Talk:Kassites

message: There seems to be disagreement on the language they spoke.  If indeed the language is agglutinating, then it would not be Indo-European.  Does anyone have any resources on the language?
*"speaking an Indo-European language"
*"No inscription or document in the Kassite language has been preserved"
*"Kassites, was agglutinative; a fragment of Kassite vocabulary has survived in a single Cuneiform tablet."
*"Apparently, Kassite has no connection with Indo-European, as had erroneously been supposed."
*"How can they speak an Indo-European language with having no connection with Indo-European?" o3o?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.150.110 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: as this article is about a ancient tribe originating in the Lurestan province of Iran, it should be more of an Iranian-related article, not a mesopotamian one.
Manu kian maheri 14:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what we know of the Kassites derives from the period when they ruled Babylon, not their obscure origins. john k 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best years of their history are connected to Mesopotamia, where they identified with and assimilated in the local culture and population. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template deletion 

message: I see that there is a good list of the Kassite kings at
http://cdli.ucla.edu/wiki/index.php/Kassite_Dynasty
which would be nice for this article. A couple of them already
have wiki pages to link to.
Ploversegg (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  KASSITE KINGS 

message: I just did a very minor change in the prologue from the word race to the word people. Using a word such as race when discussing a historical subject isn't really scientifically accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.125.51 (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of the word ''race'' 

message: There are conflicting theories on the ethnolinguistic origin of the Kassites, such as the probable theories the Kassites are of Turkic and North Caucasian backgrounds from Central Asia, with more connections to other Indo-European peoples such as the Slavs and Albanians. But other historians disagree, and they point out they are of South Caucasian, Dravidian and even Finnic or Uralic-Altaic and/or Ethiopian origins. The Kassites are somewhat traced to Ossetians in the Caucasus according to some anthropologists, but colleagues and experts in the field believe Kassites are purely indigenous to the Persian Gulf region for over 5,000 years. The "Marsh Arabs" of southern Iraq claimed to be direct descendants of Sumerians and Babylonians before the arrival of pre-Judaic Semitic and later Islamic Arab peoples in the Tigris and Euphrates delta. 71.102.3.122 (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above post is, historically, utter rubbish and sounds like it comes from some fringe/cruft nationalist blog(s). I can only imagine what solid professional linguists might think of it. 50.111.6.213 (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple ethnic origin theories (removed edit) 

message: The so-called "The Macro Comparative Journal" (TMCJ) is a self-published device created by his own author, an scholar who claims to be an expert on Near East languages such as Hurrian. The fact "TMCJ" is self-published can be easily checked by the following facts: 
1) the site's URL is located at at ISP's personal web space: diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr
2) the journal editor and the author of more than 90% of the stuff there is Fournet himself.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_sources this is a not relaible source: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
If Fournet is *really* a reputed scholar, we should have his references on peer-reviewed publications. Have we? I'm afraid we don't. Talskubilos (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one for starters.  I'm sure others can be found for a scholar who has done such extensive work on Kassite and Hurrian studies. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

text: A fairly comprehensive listing can be found here: https://independent.academia.edu/ArnaudFournet. There seem to be publications in around a dozen different journals other than The Macro Comparative Journal. BigEars42 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fournet's TMCJ 

message: An IPV6 editor added a clickable map into the lede (the same user did this also with the Third Dynasty of Ur article). The placement in the the lede is horrible, highly disruptive of the lede layout (and probably breaks the lede layout on narrow screen viewing devices [just checked the article using a narrower window; around 960px width, things get really bad]). If editors would like to keep the map, itself, it should be moved out of the lede and somewhere into the body of the article (this is what was done at the Third Dynasty of Ur article, BTW). Where in the body, I don't have any suggestions (otherwise, I might have be-bold edited it myself). — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clickable map should not be in lede, horrible placement 

message: Brittanica.com: They were first mentioned by the Elamites in the late 3rd century. Their first king, Gandash, resided in N Babylonia mid 18th century. He called himself "king of Akkad, Sumer and Babylonia", but obviously wasn't. They are said to have ruled 576 years so probably overlapped with the last amorites (1155+576=1731).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.232.52 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Kassites

message: Specialist sources will tell you that there is no certainty at all regarding what the Kassites may have been related to and none of the names can be positively identified as Indo-European.  What is interesting is that apparently some very pseudo-scientific and obsessive attempts to find the "Indo-European ancestors" among the Kassites were made by the Third Reich in the last century, but were completely bogus. Unnecessary really since we already have bonafide Indo Europeans who are slightly older than that in the Hittites.  Anyway, while is is curious that this claim would resurface in passing in the online Encyclopedia Britannica of all places (note the second article linked does not mention the topic at all), I think a non-tertiary source that verifies this information with any specific examples should be required as this is contested and dubious misinformation. 71.246.151.89 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "specialist sources"? Please wp:cite wp:reliable sources? Jim1138 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: It is cited. You need to establish that it is insufficiently cited. Jim1138 (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically ANY source will tell you the exact opposite, that Kassite cannot be linked with Indo-European, not even the proper names. The issue is removing the misinfo in the article, not adding new unsorced info., I challenge you to find any competent source other than passing mentions in online Encyclopedia Britannica that verifies this info. If the info were verifiable (which it is not) then you can find it in a better source than a tertiary source. 71.246.151.89 (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: All you have to do is crack open a book to see the REAL consensus is that Kassite is not I-E and the Nazi theory was utterly disproven.  I shouldnt have to do the homework for you although it is absurdly easy if you are really that lazy to find out yourself, the vast gulf between what wikipedia says and the rest of the intellectual world! 71.246.151.89 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: wp:Tertiary sources are a preferred source. So, the content is sourced. The wp:BURDEN is on you. Cite otherwise, please. Jim1138 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, SECONDARY sources are the preferred form of RS. Other encyclopedias, etc., are used as last resorts.50.111.6.213 (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Please Jim1138, instead of simply brushing this over dont you examine the quality of what is being proferred as a "reliable source"?  Two links to the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica are given.  The first linked article includes the word Kassites in passing, asserting they were related to Indo Europeans, but the very recent author of that online "information" does not give any clue how he obtained it or from where; it is simply being used by wikipedia as an authoritarian pronouncement from the heavens.  The second linked online EB does not mention the article topic and is therefore disallowed per WP:SYNTH which spells out that no point can be made tying together sources that dont even mention the article topic. 71.246.151.89 (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "Open any book". Please cite a wp:RS one per wp:BURDEN Jim1138 (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not trying to add anything to the article, only remove sources that are invalid.  Have you actually looked at the second EB reference User:Jim1138?  Where is "Kassites" mentioned there at all?  As for the first source, can anyone tell us specifically which Kassite king bears an "Indo-European" name?  That is what students will want to learn, but alas no source found anywhere can, because it is spurious info.  You can't prove a negative.  It would be easy to find a better source explaining this is false, I would guess you are just blind-reverting the status quo and havent bothered looking into this matter yourself and are waiting for me to "prove" a negative. 71.246.151.89 (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You first mentioned "specialist sources", then "Practically ANY source will tell you the exact opposite", then "You can't prove a negative". Moving the goal post here. The second Britanica article was written by Seton Lloyd, a notable archaeologist. I don't see any issue with his credentials. The second ref does mention Kassites. Jim1138 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As a student of linguistics myself, I should be very curious to know precisely what cognates have been found between any Kassite form and any Indo-European one to establish what this article claims.  This information would be highly valuable to my own research not to mention any other student of early Indo-European languages. Regrettably, the claim made by wikipedia is useless for finding out more, the links only go to online Britannica articles written earlier this year mentioning Kassites in passing without telling how they "know" this, and anything I can find in serious research tells me explicitly no one has found any link between Kassite and Indo-European, and that this is debunked. So much for wikipedia, it is stuck in a world of spreading false claims thanks to gatekeepers like you. 71.246.151.89 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I find it difficult to believe you have ever researched or studied this topic, know the first thing about it, or are doing anything here other than looking for opportunities to throw your weight around as the big man in charge of everyone else and the bully.   Yes, my research cannot find anything, because the reason being, yes, ALL SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE, my statements are both true and consistent with one another and defy your attempts to twist me into looking bad.  The Encyclopedia Britannica articles were written online by an online source in the year 2018, but you swear up and down that makes the Kassites Indo Europeans all of a sudden, when that is a lie.  Your only defense of this fraudulent missourced information is your rigid standing on the "prestige" and "credentials" of whoever is making the ridiculous online claim, i.e. the "appeal to authority" fallacy, it would have to be a fallacy based on thumping "credentials" because what you will NOT find is even the tinyest shred of actual linguistic DATA from SCHOLARS on this subject to back it up. But you are a beautiful illustration that this is how wikipedia works nowadays and what it has come to be. 71.246.150.254 (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @71.246.151.89 Arkam Knight (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source on Kassites having Indo European names 

message: Hello, I am researching early Indo-European languages.  I would love to know more details about these interesting claims made on wikipedia to the effect that Kassites bore names that have been shown to be Indo-European. Unfortunately none of these sources given so far are able to point me to the right direction to the scholarly papers that have shown this.  Was it a determination made "behind closed doors" or something with no evidence to show?  Perhaps for balance and to have less of a one sided article, some of the serious sources dedicated to the Kassites could be added as well stating the consensus as I understand it, that Kassite is non-Indo-European. 71.246.150.254 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: yes claims made that kassites were indo european is definitely a scholarly dishonesty, and linking few dieties to indo european kassite is very wrong, the culture spreads without the spread of genes or people, there maybe doubt that kassite gods maybe vedic sanskritic, but there are mitanni sanskritic gods which boasts the claims that kassites might have worshipped indian dieties, seeing how india is close, it might not be a miracle that some indian dieties and their religion penetrated the west asia like mitannis. surya, maruta, himalaya etc and one kassite name shows that they may have embraced vedic religion. it often happens when someone embraces islam or christinity, one changes his name to that religion. regards. Rameezraja001 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What specific Kassites bore Indo European names??? 

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) 18:00, 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) 04:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Given the amount of overlap with this article and kudurru and the fact that it hadn't been edited in many years at least here it will be maintained. I cargo culted in the surviving sections. THey will need a ce (bit of flowery prose to step on) and reffing pass.Ploversegg (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged content from Kassite art article