5411:- See "Assyria and Syria: Synonyms" Richard N. Frye Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 281-285. In that, Frye writes "Recent research has shown that the Greeks first used the term Syria/Assyria at the beginning of the seventh century B.C., and their first contacts with the interior of the Near East were with the people of Cilicia and Cappadocia, whom they called Syrians.4 At that time, the whole area was under Assyrian control and the lingua franca of the entire area was Aramaic. The spoken language of the Assyrian court and bureaucracy was also Aramaic.5 Consequently, the Greeks equated the political empire with the Aramaicspeaking population living in it, which was quite logical to the Greeks." and "At some point, however, the Greeks began to distinguish between Syria=the Levant and Assyria=Mesopotamia, and Herodotus may represent a turning point in this separation. After him, the separate designations continued in use until the time of the Romans and to the present in the West. The Romans made a Roman province of Syria with its capital at Antioch under Pompey in 62 B.C. By Byzantine times, the use of the word "Syrian" had expanded such that in writings of western Europe before the Arab conquests the subjects of the entire Byzantine Empire were, at times, called Syrians." Nothing to do with Victorians at all.
961:
it was split in two; and in
Herodotus we find one nomos (the 9th) comprising 'Babylon and the rest of Assyria The Old Persian dahyāva lists name Babylon include a name Athurā, which corresponds to the old name Ashur (Assyria). This name was known to later Greeks, who recognized a region of Atouria, apparently in the Assyrian homeland around Nineveh. The name Athurā has caused great difficulty in the minds of scholars who believe the dahyāva to be satrapies. Despite the documentary evidence some have followed Meyer in regarding it as the official name of the satrapy (Herodotus' 9th nomos). But the discovery of copies of Darius' building text Susa f revealed that people of Athurā (explained as Ebinari, i.e. Abarnahara, in the babylonian version) brought timber from Mt Lebanon to Babylon, and a historically ill-conceived identification of Athurā with the satrapy of Abarnahara became prevalent. From Cameron's re-reading of the Behistun inscription in 1948 it is now certain that a name cited in connection with Darius' Armenian campaign and as being a district in Athurā is in fact Izalā, the mountain that lies behind Nisibis; and so there can no longer be doubt that Athurā had a foot in high Mesopotamia. Since Abarnahara cannot have included Izalā,
5524:(= the area of the Western bank of the Euphrates). At the time, Eber-Nari was part of a megasatrapy called "Babylonia and Eber-Nari". Parpola refers to this satrapy when he writes "In 539 BC, both became incorporated in the Achaemenid Empire, the western one as the megasatrapy of Assyria (Aθūra), the eastern one as the satrapy of Media (Māda)." There was no other satrapy in the area, so he must be equating satrapy of Athura to satrapy of Babylonia and Eber-Nari. He makes it clearer in "Assyrians after Assyria", where he says: "Interestingly, it was the "Median" Assyrians who executed the gold works and glazing of this palace, whereas the Assyrians from the satrapy of Athura provided the timber for the palace from Mt. Lebanon. In the Babylonian version of the Persian inscription, the name Athura is at this point rendered Eber nari, "land beyond the river (Euphrates)." This shows that the Western, originally Aramean, half of the Assyrian Empire was already at this time firmly identified with Assyria proper, an important issue to which we shall return later on." That is, he's including Eber-Nari in his "satrapy of Athura", and Eber-Nari was part of the satrapy of Babylonia and Eber-Nari. So I think the article should be called either
940:
including the
Assyrian heartland north of Assur, came under Median rule. Under the Achaemenid Empire, the western areas annexed to Babylonia formed a satrapy called Athura (a loanword from Imperial Aramaic Athur, "Assyria"), while the Assyrian heartland remained incorporated in the satrapy of Mada (Old Persian for "Media"). Both satrapies paid yearly tribute and contributed men for the military campaigns and building projects of the Persian kings. Assyrian soldiers participated in the expedition of Xerxes against Greece (480 BC) according to Herodotus, and Assyrians from both Athura and Mada participated in the construction of the palace of Darius at Susa (500-490 BC)." But the revolt or rebellion is not at all as described in the article -or at least Darius thought it was something quite different :-) - See
2933:
of ancient
Assyria stimulated interest among local Christians who had only heard about Assyrian kings from the Bible. This modern history of the usage of "Assyrian," however, is not our concern here. The early historical record of the usage of "Assyrian/Syrian" shows two facts clearly, first, confusion in Western usage between Syria for the western part of the Fertile Crescent, and Assyria for the ancient land east of the Euphrates, and, second, the Eastern usage, which did not differentiate between the two except under Western influence or for other external reasons. The Easterners retained historical usage of their own until the modern period. Archaeological discoveries of the end of the nineteenth century together with the adoption of Western terms, particularly from the period of post-World War I colonial mandates, when terminology was fixed according to Western usage, changed the old Eastern usage.
2705:
millennium, as the small self-governing merchant city of Assur. became a territorial power in the fourteenth to thirteenth centuries BC, and survived until 605 BC, by which time it had created an empire which set the pattern for its successors: Babylon, Persia and
Macedon....For our purposes, Assyria's territorial history can be divided into four phases: the creation and original expansion in the period 1400-1200 BC, a long recession of varying intensity from 1200 to 900 BC, the progressive re-establishment of the earlier borders from about 900 to 745 BC, and then the final phase of expansion far beyond these borders into Egypt and Iran, 745 to 605 BC"
4232:
article should have a section debating whether Athura was in fact an official province. As I wrote above: "The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in
Mesopotamia. Arguments over the meaning of 'Athura' can be dealt with in a sub-section of the article". But rather than presenting the history of this obscure period in all its ambiguity, it's obvious from the last comment by "Assyrian and proud of it" that we're here to do some "them and us" fighting for the Cause. I'm sorry, I have no interest in turning articles into nationalist
1309:
who attacked this article with rudeness at the beginning and made changes without discussion? No! I don't see how
Assyria offends anyone at all; the country was inhabited mostly by Assyrians and the region was called Athura. Remember this, Kings of Persia claimed lineage to the Kings of the earlierst Sargonid dynasty. Tell me exactly what is so bad about using the word Assyria! Who does it offend? How is Mesopotamia, a made up word that did not exist until Alexander's conquest, how does this word help at all? Besides, this article also talks about Assyria under Sassanid rule too.
1504:
around then!). So now you are jumping at a new point that we are not the descendants of the
Assyrians? What the hell do you think we should call the descendants of these Imperial defeated Assyrians? How about just regular Assyrians? If we're not related to them fine - your point is quite ridiculous, of course it follows that the descendents of the ancient Assyrians are called Assyrians!! Just as the Ancient Greek descendents are called Greeks today, as with every other nation! What other nonesense arguments would you like me to shred?
729:
without a sensible consensus. As it stands, however, the attempts to "broaden the coverage" of this article were wholly inadequate, especially without citations. Sorry, but this article is not really even close to being a GA and the concerns are such that I do not feel that they can (or even should, as the broadness of coverage should be dealt with as a consensus, not the decision of you or I) be addressed by
Thursday. For that reason, I am going to fail the article now. Once these concerns have been addressed, you may
2393:
watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on
Knowledge. You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Knowledge. As each edit page clearly states: * If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
2816:
Dadarshi in
Armenia (DB 26-8); the Persian Omises (Vaumisa) in Armenia (DB 29-30); the Mede Takhmaspada in Sagartia (DB 33); the Persian Dadarshi in Margiana (DB 38), satrap in Baktria; the Persian Artavardiya in Persia (DB 41-2); the Persian Vivana in Arachosia (DB 45-7), satrap of the region; the Persian Intaphernes (Vidafarna) in Babylon (DB 50) and finally the Persian Gobryas (Gaubaruva) in Elam (DB 71)." Δον̑λος τον̑ βασιλέως: The Politics of Translation Anna Missiou The Classical Quarterly : -->
5433:" - What the Greeks called the area is not of significant enough to the point of changing the subject's title. What does what the Greeks called the area has to do with what the Persian named their satrapy? This might be of a side note interest, but it should certianly not decide over what the Persian empire called the area itself. That would be like putting a heavier claim on what the Persians called a province of a Greek state, then what the Greeks called that province of their own.
551:"The revolt was quickly suppressed. However, the rebellion illustrates a number of points - the rebellion of both states indicates close ties between them. Although separated they rebelled at the same time in the hope of regaining political independence. It also illustrates the obvious point of the people still recognizing their own distinct way of life since. The rebellion was suppressed but Assyrians continued to serve the Empire after." (Revolt of Assyria, 520 BC) Sounds very
5724:, but out of hte 60 cited sentences, only 5 are cited back to Parpola's page (10%?) I think you have made the intro as neutral as possible with "Although sometimes regarded as a satrapy, Achaemenid royal inscriptions list it as a dahyu, a concept generally interpreted as meaning either a group of people or both a country and its people, without any administrative implication" - good beginning to the article. Encylopaedia Iranica does list it as a province for what its worth
5668:. Other administrators, neutral third opinion-giving people have arrived. Therefore, unfortunately your constant nationalistic accusations will not work because we are using logic, references and concensus with other users to come to an agreement. You continue to defy the overwhelming logic, references and the fact that there are several times more supports than opposes. May I recommend, that you also use logic in your discussion?
5756:
Dandamaev even says "After the collapse of the Assyrian empire at the end of the 7th century B.C., its original territory became part of Media, and the name of Assyria was gradually transferred to Syria.", although Curtis view seem to be a bit different). So I feel that it is still a bit misleading, although, as I told you before, generally speaking the article is quite alright, especially the archaeological part.
1251:, more room for expansion? The article is pretty lenthy as it is already. I don't even know how this is even an issue. Of course I do, its dab; the Anti-Assyrian is willing to do anything to erase Assyrian history (for other users, I urge you to see the problems he has gotten himself into with other users with his over abusing admin powers.) The name of the province was called Athura, period. What is the problem?
2772:
article to say Babylonia and Media when clearly the reference says Athura. You fail to answer these accusations and instead go personal, calling me a teenager, mocking my spelling of u and of Chaldean's spelling. Furthermoore, you are a hypocrite saying in the edit history that you are "stopping" this war moving when you started it and continue to participate. I will not move it again, until we reach a concensus.
494:
324:
480:
453:
410:
365:
574:
be more appropriate to rename this article "History of Assyria (Persian province)." As it stands, the article fails for broadness of coverage given the intended scope of the article based on the title. In addition, the tone of the article is somewhat worrisome, as sections of it read like an essay on the subject, rather than an encyclopedic article, which raises OR concerns (an example is noted above)
558:"When Alexander the Great died, the Greek successor state of the Seleucid Empire retained control of much of the Persian Empire. This new Greek Empire relied upon the administrative system put in place by the Persians to govern these new lands; consequently, the Assyrian lands of Athura and Mada were administrated as such by their own Satraps." (Campaigns of Alexander the Great, 334 BC - 323 BC)
513:
433:
400:
379:
351:
310:
2483:(reigned 404 – 358 BC,) also mentions Athura in his own inscriptions. Now we have a 150 year period where Athura (Assyria) was significant enough in that it was mentioned by all three kings. The facts are overwhelmingly against what dab has suggested. Also, I would still like for you to discuss the other sources I have brought up as well. Thanks for your time.
3594:- it would eventually take control of the land back. In regards of having the rest of Mesopotamia in the future included in the article, would still not change the fact of the name of the province was Assyria. When all of Mesopotamia was incorperated into one province, instead of two, it was still named Athura (Assyria); "9th of the 20 provinces was Assyria,
3638:" - not necessarily the most technically correct. It strikes me that Persian Mesopotamia could be ambiguous as it would surely also include Persian Babylonia? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Athura looks like being largely the same word as Assyria with the latter more widely recognised, so I would maybe suggest Persian Assyria as a compromise?
689:
If the statements can be found in other Knowledge articles, then it should be even easier to cite these facts – just borrow the citations from there. Furthermore, there are "citation needed" tags that need to be dealt with. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, a lot of this sounds like original research without a citation. Cheers,
2836:) Check this out; "His (Darius I) march was delayed by a rebellion which broke out in Babylon. The ancient capital of Assyria (Nineveh) had been secretly preparing for a revolt during the troubles that followed the fall of Magian" - A Classical Dictionary: Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Athurs By Charles Anthon. Page 415
3474:, etc. And your comments of "but what Knowledge should call it." doesn't make any sense, Knowledge doesn't decide on history, history explains itself. Rather accusing me of nothing but nationalist interest in the issue and dismissing what the Kings refer to the province for no given reason at all, is not a good argument.
5691:
Encyclopaedia Iranica have an entry for Assyria, and one of its sections is devoted to Athura. It is true that the article overweight continuities and relies too much on Parpola, and it can be seen as nationalistic POV, but in that case the problem is with the article's content as it is now, not with the entry itself.
5147:- The period that is being discussed in the article is 539 BC to 330 BC. The ruling Persians did not know their satrapy as Syria at all what so ever. There was no equal use of Syria and Assyrian during this time, but rather it only became an issue in the beginning of the Roman rule in the 2nd - 1st BC.
4231:
extract shows the author is well aware that many scholars regard "Athura" as a satrapy and spends time countering their arguments. Some scholars obviously still do regard "Athura" as an Achaemenid satrapy. But you want to present this debate as more clear-cut than it actually is. In other words, this
3991:
Now you are just smearing. My argument isn't "me a wikipedia editior knowns more then the author" but rather all these facts are countering what he has suggested. A lenghty explanation? Just because its lenthy (which last time I checked 3-4 sentences isn't lenthy), doesn't make it right. If you can't
3629:
I've had a read of the article and the arguments set out above. It's difficult to comment because it seems to me that only one side of the argument has been made - can someone explain why they think the article should refer to Mesopotamia rather than Assyria? As a matter of principle, article wording
3494:
A lot of the argument has been really not to the point and I think has just confused the issue over the best title for the article. The title is clear, won't confuse anyone, in line with current usage, etc. The argument about Athura, whether or not Assyria was a synomym for Syria during this period,
2385:
It's pretty clear you are making claims that Tourskin has some sort of right to this article and no on should change it in any way he (and apparently you) don't like. No one owns a Knowledge article. And articles change, expand their scope, etc. It looks like a large part of this problem is 'I wrote
1676:
That was not an insult. I meant it. I also think that the fact that the upper class and army (or rather probably some of them) managed to conquer another area means that Assyria continued as an independent nation, unless you simply ignore the mass of the people who lived there. (Nation is the wrong
1543:
Oh and the Assyrian Empire was not wiped out in 612 BC; the Assyrians fled to Syria and established Harran and Carchemish as their capitals with Egyptian aid. People, know your facts, organize your arguments and think of new ways of trolling, not the whole nationalistic agenda thing. Do not hide your
939:
which, for instance, says "We know little of the political status of Assyria in the decades following its fall, but it seems that the western part of the Empire as far as the Tigris fell into the hands of the Babylonians, while the eastern Transtigridian areas,
573:
The article is supposed to be a broad overview of the entire province, but it only contains information on the history. There's little, if anything, on subjects such as culture or economics. If information on these subjects is not available, or you do not which to discuss them in this article, it may
41:
Tourskin, you've done a good job. However, the way you cited your references was not Wiki standard. I've fixed it, but, it would be nice if you could use the quote feature wherever you've added your references, so that the article has a little bit more clarity. Otherwise, everyone can add references,
5750:
Parpola's contributions to the study of the last Assyrian Empire are widely recognized, but, right or wrong, his views on the later period aren't mainstream. Many authors that have studied Achaemenid Assyria and are considered mainstream are not cited, but Parpola is the second author more cited. It
3881:
I am also certian that Perpola, Sweeney, among others, have also researched the subject longer then three days. I have read the Cambridge History of Iran quote many times; no where does it address the issue of Achaemenid Kindgs declaring it as a province, nor Herodutos's writing. The argument he has
2932:
The connection of the word "Assyrian" with the empires of ancient Assyria, on the other hand, probably was emphasized by Western missionaries and was then eagerly accepted by many eastern Neo-Syriac speaking Christians. The discoveries of ancient Assyrian sites and cuneiform records about the rulers
2771:
Now Dab, I too have been insulting to you, but you have been very snide. You constantly move the article away. You are not suppose to move it from the original title until a concensus has been reached. A concensus is what I seek (talking to you Doug). You take actions without discussion, edtting the
2067:
The arguement given by the opposition is that a single source stated Athura could not have been a Satrapy (Province) under the Persian Empire. But other sources state otherwise. In fact, after looking to see if there was further sources stating Athura was not a province, I could still only find that
2026:
What makes you, a rogue admin who has no beneificial editting experience here and took no part in its construction or conception, think you know what this article is about? Elias and I did it to cover the period in Assyrian history under Persian rule. Why do u continue to piss me off and move things
1308:
Assyria does not violate a NPOV because the land at the time was of Assyria. Dougweller, Chaldean and I have followed guidlines for assuming good faith before, you can check out both of our contributions which show a pretty impressive list of non-biased historical works. Can the same be said of Dab,
1285:
I am a bit confused, by the way, how an article that starts with the title "The Persian Empire of the Achaemenid Dynasty" gets to have the title it has now. ALthough since there is an Achaemenid article, that title seemed to be a duplicate. As there is a Babylonian article, that time period for the
960:
says no: "So when Cyrus captured Babylon in 539 BC the Persians acquired another empire . Babylonian documents show that at first the whole was administered as one combined satrapy of Babylon and Abarnahara. But at some later date than the sixth year and probably after the middle of Darius I's reign
4258:
Don't let my username which was a joke change the argument. This is not a nationalistic battle ground. There is indeed an "us" and "they" - it stands for those in favor of my argument and those not; do you have a problem with me abbreviating the arguers in this discussion? Next time I'll just write
3936:
Folantin, what gives you the idea that the writers of Cambridge History of Iran, who have to write on so many topics and are not infallible, would have more time than 3 days to research on one relatively tiny aspect of a Rich Persian history? Being Cambridge does not mean quality at all costs, over
2547:
My apoligies (yeah right) for changing the name of the article but somehow Dab did something that stopped me from moving the article back to the original name and he isn't interested in our discussion, instead preferring to dismiss them as "irrelevant" or "not interesting". Do you not find it funny
2182:
an Achaemenid province called "Athura", the article sure as hell didn't make that clear, nor is Knowledge aware of it anywhere. But let's give this the benefit of doubt. I understand you just did a google books search. If you look at the Toynbee quote in context, you will see that "Persian province
1887:
Folatin, are you being funny? Maybe you are not being funny. Ok, let make this clear. If the Cambridge encyclopedia of Iran or whatever it is doesn't know what Athura means then it really is not living up to its name. Athura in Aramaic means "Assyria". Athuraya means that one is Assyrian ethnically
1150:
Wrong, its not about mesopotamia region because that includes large amounts of southern turkey and eastern Syria, parts which were never part of the Persian "administrative region" (or whatever you wanna call it) of Athura. I don't know why people are ignoring the references provided, in which the
728:
I would consult with the projects that this article falls under about renaming. Since there's an Assyrian culture article, it strikes me as this should be the "Assyrian history" article, but I'm in no way associated with the projects and articles should not be renamed at the behest of a GA Reviewer
688:
Well know to whom? Experts? I'm a graduate student in Middle Eastern Studies and I didn't know that. You can't assume that anyone reading this will have any background beyond that of an individual of reasonable intellect. Knowing about Persian administration systems is highly specialized knowledge.
528:
Susa-destruction.jpg needs to improve the caption to place the image in context. What am I looking at and from what period? I would recommend removing the second part of the caption and replacing it with something along the lines of "The event is shown here in X dating from Y." Similar concern with
5755:
be regarded as nationalistic POV, but personally I think that the main reason is that Parpola published his views on the Internet. Furthermore, the article doesn't clearly distinguish between the usage of the term "Assyria" at the time and the situation of the Assyrian heartland (in the E Iranica,
5105:
Actually that wasn't my reason. I wasn't concerned about province, but I did think that having 'Assyria' in the title name was not a neutral title given that it could be seen as pushing a nationalist POV. Also, it is clear that 'Syria' and 'Assyria' were synonyms until relatively recently. I thnk
4006:
If you don't know the difference between "satrap" and "satrapy" there's very little chance of you being able to weigh varying academic claims about the history of the ancient Near East accurately. Of course, you've already decided which version of the "truth" you want and merely assess the sources
3833:
I have been researching this topic for 3 days completly; sources are against what you have suggested overwhelmingly. It is "desribed as a satrap" because that is what history is telling us, not because of POV. I am beginning to think you want to disagree just for the sake of, well no reason, since
3461:
Syria? That term wasn't even used in the period (560 BC - 330 BC) we are talking about. Sweeney refers to the province as Assyria (I referenced it above), so I'm not sure what you are indicating. Asking for the page to be named properly isn't POV. I am asking for the page to follow other Satrap's
2753:
If I have been uncivil, its because I have been lured into such a trap. I salute Chaldean for being the only one to remain civil so far. Doug, stop accusing me and focus on arguing for your point. The references you continue to provide are not relevant. As Chaldean pointed out, the reference talks
2509:
Yes, I found the Darius stuff on line a little while ago. I will try to find time to look at the sources but probably not today, I've been busy elsewhere on the Net plus all the little things that take up time -- walk the dogs, iron the shirts(while wife is working), cook (my job, I like cooking),
1446:
The destruction of the Assyrian empire did not wipe out its population. They were predominantly peasant farmers, and since Assyria contains some of the best wheat land in the Near East, descendants of the Assyrian peasants would, as opportunity permitted, build new villages over the old cities and
1423:
I'm not terribly interested in your conflicts with Dab and his Bold style, but I find it interesting that you think there is a similarity with Armenia. From what I know, Assyria disappears in 612BC, whereas Armenia has had a number of periods of independence. But that is a pretty poor article and
1101:
I've just managed to lift up my Oxford Dictionary. 'Assyria' -- an ancient country in what is now northern Iraq. This article is not about that country. 'Mesopotamia' - an ancient region of SW Asia in present Iraq, lying between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Its alluvial plains were the site of
3551:
Sorry Chaldean, the article covers the dates 612 BC to the seventh century AD. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does, so that isn't a problem. There is no reason not to expand it to cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persian empire, which would make it a better article. Also, isn't there a pretty good
2918:
If you think that it's just a mispronouncation, why did you give a specific link to Sweeney who disagrees with you? Also see Assyria and Syria: Synonyms, Richard N. Frye Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Oct., 1992), pp. 281-285 which specifically
1629:
You're good at insults, aren't you? Which shows that you really don't care about Knowledge policies and guidelines. I no longer know what you are trying to say above. Can we then agree that after 612 BC there was no Assyrian nation in the area that was until the Assyrian rulers were fled in 612
1503:
So if the Armenians never had achieved independence, we wouldn't look at them the same way? What a ridiculous argument that makes no sense; the Armenians were well known in America during the Genocide of 1915 - 1920 and yet they never had an independent state since Medieval times (America was not
578:
I am going to put the article on an unofficial hold, partially to allow for the minor concerns to be met, but also to hear the response to concern number seven. Right now, this is very close to a fail, but I do want to hear the response to that concern before I do so. Thank you for your work thus
54:
I would be in favor of removing the reference to the 'known world'. In-as-much as this might be referring to as-yet-unknown world parallel to our own, the reference in obvious. If it is implying the 'known' by the Judeo-Christian-(Muslim) legacy of the world then let the writer be reminded that
2704:
I've just done a search on JSTOR from 1980 on, nothing on Athura and the Persian empire. I did find The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur J. N. Postgate World Archaeology, Vol. 23, No. 3, Archaeology of Empires. (Feb., 1992), pp. 247-263. "The Assyrian state had its origins early in the second
2422:
Why do you keep calling me Doog? Anyway, you wrote " I would think the user that has single-handedly (User:Tourskin) wrote this article would know what he was writing about. If he says the article is about the Athura province, then that is what the article was intended to be. The article should
2815:
I've been trying to find something modern. I found this after a lot of work: "Darius introduces, in his narrative, the nine men under whose leadership armies defeated some of his rebellious opponents in different parts of the empire: the Persian Hydarnes (Vidarna) in Media (DB 25); the Armenian
4463:
Instead of trying to show off how much more you know, you could have just told us so that we know what it is. Stop being snide, you knew that the argument put forward is that Assyria was a province. Satrapy, or satrap; you know what issue in this subject is, stop trying to divert the argument.
2565:
There is no way that I find at all amusing your accusation that I have called you a Nazi. So far as I am concerned, your insults (flagrant violations of Knowledge guidelines) and in this case what looks like a like about what I have written, make it crystal clear that you are not interested in
2392:
Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your
848:
There was for all intents and purposes one province, but it was divided into two provinces. It would not make sense to make two articles on two provinces with the same material and references. You yourself commented about such overlap in the past with regards to Chaldean Christians article and
5645:
cited even if Athura was not a separate satrapy, Babylonia and Assyria were considered two different "countries", thus thats why they were always both listed in the inscripts, rather then only one of them as "mesopotamia." A great deal of things occured in Babylonia (many of the Persian Kings
2427:
is that if anyone starts editing from a fixed POV (which I have said in this case looks like a nationalist one to me), consensus can become impossible. It looks as though you and Tourskin have taken an entrenched position about the title of the article including the word Assyria, so if anyone
1268:
Chaldean, so far as I can see Dab simply doesn't like nationalism -- nor do I. Guidelines say "Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other
5690:
The article's content might be misleading, but the entry itself (Achaemenid Assyria) must stay. Achaemenid Babylonia is a completely different field of study. During the Achaemenid Empire, there were references to Assyrians and Assyria, and the Assyrian heartland was inhabited. Note that the
4334:
As someone who's trying (and failing) to understand what's actually going on here, could someone actually explain to me - someone who's in no way an expert on Iraq, Assyria, ancient history, for that matter history, or for that matter anything else other than my day job of accountancy - what
3029:
The current title does not represent what the article was suppose to mean. The article was about Assyria under Persian rule. Note Mesopotamia. There's a difference in that one is a real geopolitical term well known and well used in the Persian times and the other is a Greek fabrication, the
3442:
We could equally called it Syria instead of Assyria according to several sources (eg Sweeney), but that would be confusing. The current title is clear and has no implications of any POV (in this specific case a nationlist one - both objectors are, as they have every right to be, Assyrian
1171:
Of course it isn't about Mesopotamia in general, it's about "Persian Mesopotamia", or more precisely "Achaemenid Mesopotamia". What it is not about is an extinct Assyria. And whether Strype was right nor not is irrelevant to the issue. You are just playing word games all over the place.
569:
In "Sacking of Assyria," "Sidney Smith" requires some context, no more than a sentence worth. Who is he and why is he qualified to tell me about Assyrian history? Something good might be along the lines of "Sidney Smith, a scholar of X" or "Sidney Smith, who published the work
2330:"Athura" is mentioned in the Behistun inscription, true. Now why, instead of feeding us soundbites, don't you give a coherent account of how actual scholars reconstruct the administrative divisions of the Achaemenid Empire? Who are you, Randy from Boise? Or perhaps you don't
684:
The things you said need citation, in mu opinion don't - most of this can be found from wikipedia articles which have the same info that is cited. It is well known that Alexander retained the Persian admin system and the Romans and Persians went back and forth in their wars.
3176:
2003:
of Mesopotamia. This article ostensibly concerns all of Mesopotamia, including the Media province. Now stop being silly about this. Also, stop trying to shape our coverage of Iron Age Mesopotamia by providing soundbites from the same tired old 2004 Parpola article. This is
5646:
actually lived almost all their lives in Babylonia), and it should be dealt with in a separate article, written in good detail. If you want to write an article about Babylon during Achamenid time, then by all means, do so. I might start on one, when I have time again.
1651:
I'm just frustrated as to why we have moved on to another point. Let me clarify. Assyria continued to exist as an independent nation, outside fo Iraq until 605 BC when it was conquered. It was an independent nation in Iraq until 612 BC. I think we both meant to say
536:. Specifically, it must summarize every major point (Level 2 or 3 heading is a good guideline for "major point") made in the article. For an article of this size, a rough guideline would be about 2-3 paragraphs, although it could be more if you deem it necessary.
2956:
Ooops sorry. I changed my name because Dab said that my old name Tourskin, was too nationalistic. You don't think my new name is nationalistic, do you? Oh and lets forget the whole syria thing and focus on our arguments for or against Assyrian province status.
5278:- Their argument is that since I'm Assyrian, I only want Assyria in the title because of nationalist interest. They have tried to smear my work as nothing but nationalistic, but if you look at the article right now, it can very well pass a good article test.
3976:(published by Cambridge University Press) giving a lengthy explanation why "Athura" and "Assyria" are not the same knows more about the subject than a Knowledge editor who can't distinguish between "satrap" and "satrapy"? I dunno. You've got me beat there. --
3818:
And once again we have "Athura" being described as a "satrap", in spite of the dissenting opinion I quoted at great length on this page. This is not NPOV. The designation of Athura as a "satrap" rather than a "satrapy" doesn't inspire much confidence either.
3417:
Keep in mind that dab began this discussion at 15:44, 26 March, and moved the page only 20 minutes later on 16:07. When asked to move the page back as we are discussing the issue, he summarized his move as "no meaningful argument is being presented on talk"
4161:
What evidence do you have that Athura and Assyria are not the same? I have already demonstrated the point. This revolving argument is just going round in circles ; all thats happening now is that your unrelated arguments are being repeated and corrected.
2160:) wrote this article would know what he was writing about. If he says the article is about the Athura province, then that is what the article was intended to be. The article should either stay at its current title of Assyrians under the Persian Empire or
807:
What are you talking about dude, theres plenty of references. I don't know what edits you've made, but you should revert them if you haven't discussed them. I know this artcile isn't great but then again neither is this nonesense theory of Syriacs.
3722:
It's a little strange that this article doesn't mention the rise of Christianity in Persian Mesopotamia except as part of a convoluted discussion of a dispute over ethnic continuity (which would seem to belong on some article other than this one).
1038:. From this it follows, that "Persian Mesopotamia", or more precisely "Achaemenid Mesopotamia" is the correct title for this article. "Persian Assyria" is just an oxymoron. Tourskin, I hope you can take a clue from Folantin, who just showed how to
4085:. The sources and facts speak for themselves. No Folantin, I didn't get to interpret the inscriptions myself, but rather the 8 other scholars I have presented have done that for us. I will let the Wiki community decided on the fate of the title.
1694:
We are all getting off topic. We need to get back to why dab starts the conversation at the talk page and then moves the page only 20 minutes later, without hearing anyone else's view. Assyria (Persian province) is the right name of this artilce.
1397:
discuss it on the talk page. Not that the discussion matters to him, because whenever someone else even thinks of touching the article, he will revert the work. This article is about Assyrians under the Persian Empire. If this title is POV, then
2399:
Doog, nobody is claiming ownership of any articles, but suggested that the admin should not abuse his powers in that moving the pags constantly when there is a legit discussion going on in the talk page. You know very well dab is breaking the
1602:
What the $ %^& ar you taking about? I never said Assyria was an independent nation after 605 BC; do not twist my words, when did I say this? Myabe if you can argue something, we might get somewhere rather than just randomly say nonsense.
5586:: I see there is a consensus towards the change of the name, but I am not sure if there is a consensus about what this new article's name should be. Am I wrong? Are the supporters of the article's name leaning towards a specific direction?--
785:
assuming this concerns the "Athura" satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, note how this article fails to give a single source at all related to the Achaemenid period. Instead, it insists on coatracking about Assyrian culture and Assyrian
4211:
Nice. I think its safe to say that all of their arguments have now been laid to rest, since they were clinging on to an older reference that now no longer backs their stance. As it stands, we have all the references and they don't.
1005:, I simply read it online at Google books, I removed that link because I got an odd message saying that the site had been blacklisted by a spam filter and it wouldn't let me post my comment unless I got rid of it. Don't know why. --
2854:, it clearly suggests it was a province. Regardless of this arguement Doug, it still doesn't dismiss the fact that Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes II all labelled Athura as of some kind of Satrap throughout their respective rule.
1365:
There is no nationalist agenda here. Did I say that Mesopotamia has something wrong with it? No! But you don't fix whats not broken. Will you not answer my point regarding the references, including the Cambridge History of Iran?
1791:
The Cambridge History does not equate Athura with Assyria. It says (page 262) that the meaning of the name is far from certain but suggests that "the ethnic Athuriya comprised Assyrians/Syrians of the former Assyrian kingdom".
1286:
area might be considered covered. IF this needs a separate article, I'd go for "Achaemenid Mesopotamia" as being as NPOV as can be (in my opinion of course). The article would then need editing to cut out any redundant bits.--
4062:
says that you don't get to interpret the primary sources (e.g. inscriptions - especially translated inscriptions) yourself. Of course, the basic problem with this article is that it's been hijacked by nationalist soapboxing.
5625:
the target article should be "Achaemenid Mesopotamia". It is pointless to discuss Athura in isolation of the entire region. This article is a pet project of "Assyrianist" ethnic nationalists and needs review and cleanup.
653:
without even checking to make sure every major point is covered because it introduces facts that are not covered in the main body of the article. For example, there's no mention in the body about the Eastern and Western
633:
Ehh, its quite self-explanatory. It shows a city being destroyed by the Assyrians, who in 50 years from that date will be destroyed themselves. If you look to your left, you will see a section about Asyria being sacked.
1718:
above that "it is now certain that Athurā cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian empire"? There were Assyrians under the Persian Empire but it's far from clear to me there was anything called "Assyria".
1064:
Secondly, Mesopotamia is a made up word for the Ancient times, it did not exist until the Greeks under the Selucid empire. Mesopotamia therefore is incorrect, the region as indicated by the sources was called Athura or
5227:
is the proper English term for the ancient empire, and for the district around Nineveh at its heart. We should use it independently of the relatively modern nationality which has assumed the name, corresponding to the
3852:
had probably researched the subject for a bit longer than three days. That's where my "legit argument" came from. As for "satrap", I sincerely hope you know what the difference between a "satrap" and a "satrapy" is.
548:"Wars would wear down this resource but the population remained high nonetheless. Therefore it is unlikely that so many people were killed, despite the violent sackings of the Assyrian Capitals." (Assyrian survival)
3148:
2847:
627:
What about the one under "Fall of Assyria" or the two under "Roman-Persian Wars" or the sections under "Assyria as a Seleucid province?" Not to mention that your introduction of broadness created more as well (see
1116:
The time period requires the word Assyria, as the article does because the Persians called it Athura too. Furthermoore, Mesopotamia under Persian rule can mean Safavid Persia too, which is not what this is about.
5483:) listed in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions (the only place where Old Persian Athura is mentioned) were not satrapies but countries/peoples. He is followed by many authors; Briant wrote that "on the meaning of
5153:- The article is long as it is right now, and I am continuouing adding more information about Athura. The great amoung of events that happen in Babylonia that needs to be described in detail at its own article (
2068:
single source. IMO, I don't think that single source should not overshadow what the historian community thinks; that is indeed it was a province. Here a few sources stating that Athura was indeed a province
4563:
That is fine. We still haven't solved the title. I am stepped down from having province or satrapy on the title, just for the sake of trying ot work together. Is Achaemenid Assyria in anyway inappropriate?
1198:
Do not accuse me of anything; comment on content not on the user. I stand by what I say because I have references. Will you go against the references in place which state that the region was called Athura?
4280:- Taking shots like this rather then helping in improving the page is more important to you? You should've corrected the mistake, but it sees that you are more interested keeping this circle going round.
4029:
You are only going in circles without even addressing the issue. When you show you have some kind of interest in the page, please by all means, let me know, so that we can work together constructively.
3014:
The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in Mesopotamia. Arguments over the meaning of "Athura" can be dealt with in a sub-section of the article. --
525:
All one-two sentence paragraphs must be either expanded or merged with surrounding paragraphs, as they cannot stand alone. This is especially critical for paragraphs that are their own Level 3 heading.
637:
I think you missed my point. I'm not asking for clarification about what's IN the image, I'm asking for clarification ABOUT the image. What is the medium and when was it made, for example. Please see
907:
Chaldean, Dbachmann's issue is that the article does not cite any sources to back the claim that there was a province named Assyria under the Persians. If such sources exist, please provide them.
870:"There was for all intents and purposes one province, but it was divided into two provinces" -- what nonsense. It was two provinces. Which between themselves included, I grant you, the region of
5364:
The section on Cultural continuity could use a lot of work; and the section on the Assyrian empire does not belong here (one sentence, on its fall, with a link, would be enough; this is not the
5043: suggested no, since a book challanged if Assyria (Athura) was a province or not. Since the argument, I have removed my request of moving the page to its original name, that included the word
2187:
this on your own? Because I get the feeling it will be left to me once again to find out the truth of the matter once more, while you stand by idly shouting "Assyria Assyria" from time to time.
4099:
You clearly have a vested interest in this subject (without much knowledge of it). You can't dismiss a highly notable and reliable source just because it doesn't fit your desired conclusion. --
1826:. That carries a certain weight. The "ten other sources" are unsorted as to authoritativeness - some of them go back to the 19th century and some of them equate "Athura" with Assyria/Syria. --
1389:
Doog, I don't think you understand the situation of dab. You want me to assume good faith about his edits, how do you want me to do that when he has pubicly embrassed me (), makes a mockery
5541:
v. 65, no. 4, 2006), most scholars agree on the etymological relation of both terms. See also the Encyclopedia Iranica entry on Assyria (the section "ii. Achaemenid Aθurā" by M. Dandamaev) (
5193:
Well at its current state, the article's scope is only the Assyrian portion of Mesopotamia. When someone has the time to research Babylonia Satrapy and add information, then maybe we should
3768:
No, the article's scope is between 559 BC to 330 BC, the period of the Acheamenids, but the current title is misleading. For Christianity in "Persian Mesopotamia", one would have to look at
2919:
disputes Tvedtnes and the arguments that the use of 'Assyria' as a term began only in the 19th century and that Assyria and Syria are synonyms. I've got the article, I didn't just Google it.
2666:
Your previous tactics of trying to emotionally hurt me with words will not work anymore. However, if you like to continue to discuss the issue in a civil manner, I will be waiting for you.
3073:; a 220 year period (559 BC to 330 BC.) User dab and Doug have challenged the existence of the province because a book has raised dought in its status as a province. My argument is that;
3521:
was a saperate Satrap. And besides, this article is only focusing about the Assyrian portion of Mesopotamia. Also, "Persian" is a refence to the complete Empire, that goes beyond 330 BC (
3061:
A third opinion has been requested, so I will present my argument in its entirety. The current title is not representing the article properly, in that the article is about the Assyrian (
2614:
I'd love to, but it isn't me that is the source of the insults - and as I've written above, with Tourskin taking the attitude he's taking, there isn't much hope of a rational discussion.
2727:
That doesn't explain what King Darius and the Kings following him have said. The quote you have brought up is talking strictly about the Assyrian empire, which we know ended in 605 BC.
4058:
Try learning the difference between primary and secondary sources. Following Knowledge policy, I quoted a secondary source which examines the meaning of the primary sources available.
539:
This isn't necessary for a GA pass, but it would be helpful if the citations were rendered horizontally rather than vertically, to make it easier for other editors to work on the page.
2832:
Babylon, at some of the scripts, was used as a reference to a part of Athura according Herudotus. This makes sense, the name of the empire before the Persians arrived was Babylonian (
2566:
consensus. My concern is not that you and Chaldean are nationalists but that you are imposing a nationalist POV an an article (well, actually articles). There is a major difference.
1430:- I did not ask you to be so, but just stated why anybody that has dealt with him previously would find it hard to assume he hs good faith. I do find it funny you calling his style
3206:
874:. It may indeed make sense to discuss Mesopotamia under Persian rule in context rather than divided in two articles on the idividual satrapes. Which is why I moved the article to
2470:]. Now keep in mind that Darius ruled between 522 BC to 485 BC. So this suggests that Athura became an province immediatly after the Persians took over. Now his succeding ruler,
1757:
I have dropped the word "Province" from my argument and I think "Assyria under the Persian Empire" is the best name, especially considering that all references call it Assyria.
1469:
I was talking about Assyria as an independent nation. Your quote does say descendants, and 'these people', it doesn't call them Assyrians, so I'm not sure what your point is.--
4771:
4227:"It seems Cambridge has re-written the text in 2000, and has taken a less of a strong stance against Athura being a Satrapy". Er, those are two completely different books. The
1102:
the civilizations of Akkad, Sumer, Babylonia and Assyria. This article's title is simply wrong. And when the name Mesopotamia was coined is irrelevant except to nationalists.--
782:
this article fails to make clear its scope. It states in the beginning that there were two provinces that are for some reason considered a single province. Huh? Why? By whom?
943:
for some detail. I'm not sure of the implications of using 'Mada' insted of the usual 'Medea', something nationalist probably. Or the use of 'Athura' instead of 'Assyria. (
4113:
I haven't dimissed your single source, as I have included in the article, but on the other hand you have blown off the 8 other reliable sources, without giving any reason.
2423:
either stay at its current title of Assyrians under the Persian Empire or Assyria (Persian province) Chaldean" which to me looked like claiming ownership. The problem with
3702:
You certianly didn't break down the decision, nor did you address how the article is NOT about A) Mesopotamia as a whole, B) all of Persia's rule from 539 BC to 634 AD.
69:
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class.
3582:
Doug, it only gives a summary of the fate of the area after the Achaemenid Period. And no the Persian Empire didn't ended in 330 BC, please have a look at the page of
1562:- I don't even know what you arguement is anymore. We are not talking about an independent nation, but a province of the Persian Empire between 500 BC to 100 ce BC.
1447:
carry on with agricultural life, remembering traditions of the former cities. After seven or eight centuries and various vicissitudes, these people became Christians
240:
Lol I don't really know, I just wanna improve the status of the article for now, for boasting purposes!! Whatever you suggest, I have no strong opinion either way.
3096:, Arabia, Egypt, Sardis, Ionia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia, Maka:
2260:
Just another example of you not willing to work with others. We are having a debate on the issue yet you continue to move the page. I have shown the King himself,
822:
was there, or was there not, an Achaemenid province called "Assyria". If there was not, why do you insist on keeping an article at "Assyria (Persian province)"? --
194:
Good question but if we do that its more likely to fail than to pass. So IMHO I think we should increase its status one level at a time. From GA we can go to FA.
3689:
For what it's worth, my view is that Persian Mesopotamia, the present name of the article, is more useful than any of the proposed alternative article names. —
1434:
but when a non-admin user uses the language he does and breaks the wiki rules he breaks, he would be quickly condemned by the wiki community and banned for life.
3229:
714:
This issue has been addressed partially, but of all goes to pot on this one I will change the name. Other than, give me your opinion if this can pass or fail?
1335:
This is pushing a nationalist agenda, however you cloak it in words. And please don't pretend that scholars don't use the word Mesopotamia without problems.--
1404:
should get the same scrutiny as well. Now I have seen only one source stating that maybe Athura did not province status, but other sources state differently
752:
Considering the length of the article, the nature of the topic and the status of many Assyrian articles, I believe this GA review has been too demanding.
3186:
3166:
2133:
Whats funny is that, dab claims the article covers all of Mesopotamia. This wasn't the case until dab changed all Assyrian references to Mesopotamian.
4194:
3804:
Yes user Tourskin added that, originally intending to summarize the fate of the province in the years that came after, but perhaps it can be shorten.
2524:
Take your time, we all have lives. I only request that this page should not be moved any longer until we all have reached a concent in the talk page.
2464:] Now we even have the King himself aknowledging that indeed there was a Persian province of Assyria. In fact, the source dab is working with in the
1026:
Look, "Assyria" was "the empire of Assur", and it collapsed in 612 BC. After that, there was the Median Empire, and the Neo-Babylonian empire. After
3517:
The current title is way too vaugh. The Assyrian province didn't always include all of Mesopotamia in the Achaemenid Empire. Throughout the period,
2243:
1095:, but it's not not what the area is called today. And the article is not simply about a geographic area, it is about a specific historical period.
987:
Interesting, thanks. My library needs improving! You removed a University of London School of Oriental & African Studies link, why was that?--
4714:- There were two major Persian empires: this article talks about the first one. For the second Persian empire rule over Assyria, one must look at
4620:
In agreement with you. To me Persia is far too ambiguous and should never be used in a temporal-political sense but rather a geographical sense.
4359:". It might seem obvious to you, but its not obvious to anyone else. and why is it relevant to the question of what article name it should have?
1806:
Folantin, I have seen only one source saying it may not have province status, but that one source should not overshadow the 10 of other sources
1282:
in particular, which says "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."
4580:
I would like to second Chaldean's proposal. Its more specific but its not too different from the proposed "Persian Assyria" given by Andrew.
4193:
Folantin, the reliable source you are so advocating was written in 1985. It seems Cambridge has re-written the text in 2000, and has taken a
2888:? No? How bout the fact that modern day present Syria is the location of post-612 BC Assyrian Kingoms, like Osroene, Harran, Carchemish etc.
4524:
Having read the divergent source, I think I understand what it is trying to say. Could I suggest that the first paragraph is changed from:
1046:
and posting angry rants on their talkpages. That never achieved anything on Knowledge except winning you a reputation as a problem editor.
3196:
2117:
Now Dab's arguement is wrong as well in that, even if the article covers all of Mesopotamia, the title of the article should still remain
1030:
there was Achaemenid Mesopotamia, consisting of the two provinces of Media and Babylonia. There was no "Assyria", because that entity had
4431:
In either way, this should not effect the title of the page as Achaemenid Assyria. Will you be addresing the points that I made above?
4403:
Folantin seems convinced that theres a fundamental difference between Satrapy and satrap but I can find none, not on wikipedia anyway.
5326:, but not you in perticular. It was directing more to Folantin and Dab (as you can see by now, they can care less about the subject.)
5135:"I did think that having 'Assyria' in the title name was not a neutral title given that it could be seen as pushing a nationalist POV"
3393:
3381:
2839:
2628:
I understand your concerns. I have asked Tourskin in his talk page to change his use of tone and not get into minningless arguements.
2465:
2358:
1071:
Dab, take your own advice for research, Assyria is a well known geographic term, as well known as Mesopotamia (perhaps slightly less).
893:
I have only seen sources of a Persian province named Assyria. Where are you sources to claim the province being named something else?
288:
282:
263:
216:
183:
150:
117:
1393:]. And you want me to assume good faith? This isn't a recent issue, dab has been like this for years. He will edit drastically, and
4299:"As I wrote above: "The current title is fine because there's no doubt that the region the article focuses on was in Mesopotamia."
3363:
3353:
472:
5451:
survive; they therefore have not affected what English speakers call this region, which is the basis of our naming conventions.
2183:
of Assyria" is in scare quotes, referring to a misunderstanding on the part of Herodotus. Would it be too much to ask of you to
5537:
As for the Syria/Assyria matter, as can be seen in the synopsis made by R. Rollinger ("The terms "Syria" and "Assyria" again",
3740:
Neither ethnic continuity or Christianity should be in an article that isn't meant to cover past the 4th century BC, should it?
3443:
nationalists). The argument should not be about what Darius, Xerxes, or Herodotus called it, but what Knowledge ahould call it.
3389:
3359:
3317:
3289:
1400:
5507:
is certain and is confirmed -despite some doubts expressed by George Cameron but refuted by Ilya Gershevitch- by the loanword
5091:
Btw, any assertion about "ancient and modern sources" for satrapies has an obligation to cite, and probably quote, Herodotus.
3055:. It requires only 2 users to present there case, and no more. If a third users jumps in, then no Third Opinion will be given.
2999:. Lol, some revelation there - dude, you can tell its me because when you hover you're mouse over my name it says "Tourskin".
2298:
dab, please take a look at the buttom dicussion me and Doug are having. If I must copy and paste it for you, I might as well;
1714:"Assyria (Persian province) is the right name of this artilce". But how does this square with the statement I quoted from the
3373:
3345:
3331:
3303:
371:
4990:
below why has given a 3rd opinion and should be considered, present name is more useful. Satrapy definitely not a good idea.
1840:
Whatever, in this case I think the article should reflect modern usage. Not Atcura or Athura or Assyria or Norshirakan :-)--
2349:
Can you please stop accusing me and labeling me on every discussion we have? Why are you disrespecting me in labeling me a
2395:
You two are acting as though no one has any right to edit this article unless they follow your party (nationalist) line.
1777:
Ok, so it was not a province, who cares, thats no longer an issue. We have yet again changed the topic of the argument.
1699:
is the topic of this page, not all of Mesopotamia (keeping in mind that Assyria is part of Mesopotamia geographically.)
1061:
I did not post an "angry rant". All I did was inform you that you are quite annoying, a view shared y many other editors.
250:
Okay, we'll see how it turns out. It sure does seem to take some time though until someone gets here and checks it up. —
4959:
I don't think we will ever truely know, but for the sake of trying to work together, I think the most accepted title is
4775:
4691:
5778:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
5077:
Theres no question about it. Virtually all references point to this conclusion and a Third neutral opinion has agreed.
4656:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
2850:,) and not the other way around. Actually, I'd like for you to look at the following page, page 207 and take a look at
4287:- I have done that by stating the two sides in the second sentence of the article? You need to stop smearing, please.
3631:
3349:
3339:
5120:
I have only sporadic internet access right now and for the next fortnight, which is why I didn't respond immediately.
2660:
2557:
2413:
545:
The "Sacking of Assyria" section requires more citations, especially since the material is potentially challengeable.
3203:
In Greek texts, both variants are usually freely interchangeable and can refer to both the Persian province Athura..
2283:
you have shown no such thing. If you cannot be bothered to research a topic, why are you making noise on talkpages?
5028:
4921:
4853:
is not usage, and would imply either that Assyria was Persian, or that part of it was ruled by somebody else, like
4548:
Have I understood this correctly? If so, I think this would characterise the difference of opinion more precisely.
3321:
3311:
3293:
3244:
2161:
2118:
5141:
that. Do you still think thats the case? If so, you can show how it is POV to have the proper name of the article.
2948:
Tourskin, I am not saying you did this deliberately, but anyone not checking would think that someone new, called
2093:
In Greek texts, both variants are usually freely interchangeable and can refer to both the Persian province Athura
5529:
4917:
1068:
I call everyone dude, if thats offensive to you thats too bad, I'm sure wikipedia does not consider it offensive.
316:
5491:, p. 909). Briant originally published his book in French in 1996, but three years before G. Gnoli wrote in his
5431:
research has shown that the Greeks first used the term Syria/Assyria at the beginning of the seventh century B.C
3636:
what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity
3235:
Another reference to Athura as a province; The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians By Emmet John Sweeney. Page 177.
2111:
Another reference to Athura as a province; The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians By Emmet John Sweeney. Page 177.
1862:. Having one single book stating otherwise, should not be the reason given to move the page to something else.
1677:
word here anyway, its an anachronism). Who did the Assyrian royal family rules when they fled their country?--
5520:
In the Behistun Iscription, where the Old Persian version says Athura, the Babylonian version translate it as
4292:"In other words, this article should have a section debating whether Athura was in fact an official province."
2334:
about writing encyclopedia articles, and you just want to litter Knowledge with Assyrian patriotic sentiment?
1854:
Folantin, you make it sound as if that is the name of an institute. That is just the name of a book. Argueing
5604:
I think everyone seems to be ok with Achaemenid Assyria. I understand what you brought up as an example with
3683:
3243:
My conclusion is that with all taken into consideration, the article should the very least be moved back to
3052:
2242:(1985) states: "it is now certain that Athura cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian Empire"
337:
17:
5487:
in the royal inscriptions, see especially Cameron 1973, whose conclusions have been universally accepted" (
3220:. -"The Ancient History of the Near East: From the Earliest Times to the Battle ..." By Harry Reginald Hall
4233:
3367:
2215:
at the hits you got at google books, or did you just search for "Athura" and copy-paste the results here?
1227:
I'm happy with the title as it is, what is it you wish to change it to? I am willing to give some leeway.
257:
210:
177:
144:
111:
47:
5292:
Hey Chaldean, I'm not trying to smear your work, or attack you in anyway, I am just discussing the title.
5055:. I have explained to the user how that could be incorrect. I have tried to contact the opposition group
4306:
2148:
Despite a few rebellions the Mesopotamian provinces functioned as an important part of the Persian Empire
2106:. -The Ancient History of the Near East: From the Earliest Times to the Battle ... By Harry Reginald Hall
1580:
Good, now if Tourskin can agree on that, maybe some progress can be made. But he doesn't seem to agree.--
5761:
5696:
5591:
5549:
4929:
3754:
Doesn't this cover the Arsacid and Sassanid periods too? That would take it up to the 7th century AD. --
5472:
5154:
4909:
4873:
4846:
4695:
3252:
2884:
Syria is in the context of Antiquity is a Greek misprounciation of Assyria. Can you see the syria in As
4752:
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
2651:
that's really sad. Chaldean, how about you spend your time more productively. E.g. learning to spell.
2140:
Despite a few rebellions the Assyrian province functioned as an important part of the Persian Empire.
5456:
5416:
5373:
5347:
5297:
5266:
5241:
5184:
5125:
5111:
5096:
4995:
4862:
3745:
3557:
3500:
3448:
3248:
3163:
Ten satrapies in the West; Uvaya, Elam, Babylon-Chaldea, ....Athura (the ancient kingdom of Assyria.)
3082:
2980:
2939:
2822:
2710:
2619:
2571:
2515:
2451:
2437:
2301:
2073:
Ten satrapies in the West; Uvaya, Elam, Babylon-Chaldea, ....Athura (the ancient kingdom of Assyria.)
1956:
1934:
Province or not, its Assyria. Now anyways, theres more references saying it was a province than not.
1845:
1737:
The fact that Cambridge calls it Athura (Assyria) and so does Sima Parpola and the other references?
1682:
1635:
1585:
1474:
1340:
1291:
1177:
1107:
992:
944:
5006:
You have not stated why it is "definately not a good idea". Such strong words. Such weak arguments.
1278:
As for the title of this article, there are guidelines for naming which I think should be followed.
203:
But if we nominate it for FA and it fails, we'll get the reasons why, and we can improve on that. —
5757:
5692:
5642:
5631:
5545:
4925:
4792:
4683:
4302:
3693:
3409:
3397:
3377:
3335:
3325:
3307:
3297:
2689:
2656:
2450:. You have still not discussed the sources I have brought up. Here is another exellent source; The
2387:
2339:
2288:
2250:
2220:
2192:
2013:
1051:
883:
875:
827:
795:
70:
2125:
A wide ranging administrative district known as Athura (Assyria) that included all of Mesopotamia"
56:
5731:
5673:
5651:
5613:
5568:
5561:
So I think the article should be called either Achaemenid Assyria or Assyria in Achaemenid times.
5525:
5438:
5395:
5365:
5331:
5283:
5233:
5202:
5162:
5082:
5066:
5011:
4968:
4960:
4950:
4913:
4893:
4888:, but the opposition has disputed it because of a book has disputed the level of control it had.
4829:
4808:
4736:
4707:
4703:
4687:
4666:
4625:
4603:
4585:
4569:
4553:
4501:
4469:
4436:
4422:
4408:
4386:
4364:
4322:
4309:. This article is about Assyria during a specific period, and not the other satrapy of Babylonia.
4264:
4245:
4217:
4202:
4167:
4118:
4104:
4090:
4068:
4049:
4035:
4020:
4012:
3997:
3981:
3942:
3887:
3872:
3858:
3839:
3824:
3809:
3795:
3781:
3759:
3728:
3707:
3665:
3643:
3610:
3530:
3479:
3471:
3467:
3429:
3272:
3264:
3260:
3226:
A wide ranging administrative district known as Athura (Assyria) that included all of Mesopotamia
3035:
3019:
3004:
2962:
2893:
2859:
2794:
2732:
2671:
2633:
2593:
2553:
2529:
2488:
2409:
2370:
2320:
2273:
2168:
2053:
2032:
1989:
1970:
1939:
1925:
1867:
1831:
1813:
1797:
1782:
1762:
1742:
1724:
1704:
1657:
1608:
1567:
1549:
1534:
1509:
1458:
1411:
1391:] of my people. He creates his own "guideline" and then try to use it to win arguments elsewhere
1371:
1314:
1256:
1232:
1204:
1156:
1140:
1122:
1079:
1010:
970:
912:
898:
854:
813:
757:
738:
719:
704:
690:
668:
638:
607:
580:
4278:"By the way, you should also follow the article link to Xenephon - read the last sentence there"
3590:) resurrected the empire so quickly. Which then was followed by yet another Persian empire; the
2245:
The confusion appears to have been due to misunderstandings on the part of Greek geographers.
4885:
4881:
4731:
is to ambiguous in that the article's scope is only on a part of Mesopotamia, not the whole. —
4008:
3586:. The Greeks did not take control of the entire empire, thus that is why the Parthians (see --
3070:
878:: I am not suggesting a split, I am merely moving the article to an acceptable title. thanks,
253:
206:
173:
140:
107:
43:
1965:
The article is about a geographical area and its people, of whom compromise an ethnic group.
700:
Sidney Smith is an Assyriologist but unfortunately not much else is known from the reference
5587:
4674:
4378:
2833:
2446:
Doug, I am disagreeing because sources state otherwise, not because of "whatever reason" or
2239:
462:
3057:
Seeing me and Doug as the most active in this discussion, me and him will present our case.
2404:
policy. Also, I would like for you to comment on the sources that I have brought up. Thanks
2315:] Also, the two Kings after him also mention Athura (Again, look below at the discussion.)
1666:
And don't you Dare make yourself seem innocent; you're the one who got personal and said, "
963:
it is now certain that Athurā cannot have been an administrative unit in the Persian empire
663:
If you had read it you'll know that in the Article its refered to collectively as Assyria.
5765:
5735:
5700:
5677:
5655:
5635:
5617:
5605:
5595:
5572:
5553:
5460:
5452:
5442:
5420:
5412:
5399:
5377:
5369:
5351:
5343:
5335:
5301:
5293:
5287:
5270:
5262:
5261:, even before the modern country was erected around 1920, is the Roman Province of Syria.
5245:
5237:
5206:
5188:
5180:
5166:
5129:
5121:
5115:
5107:
5100:
5092:
5086:
5070:
5040:
5015:
4999:
4991:
4972:
4954:
4933:
4897:
4866:
4858:
4833:
4812:
4796:
4740:
4678:
4629:
4607:
4589:
4573:
4557:
4505:
4473:
4440:
4426:
4412:
4390:
4368:
4326:
4268:
4249:
4221:
4206:
4171:
4122:
4108:
4094:
4072:
4053:
4039:
4024:
4001:
3985:
3946:
3891:
3876:
3862:
3843:
3828:
3813:
3799:
3785:
3763:
3749:
3741:
3732:
3711:
3696:
3669:
3647:
3614:
3591:
3587:
3561:
3553:
3534:
3504:
3496:
3483:
3452:
3444:
3433:
3412:
3276:
3153:
3039:
3023:
3008:
2984:
2976:
2966:
2943:
2935:
2897:
2863:
2851:
2826:
2818:
2798:
2736:
2714:
2706:
2693:
2675:
2637:
2623:
2615:
2597:
2575:
2567:
2533:
2519:
2511:
2492:
2441:
2433:
2374:
2343:
2324:
2292:
2277:
2254:
2224:
2196:
2172:
2057:
2036:
2017:
2008:
paper. We cannot write an encyclopedia based on a single academic paper, we need context.
1993:
1974:
1960:
1952:
1943:
1929:
1871:
1849:
1841:
1835:
1817:
1801:
1786:
1766:
1746:
1728:
1708:
1686:
1678:
1661:
1639:
1631:
1612:
1589:
1581:
1571:
1553:
1538:
1513:
1478:
1470:
1462:
1415:
1375:
1344:
1336:
1318:
1295:
1287:
1260:
1236:
1208:
1181:
1173:
1160:
1144:
1126:
1111:
1103:
1083:
1055:
1014:
996:
988:
974:
948:
937:
916:
902:
887:
858:
831:
817:
799:
761:
741:
723:
707:
693:
672:
610:
597:
583:
267:
244:
220:
198:
187:
165:
154:
132:
121:
98:
83:
73:
59:
35:
2684:
stable emotionally, not less. It would save us much mindless activity on many talkpages.
1858:
isn't going to get us anywhere. Generally, most of Google's book search list Athura as a
790:
the article needs to cite some source related to its topic, and cut down for pertinence.
5145:"Also, it is clear that 'Syria' and 'Assyria' were synonyms until relatively recently. "
2458:
states: "While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media,
2309:
states: "While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media,
5627:
5036:
4987:
4877:
4788:
4699:
3690:
3583:
3522:
3463:
3406:
3256:
3173:
Technically both Syria and Palestine lay within the Persian satrapy of Athura (Assyria)
3132:(reigned 404 – 358 BC,) also mentions the Assyrians of Athura in his own inscriptions.
2685:
2652:
2362:
2335:
2284:
2246:
2216:
2188:
2081:
Technically both Syria and Palestine lay within the Persian satrapy of Athura (Assyria)
2009:
1279:
1047:
1034:, as I just said, in 612. some 700 years later, the Babylonian province was renamed to
879:
823:
791:
650:
533:
419:
2975:
I did say anyone not checking, right? Arguing about province status is a red herring.
1888:
speaking. I thought that was obvious but clearly not. Its like Ottoman and Osman. The
5727:
5669:
5664:
Dab, my dear freind (not). You may be in unfamiliar territory here. This is called a
5647:
5609:
5564:
5434:
5391:
5327:
5279:
5198:
5158:
5078:
5062:
5032:
5007:
4964:
4946:
4943:
Why not? Sources are saying that it is a satrapy (called Athura, which means Assyria)
4889:
4825:
4821:
4804:
4732:
4621:
4599:
4581:
4565:
4549:
4497:
4465:
4432:
4418:
4404:
4382:
4360:
4318:
4260:
4241:
4213:
4198:
4163:
4114:
4100:
4086:
4082:
4064:
4045:
4031:
4016:
3993:
3992:
support your argument with other sources, then perhaps your single source is false.
3977:
3938:
3883:
3868:
3854:
3835:
3820:
3805:
3791:
3777:
3755:
3724:
3703:
3661:
3639:
3606:
3526:
3475:
3425:
3421:
3268:
3129:
3031:
3015:
3000:
2958:
2889:
2855:
2790:
2728:
2667:
2629:
2589:
2549:
2525:
2484:
2480:
2424:
2405:
2401:
2366:
2316:
2269:
2164:
2157:
2049:
2045:
2028:
1985:
1966:
1935:
1921:
1863:
1827:
1809:
1793:
1778:
1758:
1738:
1720:
1700:
1653:
1604:
1563:
1545:
1530:
1505:
1454:
1441:
1407:
1367:
1310:
1252:
1228:
1200:
1152:
1136:
1132:
1118:
1075:
1006:
966:
941:
908:
894:
850:
809:
753:
734:
730:
715:
664:
594:
486:
241:
195:
162:
137:
Oh shit, stupid me, I didn't even notice. So, what more improvements does it need? —
129:
95:
80:
32:
5390:
is the only section that I have not touched on it. Your right, it needs major work.
3552:
argument that the Persian empire indeed ended in 330 BC when Alexander conquered it?
5048:
4059:
3282:
About the page move warring (all timestamps 2008 UTC, and I may have missed some):
2588:
Doug, can we please tackle the subject and not go in this back-and-forth fighting?
2208:
1450:
552:
357:
1131:
The Oxford Dictionary also has the words "Thomas a Becket", a very wrong name for
606:
Ok, I'll give you your one week, but #7 really does need to be addressed. Cheers,
1151:
region was called Athura by Persians. People, athura and assyria are synonymous.
4670:
4374:
3105:"While I was in Babylon, these provinces revolted from me: Persia, Elam, Media,
871:
681:
Only one citation is vertical and I think thats not really needed to be changed.
55:
members of the other legacies are active readers and contributors to this text.
5447:
The reason this is a recent discovery is that hardly any of these mentions of
5027:
The original argument was weather or not to keep the article at its then name
4715:
4081:
You can continue accusing me of nationalist interest, but I ask you to please
3657:
3089:
2145:
After dab removing all Assyrian references to Mesopotamian, it currently says;
4015:
than an attempt to provide an objective account of Achaemenid Mesopotamia. --
5521:
4698:— Proper name of the article. It should follow other pages of its kind like
4530:
while Ilya Gershevitch has disputed the level of administrative unit control
4285:"But you want to present this debate as more clear-cut than it actually is."
3599:
3138:
2386:
it so you mustn't change it'. Knowledge has some clear statements on this.
2048:
and yet no other admin steps in his way. Same ol story over and over again.
1035:
5179:
I've been told before in other cases not to worry about the length so much.
4496:
A satrapy is a province, a satrap is a governor. I hope you are satisfied.
1135:, martyr of Canterbury. So you see the Oxfrd dictionary is not infallible.
3972:
What gives me the idea that a professor of ancient history writing in the
2083:- The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations - Page 129 by Arthur Cotterell
733:
the article. If you feel that this review is in error, you may take it to
4719:
4381:
word Athur (Assyria.)) This isn't disputed, and it isn't an issue here.
4237:
3773:
3653:
3218:, and the first satrap were successors of the Assyrian military governors
3078:
2455:
2306:
2261:
2104:, and the first satrap were successors of the Assyrian military governors
5475:. Acording to G. Cameron ("The Persian satrapies and related matters",
5151:"I thnk the article should cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persians"
4723:
3769:
3518:
1984:
Doug, Assyria is the name of the region. Stop going around in circles.
3652:
The problem with Persian Assyria is that we would have to incorperate
2095:- The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians - Page 175 by Emmet John Sweeney
4912:
since Assyria was not a satrapy! I think the best options are either
3660:, among others. It would still be too ambiguous. Achaemenid Assyria?
3117:
3066:
2789:
For the sake of consistency, lets leave the discussion at this page.
2471:
2235:
1859:
4945:
Hmmm... to me nothing suggests that it was definately not a satrapy.
4650:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.
4542:
while one historian claims Athura was part of the satrapy of Babylon
561:
The first paragraph of "Assyria under Parthian rule 2nd century BC"
161:
I dont think it needs improving much at all, it looks great to me.
5772:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.
5106:
the article should cover all of Mesopotamia under the Persians. --
4197:
stance against Athura being a Satrapy. What do you think of this?
3215:
2101:
1668:
now if Tourskin can agree on that, maybe some progress can be made
4417:
Hint: what's the difference between "province" and "governor"? --
3867:
And what is the difference? Knowledge makes no such distinction.
3122:
Athura (Assyria) was one of the countries (ie province) he ruled.
2476:
Athura (Assyria) was one of the countries (ie province) he ruled.
2264:, declared it as a Province, what more do you want? Was the King
3405:
I'd say the situation needs help from uninvolved editors ... —
2754:
about the Assyrian Empire, not about Assyria under Persian rule.
2230:
Right, it turns out that there was some debate on the nature of
2089:- Turkey: A Past and a Future By Arnold Joseph Toynbee, page 72.
5503:- means "satrapy" ... The technical connotation of Old Persian
4710:. Its current title, after a long argument, is too ambiguous.
1951:
The article is about a geographical area, not an ethnicity.--
79:
I've made it all B class because I think its a good article.
3790:
Then why is there a whole section on "Roman-Persian wars"??
2121:
in that Athura was a province that eventually would include
2075:- Passing of the Empires 850 BC to 330 BC By Gaston Maspero
31:
Well I well talk about later developments when I have time.
4876:
would be the most appropriate and would follow others like
3848:
Well, I think the writer of that particular chapter of the
3159:
Modern scholars also label Assyria as a Satrap (Province.)
3088:"These are the countries which came to me; by the favor of
2548:
that you go on and on about how we're nationalistic nazis?
2154:
see, the article covers all of Mesopotamia, not just Athura
1042:
research articles. As opposed to, you know, calling people
5542:
5257:
is Victorian, and was eccentric then; the proper sense of
4598:
I only worry that Persian Assyria might be too ambiguous.
4317:
assume good faith, rather then accuse people of interest.
4236:. (By the way, you should also follow the article link to
3081:(Reign 522 BC to 485 BC) declared it as a province in the
1440:- Yes that is a popular, but a false belief as well. Many
646:
The lead has been expanded to cover the article over all.
589:
Hi thanks for the comments. I ask that you please give me
5197:
consider it to move it to a title involving Mesopotamia.
2152:
After making these edits, now dab puts the arguement of
4377:
name for Assyria (and more technically a loanword from
3030:
inspiration of a disastrous monstrosity known as iRaq.
2842:, where Herododus states the 9th district was Assyria,
2357:? We have the Scholar Herodotus; you have already seen
2354:
1249:
774:
the above is a perfect example of the GA process being
4294:- that is fine. Would you like to start that section?
1428:
I'm not terribly interested in your conflicts with Dab
5342:
Well, I'm not, and I agree with the change of title.
1560:
I was talking about Assyria as an independent nation.
3834:
you are not putting up any kind of legit arguement.
3525:.) This article is strictly about 559 BC to 330 BC.
2474:(reigned 485–465 BC) writes in his inscription that
2365:. Again, it states Assyria as one of the divisions.
2137:
In the beginning of the article, it previously said;
1630:(not the 'Assyrians' in general) known as Assyria?--
5608:, but I think that was just an isolated situation.
4774:, please explain your reasons, taking into account
4373:Andrew, as sourced in the page, Athura is just the
2156:. I would think the user that has single-handedly (
593:on hold for this article to be improved. Thank you
5515:is disputed, or at least it was in the early 90s.
2840:Districts_of_the_Achaemenid_Empire#Ninth_district
3141:states the 9th of the 20 provinces was Assyria,
778:. What do they use to evaluate articles, a bot?
4820:per the points I have made above and below and
3937:time taken and the need for other articles too.
2838:]. The Babylon-Assyria naming goes back to the
2817:New Series, Vol. 43, No. 2 (1993), pp. 377-391
2203:the discussion in Sweeney is on the Greek term
42:without the references cited being credible. —
4044:The only one dodging the issue here is you. --
2997:Note that Assyrian and proud of it is Tourskin
94:I think this is brilliant for a good article.
5499:that "In Achaemenid inscriptions Old Persian
3092:I was king of them: Persia, Elam, Babylonia,
2510:etc and it's dog agility tonight all evening.
1438:From what I know, Assyria disappears in 612BC
8:
5511:in Elamite". So I'd say that the meaning of
3116:In another inscription, the following King,
2234:down to the 1940s. We can discuss this in a
737:. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers,
471:(images are tagged and non-free images have
5748:The article's content might be misleading,
5718:The article's content might be misleading,
4772:polling is not a substitute for discussion
3187:Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions
1529:The Assyrians did resurface - as Osroene.
4313:And for the last time, I will ask you to
3177:The Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations
170:Okay, so, I ask then: should we FA it? —
5276:"More of interest: What nationalist POV"
4007:accordingly, because this is more about
2468:, lists Assyria as one of hte provinces
2380:
2211:. Seriously, Chaldean, did you actually
1544:poor arguments by changing the subject.
5221:More of interest: What nationalist POV?
3167:Passing of the Empires 850 BC to 330 BC
1822:Maybe because that "one source" is the
5722:the article relies too much on Paropla
5479:32, 1973, pp. 47-56), the "toponyms" (
5720:- May I asked how so? You brought up
5051:had been requested, and it suggested
3197:Turkey: A Past and a Future By Arnold
1896:due to different pronounciations. Ath
1670:". I agree on all historical points.
1424:I've tagged it as needing citations.
649:I can tell that the lead still fails
7:
1856:my source is better then your source
1269:editors." and you are ignoring them.
4301:- by your idiology, we should move
3682:I am responding to a request for a
3207:The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians
2811:Darius and the Behistun Inscription
542:Some statements require citations:
4692:Assyrians in the Achaemenid Empire
4240:- read the last sentence there) --
3394:Assyrians under the Persian Empire
3382:Assyrians under the Persian Empire
3214:Assyrian method was taken over by
3209:" - Page 175 by Emmet John Sweeney
3154:sketch of Herododu's 20 Provinces.
2466:Districts of the Achaemenid Empire
2359:Districts of the Achaemenid Empire
2100:Assyrian method was taken over by
512:
466:, where possible and appropriate.
432:
399:
378:
350:
309:
24:
3189:" By John David Hawkins. Page 126
2027:without waiting for a response?!!
3424:, but that is beyond the issue.
3364:Assyria under the Persian Empire
3354:Assyria under the Persian Empire
3350:Assyria under the Perisan Empire
3340:Assyria under the Perisan Empire
3179:" - Page 129 by Arthur Cotterell
3152:) and on the next page we see a
511:
492:
478:
451:
431:
428:Fair representation without bias
408:
398:
377:
363:
349:
322:
308:
5477:Journal of Near Eastern Studies
4661:The result of the proposal was
3634:which states it should follow "
1401:Armenians in the Persian Empire
5061:] with no response as of now.
4776:Knowledge's naming conventions
1999:if Assyria is a region, it is
619:GA review improvement (if any)
104:Should we nominate it then? —
1:
5563:- I'm ok Achaemenid Assyria.
4922:Assyria under Achaemenid rule
4764:, then sign your comment with
3974:Cambridge History of the Iran
2846:(The Geography of Herodotus,
2127:- Phoenicians By Glenn Markoe
1248:With regards to this comment
762:03:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
742:02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
724:08:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
708:02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
694:02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
673:04:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
611:19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
598:19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
584:17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
532:The lead needs to conform to
268:15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
245:22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
221:21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
199:18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
188:14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
166:21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
155:09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
133:02:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
122:01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
99:00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
84:00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
3495:etc. can be in sub-sections.
3147:The Geography of Herodotus,
3120:(reigned 485–465 BC) writes
3065:in Persian times) province (
2432:how can there be consensus?
2268:like Herodotus too? Unreal.
1091:Sure, we know where Assyria
493:
479:
452:
409:
364:
323:
74:21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
5530:Assyria in Achaemenid times
4918:Assyria in Achaemenid times
3632:Knowledge:Naming convention
3420:]. He has clearly violated
3255:to follow other pages like
3193:Persian province of Assyria
2381:'Ownership' of this article
2087:Persian province of Assyria
5795:
5766:03:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5736:02:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5701:02:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5678:01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5656:00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
5636:19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
5618:13:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
5596:13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
5573:22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
5554:06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
5029:Assyria (Persian province)
5016:02:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
5000:20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
4973:23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4955:21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4934:19:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4797:01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
4679:23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
4339:the difference between a "
3712:21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
3697:20:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
3322:Assyria (Persian Province)
3312:Assyria (Persian Province)
3294:Assyria (Persian province)
3245:Assyria (Persian province)
3199:" Joseph Toynbee, page 72.
2952:, had entered the debate.
2558:23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2534:17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2520:17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2493:16:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2442:16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2414:15:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2173:14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2162:Assyria (Persian province)
2119:Assyria (Persian province)
2058:13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2037:13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2018:11:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
1994:20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1975:20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1961:20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1944:20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1930:20:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1872:19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1850:19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1836:18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1818:18:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1802:18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1787:18:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1767:18:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1747:18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1729:17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1709:17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1687:17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1662:17:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1640:17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1613:17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1590:17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1572:16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1554:16:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1539:15:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1514:15:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1479:14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1463:14:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1416:13:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
1376:18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1345:17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1319:17:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1296:07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1261:01:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1237:23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1209:23:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1182:22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1161:21:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1145:21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1127:21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1112:18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1084:18:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1056:08:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1015:17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
997:16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
975:16:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
949:15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
917:14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
903:13:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
888:10:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
859:16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
849:Chaldean Catholic Church.
832:16:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
818:16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
800:15:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
564:Most of Roman-Persian Wars
60:14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
5461:21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5443:14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5421:10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5400:18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5378:17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5352:17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5336:14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5302:10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5288:17:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5271:16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5246:16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5207:14:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5189:10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5167:16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5130:16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5116:16:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5101:16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5087:02:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
5071:21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4898:16:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4867:16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4834:04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4813:04:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
4741:21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
4630:00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4608:23:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4590:23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4574:22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4558:22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4506:17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4474:17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4441:15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4427:08:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4413:00:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4391:22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4369:22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4327:22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4269:15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4250:08:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4229:Cambridge History of Iran
4222:04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4207:03:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
4172:21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4123:18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4109:18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4095:18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4073:18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4054:18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4040:18:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4025:17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4002:17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3986:17:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3947:17:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3892:16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3877:17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3863:16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3850:Cambridge History of Iran
3844:16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3829:16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3814:14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3800:13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3786:13:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3764:13:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3750:12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3733:12:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3670:23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3648:22:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3615:23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3562:16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3535:15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3505:09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3484:15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3453:05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3434:23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3413:23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3277:00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3183:Persian Satrapy of Athura
3040:00:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
3024:08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3009:07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3001:Assyrian and proud of it.
2985:09:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2967:07:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2959:Assyrian and proud of it.
2944:06:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2898:06:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2890:Assyrian and proud of it.
2864:21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2827:18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2799:17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2737:16:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2715:16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2694:15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2676:15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2661:15:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2638:13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2624:07:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2598:07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2576:07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2375:15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2344:15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2325:15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2293:15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2278:15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2255:15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2225:15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2197:15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
1824:Cambridge History of Iran
958:Cambridge History of Iran
735:good article reassessment
529:Sphinx Darius Louvre.jpg.
36:00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
5775:Please do not modify it.
5059:] and the neutral party
4653:Please do not modify it.
4520:Status of Athura satrapy
4351:the difference between "
4259:the whole list of names.
4214:Assyrian and proud of it
3678:Third opinion (response)
2950:Assyrian and Proud of it
1808:] that state otherwise.
1716:Cambridge Histoy of Iran
555:without proper citation.
65:WikiProject class rating
50:17:28 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)
5584:Question and suggestion
5489:From Cyrus to Alexander
3053:Knowledge:Third Opinion
2361:and the source it uses
2044:Dab continues to break
298:reasonably well written
18:Talk:Achaemenid Assyria
3368:Achaemenid Mesopotamia
485:(appropriate use with
5493:Encyclopaedia Iranica
4164:I am a neutral editor
3939:I am a neutral editor
3869:I am a neutral editor
3032:I am a neutral editor
929:I've just found this:
703:That's fine. Cheers,
460:It is illustrated by
420:neutral point of view
388:broad in its coverage
3137:The ancient scholar
3098:in all, 23 provinces
3083:Behistun Inscription
3077:The Achaemenid King
3051:This section is for
2452:Behistun Inscription
2448:nationalist interest
2302:Behistun Inscription
2238:article if desired.
2207:and would belong in
2123:"all of Mesopotamia;
965:" (Vol.2 p.261-2).--
5388:cultural continuity
4684:Persian Mesopotamia
4307:Mesopotamian Empire
4303:Neo-Assyrian Empire
3882:presented is weak.
3630:should follow the
3398:Persian Mesopotamia
3378:Persian Mesopotamia
3336:Persian Mesopotamia
3326:Persian Mesopotamia
3308:Persian Mesopotamia
3298:Persian Mesopotamia
3247:(or more correctly
3169:" By Gaston Maspero
2430:for whatever reason
876:Persian Mesopotamia
473:fair use rationales
128:Yeh its nominated.
5526:Achaemenid Assyria
5366:History of Assyria
5234:Church of the East
4961:Achaemenid Assyria
4914:Achaemenid Assyria
4851:Achaemenid Assyria
4824:'s third opinion.
4708:Carmania (satrapy)
4704:Gedrosia (satrapy)
4688:Achaemenid Assyria
4667:Achaemenid Assyria
3472:Carmania (satrapy)
3468:Gedrosia (satrapy)
3462:articles, such as
3265:Carmania (satrapy)
3261:Gedrosia (satrapy)
3143:including Babylon.
2479:]. His successor,
2063:Athura as a Satrap
639:Knowledge:Captions
333:factually accurate
5634:
5473:Assyria (satrapy)
5471:We shouldn't use
5459:
5376:
5350:
5269:
5244:
5155:Babylon (satrapy)
5099:
4910:Assyria (satrapy)
4886:Cilicia (satrapy)
4882:Parthia (satrapy)
4874:Assyria (satrapy)
4865:
4847:Assyria (satrapy)
4696:Assyria (satrapy)
4083:assume good faith
3604:
3596:including Babylon
3400:
3385:
3284:
3253:Assyria (satrapy)
3151:
3071:Achaemenid Empire
2873:Tourskin and Doug
2844:including Babylon
2692:
2659:
2342:
2291:
2253:
2223:
2195:
2016:
1054:
1003:Cambridge History
1001:I don't have the
886:
830:
798:
591:at least one week
487:suitable captions
448:No edit wars etc.
271:
270:
224:
223:
191:
190:
158:
157:
125:
124:
5786:
5777:
5630:
5455:
5372:
5346:
5265:
5240:
5095:
4861:
4768:
4762:
4756:
4726:, among others.
4655:
4379:Imperial Aramaic
4195:less of a strong
3603:
3388:15:06, 01 April
3387:
3372:13:23, 31 March
3358:11:05, 31 March
3344:11:17, 28 March
3330:02:08, 28 March
3316:10:09, 27 March
3302:16:18, 26 March
3288:16:07, 26 March
3286:
3283:
3232:By Glenn Markoe.
3146:
2834:Chaldean dynasty
2688:
2680:I wish you were
2655:
2338:
2287:
2266:misunderstanding
2249:
2240:Ilya Gershevitch
2219:
2191:
2012:
1050:
882:
826:
794:
515:
514:
496:
495:
482:
481:
455:
454:
435:
434:
412:
411:
402:
401:
381:
380:
367:
366:
358:reliable sources
353:
352:
326:
325:
312:
311:
252:
251:
205:
204:
172:
171:
139:
138:
106:
105:
5794:
5793:
5789:
5788:
5787:
5785:
5784:
5783:
5782:
5773:
5606:Russian Armenia
5453:Septentrionalis
5370:Septentrionalis
5344:Septentrionalis
5263:Septentrionalis
5238:Septentrionalis
5093:Septentrionalis
5053:Persian Assyria
5041:User:Dougweller
5024:
4908:: we can't use
4859:Septentrionalis
4855:Persian Armenia
4845:, would prefer
4766:
4760:
4754:
4748:
4651:
4645:
4522:
3720:
3680:
3592:Sassanid Empire
3588:Parthian Empire
3249:Athura (satrap)
3048:
2875:
2813:
2383:
2065:
1904:, just as Athur
772:
621:
417:It follows the
395:(major aspects)
278:
254:Aššur-bāni-apli
92:
67:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
5792:
5790:
5781:
5780:
5745:
5744:
5743:
5742:
5741:
5740:
5739:
5738:
5708:
5707:
5706:
5705:
5704:
5703:
5683:
5682:
5681:
5680:
5659:
5658:
5623:
5622:
5621:
5620:
5599:
5598:
5580:
5579:
5578:
5577:
5576:
5575:
5534:
5533:
5517:
5516:
5468:
5467:
5466:
5465:
5464:
5463:
5424:
5423:
5405:
5404:
5403:
5402:
5381:
5380:
5361:
5360:
5359:
5358:
5357:
5356:
5355:
5354:
5340:
5339:
5338:
5311:
5310:
5309:
5308:
5307:
5306:
5305:
5304:
5248:
5222:
5216:
5215:
5214:
5213:
5212:
5211:
5210:
5209:
5172:
5171:
5170:
5169:
5148:
5142:
5118:
5103:
5089:
5074:
5073:
5037:User:Dbachmann
5023:
5020:
5019:
5018:
5003:
5002:
4988:User:Athaenara
4980:
4979:
4978:
4977:
4976:
4975:
4937:
4936:
4924:(see bellow).
4901:
4900:
4878:Maka (satrapy)
4870:
4869:
4836:
4815:
4799:
4781:
4780:
4755:*'''Support'''
4747:
4744:
4727:
4700:Aria (satrapy)
4659:
4658:
4646:
4644:
4643:Requested move
4641:
4639:
4637:
4636:
4635:
4634:
4633:
4632:
4613:
4612:
4611:
4610:
4593:
4592:
4577:
4576:
4546:
4545:
4534:
4533:
4521:
4518:
4517:
4516:
4515:
4514:
4513:
4512:
4511:
4510:
4509:
4508:
4485:
4484:
4483:
4482:
4481:
4480:
4479:
4478:
4477:
4476:
4452:
4451:
4450:
4449:
4448:
4447:
4446:
4445:
4444:
4443:
4396:
4395:
4394:
4393:
4371:
4311:
4310:
4296:
4295:
4289:
4288:
4282:
4281:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4271:
4253:
4252:
4191:
4190:
4189:
4188:
4187:
4186:
4185:
4184:
4183:
4182:
4181:
4180:
4179:
4178:
4177:
4176:
4175:
4174:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4138:
4137:
4136:
4135:
4134:
4133:
4132:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4128:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4056:
3970:
3969:
3968:
3967:
3966:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3962:
3961:
3960:
3959:
3958:
3957:
3956:
3955:
3954:
3953:
3952:
3951:
3950:
3949:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3906:
3905:
3904:
3903:
3902:
3901:
3900:
3899:
3898:
3897:
3896:
3895:
3894:
3879:
3719:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3679:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3626:
3625:
3624:
3623:
3622:
3621:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3584:Persian Empire
3571:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3537:
3523:Persian Empire
3510:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3489:
3488:
3487:
3486:
3464:Aria (satrapy)
3456:
3455:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3384:
3370:
3356:
3342:
3328:
3314:
3300:
3257:Aria (satrapy)
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3233:
3223:
3210:
3200:
3190:
3180:
3170:
3157:
3135:
3126:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3103:
3059:
3047:
3044:
3043:
3042:
3012:
3011:
2992:
2990:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2970:
2969:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2924:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2907:
2906:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2874:
2871:
2869:
2867:
2866:
2812:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2780:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2762:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2755:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2454:. In it, King
2417:
2416:
2382:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2328:
2327:
2305:. In it, King
2281:
2280:
2228:
2227:
2200:
2199:
2151:
2146:
2144:
2138:
2136:
2134:
2115:
2114:
2109:
2096:
2090:
2084:
2078:
2064:
2061:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2021:
2020:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1804:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1732:
1731:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1575:
1574:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1435:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1283:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1164:
1163:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
980:
979:
978:
977:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
922:
921:
920:
919:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
788:
787:
783:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
747:
746:
745:
744:
712:
711:
710:
698:
697:
696:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
658:
657:
656:
655:
644:
643:
642:
631:
630:
629:
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
601:
600:
576:
575:
571:
567:
566:
565:
562:
559:
556:
549:
546:
540:
537:
530:
526:
519:
518:
517:
516:
499:
498:
497:
458:
457:
456:
438:
437:
436:
415:
414:
413:
384:
383:
382:
356:(citations to
329:
328:
327:
293:
292:
277:
274:
273:
272:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
91:
88:
87:
86:
71:BetacommandBot
66:
63:
52:
51:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5791:
5779:
5776:
5770:
5769:
5768:
5767:
5763:
5759:
5754:
5749:
5737:
5733:
5729:
5725:
5723:
5719:
5716:
5715:
5714:
5713:
5712:
5711:
5710:
5709:
5702:
5698:
5694:
5689:
5688:
5687:
5686:
5685:
5684:
5679:
5675:
5671:
5667:
5663:
5662:
5661:
5660:
5657:
5653:
5649:
5644:
5643:User:Amizzoni
5640:
5639:
5638:
5637:
5633:
5629:
5619:
5615:
5611:
5607:
5603:
5602:
5601:
5600:
5597:
5593:
5589:
5585:
5582:
5581:
5574:
5570:
5566:
5562:
5559:
5558:
5557:
5556:
5555:
5551:
5547:
5543:
5540:
5536:
5535:
5531:
5527:
5523:
5519:
5518:
5514:
5510:
5506:
5502:
5498:
5494:
5490:
5486:
5482:
5478:
5474:
5470:
5469:
5462:
5458:
5454:
5450:
5449:Syria/Assyria
5446:
5445:
5444:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5428:
5427:
5426:
5425:
5422:
5418:
5414:
5410:
5409:Assyria/Syria
5407:
5406:
5401:
5397:
5393:
5389:
5385:
5384:
5383:
5382:
5379:
5375:
5371:
5367:
5363:
5362:
5353:
5349:
5345:
5341:
5337:
5333:
5329:
5325:
5322:Doug, I said
5321:
5320:
5319:
5318:
5317:
5316:
5315:
5314:
5313:
5312:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5291:
5290:
5289:
5285:
5281:
5277:
5274:
5273:
5272:
5268:
5264:
5260:
5256:
5252:
5249:
5247:
5243:
5239:
5235:
5231:
5226:
5223:
5220:
5219:
5218:
5217:
5208:
5204:
5200:
5196:
5192:
5191:
5190:
5186:
5182:
5178:
5177:
5176:
5175:
5174:
5173:
5168:
5164:
5160:
5156:
5152:
5149:
5146:
5143:
5140:
5136:
5133:
5132:
5131:
5127:
5123:
5119:
5117:
5113:
5109:
5104:
5102:
5098:
5094:
5090:
5088:
5084:
5080:
5076:
5075:
5072:
5068:
5064:
5060:
5058:
5056:
5054:
5050:
5046:
5042:
5038:
5034:
5033:User:Folantin
5030:
5026:
5025:
5021:
5017:
5013:
5009:
5005:
5004:
5001:
4997:
4993:
4989:
4985:
4982:
4981:
4974:
4970:
4966:
4962:
4958:
4957:
4956:
4952:
4948:
4944:
4941:
4940:
4939:
4938:
4935:
4931:
4927:
4923:
4919:
4915:
4911:
4907:
4903:
4902:
4899:
4895:
4891:
4887:
4883:
4879:
4875:
4872:
4871:
4868:
4864:
4860:
4856:
4852:
4848:
4844:
4840:
4837:
4835:
4831:
4827:
4823:
4822:User:AndrewRT
4819:
4816:
4814:
4810:
4806:
4803:
4800:
4798:
4794:
4790:
4786:
4783:
4782:
4779:
4777:
4773:
4765:
4761:*'''Oppose'''
4759:
4753:
4750:
4749:
4745:
4743:
4742:
4738:
4734:
4730:
4725:
4721:
4717:
4713:
4709:
4705:
4701:
4697:
4693:
4689:
4685:
4681:
4680:
4676:
4672:
4668:
4664:
4657:
4654:
4648:
4647:
4642:
4640:
4631:
4627:
4623:
4619:
4618:
4617:
4616:
4615:
4614:
4609:
4605:
4601:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4591:
4587:
4583:
4579:
4578:
4575:
4571:
4567:
4562:
4561:
4560:
4559:
4555:
4551:
4543:
4539:
4538:
4537:
4531:
4527:
4526:
4525:
4519:
4507:
4503:
4499:
4495:
4494:
4493:
4492:
4491:
4490:
4489:
4488:
4487:
4486:
4475:
4471:
4467:
4462:
4461:
4460:
4459:
4458:
4457:
4456:
4455:
4454:
4453:
4442:
4438:
4434:
4430:
4429:
4428:
4424:
4420:
4416:
4415:
4414:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4401:
4400:
4399:
4398:
4397:
4392:
4388:
4384:
4380:
4376:
4372:
4370:
4366:
4362:
4358:
4354:
4350:
4346:
4342:
4338:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4324:
4320:
4316:
4308:
4304:
4300:
4297:
4293:
4290:
4286:
4283:
4279:
4276:
4275:
4270:
4266:
4262:
4257:
4256:
4255:
4254:
4251:
4247:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4234:battlegrounds
4230:
4226:
4225:
4224:
4223:
4219:
4215:
4209:
4208:
4204:
4200:
4196:
4173:
4169:
4165:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4154:
4153:
4152:
4151:
4150:
4149:
4148:
4147:
4146:
4145:
4144:
4143:
4124:
4120:
4116:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4106:
4102:
4098:
4097:
4096:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4076:
4075:
4074:
4070:
4066:
4061:
4057:
4055:
4051:
4047:
4043:
4042:
4041:
4037:
4033:
4028:
4027:
4026:
4022:
4018:
4014:
4010:
4005:
4004:
4003:
3999:
3995:
3990:
3989:
3988:
3987:
3983:
3979:
3975:
3948:
3944:
3940:
3935:
3934:
3933:
3932:
3931:
3930:
3929:
3928:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3893:
3889:
3885:
3880:
3878:
3874:
3870:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3860:
3856:
3851:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3841:
3837:
3832:
3831:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3811:
3807:
3803:
3802:
3801:
3797:
3793:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3783:
3779:
3775:
3771:
3767:
3766:
3765:
3761:
3757:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3730:
3726:
3717:
3713:
3709:
3705:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3698:
3695:
3692:
3687:
3685:
3684:third opinion
3677:
3671:
3667:
3663:
3659:
3655:
3651:
3650:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3628:
3627:
3616:
3612:
3608:
3601:
3597:
3593:
3589:
3585:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3578:
3577:
3576:
3575:
3574:
3573:
3572:
3563:
3559:
3555:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3547:
3546:
3545:
3544:
3543:
3536:
3532:
3528:
3524:
3520:
3516:
3515:
3514:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3506:
3502:
3498:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3485:
3481:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3465:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3454:
3450:
3446:
3441:
3440:
3435:
3431:
3427:
3423:
3419:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3411:
3408:
3404:
3399:
3395:
3391:
3386:
3383:
3379:
3375:
3371:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3355:
3351:
3347:
3343:
3341:
3337:
3333:
3329:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3301:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3285:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3258:
3254:
3250:
3246:
3236:
3234:
3231:
3230:"Phoenicians"
3227:
3224:
3221:
3219:
3217:
3211:
3208:
3204:
3201:
3198:
3194:
3191:
3188:
3184:
3181:
3178:
3174:
3171:
3168:
3164:
3161:
3160:
3158:
3155:
3150:
3144:
3140:
3136:
3133:
3131:
3130:Artaxerxes II
3127:
3124:
3123:
3119:
3115:
3110:
3108:
3104:
3101:
3099:
3095:
3091:
3087:
3086:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3054:
3046:THIRD OPINION
3045:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3028:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3021:
3017:
3010:
3006:
3002:
2998:
2995:
2994:
2993:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2968:
2964:
2960:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2951:
2946:
2945:
2941:
2937:
2934:
2917:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2872:
2870:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2835:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2824:
2820:
2810:
2800:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2716:
2712:
2708:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2695:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2639:
2635:
2631:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2577:
2573:
2569:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2555:
2551:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2517:
2513:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2481:Artaxerxes II
2478:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2467:
2463:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2426:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2394:
2389:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2352:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2303:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2181:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2163:
2159:
2158:User:Tourskin
2155:
2149:
2142:
2141:
2131:
2129:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2112:
2110:
2107:
2105:
2103:
2097:
2094:
2091:
2088:
2085:
2082:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2062:
2060:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2047:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2002:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1892:replaces the
1891:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1805:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1669:
1664:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:rebuke this;
1443:
1442:Assyriologist
1439:
1436:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1403:
1402:
1396:
1392:
1390:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:Thomas Becket
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1114:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
976:
972:
968:
964:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
918:
914:
910:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
860:
856:
852:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
784:
781:
780:
779:
777:
769:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
740:
736:
732:
727:
726:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
702:
701:
699:
695:
692:
687:
686:
683:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:
660:
659:
652:
648:
647:
645:
640:
636:
635:
632:
626:
625:
623:
622:
618:
612:
609:
605:
604:
603:
602:
599:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
582:
579:far. Cheers,
572:
568:
563:
560:
557:
554:
550:
547:
544:
543:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
524:
523:
522:
509:
506:
505:
503:
500:
490:
488:
476:
474:
468:
467:
465:
464:
459:
449:
446:
445:
443:
439:
429:
426:
425:
423:
421:
416:
406:
396:
392:
391:
389:
385:
375:
373:
361:
359:
347:
343:
342:
340:
339:
334:
330:
320:
318:
306:
302:
301:
299:
295:
294:
291:for criteria)
290:
286:
284:
280:
279:
275:
269:
265:
262:
259:
255:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
207:Devil May Cry
202:
201:
200:
197:
193:
192:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
169:
168:
167:
164:
160:
159:
156:
152:
149:
146:
142:
136:
135:
134:
131:
127:
126:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
103:
102:
101:
100:
97:
90:Good article?
89:
85:
82:
78:
77:
76:
75:
72:
64:
62:
61:
58:
49:
45:
40:
39:
38:
37:
34:
26:
19:
5774:
5771:
5752:
5747:
5746:
5721:
5717:
5665:
5624:
5583:
5560:
5538:
5512:
5509:da-a-ya-u-iš
5508:
5504:
5500:
5496:
5492:
5488:
5484:
5480:
5476:
5448:
5430:
5408:
5387:
5323:
5275:
5258:
5254:
5250:
5229:
5224:
5194:
5150:
5144:
5138:
5134:
5052:
5044:
4983:
4942:
4905:
4904:Conditional
4854:
4850:
4842:
4838:
4817:
4801:
4784:
4769:
4763:
4757:
4751:
4728:
4711:
4682:
4662:
4660:
4652:
4649:
4638:
4547:
4541:
4535:
4529:
4523:
4356:
4352:
4348:
4347:" and what '
4344:
4340:
4336:
4314:
4312:
4298:
4291:
4284:
4277:
4228:
4210:
4192:
3973:
3971:
3849:
3721:
3718:Christianity
3688:
3681:
3635:
3595:
3242:
3225:
3213:
3202:
3192:
3182:
3172:
3162:
3142:
3121:
3106:
3097:
3093:
3062:
3058:
3050:
3049:
3013:
2996:
2991:
2949:
2947:
2931:
2930:
2885:
2868:
2843:
2814:
2681:
2650:
2546:
2475:
2459:
2447:
2429:
2391:
2388:WP:OWNERSHIP
2384:
2363:is this page
2355:edit summary
2350:
2331:
2329:
2310:
2299:
2282:
2265:
2231:
2229:
2212:
2209:Syria (name)
2204:
2184:
2179:
2153:
2147:
2139:
2132:
2126:
2122:
2116:
2099:
2092:
2086:
2080:
2072:
2066:
2043:
2005:
2000:
1983:
1933:
1917:
1916:is to Athura
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1886:
1855:
1823:
1715:
1696:
1693:
1667:
1665:
1650:
1559:
1542:
1528:
1451:H.W.F. Saggs
1445:
1437:
1431:
1427:
1399:
1394:
1388:
1247:
1130:
1115:
1100:
1092:
1074:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1025:
1002:
962:
957:
936:
869:
789:
786:nationalism.
775:
773:
590:
577:
520:
507:
501:
484:
470:
461:
447:
441:
427:
418:
404:
394:
387:
369:
355:
346:(references)
345:
336:
332:
314:
304:
297:
281:
260:
239:
213:
180:
147:
114:
93:
68:
53:
44:EliasAlucard
30:
5588:Yannismarou
5495:article on
5413:Doug Weller
5294:Doug Weller
5181:Doug Weller
5122:Doug Weller
5108:Doug Weller
4992:Doug Weller
4729:Mesopotamia
4375:Old Persian
4013:coatracking
3742:Doug Weller
3554:Doug Weller
3497:Doug Weller
3445:Doug Weller
2977:Doug Weller
2936:Doug Weller
2819:Doug Weller
2707:Doug Weller
2616:Doug Weller
2568:Doug Weller
2512:Doug Weller
2434:Doug Weller
2135:An example;
1953:Doug Weller
1908:is to Assyr
1842:Doug Weller
1679:Doug Weller
1632:Doug Weller
1582:Doug Weller
1471:Doug Weller
1337:Doug Weller
1288:Doug Weller
1174:Doug Weller
1104:Doug Weller
989:Doug Weller
872:Mesopotamia
5666:discussion
5457:PMAnderson
5374:PMAnderson
5348:PMAnderson
5267:PMAnderson
5242:PMAnderson
5097:PMAnderson
5022:Discussion
4863:PMAnderson
4716:Assuristan
4009:soapboxing
3658:Assuristan
3090:Ahuramazda
2428:disagrees
2353:with your
731:renominate
521:Comments:
338:verifiable
141:Ryu vs Ken
108:Ryu vs Ken
5522:Eber-Nari
4789:Tubesship
4343:" and a "
3691:Athaenara
3600:Herodotus
3407:Athaenara
3390:Dbachmann
3360:Dbachmann
3318:Dbachmann
3290:Dbachmann
3149:page 206.
3139:Herodotus
3069:) of the
2848:page 206.
2178:if there
1900:is to Ass
1036:Asuristan
1032:collapsed
508:Pass/Fail
405:(focused)
276:GA Review
5758:Amizzoni
5728:Chaldean
5693:Amizzoni
5670:Tourskin
5648:Chaldean
5610:Chaldean
5565:Chaldean
5546:Amizzoni
5435:Chaldean
5392:Chaldean
5328:Chaldean
5280:Chaldean
5199:Chaldean
5159:Chaldean
5079:Tourskin
5063:Chaldean
5045:province
5008:Tourskin
4965:Chaldean
4947:Tourskin
4926:Amizzoni
4890:Chaldean
4841:move to
4826:Chaldean
4805:Tourskin
4770:. Since
4733:Chaldean
4720:Adiabene
4622:Tourskin
4600:Chaldean
4582:Tourskin
4566:Chaldean
4550:AndrewRT
4498:Tourskin
4466:Tourskin
4433:Chaldean
4419:Folantin
4405:Tourskin
4383:Chaldean
4361:AndrewRT
4355:" and "
4319:Chaldean
4261:Tourskin
4242:Folantin
4238:Xenephon
4199:Chaldean
4115:Chaldean
4101:Folantin
4087:Chaldean
4065:Folantin
4046:Folantin
4032:Chaldean
4017:Folantin
3994:Chaldean
3978:Folantin
3884:Chaldean
3855:Folantin
3836:Chaldean
3821:Folantin
3806:Chaldean
3792:AnonMoos
3778:Chaldean
3774:Adiabene
3756:Folantin
3725:AnonMoos
3704:Chaldean
3662:Chaldean
3654:Adiabene
3640:AndrewRT
3607:Chaldean
3527:Chaldean
3476:Chaldean
3426:Chaldean
3374:Tourskin
3346:Folantin
3332:Tourskin
3304:Tourskin
3269:Chaldean
3079:Darius I
3016:Folantin
2856:Chaldean
2791:Tourskin
2729:Chaldean
2668:Chaldean
2630:Chaldean
2590:Chaldean
2550:Tourskin
2526:Chaldean
2485:Chaldean
2456:Darius I
2406:Chaldean
2367:Chaldean
2317:Chaldean
2307:Darius I
2270:Chaldean
2262:Darius I
2185:research
2165:Chaldean
2050:Chaldean
2029:Tourskin
1986:Tourskin
1967:Chaldean
1936:Tourskin
1922:Tourskin
1912:and Sura
1864:Chaldean
1828:Folantin
1810:Chaldean
1794:Folantin
1779:Tourskin
1759:Tourskin
1739:Tourskin
1721:Folantin
1701:Chaldean
1654:Tourskin
1605:Tourskin
1564:Chaldean
1546:Tourskin
1531:Tourskin
1506:Tourskin
1455:Chaldean
1408:Chaldean
1368:Tourskin
1311:Tourskin
1253:Chaldean
1229:Tourskin
1201:Tourskin
1153:Tourskin
1137:Tourskin
1119:Tourskin
1076:Tourskin
1065:Assyria.
1040:properly
1007:Folantin
967:Folantin
909:Blueboar
895:Chaldean
851:Tourskin
810:Tourskin
754:Tourskin
716:Tourskin
665:Tourskin
595:Tourskin
264:contribs
242:Tourskin
217:contribs
196:Tourskin
184:contribs
174:Mega Man
163:Tourskin
151:contribs
130:Tourskin
118:contribs
96:Tourskin
81:Tourskin
33:Tourskin
5255:Assyria
5232:of the
5225:Assyria
5139:thought
4986:as per
4906:Support
4843:Assyria
4839:Support
4818:Support
4802:Support
4785:Support
4724:Osroene
4712:Persian
4353:Assyria
4345:satrapy
3770:Osroene
3519:Babylon
3107:Assyria
3094:Assyria
2852:the map
2460:Assyria
2311:Assyria
1280:WP:NAME
654:halves.
651:WP:LEAD
534:WP:LEAD
502:Overall
305:(prose)
57:TalBurt
5230:millet
5137:- You
4984:Oppose
4746:Survey
4671:JPG-GR
4357:Athura
4341:satrap
4315:please
3422:WP:CON
3392:moved
3376:moved
3362:moved
3348:moved
3334:moved
3320:moved
3306:moved
3292:moved
3118:Xerxes
3067:Satrap
3063:Athura
2472:Xerxes
2425:WP:CON
2402:WP:CON
2390:says:
2236:Athura
2232:Athura
2046:WP:CON
1860:Satrap
1697:Athura
776:broken
770:Scope?
628:below)
624:Done.
463:images
442:stable
440:It is
422:policy
386:It is
331:It is
296:It is
285:review
5753:might
5513:dahyu
5505:dahyu
5501:dahyu
5497:dahyu
5485:dahyu
5481:dahyu
5259:Syria
5251:Syria
5049:WP:TO
4694:, or
4060:WP:OR
3216:Cyrus
3128:King
2886:syria
2205:Syria
2102:Cyrus
1652:this.
553:ORish
287:(see
27:Start
16:<
5762:talk
5732:talk
5697:talk
5674:talk
5652:talk
5632:(𒁳)
5614:talk
5592:talk
5569:talk
5550:talk
5539:JNES
5439:talk
5417:talk
5396:talk
5386:The
5332:talk
5324:they
5298:talk
5284:talk
5253:for
5203:talk
5195:then
5185:talk
5163:talk
5126:talk
5112:talk
5083:talk
5067:talk
5047:. A
5012:talk
4996:talk
4969:talk
4951:talk
4930:talk
4894:talk
4830:talk
4809:talk
4793:talk
4767:~~~~
4737:talk
4675:talk
4663:move
4626:talk
4604:talk
4586:talk
4570:talk
4554:Talk
4536:To:
4502:talk
4470:talk
4437:talk
4423:talk
4409:talk
4387:talk
4365:Talk
4323:talk
4265:talk
4246:talk
4218:talk
4203:talk
4168:talk
4119:talk
4105:talk
4091:talk
4069:talk
4050:talk
4036:talk
4021:talk
4011:and
3998:talk
3982:talk
3943:talk
3888:talk
3873:talk
3859:talk
3840:talk
3825:talk
3810:talk
3796:talk
3782:talk
3772:and
3760:talk
3746:talk
3729:talk
3708:talk
3686:.
3666:talk
3644:Talk
3611:talk
3598:" -
3558:talk
3531:talk
3501:talk
3480:talk
3449:talk
3430:talk
3273:talk
3036:talk
3020:talk
3005:talk
2981:talk
2963:talk
2940:talk
2894:talk
2860:talk
2823:talk
2795:talk
2733:talk
2711:talk
2690:(𒁳)
2682:more
2672:talk
2657:(𒁳)
2634:talk
2620:talk
2594:talk
2572:talk
2554:talk
2530:talk
2516:talk
2489:talk
2438:talk
2410:talk
2371:talk
2340:(𒁳)
2332:care
2321:talk
2300:The
2289:(𒁳)
2274:talk
2251:(𒁳)
2221:(𒁳)
2213:look
2193:(𒁳)
2169:talk
2054:talk
2033:talk
2014:(𒁳)
2001:part
1990:talk
1971:talk
1957:talk
1940:talk
1926:talk
1868:talk
1846:talk
1832:talk
1814:talk
1798:talk
1783:talk
1763:talk
1743:talk
1725:talk
1705:talk
1683:talk
1658:talk
1636:talk
1609:talk
1586:talk
1568:talk
1550:talk
1535:talk
1510:talk
1475:talk
1459:talk
1432:bold
1412:talk
1395:then
1372:talk
1341:talk
1315:talk
1292:talk
1257:talk
1233:talk
1205:talk
1178:talk
1157:talk
1141:talk
1123:talk
1108:talk
1080:talk
1052:(𒁳)
1044:dude
1028:that
1011:talk
993:talk
971:talk
956:The
945:talk
913:talk
899:talk
884:(𒁳)
855:talk
828:(𒁳)
814:talk
796:(𒁳)
758:talk
720:talk
669:talk
335:and
289:here
258:talk
211:talk
178:talk
145:talk
112:talk
48:Talk
5641:As
5628:dab
5544:).
5528:or
5368:.)
4920:or
4665:to
4305:to
3776:.
3396:to
3380:to
3366:to
3352:to
3338:to
3324:to
3310:to
3296:to
3212:...
3205:- "
3195:- "
3185:- "
3175:- "
3165:- "
3109:".
2686:dab
2653:dab
2462:".
2351:Kid
2336:dab
2313:".
2285:dab
2247:dab
2217:dab
2189:dab
2180:was
2098:...
2010:dab
2006:one
1406:].
1093:was
1048:dab
880:dab
824:dab
792:dab
317:MoS
5764:)
5734:)
5726:]
5699:)
5676:)
5654:)
5616:)
5594:)
5571:)
5552:)
5441:)
5419:)
5398:)
5334:)
5300:)
5286:)
5236:.
5205:)
5187:)
5165:)
5157:.
5128:)
5114:)
5085:)
5069:)
5057:]
5039:,
5035:,
5031:.
5014:)
4998:)
4971:)
4963:.
4953:)
4932:)
4916:,
4896:)
4884:,
4880:,
4857:.
4849:.
4832:)
4811:)
4795:)
4787:--
4758:or
4739:)
4722:,
4718:,
4706:,
4702:,
4690:,
4686:→
4677:)
4669:.
4628:)
4606:)
4588:)
4572:)
4556:)
4504:)
4472:)
4439:)
4425:)
4411:)
4389:)
4367:)
4349:is
4337:is
4325:)
4267:)
4248:)
4220:)
4205:)
4170:)
4121:)
4107:)
4093:)
4071:)
4063:--
4052:)
4038:)
4023:)
4000:)
3984:)
3945:)
3890:)
3875:)
3861:)
3853:--
3842:)
3827:)
3819:--
3812:)
3798:)
3784:)
3762:)
3748:)
3731:)
3710:)
3694:✉
3668:)
3656:,
3646:)
3613:)
3605:)
3560:)
3533:)
3503:)
3482:)
3470:,
3466:,
3451:)
3432:)
3410:✉
3275:)
3267:.
3263:,
3259:,
3251:,
3228:-
3125:].
3100:"
3085:;
3038:)
3022:)
3007:)
2983:)
2965:)
2942:)
2896:)
2862:)
2825:)
2797:)
2735:)
2713:)
2674:)
2636:)
2622:)
2596:)
2574:)
2556:)
2532:)
2518:)
2491:)
2440:)
2412:)
2373:)
2323:)
2276:)
2171:)
2150:.
2130:]
2056:)
2035:)
1992:)
1973:)
1959:)
1942:)
1928:)
1920:.
1918:ya
1914:ya
1910:ia
1902:ur
1898:ur
1890:th
1870:)
1848:)
1834:)
1816:)
1800:)
1792:--
1785:)
1765:)
1745:)
1727:)
1719:--
1707:)
1685:)
1660:)
1638:)
1611:)
1588:)
1570:)
1552:)
1537:)
1512:)
1477:)
1461:)
1453:.
1449:-
1414:)
1374:)
1343:)
1317:)
1294:)
1259:)
1235:)
1207:)
1180:)
1172:--
1159:)
1143:)
1125:)
1110:)
1082:)
1013:)
995:)
973:)
947:)
915:)
901:)
857:)
816:)
760:)
739:CP
722:)
705:CP
691:CP
671:)
608:CP
581:CP
570:Y"
510::
504::
491::
483:b
477::
469:a
450::
444:.
430::
424:.
407::
403:b
397::
393:a
390:.
376::
372:OR
368:c
362::
354:b
348::
344:a
341:.
321::
313:b
307::
303:a
300:.
283:GA
266:)
219:)
186:)
153:)
120:)
5760:(
5730:(
5695:(
5672:(
5650:(
5612:(
5590:(
5567:(
5548:(
5532:.
5437:(
5429:"
5415:(
5394:(
5330:(
5296:(
5282:(
5201:(
5183:(
5161:(
5124:(
5110:(
5081:(
5065:(
5010:(
4994:(
4967:(
4949:(
4928:(
4892:(
4828:(
4807:(
4791:(
4778:.
4735:(
4673:(
4624:(
4602:(
4584:(
4568:(
4552:(
4544:"
4540:"
4532:"
4528:"
4500:(
4468:(
4435:(
4421:(
4407:(
4385:(
4363:(
4321:(
4263:(
4244:(
4216:(
4201:(
4166:(
4117:(
4103:(
4089:(
4067:(
4048:(
4034:(
4019:(
3996:(
3980:(
3941:(
3886:(
3871:(
3857:(
3838:(
3823:(
3808:(
3794:(
3780:(
3758:(
3744:(
3727:(
3706:(
3664:(
3642:(
3609:(
3602:(
3556:(
3529:(
3499:(
3478:(
3447:(
3428:(
3271:(
3237:]
3222:]
3156:]
3145:(
3134:]
3111:]
3102:]
3034:(
3018:(
3003:(
2979:(
2961:(
2938:(
2892:(
2858:(
2821:(
2793:(
2731:(
2709:(
2670:(
2632:(
2618:(
2592:(
2570:(
2552:(
2528:(
2514:(
2487:(
2436:(
2408:(
2369:(
2319:(
2272:(
2167:(
2143:]
2113:]
2108:]
2077:]
2052:(
2031:(
1988:(
1969:(
1955:(
1938:(
1924:(
1906:a
1894:s
1866:(
1844:(
1830:(
1812:(
1796:(
1781:(
1761:(
1741:(
1723:(
1703:(
1681:(
1656:(
1634:(
1607:(
1584:(
1566:(
1548:(
1533:(
1508:(
1473:(
1457:(
1410:(
1370:(
1339:(
1313:(
1290:(
1255:(
1231:(
1203:(
1176:(
1155:(
1139:(
1121:(
1106:(
1078:(
1009:(
991:(
969:(
911:(
897:(
853:(
812:(
756:(
718:(
667:(
641:.
489:)
475:)
374:)
370:(
360:)
319:)
315:(
261:·
256:(
214:·
209:(
181:·
176:(
148:·
143:(
115:·
110:(
46:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.