Talk:Battle of Kadesh/Archive 1

message: Is this battle the same as Battle of Khadesh ? 
-- PFHLai 07:51, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
:Hmm...I'm not sure. Khadesh says: "This first campaign against the Hittites (1300-1299 BC) ended in an Egyptian retreat after the violent battle at Kadesh in Syria, during which Ramses narrowly escaped capture, mainly thanks to the intervention of a troop contingent from Amurru", which refers to this article, but maybe they are the same (I'm not sure it's possible to be precise about battles like this, I mean we don't even know when Kadesh happened, really). Adam Bishop 17:30, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: it's the same, and has been fixed on 29 Jul. Battle of Khadesh is a redirect now, though, but it should not be, since it is just a misspelling. dab 16:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mispellings are okay as redirects if there is a reasonable chance someone would type it in a link, or search for it, and that is certainly the case here, as we had two different articles for awhile :) Adam Bishop 19:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: well, I disagree... dab 07:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The (Second) Trojan War occured ca. the 2nd Battle of Kadesh.
The first Trojan war involved Hercules and Hesione, the face that launched six ships. 
* I dont understand your point. What have these 2 events got to do with each other ? Markh 10:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rameses II, Moses, and Chronology

message: I find it confusing that the entry says the Hitites won the tactical victory... The episode of 'Line of Fire' dealing with this episode (Line of Fire is a series of one hour documentaries on important battles--I believe it is British in origin but it is shown regularly on Australian TV on The History Channel) indicated--and by this I mean all the experts who were interviewed and who were asked the question all responded--that if anything the Egyptians were the tactical victors and that the Hitites were the strategic victors.
Has anyone else seen this episode? What sources cite a Hitite tactical victory? They still controled the city of Qadesh but by all accounts they were mauled badly by the Egyptians (who also suffered severe casualties--hence the stragegic loss).
Matthew king 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian tactical victory? 

message: : The chief of Kheta was concealed northwest of the city of Kadesh.
: They came forth from the southern side of Kadesh, and they cut through the division of Re in its middle, while they were marching without knowing and without being drawn up for battle. The infantry and chariotry of his majesty retreated before them. Now, his majesty had halted on the north of the city of Kadesh, on the western side of the Orontes. Then came one to tell it to his majesty
: His majesty halted in the rout; then he charged into the foe, 
: When his majesty went to look behind him, he found 2,500 chariotry surrounding him, in his way out, being all the youth of the wretched Kheta, together with its numerous allied countries: from Arvad, from Mesa, from Pedes, from Keshkesh, from Erwenet, from Kezweden, from Aleppo, Eketeri, Kadesh, and Luka, being three men to a span, acting in unison. 
:(833 chariots and 2500 charioteers or 2500 chariots and 7500 charioteers?)
: Year 5, third month of the third season, day 9;
: Lo, his majesty was in Zahi (Zohar ?) on the highland south of Kadesh. (Golan Heights)
: south of the town of Shabtuna, there came two Shasu, to speak to his majesty 
: The chief of Kheta sits in the land of Aleppo, on the north of Tunip. 
: Lo, the vanquished chief of Kheta ... drawn up in line of battle behind Kadesh ... his majesty proceeded northward and arrived on the northwest of Kadesh; and the army of his majesty made camp there.
: Where is he, the vanquished chief of Kheta? Behold, I have heard, saying: 'He is in the land of Aleppo,'" 
:every country which is in the districts of the land of Kheta, the land of Naharin, and all Kode. They are equipped with infantry and chariotry, bearing their weapons; more numerous are they than the sand of the shore. See, they are standing, drawn up for battle, behind Kadesh the Deceitful."
:Then the vizier was ordered to hasten the army of his majesty, while they were marching on the south of Shabtuna, in order to bring them to the place where his majesty was.
:The chief of Kheta came, and the numerous countries, which were with him. They crossed over the channel on the south of Kadesh, and charged into the army of his majesty while they were marching, and not expecting it. Then the infantry and chariotry of his majesty retreated before them, northward to the place where his majesty was. Lo, the foes of the vanquished chief of Kheta surrounded the bodyguard of his majesty, who were by his side.
:the water of the Orontes.Rktect 16:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The tactics

message: I have removed the references added to this article, as they appear to be copied from http://www.bu.edu/anep/ANET.html. Markh 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The footnotes you removed are the cites to Book and page of ANET included in the references to Pritchard "The Ancient Near East" Even Wikipedia allows properly cited quotes therefore I restored your removals Rktect 20:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You copied large amounts of text out the page. Please don't do this, you are not permitted to violate copyright here. I have reported this on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_August_29/Articles Markh 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you also report my response? A quotation with blockquote and references is allowed Rktect 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not copy copyrighted material into wikipedia 

message: This is an encyclopedia, not a dissertation. Though we want all articles to be heavily sourced, the citations should not be used in quite the same manner. We don't need argumentative evidence, we don't need quotations, we only need to say what historians believe, not precicely why they believe it, unless there is a debate of some notable interst. Either all this new text should be worked into the body of the article in a more encyclopedic fashion or it should be removed. Thanatosimii 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't want what historians or anyone else believes, just the facts. Beliefs and opinions, speculations and references to what other professionals believe or believed are all subject to challenge. Under verifiability its Wikipedia policy that any citation that gives a reason for a statement is better than no reason at all. References including pictures of the primary source, including quotations and footnotes help establish the facts. All the evidence is argumentative for a variety of reasons. The exact location, force strength, participants, reason for the campaign and outcome are all considered questionable. We dont know to what degree Rameses scribes spun their record of the results to make their boss a hero. My suggestian would be that people who havent read a reference should read it first, raise their questions, then place on the discussion page their proposed replacement reference which either says something different, or expands upon what has already been said. Rktect 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have deleted them, we should probably try and integrate the sames that make sense (and that haven't been lifted wholesale from the pages they reference) back into the article Markh 10:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blanking references is vandalism. I recognize that you are new and many things dont make sense to you yet, but generally the best approach is to read the references first and then discuss any action on the talk page before damaging the article. Rktect 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hi there, your references are (a) copied wholesale from the internet, (b) at best irrelevant, (c) make no sense in the context of the article (d) make the article look awful and (e) badly formatted. I don't understand why you think that what you are doing on this page and the other articles Nine bows and Kadesh is any way constructive. If you want to add references to the article, you have to add information that supports (or doesn't) the content (or add new content). Why not have a look at the Ahmose I article, which has integrated references and actually flows like an article rather than someones lectures notes. I am going to delete the references again (as suggested by at least 2 other editors). Cheers 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, my references are all books. Some of the footnotes are from the books, some are from online sources citing their sources. Their relevance is given with them. If you dont think the Nine bows as the enemies of the Egyptuians and the allies of the Hittites are relevant to the article, explain why the Pharoahs fighting Kadesh throughout the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt and the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt mention them in their inscriptions. If you want to delete references from the article try replacing them with something better first Rktect 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  The comment that discussion of the Hyksos doesnt belong on the page is misinformed.  . Hyksos Leaders Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" section 175 argues for the city of Kadesh in Syria as the center of the Hyksos power. George A. Barton, PH D. in Archeology and the Bible, Published by ASSU, Philadelphia PA, USA, IVth Edition, 1952, pp 28-29 notes the drift of opinion toward the Hittites as either the Hyksos or the leading faction in the Hyksos hordes.
Rktect 13:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you really think what I am doing is vandalism, I suggest that we try WP:DR, because I don't believe that it is, and I'm would rather that we used our time to add to the article than argue about the references. I am going to not edit the article for two weeks (leaving it with your references). Cheers Markh 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the general feeling that the format of the references is not correct, then I will delete them again. See you all in 2 weeks. 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thank you for leaving the references. I invite you to add to the article your own references, and if they inform better than anything I have added, we will replace it with the better statement. If we put most of our suggestions for things to be added or subtracted here on the talk page and discuss them generally we will improve the article more than if we attack each others edits. Rktect 00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The statement, "we don't want what historians or anyone else believes, just the facts," shows an extreme misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. We don't care about whats "fact" or not. All we want are summations of other people's arguments. And we cannot use huge bibliographies that are not clearly tied into the text. They aren't actually references until they're tied into the text. This is a tertiary source, not a scholarly article. Treat it as such. No argumentation, no deduction. Only reporting what other people believe. We only care what historians believe. Thanatosimii 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A belief involves taking something on faith, the exact opposite of a scientific aproach.  Encyclopedias are useful precisely because they are not argumentative so people stating arguments and their point of view or opinion on things which are not factual, but rather false speculation, fantasy, opinion dont belong. The purpose of references and cites is to establish whats influencing an editors thinking so that it can be peer reviewed and a consensus arrived at. If Breasted says I read this inscription and translated it thus a reference should be given. Then when Pritchard comes along and adds on somthing more beside such as the location of a toponym Breasted mentioned that can be footnoted. All of that is useful. Many other Class A wikipedia articles have over 100 references and footnotes. The idea is that some people who don't want all of the information can get by with the opening, to the effect its a chariot battle between Egypt and the Hittites. Since its in the category of a military battle other people will want to know the force disposition, strategy, tactics, details of the command structure, formations, weapons and logistics for both sides. Still others will want to know how this ties in with the first mentions of the Sea Peoples, the history of the conflicts between Israel and the Levant, the rise of empires, even details like the terms of the treaty ending the conflict are worth mentioning Rktect 01:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is, however, not what wikipedia's guidelines tell us the encyclopedia should be like. We want to sum up the state of scholarship, somthing those notes are too lengthy for. Thanatosimii 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifying 

message: "The Asiatic Campaigning of Ramses II" ANET., pp.255-256. 
...his infantry, his chariotry, and the Sherden of his majesty's cap-turing,...in the year 5, 2nd month of the third season, day 9, (when) his majesty passed the fortress of Sile. 
His infantry went on the narrow passes as if on the highways of Egypt. 
Now after days had passed after this, then his majesty was in Ramses Meri-Amon, the town which is in the Valley of the Cedar. His majesty proceeded northward. After his majesty reached the mountain range of Kadesh, then his majesty went forward like his father Montu, Lord of Thebes, and he crossed (12) the ford of the Orontes, with the first division of Amon (named) "He Gives Victory to User-maat-Re Setep-en-Re. His majesty reached the town of Kadesh ....Now the wretched foe belonging to Hatti, with the numerous foreign countries which were with him, was waiting hidden and ready on the northeast of the town of Kadesh,
 
  while his majesty was alone by himself (17) with his retinue. 
  The division of Amon was on the march behind him; 
  the division of Re was crossing the ford in a district south of the town of Shabtuna  
  at the dis-stance of one iter from the place where his majesty was ; 
  the division of Ptah was on the south of the town of Arnaim; 
 *the division of Seth was marching on the road. 
 His majesty had formed the first ranks of battle of all the leaders of his army, while they were (still) on the shore in the land of Amurru ....
Year 5, 3rd month of the third season, day 9, under the majesty of (Ramses II). When his majesty was in Djahi on his second victorious campaign, the goodly awakening in life, prosperity, and health was at the tent of his majesty on the mountain range south of Kadesh. 
... The lord proceeded northward, and his majesty arrived at a vicinity south of the town of Shabtuna.... [add full text of battle here]
B. LATER CAMPAIGNING
  The town which his majesty desolated in the year 8, Merom. 
  The town which his majesty desolated in the year 8, Salem. 
  The town which his majesty desolated on the mountain of 
  Beth-Anath, Kerep 
  The town which his majesty desolated in the land of Amurru, Deper (region of Tunip in Syria 
  The town which his majesty desolated, Acre. 
  The wretched town which his majesty took when it was wicked, Ashkelon. 
 Beth-Shan Stelae of Ramses II ANET., p.254. BASOR (1952): 24-32. 
Year 9, 4th month of the second season, day 1 ... When day had broken, he made to retreat the Asiatics .... They all come bowing down to him, to his palace of life and satisfaction, Per-Ramses-Meri-Amon-the-Great of Victories ...
Rameses never says how many men in a division but other sources such as the accounts of Thutmosis III indicate Amun, Re and Ptah taken together are 900 chariots so with Set thats 1200 and the Nearin or young men add 1000 for 2200 plus Rameses personal guard, 2200 - 2500 Egyptian Chariots 2500 plus 1000 for the Hittites, and three men to a chariot, plus a not insignificant number of support troops and camp followers. [] Rktect 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RAMESES II (Late Bronze Age, 13th c. B.C.E.):

message: Hiya, I'm willing to come in with a third-party opinion on the Request for Comment.  To make sure I'm understanding what's being discussed, we're talking about the difference between these two versions in this diff, yes?  Or am I not understanding things correctly? --Elonka 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. The dispute is mostly over that long list of references. Thanatosimii 04:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, on a quick look, it appears that they're not being used to reference anything in particular, but are instead being included as a kind of "Further reading" section.  The leading numbers also look a bit odd, as though the list was copy/pasted from somewhere?  What I'd recommend, is that if someone really feels that the references need to be included, is to link them to actual specific text in the article, per the normal WP:CITE footnote system.  After that, a few extra sources for a "Further reading" section couldn't hurt, but I'd limit the quantity of them.  As it was, the length of the reference section was dwarfing the actual size of the article.  If someone really feels that all of the references need to be provided, I'd recommend putting them up on a webpage somewhere, and then we can link to that as a useful "External link." --Elonka 19:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: Rktect continues to make incorrect edits based on personal "research".  His "references" are frequently explorations of personal opinions rather than the citation of a relevant scholarly work.  Please note the following statement:
:"With this basis, essentially all facts get distorted, especially when this is married to a totally uncritical use of historic sources, drawing all sorts of conclusions from them. In addition, the majority of the contributions are irrelevant to the topic at hand, or at best covered elsewhere. Showing disrespect for the mechanisms of Wikipedia, using bizarre markup and a lack of understanding of the level of quality required for an encyclopedia, the contributions of Rktect are unfit for Wikipedia.
:"There are no cites from reliable sources presented supporting any of rktects claims, although he often provides enormous amounts of irrelevant or marginally relevant text and sources.
:"This behaviour is not limited to historic metrology; rktect uses the same approach for other areas also (see list of articles affected, below).
:"Even though it may be the case that there are fractions of rktects contributions that with massive rework could be usable, filtering and reviewing is far too expensive: the amount of work grossly exceeding that of adding new bona fide fresh content. Rktects modus operandi in talk pages only adds to the problem, making discussion in the conventional sense impossible."
This was not written in 2007, it was written in 2005.  But it could easily have been written today. In that case, it resulted in Rktect being blocked from making changes to the article.
I can hardly add to the above quoted summary.  Just look at this talk page!  I believe he needs to be blocked from editing this article.Publik 05:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to sanction Rkect