Talk:Hatra

Untitled

read the UNISCO page http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=277 also http://www.atlastours.net/iraq/hatra.html

---

Firstly, the UNESCO site mentions Hatra as being "under the influence of the Parthian Empire" as well as being the "capital of the first Arab Kingdom" (also worth mentioning it does not name the kingdom). MARVEL, your edits removed any mention of "Parthian" and replaced it solely with "Arabian".

Secondly, the AtlasTours site is a .net site that belongs to a travel and tourist agency. It is not a reliable source and completely ignores history by assuming it's an "Arab city" because it's in an Arab country. To put it crudely, they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Basically, mentioning the city's Arab history is fine, but erasing any mention of it being non-Arab is not. Try to do more adding instead of subtracting. --334 01:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

why is that

When it comes to the Arabian city were only arab traces exist every one claim it, the city is fully arab and it does not have non-arab history it is just guessing!!, no need to mention other empires here this page should be about hatra not about other empires or kingdoms so this city is arabian and we have the right to mention exclusively the arab history of it this is a fact:hatra existed after the collapse of the Assyrian empire and mentioning other empires and nations is completely useless, some nations even "..." claimed the semite Elamite civilization and called it and called it "..." empire (fill in the empty).

---

The problem is that you make it seem that the only traces that exist are Arab traces by removing sources that say otherwise. As for the "we have the right to mention exclusively the arab history" comment, no you don't. The city has a non-Arab history as well which is certainly worth mentioning. Also, the sources you provided seem to contradict your beliefs about the city, with lexicorient opening with "Ruined city of the Parthian Empire" and atlastours (which I argued against previously) mentioning "it seems things started with a smallish Assyrian settlement." It seems to me that you pick and choose from your sources what suits your interests best and ignore everything else. --334 13:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Man you are assyrian and intrested in assyrian related articles i can understand that but there is many assyrian articles that are small and need to be expanded why have you just choosen to edit this article when it was modified to suite arabic view and this is a thing that i cant understand, lets say an article about assyria do you accept we add the history of pre-assyrian inhabitans and make assyrians a non-original people in mesopotamia?, this city is arab city and if you have and material evidence of its assyrian history i will be glad to hear from you, anyway im also interested in assyria related articles and we can work together to improve articles concerning assyria and mesopotamian history, Quoting:

7th century BCE: With the collapse of the Assyrian Empire, Arab tribes migrate into the northern region of Mesopotamia, settling in the area of future Hathra.

Bye

Active Mind 18:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatra was probably founded in the 3rd or 2nd century BC, under the Seleucid kingdom. It rose to prominence as the capital of Araba, a small semiautonomous state under Parthian influence. Because of its strategic position along caravan trade routes, the town prospered and became an important religious centre. In the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, Hatra was ruled by a dynasty of Arabian princes whose written language was Aramaic, and it became known as Beit 'Elaha' (“House of God”), a reference to the city's numerous temples

This is what Britannica says and therefore it is legitimate to put it in the article. If you revert sourced material it is considered vandalism. if you have other sources that says otherwise you can add that in addition to what is already here but you can not delete material taken from one of the most legitimate encyclopedia in the world Gol 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Gol you have other article to show the greatness of the Persian empire, you have told me that no problem with adding Arabian Gulf to the "Persian Gulf" article but some iranian wikipedians do not agree with you and they try to remove the arabic name even from Tunbs article, anyhow i will just put the like to put Britannica-Persian (Arabian) Gulf.

MARVEL 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the palace to show anybody’s "greatness". It is an encyclopedia and it needs to mention facts. As for the Persian Gulf and Tunb issue, you need to discuss it in its related page and not here.Gol 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Then lets build the article together and agree in a way that satisfy each side, mainly im depending in arab sources i have arab history books and articles especially articles of bent-alrafeain's, here is google translation page (which can translate from Arabic into English):[1] bent al-rafedain's article just place it in google translation tool and it will be translated, the translation is not perfict for example the word Tadmor in Arabic=destroy, Hatra=Urban... i have many other articles and if we agree in the principle we will then achieve a great accomplishment. Copy (2) of MARVEL 01:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Now apparently you want to find common ground (what you should've been doing all along), yet you make that impossible when you want to remove any mention of the city's non-Arab history (and the sources that back them up): the city is fully arab and it does not have non-arab history it is just guessing!!, no need to mention other empires here this page should be about hatra not about other empires or kingdoms so this city is arabian and we have the right to mention exclusively the arab history of it this is a fact. --334 02:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not need a common ground in Hatra article, the issue is incontrovertible, this article was completely forgotten like it never existed untill i started editing it, i have made a good article in the Arabic version of Wikipedia on Hatra and many were pleased with it, but it seems here many mebers are intrested in vandalizing arab history. Still Standing 09:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

First of all, stop editing under sock puppets and changing your user name every day. Secondly, if Copy (2) of MARVEL is you, then you're contradicting yourself by saying Then lets build the article together and agree in a way that satisfy each side and also saying I do not need a common ground in Hatra article, the issue is incontrovertible. Thirdly, stop removing references. Lookey here and read the first line: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Since sources add quality to an article (just look at any featured one), you're vandalizing pages. When you're ready to calm down and listen to a non-Arab point-of-view, we'll all be here. --334 13:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the article?

Why there is no "Hatra" article, only a proposition to start it, while in the "history" tab there is a long history of it? --CopperKettle 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I think it's a glitch. A few days ago, Aramaic language was the same but now it's back up. Given time, I'm sure the article will reappear. --334 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of list of gods

Mainly to the anonymous user(s) who keeps reverting the list of gods so that the Arabian gods come first and claims "alphabetical order":

What exactly are you basing the alphabetical order off of; the names of the gods or the cultures they're from?

Either way,

• Allat
• Shamiyyah
• Shamash
• Nergal
• Hermes
• Atargatis
• (A-S-S-N-H-A)

or

• Arabian
• Sumerian
• Akkadian
• Greek
• Syro-Aramaean
• Mesopotamian
• (A-S-A-G-S-M)

are not alphabetical. Also, the rearranging of Shamash leaves the end looking like "...and (the Mesopotamian sun god)", which makes absolutely no sense. Please stop senselessly reverting simply because "Arabian" doesn't come first. --334 18:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hatra. 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://archive.is/20150310002213/http://www.macon.com/2015/03/07/3624731/is-destroying-another-ancient.html to http://www.macon.com/2015/03/07/3624731/is-destroying-another-ancient.html

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) 06:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)