Talk:Nimrud

message: The Arabs were not the ones who called this city Nimrud. The Assyrians did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.27.22.194 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the article mentions 612 like the fall of Niniveh but other sources 
 
say 614 whereas another  says 614-612 BC.
are there any more sources?
It is also referred to as "Kalhu" when the Assyrian king Shalmaneser made it the new capital in the Neo-Assyrian period. (Originally accidentally posted this on the article, sorry about that) Twisby 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of sacking 

message: Why is it that you completely ignore the story of Nimrud (King of Sumeria) and his two sons? 
Nicholaus Lichtman (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there was no Sumerian king Nimrud. Nimrod was a later legend and the source of the modern name of the site. It has it's own article, with a link at the top of this article. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nimrud 

message: Propose naming this page after it's original, native, ancient name, like other ancient cities whose names we know, rather than the modern archaeological site name. It will also prevent confusion like above. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose re-naming this page "Kalhu" 

message: I just removed a fact tag for the reference to Syrians. the source was already there. I'll double check it the next time I go to the library but I'm sure it was from that book.
Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's own article on Syria does not indicate that other names were invariably used instead of "Syria." I find many references on the web to "ancient" Syria. Student7 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

text: There were no "Syrians" during the time of Shalmaneser. Ancient Syria during that time comprised of several Aramaic-speaking states and kingdoms, such as Bit-Agusi, Til-Barsip, etc. The first use of "Syrians" was used by the Greeks and Romans to refer to the inhabitants of the area formerly known as "Assyria". The battle near the Orontes river was between the Assyrians and a coalition of several city states, which also included the Musreans (Egyptians) and Israelites. The inscription on Shalmaneser's obelisk does not mention any "Syrians". For the full translation of this inscription, see page 259 of A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. I have already provided the reference and more complete quote in the article. --Šarukinu (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shalmaneser III and Syrians 

message: The Nineveh entry states that the same archaeological discoveries occurred at that location and makes no mention of them actually occurring at Nimrud.  Does anyone know about the accuracy of the statement that the Gilgamesh tablets were actually discovered at Nimrud?~~Klvalens~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klvalens (talk • contribs) 10:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to Nineveh Entry

message: It seems some sources refer to this place as Nimrod. Should we add it to the lead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. These sources are confusing the man for a city. This does not warrant updating the article in such a way. There is an article for Nimrod which talks about the man. Gorba (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt name: Nimrod 

message: Should it be Lamassu or lamassu?  The article has both. Kdammers (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "lamassu" Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamassu 

message: , please explain your point of view here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:LONGQUOTE. Quotes should not dominate the article text. If they provide useful background then incorporate them into the article (not into references). Copyright is not the issue here, so you don't even have to use quote marks, just attribute the source(s). Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: HI , LONGQUOTE is not policy, so choosing to follow it still requires consensus. But even if we do choose to follow its advice, it says clearly "Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability." These long footnotes have been included precisely for that reason - specifically to help readers verify and understand the complex connection between Nimrud and Calah. Can you suggest a better way of helping readers understand this - maybe by summarising the key parts of the quotes? I have considered this but find it difficult given the complex and convoluted explanations being described by these Assyriologists. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we don't have clear policies/guidelines on the quote length, but we expect articles to be "encyclopedic" (whatever this means). The current article has about half of its prose text in references, which is unencyclopedic by any measure. As a quick hack, I would move quotes into a genuine "notes" section (most "notes" in the current version are actually references). Further, ref. [6] (Ainsworth) is reused twice. Is its lengthy quote required in all three occasions? Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A quote of one to two sentences can be helpful for people trying to find content that goes "missing" if a link dies or a resource otherwise becomes unavailable, and they're available as |quote= in the  tag. Notes can be used for whole paragraph quotes, but it could be better to just trim them to one to two sentences. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks both for the good suggestions. I had build on Aronzak's work on the notes to try to ensure there is a good flow. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes in references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nimrud. 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/20110722025928/http://www.centroscavitorino.it/en/progetti/iraq/nimrud.html to http://www.centroscavitorino.it/en/progetti/iraq/nimrud.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040612140726/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IS/SANDERS/PHOTOS/MESO/NIMRUD/nimrud1_1.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IS/SANDERS/PHOTOS/MESO/NIMRUD/nimrud1_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012010840/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/150788 to http://ancientsites.com/aw/Post/150788
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) 10:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified