Talk:Mitanni

• Talk:Mitanni/Archive 1

Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed

User:Nareklm removed the Mitanni seal and put in "copyvio" in the image [1], 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)

The image has no verification at all therefore marking it was a duty. Nareklm 23:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

That is the Mitanni seal. The king Sausattar is one of the kings of Mitanni. The name is spelled slightly different with the "Sh" being "S". This is a Mitanni "related" imagte, its the Mitanni seal. Ararat arev 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Dbachmann removed the Urartu images, doesnt mean you remove the Mitanni seal. He didnt remove the Mitanni seal. Ararat arev 18:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look in the kings link It says "Shaushtatar, also spelled Šauštatar," Ararat arev 18:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

No where do I state its Tigranes crown or related to it. I will also remove that info about Tigranes crown I made the Hurrian/Aryan page. I will remove that, cause its showing the link in the Mitanni seal image. Ararat arev 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Its a Mitanni seal. Just leave it there. Its the only Mitanni image we have so far. Ararat arev 19:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanatsimii, explain to Nareklm that other pages have their "kings" images on top of their pages too. Ararat arev 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Im explaining, I said other peoples and nations have their kings images on their pages to at the top. This isnt some unique different setting here Ararat arev 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanasimii always removes my edits if they are wrong right away. He didnt remove this Mitanni related seal. Thats another point also Ararat arev 19:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Check the edit history, Dbachman the admin added the info of the royal seal of the king. That means he left it there. Dbachmann the guy you messaged earlier. He put it there. Ararat arev 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I let Dbachmann know what you're trying to do. He left it on the top of the Mitanni page. Ararat arev 19:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Im going to find it right now hold on. And show you Ararat arev 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is Dbachmann the admin put this [2] Ararat arev 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

We have not agreed on it. Nareklm removed something that I put on another page that wasnt agreed either. So he removed it and said "not agreed yet to put" or something like that. So if I dont agree with it. He cant just decide to remove it. Cause thats what he did when I put something another page, he removed it and said "wasnt agreed" or somewhere in those lines Ararat arev 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That was by the way in Talk pages were discussing . Ararat arev 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Another thing is I said earlier, these admins that handle specific pages like Mitanni which Thanasimii does. He didnt remove this Mitanni related seal, or else he would have removed it like other edits that he removed right away. Also, Dbachmann edits this page too and he didnt remove it either. Its a Mitanni relate image "seal" Ararat arev 19:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And the main point is Wikipedia likes its pages to be filled with images too related to the articles. Wikipedia is not dull and boring. Ararat arev 20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanasimmi you agree on that? That is why you guys left it here Thanasimii. Dbachmann also etc. Ararat arev 20:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeah anyone can argue on anything in Talk pages. Its relevant cause its "related" to the Mitanni article. If Dbachmann touched up the info specially of the image of the seal, than what does that tell you? Its relevant and as you said images that are related to their articles, are helpful for Wikipedia. Ararat arev 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I also let another admin know about Wikipedia's cause and this issue. That the related images should be in related articles, and that it helps Wikipedia. The site is not boring and dull. Ararat arev 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dbachmann would have done what you said he would have did, as you said the guy works really good and hard on Wikipedia. He edits a lot and does it fast. So this would have been removed by him long long long time ago. Dbachmann and Codex_Sinatrix have their word in this too. You are not the only one. Ararat arev 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing Thanatosimii, what you just said you didnt do long long time ago. So what are you arguing about or stating here? Ararat arev 21:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

hm, what is the problem here? We assume, I believe, that this is really the seal we think it is. So, it belongs on Šauštatar's page already. Now, this article isn't exacly overburdened with images. First and foremost, we need a map, and images of a few artefacts. We can show that seal somewhere on the page, but we don't have to if we have enough other good images. I would show it somewhere further down where we discuss the kings. Not that I think this is a very controversial point either way. dab (𒁳) 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So its fine here right? It can stay how you guys let it stay there then. Ararat arev 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy is making a small issue a big deal here. He's trying to make some reason to remove it. I told him its a Mitanni related image 'seal'. Also helps Wikipedia with images related to articles. Ararat arev 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanatosimii, I wasnt referring to you when I said "the guy is making a smal...." Ararat arev 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look also at what attempts were made to remove the image. The admin who handles copyright images User:Jkelly approved the image, and Nareklm comes and puts a "copyvio" instead, which violating what the "admin" approved there. Ararat arev 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically you are on the side of random editors , or editing that is done without verifying admin approved material?? Ararat arev 22:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause this discussion started with Nareklm, who wanted to remove the Mitanni seal image from Mitanni. Another point Urartu page has random Urartu images (which I just let Dbachmann know and he didnt remove) also in random places. So does almost every other page. I'll find you like 30 or even more pages on Wikipedia that has this same kind of related image on the page. Now why would I waste time doing that. If it is that case I will Ararat arev 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully here. I mean it. Ararat arev 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

You want me to be the example of what Nareklm did? I'll go pick any page in Wikipedia, approved images from admin's who handle copyright images. Then, I will go and remove the image from the article and say its "copyvio" and put the "copyvio" Yeah? Is this what is right?? Of course not. Ararat arev 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenianhighland.com is that what you said Nareklm? The admin Dbachmann was the one I just stated approved and he even put "direct source armenianhighland.com" in the Urartu images. Ararat arev 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann just approved the image, and you want me to show you here. [3] Ararat arev 23:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Listen man Im going to let User:Jkelly admin who handles copyright images know about this. I'll make sure he explains to you. Ararat arev 23:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you continue shouting like that, Im going to reporst to you of "personal attack" as Ive seen reported in Wikipedia. Ararat arev 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I never called you stupid. In fact Ive always said good things about you. Being 16 doing a good job with studying history and wanting to be a historian. Ararat arev 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I didnt attack you (as you put "LOL") and Talk:Mitanni isnt the place for this convesation. Ararat arev 23:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

Dbachmann agrees with what Im about to say, and you should too. Im saying Wikipedia doesnt want to put images in dark corners of its site. Put the images that are related in articles that "show" to the audiance, not places that hide. Ararat arev 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

You dont read what I wrote earlier, I said I'll find you 30 or more pages on Wikipedia that have the same issue, random images that are related in their articles. Another thing you want me to do what you did by removing approved copyright of those 30 or so pages and remove the images? Is that what Wikipedia does ? No. Ararat arev 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes it does and the admins can answer that for you. Ask Dbachmann or should I let him respond to you on that ? Ararat arev 23:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I said Dbachmann and other admins will answer that for you. I will Talk to him now, and show you what Im saying. Ararat arev 23:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

First of all, you didnt understand what I meant. I said articles that are "similar" to this one. This is what I meant to say. Articles that are similar to this one have random images on their page related to the article. There is over 30 of them. Way more than 30. Ararat arev 23:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me an article please. Nareklm 23:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Better, show us a featured article with random images. Thanatosimii 23:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Urartu image random in page. Ararat arev 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kurds random image. You want me to list ther is 1000's of sites actually. Ararat arev 23:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I cant just find all of them right away. Can you? No. Ararat arev 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

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

By the way I responded to Khoikhoi. Ararat arev 23:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay man please focus on the topic. Nareklm 23:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow this is getting too long in Talk:Mitanni. Hmm. (thinking what to do) Ararat arev 23:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, this is spam like previous Talk:Armenia spams right? Ararat arev 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Ararat Arev, it's not spam because it's content related and relates to edits to be made. And I doubt that Dbachmann is going to come flying to answer your every appeal... Make sure an editor is part of the discussion before appealing to him. Thanatosimii 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, a current discussion should not be archived. Thanatosimii 23:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My mistake sorry. Nareklm 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I let him know. We'll see what he says. Ararat arev 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I let Khoikhoi know this isnt the case of the 3RR, since nothing was agreed and you reverting my edits. You are doing that in this case. Dbachmann has not responded yet, so you cant change it, when he hasnt responded to it. Compare the Urartu page with Mitanni. The 2 map and image setting. Ararat arev 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You reverted 3 times on Mitanni one more its a block. Nareklm 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The first one was not a revert. I was discussing with Dbachmann. He hasnt responded to that yet. Ararat arev 19:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a revert! already 4 So what if Dbachman is an admin you discuss changes here not with admins there not any different from us. Nareklm 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am dsiscussing here. And I let admin Khoikhoi know that im discussing in Talk:Mitanni and Talk pages. With "admins" Ararat arev 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The admin is not here,he's busy he's out of the internet now. You understand? He hasnt got a chance to respond and you revferting ~ Ararat arev 20:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a wrong impression of what an admin's job is, and just to warn you, if you continue to bother them asking for their official stamp of approval, you're going to irritate them very quickly. Thanatosimii 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] These are all counted as reverts. You've broken the 3rr twice over. Furthermore, read the vandalism page, and do not accuse another editor of it without knowing what it is and is not. I will be restoring the original version once more, but I will not personally report you to the 3rr noticebord right now. I do not advize that you revert a sixth time, however. Thanatosimii 20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this page needs more *good* images

right, so we have a hastily hacked together map, and a sketch of a royal seal ripped off some webpage. This page really needs more encyclopedic images, compare the image distribution at, say, Troy, Assyria, Elam or Hittite Empire. I emphasize that we need encyclopedic images, of which we know exactly what they depict, not more random tidbits found on armenianhighlands.com. dab (𒁳) 20:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So can we just put that Mitanni up there cmpare Urartu and Mitanni, I think its better this way. Whats the big deal also as you said? These guys are making it a big deal cause it was already there. Ararat arev 20:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just giving my advice, you can take it or leave it. I think it looks really good, and its not just based on looks, since Thanasimii thinks Im just focusing on looks Ararat arev 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The image in that position is not beneficial to the state of this article, and ideally every edit should be made with the goal of improving any article to FA status.
As for good images, we may have a problem there. Syria is not exactly well excavated, and when it is, the stuff isn't published. The best I can think of off the top of my head are some generic karnak images that we used over at Thutmose III to illustrate Egypt's war against Mitanni, but even that's been stretching it... If a picture of the tell where wasshu(k/g)ani is supposed to be found could be dug up, that would be helpful, and I wonder if a releif could be located from Amenhotep III's time depicting (more or less) the mitannian king at the time presenting some sort of tribute. Does anyone know of any hittite based sources for images? Thanatosimii 21:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Ararat stop reverting your just going to get yourself in more trouble. Nareklm 21:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect the man's opinion already. What kind of discussions is this? You guys are making this a big deal. This was already there, so you are making it a big deal. This isnt reverting actually, you are the ones reverting this. Ararat arev 21:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Since you said wanst a big a deal, they are the ones that made it a big deal, it was already there in the first place. I also think it looks better up there comparing Urartu page. What you think?" Ararat arev 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that a senior editor is to be respected does not mean you should go around soliciting his input on trivial matters such as this. This is a small matter, but the guidelines are the guidelines. Images should be relevant, and we're not about to bend on that. Thanatosimii 21:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys are like children making this a big deal. The images were "there already" and that is not a big deal as they said. If we have to bring more admins in this we will, to get their opinions Ararat arev 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Administrators and please tell me where you come to this conslusion that admins wield that kind of power or where it says you should go soliciting them in such a manner. You'll have a lot of time to read coming up, becuase with seven reverts to this page a block is inevetable. Thanatosimii 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not just admins. You're making this a big deal cause of this 16 year old putting "copyvio" on the image to remove it. Then you started making it a big deal also following this vandalism. The image was approved by handlers of copyright,for the last time already man. Ararat arev 21:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean by understanding the entire situations. Ararat arev 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in disagreement because and only because a only loosely related image does not belong at the top of a page; not here, not anywhere. If this went through a peer review you could bet ten people would ask what the picture is doing there. Thanatosimii 21:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No they wont say "what its doing there" , and we havent got their opinions yet. Im asking a few peoples opinions now actually. Ararat arev 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, inasmuch as random images are against the rules, they would ask why it's there. Stop bothering people with your solicitations and obey the stated rules. Thanatosimii 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

the map

Image:Neareastna.gif would be a nice map, but, copyright concerns aside, its resolution is too low, you can't read the labels, and it's scope is too large. It needs to be redrawn. It also lumps together Mitanni and Assyria in a single red blob. Image:Mitanni map.png isn't a masterpiece, I hacked it together in 20 minutes, but at least it is taylored for this article and shows what we need shown here. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Mitanni and Armenia are shown as separate entities... Some suggest that Mitanni and Armenia are one and the same, while others refute the existence of Armenia prior to the 600s BC. Both sides would agree logically to have the map removed and to put that other map. -- Davo88 06:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there isn't even an Urartu in 1400 BC, let alone an "Armenia". Urartu is a successor state of Mitanni. At best, the Armenian highland could be labelled "Nairi tribes", but we are not doing a comprehensive map of the ANE here, just a location sketch for Mitanni. dab (𒁳) 10:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian more accurate

The second paraghraph states: The Mitanni kingdom is thought to have been a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan descent, invading the region at some point during the 17th century BC in the course of the Indo-Aryan migration that separated the Middle Bronze Age.. But Mitanni is also considered as Indo-Iranian not necessarily Indo-Arian. I suggest to change the statement in second paraghragh to Indo-Iranian, since it even includes the Indo-Arians too. Arianfire 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you entierly sure about that? Indo-Aryan encompasses Indo-Iranian, not the other way around, I thought... Thanatosimii 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian has two major branchs: one is Indo-Aryans who reside in southern Asia in India; the other is Iranians who live in southwest Asia including uper Mesopotamia. Arianfire 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I guess they taught me wrong in school... go figure. Very well, if this is so you're probably right that it should be changed. Thanatosimii 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many resarchers think that Mittani may have been closer to Indo-aryan branch of Indo-Iranians, but this is just speculation because our knowledge of Mittani is very small, and there are many ancient Iranian groups (themselves a branch of Indo-Iranians) who still are poorly known to us. Note that, even uper Mesopotamia has been historically inside Iranian domonation not Indo-Arian.

I think speculations about to which branch of Indo-Iranians, they belonged should not be discussed at the begining. I will also add some references. Arianfire 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the current anon IP edits are being clearly done by the person who used to edit under User:Ararat arev. They can be deleted on sight without any justification necesarry other than "he's banned," but I'm not keen on 3rr violations, even if this is an exception... Thanatosimii 01:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

no, Indo-Aryan is correct, and more accurate. Detailed discusison of this goes on Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni. dab (𒁳) 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"often associated"

"Mitanni is often associated with the modern Armenians and Kurds" -- why is this in the intro? what is the context? "often associated" where and by whom? In popular culture? In Kurdish and Armenian nationalism? In archaeology? The citation is "Royal Scottish Geographical Society - 1999, Published 1999, p:12". Royal Scottish Geographical Society is a society. I presume we mean its journal, the 1999 edition of the Scottish Geographical Journal. So somebody said something about Kurds and Armenians on page 12 there. Can we get the author, the title of the article, and the context please? And some justification why this is intro-worthy? dab (𒁳) 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does "Arta", which means "righteous" in Armenian, persist in Armenian to this day, but not in Persian or Indian? Also, Persians have the names Armin and Arman, obviously you know where that comes from, not to mention Armin'a, was the form the Persians recorded for the land of 'Ar'menia. 216.175.79.103 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

how is this at all related to my question? I was asking for the "Scottish Geographical" publication, not for the later fate of the "Arta" element in personal names. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Naharin

The assertation that Raymond Faulkner implies that nhrn refers to the Nairi is wrong. I own that book, I have read that page time and time again when people bring up the assertation that nhrn is the Egyptian word for Nairi. No expert says any such thing. Thus the current "cited" claim is nothing of the kind, and is misleading. Thanatosimii 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited claims are not just based on whether Nairi and Naharin are the same, or more than cognates, it is based on all the other points which I made on the Naharin articles for deletion page. Do not just ignore those, and try to base this issue on the Nairi and Naharin not being related, which they certainly are.--Moosh88 00:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Which they certainly aren't. Thanatosimii 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Armenia

here is an interesting title: Сабир Асадов, Миф о “Великой” Армении (1999)[9]. Quite apparently a pro-Azerbaijan propagandist, attempting to prove that there was no "Ancient" Armenia. This sort of explains the zeal of our Armenian trolls to establish in-your-face that Armenia is more ancient than your mother-in-law. Without being aware of such counter-propaganda it is somewhat difficult to understand what they are even on about... dab (𒁳) 10:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

1) Indo Aryan is a subset of Indo European. Just because they're the latter doesn't mean they're not the former. It is correct to say that the rulers of Mitanni were Indo-Aryan. 2) Nahrin and nairi are still not the same. It is wrong to assert by linking the former to the latter and citing it that Faulkner believes this. 3) The citation I replaced with a citationneeded, quite frankly, doesn't cite one word of that sentance. It's a false citation. Thanatosimii 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason Indo-European was used, is due to the fact that Armenians, another Indo-European group, helped establish the kingdom of Mitanni with the Indo-Aryans. I already expalined all the reasons on the [deletion page]. This is just a repeat of what I showed earlier.

Also, I saw in the edit history, that you were the one who said that the Mitanni deities were mainly of Indo-Aryan origin. This is correct because the kings names had the Arta prefix, which is Armenian (used to this day by Armenians), the Indo-Aryan is Rta.

And since it has been shown that the kings were mainly of Armenian origin, Indo-European makes more sense. Plus, you even said that Nairi was east of the Tigris river, which is where the Hurrians (Indo-Europeans)read here came from, and all the other historical/lingustic/cultural evidence.

BTW: Every major linguist has grouped Armenian, along with Greek and Persian, into a Graeco-Armeno-Aryan sub branch.--Moosh88 06:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

this is fringy nonsense of the sort found on http://armenianhighland.com. Characterizing the superstrate in Mitanni as Indo-Aryan is correct. See Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni. "Armenians, another Indo-European group, helped establish the kingdom of Mitanni with the Indo-Aryans" is bullshit. The earliest evidence of the Armenian language dates to the 5th century, fully 19 centuries (!) after the establishment of Mitanni. You are victim to the usual antiquity frenzy fallacy in Armenian nationalism. The Hurrians were not Indo-European, your "see here" references to geocities.com pages notwithstanding. dab (𒁳) 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not nationalism at all. Are ancient records and ALL the linguists who place Armenian in a larger Graeco-Armeno-Aryan (dating to the 3rd mil. BC) sub branch Armenian nationalists? If it was nationalism, there would be no records to provide evidence. Records of Arman and Ermenen, and clearly we see Indo-Europeans in Armenian Highland from archeology (Kura-Arax culture with Mitanni) this is "not" Nationalism. What is "bullshit" to borrow a term from dbachmann, is saying that the earliest evidence of the Armenian language dates to the 5th century, therefore he is suggesting that Armenians were not around 1000 or more years before then, he bases this all on that one point, it is absurd.

So the geocities site is not good enough for you, ok here is another one. [10]

And another one [11] it says:

Armenia, a scion of the "Aryan" stock, has for "four millenniums and more" (that means over 4000 years, 2000 BC and older), through two or three revivals and through some of the most devastating misfortunes that ever beset a people, been an advanced post of civilization. It is one of the most ancient of nations.

You may find some objections with certain websites, but are you not "ok" with a major scholar like Colin Renfrew? And he is just one of many who share a similar view on the Indo-European homeland and languages.

Also, you took out the Thutmose III record on Ermenin, he mentions Ermenin twice during his reign. These records identify the link, which shows the Armenian and overall Indo-European presence from Mitanni and the earlier Kura-Araxes culture. These scholars are not Armenian nationalists, another example of scholarly work being called nationalism by you.

Why don’t you guys consider and look over all these sources, before making such edits. To tell you the truth, I don’t even care about nationalism, I care about the Truth (or the closest we can come to it), and the search for it is what concerns me. I am showing you these records, most of which is not done by Armenian scholars/historians, but by non Armenian scholars/historians. You are ignoring a lot of scholarly info, and opting instead to use outdated sources.--Moosh88 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: THE ABOVE POST IS IN REFERENCE TO ALL THE REVERTS DONE BY dab ON MY RECENT EDITS.--Moosh88 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to write a solid encyclopedia, for which we need mainline peer reviewed academic sources. Now, I've seached the Cambride Ancient History, a number of the big journals for ancient history, and the standard text for the subject of Ancient Near Eastern history. I can't find anything you're talking about, but I can find work that would be incompatable with it. You need to present equally heavy sources. You haven't.
And you can't use that touregypt site either. It's better than Geocities, but the problem isn't the quality of the site, it's the fact that the site doesn't say the kinds of things you want to attribute to it.
There are a plethora of good sources to read on Mitanni and the Hurrians if you care to learn somthing about them. But they don't say what you want to see... Thanatosimii 22:05, 25 September 2007

(UTC)

Yes, that is the stated goal of wikipedia, but there are many people with a POV to push, we don't see the stated goal happen as often as it should. Touregypt was used to show the edit from Indo-Aryan to Indo-European, nothing else. I have reviewed mainline material too, just because it is not the ones which you are used to, does not mean they do not carry equal weight. I have done my best to show many sources, not just Armenian, and these sources have been in English, if you really want to get technical, we can bring in French, Russian, German, Armenian, and Georgian sources in their original. Also, it is becoming obvious to me that you are the one who is not seeing what you want, i.e. that Armenians didn't have anything to do with Mitanni, when not only ancient records from the time attest to it, but even modern scholars and linguists, such as Colin Renfrew, show that Armenians were in the region, our language is related to Hurrian, we are one of the oldest Indo-European ethnic groups, and that Kura-Araxes culture pottery works have been found in the region.

Here is another source for you.

James P. Mallory, "Kuro-Araxes Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

In this work Mallory shows that the Kura-Araxes culture is Indo-European and supports the touregypt, which says that the Mitanni were Indo-European (Hurrian).

Finally, what is with this misconception of www.armenianhighland.com? I'd like to cover two things with this. A. the site was not used as a reference to any of the pieces which I had added to the above mentioned articles, and B. the site has all of it's info cited/sourced, it is not nationalistic in the sense which dab has been trying to convince everyone that it is. He misrepresented the site, and tries to link it with the banned user ararat arev, who if I may say, was/is not involved with the making or running of armenianhighland.com Also, that site was made by a couple of people working together, if you only take the time to read it and give the site a fair chance, you will see that it is not some made up, fantasy, nationalistic webpage, it has serious academic work. The interesting thing is that the above sources (Mallory and Renfrew) are also found on armenianhighland.com in the Indo-European homeland section.--Moosh88 23:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if a source says "Mitanni was ruled by Indo Europeans," that doesn't necesarraly mean mitanni wasn't ruled by Indo-Aryans. An Indo-Aryan is a subsection of Indo-European. The only way to justify changing to Indo-European is to find a reputable source that says explicitly "Indo-European and not Indo-Aryan." And as for ArmenianHighland, that site is not heavy academia. Not at all. Thanatosimii 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it is an unquestionable fact that Hurrian is not Indo-european. The mitannian rulers, yes, but not hurrians. Thanatosimii 00:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is sad how you cite what wikipedia stands for, yet you have your mind made up and can not see any other point of view, even if so many acadamec sources are saying the same thing.

I just showed you a "reputable" link, which is James P. Mallory, "Kura-Araxes Culture", Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Fitzroy Dearborn, 1997.

The Kura-Araxes culture was NOT Indo-Aryan, but they were Indo-European, as we see the links with later Mitanni showing the Indo-European links; The spread to Syria of a distinct pottery type associated with the Kura-Araxes culture has been connected with this movement. Do the research, it is not up to me to teach you this stuff, only to show you where I got it. You also must have not even bothered to look through armenianhighland.com otherwise you would not be making such statements.

As for Hurrians, they have links with Armenians, and many scholars think they may be Indo-European, the info you are basing your opinion, which is exactly what it is, are outdated and really need to be revised.--Moosh88 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading Armenian Highland is precicely why I think it's insane. I know pseudohistory when I read it. Thanatosimii 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I highly doubt that you even bothered to read, not even a few sentences. But there seems to be some confusion on your part, if you think I am using armenianhighland.com as a source, I am not. I am basing on MAJOR scholars such as Colin Renfrew, Mallory Ivanov, Gamkrelidze, etc. As well as the ancient records, most importanly, Thutmose the III's mention of Ermenin. I have already explained this before, I just wanted to clarify again, so do not assume I am using armenianhighland.com as my source, this is not true.--Moosh88 02:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that last one's been bothering me too. Tell me precicely where it is that Thut III mentions "Eremnen." Cite an Urkunden reference if that's where I'd find it. It's OR one way or another, but I want to see where the semivowels are, because Hieroglyphics aren't well suited to producing such a transliteration.
I read a signifiant amount of the avalable text (not much currently, as far as I can find. Lots of "coming soon"s) on Armenian Highland. It's insane. Totally absurd. It's good you don't cite it, because it is indeed a terrible source. The problem with your other sources is that they're in conflict with whatever else I can find wherever I look. All sources indicate an Indo-Aryan ruling class conquered a Hurrian (neither indo-european nor semitic) native population, which you're contradicting. And regardles, to say that has a connexion with Armenia is just anachronistic. Thanatosimii 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have Colin Renfrew's book right in front of me, and it clearly says "Indo-Aryan for righteous is "Rta" and Armenian for righteous is "Arta". He mentions that even to this day Armenians use "Arta", but not Indians or Persians. Mitanni kings names start with Arta, not Rta.

As far as Thutmose III's mention here is the source, Eric H. Cline and David O'Connor (eds.) Thutmose III, University of Michigan, 2006, Cline and O'Conner are Egyptologists that read hieroglyphs and they point out that Thutmose III mentioned Ermenen twice during his reign. (To this day, Turks, Kurds, and Azeri's call Armenia Ermenin).

And I also found in Colin Renfrew's book that the gods specifically were of Indo-Aryan origin, so I agree with that. And on another page he mentions the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan sub branch of Indo-European dating to the 3rd Mil. BC.

You respond only to one point of only my latest posts, and do not look at any thing else, you have been ignoring all of my other posts. Please read all of my other posts, I linked you to many sources, carefully look over them. If you are going to ignore all of my other posts, and respond to only to the latest, then I will not take the rest of your posts seriously.--Moosh88 04:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

so you found an Iranian loanword in Armenian. what is your point? It is you who are ignoring a long history of debate in trying to make us swallow the stuff on armenianhighland.com. It is perfectly obvious that you have no background knowledge of the questions involved. As long as you keep repeating that the Hurrians were Indo-Europeans, you are just wasting our time and talk space. --dab (𒁳) 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop this "read carefully" nonsense. I have read, and it is because I have read that I find your arguments exceedingly weak. Thanatosimii 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you attack either me, or just one point which I make, rather than the Whole of what I say and source. It is infact your arguments which are "exceedingly weak", and you have shown again that you are not familiar with the history of Armenia or the time period, you can make all the claims that you want, I am finished with you since I have seen no change in your behavior towards me. Bring in a more civil and unbaised user, i.e. an administrator.--Moosh88 21:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

this is tedious. If you have a point to make, make it, without all the ranting. --dab (𒁳) 09:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Is James Mallory not a reliable source dab?--Moosh88 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to answer, or have you realized that you are wrong?--Moosh88 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your sources do not say what you think they say, nor imply what you say they imply. Thanatosimii 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A. You have no idea what your talking about, and B. at least I provide sources, what have you done either then state your opinion? Show me some references and stop attacking me, rather than my argument.--Moosh88 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Moosh88, you have no case. You are merely rehashing material that was already discussed ad nauseam. Unsurprisingly, you find that nobody is disposed to go along with you in this. dab (𒁳) 14:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading a great deal of Ancient Armenian History articles on Wikipedia, and I was astonished to see that this guy dab and Dacy69 were on every single one, and were on all of the talk boards trying to justify their removal or edit reverts. These guys/gals love to start an edit war. They just state their opinion as Moosh said, and leave you with nothing, no cited sources, no facts to back up their argument, nothing. They started to annoy me so much because every single article on Armenian history is now protected because of them, and there is a ton of confusion as to the origination of Armenians and all the other branches of ancient Armenian history. Dab and Dacy69 continuously bleet out the same old thing, senselessly rambling on and on about Armenian Nationalism (even creating an article on it) and making it seem like every Armenian editor with a different POV than theirs is an Armenian nationalist. They slip in their own opinions, and pro-Azeri/Turkish material in all the small cracks and crevices they find. They try to make it seem like Armenians have no history or culture, and label everything that is pro-Armenian or contrary to their own beliefs, as nationalism and refuse to even glance at the material. Also, talking about the quality of the articles that they have been involved in, it is just horrible, half of the article tries to force the reader to think that what he is reading is Armenian Nationalist propoganda, and the other half is just junk, lack of details, a huge POV problem with the Turkish editors, and not enough information on the article itself (it rather seems like the article is a continuation of the argument going on in the Talk/Discussion Board.) Also, in many articles I see "a minority Armenian nationalist view says this...," we should put "a small fraction of the academic community, mainly nationalist Turks and Azeris say this..." So instead of writing things like this garbage...

Urartu article - "A minority view, advocated primarily by the official historiography of Armenia, suggests that Urartian was solely the formal written language of the state, while its inhabitants, including the royal family, spoke Armenian."

Urartu article - "A competing view suggested by Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov in 1984 places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland, see Armenian hypothesis, which would entail the presence of (pre-)Proto-Armenians in the area during the entire lifetime of the Urartian state."

Nairi article - "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled Armenian nationalism."

Nationalism and Ancient History or Historiography and Nationalism article - "ancient times, ethnicities often derived their or their rulers' origin from divine or semi-divine founders of a mythical past (for example, the Anglo-Saxons deriving their dynasties from Woden; see also Euhemerism). In modern times, such mythical aetiologies in nationalist constructions of history were replaced by the frequent attempt to link one's own ethnic group to a source as ancient as possible, often known not from tradition but only from archaeology or philology, such as Armenians claiming as their origin the Urartians"

Mittani article - "Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, quoted fragments of Eupolemus, a now-lost Jewish historian of the 2nd century BC, as saying that "around the time of Abraham, the Armenians invaded the Syrians". This may correspond approximately to the arrival of the Mitanni, since Abraham is traditionally assumed at around the 17th century BC. The association of Mitanni with Urartu, and of Urartu with Armenia plays a certain role in Armenian nationalist historiography."

...we should so something similar to what I proposed.

Section

==In later historiographies== needs to be replaced with ==Later historiographies==.70.74.35.144 (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

People

Since I cannot edit the page, I will point out that the assertion that the Hurrian language is Indo-European is false, as may be seen by checking the article on that language. Its only certain relative is Urartian. Talan Gwynek (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

this was rather recent vandalism article attrition, it has only been online for two days[12]. thanks for drawing attention to the problem. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, I was assuming good faith on the part of Torahjerus14 and was prepared to believe he was just fooled by the geocities stuff he quoted. But now it has become clear that this is just the next iteration of the Armenian nationalist nonsense that we've come to know and be bored by. Torahjerus14, it is true that Urartu (900 to 600 BC) is "often associated" with ancient Armenia (from 600 BC), and it is also true that Mitanni (1500 to 1200 BC) is often associated with Urartu. That's no excuse to spam this article with irrelevant observations about Armenians. There is an entire article on the "Armenian hypothesis" if you like to throw around citations of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. This discussion is 100% {{offtopic}} here. I will consider another revert to the patently false "geocities" claim that "Hurrian was Indo-European" blockable as vandalism. dab (𒁳) 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

note that Mitanni is duly mentioned in a factor in the wider areal prehistory of Armenian ethnogenesis, at Armenians#Origins where it is actually on topic. dab (𒁳) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of Renfrew handy, but it looks like he may have mis-cited Diakonov. A correct summary of Diakonov (basically, JIES 1985) can be found in Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p.35-36. Diakonov links Armenians with Urartu (as their successors in the area), not with the Hurrians, let alone Mitanni, who were long gone by then. At any rate, Diakonov's views are not an accurate reflection of the mainstream, and so WP:UNDUE also applies. rudra (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin Renfrew, has Greco-Armeno-Aryan, (that means way before Indo-Aryan existed), in the 3rd millenium BC, or even 4th millenium BC, suggesting our languages already had contacts with each other before Mitanni even existed, so that means its "possible", Armenian and Indo-Aryan groups were there together, since Armenian language has both, "Hurrian", and "Indo-Iranian" (Aryan, mentioned above in the grouping Greco-Armeno-Aryan). 68.122.154.100 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)