User talk:Emqu

Inquiry

@Emqu: Greetings! I have a quick question regarding the Code of Hammurabi. Do not worry about anything FAC related, I fully support the nomination and what I'm about to bring up will not affect the process. First, in the notes section, one note is used multiple times but is not referenced. Is this something that can be referenced? If not, no problem. Secondly, could these sources ([1], [2], [3]) be used? I see them being used in the French featured article and they seem very reliable, perhaps good to diversify the sources. Another thing is that simply searching "Code of Hammurabi" on JSTOR shows many reliable journals, here: [4]. Whether you think these are worthy to be added is up to you. You are the expert, so you can judge if they should be included. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wretchskull: really sorry about the delay, I know you put a lot of effort into this FAC too.

First point: Do you mean linking to the CDLI and Roth 1995a? aza24 has now done this, I wasn't sure how to do it. Or do you mean the sentence "The line numbers..."? If you mean that sentence, then no, I suppose technically it is original, but it is needed as an explanatory footnote (the only one). Let me know if those have to be deleted as OR.

Second point: The first one is a source I cite frequently (Charpin 2010). For the second one, I can't access De Gruyter so can only see the first page, but I like the quote about "Code" being a "persistent misnomer" and have added it. As for the third: I find Westbrook quite broad-brush, but I must confess I did not know this book existed, and I agree that it would be good to reference. Will read tomorrow.

Third point: These are all from around 1905, and I personally think the "early scholarship" section is big enough. If you find it very lacking, let me know, but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to read every single turn-of-the-century Hammurabi piece on JSTOR.

Anyway, I am really touched by your continued efforts with this. I will get it to FA. Emqu (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: I have added relevant details from the Westbrook book. Unfortunately my Google Books copy does not show the chapter on Old Babylonian law (pp. 361–430), which I presume contains the Hammurabi coverage. Do you have access to this? I don't think it is essential for comprehensiveness, but it would of course be nice. Emqu (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: Great job! Unfortunately, as much as I would love to help you and share anything, I do not have access to the book, but the article is very comprehensive and well-sourced so it's not really a big deal. After listening to audio about the code, some stated that Hammurabi stressed the goal of justice in the epilogue, citing this book (I don't have access). This is a book about a rather wide array of subjects concerning Hammurabi and may not be the most reliable. If your sources state that justice is stressed in the epilogue, you could perhaps incorporate it into the Epilogue section, perhaps in the beginning. If none of your sources mentions it, you can ignore it as it may not be accepted by scholarly consensus. Another thing, some sources state that the stele is black diorite (such as this source by Van De Mieroop) rather than basalt. I have to admit that I know next to nothing about steles and their materials, so I assume you have already taken care of that. Wretchskull (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Justice in the prologue and epilogue: were you asking this because I had just deleted this sentence as OR? If so, then I appreciate it, but I don't have access to that book either, and it doesn't look the most promising. However, you have inspired me to go back through my readings to find a citation to save this sentence, and I have added one from Driver and Miles.

Basalt/diorite/others: yes, I remember you asked me about the material at FAC. I said that my stance was to defer to the majority, and the majority say basalt. I have changed my mind though and will add the alternative later. Emqu (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Added diorite. Emqu (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]