Talk:Kassites

Kings of Karduniaš

Aamir Khan Lepzerrin, you are quite right that in the Amarna Letters, the Kassites styled themselves as Kings of Karduniaš. But that was simply a matter of timing: Karduniaš was the Kassite name for Babylon and the Kassite Dynasty there. They would not have called themselves such before 1595 BCE or after 1155 BCEE, as they were not kings there. Kassites still existed aside from their sojourn in Babylon. Also, please be mindful of WP:3RR. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What don't we do? We do not comment according to our own opinion. We are just collecting information. If the Kassites call themselves "Karduniash" in official records, we will indicate that. Personal comments are out of our realm. You must also comply with the warning in question. There will also be a sanction for deleting information, especially the source of which is specified.Aamir Khan Lepzerrin

Did the Kassites call themselves Kings of Karduniaš before they conquered Babylon? Dumuzid (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem of editors: Emphasizing their personal opinions instead of citing sources. As two teachers, we will not argue here. Our task is to write official information and indicate its sources. The Kassites called themselves "Karduniash", which is what we state. We cannot go beyond this.Aamir Khan Lepzerrin

Only from 1595 BCE to 1155 BCE. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The Kassites called themselves "Karduniash". Even if they say this for just one day, it is our duty to point this out. There's no point in discussing this. We are not holding a symposium here. We write information to Wikipedia. Aamir Khan Lepzerrin (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Even when information is sourced, it needs to be placed in the proper place. And obviously, the sources have to be used for what they actually say, e.g. Paulus (2015): "Karduniash is a geographical designation for Babylonia". NB a geographical designation. It requires minimal reading comprehension to spot that this can not be equal to the people who ruled over that polity. Toponym ≠ demonym/ethnonym. Feel free to add the actual content of the sources somewhere in the article, as long as it produces coherent text that follows the structure of the article. –Austronesier (talk) 06:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Why deleted the new pictures?

Why? All of picture has a source,thet you deleted. 109.74.227.206 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Picture had source. Why deleted?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kassites&diff=prev&oldid=1282833900 109.74.227.206 (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Merging

Just a heads up, so people can think about it, that at some point I am going to see if the various Kassite articles (Kassites, Kassite dynasty, Early Kassite rulers, and Karduniaš) can be merged into one (or at most 2). There is a lot of overlap and, frankly, a lot of what is "known" about the Kassites includes a lot of speculation anyway. Ploversegg (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I did a simple merge of Karduniaš into Kassites after doing a quick "dust and scratches" cleanup (hopefully not dropping a stitch) as it was low hanging fruit. Next up will be to merge Early Kassite rulers into Kassite dynasty. EKR was well thought out in its time but is now dated so a merge will require actual thought so it won't happen til I have more time.Ploversegg (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I merged Early Kassite rulers into Kassite dynasty, with the minimal needed editing beforehand as this is the way Wikipedia wants it ie "merge then fix", hopefully not missing any steps. There is now some duplicate text which needs to be cleaned up (or will be cleaned up when a proper king list is done) and at least one duplicate ref which KD is a cite hairball which I don't want to touch so that is on its own.Ploversegg (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This article neeeds cleanup the article is mostly about the Kassite state and should be changed.

This article feels useless the Kassite Dynasty article covers a ton of the same ground especially because this article used to be the only serious article used for that Dynasty but now there is a dedicated article for that so this article still including stuff like locations of sites or political information instead of being purely ethnic based is unnecessary I either propose Merge or trimming useless information. Theopedias (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)