do it! dab 12:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older Discussions 

message: I would like also to know something about modern Assyrians, who they are and whether they relate to historical Assyrians
:would you? well, it says "see Assyrian" in the very first line of the article (a hyperlinked encyclopedia is not good enough, you want one that actually fetches the article for you) dab
how could assyira be after babylon if it began during the time of sumer and akkad, which were before babylon?
:simple: it didn't. dab (ᛏ)
Well, Assyria DID exist as a state before Babylon, without doubt. Its king list goes further back, as does its written history!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Assyrians 

message: Modern Assyrians are estimated between 3-5 million.They have been persecuted since the fall of their  empire (Assyria).They speak Assyrian or "Syriac".It contains two dialects East and West Assyrian.They do relate to the historical Assyrians and the Assyrians have also kept the names of their kings as names of their sons Ashur.Sargon.Nimrod with more.Most Assyrians lives todays in Iraq about 1 million Assyrians lives there and 500.000 in Syria the rest are in diaspora.For more information i suggest to read in Assyrians.--Sargon 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Assyrians 

message: Reading the current version, it seems that Assyria established "merchant colonies" in Kültepe 2 centuries before it was founded. Then again, the article doesn't seem to be in chronological order, so maybe I just misunderstood something. Illuvatar 00:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, you greatly improved the article.Illuvatar 10:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi anon, I just looked up both Khyan and Hammurabi articles, but didn't see any reference there to them interacting, or being contemporaries.  So if you have a verifiable reference for your archaeological claim and it checks out, that might be a start to updating all of these articles. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I removed the "(this is indeed of great interest. Sources?)" parenthetical statement/question from the article proper. Such questions belong in the discussion page, not the article proper. --Venerable Bede 23:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian Telescopes 

message: Are all of these references to the OT necessary? Isn't this meant to be an encyclopaedia, rather than a surmising of the Bible? I may be wrong here, and the OT may be our only source of historical knowledge on Assyria (which I sincerely doubt), but this entire page reads a hell of a lot like a paraphrasing of the OT. The following is my biggest bone of contention: "in fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah (10:5–19), Nahum (3:19), and Zephaniah(3:13)." 
I mean, what the heck is that all about? Is Wikipedia now a Christian apologetics ministry? I am going to remove this at once, and I am sorely tempted to remove the Bible references (and perhaps put them in a separate Sources section at the bottom for reference?). Polocrunch
:No, you're right.  This article, like many others in wikipedia that touch upon Biblical events, is partly based on an entry in Easton's Bible Dictionary.  Pfalstad
"Of the early history of the kingdom of Assyria, little is positively known. According to some Judeo-Christian traditions, the city of Ashur (also spelled Assur or Aššur) was founded by Ashur the son of Shem, who was deified by later generations as the city's patron god."
Does anyone have any information on this?  I've never heard that he was deified, nor have I really heard of the process of the deification of mortals in general in Assyrian history.  I'd like to know when these "later generations" were.  NisabaGray
Modern day creationists who seek to use Old Testament etiology to explain Assyrian history and cultural practices.--Rob117 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical Homage?

message: In the Old Assyrian City-State section, the city-state is spelled as "Ashur" and "Ashshur". I assume the latter is a typo, but it's in there twice. 12.149.13.1 16:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to get technically correct, it's "Aŝŝur"...  (ŝ) representing the sh sound...  But one will encounter a number of different ways of rendering it in English, and it's not really a big deal... Recently someone has been changing instances of "Ashshur" to "Assur", which is also fine, only it looks like they must have missed a couple, that's all..  Cheers, Codex Sinaiticus 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Ashur? 

message: I don't think that a reference to Monty Python belongs in a historical article.  Comments? Brownsteve 07:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I think its pointless! Are all for deleting "Monty Python"?--Sargon 10:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia? 

message: Were the Assyrians ethnically Arameans? If not, why did they adopt Aramaic as their official language? It would be useful to have a section about the ethnicity of the Assyrians. RCSB 14:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were Assyrians Arameans? 

message: Assyrian military innovated under Ashurnasir-pal, intro cavalry (tho without saddles) and battering ram (which was able to function upward as well as forward). See Dwyer, War, & Dupuy, Evo of Weaps & Warfare.  Trekphiler 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia?

message: I propose dealing with the history of the Assyrian people under the article with that name, and possibly transferring paragraphs concering their ancient state to Assyrian Empire. Having a separate entry on ancient Assyrians seems redundant to me. Big Adamsky 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest with you, I'm not sure getting what your proposing Chaldean 03:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proposition of Big Adamsky is unacceptable, as there's only a mythological link between ancient and modern Assyrians. --Pylambert 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, not a good idea at all Chaldean 03:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I was looking up the history of Arabia in the Encarta encyclopedia and I found this piece of information: The earliest known events in Arabian history are migrations from the peninsula into neighboring areas. About 3500 bc, Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin migrated into the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia, supplanted the Sumerians, and became the Assyro-Babylonians.
Is this accurate? --Inahet 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds more like conjecture to me, since no dates from that long ago can be certainly known, and there are absolutely no records indicating that they came from the peninsula.  Usually the more classical view we find is that they were migratory Amorite-related tribes who lived between the Jordan and the Euphrates, ie, West, not South, of Mesopotamia, but nowadays there are always those who, for one reason or another, want to push the idea that they migrated from further south.  Also, 3500 BC seems like stretching it pretty far back if you ask me, 2500 BC would be much closer the mark. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding to my question. I probably misinterpreted the Encarta article on Arabia. The author perhaps used the term "Arabian" geographically (i.e. Assyrians came from the Arabian Peninsula). Because of the way it was phrased (i.e. Semitic-speaking peoples of Arabian origin), I had assumed that the author meant that Assyrians were ethnically Arab. I assume by your response that you understood what the author meant better than I did. Anyway, my knowledge of the history of Semitic-speaking people is very limited. But from what I have read, I can tell you that the scholars who claim Assryians came from South Arabia also claim that Amorites and Canaanites came from there as well. And this theory is based on recent "archaeological exploration."  --Inahet 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt if it's based on anything that recent.  Some (but not all) of the articles in the 1911 Britannica seemed to be written from the same point of view that seems to want to make the Canaanites come from South Arabia, and it all seemed pretty speculative and based on some rather sketchy linguistic assumptions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Were/are Assyrians Arab?

message: I would like to suggest some improvements of the article Assyria. Comparing with articles written in other Wikipedia languages, I found the present French (français) layout appealing (intelligble even if you don´t speak French). 
* Since "Assyria" refers not only to conquests and wars I suggest a more comprehensive text of Assyrian culture and society to be added.
* As noted at the top of this page already in Nov 2004: "the only historical importance is how they conquered Israel. Great for some, but he may like to mention some of the more significant battles: Egypt, for instance." The "Assyrian Empire" could benefit from some editing. The battles with Israel was not the main events in the Neo-Assyrian period. Egypt/Nubia, Elam, Phrygia, Urartu and Babylonia in particular was the main concern of Neo-Assyrian foreign policy.
* A consistent spelling of Assyrian names is desirable. See above and at Talk:List of kings of Babylon.
--JFK 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already undone the Biblical references... Why take everything to do between Assyria and Israel out of chronological order, as if they are in a category by themself?  It doesn't make sense... As for the Astronomy section, I'd been meaning to move that out of the chronology myself for a long time, so that is an improvement... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course not, and the article takes no stand on whether or not it is historical.  It inserts it into the chronologically appropriate place, that's all.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a case being made for a separate section perhaps, but not cutting every single reference to Israel out of the chronological historical section; that's a bit overboard ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not cut any reference to Israel out of the chronological historical section, I cut out the Old Testament citations and chapter references and reduplicated the text. Please read the text before you instantly erase all changes you don´t make yourself! We do not quote the Chronicles of Assyria and Babylonia either, or write how the Assyrians subdued the foreign lands with the help of Assur and Ninurta. --JFK 16:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Assur and Ninurta have no widespread following any more (that I know of), otherwise we might!  But at any rate, it looked to me like a little too much sourced history did get cut from the history section...  like the Assyrian captivity, for instance...  if there were a separate Biblical section, it could even be expanded considerably, but should certainly not replace the history section, of course... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future suggestions 

message: Information about their language and language family should be added to the article.  Badagnani 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add language 

message: This link: Assyrian Reliefs on Exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum was added to the article by the site owner.  In keeping with our guidelines could regular editors of this article check out the link and add it back if you think it appropriate.  Thanks.  -- Siobhan Hansa 00:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  brooklynmuseum.org external link 

message: External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted external links

message: The California Institute of Ancient Studies has put forward an interesting analysis of the primary records, making the case that Sargon 2 and Sennacherib are in fact one and the same: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html
Note I am only putting this link here as a resource for future researchers; personally, I am not so convinced; for example, the two kings seemed to have died entirely different deaths. 
Til Eulenspiegel 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIAS: Sargon 2 = Sennacherib? 

message: this article is about Assyria, 20th to 7th centuries BC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the modern Assyrian people, except for the marginal note that in Assyrian nationalism it is very hip to talk about and  identify with Ancient Assyria (as we can read every day in about twenty posts on Talk:Assyrian people). We can have this note, but it is perfectly ridiculous to plaster a giant template on this article because of that fact. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the point of having the link in the template? It doesn't make any sense. This is not "Assyrian people" but history of the Assyrian people, which this article is part of. I don't understand the problem. I think if the title of the template was "History of Assyria" you wouldn't be as irritated as you seem, but that would be pushing POV since their is no Assyria country today. Chaldean 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the point of links in a template is linking to an article, it is not an excuse to plaster the template on every page linked. The only thing linking Neo-Aramaic and Old Aramaic is (doh) the Aramaic language. By your logic, we would need to slap a giant  on Germanic peoples. This is silly. You may argue about obscure cultural continuity 600 BC to 100 AD, but the history of Assyria ends in 600 BC, and the history of Syriac Christans begins in 100 AD, and it is ridiculous pov-pushing to emphasize the claimed continuity by slapping giant templates on otherwise unrelated articles. I have noticed that Assyrian nationalists are crazy about ancient Assyria. After all, Elias does his best to illustrate that. That's still just a result of the 1850s rediscovery of Assyria, and thus a thoroughly modern thing that can at best be treated under "rediscovery" in this article. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you call yourself "neutral". Dab, seriously, where do you think we come from? Do you think we're Arabs or something who just happened to magically speak Neo-Aramaic languages one day? We do have a history, and it goes back to ancient times, whether you like it or not. Assyrian nationalists are crazy about ancient Assyria. After all, Elias does his best to illustrate that. — So what? I can be as crazy as I want about ancient Assyria, what's it to you? Does that give you a right to neuter Assyria related articles and separate them from the Assyrian people? Why don't you use the same contradicting logic and remove Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar from the Kingdom of Israel article? Stop pestering us with your anti-Nationalism obsession. That's still just a result of the 1850s rediscovery of Assyria, and thus a thoroughly modern thing that can at best be treated under "rediscovery" in this article. — Oh look everyone, Dbachmann subscribes to the fringe theories of John Joseph. If anything, Aramaeanism is a result of Joseph's book from 1961. There was no Aramaean movement before that; the pseudo-Aramaeans took after Joseph's stupid theories. But of course, you're too "neutral" to acknowledge this. — Elias (talk · contribs) 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new "legacy and rediscovery" subsection is very well written, couldn't have done better myself!  Good job on that one, dab...! Til Eulenspiegel 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why, thank you. dab (𒁳) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANE

message: The link to the Amarnamap.png image doesn't seem to appear as a thumbnail.  I'm sure there's an error there somewhere, but I can't identify it.  Any thoughts??  JXM 23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is just a temporary problem. It happens when the servers are overloaded. I've seen it happening more often in recent days. Just try again after a few minutes. dab (𒁳) 09:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem with Amarnamap.png

message: The first of the external links appears to be a course outline from UCLA, with some translated documents attached.  This does not agree with the description, which says 'Assyrian Administrative Letters'.  Shouldn't the link be as follows?  A. Leo Oppenheim, "Letters from the Archives of Ninevah", Letters from Mesopotamia: Official, Business, and Private Letters on Clay Tablets from Two Millennia Chicago (1967) Fconaway (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its long, but I guess its fine. Chaldean (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: I added a brief section about Assyria after the empire, as it maintained an identity as an important province of other empires.
I also added information regarding the extent of Assyrian conquests under the Neo Assyrian Empire. How on earth is this POV? All of it is easily referenced.
D Bachmann reverted my changes, stating they were POV, and unreferrenced.
Actually, most WAS referenced, though not all...what was not, im more than happy to reference. Nothing was POV pushing, everything there is factual.
An overview of Assyria and its continuity is useful, because a now rather dated (but still common) view is that Assyria simply disappeared. This view has been largely discredited by modern historians and Assyriologists, and a brief section on Assyria after the empire is useful and informative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinharib99 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Assyrian identity began around two generations after Botta and Layard's excavations in northern Iraq. the earliest mention of modern Assyrians I can find is in newspaper article from 1893. so it didn't begin long before that date. it certainly didn't begin before the 1840's discovery of Assyria; and all the books following that discovery romanticizing the Nestorian Christians as being modern 'Assyrians'. The Assyrian community of today is entirely a modern invention. if they are Assyrians today; they were not aware of it 150 years ago. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: If you have any evidence of an "Assyrian" ethnic group in the millenium prior to 1893, or even prior to 1800, please share it. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Are you forgetting that Assyria was 'discovered' in the 1840s? how could Assyrians exist when there was no living memory of Assyria? the ancient Assyrians were Aramized, and lost their Sumero-Akkadian culture. and lost it centuries earlier than the Babylonians too. Do you know of any 'Assyrian' literature from 200 years ago? ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyria After The Empire etc 

message: No article on Wiki about them! :( Böri (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly ought to be.  They are mentioned in the early royal year names, from the very dawn of more detailed record keeping. Let me know if someone starts one before I get around to it; there is a good bit of material. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turukku 

message: I have just created a former country infobox for the Middle Assyrian Period, but, on behalf of WikiProject Former countries, I suggest the creation of a separate Middle Assyrian Period article for navigation purposes. This way, the article Assyria can receive its own former country infobox with specific reference to the Old Assyrian Period. Xuxalliope (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Assyrian Period - New Article 

message: It says: "This article is about the former kingdom (obviously; the title is "Assyria"; what else is it going to be about?). For modern-day Assyria (huh? For modern-day Assyria?), see Assyrian people." This line is unnecesary and doesn't make sense, whoever is looking for "Assyrians" will type "Assyrians" or "Assyrian people". I removed this per above reasons and somebody twice put it back without any reason. - Ninevite 20  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninevite 20 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, because the WP:HATNOTE serves a useful navigation function on wikipedia.  The primary topic located here at Assyria is the former kingdom of Assyria, so this is correctly formatted.  Another meaning of "Assyria" that some people might be looking for could be regions that are known as Assyria today, hence "modern-day Assyria".  People looking for information on the region known as Assyria today, could feasibly come here by mistake from typing in "Assyria".  What the hatnote does is redirect them to the correct article that has information about that topic, which would be Assyrian people.  This is solely to help readers find their way to the correct article, it is not intended to be used to make any kind of political assertions or implications about the geographic region that some people call "Assyria" today, nor about the ethic group who refer to themselves as 'Assyrians". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no "modern region known as Assyria today", as you know perfectly well; Assyria is the Greek term for the now-defunct empire, not any speficic region, the territory of the former empire now being spread among a dozen countries in the Middle East. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary sentence/link at top of article

message: I suppose this source can be used for lack of a more recent or more specific one, but the article relies altogether too much on it, it also fails to given page numbers, and it uses it very naively: you cannot cite things like "c. 2154 BC" from a book, you need to establish which chronology is being used, I am sure that is made clear somewhere in the book, but jumping to a page and copying a year number is not helpful, it is what led to the hopeless confusion of ANE chronology on Wikipedia. Such things should be tagged for revision on sight (but I have kind of given up on it). --dab (𒁳) 12:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Largely my fault. I have recently tried to add other references, particularly when dating the earlier kings. But perhaps a line mentioning that the chronology is far from exact might be useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Horsepuckey. Citing things like dates from RS is precisely what we can, must, and do do. If there's some special procedure needed here because the nature of the Mesopotamian king lists, then you need to create an article policy on it and format it prominently at the head of the talk page. You don't just insult people for not magically understanding the minutiae of an esoteric field. — LlywelynII 04:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: overuse of Roux (1964)

message: That's cute but no. You have to explain if it's a bibliography of works being used or a further reading section. Roux is used but several of the other's aren't. Since Wikipedia can't helpfully curate lists, WP:Further reading sections are almost always a mistake unless they're providing primary documents. — LlywelynII 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Literature"

message: These are the unused refugees from the "Lit" section. Kindly reïnclude them once they are being used to verify statements in the running text of the article.
* Ascalone, Enrico (2007): Mesopotamia: Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians (Dictionaries of Civilizations; 1). Berkeley: University of California Press (paperback, ).
* Grayson, Albert Kirk (1975): Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (ABC), Locust Valley, N.Y., Augustin; reed. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns (2000).
*.
* Leick, Gwendolyn (2002): Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City. Penguin Books.
* Nardo, Don (1998): The Assyrian Empire. San Diego.
* Olmstead, A. T. (1923): History of Assyria, Chicago.
* Oppenheim, A. Leo (1964): Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago.
* - vol.1 and vol.2
*
More info at EB articles as well (and material in the article that needs to be sourced to them), but bear in mind that it may be outdated. — LlywelynII 03:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for article expansion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Assyria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012054550/http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/Flags/assyria.html to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/assyria.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came back to this site to find it had dissappeared. It now resembles a 6th grade text book. I noticed that someone moved material into a "timeline of Assyrian history" It had been a FABULOUS article, as Assyria has a pretty continuous 1000 year domination of mesopotamia- gave you a great insight to whole region. How are people going to find this? What is the use of the history section then? I don't think a timeline is a good way to present all this information. Access to information trumps tidiness. 64.222.86.149 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to "timeline"= A mess 

message: The Assyria page now makes no sense. It no longer flows properly. There are huge gaps. The Neo Assyrian Empire section (for just one example) now begins in 671 BC with the conquest of Egypt. Large sections of Assyrian history are now completely absent. No one is saying that the article needs to go into minute detail, but it should at least have a basic continuous flow to it. The specific and deeper details of the Old Assyrian, Middle Assyrian, Neo Assyrian periods and those that fall between these periods do not need to be gone into in huge depth, but surely they should at least be there and flow chronologically. The article is now pretty poor, particularly the Middle and Neo Assyrian periods. A Timeline is far from a good replacement for the former article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.25.101 (talk) 07:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Amateurish Article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Assyria. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070722000403/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS71xJ39C/ to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS71xJ39C/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060921105053/http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS71xJ39C/1f/civilization_of_babylonia_and_assyria.pdf to http://fax.libs.uga.edu/DS71xJ39C/1f/civilization_of_babylonia_and_assyria.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Assyria. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121003532/http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=ae_chart to http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=ae_chart
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nineveh.com/Assyrians
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've read through the entire article this morning. I've noticed there's some undesirable repetition. If you go to the article  and use your browser's page search functionality [Ctrl-F most likely] and type in "Sprachbund" you should see that you find two instances of that word. If you then read the paragraph each instance of "Sprachbund" appears in you will notice that the two paragraphs are extremely similar. So it would be good if someone confident in editing the article could resolve that.
I did notice another chunk that was repeated too but unfortunately I've lost track of it and can't see how I could find it without reading the entire article again, which I'm afraid I'm not going to do. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is some undesirable repetition in the article. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Assyria. 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/20110717071922/http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf to http://www.jaas.org/edocs/v18n2/Parpola-identity_Article%20-Final.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~szuchman/hist312.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an  EddieDrood sock, editor known for  falsifying references and making up terminology not present in references. I wouldn't trust their edits. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable problematic edits by 81.100.25.101 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Assyria. 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/20080512105833/http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/UniversalHistory/THE_OLD_WORLD/Religion-Babilonia-Assyria/THEOPHILUS_G_PINCHES/1-Foreword.html to http://www.third-millennium-library.com/readinghall/UniversalHistory/THE_OLD_WORLD/Religion-Babilonia-Assyria/THEOPHILUS_G_PINCHES/1-Foreword.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section is appalling, it has huge gaps, repeats info that should be in other sections, and reads terribly. This needs looking at  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful Old Assyrian Empire section 

message: The Old Assyrian empire/period section was almost totally gone! Reinstated it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.36.164 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Assyrian Empire section re-added 

message: I rewrote all of assyrias history from this article on one assyria on assyrians homeland, why have 2 assyria when we can have one? So please, remove this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove "assyria" 

message: Hi all!
I want to suggest  assyria with the article assyrian homeland because as l am an assyrian myself l dont like that there are two assyria article, also if we would have a sort of autonomy or a country in the future assyrian homeland will be the one rewritten. 
Discuss....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemrud91 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is at Talk:Assyrian_homeland#Suggested_merge. MarginalCost (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested merge 

message: Hello Bealtainemí, if you use e-version of that book, open its twenty-sixth page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah5 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for your comment. I find that the wrong book was cited. The phrase in question is not in the Cambridge University Press book Assyria - From the Earliest Times to the Fall of Nineveh, but comes from a 19th-century work republished in various forms, for instance as Ozymandias Press book, The Rise and Fall of the Assyrian Empire, which quotes an 1862 work by Rawlinson (which explains the now quaint comparison with "the German provinces of Prussia or Austria"!). I am therefore making a correction in places where the wrong book was cited.  Being unable to check correctness of the page number, I am giving no page number, neither page 3 (as previously indicated) nor page 26 (as you seem to indicate now), but simply indicating the section of chapter I of Zagorin's book that is numbered 3.  Bealtainemí (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Assyria 

message: Hi Puduhepa, what was the problem with my edit? Konli17 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Konli17. I know you were trying to improve the page but I think the previous version was more clear as it gives more specific information regarding the areas which were under the control of the empire. Since the content was not too long or messy, I don't think that it needs to be tidied. The other content has been removed completely, so there's no reason to discuss about it at the moment. Puduḫepa 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: Semsûrî,
In your previous edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assyria&diff=954608542&oldid=953946572), your edit summary stated that the link for Assyrian War of Independence redirected to a different article. Instead of correcting that link, you simply deleted that link. And not only that, but you also deleted information stated before that link.
I'm assuming good faith here, however this seems disruptive, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Next time please correct the redirecting link instead of deleting page content. Thanks.
:--Assyriandude (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Edit by User:[[User:Semsûrî|Semsûrî]] 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria#Neo-Assyrian_Empire  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A941:8601:A807:9F72:8F4B:4E2F (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies And Biased Language 

message: The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias. 
As the Assyrian culture was not dominantly Christian and significantly precedes Christianity, there is no reason for the date notion to be based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."), making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice to ensure religious objectivity. 
According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated."For dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Julian or Gregorian equivalents are often uncertain. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars  Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.
My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the article.
016bells (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Notion to Common Era 

message: As I stated elsewhere, it seems that no editors who are contributing to this and other main articles on Assyrian-related themes were invited to take part in recent discussions on proposed deletions (here and here) of articles on the Assyrian Academic Society and Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. Those articles are quite important, and should not be deleted. Unfortunately, some users are claiming that both of those articles are not notable enough to be kept. On the other side, those articles could be improved, and any help in the field of editing would be welcomed. Sorabino (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on some Assyrian-related themes 

message: Hi, do you think we should move and rename this article from Assyria to  Assyrian Empire because Assyria is a region and this article is about an empire. Thanks, Cupcake547 (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If anything, the lead section and the infobox could be edited/reorganised. The article as is covers the history of ancient Assyria, the later region, and Assyrians today. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming and Moving the Article 

message: I think there should be more elaborate explanation about the society of Assyrian civilization. There were three social category, the terminology for all three of them should be mentioned there. The third  social class called Khubsi ( i don't know how you write it), which was also providing the military strength to the Assyrians need a mention, with quality sources. Admantine123 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  In society section 

message: I change the status of Assyria to an ancient country since if you look up the definition of Assyria according to Oxford Dictionary it says: An ancient country in what is now northern Iraq. From the early part of the 2nd millennium BC, Assyria was the center of a succession of empires. I even put the source in a reference and it’s a reliable source but the Admin Favonian subsequently blocks me and removes the information even though it Is correct and adds more information to the article. Why are you worried about people actually improving an article and not worrying about people who are abusing the edit ability? 2600:4040:13B2:7200:447D:137F:7F30:FBD (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop reverting edits that are correct 

message: Add the following to the photos at the bottom of the Assyrian page.  
 Coldthings (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. What do you mean by "the bottom of the ... page"? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2023 

message: I just bought Frahm's Assyria of last year and he says on page 32, "The three centuries after 2000 BCE – the so-called Old Assyrian period..." But this article, which I'm sure is correct, has Old Assyria for a much longer period. Why would Frahm say Old Assyria was 2000–1700 BCE? BowlAndSpoon (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Assyrian period