User talk:Publik

I know you said to "not quote large chunks of someone else's text", but it wasn't me who added the text, it was Egyptzo, and I didn't remove it because doing it would surely start a edit war, and if you look at the article it has most of the removed text again. So I tried to change some of the language, rewrite some of it (it was repeating already mentioned events) and I added the reference User:Super Knuckles 17:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, I've shortened the inscription on the Battle of Kadesh a little but I strongly believe it should be included in the main body of the article for 3 primary reasons: it gives 1) the date Ramses II left Egypt, 2) the date of his arrival at Kadesh and 3) it is an actual Sourced contemporary inscription from ANET by James B. Pritchard, a well-respected archaeologist. ANET is one of the most reliable historical translation of Ancient Egyptian texts and Pritchard's book will increase the credibility of the article. If you wish to shift its position in the article or shorten parts of it, that's fine. I just hope you can find a little flexibility here. Most contributors on Wikipedia don't even bother to quote contemporary historical documents--they just place unverifiable and unsourced stuff on Wikipedia which calls into question this enclopaedia's reputation. PS: It was Rktect, I believe, who first added this info. to the article but at least he listed the source for it. With kind Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that E. Brittanica's editors always complain that Wikipedia is a 'hack' encyclopaedia but quality articles such as the Battle of Kadesh puts this issue to rest. Personally, I feel contemporary documents gives the reader some perspective of the participants' views of the battle. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Publik for your considerate comments. PS: I reverted Egypto's change on Mursili III. See here: [1] Hatusilli did win a military victory at Kadesh--he forced Ramesses II to retreat south from Kadesh in haste and then attacked and seized the Egyptian province of Upi. For Ramesses, Kadesh was a personal triumph since he led his troops to a victory on the field of batlle. But strategically, his victory was a debacle one since part of his army was destroyed and he could not emulate his father's achievement of seizing Kadesh. Then he had to deal with revolts in the Egyptian empire for a time. Leoboudv (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a scholar Publik? You seem to know a lot about the primary sources--much more than me. And I have a BA degree in Canada. Have you seen how bloated the Ramesses II article has become at 61 KB? It just goes on and on! When I first made an addition on this pharaoh, there was only one significant article about his military battles--mostly at Kadesh, of course. I gave a valuable sourced quote--from Joyce Tyldesley's biography--about Ramesses's account about being caught in a Hittite trap here. (It is still there) But now the article has ballooned. Other contributors have given "unreferenced" accounts on Kadesh and created brand new paragraphs on his numerous Syrians campaigns as well as those against Nubia and Libya. It is a very good article but most of the info. is unreferenced; it is also an example of how unwieldy an article can become. Even the article on the controversial Akhenaten is 10 KB smaller. As an Aside, personally I like the open nature of Wikipedia but I hate how easily its articles can be vandalised. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your analysis. I did not know you were an expert on the Hittites; Egyptology is my personal hobby. It has been since I graduated from UBC. However, I, too, hate it when people post unreferenced information on Wikipedia since it is difficult to verify the info. Most people have a life to live. I agree on your caution on edit warring. The original Hyksos article was broken into two and went through a period of edit warring before the new subsection "The origins of the Hyksos" was finally accepted...by the reluctant party. The original article about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was broken up because it was unmanageable at more than 100 KB. The Admins got involved because this is a very important article and they separated it up into at least 4 subsections I believe. Perhaps, one day an Admin will 'prune' the Ramesses article too or break it up too. With kind regards, Leoboudv (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Publik. Egyptzo again added that info that both of us keep reverting. Personally I don't like that info and I think it's not useful at all, because it seems repeated; but I am also tired of reverting it and I don't like this kind of edit war. I keep telling him to say why he insists on it in the talk page, but he doesn't seem to care. I am saying this to you to see if we can talk and convince with him. Super Knuckles (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, only to tell you that we might start an "election" of the best battle section, it will be "my" version against "Egyptzo's" version. Super Knuckles (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a summary of the issues to speed things up for me and cut through the rhetoric? (I'm presuming you've red my comments on the talk page) Thanks.

talk) 12:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, that would help. One problem is that different sources do say different things!

talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've grabbed the lasted none copyvio version and added my changes, I really think we need to work from there, readding non-copyvio stuff and acknowledging that scholars don't all agree -- Goedicke thinks it was a minor event, for instance.

talk) 13:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You know more about the details of the battle than me but wasn't Hattusili 'the' Hittite commander at Kadesh? My impression was that Muwatalli placed him in command of the Egyptian forces. If true, it would mean that it was Hattusili's skillful leadership which helped secure victory against Ramesses rather than Muwatalli. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification on Muwatalli's specific role at Kadesh. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very difficult, because few Admins look at the article, I believe it should as least be B class, and it is still a start class. Even if we manage to produce a great work (which is difficult because of the many versions depicting the battle) I doubt it would be recognized. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem, we could get it reviewed. The idea is to make sure that the different versions are covered.

talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

We already wrote about the most commonly accepted depict of the battle, we should had a controversy section, and list there the disagreements, like was the Hittite chariot attack planned? , who were the Ne’arin? , and some more, like the true outcome, a draw. Noticed now that the Spanish version of the article is like a copy of the Mark Healy's book, but written in Spanish, yet it is FA class article, didn't the Spanish adimns noticed. Super Knuckles (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of having this as a feature article, or something like, first occurred to me when this whole drama had temporarily shifted over to the Ramesses II article, and I noticed that it had the status of "history good articles". This was before it all went sideways. This article has currently been restored to what I think is a workable version.

However, if the chief remaining obstacle is to ensure representation of the different versions, we're doomed. This is probably the most written about battle of pre-classical history. The recommended "further reading" list in the article's discussion page gives some indication of the scope of the problem. Kitchen covered the history of the battle's reconstruction, giving almost 30 different sources dating from Breasted (1903). And those are just the principle scholarly (i.e. peer reviewed) reconstructions! This isn't to say it's impossible. We could just create a version, mention the discrepencies that happen to get called out, and (*cough*) quietly sweep the rest under the rug.

I must admit, it was my intention to sheep-facedly walk away from this after Woody's rightfully placed "time out". However, I do still have some stomach left for making recommendations, now that in my opinion things are taking a more rational course. If you're interested in pursuing this as a FA, I would be happy to help. (P.S. No tables are missing in the main article at this point.)

P.S. I'm not generally a fan of the Osprey books. At least not the ones I've read. I haven't read Healy's, though. Publik (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree about Osprey books. It might be a good guide, but as a reference? I've just managed to get Egyptzo banned for 48 hours for copyright violations, by the way. Almost every article he has created or edited he has just used copy and paste from other articles, forum discussions, etc. He's caused a lot of problems. We can go for Good Article status first of course.

talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What I meant is that is a good place to gather info of the battle and its various aspects and that uses good references. He should focus on the GA right now, and when (if) we achieve it he should go for the FA. I feel pity for Egyptzo, I think he only tries to help, however the wrong way, I once added stuff into wikipedia the way he does, but once Markh told me that we couldn't literally copy stuff from other articles I stopped and I started using them for research only. At least he has showed us that he is a good researcher, based on the articles he copied from. Super Knuckles (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for my Talk page: Til Eulenspiegel correctly reverted the deletion of my comment - made in July - on the Talk:Hittites page to restore it. Can't imagine why it was removed in the first place. Publik (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Publik, Do you know what this Hittite architectural object is from Hattusa/Boghazkoy: Image:Hattusa2008.jpg? I uploaded the image but can't properly identify it. It doesn't seem to be a picture of that chamber built and decorated by Suppiluliuma II as I have a separate image of it here: Image:Hattusa reliefs1.jpg Pls answer on my talk page if possible. Thank You. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC) PS: Does your scholarly mind have any idea what these Hittite reliefs depict:[reply]

• [2] and
• The image can be placed on Commons...if only I knew what it was sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for your help on the images. Ahh!! That Suppiluliuma II what a braggart he was. Once he faced the Sea Peoples, he fled from battle and lost his Empire. Oh well, he sure was no Ramesses II (at Kadesh). With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear Publik, I have uploaded a description for the image here: Image:Relief_of_Tudhaliya_IV_(Yazilikaya).jpg If I read your interpretation wrongly, please feel free to hit the edit button and type in a more correct image description. I'm sorry but this subject is not my forte. Thank You --Leoboudv (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you don't know, Rktect has been blocked indefinitely for non-stop OR theories. Here is the record

Thanks for your help on my description of Tudhaliya's inscription. I hope I got it right. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. He was really too much. Admin Doug Weller filed the formal ban request and virtually everyone (except Rktect) agreed to it. Rktect is not a scholar in real life though I think you knew that already. (I'm not a scholar either but I don't do
  WP:OR stuff!) Nowadays, I edit much less to Wikipedia because I have been somewhat ill in 2009. I mostly edit at WikiCommons and deal with image deletion requests, votes on quality and featured images, etc. There is much less vandalism there too. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]