Talk:Type H of the Aegean Late Bronze Age swords

Deletion reasons
If the article creator is not blocked, he will undoubtedly remove the PROD, so I'm reporting the reasons here.


 * All sources appear to be self-published, and the printed books do not have a page number reference. The name is probably not scholarly. Only Google scholar references to "Type H Sword" are a 9th century Viking sword.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The printed book now does have a page number reference, but, for credibility purposes, you'll have to explain why there are no Google scholar hits for this "Type H Sword", and few for the publishers. Perhaps this field isn't indexed by Google scholar?  In any case, I cannot agree with the removal of tags.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The printed books (not book) had page number references right from the beginning, so your placement of page numbers needed, and especially your edit-warring reinstatement of that template, were obviously conterfactual, and the sort of disruptive editing that I would not expect from anyone, let alone an administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still question the reliability of the printed sources. I never heard of either publisher, and neither has Google scholar.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your protestations are getting more and more bizarre. Here are Google Scholar searches for "Franz Steiner Verlag" and "Storia e Letteratura". A mathematician should be able to tell the difference between 0 and 49,400 or 11,300. Why don't you try entertaining the possibility that your initial gut reaction to this article might have been incorrect? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The news gossipers...(rolls eyes) Concerning the Vikings and the H-type, makes sense because the Sea Peoples have been attributed to displaying the same horned-helmets centuries before.


 * Wheres Dan (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. Are you now saying the tribe of Dan are VIKINGS? Please read WP:Original research, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, soon, or your career here will be very short indeed.  He  iro  19:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought "Dan" was already blocked. As for the article, is the Viking type H sword related to the Aegean type H sword.  That would be interesting, if sourced.  He was blocked about 4 minutes after his comment, but I read about the block before I read the comment.
 * As for my initial reaction, "Dan" (the article creator)'s comment suggests I was probably correct. If there was something appropriate in the article as created, it was by accident.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Although Wheres Dan is blocked, I have to point out that Vikings didn't wear horned helmets, so that connection is a load of hogwash. As for the "news gossipers" remark, it is inappropriate (borderline racist) to dismiss Arthur Rubin's comments like that. Regarding the Google scholars issue: "Type H sword" doesn't pull up anything related to this article. As for Franz Steiner Verlag, it appears that his work is not discussing the Type H sword at all, but Type 7 H. As for Storia e Letteratura, why are we citing a literary history journal for non-textual archaeological information? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST initial assessment
Little more than a stub but referenced so classed as a weak start. Needs considerably more content to explain context of the weapon and its significance. An illustration of the weapon from a non-copyright source should be a priority and a map to orient the reader in the Bronze Age Aegean would be very useful.Monstrelet (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Categorize
I changed the raw {{:Category:Swords|]] to but further refinement is likely. I wasn't sure whether Aegean is part of "Europe", so it could be Category:Ancient European swords.
 * Category:Ancient swords
 * Category:Aegean civilizations
 * Category:Bronze Age