Talk:Mitanni/Archive 1

message: The great Indo-European and ancient Near East scholar Vyacheslav Ivanov.
 
Look in Hurrians  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurrians
 
Now look down there in External links it has
 
http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/pies/pdfs/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
 
Once you get there search Hurrian-Aryan and you will see it stands for Mitanni and the scholar explains it all in detail. And Aryan is the SAME as Indo-European. He explains all this there. Ararat arev 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It has been proposed at the discussion for the entry Hanigalbat to merge these two articles under Mitanni, since that is only an Assyrian name for the same entry, and much information is duplicated.  To facilitate this, I have created a "draft merge" section on my Talk page.  So far, I have simply pasted the two articles together, but I'm going to start working on merging them tonight, and anyone else is invited to come over there and help hack away until we get them down to one piece. Codex Sinaiticus 21:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just make a subpage on your userpages? Cleaner that way. Fornadan 21:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Might be an idea to move the descriptions of the separate kings to their own pages Fornadan 16:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: * Separate articles have been added for the kings of Mitanni.
** The article Mitanni should not rewrite the same material as the general article about theHurrians and vice versa.
*** The Indo-Aryan theories on either pages could be moved to a separate entry, since much of it is rather speculative.
**** Exact dates should be used with extreme caution regarding the Mitannian history. There are no independent way of confirming the dates of their kings. The Hittite sack of Babylon can be dated either in 1650, 1595 or 1531 BC (see Chronology of the Ancient Near East). No date should be favored in this article. We can only deduce the kingdom of Mitanni existed CIRCA 1500-1300 BC, in the present chronology of the ancient Near East.
***** The town list is rather useless information if it not serve as a link to other Wiki articles. I´m thinking about moving it to the Archaeology section in the Hurrians article. Most sites were settled both before and after the time of Mitanni.
--JFK 14:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article changes made and suggested 

message: well, it may be a fun fact, but I see no reason to assume this has any historical connection to the Mitanni. Abraham himself is a legendary figure, and a 2nd c. BC historian with knowledge of 17th c.  BC events is absolutely unheard of. dab (ᛏ) 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of your rewording in the article, but here you seem to be implying that Abraham did not really exist, and I would also disagree with any suggestion that the testimony of the very earliest historians is completely worthless and not worth saving. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abraham may be historical in the sense that King Arthur is historical: some bloke that happened to become the nucleus of legend. 2nd century is not really "earliest" now, is it? Of course ancient historians are sometimes well-informed, of their own times, and a couple of centuries before their own time, but not when reporting events 1500 years before their own time. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eusebius

message: A map of the zone where these peoples lived would be really nice for us geography-ignorant =) --euyyn 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by "reference", do you mean things like "see armenianhighland.com" again, or do you mean an actual reliable source? dab (𒁳) 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map of the zone 

message: Though he does say second century BC of the 'Armens', you still see in Haik that we were the 'Armens' Ararat arev 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geographically, they passed through armenia. Their original home and the time they moved to armenia or out of armenia, however, is unknown. Thus in no way have you proved that you can call Mitanni "Armenian"Thanatosimii 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen Nefertiti's origin is unclear. Nefertiti was probably the daughter of the later king Ay, and was as far as we know, native to Egypt. Her ancestors, possibly, were not. I strongly believe that Yuya was probably from Mitanni. That makes Nefertiti one fourth Mitannian, if and only if Yuya is Ay's father, and if and only if Ay is Nefertiti's father.Thanatosimii 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We use Hur in english too, as the female pronoun. We usually spell it Her though. Look! Thus the Hurrians became the English! Or perhaps not. That is what we call a false cognate. This is especially so because the cuneaform translates xorri, more properly. I quite honestly don't know why we even call the Hurrians, since they would have called themselves Khorri (perhaps Khurri, but that's an issue we can't straighten out given our current knowledge of Hurrian orthography). As for the other names, we don't have a good grasp on what they actually translate into. If Wikipedia gives translations of Mitannian kings, they probably ought to be well cited and marked as tentative possibilities, if not removed outright. Thanatosimii 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what you're implying, but are you actually trying to use "The Egyptian" as a primary source??? What some hollywood actors do is no basis for writing a real article! As for your other claims, those are patantly incorrect. We have absolutly zero knoweldge of mitannian or hurrian archetecture or astronomy, and as one who can read and write in Egyptian, I assure you that there is no significant change in the language from the beginning of the new kingdom until really into the reign of Ramses III. So no, Hurrian (a language which we know next to nothing about, so either way your claim is unsubstantiated) almost certainly had no mesurable impact on Egyptian language. I am, however, rather suspicious if your sources are based on the totally out of date and debunked claim that the Hyksos were Hurrians. That hasn't been considered valid for nearly a century now.Thanatosimii 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sir, please insert text at the end of the page. Now, I've adressed your claims point by point, if only to make it clear to you that we know what we're talking about, and if we don't, we can look it up and get real, reliable sources. I, however, have more patience for this than most editors, so don't expect this from everyone. They will probably rebuff you and tell you that talk pages are generally not supposed to be used to argue about the facts about the article. Wikipedia articles don't technically have to be right. We'd prefer them to be right, but really they only have to cite reliable, scholarly sources, which you haven't come up with. Thanatosimii 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hurrian language actually isn't that unknown... I know we have a fairly good list of vocabulary for it, and several words are extremely similar to the same meanings in Urartean. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to somthing like Luwian, Carian, Hattian, etc, it is pretty well known. However, there is only one document of any good length preserved in Hurrian, the grammer isn't certain, and the orthography is extremely speculative. We have a list of vocabulary mostly because ugarit left us some wonderful biliteral texts, however the orthography in particular is unclear. Hurrian does strange things with doubling of stops and strings of three or four vowels, and we don't always know how to pronounce it. It isn't approaching Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, or Egyptian in understanding by a long mark. Thus I think it more than fair that we can't compare Armenian and Hurrian and get definite results. One of my professors has been working for months on his thesis that it is related to Etruscan (via sea peoples migrations), but if even that isn't able to stand up to peer review, the belief that Armenian etymologies can be found for Hurrian words can hardly stand either. Thanatosimii 20:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A bunch of stuff I (Thanatosimii) moved from where it was inserted at the top of the page

message: One of many renown historians, Vahan Kurkjian says http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/home.html
"The Hurri-Mitanni kingdom of Armenia kept close contact with its western neighbor, Hittite or Hatti land. Masses of population were often transplanted from one country to the other. "
We have many more historians like Hovick Nersessian's "Highlands of Armenia," Los Angeles, 1994, who also mentions about the Amarna letters with our Armenian (Hyeots tagavor) kings writing to them and for marriage of daughters to Pharaohs. Ararat arev 18:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vahan Kurkjian and other historians

message: There is much dubious material in this article which is going to need citation and evaluation. Above all, however, is the Eusebius quote about Armenians invading Syria in the 17th century. Believing that this quote has any grain of truth in it would be unprecidented. Hellenistic historians are exponentially more dubious as one moves further back in time, and unless a modern scholar of hurrians who thinks that this is worth somthing can be produced, it seems only logical that we remove it outright. Thanatosimii 16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, The Nairi-Naharin connexion is problematic and doesn't belong here. As I have stated to Ararat Arev on several occasions, the geograpic region of Nahrin and the Area of Nairi are two seperate, geographically non-overlapping regions which share the same root word, but that doesn't make them identical any more than the Kaiser was the Tzar. Thanatosimii 17:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The egyptians didn't refer to anyone as Nhrn, they referred to a place as Nhrn. Your sources are wrong and don't pass Reliable Source rules. In a case like this, a reliable source is not the best book written with a pro-Armenian-nationalism pov, it's the best literature to pass peer review. Thanatosimii 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: lol--Eupator 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You may not add original research or unreliable sources. This is what it boils down to. You may not. Thanatosimii 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No they are not reliable and they cannot be used in Wikipedia.--Eupator 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious material 

message: User:Nareklm removed the Mitanni seal and put in "copyvio" in the image , when admin  User:Jkelly, which handles the copyright images approved it. Nareklm was trying to justify his reasons by created this "false" info in order to remove a Mitanni "related" image. The Mitanni seal was put their and approved by admins and other users who work on Mitanni, otherwise they would have removed it right away as they do with other wrong edits Ararat arev 22:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image has no verification at all therefore marking it was a duty. Nareklm 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the image probably isn't copyrightable. If it is, we can easily argue fair use. Aa has uploaded a lot of dodgy images, but I don't think this particular one is a problem. dab (𒁳) 23:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By your own admission that picture is of Shaushatar's seal. That hardly is enough evidence to support the claim that it was the seal for all of mitanni. Thanatosimii 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason i removed the seal is because this is about Mitanni not a king putting it all the way in the top page does not seem necessary plus the only reason he puts it is because of the Armenian king Tigranes and his crown. Nareklm 19:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why does a kings seal deserve to be all the way in the top? Nareklm 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No its the kings seal "It is the royal seal of the King of Mitanni Sauššatar" on your image. Nareklm 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You put it you explain. Nareklm 19:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a king his seal shouldn't be on the mitanni article, it should be on his. Nareklm 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What's your point? that doesn't mean its approved i can contest it. Nareklm 19:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay that's the kings does he even have any revelance with Mitanni? any good hard contributions, that makes it so important to be on top of the page? Nareklm 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ararat Arev, another user's edits are usually irrelevant if there has been no discussion. What he does or does not do has little to no bearing on the ability of another editor to contest it. Thanatosimii 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You need to discuss before you remove or add things you made alot of articles locked because you start edit wars without discussing or further adding references instead you want us to go and research thats not going to happen. Nareklm 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed other content right away becuase it was fallacious. The current issue is not one of fact, but of style. Images are helpful on wikipedia, but not just for show; they have to be relevant. I believe Nareklm could argue as he has been arguing that this image is not relavent here. Thanatosimii 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dbachmann 1) does not wield omnipotent power, and 2) probably didn't intend what you think he intended. In a topic this broad, random mitannian artwork goes in a commonscat. Only specifically relevant images which have immediate contextual relationship to a certain part of the text goes in an article itself. Thanatosimii 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not trying to start anything, I am simply objecting to the amount of certainty which you have about your opinions. As it stands, it seems wiser to me to put images which have no direct function enlightening the reader on any specific line in the text into a "wikipeida commons has media related to mitanni..." tag instead of randomly dispersing it on the page itself. Until some discussion takes place, I object to the amount of certainty you have in who believes what should stay where. Perhaps consensus will fall for my position or against it, however as of yet there has been no discussion, except this discussion, which you are trying to conclude before it begins. Thanatosimii 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This does not change the fact that the ideal article does not have random images; images are supposed to fit the text. Thanatosimii 22:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You want me to mark your images? Tell me whats going to happen? am i going to get banned? NO i have the right there all from Armenianhighland.com the images have no information about the copyright some don't even have a link to the website and if its approved you must have the wikipedia ticket confirmation which i checked with administrators and they said i can mark it indeed. Nareklm 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: THAT IS NOT APPROVING! Nareklm 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: LOL that is not a personal attack i will report you for calling me stupid in Armenian if you continue with your silly accusations a matter of fact ill find it now just in case. Nareklm 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 16? Sign okay buddy. And yes you did attack me in Armenian want me to show you? Nareklm 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your telling me? your the one who started with the copyvio issues. Nareklm 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ararat Arev, I really don't think you gather what I'm trying to say here. I have no problem with the copyright; I merely object to the inclusion of an image in the article itself which has no direct contextual connexion to the text of the article. Look at the article Tutankhamun. It has near the bottom of the page a link to a whole lot of images related to him personally, but do not fit well in the article. I suggest connecting your seal and any other images that don't directly pertain to some text in this article in the same manner. If the text of the article mentioned the seal of Shaushatar, the article could use a picture of it. As it stands, however, the image fits better in a commons catagory. Thanatosimii 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess putting a kings royal seal on top of a whole page where there is no relevant specific detail anywhere seems acceptable? and Ararat may i ask why you want to put it so badly? Nareklm 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay your point? im talking about this article other articles have nothing to do with this one. Nareklm 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not even going to bother your going off topic. Nareklm 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You really need to stop messaging people it gets annoying. Nareklm 23:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Show me an article please. Nareklm 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, show us a featured article with random images. Thanatosimii 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We should move the seal to the bottom entries one "Shaushtatar" its more appropriate don't you think? and ill add a map soon. Nareklm 23:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those are revelant. Nareklm 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't need too your the one who is putting the image in the wrong place. Nareklm 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay man please focus on the topic. Nareklm 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed