Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II

message: The page includes "font-family:Akkadian" to display the name in Akkadian cuneiform, but this font is not commonly available. A possible solution would be to add "<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" ref="https://fontlibrary.org/face/akkadian" type="text/css"/>" to the head of the html page. See https://fontlibrary.org/en/font/akkadian. The referenced page says the font is free to use. I do not know how to edit the html header so help would be appreciated.
Jony (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font for Akkadian 

message: This is regarding my reversion of this edit on the basis that it is original research (i.e. original conclusions were drawn from the sources which are not made in the sources themselves).
Firstly, this text was added:
:
This is what the cited reference says about this matter:
:
The author doesn't mention the biblical account and makes no comment on the consistency of the biblical portrayal.
Similarly for this text that was added:
:
Again, I do not see where the source notes the consistency of Daniel's prophecy. It only speaks of the influence of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion on the Old Testament. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reversion 

message: Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "fringe" you mean "complete jokes" with unconvincing arguments, I would agree. Dimadick (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The views of the Adventist scholars are considered marginal opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have truncated the claim that there is 'substantial evidence' supporting an earlier date for Daniel. The Ferch source that was added cites Wiseman and the existence of Belshazzar as 'evidence', neither of which actually substantiate an earlier date for Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical scholars 

message: Seems that there is historical depiction of Nebuchadnezzar II in the so called Tower of Babel Stele. Here is some info:
* Schøyen Collection (MS 2063)
* A stele of Nebuchadnezzar II (Tower of Babel stele)
* The Tower of Babel Stele
Anyone willing to upload it? 109.160.36.104 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How about copyright? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I`m not competent on the copyright problems, but there might be some available images on google. Not sure about this: SOAS  or this:  109.160.36.104 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Nebuchadnezzar II 

message: Wikipedia does not follow the Bible. Wikipedia follows mainstream Bible scholarship. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gist 

message: The correct name is Nebuchadrezzar with an R; I've added this and given a source. We should move the page to Nebuchadrezzar II. (This has been discussed before at length at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 2#"Nebuchadrezzar".) Richard75 (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose this.  "Nebuchadnezzar" has been and remains the most common name in English.  See Google ngram for both variations. -Ben (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose for the same reason. I'll add that move requests should be done per WP:RM#CM. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose for the same reason. BobKilcoyne (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: A Unicode rendition of the Akkadian script for the name Nebuchadnezzar "𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀" has recently been added to the article. That rendition appears to be frequently used online (though it seems to transliterate as ANAKKUDUURRIŠEŠ). In any case, it does not take an expert in cuneiform to see that  and 𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 are not the same word. Can somebody verify the form from the image from the original source (Bertin, G. (1891). "Babylonian Chronology and History". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 5: p. 50; [@User:Ichthyovenator]?) and either replace with the correct form or add a note to the article explaining why the two forms are different? Ideally, if someone can also confirm the accuracy of the Unicode form too.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded the image version and I can confirm that it is correct in so far that this is the form given by Bertin in the cited source. The reason I replaced the original unicode version with the image is that cuneiform changed over time (signs and grammar are for instance noticeably different in Sumerian and Neo-Assyrian writings); the unicode version (the accuracy of which I can't verify since it is uncited) seems to use older signs while Bertin presents the actual Neo-Babylonian rendition. Another advantage of Bertin is that he presents the name of a vast amount of kings, making it convenient to use him as a source for these articles. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know that the 1891 source is accurate? Do we know that the Unicode form is accurate? If the Unicode text shows only an earlier Sumerian or Assyrian form of the letters, it is probably misleading to use it if it were not the form used in the Neo-Babylonian period? That said, the glyphs in the Unicode form provided do appear in cuneiform from the Neo-Babylonian period. Perhaps an excerpt showing the context of the images in the Bertin source would help. In any case, the presentation of two obviously different forms without explanation as in the article presently is unhelpful. It probably also is not useful in the context of the article to note that the text form is "Unicode", and if, for example, it is an Assyrian rather than Neo-Babylonian form of the name, it would be more helpful to note that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I automatically trust the 1891 source more since it's actually cited (unlike the unicode version). In the source itself, the names of various Mesopotamian rulers are presented in cuneiform and transliteration. Of course, a more modern "dictionary" of names in cuneiform would be preferrable, but I haven't found any. I agree that both the 1891 version and the unicode version should not be in the article, at least not in the way they are now. For a similar situation, see Ashurbanipal, whose lede presents his name as written by the Neo-Assyrians, with a unicode version in older script added as a note. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, how many of us can read Akkadian?Achar Sva (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair point, I would be more than happy to completely do away with Akkadian script in the ledes since it's difficult to find sources for the names for some kings (notably I haven't found anything for Sin-shumu-lishir and Labashi-Marduk). I'm not sure if there are guidelines in regards to this, but other ancient rulers appear to use ancient scripts as well, such as Cyrus the Great (has his name in Old Persian script) and Bahram V (has his name in Middle Persian script). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from an extremely small number of readers, inclusion of a cuneiform form of the name is really just a novelty, but if it is included, it should be accurate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on both points. What I was showing with the Ashurbanipal example is that both could very well be accurate renditions of Nebuchadnezzar's name, in different scripts/contexts; I trust the 1891 source more since it is a scholarly source. The unicode rendition completely lacks a source as it stands and if one is not added, must be considered original research. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akkadian 

message: Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) is better than I expected (it has a well-referenced reception section), but it suffers from one critical issue - the coverage of this fictional entity (ship) is in passing, which makes it fail WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Several sources do discuss a single aspect of it - its name - but do so in passing. As far as I can tell, none have more than a sentence or two about this aspect, and there is nothing about anything else. (Of course, there are also few sentences in some sources that are mentions in passing in the context of plot summaries, but that's pretty much irrelevant). As such, I think we should merge the receptions section somewhere, but I am not sure what article would be a good choice to discuss the meaning of the name of the ship. Perhaps 'in popular culture' section could be added to Nebuchadnezzar II  and the entry redirected there? Another option would be to rename and rewrite the article into the Meaning of the name Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix but that's a mouthful. There is also the option of merging it to some Matrix article (or forking it to both articles), but I couldn't find any Matrix-themed article that is relevant, as none discuss this ship outside a plot summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The section seems best located where it already is or otherwise merged into another article related to the film franchise. It only really has superficial relevance to the historical character, so it definitely shouldn't be merged to this article. Article content about the fictional ship should be kept within articles specific to the Matrix franchise. There doesn't seem to be sufficient notability to have a standalone article for "Meaning of the name Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix".--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it should not be merged to this article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Jeffro77. If there is a consensus for a merge, it should not be merged with the actual historical character, as there is only a superficial similarity/reference between the two topics. In any event, Oppose merge.  Haleth (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with Jeffro77. Just because some science fiction franchise borrows a historical name, there is no reason to add this non-historical content to a page that is eminently about history. warshy (¥¥) 16:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jeffro77. Science fiction and historical figures should not be conflated. Let the other article remain a standalone, where it will be most useful for those particular readers. Oppose merge. Niekinloy (talk) 1:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge reception section from [[Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix)]] here 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ~~~~User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: About —that's exactly the problem: historians work with shared assumptions (like methodological naturalism), and faith in the supernatural does not belong to the shared assumptions of historical scholarship. Historiography which assumes there are supernatural causes is pseudohistory, plain and simple, no doubt about that.
The requirements of the historical method do not allow stating as historical fact that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophecy. This is generally agreed, regardless of which faith the historian does belong to.
So, at the basic level of methodological requirements, modern historical research gives the lie to the fundamentalist reading of Daniel, and it cannot do otherwise.
The whole enterprise of modern historical WP:SCHOLARSHIP is designed to give the lie to fundamentalism. Modern historiography is based upon assumptions which are alien and inimical to fundamentalism.
People who complain that those darn liberal scholars bash the Bible don't understand that honest historians cannot do otherwise. It is their only choice, besides completely refraining from studying the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faith issue 

message: If someone thought that my inclusion of mentions in Jeremiah and Ezekiel was "fringe" (under the POV that those works are fiction), perhaps instead of reverting, a better approach would have been to change the word "predicted."  The passages exist and are pertinent to the topic.  I did not re-enter because I didn't want the risk of an edit war.伟思礼 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In this instance, the problem would be that you sourced the information solely to primary sources, without any secondary sources validating the statements that you made about theories based on the text in those primary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other biblical references