Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East

Add topic
Active discussions
Main pageCurationRecognized contentParticipantsTalk page
WikiProject Ancient Near East (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Question about fontsEdit

I've been having trouble reading all of the fonts in various articles about the ancient Near East (e.g., 'Enlil', the article about the Sumerian wind lord). I have the fonts Akkadian from and Sumerian from installed. Can someone tell me what other fonts I need? Thanks for your help

Another pair of eyes on Troy?Edit

I was wondering if someone could have a look at Late Bronze Age Troy, which recently replaced an older article that was just about Troy VII. I wrote most of the text using handbook articles as my key sources, but I'm not an archaeologist so I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand anything and in particular that the use of terms like "layer" are correct. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Requested move 25 October 2021Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Requested move 25 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ) 12:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFCEdit


Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Zoeperkoe (talk) 12:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Scope of this WikiProjectEdit

Hello all,

There was a dispute between me and another editor recently, with this other editor adding the Ancient Near East Wikiproject template to articles that are not currently covered by what's described on the front page. My understanding is that based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East and Category:Ancient Near East, this period is, for Wikipedia purposes, considered to stop at the Hellenistic period.

From the article Ancient Near East:

The term covers the Bronze Age and the Iron Age in the region, until either the conquest by the Achaemenid Empire in the 6th century BC, that by the Macedonian Empire in the 4th century BC, or the Muslim conquests in the 7th century AD.

Category:Ancient Near East is a bit clearer, though:

  • Dates before (ca.) 3000 BCE and after 330 BCE are not usually included in the term "Ancient Near East":
  • dates before (ca.) 3000 BCE fall into the prehistoric period
  • dates after 330 BCE fall into the Hellenistic period

In my opinion, this is a good place to split it, because the Hellenistic & Roman period can be covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome largely. Admittedly, there is a problem in that this leaves later Persian & Arabian history out to dry, as there doesn't appear to be an equivalent Classical Persia project for the Parthians & Sassanids... but so it goes.

Anyway, my reading of the templates and categories list at the main project page is that the current status quo is that the Hellenistic Period is a good cutting-off point of scope. Any thoughts or complaints if I were to make that more explicit? (This would also have the side effect of removing some recently added articles from the Hellenistic & Roman periods from the project - but this is good IMO, they can go in more closely related projects instead, and this one can cover Hittites / Babylonians / Assyrians / Elam / etc.) SnowFire (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can't certain articles be covered by two wikiprojects and templates? As far as I am aware, there is a tendency (at least in archaeological conferences) to break down these distinctions between "ancient Near Eastern" and "classical/Roman/Greek". I don't see the point in the need to divide articles exclusively between either of those two (the same goes for the decision to apparently leave out prehistory from ancient Near East). Just my two cents though. I am certainly not going to argue over this. Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have brought up the other WikiProject. To be clear, I'm not saying that articles can't be in multiple projects. Of course some articles will straddle the line. I'm just asking where "the line" is for this particular project (ignoring for a moment what other WikiProjects cover). Like, at risk of saying the obvious, but stuff not in the Near East isn't in scope, and presumably articles that are not in the "Ancient" Near East (the Lebanese Civil War of the 1970s & 80s or the like) obviously aren't in scope either, the question is just what is meant by "Ancient." There will certainly be some overlap, but where the overlap is will vary - if it's the Hellenistic era, then the Greco-Persian War & related articles will be in both projects, for example. I think that based on the current categories mentioned, it seems like the scope loosely stops then currently, and I think that's a good stopping point myself. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, the closest thing to a consensus is that ancient in ANE means Uruk IV to the death of Alexander the great.

The former appears to be that is when people started taking this writing thing seriously. One could contend ancient could extend thousands of years earlier when they were already building cities etc or even to the Neanderthals of Shanidar Cave but that has not happened often.

The later case is harder because ancient means different things in different places. Was the Athens of Pericles fully Classical? Of course it was. In the Near East though people went on with the old ways until Alexander kicked over the apple cart (or chariot perhaps). I know, its hard to think of the Selucids as not "ancient" but really in the grand scheme of things they were classical

All that said, as Zoeperkoe stated, it's not worth fighting over. Just use your best judgement.Ploversegg (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)