Talk:Cyrus the Great

Checking references

A couple of the three refs given for the sentence...."According to many interpretations of the Nabonidus Chronicle, our main source of information on the battle, Cyrus's troops subsequently carried out a massacre and large-scale looting..." do not contain a page number. I am looking through my copy of Glassner's Mesopotamian Chronicles, which is some 388 pages, and don't seem to be finding that. Could we get a page number for that and for the Grayson reference? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pages 232-7 in Glassner's book (translation no. 26) and pages 104-111 in Grayson's Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the page numbers. I will check them more carefully later. I did want to point out that Jona Lendering, whom you have often quoted, in his version of the Nabonidus Chronicle (found here: [1] interprets this "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. He is not the only one to question the reference of the personal pronoun. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know what I am about to say does not matter; but the comman sense of Ariobarza tells him that the only reason I would massacre the confused inhabitants, is that if they revolted from me, therefore they were confused and did not know who to fight, me or Cyrus, but I taught them a lesson, so I Nabonidus, slaughtered the confused inhabitants of Akkad, it was me!--Ariobarza (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

If you look at Lendering's version, he says at the bottom: "This translation was made by A. Leo Oppenheim and is copied from James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern texts relating to the Old Testament, 1950 Princeton. Some minor changes have been made." The comments in brackets are not in Oppenheim's original text, which says "(Nabonidus)" instead. An article in vol. 35 of The Ancient World calls this interpretation "perverse" and correctly notes that modern translations such as Kuhrt's (or Grayson's, or Glassner's) "more plausibly see the perpetrator as Cyrus". This certainly makes more sense in the context - it was common practice for conquerors to massacre the inhabitants of resisting cities in order to encourage other cities to surrender without fighting (as Sippar and Babylon did). The Romans famously did that, and it would be no surprise for Cyrus to do it too. I obtained a recent translation by Maria Brosius (in The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I) in which she comments: "After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

The two are not mutually exclusive. How a ruler treats their enemies verses their subjects, can be vastly different. Hardyplants (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but don't forget that the Cyrus cylinder portrayed his takeover of Babylon as peaceful - it doesn't even mention the Battle of Opis. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Lendering's version, I had pointed out earlier that his translation had "differences" that we are unaware of, and thus had to be taken with caution. However that particular line demonstrates that even Lendering whose general pov is in line with yours acknowledges that it is unclear whom that passage is referencing. Nor, as I have said, is he the only one who recognizes the confusion in the personal pronoun. It is so out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know, that there are even contemporary translator(s) who claim the whole passage is mis-translated. Thus it seems to me that we are doing OR when we try to determine a "correct" version based on certain translators (or historians) and not on others. We can mention in passing that there is a question in the Nabonidus Chronicle, but we should not make very much of it, im(nsh)o. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not in the business of deciding which translation is "correct", merely which is the prevalent modern interpretation. There's a common interpretation of the disputed line by essentially all the modern translators of the Nabonidus Chronicle's full text - Grayson (1975), Brosius (2000), Tavernier (2003, in Dutch) Glassner (2004) and Kuhrt (2007). Lendering uses the older Oppenheim translation from 1950, for some reason. As for being "out-of-character with the Cyrus the Great that we do know", this is just an assumption on your part, I'm afraid. We don't "know" Cyrus for the simple reason that he's been dead for 2,500 years, there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective. All we "know" is that there a majority of modern translators follow a common interpretation of the Nabonidus Chronicle's description of the Battle of Opis. That doesn't mean that they're "right" or "wrong", merely that there's a prevalent view among historians. That needs to be reflected in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed appear that you are in the business of deciding which translation is "correct". I was not discussing exhuming a corpse and am well aware that he has been dead lo these many years. We "know" from previous evidence and the history written since. Re this statement: "...there are very few more-or-less contemporary sources on his life and none of them are remotely objective" sounds like a significant case of OR to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

“Religious toleration was a remarkable feature of Persian rule and there is no question that Cyrus himself was a liberal-minded promoter of this humane and intelligent policy” -- Max Mallowan. 'Cyrus the Great'. In Cambridge History of Iran (Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenean Periods), Cambridge , Cambridge University Press, pp.392-419. Max Mallowan? Not remotely objective? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew Max Mallowan wrote quite a long time ago, but he's not a "more-or-less contemporary source" on Cyrus's life, is he? Please try reading what I write before replying to it. The sources I'm referring to are the Babylonian and Persian inscriptions from around Cyrus's time, plus Herodotus and Xenophon, plus (arguably) the Biblical texts. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO please read this, and tell me what is wrong

Hi ChrisO, something conernes me, I think (based on your own neutrality rules) you should stop saying but he shows his take over of Babylon was peacefull, but his battle was not peacefull, therefore the Cyrus Cylinder is propaganda. Have you ever read the Cyrus Cylinder itself? It is clearly talking a decree to the citizens of the city of Babylon (the capital, because the empire at the time was called the Chaldaean or Neo-Babylonian Empire), it says his take over was peacefull, and that is TRUE, because he never besieged Babylon. According to all smushed up accounts, Gubaru diverted its river, and his troops when the water was at hips height entered the city at night, then Cyrus joined later, and then a few guards and maybe the son of Nabonidus was killed with a candle holder by Gadates and or Gubaru (I KNOW the story from all versions). If his decree was to all Babylonia, then it would make sense it was propaganda because he had fought a battle before, BUT when he is speaking to the Jews of Babylon, which he is on the tablet, then of course he is speaking to the city of Babylon were all the Jews were! Not all of Babylonia, yet you keep saying he captured Babylon in great bloody battle, when only a couple of guards might have been killed during the night raid. Thanks.

Here is what is wrong with ChrisO's neutral point of view, by referencing this it seems unlikely that this is neutrality;

"After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

1. Now here is the problem, Sippar had no choice because it was running out of supplies, and it was Nabonidus plan to shut himself in the city for some strategic plan he had in mind, but it never worked out (I will cite this if you do not believe me).

2. Babylon did not surrender and open their gates, (EVEN if they thought the Persians were going to destroy everything) the Persians got in themselves, what Kuhrt (I THINK it is a she) says is theoritical commentary, just some extra blah blah to expand her book a little more, it completely contradicts the all the accounts, as you may have read above (actually it might be in talkOpis or talkChrisO) how Babylon was taken, so I will not repeat myself. And I am not saying she did this on purpose, it is possible she did not know. Now history tells us that after the Persians captured Babylon themselves, (and here is the question) did the Persains kill the inhabitants and destroy the city? THIS is what Kuhrt tells us, In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. Will according to all accepted history the Persians did not destroy or kill anyone in the city of Babylon (which is the capital), they did the opposite. THE GREAT MYSTERY to me is why does ChrisO keep referencing uneutral, biased, somewhat Greek nationalistic, and out of date with a touch of denial in history SOURCES? Sounds like a good recipe huh? ChrisO I got gut feeling that tells me you might not be neutral, NoW Am I WoRnG?--Ariobarza (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

One thing that you should never forget, it may seem that me (I barely do it though) and others might want to make the Persians look amazing, it is because of ITS HISTORY, we make our points on that, and even if you read Persian history, I think that EVEN you yourself will start talking in a nationalistic tone about Persia. So my point is that I think that you might not know about Persian history that much, therefore you theorise that just because we seem to talk good about Persia we are nationalistic. But what is unfair is that means that all the major historians WHO talk good about Greece are nationalistic too? Generally most historians tend to like Greece more than Persia, because they think the Greeks are the backbone of the Western world, and the IRONY here is that even the Greeks themselves say they got most of their knowledge from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Atlantians, as other historians have also confirmed this whether or not Greeks say it. So up to this time I can assure you that overall this whole problem on Wikipedia, as also do not think that I believe Iranian nationalists dont exist, I believe Iranian nationalist are out there. But we must analyze; WHY there are IN (short for Iranian Nationalists)? And me knowing much about the problem CAN answer that question. IT is because Persians now feel because of tensions between the west and east, 300, Iranian nuclear program, Iranians think the WEST is trying to kill their culture. ((Now just to know, I am not debating or argueing with you in this paragraph, I am saying what I think the problem is here with facts.)) (AS AN EXAMPLE) Imagine if your Jewish, and Hollywood makes an Anti-semitic flick, US invades Syria, and put sanctions on Israel. Than I can assure you will be VERY defending of your culture, and then Ariobarza calls you a nationalist. So, do you see what I mean, you must analyze why these things are happening in the FIRST place, before telling me and others that we are IN and unbalanced, I am a Libra by the way, and I am balanced. I just hope as a human you can be understanding toward this problem, and NOT make assumptions. Thanks for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Cyrus cylinder

After reading that sections and other posts in discussion page, I have decided to put it up for disputition and undue weight. There is a great deal of original research that has been done in that section. It has simply brough together material from various sources, to make "ONE" point. I have visited the British museum website, and it does not merely trying to make a point like this section does. Again, Wikipedia is not for tyring to make a "point" of your judgments. I read that some users "think" that since Cyrus entered Babylon as a conquerer it is not possible for this cylinder to represent human rights, and these users have made the changes in this section. Wikipedia is not a place for your thoughts and judgements. the cylinder and what it represents should be discussed from both sides. The important aspect that support the human right claim is that its claim is supported by Jewish and Babylonian sources, unlike the ones before it. The article fails to make mention this.There is a great deal of "reenforcment of one idea over another " in this section.

Richard Frye quote

I think that this quote is too long and given too much weight. He is an esteemed academic and a fervent proponent of Persian culture but there are other opinions, and too give this clearly POV quote two paragraphs as a block quote does not meet WP:NPOV. dougweller (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A quote is a quote. I do not see why this is problem with WP:NPOV. 1. The article has no size problem. 2. I think giving the opinion of a top modern scholar in the specific form of quote with his name mentioned in the body of the article, gives a good alternative view of what is usual in Eurocentric texts. This is what I think. 3. You did not mention what are those views that you say: there are other opinions.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dougweller. The specific problem that this quote presents is one of undue weight on one individual scholar's viewpoint. Why is Frye's POV so important that it deserves such prominence? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A quote is a quote, it's a point of view by design. Richard Frye is the the most renowned scholar of Achaemenid studies, so his viewpoint is not the viewpoint of just another scholar. It's also not the the job of the Wikipedia editors to call such prominent scholar a "fervent proponent" of X or Y, or question his authority on the subject. --WrongDude (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You could, however, include a quote from a an equally prominent scholar of Achaemenid studies, who holds a different opinion on Cyrus's legacy. --WrongDude (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He is a high-profile scholar of Achaemenid studies, certainly, but not a godlike voice of authority. I think it would be questionable to call him "the most renowned scholar" (most renowned among who? and why?). But your approach violates NPOV in any case: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one." I don't see any harm in mentioning Frye's POV, but not with such prominence and not in such a way that it suggests everyone thinks the same way as him. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget about what I, he, she , that , it call R. Frye. Let us go into the matter, as your previous comment mentions: undue weight. It says: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, Do you implicitly mean that R. Frye has a minority view? (update: the quote is in the legacy section anyway. So R.Frye's quote could be called simply the legacy of Cyrus the Great among modern scholars of Iranian studies. That's it.) --Xashaiar (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the principle set out in WP:NPOV#Explanation of the neutral point of view. It's simply not our job to declare Frye to be "correct": "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." -- ChrisO (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. The reader, can read the name of R. Frye. And the article does not state R. Frye is correct. The article says: R. Frye has said that (the quote). If you have a different opinion from a top scholar, please show us.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus was not remembered by the Sassanian Dynasty

"The Sasanians claimed to be heirs to the Achaemenids; but of those kings they preserved the names only of the first and last Darius (Daray), and one or three Artaxexes (Ardashir)." (Mary Boyce, The Religion of Cyrus the Great, in Achaemenid History III, p. 30.) (I do apologize for the wrong rendering of some names.)

Regards, Amizzoni (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why this quote implies that "Sassaniian did not remember Cyrus the Great".--Xashaiar (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Sasanians claimed to be heirs to the Achaemenids; but of those kings they preserved the names only of the first and last Darius (Daray), and one or three Artaxexes (Ardashir). This Vistaspa was identified, at least by the fourth century AD, with Kavi Vistaspa, Zoroaster's patron - an identification which had enormous propaganda value, since it made Zoroastrianism by origin a western instead of an eastern Iranian religion, and presented Sasanians as its hereditary protectors and hence as the rightful rulers of all Zoroastrians, i.e. of all Iran; but it left no place to Cyrus." (Mary Boyce, The Religion of Cyrus the Great, in Achaemenid History III, p. 30.) 1- The Sasanians didn't remember Cyrus' name. 2- There was no place for Cyrus in the Sassanid official tradition. Anyway, now I read here that "Cyrus was apparently still remembered in popular song in Sasanian Persia" (Boyce, same page but bellow), and it is certainly worth of mention. Amizzoni (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have appreciated if you could give better reasoning and a better detailed source. What you say is wrongly spread around. I can not accept your conclusion, however I accept the existence of some evidences (in last centuries of Sasanian empire). But to have a definitive conclusion, well we need more sources (and independent: in the sense that they do not repeat and quote each other). Are you aware of Shahbazi's article? (here). In middle persian sources, cyrus and Achaemenid empire were remembred. I will do research to find out wether Yarshater (and Boyce) claim is accepted among scholars.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Shapur I saw himself as the heir to Cyrus the Great:... (as stated explicitly The History of Ancient Iran, by Frye p. 371). So I can summarize: "Sassanian/kings conidered themselves as the heirs to Achaemenids/Cyrus the Great" is supported by Frye (and to some extent Shahbazi), and rejected by Yarshater, Boyce. There are two different opinions: both explained in The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Persia by Roaf (pp. 1-8) and Herrmann (pp. 38-51). Usual Z<->I differences!--Xashaiar (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to Shabazi's article, I wasn't aware of it. So, then, we should state both positions (Frye's and Yarshater's). Perhaps we should write: "Many of the dynasties that followed the Achaemenids (the Seleucids and possibly the Sassanids in ancient times, and the Pahlavis in the 20th century) have claimed to continue the line begun by Cyrus.", with an explanatory note in Sassanids. Amizzoni (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC) PS: and we should also find sources for the Seleucid Dynasty!

Done.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you changed my wording. Fine. But please do consider WP:UNDUE. It is important that wikipedia remains neutral. I am refering to your edit which has at least two problems: 1. The issue is exactly the claim of Achaemenid heritage (for dynasties following) + Cyrus the Great (for the shahs to come). 2. You should have kept one instance for each opinion.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits, WP:UNDUE does not say one instance for each opinion. What it says is "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority." dougweller (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whence my edit!--Xashaiar (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

please do not remove sourced materials.

The User:Dougweller has removed several sentences well sourced. But your edit summaries: 1. you wrote "I can't find anything about 'advantage and profit for all in the reference' - either a short quote or explain it on the talk page please." What? did you click on the link to Encyclopaedia Iranica and see the sentence: The Achaemenids’ role in universal history lies in their fashioning a model for centralized rule over various peoples with different customs, laws, religions, languages, etc. to the advantage and profit of all and their achievement of a unified Iranian nation for the first time. In your view this is different from what I had added? 2. you wrote "again, I don't think the source backs the statement, let's discuss this on the talk page" Did you check the source? The source states explicitly: Within a few years he founded a multinational empire without precedent—a first world-empire of historical importance, since it embraced all previous civilized states of the ancient Near East...His son Cambyses II added Egypt (in 525 B.C.), Nubia, and Cyrenaica (Libya). I revert to my edit, and please explain here explicitly what your problems with my edits are. --Xashaiar (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed his removal of cited sentences; without as much as bothering to read the source and left him a message on his talk page. --WrongDude (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not a good thing. Two things here. Somehow I found the wrong Schmitt article, that's almost certainly my fault. However, a broad statement about the achievements of the Achaemenids has been translated in the article to a statement about Cyrus (yes, it mentions the empire he founded, but what the article says is still significantly different from what the source says). I hope you will see the difference. dougweller (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My edit was fair. I did mention empire after Cyrus the Great. And I did not reduce everything to Cyrus the Great. If we note, maybe we should mention it as well, that Cyrus erected Pasargadae. And for almost all the time It was the center. Moreover by reverting you removed many other things and not only one sentence. Maybe we should give more weight to the empire in that sentence but I do believe that: 1. the Achaemenid empire as a military power got its wonderful peak at the time of Darius the Great, 2. but the empire as "well established state", "well administrating", "tolerant to religion, languages, customs" gets its credit from Cyrus the Great.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edit was an interpretation of the source and is thus original research. It is not what the source says. dougweller (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

dougweller, please stop this!

the user User:dougweller keeps editing the article, without explaining what he-she means by asking for ref. The source is given, please do click on the link to Encyclopaedia Iranica. I am note here to explain every edit I make by copying the content of the source into talk page.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the quote "Cyrus thus seems generally to have respected the customs and religions of conquered lands." The other quote is "The Achaemenids’ role in universal history lies in their fashioning a model for centralized rule over various peoples with different customs, laws, religions, languages, etc. to the advantage and profit of all and their achievement of a unified Iranian nation for the first time". I moreover restored the epigraph. What is the problem of a quote appearing twice in an article? If you have copyright problem, you can ask here to find rewording. What else is your problem? Please explain "explicitly" here in the talk page. Thanks.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You may know how to find the source, I clicked on it and no link appeared. And this is clearly copyvio, you are hardly even changing the wording at all (I finally figured out where you got that). When I click the '11', it takes me to footnote 11 which says " Dandamayev Cyrus (iii. Cyrus the Great) Cyrus’ religious policies." I couldn't find anything that says "Cyrus (iii. Cyrus the Great) Cyrus’ religious policies." What is that? This needs to be made a bit more user friendly. As for the other quote, I know that's a quote, I added it, so I don't know what your point is. The epigraph in twice looks like a mistake, but if you don't mind that... I don't know what you mean by 'what else is your problem'. dougweller (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. It took you to the footnote (here 11), but then there is a link (by clicking schmitt, or dandamayev name which if you do not use text-based browser [which seems to be the case as last time your reverting deleted the unicode rendering] should be clearly marked as a linked word.). This technology is explained very well in WP:CITE. I added, it is said,.. and changed the wording a bit. It is your opinion of having a quote of Cyrus the Great twice is irrelevant. In the lead paragraph it is mentioned as a legacy, in the other place it appears as his philosophy and thoughts on military leadership. What is the problem? Moreover, how did you know which one you should delete. You could ask here and people could suggest, whether they should keep both or they have to delete one, and in the latter case which one. This would be according to WP:CONS. What else is your problem, was refering to calling certain statement as "clearly opinion". Did you notice that that statement is in the legacy section? So it is fine. Moreover you had changed, which I restored my edition, the "Persian empire" to "Achaemenid dynasty". This is not even wrong, because Cyrus the Great is not the founder of the dynasty (it was founded by Achaemenes). And may I ask you please before removing, you use the talk page more often. Thank you in advance.--Xashaiar (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. dougweller (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was concentrating on the grammar and should have reworded the 'founded by', but I hope you agree that the grammar was wrong. The problem with the footnote is that it refers to Dandamayev Cyrus (iii. Cyrus the Great) Cyrus’ religious policies." and I searched for that -- what is it? It should be somewhere other than just the footnote. As for the epigraph, it looks 'naked' the second time. I really thought it was just left over from earlier edits, you see that sort of problem from time to time in articles. I still don't think it looks right there htough.

The article doesn't reflect yet the variety of thought on Cyrus. Eg, on the cylinder [2], and also, say, "Did+Cyrus+the+Great+Introduce+a+New+Policy+towards+Subdued+Nations%3F#PPA67,M1 which shows his pragmatic approach and "Did+Cyrus+the+Great+Introduce+a+New+Policy+towards+Subdued+Nations%3F#PPA138,M1.

And I am still unhappy about the Frye quote - a great scholar, but not without his bias quite clearly. dougweller (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I explained to you that in the footnote 11, click on the name of dandamayev you will be taken to reference section with "cyrus article in encyclopaedia Iranica" highlighted. Then click on the link it takes you to this. Then go to section iii. Cyrus ii the Great. In that section there are paragraphs with titles. One is "Cyrus' religious policies"... So it is verifiable and we should use this way of referencing as it is encouraged for multiple referencing. Now for the epigraph being naked, please let us keep it like that as I will be adding more to that section later. I am trying to see what has been of concern in the talk page and its archive. Other points you have are of course related to other sections of this talk page, but generally we should work gradually on the article. We should not delete what other editors have added. step by step! be patient. I am just against any removal of texts without suggesting first in the talk page. For the quote of Frye as you see in pne of the previous sections of the talk page I said I am happy with the quote. --Xashaiar (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is verifiable, but the way it is described is obscure to say the least. Yes, I know you are happy with the quote, but this is not your article and of course we can delete what others have added. I'm not happy and ChrisO (who is a classical scholar) is not happy.

Ok, later I will make it easier to find the source. But my way of referencing is similar to harvard style. Really no difference. Just the template is older than Harward one (see WP:CITE). As for Frye quote, yes two people (you and chirsO) disagree but two others (I and WrongDude) agree. So just wait and see how others are going to react. But after all, as I said, "a quote is a quote". Why do you think I think this is my article?--Xashaiar (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I like Harvard style, it's probably my favorite. But consistency is the key, along with clarity. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If you check my edits I have been consistent. According to Harvard-style footnotes. "A footnote number in the body of the article links to a brief citation (author plus page number, or author plus date plus page number) in a "Notes" section. Then full citation information goes in a second section called "References." There's no automated connection for the reader between text in the two sections." This is exactly what the reference style I use also does. Eventually I will switch to Harvard template.--Xashaiar (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Being happy or unhappy Wikipedia user is irrelevant for this discussion. The Frye quote meets WP:RS, WP:Verifiability and will stay. It is a statement of Richard Frye and you can find others to challenge it, but removing it is pure vandalism. As per ChrisO being a classical scholar, he is not in the same league as Frye and I found some mistakes in other places with regards to ancient Iran. So that does not have any effect on any of the WP:RS or else I brought quotes from serious scholars like Lambert on another issue who can easily dwarf Kuhrt, but that was ignored. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, please be careful about using the word vandalism. Removing a quote is not vandalism. WP:Vandalism makes it clear what vandalism is: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. and what it is not Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.. Calling edits vandalism, or people vandals, when they are clearly not is a very bad idea. Xashaiar, I wasn't suggesting you weren't being consistent, just saying that consistency was important. dougweller (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism

See Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, p. 94. According to him, the hypotesis that makes Cyrus a Zoroastrian is "built on sand". That means that Briant (an authority on the Achaemenid Empire) in disagreement with Mary Boyce. Amizzoni (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what you want to say. There are many things here.

1. P. Briant is not an authority on Zoroastrianism. He would be a good source for post-Darius III matters. Please do consider a fair evaluation of authorities (as you did not do either in here).
2. But it is also important to note the clear policy WP:POV: The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources and more importantly the policy WP:UNDUE: Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all..
3. These mean we look at M. Boyce, E. Yarshater (and yes, R. Frye on this issue will not be interesting to look at) and also Persian language sources. These sources all call Cyrus the Great definitely Zoroastrian.
4. Now we look at your source: It has multiple issues that has made me consider providing alternative sources to any article using P. Briant. Why is that:
   1. The page 94: states the "former never spake". This gives a proof that this source is out-dated: It is clear to any serious person familiar with post-1920 scholars of Ancient Iran that there are consenous among scholars that Cyrus the Great did indeed speak in three language who he was. I can be more clear if necessary.
   2. The page 94: On tomb of Cyrus. shows clearly that modern scholars of Zoroastrianism and (here also those of Iranian studies) disagree with P. Briant on the link he is trying to make. (see also page 96 about his remark on the tomb and religion which is just contradicting M. Boyce and R. Schmitt).
5. Finally, to show that the view of P. Briant is a tiny minority how many sources do you need, so that we consider acting as suggested by WP:UNDUE?

I think the article should remain readable: in a way that we do not give 100s of sources for any thing that appears. And I do think that being the residence of a house build on sand is much safer than being the residence of a house build on water (I am refering to the arguments of your source which seem to be build on water).--Xashaiar (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is about Zoroastrianism in the Achaemenid Empire; an authority on Zoastrianism (Boyce) states something, while an authority on the Achaemenid Empire (Briant) states the opposite. It's quite obvious that both are valid authorities and that there are no consensus. Anyway, I do apologize: I forgot this article is yours. Do whatever you want. Amizzoni (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, now that you do not accept my arguments and think my reasoning is based on something that you summarize as "I forgot this article is yours. Do whatever you want" let me make my point: 1. The issue is serious and has been debated. There are books written on this explicit issue (title: "achaemenid religion"). So on this point I agree with your edit summary here but with little change: "is in fact" to "was in fact". 2. Then we come to "majority" to "minority". A. One of the necessary condition for Cyrus the Great to be Dhul Qarnayn is that "He must have been Zoroastrian otherwise no chance." So we have to count M. Boyce+ all the religious scholars who believe that Cyrus the Great is Dhul Qarnayn and who have never heard of Boyce. I will not take the task of counting them. B. M. Boyce has many writings on this, and only recently she changed to favour of Zoroastrian religion of Cyrus the Great. So why is that? Very simple: The new consensus among scholars about "Date of Zoroaster". Agreement on this makes half of the arguments that your source mention invalid. C. Another part of the problem is from noting his Tomb. This is not serious and (History of Antiquity volume 2 by Max Danker) very easily proves invalidity of Diodorrus account (17.71) of his understanding "Tomb" and "Zoroastrianism".

So overall, I don't know what is the point of your edit. If you want we can create an article Religion of Achaemenians and I will bring all the sources necessary and you can bring all your sources.--Xashaiar (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Temple

See "second+temple"+completed, "second+temple"+completed+Darius+archaeological#PPA251,M1 dougweller (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Hedrick / Jacob Abbott

I removed material based on two sources provided by Xashaiar. Hedrick's The Arts of Leadership and War is the first book by "a former U.S. Air Force officer" who has (check the foreword) rewritten Xenophon to turn the Cyropaedia into some sort of guidebook for "business executives and managers".[3]. Jacob Abbott was a writer of children's books, his History of Cyrus the Great was first published in 1850. - Konstock (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As for hedrick, you deleted the sentence: " such extraordinary..". This ends with ..is well reflected in the way he is remembered today. His own nation, the Iranians, regarded him as "The Father", the Babylonians as "The Liberator", the Greeks as the "Law-Giver", and the Jews as the "Anointed of the Lord". Is this last sentence what you are concerned about, or the part " which exceeded all other leaders' throughout antiquity"? Tags can also be used before deleting.--Xashaiar (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Those were supposed to be reliable sources? That's a bit worrying. Thanks for looking into them. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, tags are an option, but so is deletion. Particularly when the sources are bad. I note that you deleted some stuff recently on Cyrus without tagging it. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article contradicts itself several times. For instance, at one point Anshan and Parsa are alternate names for the same kingdom, but later on they are referred to as separate states. It says Smerdis was king of Persia but also that he died before Cambyses, hence did not become king. It states that we don't know when Cyrus conquered Lydia, then confidently gives the date of the fall of Sardis as 546 BC.--Syd Henderson (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment of Dandamaev that "Anshan and Parsa are the names of the same land" refers to how "some" ancient sources should be understood. It does not say they were the same! The article does need revision, especially that there are lots of corrupt website references which should be deleted and the article should follow one major source and be written accordingly. This does not mean only one source should be used, but to keep the article consistent. Note how difficult was to convince one IP editor that Cyrus had four children by Cassandane and not five. Now I don't care how many children this couple had, but only wanted to be consistent. However I failed to convince the Ip editor and he put 5 children without mentioning who says that and why others (some of the cited articles of Schmitt, Dandamaev) contradict that. So as long as "totally different" sources are going to be used, it is difficult to keep an article on ancient topics free of contradiction.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"jordan" overlaid on map where Israel was?

Why is "Jordan" overlaid on the middle map? There was never a country named "jordan" until the british gave away a portion , 78% of the land promised to jews in the balfour declaration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-factual Statement

The Wiki article on Isaiah states, "He was an 8th-century BC Judean prophet." The article on Cyrus states that "Cyrus was praised in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1-6) ... for the freeing of slaves, humanitarian equality and costly reparations he makes." This statement is not correct because Isaiah lived at least a century before Cyrus was born. Isaiah 45:1-6 is a prohecy concerning Cyrus, who was yet to be born. Jonyungk (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete that sentence (in Cyrus the Great#Tomb) which is not even sourced, though there is apparently a tag there.(on a second thought, it seems you are confusing the "date of extant text" with "traditional date", but I am not sure.)--Xashaiar (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Edict of Restoration

The lede mentions this as a significant act by Cyrus, but the body of the article neither discusses the concept or links anywhere that does. Can we give the readers a brief introduction to it in the politics and religion section?  Skomorokh  16:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

It is incorrect to say that Dhul-Qarnayn of Quran referred to Cyrus. Only two scholars tried that and both had their agenda. First was the Iranian Shia cleric Tabatabai and he was showing bias towards his Iranian hero. Second was Maudoodi who was trying to woo the Shias those days.

In reality, all the adventures of Dhul-Qarnayn mentioned in Quran are the Jewish book Alexander's romance, proving Dhul-Qarnayn was none other than Alexander.

Also note that the tale of Dhul-Qarnayn was narrated in Quran because Jews asked Mohammed about Dhul-Qarnayn. Now Cyrus was not a Jewish hero but jews did regard Alexander in their books e.g. Alexander's romance.

Hassanfarooqi (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder proves that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery?

I have heard that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery in the Persian Empire and that the Cyrus Cylinder proves this claim.

I went to the article here on Wikipedia about the Cyrus Cylinder, but I came away very confused and perplexed. It seems that there is an ongoing debate in the discussion page for that article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_cylinder, over whether or not the Cyrus Cylinder mentions the abolition of slavery at all.

Someone on that discussion page directed me to the following translation of the Cyrus Cylinder: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html. This translation seemed to be based on scholarly, academic sources, so I decided to go ahead and read it.

Now, I simply do not see a single mention of slavery, much less its abolition, in that translation. What is going on here? I am missing something completely obvious?

Is that translation inaccurate or mistaken? If so, then could someone please post an accurate translation of the Cyrus Cylinder where it states that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery?

If the translation is indeed correct, then where is the evidence to support the claim that Cyrus the Great abolished slavery? Are there other independent sources from the ancient world that state this?

Personally, I think that it would be of the utmost importance to clear up this issue as soon as possible. If Cyrus the Great did abolish slavery more than 2500 ago, then that would be a momentously important deed for human history. But, if not, then where do these claims arise from? I am just very confused about this topic, and it seems that Wikipedia has conflicting information on this, so we should try to correct whatever it is that needs correcting. Did Cyrus the Great abolish slavery in the Persian Empire or not? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In the talk pages of how many articles you want to post your stuff? Mind WP:FORUM. Does this article claim something that makes your comment here appropriate? Xashaiar (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just thought that this issue should be resolved, since it keeps appearing over and over on Wikipedia. The articles on Cyrus, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Achaemenid Persian Empire have all dealt with this, but it is always disputed and debated to no end. This article here on Cyrus the Great used to say this, but now I see that it is gone completely. However, if the claims are true, then it should stay in the article. The article on the Achaemenid Persian Empire makes the claim that Cyrus abolished slavery directly and forcefully. So, who is right - this article here on Cyrus the Great or the article on the Persian Empire? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Cyrus cylinder says nothing about abolishing slavery. There is a fake translation in circulation that does talk about the abolition of slavery, but it's a fraud. Don't let yourself be fooled! -- ChrisO (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide an actual translation then? warrior4321 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The website http://www.livius.org has a translation based on scholarly sources at: http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder2.html. I mentioned this in my original post. This translation does not make any mention of slavery at all, which is why I am confused as to how the Cyrus Cylinder can have "abolished slavery". Is there a scholarly translation that addresses slavery somewhere? If so, then can you present it so that it can be incorporated into the article? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another, very recent, translation from Amelie Kuhrt, a British historian: [4]. As for our anonymous friend's questions: no, there is no scholarly translation that addresses slavery. I've read (and have copies of) virtually all of the scholarly translations made over the past 120 years and none even mention slavery. The only "translation" that does mention slavery is a fake one, apparently circulated by Iranian nationalists seeking to promote Cyrus's reputation. It is mentioned on the livius.org website at [5]. The existence of this fake translation is what prompted the webmaster of livius.org, Dutch historian Jona Lendering, to put online the scholarly translation which you linked in your post. Lendering writes: "Until now, there was no edition of the Cyrus Cylinder available on the internet; the only thing that was available, was a falsified translation - possibly created by followers of the late Shah - in which Cyrus is presented as saying that he will respect foreign customs and decreeing religious freedom. This falsification is not recognized as such, and several well-meaning scholars who sought to explain that - whatever his virtues - Cyrus was not the author of the first charter of human rights, have received highly offensive messages." I can certainly testify to that myself - some people seem to get very upset when you criticise the completely anachronistic views of the cylinder that the Shah and his supporters promoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

British museum as "source" but scholars quote "misleading"?

I reverted this edit. I would like to know what is the problem? 1. Kuhrt's own view (very very negative view on Cyrus) is mentioned everywhere, and that's fine to me. 2. But there is another point of view that she summarized in the form that was mentioned. Why mentioning that is not ok? 3. What was the problem that makes one "rword" things? Are we allowed to mention others or just British museum and Kuhrt negative view are allowed.?

David Ben Gurion or Maurice Leroy of Brussels who described the Cyrus Cylinder as introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world, at that time, too often ’ruled by the most implacable cruelty

— Kuhrt, page 84 (I have no access to the papers of those mentioned)

What is wrong with this? Xashaiar (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have access to the paper. The previous wording cherry-picked a quotation from Kuhrt's 1983 article to make it appear that she was arguing in favour of the "human rights charter" claim. It's a complete misrepresentation of Kuhrt's views - she argues in the piece against such claims. She's quoting those earlier authors specifically to repudiate their views, not to endorse them. That kind of misrepresentation is unacceptable. If Kuhrt is going to be quoted, she shouldn't be quoted in a way that twists her conclusions 180 degrees away from what actually said in the full context of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I mentioned the name of those that Kuhrt talk about. What is the problem with those two people? Is Josef Wiesehofer allowed? YOU CAN QUOTE KUHRT AS MANY TIME AS YOU WANT.Xashaiar (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"David Ben Guriong" (sic) is actually David Ben Gurion, the Israeli leader. Why are you quoting a politician as an authority on an issue of archaeological interpretation? Maurice Leroy wrote decades ago - 1960s, I believe. Why are you elevating him above modern historians, a consensus of whom reject the "human rights charter" interpration? You can't present old, outdated scholarship or politicians as representative of modern scholarly opinion. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not care about those. I just added one sentence form Kuhrt article who makes it clear that the general view is that of "introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world at a time of history that too often ruled by the most implacable cruelty" (as she says: on these statements or alike "..they do also reflect a general say and widely held view of Achaemenid imperialism which compares it favourably with that of the earlier Assyrians" (kuhrt, page 83). Now I have mentioned all views (Maurice Leroy+Wiesehofer+kuhrt+british museum). (are they allowed or have some problem in your view?). You can quote Kuhrt but you should also discuss what she is arguing against. I think it is appropriate to say what is the view of X and what Y says against it. You just pick up Y (A. Kuhrt) and do not let us even mention view of X (Leroy)-the very view that A. Kuhr disagrees with. Before reverting please discuss the matters. Tell me what is exact problem of this version. Please be specific about this version and discuss and reach WP:CONS. Xashaiar (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder section rewrite

I have read Kuhrt's article, and there is no mention of destruction of a temple by Cyrus. where is the exact quote for this? which temple? It looks like a general statement being attributed to Kuhrt, without a quotation to back it up with--WIMYV? (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There also seems to be a made-up quote from Kuhrt, claiming that she calls Cyrus one of the "greatest liberator and humanitarians" [sic]. The whole section is dreadfully badly written and poorly sourced; it needs a complete rewrite and it should be shorter, since it's only supposed to summarise the Cyrus cylinder article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the section. It's now shorter (which is always better when summarising a linked article), it no longer misrepresents Kuhrt, it is less repetitious and it better reflects the contents of Cyrus cylinder. Is there anything else that needs to be added or taken out? (Added - I overlooked the Jews; they're now restored to the section). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why do you falsify source? The falsification mentioned by WIMY is by you.

2. Why you do not remove British Museum as source but you did remove "Wiesehofer summary", "Kuhrt summary" and "Walker view". Your reasons "that these are explained in Cyrus Cylinder is false. They are not mentioned there.

3. DO NOT remove sourced materials in this page and Cyrus Cylinder based on your POV and gining edit summary like: "unnecessary quote".

Interesting. Xashaiar (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

1) The line mentioned by WIMYV is a miscitation, I'm afraid; it's from Jonathan E. Dyck, The theocratic ideology of the Chronicler (BRILL, 1998): "The Cyrus Cylinder is specifically related to Babylon and surrounding area and the text itself fits the age-old genre of "building texts." This is definitely not evidence for Cyrus's personal convictions nor for an official policy of tolerance. The Persians also destroyed temples and deported peoples." But I took the view that it's an unnecessary level of detail for a short summary.

2) Unnecessary level of detail and off-topic. We're not here (or at least we shouldn't be here) to pimp Cyrus.

3) Summarising means making content shorter. Making content shorter means either rewriting it or removing unnecessary material. That means removing some sourced material. Just because it's sourced, that doesn't mean that it should be in the article. Remember, when summarising, short and factual is better than long and conjectural. I also made the point above that some of it seems to have been invented (cf. the made-up quote attributed to Kuhrt). False quotes definitely do not belong here or in any other article. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

3. But the only source you allow to be used in this article#section is "British Museum web site" (which has no signature on claimed things, and IS NOT "used as RS" by a SINGLE scholar on this issue). This is clear POV pushing. 2. Why you should decide on the level of details? Many contributed and you just remove all sourced materials. 2.5. Your problem about cyrus, priming, nationalism,.. (as you say) is your primary school type of edits. It is useless to bring up sources for you, because you have chosen "your bible" and the rest are Iranin-nationalists for you. 1. Your answer is unrelated: you were asked "why did you falsify sources". 0. I do not see why British Museum viewpoint should be there as the SOLE viewpoint and it is mentioned in the article of Cyrus Cylinder too. Xashaiar (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your 3) is simply not true. I count seven different sources in the section. The BM's view of the cylinder is obviously very significant because it's the owner of the artefact and one of the world's leading research centres in this field. The BM works cited are summaries of other cited works (look at the bottom of this page).

2) I suggest you read Wikipedia:Summary style. The German Wikipedia's article on Cyrus the Great is a featured article. There's no reason why this one shouldn't be too. I've written multiple featured articles, so I can honestly say that I know what is required in terms of writing and citation to get an article to featured standard.

2.5) You're the one who's brought that up, not me. I can only say that if you can't view your subject objectively, you should at least be willing to work with those who can.

1) It's not the sole viewpoint and it's not solely the BM's viewpoint, as the BM itself cites other works. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdented) you are wrong. I discuss your 3) to show that your comments make no sense whatsoever:

1. BM is not the owner, it is properly called "the keeper of the stolen object". Secondly, as I said, you need to understand a bit of logic: Even if the BM is the owner of CC, its view on CC is totally irrelevant as scholarly subject. If today I steal CC from the current keeper, then my view of the use of the object is significant?
2. I looked at the bottom, I saw nothing but the paragraph "This cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms." at the end without any explanation and for the sake of making it looks like an acceptable webpage, the website gives a list of three works, so what? We know of 100s of articles on CC. So why don't you just quote the entire sentence? Why do you keep selective use of BM sentence? To make the sentence of BM coherent I propose changing the sentence "The British Museum describes the cylinder as "an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda" that "reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms." to: According to British Museum "this cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.". Look this is a quote from BM, and you should not remove the first half and emphasis the second half.

Please stop pushing your own POV. Do you agree with this last specific proposal for the specific change of sentence?Xashaiar (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly "stolen", is it? Buried in the foundations of a temple in Babylon (which isn't in Iran, last time I looked at the map) and never expected to be retrieved by anyone? I find it rather ironic that you're accusing me of "pushing my own POV" when you make nonsensical statements like that. The BM's view of the cylinder is highly significant, because it's not just a museum, it's a very active research centre which has been involved in ancient Mesopotamian archaeology for over 120 years. Don't forget that it was the BM that found the cylinder in the first place (it funded the original excavation). And as I said before, the BM is itself citing other scholars, not just promoting its own view.

I have cited the BM in relation to the "charter of human rights" claim (check the sources) but that claim needs to be put in the proper context, i.e. that it was put forward by the late Shah as part of his regime propaganda. The current wording reflects exactly the order in which the Cyrus cylinder article covers the issues - 1) where and when the cylinder was discovered, 2) what it says, 3a) how historians interpret it, and 3b) the Shah's political interpretation of it. That is exactly the same sequence as in the main article - discovery, description, and interpretation (historical first, then political). Your formulation would put undue weight on the political interpretation, it would be repetitious (since it's already discussed) and it would be undue weight on a fringe interpretation. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It was stolen no matter how you formulate things and no matter how you view things historically. Reason like "Buried...and never expected to be retrieved" and "BM found the cylinder in the first place (it funded the original excavation)." are proofs that "CC was not stolen"?? If anyone wants to steal "something from BM", he has to 1. fund a project and work on it, 2. CC is kept in BM building and is never expected to be removed. 3. the wise rubber may discover CC and anythiing else during the action. You see, your statements are hardly meaningful and are "justification by any means". The current view on these objects is "all the objects in Museums like BM and louvre and related to ancient worlds are mainly stolen objects of Ancient Egypt, Persia, Greece,...". This is a fact and "funding excavation", and "being the first to discover the object" and "signing documents with corrupt rulers of the regions at the time",.. do not make the objects legitimately owned by BM and Louvre,... And yes the place where Babylon used to be is not part of Iran. The question is not about Iran at all, as much as our discussion is not about Stalinism. Please stay on topic. You are selectively using sources, and because wikipedia works obviously and demonstrably in favour of certain povs, you do not let your own sources be used "properly" in order to stop your WP:SYNTH, your falsification of sources, accepting no proposal, removing sourced materials,... makes this place appropriate to witness a situation similar like "someone standing in front of shining sun and giving lectures to the crowd: hey it is night, and the one who is objecting is dreaming because of seeing no daylight for such a long time, poor these dreamers,....crowd chanting: wow, hooray, such a magnificent leader we have,...". Xashaiar (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When was he born?

The article says he was born in 600 B.C. or 576 B.C. Does anyone know which one it really was? CitizenofEarth (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Most historians consider 576 BC to be the correct date--WIMYV? (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus and the Achaemenids

Several articles on wikipedia use the following outdated Iranica article (written in the early 1980s) to link Cyrus and his predecessors to Darius I and his successors. It relies on CMa-c which is nowadays regarded as Darius' forgery in order to legitimize his claim to the throne. Ellipi (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note this Iranica article (written in the late 1990s), which states: There are no arguments in favor of a concurrent rule of two lines of the Achaemenids. To the contrary, it seems that the Teispids (decendants of Čišpiš/Teispes), the line of Cyrus, and the Achaemenids, the line of Darius, ought to be seen as distinctly separate from each other. Ellipi (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly a significant point of view which deserves to be mentioned, but we must be wary of giving it undue weight - it's not by any means a consensus viewpoint. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At least, it certainly requires that we remove the title of Achaemenid from pre-Darius I rulers. Ellipi (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats OR. Note the following point "according to all available sources" (all Iranian inscription+Greek historians) and "the latest archaeological evidence" Cyrus was an achaemenian in the same meaning that Darius was. Therefore how you can say that "we remove the title of Achaemenid from pre-Darius I rulers"? some more points:

1. who has said that Cyrus and Darius are related?
2. the previous edit that this article "challenges" Achaemenian-ness of Cyrus is wrong. Where does it say that? It states the point that my previous edits said: there are conflicting arguments of scholars on the point: "achaemenian had one line or two lines?" This is unrelated to Achaemenian-ness of Cyrus. Therefore Ellipi I think you misunderstand the point (you mention) that "There are no arguments in favor of a concurrent rule of two lines of the Achaemenid". THIS IS UNRELATED TO WHAT SCHMIDT SAYS. (please see this discussion page 5-? of a book by Dandamaev to see the discussion is about "two lines" or "one line".)
3. According to wp:undue I think we should remove walter article.

Also you have stated "It relies on CMa-c which is nowadays regarded as Darius' forgery.." This is wrong. CMa(,b,c) is what [Name_of_Cyrus|this article's image]] shows. You are confusing DB with this inscription. Also removing Achaemenin from the title of Cyrus the Great is based on that misunderstanding and I think should be undone. Xashaiar (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

1 Darius claimed it on Behistun inscription.

2 The second Iranica link clearly says that there was not two lines of Achaemenids via Teispes, i.e. Teispes was not a descendent of Achaemenes.

3 CM is not the same as DB. CM is an inscription by Darius in which Cyrus is represented as an Achaemenian. It is nowadays generally known to be a forgery by Darius I to legitimize his constructed Achaemenid lineage to Cyrus. Ellipi (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong: 3. CM is according to Stronach and Schmidt from Cyrus the Great. 2. the Iranica article does not say anything like what you say. It states what the Cambridge ancient history and the link above says, If you want that you need to put it somewhere that states "there are two lines of Achaemenids that were joined together by Darius". This is all that is DISPUTED. 2. Darius does not say anything like that either, they all claim being descendent of Achaemenes. Finally if you do not mind, later I will write a section on this "two lines vs one line" rulers (in the appropriate page) and will add the quote from the article you use. OK? If it is not OK, you can revert until I write that section. Xashaiar (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

CM is according to Stronach from Cyrus II?! (where is your source?) What does Iranica say? What is disputed? that there was two Achaemenid lines or one made by Darius out of nothing? What does Darius claim? BTW I'm happy that you agreed DB is not the same as Cma. Take care. Ellipi (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Also here is an informative link on the subject by Maris Brosius. Ellipi (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CM is from Cyrus the Great and see the article by Schmidt on Cyrus the younger (where he says "... as the short inscription CMa (cf. Kent, Old Persian, p. 116), which was ascribed to him by F. H. Weissbach and others, belongs to Cyrus the Great", see also Schmidt article on Cyrus II where he says "In his inscriptions from Pasargadae Cyrus declared “I am Kūruš the king, an Achaemenid,”"), 2. If you read what I say you know that the assumption that CM is from Darius is based on a false interpretation of DB 70 (maybe caused by Wiesehoefer, (since 1980) now totally disregarded, see the wiki article on name of Cyrus). 3. On stronach I meant "I am Cyrus" in CM is meant to be "Cyrus the Great": the new research (see this abd many references there, see also chapter 7 of this book) show that the inscription can not be from any body than " a Cyrus" (now, stronach and others imply that "this" Cyrus is in fact Cyrus II). In any case, if you want these mentioned, we need to have a separate section on Achaemenian family in the appropriate article. I will do this once the real life get a bit calm! Xashaiar (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your link refers to a possibility suggested by Hallock (1970), which later was criticized and described as misleading. Your other link (page 11) (which you removed), says it all: the bulk of scholarly opinion now favors attributing all of these inscriptions to the reign of Darius I. The relief of Gate R would seem, however, to date to the time of Cyrus II.(i.e. the figure with Cyrus II wearing Elamite garment). This makes it clear what is the opinion of the majority of scholars. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

First, this edit summary does not justify your edit. I had chosen the wording "other inscriptions" without saying who inscribed those. Why do you insist on not mentioning of "probably Darius created sources"? Independent of what you think of them. If you want you can add "probably engraved under Darius" to the sentence just like what the source (from Dandamaev) does. Secondly, the reason that I removed the link is simple: he refers to Stronach and Walter and (copied by Briant. Also I agree with Ghirshman who did make the argument "DB paragraph 70 was misread" and therefore most of arguments that gives Darius the credits of being first to write in OP looks a bit strange. Strange. In any case the debate is much more serious than what I thought, (though I have not found a satisfactory updated discussion, I am searching for a newest references). Also as I said what you do is OR: the "relief" of four-winged is from Cyrus the Great himself while "some scholars" believe that CM "inscription" is not from Cyrus the Great, therefore Cyrus was according to "some scholars" unrelated to Achaemenes. This is really OR. Though waters mention this explicitly. Xashaiar (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, all updated sources I've seen so far, say that Cmabc are forgeries by Darius. There is no OR by me; whoever is responsible for the relief, the guy who added those inscriptions was Darius. (there are also concerns that some of these inscriptions are modern forgeries). But please be wary of giving undue weight to outdated works. Ellipi (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not "read" any source I provided above. You do OR (as I do think that you are linking two independent matters). You can not delete "probably". This is problem with all those who edit based on what a source say (I had a huge problem with someone who wished Cyrus the Great to have 5 children instead of four! Why because one source said so!). Either you add "according to Briant" or "probably". I add probably. This is debataed, as we speak, and let us do not judge ancient history so "absolute". Also please consider reading wp:opinion.Xashaiar (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:opinion? Have you ever read it? After realizing that Darius Behistun is not the same as CMabc, and that Stronach said it is Darius's work not Cyrus', and that there is difference between relief and inscription, and so on, it's time to accept that there is a difference between Cambyses I and Cambyses II. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ellipi, please do not do OR. CAmbyses was an Achaemenian. He can be called Teispids too. There is no contradiction. Why do you remove this sentence "Cassandane's identification as such stems primarily from heredotus, but it supported, directly and indirectly, by analysis of ancient Near Eastern evidence." (from Waters). Even Waters states on page 97 of his article (cited) that "Cambyses the Achaemenid". If I am Achaemenian it does not mean I am not anything else. Very simple. You have confused the entire discussion, I was the one who told you what is the name of inscription, I was the one who gave the sources that you copy pasted into other article. I am the one who wrote much of this section of the article, a mistake on I and II does not make my edit a bad one, sometime one makes typographical mistake. Cambyses I being achaemenian makes Cambyses II achaemenian, but this is also because of Cassandane. Do you see your misunderstanding? Your problem is you think: if some's grandfather is not an achaemenian then that one is not either. This logic is pre-historic. Xashaiar (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You did not give me a source that I copied to another article; I've got dozens of sources but provide them one by one in order to be discussed here on the talk page and not confuse you. what I say is that there was a distinction between line of Cyrus and line of Darius; At least for the time being we can call both lines Achaemenids, since that's how they have been called in Greek literature (under darius' propaganda), and because line of Darius were heirs of line of Cyrus (a power shift between two families while keeping the empire unchanged). But we must make it clear that the two lines were distinct. Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, According to your understanding, which one is grandfather and which one is grandson, Cambyses I or Cambyses II? Whose mother was Cassandane? Thanks. Ellipi (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You did copy paste thsi one. You say "there was a distinction between line of Cyrus and line of Darius" this is disputed and can be mentioned. wp:undue has to operate somewhere right? I and anybody who can visit here can provide million of sources who call these people Achaemenian. you say "and that line of Darius were heirs of line of Cyrus." I think it is time for you to see this. Please write according to RS and V. Curus II established "Achaemenian Empire" no matter what "Achaemenian" means. This logic is difficult for you, I know. But I help you: 1. Being Achemenian is to be understood in two ways. a. descendent of Achaemenes the real man, b. a king of an empire which was/is called Achaemenid Empire. (for example an empire that Darius used to call, Greeks called, Egyptian called,...). 2. In any case all these people "Cyrus I, II, II" and the people of the lines you created in mind are Achaemenian. THIS IS THE LOGIC YOU MISS. respond to your BTW: please stick to matters. Cambyses I->Cyrus the Great-> Cambyses II, is the family tree according to most (except for "II" for Cyrus the Great who can be called "III" as well). Now you want to have Cambyses (I, II) as Teispid. Here on the family background of Cyrus we mention his father and his sons. I am saying Cambyses I being Achaemenian makes Cambyses II achaemenian. But Cambuyses II being an achaemenian is undisputed as mentioned by Waters. Xashaiar (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well. I had that link before you pasting it here and removing it (after realising that it does not support your POV!). I used the word heirs in order to not use harsh words such as seizure and Coup d'état.

I have problems with the following paragraph, which I see as meaningless and badly written:

The traditional view which based on archaeological research and the genealogy given in the Behistun Inscription and Herodotus[8] held that Cyrus was an Achaemenian. However it has been suggested by M. Waters and that Cyrus is unrelated to Achaemenes or Darius the Great and that his family was of Teispid and Anshanite origin instead of Achaemenid,[26] though this view is not universally accepted.

trying to reach a consensus, I suggest to reword it as following:

Most of scholars now consider the line of Cyrus as distinct from line of Darius. The line of Cyrus which is called Teispids, formed the early stage of Achaemenid period and some scholars consider it as to be of Anshanite origin. Ellipi (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your claim on that copy paste that you already had is unproven. Yes Darius did make a Coup d'état, so what? Harsh for whom? Darius did that because he had to expand the Empire. This is not your or my concern. Yes that sentence is poorly written because you edited that. That's why you are asked to use talk page.

1. Also please visit this page. Because this sentence " However it has been suggested by M. Waters and that Cyrus is unrelated to Achaemenes or Darius the Great" (from you?) is non-sense. Cyrus was "related" to Darius because of a. Achaemenian-ness of Darius and Cyrus' wife and Darius' wife being Cyrus's daughter. So you agree that "unrelated to ... Darius the Great" is non-sense? Because you have to decide whether you trust Darius or not, if so then Cyrus and Darius are from Achaemenes the real man. If not, and you do not trust, then the whole story of Achaemenes is non-sense and the laughable contradiction in this sentence is "Darius and Cyrus can be related through Achaemenes, whose existence you accept (supported only by Darius claims) and on the other hand you disagree with Darius that Cyrus is also Achaemenian".This is the first problem that you do not get. b. Cyrus is related to Darius because of Darius claims. First tell me what you mean by "relation to Darius". I can not understand your sentence.
2. "Most of scholars now consider the line of Cyrus as distinct from line of Darius. The line of Cyrus which is called Teispids, formed the early stage of Achaemenid period and some scholars consider it as to be of Anshanite origin" what??? Again, look: an apple can be red but still an apple. Do you understand? Cyrus was a Teispid and Anshanite (that is from Fars province) for "obvious reason", but he is at the same time "an achaemenid" because all scholars do agree: being achaemenid is Darius concept and he gave that title to Cyrus + (some inscription that are probably from Darius time). Why you think an apple can not be red??? You do OR. and I disagree with that wording. I propose "The traditional view which based on archaeological research and the genealogy given in the Behistun Inscription and Herodotus[8] held that Cyrus was an Achaemenian. This is the view of almost all scholars of Iranian studies, However it has been suggested by some that Cyrus is unrelated to Achaemenes and should be considered Anshanite."
3. Once again do not do OR: being unrelated to Achaemenes does not make one non-Achaemenian. Because being Achaemenian is what Darius meant. There is no "blood" related meaning in "being Achaemenian".

I think before further discussion I have to ask you (and myself) that we omit the claims "majority of scholars" (and like that). Please tell what you want to add and your sources, and you will see that I will have no problem to give enough sources that makes your POV deletable according to wp:undue. Xashaiar (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(out-dented) OK, I come up with a better idea that I hope you agree and we can get it done through wp:cons. Do you agree with this sentence

In a sense, being "an Achaemenian" or to be in the royal families of "Achaemenid line" of kingship is believed to be a concept due to Darius the Great to which himself and Cyrus were told both to belong. On the other hand, to be "an Achaemenian" is also considered as having blood relation to "Achaemenes" (whose real existence is disputed) and to the resulting clan of whom, according to some scholars, Cyrus did not belong but Darius did, and in a parallel context to this Cyrus is considered "An Anshanite".

If you (and other interested ones) agree I can source this by high quality and up-to date sources. Regards. Xashaiar (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Iranica explicitly says the Teispid line of Cyrus was disctinct from Achaemenid line of Cyrus. The Teispids were not real Achaemenids, even if we call them as such. they were Achaemenids just because Darius claimed. I prefer to use sources instead of do OR by repeating outdated claimes frm pre-1980s. Regarding your proposal; I don't agree with just this; instead of explaining what is the difference between traditional and modern mainstream view, you are justifying non-Achaemenianness of Cyrus' Teispid line. Do what you will, but one is free to edit the article according to updated sources.Ellipi (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well what? Why do you think one opinion of one scholar is important. According to Article on Achaemenids in Iranica, Cyrus (all of them) are Achemenids. So simple is that. What you quote from Iranica (this) is the following "it seems that the Teispids (decendants of Čišpiš/Teispes), the line of Cyrus, and the Achaemenids, the line of Darius, ought to be seen as distinctly separate from each other." I do not have the time to explain the word "seem" and wp:opinion which here is that of the author of the article (which is wiesehofer). This is undue weight.

1. The entire Achaemenid scholarly works mention "Cyrus an Achaemenian". (in the article on Achaemenid dynasty we read: "The Achaemenid clan possibly ruled over the Persian tribes already in the 9th century B.C." and Cyrus and the non-existence king Achaemenes are listed there as Achaemenids.) There is not scholarly support for "Teispid". You say "one is free to edit the article according to updated sources" this is not acceptable on Wikipedia according to wp:undue and wp:pov.
2. And here in this edit summary what do you mean? Tell me "CONCERNING ACHAEMENIAN NESS" what the sentences "Cyrus was not born one, but he became linked to Achaemenids by marriage" and "Cyrus may have profited immensely (both politically and militarily) from his marriage to an Achaemenid woman but he did not need it for legitimacy" mean? These are from Waters page 97.? Now look the same source, same page say "While Cyrus was linked to the Achaemenids only by marriage, Cambyses was linked by blood, courtesy of his mother." AND MY VERSION OF THIS WAS "However "Cambyses II" is named "an Achaemenian", independent of his father line, through his mother Cassandane who was "an Achaemenian" too" Do you think I did "try to misrepresent it according to [my] wish" as your edit summary say? Please be careful in reading and your accusation.

One more note: May I ask you please read the sources you use carefully? The edit you made "here" is unacceptable: Kurash is "probably" an Elamite or Assyrian name and not Kurush which is Old Persian. And this Old Persian name is likely "unrelated" to Elamite name Kurash. This is OR from your side: to identify these two. Schmidt (in his Iranica article) used the wording "Cyrus (Latin form of Gr. Kûros, later also Kóros < OPers. Kuruš [spelled ku-u-ru-u-š], reflected in Elam. Ku-raš, Bab. Ku(r)-raš/-ra-áš, Aram. kwrš, Heb. Kōreš, and Eg. kwrš" Do you understand? You may insert this sentence. But you can not identify two different names because they have three letters in common!

Finally, I can show you source in 2009 that states "Cyrus did not exist at all". Shall we put this in this article? Xashaiar (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What does Waters say in the first paragraph of his article?:

Understanding of early Achaemenid history has undergone significant changes in recent scholarship. Recent research has emphasised the familial distinction between Cyrus the Great and Darius I, and it has become difficult to give credence to the traditional, modern reconstruction of Darius’ kinship claims that implies a dual descent from Achaemenes via Teispes: one line to Cyrus and the other to Darius. With Cyrus’ inscriptions at Pasargadae demonstrated as spurious, and the “Achaemenid dynasty” demonstrated as Darius’ creation ex nihilo, the relationship between Darius and his predecessors requires a new assessment.

Does the paragraph above imply that these are Waters' POV's or the mainstream scholarship viewpoint? Of course, clearly the latter.

The rest of his article, although I have no serious problems with it, is only results of his own research. Moreover, Cambyses II's maternal grandfather being of Achaemenian clan, does not make Darius' claims to throne legitimate. Darius was not son of Cambyses II; neither cambyses II's fatherline was Achaemenid. For a similar discussion refer to article on Safavids, to see how fatherline is important for scholars to define dynasties.

As for Cyrus being an Elamite name, your reverting and removal of Jan Tavernier was really surprising (though one more time I assume good faith :D). His book is one of the most authorative and detailed works on etymology of the ancient near eastern names/words. For your information it is not from 1903!! he mentions all proposed etymologies including Schmith, (to whom you often refer) and concludes that Cyrus is an Elamite name. Here is a direct link. He mentions three convincing reason why those fringe theories which looked for an Indo-European etymology are nonsense. (Your etymology of Cyrus reminds me of Babak being derived from Baybak! :D) Ellipi (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Relgion of Cyrus

What was the religion of Cyrus? Is it unknown? Mary Boyce suggested it was Zoroastrianism, but have other scholars agreed? If it is not a mainstream schlarly view that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, why this article has presented him as such? WP:UNDUE? Ellipi (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If M. Boyce is not mainstream then who is? Xashaiar (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

She was only one scholar. Ellipi (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)