User talk:TruHeir

Your statement: "image of roman (sic) which cleary state (sic) that "it is not authentic" (sic) and definately (sic) not of hannibal (sic)" is OR.

The text attached to the image clearly states that it is Roman/Capuan and only "MAY not be" an authentic image of Hannibal - not that it is "not authentic... definately not of hannibal", as you so confidently aver. The first statement is sourced, yours is not. If you have a better source, give it. Nor is the image of a "Roman" - the helmet alone is a give-away for that. Catiline63 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

::If anyone is doing anything based on opinions it’s you. 1st of all you changed the original writing under the bust to support your illegitimate claim that is vandalism. Also those "sources" you speak of do not support or authenticate that this roman image is of Hannibal in anyway. It would be best if we actually look time out to find an authentic image other than partake in this edit war.___TrueHeir

:::From Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". This reference has been attached to the image for months and has been repeatedly deleted by you, despite my repeated attempts to draw your attention to it. More references follow. The same image appears on the cover of Goldsworthy's The Fall of Carthage (2000) as "Hannibal in later life" and in Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army p.41 (2003) as "A bust that purports to show Hannibal in later life". The bust appears also on the cover of Serge Lancel's Hannibal (1995) as "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples". From Philip Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua". Brian Todd Carey's Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage (2007) also uses the image as its cover illustration.

:::There you go, 5 scholars - and the museum which possesses the bust - all agreeing that the bust either is of Hannibal or may be of Hannibal. Once again, all I ask is that you provide just one source which supports your opinion that the bust "is not authentic and definately not of hannibal", as you so confidently aver. Without a source for this statement, your opinion is nothing but OR. Catiline63 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Understand that I have a life in the real world, if you leave me a message I will respond to you when I can , so please spare the hounding. Anyway you say you want me to provide a source that say the image is not of Hannibal, because you have provided 5 scholarly sources that say otherwise. Well I don’t need to provide a source because, you have already done it and have proven my point. NONE of the “sources” you provided states that the picture is of Hannibal. You yourself said that all the sources you listed said MAYBE the picture if of Hannibal, then you went on to add a quote from one of your “sources” saying “"A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". You have basically proven my point if your sources aren’t sure whether or not the image is authentic and you actually have a quote from one saying that there are no definite images of Hannibal then that image should definitely not be there.TruHeir (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 views:

1) That the bust IS of Hannibal.

Supporters: Lancel Hannibal cover (1995): "Roman bust of Hannibal. Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Naples". Goldsworthy, The Fall of Carthage cover (2000): "Hannibal in later life"

Carey ''Hannibal's Last Battle: Zama and the Fall of Carthage cover (2007).

2) That the bust IS POSSIBLY/PROBABLY of Hannibal.

Supporters: Matyszak Chronicle of the Roman Republic p.95 (2003): "Bust, thought to be of Hannibal, found in Capua". Goldsworthy The Complete Roman Army p.41 (2003): "a bust that purports to show Hannibal in later life". Goldsworthy Cannae p.24 (2004): "a bust which may be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him". This citation has been attached to the image for months.

3) That the bust IS DEFINITELY NOT of Hannibal.

Supporters: You.

Lancel, Carey, and the MA, Naples assert that the image is of Hannibal. Matyszak asserts that it is "thought to be" of Hannibal. Goldsworthy vacillates between 'it is' and 'it may be', but nowhere - nowhere - states that the image is definitely not of Hannibal. This measure of scholarly uncertainty does not equate with your view that it is not of Hannibal, which remains only your opinion. I continue to await your sources with interest... The rest of this discussion can be continued in the proper forum, the Hannibal discussion page, a suggestion that has already been made by admins Backslash Forwardslash and Nja247... Catiline63 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Catiline I hope you know this is not personal, this is about improving the page .The last I checked the people you listed (that you are now claiming support the image) did/ do not support it at all. It seems like your twisting your words around because, when you originally listed them as sources. The references you provided indicated that they were all unsure whether the image is actually of him or not and you also went on to say “Adrian Goldsworthy, Cannae p.24 (2001): "A bust which me be a representation of Hannibal in later life, although there are no definite images of him" That is basically the end all be all of this debate, your own source discredited your claim. It is odd that you insist on using this image that no one has authenticated or validated to be him, all the ppl you listed just say “maybe” and If your source said there are no definite images of him, then on earth are you using this picture of this “roman mystery man” to represent him in the 1st place. TruHeir (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've removed the report as that board does not handle sorting out disputes. Rather, and as noted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catiline63#Response my guidance], it's for whether the provided sources are reliable or not. If you wish to reform the report to comply with the guidelines of what that noticeboard's purpose is then you may do so. If you're trying to resolve the dispute then see WP:DR. Your best course of action is either WP:3O, or if all else fails seek a WP:RFC. Good luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::Nja, I didn't send it on that board to sort out the dispute I sent it there, so they can validate the sources. Afterall that is what this is about.

There is no "accurate image that isn't surrounded by a bunch of maybes". If there were, it would have been used in the article, and before that in books about Hannibal. This is the nearest we can get. Paul B (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::Well if you agree with it then no problem, your opinion is yours. But why removed the caption under the bust which let readers no it may not be authentic, because truth is we don't no whether it is or not. So why remove that and try to pass this one of as it is. When all the so-called cources seem to say the same thing which is "MAYBE".TruHeir (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Well, if you think you can improve the wording of the caption, go ahead, but I don't see how it is evasive. It says it's not certain. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have, I respect your view and I have brought back the original image with it original caption (which clearly disputed its authenticity.) Partaking in an edit war is not what I seek. I just want to validate the authenticity of the image and that it hard to do when all it's own sources can not support it either... The more the reason why it should not be in the article TruHeir (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• You simply relisted the report without revising it. Essentially you haven't listed the sources in question, but rather you are pointing to pages asking for people to find the sources you question on their own. That is not how it's done, thus if you cannot revise the report to list the sources in question with a brief reason of your issue with them, then I will remove it. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::I see now, I understand what you mean, I'll list the sources insteadTruHeir (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

frist you wrote this,

:::Despite requesting for comments on the relevance/reliability of the sources, you've removed many of the ones that I have added (Matyszak, Lancel, more Goldsworthy stuff), so the current article has only one that is actually relevant (without a picture accompanying Smith we can tell whether his artcile alludes to this bust). Is this deliberate? Catiline63 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

then changed it this

:::Despite requesting for comments on the relevance/reliability of the sources, and promising to the admin above to "list the sources" as he requested, you've now removed the opinions of Matyszak, Lancel, and Goldsworthy's later stuff. The current article now has only one reference that is actually relevant (without a picture accompanying Smith we can tell whether his artcile alludes to this bust). Is this deliberate? Catiline63 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not here for game.In case you couldn't read properly take a closer look, what is being disputed are the sources you provided and I have listed the sources on the noticeboard. Also you say I've Removed them from where? the only thing I removed was the wording you removed and add to the caption of the picture, and revert the edit you made to the image because its being disputed. and should remain in its original form. I have not removed you "sources". You added those "sources" to the noticeboard and have added it to the articles talk page, so if you "source" are reliable then it will be decided so. Other than that refrain from accusing me of things I have don't done. If you actually wanted to talk to be about this issue you would not go on the topic page do say I have not seeked consensus with you when I have infact been talking to you, or call me a sock. I do not have anything to say to you about this matter the admins will decide the outcomeTruHeir (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

:::You listed 2 only sources on the noticeboard for assessment, Goldsworthy and Smith. As you did not put up the Lancel, the Matyszak, and the other Goldsworthy references for assessment, I will take it that you approve of them - otherwise you'd have listed them too, no? The admins will indeed decide the outcome. Catiline63 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you are not telling the truth. You say you just moved the passage up, but before your edit there was no sentence saying "which meant land of the blacks", because it doesn't mean that. See Egypt (name). Every Egyptologist is clear that it refers to black soil. You are introducing factual inaccuracies and being dishonest about it. Paul B (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be out of your mind, you call me an afro centric about the Hannibal bust when no one had even mentioned anything about race, then you pull this crap about me lying the ancient Egyptians referred to their land as "Kemet" which means "Land of the Blacks." Western historians, however, say that the word "Kemet" refers to the color of the soil of the land. ( I don’t see anywhere that I disputed that so why is the lie I told) and how does that make me an afrocentric? the word "Kemet" is actually an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah. The article is NOT about Egyptology it’s about Ham. Get your facts straight and spare me the BS, your really do have a fixation for race topic. So I guess you are a racist then. I acutally respected what you had to say when you entered the dispute about hannibal, I didn't think you would end up being this type of person. Do not waste my time with anymore foolishnessTruHeir (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:I was trying to discern your motivation for removing the bust. All your responses suggest that you are incapable of being straightforward and honest. You provide no citations to any source, let alone reliable ones, and you make dogmatic assertions that are contradicted by reliable sources and revert to your preferred, unsourced version. Yes, it is possible that thr name 'Ham' comes from Khem, but that's only one possibility. No-one is disputing that. What is false is the assertion that Kemet means 'land of the blacks'. You falsely claimed that you did not add those words but just 'moved them up', and yet the diffs show that you you did add them, didn't you? Paul B (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn’t realize you were focusing on just those words I thought you were talking about the whole revision. Which I did move up and yes I added that statement. Like I said before this is not about Egyptology this about the Ham. And the terms Kemet" is an ethnic term being a derivative of the word "Khem" (Cham or Ham) which means "burnt" or "black." Being an ethnic term it about people isn’t it…How ironic the page is about PEOPLE a person and his descendants. To my knowledge khemet or the hieroglyphics symbol KMT can mean 3 things land of the black or land of the blacks. or black land. It never just meant black, so I guess there is a reason why you are engaged in an edit war right now. Trying to change the meaning of Khemet, Its pathetic take off your eurocentric blanket. You can’t cover up or change anything. It would be best if you stated things as they were. Its quite sad really. I’m done talking to you, you can have whatever opinion of me you like, it doesn’t matter TruHeir (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:I tend to work on articles about race among many many other things. I try to keep them as NPOV as possible. There is no dispute that KMT means 'black'. No-one apart from Afrocentrists believe that has anything to do with skin colour any more than Blackamoor, Lancashire refers to the skin colour of the people who live in Northern England. This is a purely modern American invention, which has nothing to do with the rwalities of ancient history. The edit war is over accuracy and correct representation of the facts. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You come up with this nonsense and randomly accused me of being an afro-centric and brought up issues of race when no one was talking about that. It’s really pathetic; you just continue to show the type of person you are. If according to the bible HAM (which) means black and his children were the people who moved into Africa. Then the people who originally lived there and occupied the vast lands where descendants of Ham. So since you decided to bring up skin color, Black Africans were the first to occupy Africa weren’t they ,and they do have dark or darker skin complexions don’t they. ..This is not an Afro-centric view it is what the bible say. . You said "There is no dispute that KMT means 'black'. No-one apart from Afro centrists believes that has anything to do with skin. Well KMT does not mean black KM does. Again get your facts straight or learn about a subject before you spew rubbish I do not care about your theories of skin color, race or Afro-centricity. . Like I told you before I don't have time for your foolishness. It would be best if you stayed off my page with your nonsense.TruHeir (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:If you take the bible literally, Ham, Shem and Japheth were all brothers, so were rather unlikely to be different races! Skin pigmentation is an adaptation to climate. Of course evolutionary theory would tend to suggest that the first humans were dark skinned, but I don't think that's certain. It depends on what the climate was then. None of this has the remotest relevance to what the historical Egyptians and Carthaginians looked like. Paul B (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are still online, I've asked a question at WP:WQA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit of your words. My bad totally, there.

For next time though, note that Wikipedia:Requests for comment instructs that requests are neutrally worded, and your wording "sources does not seem to support its authenticity" isn't neutral. As I said though, my bad. Regards. Catiline63 (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)