Talk:Mitanni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

• Talk:Mitanni/Archive 1

Contents 1 Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed 2 this page needs more *good* images 3 the map 4 Indo-Iranian more accurate

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)