User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 3

Prehistoric Britain

Hi. Actually I think things have changed a great deal in the last 15 years largely due to genetic analysis of both fossilised and extant humans. Early genetic work concentrated very largely on mitochondrial DNA because it's a very short sequence, it's easy to isolate and is not modified by myosis. More recently however, analysis of the Y-chromosome has turned the whole notion of non-violent cultural exchange on its head. It appears, for example, that there was rather little Y-chromosome in England and Scotland remaining from before the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions, suggesting either mass exodus of males or genocide. The latter seems more likely given the lower replacement levels of mitochondrial DNA. This model is consistent with linguistic and cultural data. The effect of this is to mask out what happened to the Y-chromosome during earlier cultural revolutions but data, again on the Y-chromosome, but taken from a broader European population suggests that a similar migration/replacement picture for the Neolithic. There are other data supoporting replacement rather than cultural exchange (which now seems like the traditionalist view). Other data, this time on mitochondrial DNA suggests extensive movement from southern europe at the time of the last glaciation. I've put in refs to some of these studies in the article. Francis Prior might be able to get his own TV shows but he's becoming increasingly isolated academically - he doesn't attempt to counter Mike Weale's work or fit it into his world view - he just says invasion must be wrong because there aren't any battlefields in the archjaeological record. Have a look at Weale's presentation on Genetic Anthropology

Cheers Paul Laetoli (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time for Francis Prior, I admit, but I'm not convinced Weale's work is as broad-sweeping as he claims. Not my speciality, but it looked when I read it as though it only applied to limited geographical areas, particularly the Danelaw (he talks about Central England) (and I don't think he was able to separate Danish from Angl-Saxon. He also writes "although our models assume asingle instantaneous migration event, we would also expect a more gradual process lasting several generations" -- and I'm not convinced that means mass exodus or genocide. Perhaps more importantly, there is this A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles with quotes like " Many men in York and east England carry Danish Y chromosomes. But surprisingly, there is little sign of Anglo-Saxon heritage in southern England." and "One tends to think of England as Anglo-Saxon," Goldstein said. "But we show quite clearly there was not complete replacement of existing populations by either Anglo-Saxons or Danes. It looks like the Celts did hold out."

So unless that's been overturned more recently, mass exodus or genocide aren't a done deal and Weale et al isn't the last word. What do you think?Doug Weller (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just looked, this is covered at Sub-Roman Britain and that also mentions the work by Oppenheimer and Sykes, which doesn't back invasion hypotheses.Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but surely you accept this is a complex unresolved debate with people lined up on both sides with Weale and Pryor on opposite extremes. The reason I removed your paragraph is that you were imlying that the migration idea was an old-fashioned one which has now been discounted. You must, surely accept that the issue is at least under debate and that a lot more genetic studies need to be done. The old archaelogical and linguistic data is still there and must be incorporated into the final picture. Can we reword the opening to reflect the fact that these issues are still being debated? Cheers Paul Laetoli (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I don't think there is any set of data that trumps any other at the moment, and the article should show the whole range of opinion without, obviously, favouring any particular POV. That wasn't my paragraph, by the way, but I take your point.Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Assyria (Persian province)

Doug, I have laid out my arguemetn and I hope you continue the discussion the issue in the talk page. I'm asking you to work with me because dab is disrespecting me (once again) with name calling, when I am trying to discuss the issue. Let us come to a conclusion on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Doug, I just wanted to say no matter what the fate of the page is, it has been great working with you. Perhpas be can colab in the future on a project. Chaldean (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very kind of you. You never know, we might work together sometime I agree.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What topics do you usually work on? BTW, here is a nice chart about the Assyrian issue [[1]] Chaldean (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

History and archaeology, right now working on 'Chinese Pyramids' (which are earthen mounds) and the Terracotta Army, maybe will do some work on Stonehenge, and want to write something on 'giants' and ancient fossils which may have caused some of the stories about giants. Mainly archaeology though.Doug Weller (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I most likely will be going back to northern Iraq this coming June, and will be taking many archaeology pictures (hopefully) and try to upload them for the use of Wiki. Chaldean (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been working extensively on the article (and almost every single sentence I have added, I have backed it with a source) and I would like for you to read through it briefly and tell me if you think its qualified now to be named Achaemenid Assyria (I have dropped my argument of Satrapy or Province being included in the title for the sake of neutrality.) Chaldean (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, put Oppose at the top to cast your vote too. Tourskin (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

? What does this mean? Vote where, and why are you telling me what to put there?Doug Weller (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we are having a vote there, (you see the the three Supports). If you want to support the move that Chaldean has put forward, by all means. You don't have to oppose. Tourskin (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion in the archaelogical section - Achaemenid_Assyria#Archaeological_findings. What do you think of it? Any way of improving it? Chaldean (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Battery

Replied on my talk. -- Secisek (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi Doug, I've started a section on the Talk page of British Isles for the edits. Feel free to join the discussion. I see that you are reverting any edits I've made and calling them "nationalist". Many of the edits you are reverting were researched and the edits included appropriate links. Bardcom (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, I am sure the phrase gets misused, and some of them may well be justified, but not a wholesale effort and not one that leaves 'the Ireland and United Kingdom' or whatever. And I think the March 25th one leaves it worse off (you have Ireleand now and for all I know the two different parts of Ireland have different quarter days).Doug Weller (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Moving text between articles and links

Hi Doubweller.

From what I've learned, the only requirement is that you credit the original authors. In Wikipedia this is done by including a link to the original page in the new edit summary. If you are moving text, then when you delete the old text from the original page, its a good idea to put a link to the new page in that edit summary as well. Dspark76 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gympie Pyramid

G'day, I was a little confused about your removal of the Anthony Wheeler quote from the Gympie Pyramid article. All that stuff about an alleged Thoth head is true (the stuff, not the head). Some people, particularly Rex Gilroy believes this is accurate and keeps making these ridiculous claims on various internet sites. It is used as evidence that the pyramid was constructed by Aztecs/Incas/Egyptians/Phoenicians/Chinese (take your pick). I think it should remain. Comments? Gillyweed (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- Are you sure I removed a Wheeler quote? The stuff I removed doesn't seem to be mentioned in Wheeler, which is why I removed it. It might be a good idea to add more of the stuff Wheeler mentions, but since he didn't discuss that and there was no reference or comment on Thoth, coins, an Easter Island statue, etc, I removed it.Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted or Merged articles' talk pages

If the article was deleted, you'll have to ask an WP:ADMIN for the talk page. If the article was merged with the history intact, go to the article and click on the tiny link above the article reading "Redirected from". That will take you to the redirect page where you can click on the associated talk tab. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding rollback

Rollback granted. :) Just remember to use it for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits, or use in revert wars. For more information, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Acalamari 20:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper citations

I see you care about these, and I am guilty, very guilty I'm sure, of not doing it correctly. Today Amazon delivered Wikipedia, the missing manual, and it lead me to a citation generator at [2] -- in your opinion, does this generate proper citations? If not, what should I be doing? I've read around various Wikipedia pages and am still confused. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

I usually prefer to use Wikipedia:Citation templates for the purpose. The full topic of citations is covered on Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. One of the main problems is of course coming across a page full of footnotes in different styles.Doug Weller (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Wilson

Thanks. So much hokum there I simply couldn't leave it stand as it was. Still needs a major overhaul. Are we sure he should be classed as a "Welsh historian"? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Abubakari II

Thanks Doug, will do. If there's some pseudo-countering source I have difficulty in tracking down, I know where to come to for advice, appreciate it.

I had been meaning to get back to that article for a while now, to try and conclude those points I had tried to make that there are considerable doubts the guy even existed, let alone surfed his way ashore at some beach at Rio or Playa del Carmen. I was glad to see at the talkpg there you'd been looking it over, and had quoted from a couple of papers like Levtzion's that I had not been able to access. Unfortunately the earlier discussion kinda got sidetracked by some gratuitous and sarcastic remarks. The other contributor who had been trying to raise the issue didn't help his cause, although I think he actually knew a bit about what he was talking about- if you take a look at the german wiki article de:Abubakari II. he'd worked on, you can see it's a big improvement.

Have been glad also to see you weighing in at the Olmec speculations, pre-Columbian contacts, and sundry other articles in need of some sanity checks against pseudo and questionable 'research'. There's still a chunk of material in the Olmec spec article that was added by Clyde Winters aka Olmec98 (talk · contribs) -the genetics section is one from that quarter I think, that hasn't yet been closely examined.

Anyways- see you round, and cheers. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone head to head with Winters, not a pleasant experience. I started on the genetics section yesterday, I'm away today and must remember to get back to it when I return.Doug Weller (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC).

Re: Lost Cities

You are correct. I was mistaken. All I can say is that it was late, I was irritable, and I was not really paying close enough attention to what I was doing. My apologies. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt.Doug Weller (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Star Gate Project

Why do you believe a book or a recorded interview tells you the truth? Just because it is in black and white? It is a question of probabilities, research and motive. The study of history is not a study of what really happened. It just doesn't work that way. It is the question of objectivity. Did Paul H. Smith have something to gain by giving me his side of the story? Should the outside testimony of one who has written an autobiographial account, Reading the Enemy's Mind : America's Psychic Espionage Program by Paul H. Smith, Tom Doherty Associates, LLC, 2005 and been interviewed many times about the the Star Gate Project have value? All the material is on my user discussion page for any one to see. And of course, you can check with Paul H. Smith yourself if you so desire. You see I really have a passionate curiosity. Sometimes getting a fuller picture requires getting answers to the questions maybe no one else has asked. (I seem to have a knack for that.) Is the desire to want to learn more wrong? Is this information give to me personally from Paul H. Smith invalid? It means nothing? What pleases you? Is there a right way and a wrong of collecting data? What are your boundaries? What are my boundaries? What are the boundaries for the Wikipedia and perhaps truth? The ancient "story" goes every document that passed through the gates of Alexandria was copied and preserved in its great library. Should Wikipedia do less? Kazuba (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't self-published then it is 'verifiable' WP:VERIFY -, right? So ok for Wikipedia. But, however good it is, sadly, your User Page may break WP:USER Doug Weller (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that from Location hypotheses of Atlantis. I had no idea that the statement was so ludicrous. I'll check my sources more carefully before i post next time. Erik the Red 2 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Chronology of human prehistory.

With respect you are onto the wrong author, my contribution to this article is limited to correcting a spelling mistake and showing by an internal link that the article in terms of the volcanic eruption is purely a theory.Paste (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: twinkle

Thanks for the note, will try it out sometime. Should it be downloaded?  S3000  ☎ 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Will check it out later. I use Opera by the way, but I'm sure it'll work. Thanks!  S3000  ☎ 18:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will try it out!  S3000  ☎ 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. As you advised, I'm currently using Twinkle. Its really simple as you said, but I'm not sure why all edits (i.e. rollbacks) I make are added to my watchlist. Can I exclude this feature? It's really annoying. Sorry but I didn't know who else to ask. Thanks.  S3000  ☎ 18:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the 'watchlist' tab' in 'my preferences', 'Add pages I edit to my watchlist' is unchecked. (in fact all the titles are unchecked). Could it be a fault with the TW code?

By the way I'm using Firefox. I'd like to try it on Opera (as I'm more familiar with it). Do I need to recopy and paste the TW code into my monobook in Opera?  S3000  ☎ 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

King Solomon's Caves

Refers to the caves and underground tunnels under the city of Jerusalem. These are accessed under the dome. Featured for some ten minutes in documentary and definately worth mentioning. What am I supposed to do reference it as Channel Four documentary? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are caves and tunnels under Jerusalem, eg see here [3] but it's the name 'King Solomon's Caves' that's confusing me. They're in Australia. Maybe just refer to caves and tunnels under Jerusalem?Doug Weller (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well change it to caves underneath Jerusalem -that link you provided yes thats them. King David-I was sure it was King Solomon. Do whatever you feel appropriate ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found a great link to the Nova program which in turn has other links, so I replaced the forum link with that. As I said in my edit summary, forum links are not allowed (there may be some exceptions but I haven't found any yet).Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Pyramids of Guimar

Yeah, I like how that was the one part of the article that jumped out at him as needing verification. ClovisPt (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Intelitek

I got it speedied for copyright issues. I'm not certain that it's an A7 criteria or a G11, but it definitely needs some cleanup. I'd suggest waiting to see what happens on this speedy deletion. If it's deleted you should place a level 3 warning for creating inappropriate pages and if they try again you can report them to AIV as a spam account and have them blocked.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

stones stones and more stones

Good call on a needed merger, but I'm not sure I can be much help - I know very little about the subject, and was mostly editing the article Newark Decalogue Stone to remove obvious speculation. I wasn't even aware of the other article. ClovisPt (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Troy Newman

Replied on my talk! Pedro :  Chat  08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Kadesh

Basically I'm against the current version of the battle section, for a number of reasons I already stated in the talk page (specially because I believe it's a personal point of view as there aren't other references that depict the battle that way). This is the older version of the battle, the one I think it's the best, compare it with the current one, and with your sources and books, and see which one you think it's the best. Ramesses, now facing a desperate fight for his life, summoned up his courage, called upon his god Amun, and fought valiantly to save himself. He personally led several charges into the Hittite ranks. Ramesses, together with his personal guard and some of the chariots recovered from the broken divisions of Amon and Re,[24] attacked the Hittite forces and, with the superior maneuverability of their chariots, wheeled about in successive attacks on the slower forces of the Hittites. The result was that the Egyptians began to pick off the overextended Hittite chariotry. The Hittites, who understandably believed their enemies to be totally routed, had stopped to loot the Egyptian camp, and in doing so were easy targets. This counterattack was successful, driving the Hittites back across the Orontes.

Although suffering a significant reversal, Muwatalli still had his reserve chariotry and infantry. He ordered another thousand chariots to attack, consisting of the high nobles who surrounded the king. As the Hittite forces approached the Egyptian camp, the Ne'arin troop contingent from Amurru suddenly arrived, surprising the Hittites. This enabled Ramesses to extend his advantage further. He closed with the enemy and used the terrain to his benefit in order to slow the Hittite chariotry before they could reach great speeds. Hittite chariots had to cross the Orontes and mount the riverbank to reach the plain where the Egyptians were. Also, by fighting them close to the river, he kept the Hittites from making a formation. That protected his own flanks and allowed him to fight only a small part of the Hittite force at one time. PS. If you can add those summaries you mentioned earlier. Super Knuckles (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, per your request, I've started to write a summary about three times now, from three different perspectives. There are so many individual items under dispute that you probably wouldn't consider discussing each one a "summary". I think perhaps the best approach I could take is to outline what I believe the different perspectives of the disputants to be, and then provide an example or two of each. I think these are the underlying cause of the numerous differences in the particulars. (This is excluding what are clearly factual errors that keep getting put back in.) If this is the sort of summary that would help you, please let me know. Regards. Publik (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea of yours to add the differences in that kind of copy of the article. I know I asked about the battle section in particular, but of course we need to work in the rest of the article, if you see any mistake just tell what it is in the talk page. Don't worry about the year of the battle, because as it is stated in the article it is based on Ramesses' commonly accepted accession date in 1279 BC. Super Knuckles (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've seen your work on the experimental page and I must tell you good work, once you finish with it tell us, so we can see what should be added to the article and what should be taken. I also noticed you took away a large part of the battle section, however in the main article it should be added more info as that one is too small and lacks detail. I acquired today Warrior pharaoh: Ramesses and Battle of Kadesh, so when you finish tell me so I can compare and add if necessary some content to the article. So far I think the book is a great source because of the sources the author, Mark Healy, used. Also, why did you take away the tags in the article? Super Knuckles (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

These ones per example "Hyksos 15th dynasty". We can add that info but with other words, I did that in "my" battle version, we could use it but without the historynet references. I just took a look at the book, but I noticed he says that are various versions, like: who were the Nearin, how many chariots did the first Hittites attack had, etc. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags, this [[ ]], like Egypt and Egypt, the second one has tags, and you removed lots of tags from the article. However I'm adding them again, and I might add some small info to the battle section. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the name was tags, sorry there. Don't worry I'm adding the ones necessary, and I'm not repeating them. I will also add some content you previously removed but I will add the reference to my book later. Super Knuckles (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed a bit the article, I will try to add the references as soon as possible. Super Knuckles (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug; for the sake of my own mental health, I decided to stay away from this article this weekend. After a great deal of teeth grinding (or rather, not. As I was intentionally not thinking about it.), I came to the short conclusion that the difference is how close you want to stick to the primary sources and peer reviewed publications, and getting rid of verbatim quotes from dubious web sources. I have not read your new version yet, but judging by your comments at least, it seems as if you are heading in the same direction I was. I won't spend a lot of time on this article anymore, as it's likely just to put me off my meds, but I'll drop a couple lines about some points. Publik (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how Wikipedia works in terms of "new messages", but for the sake of making sure you know I replied, I've added some comments to my own discussion page. Publik (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know I get messages, and I think I answered them, so why did you say that? Super Knuckles (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know why, it was because of Publik, forget about it. Super Knuckles (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus as Myth Theory

You have a bias against the Jesus as Myth Theory because you believe that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus Christ. Those who accept the Jesus as Myth theory do not themselves regard it as "unproven". Only those who disagree with it, like yourself.Wfgh66 (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom

Yes, I've asked him to take all potential removals of British Isles to the relevant Talk page before proceeding. I hope he'll agree to this. I won't comment on him directly because it causes problems, even with some admins. Thanks for picking up on this difficult issue. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Ring of Brodgar. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to give this some context, what I wrote was "As some of are aware, Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia. In some circumstances remvoval of the term is justified, but not in all circumstances. It seems appropriate here". That's all. What Bardcom wrote last night to another user on Talk:Augustus John was Is your motive to insert the term "British Isles" into articles where it is clearly incorrect?. I was trying to be simply factual, and my comments are not ad hominem. His comment to another user might be considered such.Doug Weller (talk) 06

47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment/warning as being over the top for this instance. But I object strongly to any editor that describes my edits as "Bardcom is trying to remove the term 'British Isles' from Wikipedia". I am not, and it is getting very tiring to have to put up with this gross generalization and suggestion of ulterior motives. It is not fair, does not assume good faith, and has resulted in me spending more time that I care to count jusifying edits. Given that you had also taken part in earlier reverts, at the time I felt that this comment was tongue in cheek, but that you were still attacking the editor by suggesting a motive rather than addressing the content. But in this case Doug, I accept that you were being sincere. I offer a sincere apology. --Bardcom (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User Egyptzo

Hi, you forgot to sign your post on AN/I. I also blocked user Egyptzo for repeated copyright violations. I saw you already got a lod of the violations. I also saw some and will check if there are more. Likely there are. Garion96 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that when you removed Egyptzo's edits, you deleted some info. which I provided on the Battle of Kadesh by Joyce Tyldesley. I just it back. I am not Egyptzo--though I know him. I provided the sourced info from Healy's book on the famous battle from my alma mater, UBC. Cheers from Canada, Leoboudv (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Tyldesley is a good 'story teller' but she is not a scholar on the level of her husband Mr. Snape or KA Kitchen. She doesn't provide the exact source for the quote about the second set of spies since her book is written for the general reader. I just rechecked my copy of her book. If it was Kitchen, he would have given the exact source: however, Kitchen's bio. on Ramses II was written in 1982 and lacks many of the more recent discoveries on KV5--his son's tomb, etc. That was one reason I decided to chose to buy her book over Kitchen's. However, I know the info. about the second set of spies is true because I recall reading it in other books on the Battle. Whatever Tyldesley writes is true--it just isn't immaculately footnoted. As for Healy's book 'Armies of the Pharaohs', I remember it was well written and balanced. Superknuckles has another book by Healy as you can see from this message from him to me: [4] You can ask him about Healy's other book--the one specifically on Kadesh. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw some more and deleted some. Just so that you know, copyright violations can be speedy deleted by adding the {{db-copyvio}} tag or, in case of mixture between copyvio and non-copyvio, articles can be listed at wikipedia:Copyright problems. Garion96 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A tip: Dear Doug? (if that is your real name) I don't know if you are a member of the EEF forum but if you aren't, there is a link recently given for an excellent article on Hittite-Egyptian relations and chronology. It suggests that the chronology of Horemheb is not secure...but there is lots more here. I can't disagree with anything the author says. Its free right now. Just click on 'View PDF article' and save it to your computer ASAP: [5]. If you wait several months later, the serial might move on to the next issue and you won't be able to access it. The source is Jared L. Miller, "Amarna Age Chronology and the Identity of Nibururiya in the Light of a Newly Reconstructed Hittite Text", in: Altorientalische Forschungen Volume: 34, Issue: 2 (December 2007), pp. 252-293. PDF (207 K) And yes, all his sources are well documented. Personally, I haven't read a better article on Hittite-Egyptian relations for a long time. It is even better than Trevor Bryce's 1998 book on the identification of Niphururiya and the Amarna letters.

As for Tyldesley, she does commit some obvious 'slip ups' but overall I am quite sure the information from the latter 2 Bedouin spies comes from a primary source from one of Ramesses II's many inscriptions on Kadesh. The late Miriam Lichtheim on p.57 of her book 'Ancient Egyptian Literature: Vol 2' also indirectly mentions the capture of the 2 later 'spies'. It seems that they were actually not spies but forward Hittite scouts. The source was apparently either the Poem or the Bulletin: [6] Well I hope you save a copy of Miller's paper for future reference as I have done. It would not be free unless the publisher wished to allow the public to access it. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed Doug, and a member of the EEF, and have been following that thread but that particular email is one that Aayko said got bounced, and I never got it. I've saved the article now. Thanks very much for the tip. You are probably right about the spies (but as you know I don't like calling them Bedouin).Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

egyptian pyramids

my mistake...the image was showing up as dead, however upon checking again, that seems to be due to my crappy connection today. thanks for restoring the image. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)