This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The reference given for the statement that "a letter survives of Ashur-Nadin Ahhe I congratulating Thutmose I...", Stephen Bertman (14 July 2005). Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. OUP USA. pp. 79–. ISBN 978-0-19-518364-1, is simply a restatement of the claim without any reference given. The book with p.79 is available for preview on Google books. A Google search finds this statement repeated again and again but nowhere is there to be found a reference to the letter itself, it's catalog number, the contents of the letter, or anything by which the letter can be identified, reviewed or verified even to actually exist, aside from this statement from The Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia declaring that it does. This citation is circular, or a spiraling dead end rather. The statement references itself. It does nothing but create the a hollow appearance of rigor and prove that someone did infact make the statement but offers nothing supporting the claim that the statement is true. 2600:1004:B033:6FC0:25FF:C0C0:3C0B:36C6 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is not a circular reference – the information was added to the article in 2016 and follows a book released in 2005. It is generally regarded as enough to reference a reliable source and not ancient documents themselves. Is there a reason to doubt the existence of this letter or is disputing it original research? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
