Talk:Aratta

Section removed by Dbachmann

This entire section below was removed from the article page by Dbachmann; I know it needs citations and also needs serious trimming (eg mentioning Phraaspa certainly seems like undue weight and a long shot) but I still would like to see some kind of section specifically discussing this view, with the proper citations, if anyone can improve it. I may get around to looking up citations myself if I get time to research it.

Urartu hypothesis

See also: Kura-Araxes culture

According to one theory, Aratta included the Northwest of Iran and present-day Azerbaijan. Its borders were purportedly from the Caucasus mountains to the Zagros mountains, and from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea.

Aratta is thought to be related to the later kingdom of Urartu, because of its geographical location and name. The name also resembles Ararat, and the mountain is indeed located in the possible area of Aratta.

Aratta is often mentioned by modern historians in connection with the later regional powers of Mannai, Urartu and the Medes. Its legendary capital city may have been Phraaspa, site of a little Parthian-era castle recently discovered (in April 2005) near the river Aras River along the Armenia-Iran-Azerbaijan border. However, the castle is firmly dated to the Atropatene (c. 300 BC) and Parthian (c. 200 BC) eras, thousands of years after the mysterious references to Aratta in Sumerian inscriptions.

Some {{Fact}} would more specifically locate Aratta on the eastern side of Lake Van near the Turkish-Iranian border. A significant population and a flourishing landscape is known to have existed there in the third millennium BC.

---

I will be happy to see a discussion of this "hypothesis", provided it can be attributed to at least a single halfway serious academic. This seems to be entirely based on "Aratta" sounding like "Ararat" though, with no evidence of lapis lazuli or anything to back it up(?) -- two names sounding somewhat similar a scholarly hypothesis do not make. Especially if both names are attested in cuneiform, and more than a millennium fully two millennia apart. dab (𒁳) 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned as the theory of not only the Armenian national historians like Movsisian, but also quite a few non-Armenian scholars including David Rohl. Til Eulenspiegel 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

sure, just cite where it is discussed, and don't try to sell Movsisian as "many historians". I must say I've really had it with this Armenian nationalist pseudohistory, and I am extremely bored with fantastical claims like Movsisian's. We have a separate article for this stuff. dab (𒁳) 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mythical Aratta

The citations and tags in the second paragraph shouldn't be there because the only information on Aratta comes from myths. There is no objective evidence to cite. Until some hard evidence surfaces (i.e. a cuneiform tablet documenting a shipment from Aratta), this place should be treated as fictional.

I would also like to point out that an obscure book on paganism is not a reliable source. Sources, even published ones, need to be vetted for reliability. I'm sure some source of that ilk could be found to equate Aratta with Atlantis as well! Sumerophile (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling you have not bothered to read a single one of these sources that you are blindly passing judgement on and removing as citations from the sound of the title, would I be correct? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, and I don't think too many people have. Sumerophile (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge History of Iran

The Cambridge History of Iran is rather seriously misquoted [2] in the article.

In Max Mallowan's chapter on Cyrus' Babylonian campaigns 2000 years later, he suggests that Anshan might have then denoted an area south-east of Elam, not the whole Zagros mountain range.

And in the footnote, Mallowan mentions his view from 1969 that Anshan in Enmerkar's time was co-terminous with the modern Bakhtiari region, due east of Susa. (Later in the early 70's, Anshan was identified with Tepe Malyan, again southeast of Susa. [3])

Saying that Mallowan thought Anshan was the Zagros in general is like saying the state of Virginia is the Appalachians in general. Nor is any northerly direction implied in any of this.

Sumerophile (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that we don't know when Enmerkar ruled (his reign length is obviously mythological if you've read the sumerian kingslist), we don't have enough to go on to say who or what was contemporary with him. Also, sumerophile makes an excellent point. Though the only thing that was southeast of Elam was Magan (modern day oman and parts of Persia). Besides, it was inland, we know this because they had to cross mountains to get to Aratta. If its more than a legend, I'd be looking in central Iran. Abdishtar (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Messages copied from History of Sumer rgarding Sumerophile's Original Research

User:Sumerophile, did you read our policy on WP:SYNT? What we will need is a published author who has specifically written something like "Urartu is a poor match for Aratta, because it lacks the materials mentioned in the myth". If anyone has ever published such a statement before, it can be used. If no one has ever published such a statement before, we, by policy, cannot be the first to make this argument, because it is Original Research. Is that simple enough? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile, the absence of something cannot be put into an article in Wikipedia unless a reliable source states that it is absent. And the absence of these minerals can not be used to disprove that Arrata = Uartu, even if you find a source saying they are absent, unless the SOURCE says that it disproves that link. Otherwise it's original research by you, specifically Synthesis. Read WP:SYN if that doesn't make sense.

Cinderella is an interesting example. The Wikipedia article on Cinderella does not say she is not known to be a real person. Why? Because no one provided a reliable source that said so. The article does provide a number of scholarly sources saying that it is a very old myth, going back at least to the first century B.C. The point is, wikipedia editors aren't allowed to prove anything, even by finding sources. They quote or paraphrase reliable sources who prove things. Got it? Msalt (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no synthesis going on here"?? Obviously you still are not clear on the concept, after numerous wikipedians have tried to explain it to you. There is most certainly WP:SYNT going on in the claims regarding the presence or absence of minerals in the Aratta region, since that argument appears in no published source we know of, and appears to be a "wikipedia original", AKA "original research".... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Following is the WIkipedia policy definition of "Original synthesis":

"Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly."

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This would be synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."

The argument that Aratta is a poor match for Urartu because of an alleged lack of minerals, even assuming it were a solid and correct argument, meets the definition of "ORIGINAL SYNTHESIS" because this argument has never before appeared in any published source we know of. Wikipedia is by policy not allowed to be used as a publishing website for new theories that have never appeared in print, therefore policy says this novel research argument HAS TO GO. One editor is insisting that this novel research be allowed to remain in the article even though nobody before Wikipedia has ever before published such an argument, but at least three editors have explained why this contradicts policy, to no avail. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no synthesis in this article, and Til Eulenspiegel, you've been nothing but extremely uncivil. Sumerophile (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to explain it as patiently as I can, no matter how many times it takes. I'm just not certain what the problem comprehending this is. The book on minerals and the atlas you are quoting, simply do not contain any arguments regarding the location of Aratta, nor do they contain the word "Aratta". Taking these references to prove some original or unpublished "point" regarding the location of Aratta is therefore clearly against the policy. Now, if you ever do turn up a scholarly reference that actually does make such an argument, then I will be the first to defend its inclusion. OK? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources to be added to article, with TITLES and page numbers

When page numbers are wanting from cites and things like that, on wikipedia, there are an abundance of appropriate tags we can use to mark the deficiencies and give other editors a courtesy period to look up the page numbers, rather than use this as a pretext to utterly haul and pull the cited information from sight.

In response to objections raised about the lack of page numbers for some scholarly references in this article, I have taken the trouble to research these authors and supply the wanting page numbers containing the relevant information. Since this is one of the issues behind the recent edit warring that has caused this page to become locked, I would ask any admin here to please review these scholarly references, and to incorporate them into the article, so that lack of page numbers can no longer be used as the pretext for concealing this information that is easily available elsewhere. It will then remain to be seen if another, new pretext will then be found.

• Note: These are all the same prominent scholars who have published their translations of the Sumerian epic, "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta"; no more qualified and reliable sources than these can possibly be found:

• Samuel Kramer, 1963 The Sumerians, p. 275 (locates Aratta betwen Urmia and Caspian, Iran; his 1952 translation had suggested Luristan)
• Georgina Herrmann, 1968 Lapis Lazuli: the early phases of its trade, in Iraq p. 54 (locates Aratta nr. Caspian Sea, Iran)
• Sol Cohen, 1973, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, p. 55-61 (identifies Aratta with combined Hamadan-Nahavand-Kermanshah-Sanadaj areas, Iran) [4] (PhD dissertation; reviewed by several subsequent authors including Majidzadeh & Hansman)
• Yousef Majidzadeh, 1976 The Land of Aratta, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35, 105-114 (located Aratta nr. Shahdad in Kerman province, Iran; same expert now investigating Jiroft, Iran as potential site) [5]
• J. F. Hansman, 1978 The Question of Aratta, JNES 37, 331-336 (locates Aratta at Shahr-i-Sokhta) [6]

All of this can be verified from the following links to the actual sources above; the two from JNES should provide most informative to any interested researchers or scholars who may be researching the historiography of the scholarship regarding Aratta. It should be obvious to anyone from reading the freely available first pages of the two JNES (Journal of Near Eastern Studies) articles that all of these authors have been peer-reviewed by one another and by others in the field.

With regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Baudhayana Sutra

I've never heard of the Aratta before, but have come across the name in the Baudhayana Sutras, Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 14, on page 148. They are mentioned in the context of a forbidden land which should not be visited by Brahmins. I don't see any reference on this page to the name appearing in Hindu scripture, especially something old like this, 400 bce. Arumugaswami (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this Aratta isn't connected with the Sumerian myths, which go back to ca. 2500 BC. There is also an 'Aratta' river and other similar names which don't seem to be related. (If somebody actually found an etymological or historical connection between them, then it should be mentioned.) Also, the tradition is different - there isn't any Mesopotamian tradition that this Aratta should not be visited by anyone. Perhaps an Aratta (Sutra) article could be created.

You suspect it isn't connected with the Aratta of Sanskrit literature, but many, many, many, published sources have. The personal opinion of wikipedia editors is supposed to be irrelevant, and published opinions that can actually be sourced are supposed to be more relevant. Nobody has appointed any editor to unilaterally determine which schools of thought are to be regarded as "heresy" and thus may not be mentioned at all, and which ones are OK - rather, per the words written at WP:NPOV, we should neutrally mention them all and exactly who supports them, including the authors (not all Armenian) who have argued for Ararat, and those who have argued for Afghanistan -- 6then let the reader make up their own minds. Not to allow certain significant opinions any mention, simply because a single editor feels they should not be accessible through wikipedia, when they already are easily accessible everywhere else, is aviolation of NPOV and just makes us look backward. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a peer-reviewed analysis of this, then by all means put it in. Othewise it is just hearsay and guesswork and should not be in here. Sumerophile (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the many sources connecting Sumerian Aratta with Sanskrit Aratta

1. Malati J. Shendge, 2003
2. Alexander Jacob 2005
3. D.D. Kosambi 1995
4. Sanujit Ghose, 2004

This represents only those sources I can find accessible through Google-books; there are a great many more scholarly references there that are not accessible except in "snippet view", so clicking the above research pages is only scratching the surface. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Have any actual scholars published these theories in a peer-reviewed publication? One of your souces says Aratta suffered a flood, another says that Enki cursed Aratta, another says that Aratta was the Sumerian homeland, the last says that Sumerian myth says Aratta was Badakhshan. None of this is true about the myths. Sumerophile (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute

Since your response above is once again basically to assert your own expertise and authority as an editor over what the published sources say and act unilaterally as both judge and jury to 'disqualify' the significant viewpoint of scholars including D. D. Kosambi and Malati Shendge, and this behaviour has been going on for some time, my only recourse is to alert editors at both the Indian and Armenian noticeboards as well as the "Systemic bias" noticeboard that published viewpoints of Indian and Armenian scholars seem to be systematically excluded from this article. Also please re-read WP:NPOV and Verifiability again. It matters nothing if you have personally identified flaws in their scholarship. It might matter more if you find a published source who has attacked the viewpoint expressed by these four authors, but I doubt one can be found. Verifiability means we care about verifiability, not truth, all we need to do is verify that this is a published viewpoint by scholars and report on it neutrally. The viewpoint exists, it is significant, and blocking out viewpoints because you or I personally disagree with them is the POV violation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This has not been published or discussed in any peer-reviewed journals or books. "Truth" is, uh, rather important.

Sumerophile (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, read up on it some more, we actually care only about verifiability here. And we already have standards for establishing what constitutes reliable evidence of a notable viewpoint, these things are not supposed to be determined by any single editor's fiat or whim. If those four references were not enough to convince you that there really has been scholarly discussion relating the Sumerian and Sanskrit Arattas, I can list quite a few more. It doesn't matter a bit what your or my own hypothesis may be, nor what our opinion of these several published authors' other statements is. The sources establish that the school of thought exists, and deserves to be mentioned as existing rather than suppressed. Also we aren't here to decide or declare any one school of thought the "truth" and exclude all others, that would be a blatant violation of NPOV, and making up arguments against the sources that do not appear in print, is a violation of OR. So what we are supposed to do then is list ALL the significant, published POVs of scholars, and attribute them neutrally. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Another important scholarly source contemplating the connection between Sumerian Aratta and the Indic Aratta is the book Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate by Dr. Koenraad Elst (1999), p. 116 (chap. 4.5.1). In the book he reviews his peer, Malati Shendge. Is there any amount of further evidence that would fail to satisfy any wikipedia editor's personal standard that this has indeed been discussed in the published literature by scholars and experts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, another scholar who has written extensively on his view that Aratta was in Afghanistan / Indus valley, based on comparing both the Mesopotamian and the Mahabharata evidence, is Professor Michael Witzel, who is most certainly peer-reviewed. Eg. Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India (1999), also Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts (2001) in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, vol. 7, issue 3. We should definitely be able to mention that. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All of these are aside comments in on-line articles. None of this has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is WP:Fringe. Sumerophile (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Your latest well-referenced rewrite of Aratta shows a 100% improvement in quality of research at last! Thanks for putting the effort into it! I don't give barnstars, but I must say, I am happy to see that the earlier rancour over the older version did not discourage you completely!

When I was researching this myself, I noticed that there also seem to be plenty of refs for a view connecting it with the Vedic Aratta - which should have a write-up of its own somewhere on wikipedia anyway. Some sources even went so far as to connect both of these with Harappa. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone added this in too, sooner or later. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel:

1) Your behavior is appalling, and inexcusable

2) You have never bothered to fix the article yourself, or even so much as read any sources

3) You disrupt other editors in subject areas you know very little about

4) There will be no kind of Aratta=Harappa nonsense, not coming from any juried source

Sumerophile (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My conscience does not rebuke me for my trying to keep your earlier original research and reference-blanking out of the article, and I do not need you to be my judge - nor can you single-handedly constitute a "jury". After I tried to give you a compliment for finally using references and cutting the OR, I am now quite dismayed to see that you are still lashing out as well as edit warring to the point of 3RR with an anonymous user to blank the earlier references -- but we do have extensive standards as to what references can constitute evidence of a POV existing, and you have not demonstrated that these refs fail our standards; rather you seem to be attempting assert WP:OWNership to keep your version intact and exclude those POVs you have unilaterally declared to be heretical or "nonsense". Remember, anything you write is going to be edited and since these POVs are indeed well-referenced, it is only prudent to expect that they are going to crop up again and again down the road, so trying to maintain a single POV on a wikipedia article and pretend others do not even exist, usually ends up being fruitless. If you are going to be on wikipedia for any length of time it would be wise to consider the benefits of working together instead of relentlessly ramrodding your own opinions, but after reading your latest words, I now fear that the only resolution for this would be arbitation on some level. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A juried source means a peer-reviewed source, such as you listed above.

You phrased the above comment as if I were responsible for what was on the page before; I am not, and you have even added some of the former POV back into the article. You now are acting as if you wp:own both Wikipedia and this article.

Now you have added an Aratta=Ararat/Urartu POV to article, using nationalist and controversial sources, rather than the "qualified and reliable" sources, such as you mentioned above. This has been brought up earlier on this talk page as well.

You are now, as you have done before, "lashing out" at other editors and accusing them of doing what in fact you are doing.

Sumerophile (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the ten references you continually exclude do not meet our RS standard; they are evidence that this POV is published and seems to be several editors here who also hold this POV. You are now at 3RR, again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is in good shape; can't we all get along?

It seems to me that this article is in good shape now. While rather ignorant of the finer points of Mesopotamian culture, I find that it is written in a straightfoward encyclopedic style and properly referenced. Can we agree that this is solid, and move on? MapMaster (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in much better shape, now that the OR SYNT has been cut. But anyone using Google Books and other resources can easily discover that there is much published, peer-reviewed, scholarly literature devoted to the question of Aratta's location and existence, and that several books have been written placing it not only in Iran, but also as far as east as Afghanistan, especially by the many sources that connect it with the Aratta of Sanskrit literature, and as far west as Ararat. So it seems that the full range of significant, published opinions is being blocked here for unclear reasons, which is a NPOV violation. The only way to "move on" is for the article to address these things that will inevitably crop up again and again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not write it so as to reflect generally the location/unlocation it could be in? Are there any sources that address specifically the unknown nature of the location? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Aratta is that it's mythical, and it's not "located" anywhere.

When these myths were first translated in the 1950's, several respected Assyriologists made off-hand conjectures as to what Aratta might refer to, but it has since became apparent that there is no concrete evidence for Aratta's actual existance (see Cohen's comment in footnote 2), and Aratta's "neighboring" state of Anshan (which was well attested outside of myth) was found to be located far from where it was originally assumed to be. Nevertheless there have been some nationalist editors editing this article who have claimed Aratta for their histories, as well as fringe theorists who want to connect this entity with anything else of a similar name. These theories have not been accepted by the academic community, or ever published in any peer-reviewed format.

Personally, I would just as soon do without the "location" section entirely, but it's just hard to make the justification for that, because in the past these noted Assyriologists made some (now outdated) conjectures about it. The "location" section now is really an exhaustive compilation of all peer-reviewed discussion on the matter.

Sumerophile (talk)

Does a substantial number of people argue that it could have existed somewhere? This is very dry academia, so I'm inclined to believe that they aren't entirely fringe. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, these conjectures petered out in the 1970's for several reasons: Anshan was located far from where it was previously assumed to be, more myths were translated and found to give contradictory clues about Aratta, and it became apparent that there was no concrete archaeological evidence to be found for Aratta's actual existance (i.e. any actual economic or adminstrative texts referring to real-life dealings with an "Aratta".) Sumerophile (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that various location theories have continued to be propounded since then by fringe elements. Sumerophile (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But they deserve a mention, correct? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i.e. Cohen's comment in footnote 2 Sumerophile (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean, do you have a ref for your assertion that "these conjectures petered out in the 1970's" ? If that is at all so, someone will have stated as much at some point, but I have seen nothing indicating that the controversy has somehow ever been "resolved" to everyone's satisfaction, apart from your flat insistence that it has been. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, are there people who believe, and there are citations proving so? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fringe theorists and nationalists. Anything can be published, especially online. But none of this has been published, even in an off-hand footnote, in the serious press. Sumerophile (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And are the sources reliable? Looking at the Michael Witzel thing down bottom, it appears they are. Do they deserve a mention? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Michael Witzel is certainly mainstream, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies is certainly a "peer-reviewed format", to say the least, not to mention all the other big-league experts who have peer-reviewed him. Where are the references for your assertions? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Michael Witzell is the editor-in-chief of his Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. Sumerophile (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly -- because, he is considered one of the foremost (and peer reviewed:) ) authorities in his field. His views on locations of places in the Mahabharata is referenced by anyone in the field, and in this case he uses the Sumerian Aratta as evidence. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The only mention Witzel makes of the Sumerian Aratta, in the midst of a footnote, is "One may compare the old Mesopotamian name Aratta, indicating a distant eastern country from where Lapis Lazuli is brought (Witzel 1980)". I can't find his 1980 source on ProQuest.

Certainly if this was intended to be an Aratta location theory, it has not been been picked up by anyone else or led to any discussion of the matter. And perhaps more importantly, Witzel's field is Vedic literature, not Assyriology. Sumerophile (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But these are attributable claims, along with the ones above... Xavexgoem (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution has to be accurate and relevant.

This is an observation that two words transcribed from two very different writing systems look alike, and which has not been picked up by any mainstream Assyriologists.

Wetzel also presented no etymological or mythological chain to link these two words. And these two traditions are entirely different: in the Sumerian myths, "Aratta" epitomizes a rich land; the "Aratta" in Vedic literature 2000 years later is apparently a place where Brahmins should not visit. Off-hand remarks from individuals in other fields does not reflect actual scholarly debate. Sumerophile (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But there are attributable and reliable claims for folks believing such-and-such to be true? It appears, looking at all the sources that Til has provided, that they deserve a spot in the article, at least. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Eastern Iran theory is given place, and attributed to actual Assyriological debate.

These are off-topic attributions found to support WP:Fringe beliefs.

Sumerophile (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, do we have any source dismissing these as "Fringe beliefs"? (Besides you?) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More statements by Witzel re:Aratta

Contrary to what was asserted above, there have been plenty of other statements about Aratta by Witzel:

Look up where he speaks about the Mesopotamian Aratta and the Sanskrit Aratta on pp. 8 (where he references Kohl 1978) and and 23 in his 1999 Aryan and Non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the Linguistic Situation, c. 1900-500 B.C. also found in J. Bronkhorst and M. Deshpande, eds., Aryans and Non-Non-Aryans, Evidence, Interpretation, and Ideology, Cambridge (Harvard Orienatal Series, Opera Minora 3), 1999, pp. 337-404, pdf...

Also look up p.18 and 19 footnotes (where he references Possehl 1996, P. Steinkeller 1998, Elst 1999) to Autochthonous Aryans? (2001) in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies

Far from standing alone, several other eminent scholars have picked this reference up, including Koenraad Elst, Malati Shendge and others (both mentioned above, and yet others) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide major contributors to the Caucus theory, as well? For expediencies sake Xavexgoem (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean copy them here again, from the list I made in the MedCab page? (Most of those sources were also in the article for a long time, before getting blanked in Sumerophile's recent rewrite!) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

They were also off-topic and they were put there by a banned nationalist editor. Sumerophile (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

But they're evidence of support for a theory; the editor did not represent the academics. Sumerophile, references to support of a theory are perfectly valid within an article per WP:NPOV (specifically laid out in a simple formulation ← good reading, btw, and probably sums up NPOV the nicest), merits of said theories notwithstanding.

Besides which, theories can be rebuked within the article if the sources are reliable. How does that sound? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of being a WP:Reliable Source is that it is relevant, not off-topic sources found in support of fringe and nationalistic opinions.
The location section discusses all location theories, thoroughly and attributed to sources in the relevant fields of Assyriology and archaeology, including the actual pro and con debates took place when this was being discussed.
Sumerophile (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to sources rebuking Aratta's existence. Nevertheless, there does seem to be support from academia for its existence, even now; the nature of the source doesn't matter so much(within reason), insofar as its only there to show support. If the majority of Assyriology and archeology is against any claims that Aratta did exist, it's clear the the article should weigh towards that side. Clearly, there is a minority view worthy of inclusion (but not given undue weight) that can be rebuked by said Assyriologists and archeologists. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I should say they are academic, and with so many different conflicting views it's hard to say what the "majority" one is, but each has numerous proponents. I'd say that if there is any "majority" (more like plurality;) ), it's the view that it was surely somewhere in Iran. I have only seen precious few arguing that the solid geographical allusions are meaningless because of Aratta's mythical character; the main proponent of this view seems to be Herman Vashtipouts. btw If you do a wikipedia search in the left-hand box for: Aratta Kambojas , you will turn up 16 Ancient India-related articles that already use some of these sources, and add others. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is large quantity of stuff floating around the internet. A better question is are these experts in the field of Assyriology or Archaeology of the area, and has this been picked up in any independantly juried journals.

WP:Fringe will always exist, as well as finding off-topic and off-hand sources in "support" of them. There is no support in Academia for Aratta's existance. It was discussed in the literature at one time in the past, and even then skeptically. In order for Aratta to exist, you need to provide, say, a cuneiform record of a real-life transaction with the place. Sumerophile (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing: Enmerkar is said to have conquered and destroyed Aratta, at the same time writing was first developed. It presents itself as being one of the oldest documents to be written. If this means Aratta was destroyed at the dawn of recorded history, as is conjectured, we shouldn't expect there to be any written transactions! So, red herring, and uncited OR. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is very OR. Sumerophile (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's valid, actually, and not a red herring. Sumerophile is asserting that Assyriology says it didn't exist. There should be sources saying so, no? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned a source above. Sumerophile (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Views exist, it should be mentioned; academia by large says the views are wrong, which should be mentioned. That's per NPOV & FRINGE. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Til, can you provide the best source (singular) for both the Caucus and Indus Valley (etc) theories inline with academia? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Each of these theories is an entire school of thought within academia, so I don't know how I can pick out the "best" exemplar of each... (Direct links to many are already on this page, and I can still find others...) we also shouldn't try to pick out the "best" of these schools of thought, and say the other academic books saying different are rubbish and unmentionable, but rather, we should list neutrally all of the established viewpoints. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it would be helpful if I could see an academic paper (pref. one I can see on the 'net) that best lays out the merits of a theory, at least to get things moving. Also, to clarify, I meant one source per theory, not one source for both :-)

Also, it doesn't need to be the best, just held to a higher standard. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, certainly a typical layout of the Sanskrit argument is Dr. Koenraad Elst's discussion of Aratta here, don't know if that is what you mean by "best"... I will get back in a bit with a representative source for the Ararat argument. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The foremost proponent who has layed out the Ararat thesis is apparently Artak Movsisyan, who has written several books on Aratta; I can find several other works online that reference (and peer review) him, but haven't so far discovered any of his books online. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I can easily mention Samuel Noah Kramer for the Caucasus theory and John Hansman for Eastern Iran. Both were part of the discussion process, presenting their views with justification, and eliciting discussion in the literature. Sumerophile (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And neither of them ever concluded that it didn't exist, from anything I've seen... and neither did Cohn... Neither did anyone, save Vashipout AFAIK Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm... so what's the problem, again? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The location theories are thoroughly discussed in the article. Sumerophile (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Lake Urmia considered to be in the Caucasus? Interestingly, its article says "between east and western Azerbaijan", which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much in Armenia...? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a stretch, but it's nevertheless used to make theories that Aratta=Urartu=Ararat by Armenian nationalists. Sumerophile (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused, sorry. Til: What is wrong about the current revision? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the other two schools of thought (2 & 3) which have been declared "fringe" without so much a a single reference that they are "fringe". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It mentions #2, albeit shortly. #3 is mentioned depending on your definition of "Eastern Iran"...? Ah, Himalayas Xavexgoem (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, these numbers refer to the request details at the medcab case page; that page is for medcab purposes atm, so please don't comment there :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see where it mentions the view that it may have been connected with the Sanskrit Aratta, as sourced to Elst, Shendge, Kosambi, Witzel, etc. etc. and I also do not see where it mentions the view that it may have been connected with Ararat, as sourced to many scholarly discussions, in Movsisyan, Merlin Stone, David Rohl, Bedrosian, Thomas J. Samuelian, etc. etc. and all of these references should be admissible as none has labeled them all "fringe" apart from one wikipedia editor. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we edit in peace? What are the proposals? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) My proposal would be that the sourced views connecting Aratta with either Sanskrit Aratta, or with Ararat, be added with the proper scholarly references as is proper per NPOV. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. What do you think, Sumerophile? And can we edit in peace? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

These Ararat and Sanskrit theories are not sourced to proper scholarly sources. i.e. see the first comment on this talk page for Movsisian. Sumerophile (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I asked for the best sources... Xavexgoem (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems perhaps the really best source is Sumerophile. He still seems to think his expertise alone, with no refs for it, is enough to supercede those of Movsisyan, Prof. Michael Witzel, Dr. Koenraad Elst, and umpteen other scholars. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to whack you with a trout; you two have been through this before. I just want a good source :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

here's a good, non "nationalist" source that is evidence that this "unmentionable" POV really, actually exists:

• p. 78
• p. 111 (Merlin Stone... another is archaeogist David Rohl)

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So the claim is attributable. What about Indus Valley etc? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For that one, you couldn't ask for a better reference than Michael Witzel or Koenraad Elst. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'm off for the moment. Try to, y'know, agree on something ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you, Xavex,, as regards what NPOV policy says about representing attributable viewpoints. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Because of WP:NPOV, claims can and should be attributed ("some believe[cite]...[cite]", for instance), as this represents a POV against another (which is the point). Try to keep it at 1RR, and then come back to talk if something comes up; even better, build off each others work ("some say..., although this is disputed[cite] because of rugged terrain[cite]/passing through others' territory[cite]",etc). But the gist is to edit harmoniously. What I see here are theories disputed on the talk page that should be disputed properly in the article. Any questions before we proceed? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, just want to stress that references used to show where someone has disputed a conclusion of someone else regarding Aratta must not be Original synthesis; that is, they must quote sources that at least mention the name 'Aratta' somewhere in them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. But let's not beat dead horses, please :-) will that phrase and a smiley face ever work well together? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

One problem with Stone's comments, is that they are completely unattributed. She simply states these things and presents no arguments for them, nor does she cite any sources herself - she just says "it has been suggested" and then doesn't say where. These statements would not be accepted in a Wikipedia article. If you want to derive one word from another, you need to show the linguistic chain of events. She even adds "Eridu" to the mix, without stating fact.

You're cherry picking sources :-p (besides which, it's an attributable citation) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

by the by, where's the diff for the OR allegation? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Which OR allegation are you referring? (btw I am heading out for a few minutes but will reply after that) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I was just curious. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Although while you're gone, I encourage Sumerophile to edit away, and maybe build a consensus off of that, if he wishes (just to get things moving :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean cherry picking sources? What OR do you mean? Sumerophile (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone isn't the only source, no? I'm not worried about previous OR. Was just curious. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone is not a good source, and that's the best that could be found? Sumerophile (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's attributable. There are plenty of other sources that make the claim attributable. That's all NPOV asks. I just wanted a good source to avoid cite-stacking. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Movsisian is attributable, too. Sumerophile (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think Movsisian is too nationalistic, don't cite him. Nevertheless, the citations would be there to prove claimants to a theory, not (in-depth) explanations of the theory itself. That can be worked out later, I figure. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is, if we simply list the various POVs and who holds them without further comment, readers can make their own minds up from the full array if they want, without being told what to think about each of the references. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's NPOV. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All these theories go like this: You see a word that has some of the same letters as Aratta, so you come up with a folk etymology to invent a new Aratta theory, despite the fact that the place is mythical, the myths themselves don't support the theory, and the claimant has not provided any etymological or mythological links between the two words.

You could mention that in the article! :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it a sourced criticism, or is it a wikipedia editor's criticism? If we have that sentiment in publication, I say by all means include it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And even if there is no source, the theories can be engaged in other ways. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

←It might be good to include a summary of revisions now that the tag has been removed, so any issues can be solved here rather than there. At any rate, revert one relevant bit at a time and discuss here before moving on (see WP:BRD) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that last sentence needs a citation. If one isn't forthcoming (which is likely, because it appears there is a division between Assyriology, archeology, and the number of nationalist (etc) theories), it might be good to separate the "mythical" bit into its own header/para to explain this. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should avoid , , etc, because it seems (to me) to be condescending to template something when there is only one editor who will take issue. I recommend you bring it to talk first, but that's just me. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

If that statement is verifiable, I say keep it. If not, it's pushing an unsubstantiated POV. Besides, most of the authors as we have seen do indeed give their reasons including etymological, mythological, etc. I wanted to keep it simple, but perhaps some direct quotes from the Reliable sources would be better than unsourced and dubious "rebuttals"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the problem when sources, such as Stone above, don't give evidence or cite their own sources. Sumerophile (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although I don't have the texts. Perhaps expand on the mythical status before moving onto other theories, Sumerophile? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understandSumerophile (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like, for instance, "...known only by myth", and expanding on that, citing Assyriology & archaeological non-evidence (so to speak). Xavexgoem (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is cited. Sumerophile (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but your contention is that it should receive the most weight. I mean something along the lines of "Many Assyriologists and archeologists note that there is no evidence of its existence[cite]". Maybe at the bottom, to wrap things up? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It would also remove the need for the dubious sentence. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The mythology statement is fine where it is, and the whole article is clear about its mythology. The sentence states the fact that these sources are not properly referenced. Sumerophile (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To state a fact, you need a reference. Remember we're just attributing. Sentence structure is important when WP:UNDUE gets involved. If you'd like, I can make a few edits myself. (What's the best cite, d'ya think?) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A good reference is that un-referenced citation from Stone's book. Sumerophile (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

True, that could be used as a footnote. What does Til think? (Now we're driving into substantiation territory) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I still like my idea better, just wrapping up the attributions with a substantiation from Assyriologists et al saying it either never existed, or very likely never existed due to its mythical nature. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, the lone author I am aware of to take that view would be Vashtipouts, but he hardly speaks for all the others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see him cited. Citations don't speak for "all the others", whoever they are Xavexgoem (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, every other author named here has been willing to entertain the possibility that it existed. I should have said Vashtipouts view that it was probably nothing more than mythical doesn't speak for any of the others... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Much the same way Armenian nationalists aren't speaking for others. He's an acceptable cite, no? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course he is. I'm surprised no quote has been attributed ti him yet... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec2) Ah, I see (I read "many", not "any"). Would it be acceptable, pending further sources, to leave that attribution in anyway? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

With a page number? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I don't know? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(uid) As long as something Vashtipouts actually said is attributed neutrally , it's fine with me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

k, I'm off for the moment. I'd wrap up the end of the para and remove the dubious statement. I think Sumerophile is saying that, because it is always described as myth, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated as "never having existed". If this is the case, it should be very easy to wrap up. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the "dubious" statement is pointed out the fact about these sources Sumerophile (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. I think that {{fact}} would probably have been better, because it needs to be sourced more than it needs to be discussed over and over again on the talk page. If you or anyone can find a source with a statement along the lines of "the idea that it ever existed in Iran, Armenia, or near the Indus Valley is without merit", then that's good and all; but another editor will complain "without merit how?", and then everyone will end up here again and go through some other dispute resolution process. You have argued that most of Assyriology and archeology denies Aratta's existence, and indeed the lead states that it comes from myth. Attributions notwithstanding, it appears the facts speak for themselves. But they're significant viewpoints, and I haven't seen evidence otherwise... And that is the only reason they're in the article, per WP:NPOV. I'm trying to re-write bits of that section to give the "pure myth" theory more weight, per WP:UNDUE.

personal observation... if Aratta is myth, why not dream? That may be the point. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone is only the easiest one to find on Google books. Aside from her, the other authors certainly do give references and reasons, see Bedrosian and Samuelian's links... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't particularly matter, though; we're in agreement that these are only attributions, correct? To be clear, what I meant was stating in the citation (as a footnote) that Stone does not substantiate her claims, which is, of course, cited ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to sort this out and need to leave now. Sumerophile (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, please look at the sources used for the Vedic and Armenian theories; a number of them are missing titles and/or page numbers, making them unverifyable, and a number are merely websites. Sumerophile (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they need page numbers. For the moment, they're attributions. If Til can provide page numbers with substantiations, it would be much better. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I can easily add in the page numbers for everything, please be patient...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, once it has been quiet for a little while, I will put in page numbers, may use an "in-use" template strictly for that purpose... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The speculation edit is fine, I was also trying to smoothe out the first phrase, but its not that important. However, I added the Assyriological comments to the Assyrological discussion. Sumerophile (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, we have the un-explained and un-referenced sources in the article again. Sumerophile (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think he's working on that? :-| Xavexgoem (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can also flag the ref with {{fact}} (after the ref) for unsubstantiated claims (that is, no page #s) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

though that might be considered disruptive - actually, it looks like it's being done pretty speedy. I dunno.

Arbitrary break 2

Woah, Til. You're not planning on keeping all those cites, right? :-S not saying remove them, just wondering about that Xavexgoem (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone wanted to specifically research those theories, those would be helpful. Actually, there are more that could be added, but it would be a starting place for those wishing to find out more about these theories. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like cite-stacking. Would it be possible to merge them? (so the refnote reads "name, book, whatever pp-1-5; different name, book, whatever pp-32-45")... my WP:CITE knowledge is embarrassingly little (I mostly copy-edit), so I don't know if that's "right", but an exception could probably be made. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite stacking is not a bad thing, cites can only be good (especially post-Siegenthaler!); I see it on many articles where statements have been contested. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But the whole point is to make this not contested. This is an NPOV issue (as I see it), and it looks to fail WP:UNDUE, by appearing to give greater credence by a theory. It's a red-flag to editors that "something is wrong here... I better stay away" Xavexgoem (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying... If you think it would look better merged (and maybe easier on the eye!) go right ahead... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. What about Stone and Movsisian? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Movsisyan seems to be the main one cited by some of the others, so it would help in potential research if someone wanted to look up his books written about Aratta... Stone might help in research too, beside establishing that authors have made note of such... Even though she doesn't footnote... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, we may disagree here. A wikipedia article is ideally self-contained, so that you don't need to look up the references to "learn more"; why not learn from Wikipedia? Personally, I would keep Stone or Movsisian if their argument were substantial to the article text (relative to other sources), or was citing a quote. Sumerophile has noted that many of these sources aren't peer-reviewed, so I don't think quoting would ever be good, unless there was something to counter it. Ideally, the most self-contained references are the one that should stay. I'll merge the cites anyhow...but maybe something to think about? ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I really apologize for my constant editing of the things I say; I tend to realize the errors later, so I apologize for edit conflicts. Ironically, you may have started writing a comment while I was writing this apology, for which I am double sorry

(uid) I disagree with his assertion that many of them are not peer reviewed -- its easy to find where most of these authors have been reviewed by their peers in their respective fields, including one another. I thought Wikipedia was widely seen, and sees itself, as a starting point for people to do further research, as with encyclo's in general -- not a be-all, end-all... Since Movsisyan has written books on Aratta that are cited by his peers, and someone researching might want to pop over to the library and find out what he specifically says in more detail, I think he is more essential. I don't see why Stone can't be mentioned, but I'll grant she isn't as essential, since her book is to argue a different topic and she does not cite very well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So we disagree :-p (personally, I do want it to be a be-all, end-all, but that can't happen atm...)

I wonder what Sumerophile thinks of this?... he might be away, though. In the meantime, cite-squishing Xavexgoem (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm gonna pause cite-squishing till I hear what Sumerophile thinks (I don't feel that I'm improving anything by squishing them, either... the reflist looks off, now) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It obviously can't be a be-all atm, in fact even less than other encyclo's can, especially since it is open-source! By the way I must thank you for being very patient and tireless and neutral in helping improve the section, it is looking better all the time. (I don't give barnstars, don't worry) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. But I ain't done 'till Sumerophile is happy, too :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on how sources are presented. The problem is the quality and unreliability of the sources, as I've noted above. Sumerophile (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Maybe a third opinion? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

These sources are making unsubstantiated and unreferenced juxtapositions (i.e. simply writing "Ararat (Aratta)" without comment), which are being used in the context of this article to create location theories. In addition the off-topic, and in some cases nationalistic sources. Sumerophile (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source that explains how Aratta became Ararat? Because if there isn't, it is probably questionable. I dunno about nationalism, so long as they substantiate their claims. Are there sources for the Caucasus theory that aren't a huge nationalist red-flag? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Til provided one above... Does it pass? Xavexgoem (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Stone book? It unsubstantiated. In my opinion, it's not that nationalists should be disallowed per se, it's that they need to make unsubstantiated assertions to make their theories work. Majidzadeh is also "patriotic", but he did have one (1) thing published in a juried journal, and that's fair game because, even though I think its rather lopsided, it did go through the jury process, and isn't entirely pseudo-science. Sumerophile (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool! Maybe it would be best to remove Stone? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(uid) I suppose so, if it would help, she can go.... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But this was the best source you could come up with. The others don't substantiate their statements about Aratta any more than Stone did. Sumerophile (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said she was the best source I could come up with... I just said she was the easist to find, being on google-books... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You two need to start spreading some wiki-love, stat! ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about WP:TEA? Who fancies a brew? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest some tea. All I'm saying is assume good faith, and to listen to teach other a bit more. Til had indeed stated that Stone was included purely because of googlebooks, and I don't want folks talking past each other. Don't worry about it :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Majidzadeh's current view

Majidzadeh's current view that the Jiroft civilisation is Aratta shouldn't be to hard to source, I think it is only fair to note that he has revised his opinion since 1976. I will look for the best source so it won't keep getting deleted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You should have sourced it before putting it in. Sumerophile (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Aw, really? It's over now :-p

Oh, I see. Oops. Well, time will tell ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

His current view has changed since what he wrote in 1976. Here is but one source for that: Jiroft and "Jiroft-Aratta": A Review article of Yousef Majidzadeh, Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Cvilization] (See also Jiroft civilization). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL this reviewer is critizing the hyperbole, the lack of references, and the rhetoric in Jiroft: The Earliest Oriental Civilization. See page 179 “Jiroft” and Civilization. Sumerophile (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, it allows us to merely observe that he now holds this view, ludicrous as it may seem... If I have learned one thing in my years on wikipedia, it's to be tolerant of views being mentioned that I might not personally subscribe to!Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's best not to spam pages with unjuried, refuted views. Sumerophile (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I"m thinking that the citations need to be whittled down, also. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it is perhaps misleading not to observe that Majidzadeh, who is already cited, now thinks it is Jiroft and no longer says what he did in 1976? It's not an endorsement of this view of course - it even linked to a contrary opinion that was criticising him. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's just trivial? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(uid) Possibly... But there should be at least a "see also" link to Jiroft civilization... have you read that article, it has related info Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. 26th century BC, Iran... sounds right, but I don't know a damn thing! :-D Xavexgoem (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that article is a mess, but read the whole thing, especially section 6. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that an acceptable compromise? The article isn't great, but it gives readers an additional area to explore... Xavexgoem (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Other candidates for a "see also" might be Marhashi, Meluhha, Dilmun, Magan, Hamazi, etc.? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ehh... Now that I think about it, the article is about Aratta totally, not just where it could be (if it existed)... Xavexgoem (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we all focussed on the claims above, particularly about Stone. I think it sounds reasonable. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, a "See also" might be just to list related and other articles of some places known from cuneiform tablets; the location part is now thoroughly discussed in its section. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You can, if you want; I certainly I can't stop you :-p

I just rather we focused on the dispute, and try to reach a consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stone, it looks like we all already agreed that she is the one most disposable... and as for squishing, we all seem to have agreed that we don't care either way on that... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's to be done? I'm just the informal mediator :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you think it would help, feel free to make those changes without objection, and I guess I will try making a normal "see also" section and see how that goes... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of assuming good faith is not being cynical... that's your daily patronizing Xavexgoem (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It would look better, methinks, if you (Til) removed Stone. Then we can go on from there. I ain't fraternizing with the locals :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(uid) Sorry, I was gone for a bit... I've never heard a "see also" link to link a related article, described as an "endorsement" of anything! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting Jiroft in a see also section would be an endorsement of something not accepted by the community, without any need for substantiation. Notice that the article is tagged NPOV, and full of Majidzadeh spam. A See also section should not stray from the myth itself.

There are other issues with the sources cited as well.

• Samuelian, Kosambi, Ghose and Witzel do exactly the same thing as Stone. Ghosa goes so far as to assert the Sumerian texts say Aratta was Badakhshan, Balkh or Bactria, which they don't.
• Elst actually states that identifying the Sumerian Aratta with the Indian tradition "is uncertain", and if it were, it would have a far-reaching implication for an Indo-Aryan sound change. Jacob says the same thing, and goes on to question whether either Aratta was historical at all.
• And there is a another issue with the webpage from Bedrozian, in that he uses Kramer's superceded title of "Lugulbanda and Mount Hurum", and completely fails to mention the important place Anshan plays in these myths, in order to make a case for Aratta=Ararat. Shendge does the same, selecting geographic clues that point to overland distance, but stating for instance that "one does not expect to find such details" about the language barrier between Sumer and the Indus valley, and misstating that the cult of Inanna was a mother-goddess cult like in the Indus Valley - Nihursanga was the Sumerian mother-goddess; Inanna was the goddess of love and war.
• Another problem is unavailability. Rohl and Kavoukjian are out of print and not in my library; The Movsisyan and Kasouni books can't even be found on WordCat or Amazon. This also raises the question of notability and verifiability.

Sumerophile (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(To Sumerophile) Are all current sources unacceptable? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The above sources have the problems stated. Sumerophile (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember again that as editors, we have no authority to use our own POV and original research to quarrel with the published arguments in an attempt to determine which ones must be kept from the public's eyes. If we truly aim to someday be a truly comprehensive, one-stop source, and if I didn't know anything about Aratta and wanted to find out what I could here, I would very much resent learning that there are other theories that some paternal 'hand' has decided that I don't need to even know exist, which is why NPOV policy explicitly doesn't allow this. Even WP:FRINGE is usually concerned with making sure that disputed theories are merely listed as existing, are attributed to their sources, and are not endorsed with any POV-pushing language. In this case, they are only listed as existing, they attribute their sources, and are not being pushed. Trying to block all mention of several authors' views, only because we personally disagree with them, is against policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we in agreement this is WP:Fringe? Sumerophile (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me out here. We already say "Other speculations have placed it in Eastern Iran" Then we list some examples, including Majidzadeh speculating in 1976 that it was Shahdad. There is hopefully no argument that the same author has since (2004) declared that he now thinks it was in Jiroft, so what is so wrong about observing this by just writing "2004 Jiroft" next to "1976 Shadad"? It would be misleading to blank out what he is currently saying, for whatever motive. Personally, I do disagree with his opinion that the ruins now being excavated at Jiroft and making headlines, were in fact the city of Aratta. But I try to leave my own POV out of it, so I think it is only fair to him that we represent his updated views, instead of misleadingly suggesting that he still holds to the same views he stated 32 years ago.

Another thing is that if we don't mention it briefly now, it is bound to keep cropping up again in a less neutral form from new editors, as it has many times in the past.

As for your repeated return to "However" and "nevertheless", the tone has an underlying POV. These are words that editors frequently remove from articles wherever possible when editing for POV, so they usually don't last long anyway. It takes much practice to get the hang of writing in a truly neutral tone, and it is hard at first, but I have been learning it for 3 years on wikipedia now, soon realized that many editors have been here before me and many shall come after, and some things, you learn how to predict how they will look in the long run... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What would it take

What would it take to get Sumerophile to understand that wikipedia's policies only care about what published authors theories are, but do not care what Sumerophile's, or my, or any editor's, theories are???

You can fill this page with rebuttals and counter-arguments to all these authors based on your own expertise or intuition until the cows come home, but Wikipedia does not even care whether your rebuttals and counter arguments are correct or fallacious. It only becomes relevant if you find some published author who has made these same rebuttals or counter arguments.

If you are truly interested in performing your own Original research, fortunately there is one WikiMedia project where I believe original research and editors' novel hypotheses are not only allowed, but encouraged. You may find yourself at home there. Check it out, it's called v: (WikiVersity). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected this article for two weeks. Hopefully this will give mediation a chance to work. Repeat performances when the protection expires will lead to blocks, and lengthy ones. Moreschi (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, you've locked in that Ararat Arav's POV. Sumerophile (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. It's the mediated section we compromised on. As a last resort, I can't believe your actually trying use the old argument one more time, "These six published authors were (allegedly) added by a banned user, therefore all six of these published authors should likewise be banned, from anyone else ever adding them again". It has been pointed out to you by several of us how fallacious this is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very tired of your lying about me, Til Eulenspiegel. Sumerophile (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I was going to close this case, as a case of silence in consensus had seemed to be where we'd last settled. I apologize I haven't been around; my comp broke down, so I'm typing here on a replacement from scavenged parts. So there are two issues: Are the sources appropriate, and is the wording NPOV? No to the latter; they fall under words to avoid (click), a guideline written solely because these particular words (nevertheless, however, despite, etc) give the impression to the reader that there is an obvious point of view, despite evidence by others writing the article that there is no obvious POV. So, please stop doing that.

I had stopped participating in talk because, per WP:V (yup, I'm per'ing now), it was reasonable to have the views attributed, and checking on you folks' contribs, I figured you were off to greener pastures. What I meant by attributions (up above) was that, regardless of the merit of the views expressed in the reference, the fact remains that the view was expressed, and is therefore a valid citation. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.

But now the page is protected. What to do? Xavexgoem (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that many of these sources are not verifiable, others mis-represent the myths, and a few actually question the assertions being made. None of this was addressed above.

• Samuelian, Kosambi, Ghose and Witzel do exactly the same thing as Stone, and simply put the two words together without explanation. Ghosa goes so far as to assert that the Sumerian texts say Aratta was Badakhshan, Balkh or Bactria, which they don't.
• There is a another issue with Bedrozian, in that he uses Kramer's superceded title of "Lugulbanda and Mount Hurum", and completely ignors the prominent place Anshan has in these myths, in order to make a case for Aratta=Ararat. Shendge does the same for Aratta=Indus Valley, selecting geographic clues that point to overland distance, but stating for instance that "one does not expect to find such details" about the language barrier between Sumer and the Indus valley, and misstating that the cult of Inanna was a mother-goddess cult like in the Indus Valley - Nihursanga was the Sumerian mother-goddess; Inanna was the goddess of love and war.
• Elst actually states that identifying the Sumerian Aratta with the Indian tradition "is uncertain", and if they were related, it would have far-reaching consequences for the timeline of Indo-Aryan development. Jacob says the same thing, and goes on to question whether either Aratta was historical at all.
• Another problem is unavailability. Rohl and Kavoukjian are out of print and not in my library; The Movsisyan and Kasouni books seem to be entirely unavailable, and can't even be found on WordCat or Amazon. This also raises the question of notability and verifiability.

Then there is also the criticized Jiroft theory which was put in without comment.

Sumerophile (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Samuelian, Kosambi, Ghose and Witzel etc. don't do exactly the same thing as Stone. You biggest problem with Stone before was that she didn't cite any footnotes (but you realize, even her just writing that she thinks they are connected, is sufficient for our standard of evidence that the theory exists and can be mentioned - let alone, a whole handful of authors who all think this. We obviously aren't endorsing their theory, only noting the fact that it exists, which is all we can do and should do per NPOV.)

• Just looking again at the first example, Samuelian frequently cites Movsisian's book about Aratta (as does Bedrosian), and also mentions scholarly conjecture that etymologically connects both Aratta and Ararat with a reconstructed Indo-European word for "river water" (p. 13). I would agree it's not a very compelling argument, and we probably don't need to give it any weight or mention, but it is not true that he is like Stone, simply juxtaposing the two words without any cite or footnote. He further notes that Movsisian himself cites Gamkrelidze and Ivanoff (Tblisi, 1984) for this observation, if that's any help. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for mentioning Jiroft, there are so many news stories and headlines now coming from the major ancient city that was unearthed there, and since most of these stories do mention the fact that the lead archaeologist, Dr. Majidzadeh, thinks these huge and opulent ruins had something to do with Aratta, it is amazing that even, literally, one word about it on this article is too much for you. The massive headlines are the reason anon users kept adding half-baked rants about it to the article; every time they read one of these stories talking about "Aratta", then they come here and don't see one word about Jiroft, so they correct wha they see as a deficiency. The best way to head off this kind of thing is to give it a brief mention, like one word, linking to some other article. I'm not pushing my POV, since I've admit I don't subscribe to this theory either (and I rarely ever state my own views on anything here); but if I were to try to block all mention of it simply because I don't believe it myself, I would be POV pushing. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded to my point in the above paragraph or explained why Jiroft should not be mentioned, since Majidzadeh stated this more recently than his cited 1972 position, and there is no justifiable reason why his 1972 opinion should be given but his current opinion should be blacklisted. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidently we're not finished here. I suggest creating a subpage of this talk page, copying the current content into there, and trying to develop the article from there while the protection lasts. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Talk:Aratta/article. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am happy with the current version that happens to be frozen; I would be against deleting any of it, and it is acceptable to me as a compromise as is now. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's there to edit, nonetheless :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

← (To Sumerophile): Which sources are acceptable per theory? I want to get this page unprotected, and darn speedy! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The only available sources that present an argument are Bedrozian and Shendge, and both do so by omitting any parts of the myths that don't accord with their theories.

And several sources are simply unavailable; we don't know what they say at all.

Sumerophile (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the claims can't be substantiated ("Aratta was in ______[cite]"); but are you saying they shouldn't be attributed ("Some theorists believe that Arrata was in _______[cite]")? Because they can be attributed. They can lie and omit their way to their claim, but that doesn't stop them from believing it. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is WP:Fringe. Any crackpot can say anything. And I can't imagine anyone would condone lies in an article. Sumerophile (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are the mainstream sources? Am I going in circles? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream sources are Kramer et al, the Archaeologists and Assyriologists that went through this discussion in the 1950's-70's. Sumerophile (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a version of the article that best captures the truth? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

An article with the mainstream sources, and without the fringe, captures the professional debate that occurred. Sumerophile (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that maybe there was a revision already in history that you liked, but there is a sandbox up above you can edit, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you were looking for. There isn't a version per se, because I was not removing the fringe, because it was being discussed here, and it would have provoked an edit war, which I was actually trying to avoid.

The version I like would be my last edit, without the paragraph beginning with "Writers in other fields..." Sumerophile (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

you mean this diff before the Great Edit War? Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without the non-RS fringe. Sumerophile (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

← Can we set the bar to "citations must have an ISBN # and be WorldCat listed"? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well clearly a book without either can't be verified. Sumerophile (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2 sources minimum? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Sumerophile (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay... To be honest, I'm a little confused myself with what I meant :-p (It was a suggestion that I soo failed to comprehend adequately)

So, uhh, on hold :-p

But in the meantime, are there any college textbooks that can be used as sources in support of the mainstream view? Xavexgoem (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and I think the original journal articles are better sources anyway. Sumerophile (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's good proof that that's what's being taught. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any textbooks on Sumerian mythology. Sumerophile (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked what version I liked, and I couldn't produce it because it has never come up. This is the diff [7], and this is the version [8].

It took me several tries to get the Talk:Aratta article to this point, because I was being repeatedly reverted, literally the minute after I edited. Sumerophile (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox article wasn't meant for revert warring; it's not in mainspace, so I was hoping that the different POVs could be described for each editor, but I wasn't clear about that. Sorry :-s Xavexgoem (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was this page unprotected?

Mediation has failed; user Sumerophile has not compromised on his position one iota despite the counsel of many mediators with regard to WP:NPOV policy on all significant schools of thought. He still considers his own personal expertise sufficient to play judge with the sources and determine who is "refuted" and thus may not be fairly represented. Unprotecting the article was a very dangerous idea and now I fear this will be headed to the next stage in arbitration in absence of any compromise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotection is a Good Thing :-)

You're both engaged in edit-warring. As a penalty, I say keep the page from being protected again, just so you folks can duke it out endlessly till you're bored of fighting and start actually talking to each other :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Oh no, the endless duking has gone on for months now already -- that's the very reason mediation was sought in hope of a way out! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation has only one power over edit warriors: Trouts. Very ineffective weaponry, as you might imagine :-)

With page unprotect, I have a certain amount of power over the history to keep folks from warring. You two talk past each other in summaries, and that just fuels the fire. So what I (often) do is make a null edit or a stylistic copy-edit to de-poison the already-toxic well with a nice edit summary, so it looks nice in someone's watchpage. You can do that to, y'know :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize... I would've said more, but both you and he had stopped editing the page for a while (prior to the protection), so I assumed a tacit consensus. Last words of wisdom (ha!)...

The compromise is simple: The source must claim hypothesis. It's what the section is titled. We have a source problem (and mild OR problem) if we use sources claiming such-and-such to be fact in an area dedicated to ideas. We have a large neutrality problem if we remove sources that claim hypothesis in the section dedicated to hypothesis; fringe notwithstanding, given the number of sources available. All myths are fringe, but few in history are WP:FRINGE. Damn it, they're hypothetical! :-)

I'm surprised you guys are edit warring over the details of the hypotheses and not whether the section should be there at all. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you know that the compromise you have been proposing sounds reasonable to me, Xavexgoem! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

←The last thing I want is for Sumerophile to see this and think that I'm trying to make Til happy at Sumerophile's expense. I want this compromise judged on its merit; you two have been edit-warring for so long (and I've seen the 3rr warnings followed by the section blanks on your respective talk pages) that I'm not surprised that you two do not assume good faith in each other anymore (so I won't cite assume good faith, but notice how I'm doing that now ;-)

But we won't get anywhere unless we focus on that compromise. I can't guarantee against edit warring in the future, because that's something you two need to work out. I won't suggest a nice cup of tea and a sit down, but there I did it again. You both have interest in this subject, so you should both be nice to each other. Not many people know about Aratta. Just... argh, be nice! :-)

I will say this informal mediation has failed if you two continue to revert war instead of talking with each other. We're dealing with editors all the time, never sources, or neutral points of view, or original research; these are secondary. Just editors. Message ends. Please don't comment. 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have accepted your mediated proposal, but I will consider this informal mediation to have failed and will proceed to formal mediation, if Sumerophile again reverts to his version -- as if he, and he alone, can select just those views of the scholars that agree with his own personal POV for readers to learn about here (in the case of Dr. Majidzadeh, he allows us to read what he stated in 1972, but not what he is actually saying now in books and in the press!!!!!) It seems that the existence of the internet, Google (where anyone can easily find scadroons of scholarly sources all exploring the possibility that Aratta existed here or there, as indeed we have done) and especially Wikipedia and open source projects, are the very bane of old-century style attempts at selective information control, but it is amusing that some are still trying desperately to tell us which ideas we are "allowed" to think and hear about, even in this day and age when such methods have become increasingly obsolete. I can see that you, like all the other editors who have tried to help in this case, have patiently tried to explain what our WP:NPOV policy means, while striving to be even-handed, but it all seems to have been in vain. I will revert his attempts to censor the referenced information he personally disagrees with, and I will then appeal to formal mediation to see that NPOV policy is practised. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the dispute over whether fringe "identifications of Aratta" should be cited (they can, as far as I am concerned, as long as their fringy nature is made clear), please take care not to remove the semi-protection notice[9], and keep this article semi-protected, unless you want to deal with our resident Armenian troll into the bargain. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All those numerous scholars who do hold to these significant, published schools of thought surely would not consider themselves "fringe", but if we have any reliable sources actually describing or criticising any of these views as "fringe" (as opposed to the opinion or mere fiat of a wikipedia editor who doesn't like them), then those sources should be added as well for balance, and to make clear that they have been explicitly considered "fringe" by someone in the field. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

we are talking about this paragraph,

Writers in other fields have continued to hypothesize Aratta locations. One theory connects Aratta with an Āraţţa or Arāţţa mentioned in the Mahabharata and other Sanskrit literature; [ D. D. Kosambi (An Introduction to the Study of Indian History 1956, p. 58); Malati Shendge (The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda 1977, p. 392); Michael Witzel (Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India 1999, p. 8, "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" EJVS 2001, p.18-19); Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate 1999, p. 116 (chap. 4.5.1); Alexander Jacob (Ātman: A Reconstruction of the Solar Cosmology of the Indo-Europeans 2005, p. 35); Sanujit Ghose (Legend of Ram: Antiquity to Janmabhumi Debate 2004, p. 74); Gregory Possehl "Meluhha", in J. Reade (ed.) The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. London: Kegan Paul Intl. 1996. pp. 133-208 ] another, with Ararat or Urartu in the Caucasus.[ David Rohl Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation, Century Publishing, 1998 ISBN 0-7126-8017-9; Thomas J. Samuelian(2000, Armenian Origins: An Overview of Ancient and Modern Sources 2004 p. 4, 5, 13, 14); Artak Movsisan, Aratta: Land of the Sacred Law, Yerevan, 2001; R. Bedrosian, Eastern Asia Minor and the Caucasus in Ancient Mythologies (1993); Yervant Kasouni, Pre-historical Armenia, Beirut, 1950, p. 30; Martiros Kavoukjian, Armenia, Subartu and Sumer, Montreal, 1989 ISBN 0921885008 ] Other authors simply state that location theories about Aratta are invalid, as the story is purely mythical. [ Piotr Steinkeller (1999), Herman L. J. Vanstiphout (2003), Daniel T. Potts (2004) ]

first of all, why the insane heaping up of references? Don't do that. Pick the best one you have and give that, don't try to impress people with half a dozen references hoping they don't notice five out of six are garbage. Your best reference is Witzel saying the Sanskrit name is a "possible reflex". Similarly, it is enough to give David Rohl for the "Ararat" sound-alike and drop the crackpots quoted alongside that. dab (𒁳) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced the paragraph to something I consider sensible, keeping the Witzel and the Rohl reference. Citing bona fide scholars like Witzel or Rohl alongside obvious kooks like Elst or Kavoukjian is silly. If you have a good reference, why dilute it with crappy ones? dab (𒁳) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who has ever verified that these scholars (including D. D. Kosambi, Malati Shendge, Koenraad Elst, Gregory Possehl, Merlin Stone, Thomas J. Samuelian etc.) are considered "crackpots" or "kooks" or "non notable" and thus "unmentionable", aside from the opinion of some editors? Have these scholars ever called themselves "crackpots" or "kooks"? Or has someone else (aside from a wikipedian that is) ever dismissed them as such? Or would this possibly be just an unsubstantiated and unpublished opinion? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Til, the real point is: you want to include the statements "Aratta has been compared to Sanskrit Aratta and to Ararat". That's two statements, and as such at most needs two decent references. Do not litter a single sentence with half a dozen footnotes, not ever. It's silly. See Moreschi's "Peterhof" example (no. 44) ([10]). Re "kooks": please, don't take people for idiots. WP:UCS. dab (𒁳) 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We originally had two footnotes, each just listing the names of the scholars who supported each view, but at some point in mediation, it was split into individual refs, with a mediated understanding that we could switch back if it looked messy with too many footnotes. It does not seem self-evident that the above-named authors are universally and unquestioningly written off as "crackpots" and "kooks"; that's why I'm asking for some verification beyond "because that's my opinion and I say so". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not make the claim in article namespace. Removing a reference because it is crap is different from the positive claim that a given author is a kook. To the contrary, the burden of establishing notability is on you if you want to insist on featuring these references. I suggest you review the articles on the authors linked, and you will (hopefully) be able to gauge their academic credibilities. --dab (𒁳) 14:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This constitutes a massive body of literature, or school of thought, that is in itself notable. The authors with linked articles are several, and they have all supported Aratta location ideas. I have indeed read about their "academic credibilities" on all their articles, and I did not see where anyone published has ever dismissed them as "crackpots" or similar. If an editor is going to use his opinion as a justification to suppress so many authors, it is reasonable to ask which other authors have ever supported that editor's contention that they are "crackpots", if any? These scholars include PHDs, University professors and staff of specialized academic journals, but it seems very strange that "just like that", we editors can summarily declare that they have no academicic credibility and are worthless, and their views may not be presented. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I really want to see what Sumerophile things of the compromise up above. I am trying to informally mediate, but I lost my cool for a moment there. Is it OK to wait and see? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what my compromise was aiming for, comparisons like Aratta=Ararat on no news. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Do you need to poison the well, Til? Or are you going to continue being uncivil towards the only other editor who is interested in the topic? Behave. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel I am being uncivil by arguing that these scholars' views deserve to be represented. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

But you are! It's just a hostile environment. I've given my reasoning up above. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

can we take such meta-discussions to user talkspace please? --dab (𒁳) 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... sorry about that. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise offer

The compromise is simple: The source must claim hypothesis. It's what the section is titled. We have a source problem (and mild OR problem) if we use sources claiming such-and-such to be fact in an area dedicated to ideas. We have a large neutrality problem if we remove sources that claim hypothesis in the section dedicated to hypothesis Xavexgoem (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Accept. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the best sources for the two claims are Samuel Noah Kramer (for Hurrian>Urartu>Ararat>Armenian hypothesis), and John Hansman for the Himalayan hypothesis. They were part of the mainstream debate on the subject, so their views were both juried and commented on. This is not true of the other writers who simply say this word looks like that word; in addition a number of these writers refer back to Kramer or Hansman. Sumerophile (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that claims made in the hypotheses section should include sources that claim that their ideas are only hypotheses? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: That means excluding blanket Ararat=Aratta claims that do not specifically state that it's only an idea :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Something stronger than simply a statement that a claim is a hypothesis. I mean I could say Aratta was Atlantis and simply call it my hypothesis without needing to offer any justification for it. I also think Kramer and Hansman are suitable representatives for each theory. Sumerophile (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I'm arguing for: Aratta does not equal Atlantis; Aratta does not equal Ararat. The compromise also includes the two sources per theory, both cited with an ISBN # and are worldcat listed. Does that sound good, at least in theory? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - if you just add questionable sources without comment, that would argue for things like Aratta=Ararat. Sumerophile (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The source would have to explicitly state that it is purely hypothetical. If there are enough sources, surely one of them is attributable.

Hansman may mention "Himalayas", but does he actually represent the hypothesis of Professor Witzel et al. that explores the possibility that there is some connection with the Sanskrit "Aratta"? Also it takes more than just an editor saying Aratta was Atlantis. If we had a handful of scholarly books and journals arguing that Aratta was Atlantis, then per NPOV we should mention that this hypothesis exists in the "hypothesis section" too, even if we all personally agree that it is ludicrous. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you implore Sumero to respond to my question first? I'm trying to get you two to agree on something. And I'm going to bed soon. And a bunch of other things... Xavexgoem (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, I don't understand your "compromise proposal". Of course we are talking about published hypotheses. The problem is not one of OR, it is one of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE. The hypotheses listed need to have been published academically. Show an academic paper discussing your hypothesis and it's in. You're unable to produce such a reference, tough luck, it's out. Simple, isn't it? dab (𒁳) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the plan (there are two compromise offers, I just didn't merge them in this header; see above). Xavexgoem (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Xavex, I don't even know what the compromise offer is. Just because somebody throws a lot of poor quality "sources" at you, doesn't mean that somewhere in that quantity their is going to be anything of "source quality". And just because I took a week's break from this doesn't imply consent to what was in the article - I found myself facing having to actually read through a dozen "sources" to figure out what was going on (unlike the person who just threw them in the article). In the field of the Ancient Near East, it is really essential to stipulate mainstream juried sources, as you can see, because there are a ton of my-poeple-are-the-real-Sumerians nationalist trolls out there making a mess of these articles.

You can only know when there isn't consensus. In latin (and so I can link WP:SILENCE) Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit :-)

I got lost in the details. Sorry 'bout that. Backing off in 3...2...1 Xavexgoem (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

dab, and how "fine its not in Caucasus" phrase explains your deletion of Kassouni's source? When will you stop these unexpl. editwarrings? At least look at WP:CIVIL! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

how does a summary "Ararat geographically is out of Caucasus! why to not open the textbook?" [11] justify the inclusion of "Kassouni's source"? Any evidence that ""Pre-historical Armenia" is a reference that is at all respectable or relevant? What does WP:CIVIL have to do with this? I didn't even bother to call your edit summary disingenious. dab (𒁳) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

DBachmann, please assume good faith with the sources. It is starting to seem like in order for any source to be considered "academic", it first has to meet some kind of litmus test of your POV. Let me remind you again what we are doing here: The "hypothesis section" is only to neutrally mention what major hypotheses exist. Our job isn't to play judge and decide which authors' hypothesis is "correct" and scoff drily at all the others, label them "crackpots" and present only our favorite hypothesis. The word of WP:NPOV does not allow it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Til, while he's an admin, dab trying to made Wiki a radicalist POV, where he is the only person who according to his beliefs (but not Wiki rules) will allow or reject the adding of information. Surely for an encyclopedia such a behavior is unacceptible! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another dispute being edit warred: Ensukeshdanna and Ensuhgirana

Aside from the major disputes (eg. is it reasonable to selectively mention Dr. Majidzadeh only when he does not disagree with an editor's position), there is another issue of contention that is being overlooked. The vast majority of academic sources refer to the lord of Aratta in the second epic as "Ensukeshdanna". This is the form that will most often be encountered by students, and it's easy to establish that it is far more common variant than "Ensuhgirana". Most good sources will mention that both terms are used for the same person, but I have never seen any source arguing why one is correct and the other isn't. We should emulate the good sources and explain that both names refer to the same character to avoid confusion. But for reasons that are undiscernible to me, Sumerophile objects to our informing the readers that "Ensukeshdanna" is a oft-encountered variant of "Ensuhgirana". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not true:

A Google search for Ensukeshdanna brings up a total of 7 pages.

A Google search for Ensuhgirana brings up 171 pages, and En-suhgir-ana brings up 241 pages.

Sumerophile (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good work; now please try "ensuhkeshdanna". (I forgot the h) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

jiroft civilization

I added Jiroft Civilization to the list of candidates for Aratta based on wikipedia article Jiroft Civilization which mentions aratta--Gurdjieff (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Aratta was in what is now modern day Ukraine

http://www.arattagar.co.uk/Aratta/Aratta.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.110 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Aratta found in Southern Iran (Jiroft)

I would Like to inform you that Arata or Aratta, the oldest civilization so far, has been uncovered in the year 2000 (video has been shown on BBC and BBC Persian and is available on youtube and elsewhere).The link I have is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMXYYGYS51U&feature=player_embedded. The archeological site is located in the southern mountains of Iran in a valley. It should be well documented by now. The dig, so far, has uncovered pieces 4000 years old and it is believed that the lower layers may contain objects up to 10,000 years old. Jjyar 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Aratta must have been in Afghanistan (somewhere in Badakhshan area or ancient Bactria)

Aratta is described as follows in Sumerian literature:

• It is a fabulously wealthy place full of gold, silver, lapis lazuli and other precious materials, as well as the artisans to craft them.
• It is remote and difficult to reach.

Lapis lazuli is a type of blue stone only found in Afghanistan but coveted in the wider world for thousands of years. It crops up in the jewellery of ancient Egypt, the art of the ancient near east and as far afield as the art of the Italian Renaissance.

Archaeologists who investigated more than twenty thousand beads and other objects made of lapis lazuli retrieved from the Royal Tombs of Ur found that all had the same exact mineral compostition; hence all originated from the same mine. Indeed, after extensive cross-checking, it was found that virtually every piece of lapis lazuli used in the ancient Near East — many tons of material — all came from the same mountain range, the Sar-i Sang mines in Badakhshan province, deep in the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan.

The lapis lazuli that arrived from the Sar-i Sang mines in Afghanistan to the great cities at Ur, in Mesopotamia, as well as to Egypt (where the blue stone was considered the height of fashion), about 2400 BC travelled along routes or exchange that had already been active for thousands of years.

The wide fertile plains that stretched between the northern slopes of the Hindu Kush and the Oxus River during ancient times, the valuable Silk Road trading centers and rich gold, silver and lapis deposits in the nearby mountains made Bactria a highly prized satrapy (regional governorship) for the Achaemenid Persians.

Based on these information, Aratta mast have been in Badakhshan area in Afghanistan, or the ancient land of Bactria.--Artacoana (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this project. This isn't a lab where we do our own research in an attempt to "prove" what hypothesis may or may not be correct. WP is more like a compendium listing impartially all the various hypotheses that are held by various schools of thought. While one school of thought does indeed place Aratta in Afghanistan, others have placed it in Iran, Armenia, anywhere in between, or simply denied its existence outside of mythology. We cannot give undue weight to one school of thought, however. For more info on our policies, please read up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. And please keep in mind that the current version is the result of arbitration process, and would take a thorough consensus to overturn. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not remember that I've said that only the hypothesis favouring Afghanistan must be placed in the article. What I mean is that this particular hypothesis must be also included in the article. Let me aslo add the fact that it has been universally agreed in recent years that the most famous Old World lapis lazuli mines, those on the upper reaches of the Kokcha river, a tributary of the Oxus (Amu Darya), in the Badakhshan district of Modern Afghanistan, described by Marco Polo (Yule 1929; i. 157), were the primary source for the ancient Near East and Egypt. Evidence for exploitation of these mines in the third millenium BC has been strengthened by the discovery of raw lapis lazuli and evidence of bead manufacture of Shortughai on the river Oxus (Francfort and Pottier 1978; Francfort 1987) in a settlement where the material culture is described as largely 'Harappan'.--Artacoana (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Aratta has absolutely nothing to do with Armenia

Aratta has no relation to Armenia and Armenians. Call at least one reasonable reason to add the category of Armenia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.36.55 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Armenia is one of the places that has a claim to be the site of Aratta. You already know this perfectly well, don't you? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

With Armenia connected with not more than with the Kurdistan or Azerbaijan. As to Iraq is of direct relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.36.55 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits going first to one extreme and then the other violate WP:POINT for being disruptive, that is not the way to accomplish anything here. This article has already been subject of one arbitration case. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016

I would like to add my book and theory regarding the possible location of Aratta. www.bjcorbin.com and my new book Seven Mountains to Aratta. Thank you, B.J. Corbin bjcorbin@gmail.com

Location hypotheses

B.J. Corbin agrees with Sol Cohen's Ph.D. dissertation regarding the Hamadan, Iran region as the location for Aratta. More specifically, Kuh-e Alvand mountain and the archaeological site of Godin Tepe.

Bibliography

Corbin, B.J. (2016). "Seven Mountains to Aratta". ISBN 978-1-329-98413-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjcorbin2 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

73.135.66.28 (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Hi @73.135.66.28: you need to tell us exactly you want to edit. Please also ensure that your edit complies with Wikipedia's rules on advertising. st170e^talk 14:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, as a self-published book it fails our criteria at WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

please add real aratta

f.n. please distinguish the real homeland Aratta in Ukraine from smaller 10s of 1000s of years later Arataa in SE Persia ...

please add beginning all indo euro culture - aratta luddite nano pico editors keep refusing to acknowledge the proven history of first writing and civilization c 40,000 to 20,000 bc in not mythical but real Aratta (not to be confused with add'l Aratta in SE Persia); pls add to article as founding culture of Gobekli Tepe and all Europe , Indo Europe all way to China etc

ref: Ancient History of Aratta-Ukraine (20,000 BCE - 1,000 CE) Paperback – January 29, 2015 by Dr Yuri Shilov (Author), Trishula Translations (Translator)

about author / doctor - real ancient archeology pro dr yuri shilov ab author dr yuri shilov Editorial Reviews About the Author Dr. Yuri Shilov, born Zaporizhia region, Ukraine. Graduate of Moscow State University; doctorate, Ukrainian Academy of Science. Academic appointments: Professor of Ancient History; Professor of Ukrainian Studies, Kyiv; Cossack Military Institute. Head of several public organisations of ancient history and archaeology. Honorary Doctor of Historical Sciences; Professor of the Russian Right Slavic Academy and Inter-regional Academy of Humanities; Head of History, All-Slavic Council; Colonel General of the International Academy of Cossacks. Member of Ukrainian Academy of Original Ideas; International Academy of Humanities; New York Academy of Sciences. Author of hundreds of publications: over 30 books - scientific, journalistic and artistic. Member of the National Union of Writers of Ukraine and Russia.

Dr. Shilov's significant discoveries, gleaned over a lifetime of archaeological investigation of Ukrainian Steppe kurgans and graves, have revised academic understanding of the origins of Indo -Europeans, Aryans and Slavs. He has shown that civilization did not originate from slave-holding Sumer (c.3,200 BCE in Mesopotamia) but began from the community of Aratta (c. 6,800 BCE in the Danube-Dnipro region). For these discoveries he has received international and national honors with monuments in the city of Komsomolsk and the city of Sicheslav (Dnipropetrovsk). add'l book review: by JD I have waited years for a serious academic book to appear, written in English, that appraises the archaeological cultures that arose in the northern Black Sea lands many millennia before the Sumerian civilisation. This book far exceeds my expectations, not only in the almost encyclopaedic scope of time and territory that it covers, and richness of illustration, but particularly in the hundreds of references to all related and relevant research papers, monographs and textbooks that have appeared since the early 19th century explorations in this subject. Those alone give this book the stamp of authority that allows the critical reader to have complete confidence in the veracity of Shilov’s expansive and detailed understanding of his subject. 

This is a particularly difficult study to explore if you cannot read Ukrainian or Russian to access the wealth of information that is available on the internet in those languages. Personally, I have been awed by the archaeological exhibits of this archaic civilisation in both State and private museums across Ukraine, and purchased many books (in Ukrainian and Russian) by the foremost researchers of the ancient Trypillian civilisation, including the pioneering decipherment of proto-Sumerian petroglyphic texts discovered in Ukraine, but nowhere have I found a book in English that can even closely rival Shilov’s book on Ancient Ukraine. 

This book is almost like a “Rosetta stone” in opening up far more about this fascinating subject than I had ever hoped to find. Of course, sensational new discoveries tend to receive treatments that span a spectrum from applause to disbelief and Shilov’s research and discoveries have evidently attracted both polarisations, from East and West. However, do not be misled into thinking this book is heavily biased towards the Communist doctrines of historical materialism, of which Shilov is openly critical, and do not be surprised to see his scope of review covers research from academics in the US, UK, western and eastern Europe, and Asia. This is an astonishingly thorough book that will be my foremost reference text for many years. It is perhaps the most useful and best value book I have ever bought.

One of the strengths of this book is that it offers a chronology for the plethora of cultural periods of prehistoric Eurasia. Although the majority of academic historians and archaeologists will be perfectly accepting of the veracity of radiocarbon dating techniques that the author here has drawn upon (even though scientific claims for precision of absolute dating of artefacts can still be challenged), one can at least choose to interpret some of the precise dates within this book, such as archaeoastronomical dates, as an acceptable and significant guideline rather than an absolute. 

Perhaps the most exciting revelation in this book, for me, was to read of the discovery of identical archaic texts found in Ukraine and Catal Hoyak which give clear proof of their mutual cultural and spiritual connection across the Black Sea in the dawning of civilisation, radiocarbon dated to 6200 ± 97 BCE. Since those texts clearly predate the famous Romanian Tartaria tablets that have been radiocarbon dated to 5500 BCE and been claimed to be the earliest writing in the world, this book clearly shows that Ukraine has an even more ancient history of civilisation that genuinely deserves attention. 173.3.131.209 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) yuri dolgoruki sr real yuri

f.n. this discussion and discussion of the 'real Aratta' seems to have no relationship or little to categorizing it as part of an Afghan discussion... ..24.146.191.73 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC) ce le heim, yuri 'long arm' sr 24.146.191.73 (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

next paragraphs somehow added below and belong to previous note ?

Jump up ^ http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2017/04/younger-dryas-comet-impact-encoded-in.html Jump up ^ http://uruk-warka.dk/news/08-2013/G%C3%B6bekli%20is%20an%20early.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.131.209 (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I see he couldn't get a reputable publisher but had to self-publish through CreateSpace. One major indicator we should ignore it. The "Ukrainian Academy of Original Ideas" is a self-styled academy.[12] Anyone can become a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, you just pay your membership fees. When his views starting receiving discussion in academic publications,which seems extremely unlikely, they might be mentioned. Not now. See also this.. Meanwhile, please stop using our talk pages to promote him. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Dr. Yuri Shilov, Professor of Ancient History and Ukrainian Studies at the Ukrainian Academy of Science in Kyiv, and doctoral graduate of Moscow State University, posits that ancient Arrata was located in the Black Sea region of Ukraine. Dr. Shilov believes that the Arratans eventually progressed into the neolithic Trypillian archaeological culture. Dr. Shilov has received international and national honours for his contributions to ancient history, with monuments in the cities of Komsomolsk and Sicheslav in Ukraine.

Yuri Shilov, "Ancient History of Arrata-Ukraine, 20,000 BCE to 1000 C.E.," Trishula Translations, 2015, ISBN-13: 978-1505241624 Vytfreedom (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This prose seems to be more about Shilov than Aratta. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the style of the previous location hypotheses. I will rewrite to explain more of the thinking and discoveries behind the hypothesis. Also, it seemed relevant to support Shilov's work with his awards and credentials, since the lines I've requested for deletion above my edit "caution against overspeculation," pretty much stopping additional inputs on location. Do you disagree? If so, I will pull those out. Vytfreedom (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, how do I establish consensus? I am referring to a book produced by a cadre of academics, isn't this consensus, or do you mean something different? Forgive my ignorance, I do not frequently edit Wikipedia and have never been held to such requirements. Vytfreedom (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This page might help you understand it a bit more. They want you to talk about it with other Wikipedians, to see if your edit needs improving, needs more/less information.. etc. This process helps come up with a solution that works out for everyone. GameTriangle (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022 (2)

Please remove these two sentences and replace with my previously submitted edit: "By 1973, archaeologists were noting that there was no archaeological record of Aratta's existence outside of myth,[22] and in 1978 Hansman cautions against over-speculation.[38]"

It is egregious to think that somebody put the kabosh on further discoveries regarding Aratta in 1978, when there are archeological sites that are still being excavated today that may end up being evidence of an archeological record for Aratta. It is even more upsetting that in 2022, a narrative from 1973 is being pushed. Research into the subject reveals academic bullying. Wikipedia editors who are pushing narratives and excluding other viable narratives should be denied editing privileges. Vytfreedom (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yuri Shilov

I would like to know why you haven't included the work of Dr. Yuri Shilov, who has been able to successfully place the kingdom of Aratta in Ukraine and specifically the Donbas and Crimean regions of Ukraine? Is their perhaps some sort of political motivations involved with why his excellent work is not mentioned, due to Dr. Shilov being Russian. Surely this website is not so petty as to disregard his work based on this ridiculous political climate and instead base the information on merit and credibility? I'd appreciate an answer at your earliest convenience.

Samuel N Fisher The real Sam Fisher (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)