User talk:Amizzoni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Amizzoni, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kukini 07:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Reply on Otten

Actually, his name is Heinrich Otten and he is a German scholar who has worked much with Hittite sites. Yes, I´ve been writing and editing a few articles about ANE sites. Strange enough, my article about Ortaköy/Shapinuwa seems to have vanished, so this would be my next project. --JFK 16:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article listed for deletion

Hi Amizzoni,

I noticed from the Inclusionist category page that you're an inclusionist, too, and a native Spanish speaker. So, I was wondering if you would be able to do me a huge favor and possibly place a vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embarazada. I added a ton to it, citing my sources. If you could, I would be greatly in your debt.

Best wishes,

Primetime 21:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop uploading the unfree Cyrus Cylinder image

Please stop uploading the image from the British Museum. It was already speedily deleted once, yet you uploaded it under another name again, and edited the Cyrus the Great article with it. Images from the British Museum are not free, and thus cannot be used on Wikipedia. ♠ SG →Talk 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem! You live, you learn. I too wish we had a better image of the Cyrus Cylinder. ♠ SG →Talk 15:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Started Karl Hoffmann (German historian)

Hi, Amizzoni. Just letting you know that I started the article Karl Hoffmann (German historian) thanks to you. Thought you'd like to know, since you were the one who first listed him on Wikipedia. Still a stub, though; doesn't even detail the later years of his life or most of his work. ♠ SG →Talk 16:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing archaeology topics

I wonder if you could have a look at this list of missing archaeology topics - Skysmith 13:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cylinder image

Right, my apologies. I'm not familiar with the OTRS system, but I've gotten myself up to speed. In any case, see if you can get a larger image of the cylinder from Jona Lendering. That version has been made far too small for the article. ♠ SG →Talk 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I love the twist; I guess you got me. As for the image size, the original replacement you used was a different, smaller image. Glad you got a larger one this time, looks great. ♠ SG →Talk 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Clinder Edits

Regarding your recent edits, please see: Talk:Cyrus cylinder ("Edits by Amizzoni" section). ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 06:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Thapsacus

Can you explain your objection to separating Biblical and secular references in this article?

Classical/Modern is an acceptable approach to me, but "Alleged Babylonian" is not parallel to that classification system. Unless you want "Alleged Classical" "Confirmed Classical", etc.... but let's not go there.

Let's pick an system of reference organization and stick with it. I don't particularly like Classical/Modern, because the only modern reference is the 1911 Brittania (and it's based on ancient sources!)

Please let me know why you think Biblical/secular is orthogonal to the article so we can discuss it.

dpotter 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I now understand your concerns about biblical/secular - but I'm still not comfortable with your proposal of classical/modern/babylonian - they're not parallel thoughts (time period/time period/culture of origin).
Perhaps we can just scrap the subdivisions in this section? Honestly, I don't think it's such a big loss. Or, if you feel strongly that you want them organized into groups, let's continue to discuss a system that presents a clear and consistent method of organization. -- dpotter 15:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amytis

Ver cambios. Saludos --Berimbau1 22:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasargades winged man.jpg

Ah, fantastic. That photo is much clearer than the ones we had before. Thanks for the info! ♠ SG →Talk 23:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus building projects

Hey, Amizzoni. How's everything going?

Well, remember a while back, how you suggested we add in a section about Cyrus' building projects? I haven't had a lot of time to do any thorough research, but in the little time I did search, I wasn't able to find any reliable sources about things Cyrus commissioned for building, apart from the Second Temple. I was hoping you could perhaps take a look and find some articles or books about it, and maybe we could start putting them into the article. ♠ SG →Talk 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the tips. I'll be sure to look those up. ♠ SG →Talk 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The unreliable and disputed problems

Salam or Dorood my Persian bro...

Hi, I got to say, thanks for your edits, you have opened my mind. But, there is a problem, me, who has studied the works of Herodotus, the father of historical lies, and Ctesias the lost and very intricate historian that almost all his works were lost, and Xenophon, Nicolas of Damascus, Justin, including Biblical and Babylonian sources... All I can say is that all these historians and history, which the arguement over history itself lets leave for another time, is disputed, all of them, so just because the full work of Ctesias the guy who knew personally as the physician of Artaxerxes, and knew Persian historians, I think people have been biased to Ctesias because almost all his works were lost, and he fills in the holes that Herodotus leaves open, including that he wrote his thing only 200 years after Herodotus' Histories, so to call him unreliable, would be a big mistake. So I just want to say that Cyrus' campgain box that I created is based of a combination of Hero,Ctes, and Nicols works. Which always remember the only way to discover truth in history is to analize all works and average them, by using all sources to find similar things which could be true. The article of Cyrus only has Herodotus' version of events, and that shows that over the ages peoples bias's are expanding, he basically fails us to cover the later events of Cyrus the Greats life. So it is the only way is to include all estimates even if they are not true. Like in certain battles if more than one historian talks about the numbers, you don't just put one of their guesses, you put all the guesses of all the historians who talked about it, to be fair and balanced of course. So Atradates was a nickname of Cambyses I, it's not another person, and therefore I think it now should be included in Cambyses I article, don't worry I won't put it back in Cyrus's article. Second, Baselius or something, I may have spelled it wrong, like you said only applies to Greek rulers right, but in tradition Croessus was a Greek, and even if the tradition is wrong, Asia Minor which is half of The Lydian Empire was composed of Asian Greeks! Lydians are Greeks, and so are Ionians, throughout really ancient history they migrated back and forth from mainland Greece to Asian Greece. But when Persia fought, starting from the Ionian Revolt, mainland Greece, the official Greco-started-Persian Wars began, so to make Cyrus's title apply to him, calling him a Baselius is not going to hurt. And the Medes had a Empire with a Emperor, some books today call Astyages Emperor of the Medes, ask me to look for it, and I'll prove it to you. But as we all know Bablyonians had only Kings, which they called themselves, so thanks for reading, and best of wishes to you. Also Herodotus told allot of stories, but Ctesias said facts, now Herodotus is more proned to lie than Ctesias, but Ctesias could have lied to, most of the time they both don't know if even the things they say themselves is true or not, so they could lie without even knowing it. And thanks you. Comment back, and suggest things to me if I'm wrong, remember that I only talk comman sense here, I'm in a unknown school of thought, and I am becoming 19 years of age, and study ancient Persia heavily, and have allot of good books, okay. Goodbye!--Ariobarza (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

[edit] Cyrus

Ariobarza talk also says that this is a excerpt from the article Basileus which is a copy pasted here, and says...

Use of Basileus in Classical Times

In classical times, almost all states had abolished the hereditary royal office in favor of democratic or oligarchic rule: Some exceptions exist: namely the two hereditary Kings of Sparta (who served as joint commanders of the army, and were also called arkhagetai), the Kings of Macedon and of the Molossians in Epirus, various kings of "barbaric" (i.e. non-Greek) tribes in Thrace and Illyria, as well as the Achaemenid kings of Persia. The Persian king was also referred to as Megas Basileus (Great King) or Basileus Basileōn, a translation of the Persian title Šāhanšāh ("King of Kings"), or simply "the king".

None Greeks calling none Greek kings the title of Basileus? What the hell, I thought...Oh, and don't forget that Byzantium rulers of turkey in nearby Lydia used them to, even for foreign conquerors, and that Thrace was sometimes changed in locations between Greece and Turkey, and that the eastern half of ancient Thrace belongs to Turkey today, so don't say it only applied to Persian Satraps in Thrace, which anyways Thracians and Persians are none Greeks themselves, it was applied wherever the majority of the population was Greek, I guess, because I think this seems to be the case here, or the lands between Greece and Turkey. Which included ancient Lydia, which Cyrus conquered. Also we have a considerable amount of information that Ctesias has left us, basically based on the fragments of Ctesias, Herodotus talks about the Persians five times more than Ctesias talks about the Persians, and both Ctesias and Herodotus mention eachother, which shows both the (Persica), and (Histories), were written around the same time, which is very similar to Herodotus accounts too. So I think there is some truth to it, in the middle of course. Which is still worth mentioning, you can find it, and read it, and you'll be suprised, in books, and on the internet. Another reason is that Ctesias, as verified by other historians was the personal physician of Artaxerxes, and had access to the Persian archives. So is it not common sense, to believe in the words of a royal Persian physician, or to believe in the words of a commoner in some ancient town, meaning Herodotus!. To give an EXAMPLE, imagine a Assyrian tablet saying king Whatever killed Tedo, but the tablet dosen't say when he buried Tedo. Then a Babylonian tablet both dated in the same time, says that in July 2, 1,234 BC, king Whatever buried Tedo, now we have the date, because the Babylonians have told us this, and there is no reason to doubt them, because, like I said both tablets were dated around the same time, and lets say they were written by prominent historians, (and again this is an example), SO the point is, (by using more than one source to find something out, we come closer to the truth), both Ctesias fills in the gaps that Herodotus leaves open, and Herodotus does the same thing to Ctesias. So as I read in most books, historians do this today. Okay then, thanks for reading, goodbye.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_the_Great"--Ariobarza (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

[edit] Assyria (Persian province)

Amizzoni, seeing cyou have worked in Achaemenid related articls, I was wondering if you could give your opinion here, after reading the article and the case . Thanks for your time. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. What do you think of the article as a whole? Chaldean (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
So are you saing only the archeological section is good? Hehe Just kidding, I think its close to pass a good article test, but before we nominate it, we need to move the page in its right title. Chaldean (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)