Talk:Nimrud

Untitled

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

Occult nonsense. There is NO proof of your claim that any "king" Nimrud or Nimrod ever existed. Those who study (in real sense of this meaning) Sumerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic, Assyrian language, history and archeology never found anything which would prove the existence of this Biblical (religious) character called Nimrod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.111.109 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of sacking

the article mentions 612 like the fall of Niniveh but other sources [1] [2]

say 614 whereas another [3] says 614-612 BC.

are there any more sources?

It is also referred to as "Kalhu" when the Assyrian king Shalmaneser made it the new capital in the Neo-Assyrian period. (Originally accidentally posted this on the article, sorry about that) Twisby 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

to answer myself: this german site expains that it was taken and burned in 614 but the final destruction was in 612 Agathoclea 23:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nimrud

Why is it that you completely ignore the story of Nimrud (King of Sumeria) and his two sons? [4]

Nicholaus Lichtman (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there was no Sumerian king Nimrud. Nimrod was a later legend and the source of the modern name of the site. It has it's own article, with a link at the top of this article. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose re-naming this page "Kalhu"

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

POV edit

I checked the point of view link. I do agree that this is a ligitimate consideration but I attempted to rely the same point of view as the source I cited which I agreed with. Part of the edit was historical fact. The adjitive stubornly was provided by the source as well as other aspects.

The POV link seemed to welcome POV's from published academics like Time Life. Presumably because they already go through peer review. If this is not acceptible please let me know so I won't do it again.

The link and convert were welcome changes and I'll attempt to do that myself on future edits.

Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I realized that you were taking this from someplace. The original author "went on" in a bit more public-interest detail than would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Describing the manufacturer of the raft which is not really germane to Nimrud. In fact, the story once the colossi leave Nimrud could be legitimately deleted by some future editor. Nor really germane. "They were taken to England" or "The British Museum" would be enough.

The main point in any article is not getting diverted from the article topic by something that seems interesting. Facts about the archaeologist, facts about the raft builder, facts about England, none are really that crucial to this article and can best be done (if important) by a link which the reader can use if really interested in diversion.

As far as "stubbornly" goes - I strongly suggest omitting "interesting" adjectives which are not crucial to the narrative ("badly wounded" might be!). These are thrown in sometimes careless fashion by people who are interested in writing. If an article in Wikipedia becomes eligible for a Pulitzer, we know we have failed with that article! We are trying to be informative, not interesting! The reader must be allowed to draw his own conclusion. We would never (I hope) describe Heinrich Schliemann as "stubborn." Presumably our gentle reader would be able to deduce this from the facts that we have supplied. So we leave pov terms (conclusions) up to the reader. We don't connect the dots for him/her. That is the major difference between our style of writing and "theirs." BTW this is what triggers the most heated discussions on other articles - use of adjectives. Best to avoid IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep your sugestions in mind. I had a few additional comments that I was thinking about adding to this page and others. I'll consider them more carefully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherystaylor (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

proposed additions

I propose the following be added to this article or to the ones about Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III. There may be some redundancy and I'm not sure of the best way to put it in. If anyone else puts it in that would be fine. If not I'll take a second look to weed out point of view. The point of view from the quotes is from Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III not me or the source which is Time Life Lost Civilizations series: "Mesopotamia: The Mighty Kings." BTW I looked for the source on the article that I already posted it doesn't show up unless you go into the edit section. readers that don't attempt to edit won't see it this doesn't happen on other sites. Anyone know why?

The Palaces of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III include many stautues carvings etc. There were at least 12 colossal lions or bulls weighing 10-30 tons.

King Arshurnasirpal II who reigned from 883-859 BCE built a new capital at Nimrud. Thousands of men worked to build a 5 mile long wall surrounding the city and a grand palace. There were many inscriptions carved into limestone including one that said "The palace of ceder, cypress, juniper, boxwood, mulberry, pistachio wood, and tamerisk, for my royal dwelling and for my lordly pleasure for all time, I founded therein. Beasts of the mountains and of the seas, of white limestone and alabaster I fashioned and set them up on its gates." The inscriptions also descibed plunder stored at the palace. "Silver, gold, lead, copper and iron, the spoil of my hand from the lands in which I had brought under my sway, in great quantities I took and placed therein." The inscriptions also described great feasts he had to celibrate his conquests. However his victims were horrified by his conquests. The text also said "Many of the captives I have taken and burned in a fire. Many I took alive from some I cut off their hands to the wrists, from others I cut off their noses, ears and fingers; I put out the eyes of many of the soldiers. I burned their young men women and children to death." About a conquest in another vanquished city he wrote "I flayed the nobles as many as many as rebeled and spread their skins out on the piles." These shock tactics brought sucess in 877 BCE after a march to the Mediterranean he anounced "I cleaned my weapons in the deep sea and performed sheep-offerings to the gods."

His son Shalmaneser III picked up where he left off. He spent 31 of his 35 year reign waging war. After a battle near the river Orentes with the Syrians he boasted "I slew 14,000 of their warriors with the sword. I rained destruction on them. The plain was to small for their bodies to fall; the wide countryside was used to bury them. With their corpses I spanned the Orontes as with a bridge." At Nimrud he built a palace that far surpassed his fathers, it was twice the size and it covered an area of about 12 acres and included more than 200 rooms.

In 828 his own son rebeled against him and was joined by 27 Asstrian cities includin Ninevah and Assur. This conflict lasted until 821 BCE 3 years after Shalmaneser's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherystaylor (talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are over my head. I did add a section for footnotes that was missing so references will now show up.

I assume that the kings claim about killing lots of people will be disputed by battle experts. This sounds (to say the least  :) pov! You seem to have avoided plagiarism. That would be the only problem about adding useful information.

I cited a source. the quotes are translations from wall carvings made thousands of years ago. History is writen by the victor but I'm not sure repeating it in every article is the best way to get that point across. Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There may be clever ways to avoid redundancy and having to maintain two articles with the same information. Can material be "forked" into a separate article and be maintained there? They can then be referenced from both articles. Even to having a section which says "see main article: Battles of King A" or whatever and summarizes in one sentence what is there. Student7 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above was too complicated. Better to update one article with the material and link to that subsection (done with a pound-sign subsection after the article name) from the other article. Good luck!Student7 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I intended to weed out most redundency unless some of it is in different sections I'm thinking list of statues in archeology, 1 subsection of history for each king. If there are no objections I'll do that tomorrow. I've looked at the changes you made to learn to repeat them myself. is there a page that shows other conversios for weights etc.? Thanks

See Template:Convert.Student7 (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I added the sections as I said I would. I attempted to adress historical acuracy claims by noting that the quotes are the way they described themselves and it can't be confirmed. most people familar with history know this but many are not familar with history. I attempted to minimize POV. couldn't eliminate it unless I didn't do anything. Avoided plagerism by citing source. Quotes are exactly as writen in book but other portions have been reworded. page numbers include most if not all of what I relayed but there is more worth reading ofcourse. After it is settled I'll remove discusion from this page to avoid clutter if there is no objection. Do they have a system for that? good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Please don't remove discussion. This will serve to explain to a future editor what you were trying to accomplish. The discussion is also reassuring to future editors who will realize that we talk things over here. The only people that will read the actual details would be new editors who will realize that they can do the same on articles in which they are interested. These discussions will be archived by someone later if they get too long. You can do it yourself in six months though there is no reason not to leave them "forever." The only discussion I have removed is (blush) my owns rants against another editor. So removal of violations of Wikipedia policy, or nonsense by vandals or way off-topic stuff really gets removed. BTW, this is almost a "model" discussion of how things "should" be done in Wikipedia. It would be a shame to erase it!

Thanks for your contribution. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I question the validity of this statement, given with no citation as a basis lack of evidence: The ruins have been heavily damaged by the USA army during the occupation of Iraq started in 2003.'Italic text snikle 12:40 26 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snikle (talk • contribs) 09:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Shalmaneser III and Syrians

I just removed a fact tag for the reference to Syrians. the source was already there. I'll double check it the next time I go to the library but I'm sure it was from that book. Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own article on Syria does not indicate that other names were invariably used instead of "Syria." I find many references on the web to "ancient" Syria. Student7 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't uncommon for new regimes to adopt the same name of ancient civilizations perhaps with different borders. I'm sure it isn't the same as modern Syria. I'll check anyway. :) Zacherystaylor (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The source I cited does refer to Syrians on page 102 however it is not where the discription of the battle is that is on page 101 so I concur thanks for correcting the mistake. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Relation to Nineveh Entry

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

Alt name: Nimrod

It seems some sources refer to this place as Nimrod. Should we add it to the lead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No. These sources are confusing the man for a city. This does not warrant updating the article in such a way. There is an article for Nimrod which talks about the man. Gorba (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Lamassu

Should it be Lamassu or lamassu? The article has both. Kdammers (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"lamassu" Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotes in references

Materialscientist, please explain your point of view here. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:LONGQUOTE. Quotes should not dominate the article text. If they provide useful background then incorporate them into the article (not into references). Copyright is not the issue here, so you don't even have to use quote marks, just attribute the source(s). Materialscientist (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

HI Materialscientist, LONGQUOTE is not policy, so choosing to follow it still requires consensus. But even if we do choose to follow its advice, it says clearly "Longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a WP:FOOTNOTE to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability." These long footnotes have been included precisely for that reason - specifically to help readers verify and understand the complex connection between Nimrud and Calah. Can you suggest a better way of helping readers understand this - maybe by summarising the key parts of the quotes? I have considered this but find it difficult given the complex and convoluted explanations being described by these Assyriologists. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we don't have clear policies/guidelines on the quote length, but we expect articles to be "encyclopedic" (whatever this means). The current article has about half of its prose text in references, which is unencyclopedic by any measure. As a quick hack, I would move quotes into a genuine "notes" section (most "notes" in the current version are actually references). Further, ref. [6] (Ainsworth) is reused twice. Is its lengthy quote required in all three occasions? Materialscientist (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A quote of one to two sentences can be helpful for people trying to find content that goes "missing" if a link dies or a resource otherwise becomes unavailable, and they're available as |quote= in the {{cite}} tag. Notes can be used for whole paragraph quotes, but it could be better to just trim them to one to two sentences. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both for the good suggestions. I had build on Aronzak's work on the notes to try to ensure there is a good flow. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nimrud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722025928/http://www.centroscavitorino.it/en/progetti/iraq/nimrud.html to http://www.centroscavitorino.it/en/progetti/iraq/nimrud.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040612140726/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IS/SANDERS/PHOTOS/MESO/NIMRUD/nimrud1_1.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/IS/SANDERS/PHOTOS/MESO/NIMRUD/nimrud1_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012010840/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/150788 to http://ancientsites.com/aw/Post/150788

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)