Talk:Mitanni/Archive 1

Merge Proposal
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)
 * Why not just make a subpage on your userpages? Cleaner that way. Fornadan 21:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE
 * I have now worked out a draft merge of the two articles; it will be available on my userpage for a while awaiting any comment and/or edits, and if there is no objection heard, the final copy should replace both entries after say, a week. Codex Sinaiticus 04:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it will be a week tomorrow, and so far the only feedback I have heard of any kind, concerns which one of my userpages the draft ought to appear on. Meanwhile, I think I have developed a very good article on the Mitanni including some new info, that will still be available for open editing at Codex Sinaiticus for only a short time longer, before I replace the current article and redirect Hanigalbat to here, probably sometime tomorrow. --Codex Sinaiticus 16:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * excellent work, do keep going! dab (&#5839;) 17:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, make sure to add cat Syrian history to it :). I never knew that there was an Indo-Iranian kingdom in Syria...Yuber 21:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


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

Article changes made and suggested
--JFK 14:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC) --JFK 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * The town and excavations sections are now removed but appear in an expanded version in the Archaeology section in the Hurrians article instead. Additions are welcome.

Eusebius
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 (&#5839;) 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 (&#5839;) 16:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

map of the zone
A map of the zone where these peoples lived would be really nice for us geography-ignorant =) --euyyn 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Im requesting anyone here? Im requesting to unprotect the page for editing and references75.4.20.35 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Im requesting unprotect of this page to add reference and editsArarat arev 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

A bunch of stuff I (Thanatosimii) moved from where it was inserted at the top of the page
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)

If you look further down on Vahan Kurkjian's site the Hittite Empire section you see the Hittite Influence part it says here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/home.html After he mentions the Hurri-Mitanni kingdom of Armenia he mentions at the time we were called 'Armens' as you see in Haik's time also we are called Armens. Ararat arev 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From a Georgian website:

Hurri n.

( pl. same or Hurris) a member of a people, originally from Armenia, who settled in northern Mesopotamia and Syria during the 3rd-2nd millennium bc and were later aborbed by the Hittites and Assyrians. (See also Mitanni.) Hittite & Assyrian Harri, Hurri The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, © Oxford University Press 1996 Ararat arev 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Queen Nefertiti of Egypt was a native of Mitanni. The Mittani Kingdom of Armenia was an off-shoot of the Hurrian kingdom. The Hurri and the Mittani in turn were the contemporaries the Hittites and the Hykos, within whom they shared many cultural and political aspects. Today, all these aforementioned nations are considered to be, in varying degrees, proto-Armenians, that is, we modern day Armenians are direct descendants of the remnants of those ancient tribes. Notice the Mitanni warrior that invaded Syria around 17th century BC was Indo-European "or" Indo-Aryan. Which first of all these terms were later used the original term was "Ar"yan from the root word "Ar" which was one of the first words used like "Ar"arat or "Ar"atta. Another point is whether Assyro-Akkadian or Assyrian or Akkadian this is all one people same Semitic language which referred to us by Nairi the people of Naharina or Nairi which is also in Mitanni's page. Nairi meant the land of rivers which is the Armenian Highland with Tigris and Euphrates rivers.Ararat arev 22:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

We still use "Hur" Fire and "Jur" Water. Let me give you an example when we say waterfall its "Jr"vej and when we say volcano its "Hr"apogh again that Hur and Hr and Jur is Jr. There is many example man. Look you also didnt respond about the Mitanni names that are clearly Armenian. Look at the other names "Good Sun" Bartarna? or Partarna which is the Lebana-Hye's way is with P Pari looys. Bari looys meaning good (Bari) And the other one Shutarna translated on the Mitanni page as "Great Sun". Mitanni kings like Artatama says "most righteous" which is the Armenian word for righteous is Arta or Artar, third is Tusratta says it means "ten chariots" Tus is Ten in Armenian again. The "Ar" part is even there again meaning Sun or Light or Fire. Like Arev, Ararat, "Ar"menia, Arpi, Areg, etc etc Ararat arev 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

One of the main things I see in this whole ignorance it seems is not being realized that Armenian's at some point in our history were in Egypt and we actually influenced them on a lot of things such as architecture, writings, astronomy, etc etc. As I mentioned earlier the movie "The Egyptian" dates of the time of Akhenaten which Mitanni was there in the movie there are Armenian's and one point even speaking Armenain revealing once again that Mitanni were Armenain. Look at Hayasa-Azzi right? You look there it says there is no clear history about them if they were Hurrian speaking? Right? Well, hmm??? Can you not consider this powerful point? Specially at the same time as Mitanni-Hurri?? Also like i said its based on this whole Ancient Egypt connection that you seem to not grasp what im saying here. Ararat arev 20:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

I'm requesting an unprotect on this page for editing and references Ararat arev 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

much of what is presented here as fact is fanciful speculation at best. expecially the "Vedic" connection is daydreaming. Not impossible, maybe, but certainly not established fact. dab (&#5839;) 10:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I changed "invaded" to "migrated" in the Sanskrit reference regarding the Aryan entrance in India, as the "invasion" theory is no longer valid.

Vahan Kurkjian and other historians
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)

Dubious material
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)
 * 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)

I saw your message to Dbachmann. He has yet to reply to my Proto-Armenian language page. Also, Mr Kavoukjian didnt say nobody spoke Hurrian as a common people. He said during "Mitanni" which as you know were IE family. As for Urartu (Ararat), this is the one that only the royal family spoke Hurrian. Ararat arev 06:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as Nairi, the tribe was there during Mitanni which Egyptians referred as Nairi or Nahrin. If you read the historians I gave the sources mention Nairi pronounced Nahrin is the same Assyro-Akkadian word for rivers. As you put the link to Aram-Naharin which means "Aram of the "2" rivers" which as you know is the main rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Ararat arev 06:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

You yourself put "Nahrin" which is also called Nairi. Go look at the Mitanni page one more time and see for yourself you put "Nahrin" referring to the rivers which is pronounced also by Nairi.

Also, since you know Egyptian you should realize the first letter "N" shows a "river" or "water". Go look up your hieroglyphs and see for yourself :). Ararat arev 23:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if you realized something else, Greeks dont have the sounds we have in our language. We have 38 letters and we have all types of sounds Greeks dont even have. How could you even see a link with Greeks? Ararat arev 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * lol--Eupator 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Those sources are verified and reliable according to the other main editors of this site. Ararat arev 04:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No they are not reliable and they cannot be used in Wikipedia.--Eupator 16:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Beginning about 2000 BC, the Assyrians used the term “People of the Nairi” to describe the same area. The territory and people both were called Nairi, but the word meant country or land of Rivers, and contemporary Assyrian accounts describe about 60 different tribes and small kingdoms and about 100 cities included in this land. Ararat arev 05:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Mitanni seal that was removed
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)


 * 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 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. 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)