Talk:Naram-Suen

Naram-Sin of Uruk

@Philip Mexico:, the entry for Naram-Sin of Uruk in the form that you are reverting to has no place on a disambiguation page. As explained in edit summaries, 1) external links are not permitted on disambiguation pages. That is a long-standing and widely-accepted guideline. 2) the external link no longer works and is unverifiable (and even so it goes to a blog posting which would be unacceptable as a reference in any case). If you know of some better verifiable source, then please create a stub for the topic (or even an entry in a list somewhere), but until then please stop reverting. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so keen to erase this king from the historical record on wikipedia altogether, let us follow the proper procedure out of respect for not losing valid information i.e. truth over arbitrary rules that never received any "widespread agreement" nor were put to the users of this wiki but merely ramrodded in by zealous admins with no regard for actual history

Naram-Sin of Uruk (c. 19th century BC), a king of Uruk known from a single inscription

At least the reference to this figure can be mentioned here on the talkpage until the requested "verifications" are provided for your satisfaction sir Philip Mexico (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, truth is important, although your characterization of the guidelines for disambiguation and verifiability is laughable. older ≠ wiser 12:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Laughable" meaning your opinion on what is "laughable" is more important because you're an admin, right? Philip Mexico (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, laughable because it is so clearly mistaken. older ≠ wiser 13:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you going to explain how I am mistaken then? Philip Mexico (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make any difference if I did? older ≠ wiser 13:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, then you would have more than a mere assertion that you are right and I am "laughable" simply because I disagree with you. That's just your opinion that I am laughable and I do not share your lofty perspective. Philip Mexico (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your "laughable" claim is that arbitrary rules that never received any "widespread agreement" nor were put to the users of this wiki but merely ramrodded in by zealous admins with no regard for actual history. You provided no evidence for such a claim, but regardless. The guideline that external links and references do not go on disambiguation pages has been in place for a very long time (since at least 2005). It's been discussed repeatedly in various forums and by wide range of participants, and while there is not unanimity, the guidance has been strongly supported. Similarly, the guidance on WP:Verifiability has been in place since the very earliest stages and has withstood many challenges over time and clearly enjoys widespread support. older ≠ wiser 14:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again your notion of "laughable" still differs from mine. To me it is laughable that an actual king who is known to have existed is being removed and suppressed from any mention on a variety of rules and pretexts when it would take a matter of seconds even for someone who knows nothing of the topic as I daresay you do not, to find verification. What if we said "There was also another king Naram-Sin of Uruk known from an inscription, but we can't tell you that because he has no article, so the admins find him irrelevant" lol wikipedia Philip Mexico (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the best verification I found so far: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25608633?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Philip Mexico (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did make some attempt to see if there were any alternate sourcing available -- but despite your assertion that it would take a matter of seconds even for someone who knows nothing of the topic to find verification, I could not. As such, the assertion regarding this ancient monarch is indistinguishable from a prank or a hoax. That is the essence of verifiability. It is incumbent on those who wish to add or retain information to provide verifiable sources. Apart from that, the proper place for such sourcing is in an article, not on the disambiguation page itself. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously mean the above link from jstor is insufficient to convince your admin holiness that this is not a "prank or a hoax"??? And you call ME laughable? How do bureaucratic oafs like you ever get to be admin here? Philip Mexico (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the comment was applicable to the state with a broken link to a blog post as reference. And how about you WP:AGF and stop with the idiotic personal attacks? older ≠ wiser 15:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, assuming good faith you hadn't seen that yet, anyway the fact remains this was a verified Naram Sin of the 19th c. BC who has been known about for only a few years, although no one has had a chance to do a proper article on him just yet. This should demonstrate why it is silly to make a rule that he can't even be listed or named without his own article and insist on that rule. Philip Mexico (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with WP:Verifiability, this really isn't the best forum. older ≠ wiser 15:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - you are still harboring doubts that Naram Sin of Uruk and the Jstor article already given above might be a "prank or a hoax" then??? Yet you demand I "assume good faith" with your reasoning? Philip Mexico (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you claim it demonstrate(s) why it is silly to make a rule that he can't even be listed or named without his own article and I don't think what transpired here demonstrates any such thing. There was an unverifiable entry on the disambiguation page with a dead link to a blog post. That entry was deleted. That is completely appropriate. You felt there might be something salvageable from that entry and found a legitimate reference. Now the only question is where to place the information. The reference does not belong on a disambiguation page. So the options are to either create a stub or add the entry into an existing list of other monarchs for that region/period/dynasty. I see nothing whatsoever that demonstrates why either WP:Verifiability or external links on disambiguation pages are silly rules. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the appropriate place (or at least one appropriate place) is on this article, the disambiguation for figures named "Naram Sin". Verifiability is only a continued lame pretext in this case as he should have been verified by now to even the greatest skeptic, but since this has never been challenged in scholarship as a "prank or a hoax", that would be your own original view vs. this scholarship. The silliness is insisting he cannot be mentioned on this page at all without an article when he clearly belongs on this page for now. Philip Mexico (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are not articles and they are not an index of internet content. They are merely navigational aides for readers to find existing Wikipedia content. The term should be mentioned in an existing article (with appropriate referencing) or there is nothing to disambiguate within the context of Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 16:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. Personally I think wikipedia would be much more user-friendly and more of a service to users if it looked at the rest of the world without relying on itself as the be-all and end-all arbiter of "notability" and this bottleneck is a perfect illustration why. Philip Mexico (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can think what you like, but the disambiguation guidelines have worked reasonably well for some time now. It is a bright line sort of criteria that disambiguation pages are not meant to index every potential ambiguity that might exist. Just about anyone can write an article or add content to an existing article, so the threshold is pretty low. The only actual bottleneck here is figuring out where the information properly belongs to allow appropriate context. older ≠ wiser 17:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the information with the reference at Uruk now Philip Mexico (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. That really was all that was needed. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]