Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

YAY

I'm getting there.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Stub class

Sorry, my edit said no sources, but there is one. Which says " Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris". I think that means near modern Baghdad. Doug Weller (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

tag

This issue was discussed before by Crazysuite. The current version refelects the view of certains historians which is not correct. Actually the the view is referenced by ChrisO edits is not only a minority view, but it is also using a flawed translation to support their thesis. First thing I would like to point out is that the scholars (Wieshofer, Kuhrt).. are a few among the hundreds of scholars that have written on the Achamenids in the last two centuries or so. A major text these scholars try to use is distorted version of what happened in Opis. Sources which are cited are basing their analyzes on a single piece of flawed translation, namely that of the Nabonidus Chronicle, which also narrates the victory of Cyrus the Great at Opis. Professor Wilferd Lambert in a new translation in 2007 has pointed this major mistake which was misread by Grayson. This makes the study of Wieshofer unreliable with regards to image of Cyrus since now the event at Opis is seen at totally different light which formed a major thesis of Wieshofer/Kuhrts revision of the traditional image of Cyrus. The new translation by Professor. Lambert's new translation can be found here: [1].

Allow me to quote parts of the article mentioned:

Some scholars have also cited the fall of Opis based on Graysontranslation. It was in 1966 that A. K. Grayson published his translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle:

In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people."

Note the following two words: "slaughtered" and "the people".

A number of scholars knew that the translation was flawed, however the issue was not academically addressed until 2007, when Shahrokh Razmjou consulted Professor Wilfred G. Lambert of the University of Birmingham, England, who is the world's foremost expert in the cuneiform. It is worth noting that A. K. Grayson had been a student of Professor Lambert in the past.

Razmjou asked Professor Lambert to review Grayson's translation. Lambert immediately noted that the translation that had been made by his former student was false. Here is the correct translation:

In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad).

Notice the following corrections made by Professor Lambert:

  • a] "slaughter" in Grayson's translation is incorrect – the correct translation is "defeated".
  • b] "the people" in Grayson's translation is incorrect – the correct translation is "the soldiers".


Lambert's translation was published in the 2007 publication of the French journal N.A.B.U

Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being done to the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle. To that end, two further observations may be inferred: </[>

  • 1] The city of Opis and its Babylonian inhabitants remained intact well into Seleucid times, after the fall of Darius III to Alexander's forces. If the inhabitants had been "massacred" as averred to in the flawed translation, then how and why did it survive centuries after Cyrus had passed away?
  • 2] Opis had stayed in place after the fall of the Achaemenids to the armies Alexander the Great. The successors to Alexander, the Seleucids, built the city of Seleucia-city just across Opis. When the Parthians ejected the Seleucids from Iran, they allowed both Seleucia-city and Opis to thrive. Both would become merged into the larger settlement of Ctesiphon which became the Partho-Sassanian capital. It was only after the fall of Ctesiphon to the Arabo-Muslim armies in 637 AD (following the Battle of Qadissiya) that the city (which included ancient Opis) finally disappeared as an inhabited city, close to 12 centuries after Cyrus had entered Opis."--Larno (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that issue, though I have to say it would have been helpful if you could have said where you copied and pasted the above from (apparently here). What we have here is a new hypothesis by a reputable scholar. Lambert may well be right, but as we're not experts, we can't state that on the basis of our own belief. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that his views have been accepted or corroborated by other experts in Babylonian cuneiform. Therefore we can't put much weight on his views - we definitely can't say that he has "disproved" the previous interpretation. What we can do, though, is to mention in a footnote that he has put forward a different hypothesis. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Lambert was the supervisor of Grayson. Moreover, the Lambert translation is the most recent research and prior to outdated translation of Grayson. Therefore, it should mention as the most updated studies and not in the footnote. Even by comparing older sources, I noticed a huge disagreement between different writerss on Battle of Opis [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22on+the+Tigris%2C+the+inhabitants+of+Akkad+revolted%2C+but+he%22&btnG=Search+Books] All of them (1960, 1964, 1984) say: "when Cyrus attacked the army of Akad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants" not Cyrus. Even Lendering (2008) and/or Oppenheim and/or Pritchard (1950) are in doubt: "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." [http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html#17]

You see [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] in brackets.

But the wikipedians who edited the following page had no doubt that he has been Cyrus!Nabonidus#The_Persian_conquest_of_Babylonia and of course you in the Battle of Opis


Some books say: "the people of Akkad retreated" [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22the+people+of+Akkad+retreated%22&btnG=Search+Books ] Some (including Lendering) say: "the inhabitants of Akkad revolted" [ http://books.google.com/books?q=%22the+inhabitants+of+Akkad+revolted%22&btnG=Search+Books] Grayson version: "In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people."

Here it is not evident "he" refers to who. But seemingly according to Grayson "he" is Cyrus.

Lambert correction: "“In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad).”

According to Lambert "he" is Cyrus and he didn't slaughtered.

So as a whole, the differences (up to now) are: 1)Akkadians revolted or retreated. 2)"he" refers to Cyrus or Nabonidus. 3)Grayson translation and Lambert's correction of his.

As the conclusion , the current version is clearly POV and apparently inaccurate--Larno (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that this is entirely according to Lambert - it's a very recent, uncorroborated hypothesis. I've not found any other source which corroborates or cites his hypothesis. On the other hand, numerous sources use the Grayson and other translations which refer to the Persians killing their opponents, and they advance interpretations based on those translations. Wikipedia's policy requires us to not give undue weight to a minority viewpoint, even if that viewpoint may be correct: "Articles that compare views 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." It is certainly worth mentioning Lambert's viewpoint as it comes from a respectable source, but as I already said, we're not in a position to declare him to be correct, because we're not experts. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO is correct. Mention him in a footnote (ie as the article is now) and that's fine as it was in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires no. 1, 2007. But we shouldn't comment on it or treat it as the 'official' or best translation. It will be interesting to see what other scholars say about it. And it really should not matter to us as editors. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Lambert work is published in a peer reviewed journal and it means that other experts reviewed his work. Lambert translation is a reliable source (See: WP:RS) and should be our reference as the most updated reference.
Moreover, there is a disagreement among all older sources on who killed Opis people. Some say Nabonidus and some say Cyrus and many are unsure which one. But I don't know how ChrisO can be such a confident to strongly say that Cyrus army did that.--Larno (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviewed journal? I presume you have evidence for that. 'Breves et Utilitaires'. Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe what I am seeing here. Chris's entire version relies on an OUTDATED FALSE TRANSLATION, discredited by LINGUISTS and modern HISTORIANS. This is like someone re-writing the article on earth citing sources that claim earth is flat. It's simply outrageous.--CreazySuit (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

God forbid we play favorites here...

This is just fricken lovely. This "Wrong version" BS makes wikipedia look even less legitimate than it already does. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to wheel war, but leaving an illiterate stub when there was version sourced from reliable and recent sources seems to take the 'Wrong version' to unusual extremes. We're allowing editors to delete sourced text and replace it with an illiterate stub, that simply can't be good for Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

MY FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS DO YOUR GD RESEARCH!

BEFORE IGNORING WHAT IS BELOW GO TO THIS LINK THAT I COPY PASTED FROM AND ALSO READ THE WHITE PAPER PART FOR EVIDENCE THAT DOUG WELLER WAS LOOKING FOR (I'm not yelling.[2]

e] Citing one flawed translation as “evidence”. (THIS SENTENCE MEANS SOME HISTORIANS ARE LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE OF A BARBARIC CYRUS)

The select “historians” who castigate Cyrus repeatedly point to the Nabonidus Chronicle, which narrates the victory of Cyrus the Great at Opis. The main text of the translation had been made by A. K. Grayson in 1966. Below is what he translated from the Nabonidus Chronicle:


"In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people.


Note the following two words: “slaughtered” and “the people”.

As we will see shortly below, Grayson’s translation is incorrect. A number of researchers were aware that Grayson’s work was flawed, but the “translation” seemed to catch on, and helped generate a small generation of anti-Cyrus writers.

Thanks to the persistence of a number of dedicated and well-trained researchers, the Grayson translation was recently re-evaluated with tragic results. I say “tragic” because it goes to show how academic mediocrity can lead to disastrous consequences, especially in the political and popular venues.

It was Shahrokh Razmjou who finally put forward the issue and consulted Professor Wilfred G. Lambert of the University of Birmingham, England, in 2007. Professor Lambert is the world's foremost expert in the cuneiform.

Razmjou asked Professor Lambert to review Grayson's translation. Lambert immediately noted that the translation was false. Here is the correct translation:


“In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad).”


Notice the following corrections made by Professor Lambert:

1] "slaughter" in Grayson's translation is incorrect – the correct translation is "defeated". 2] "the people" in Grayson's translation is incorrect – the correct translation is "the soldiers".

In another twist of irony, it is worth noting that A. K. Grayson had been a student of Professor Lambert in the past!


The Nabonidus Chronicle now housed in the British Museum. The flawed translation by A. K. Grayson has now been corrected by Professor Wilfred G. Lambert of the University of Birmingham, England.


Lambert's translation was published in the 2007 publication of the French journal N.A.B.U which Cyrus Kar has kindly forwarded to me for distribution (please see the three scanned images below this line).


Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being selectively inflicted upon the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

The only “slaughter” that one finds is that committed by the Babylonian King Nabonidus as noted in the Nabonidus Chronicle (see prior references in this article regarding ANET- Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament):

In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.

The only “slaughter” that has been recorded by history is that made by Nanbonidus, not Cyrus. The Akkad citizens had probably risen in revolt against Nabonidus in anticipation of the eminence of Cyrus’ victory.

Objectively speaking, the case is closed; there is no evidence to back any “list of atrocities” by Cyrus, as alleged in The Daily Telegraph.


e] A Suggestion. Perhaps Dr.s Holland, Gallas, Wiesehöfer and Mr. de Quetteville may wish to take a few notes from Harvard Professor Emeritus Richard Nelson Frye who is considered as the foremost authority in the field of Iranian studies with over 4 decades of research and publications to his credit. Professor Frye notes that:


“It was no accident that Xenophon chose Cyrus to be the model of a ruler for the lessons he wished to impart to his fellow Greeks. In short, the figure of Cyrus has survived throughout history as more than a great man who founded an empire. He became the epitome of the great qualities expected of a ruler in antiquity, and he assumed heroic features as a conqueror who was tolerant and magnanimous as well as brave and daring. His personality as seen by the Greeks influenced them and Alexander the Great, and, as the tradition was transmitted by the Romans, may be considered to influence our thinking even now. “

[Frye, R.N., 2008, Cyrus II. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008]


Professor Tom Holland may vociferously dismiss the two thousand year history of Cyrus as “absolute nonsense”, however, as noted earlier in this item, he has singularly failed to provide any concrete evidence to back these assertions.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Your comment will probably get ignored. We`re dealing with a clan of self-proclaimed ”crusaders on nationalism” who see no problem in using an outdated falsified, totally discredited, translation to advance their point of view, as long as it serves their ”anti-nationalist” agenda. While fighting nationalism, they have become rigid ideologues (the very thing they fight against) who ignore valid opposing views and label anyone and everyone who opposes their POV as ”nationalists”, and see no moral or ethical problem in using a FALSE TRANSLATION, and violating many Wikipedia core policies like WP:AGF, WP:FRINGE, or WP:OR. --CreazySuit (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to think you're being ironic, but you aren't. Ok, give us some RS that shows the translation is 'totally discredited', using only RS (which the link is not). Explain why deleting all sourced text (recent sources, too) is acceptable under WP policy. Explain where it says editors can decide what is the best translation - elsewhere, Ariobarza wrote "According to the account of the struggle6 which is most circumstantial and on the whole most probable" -- his personal opinion. Is that what editors should be doing? Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
he's not being ironic. That's the sad thing about this sort of thing. You end up being called a racist for telling the racists that, sorry, their breed is not superhuman, and you get called a "rigid ideologue" for telling the rigid nationalists that their version of history is a childish distortion. These people don't want to know, or learn. They want to read what they already know to be "true", because to them, the more often something is repeated, the truer it becomes. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh please! Lambert is the teacher and superior of Grayson, and he categorically states that Grayson`s translation is simply false. Linguistics is a science, not a matter of opinion. What`s next, are you going to argue that earth is flat because some scholars had argued it hundreds of years ago and it can be sourced? --CreazySuit (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you can't back up your statement that Lambert Grayson is totally discredited except to tell us his teacher says so, you don't understand linguistics, and you think scholars believed in a flat earth hundreds of years ago. The bottom line is that you've removed sourced text because you don't like it. By the way, when are you going to provide the evidence that Nouvelles... is peer reviewed? I agree it is reputable, that's not the point, I'm just checking the accuracy of your statement, which I presume is based upon evidence. I really don't care which translation is correct, I just care that we report the debate in an encyclopedic fashion and don't set ourselves up as arbiters of which translation is right. Doug Weller (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's plain that you're discounting Grayson because you have a political disagreement with what he says. But as has been pointed out already, your personal opinions aren't relevant here, as that's a categorical violation of our no original research policy. You also plainly don't have much idea about linguistics, as Doug says - Lambert himself acknowledges that the cuneiform characters under dispute have multiple meanings. Determining which meaning is appropriate requires the translator to understand the context, not just the individual characters. It's very much an art, not a "science". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Original research? Lambert, the world's foremost expert in the cuneiform, says Grayson`s translation is not valid, and other scholars have confirmed Lambert`s assertion. In light of all this, you`re still knowingly pushing a FALSE TRANSLATION, that is unacceptable academically or ethnically. You stopped assuming good faith with the opposing editors a long time ago, labeling opponents as `as ”nationalists”, and misrepresenting mine and others` actions and intentions, but I continued to give you the benefit of the doubt, but now it`s becoming clear to me that you`re not interested in factual accuracy or building an encyclopedia, your sudden interest in these pages, and tendentious rewriting of the narratives seem to be political in nature, and motivated by Cyrus' immense importance to Jews, Jewish history, and the Jewish right of return. Given your persistence in defending and using false martial which compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, I am willing to go all the way to the ArbCom with you. I will get professor Lambert to directly contact ArbCom, should his testimony be needed. --CreazySuit (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
You really do not understand how Wikipedia works. ArbCom wouldn't be interested in Lambert's testimony. I've already pointed out that 'academia' has not made any sort of decision. Please point to the peer reviewed publications that back Lambert. You say "Linguistics is a science, not a matter of opinion" which makes me wonder if you've even read what Lambert wrote. Lambert uses phrases such as 'which is absurd' -- are you really saying that that is scientific (I'm not saying he is wrong, I'm pointing out that this is a subjective opinion, not a scientific one). Lambert is presenting his opinion, and 'academia' has not discussed what Lambert has said (of course, if you can point to several scholars who have discussed this, please let us know and I may revise this statement). And NABU is reputable but not peer reviewed, so I hope the editor who makes that claim withdraws it. Doug Weller (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
They appear to be using this nationalist tract as "corroboration". It's another spinoff of the Cyrus cylinder controversy. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
This [3] has a reproduction of what Lambert has said about the translation. He may be right, he may be wrong, but no way is the academic jury is nor is it based on scientific (linguistics is not like physics at all). Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the same thing I linked - it's some guy's attempt to rebut the Spiegel/Daily Telegraph stories about the Cyrus cylinder. It's on various places around the net, apparently it's being circulated by nationalists wanting to "put the record straight". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Dougweller, I am highly dissapionted at your swindling of events. Firstly, the statement "According to the account of the struggle, which is most circumstantial and on the whole most probable" are exact words that come from Rawlinsons book about the Persian Revolt, and have nothing to do with Opis. Secondly, about Dr. Kaveh Farrokh being an author, and not an academic is NONSENSE, notice its 'DR.' and this is what it says on the inside flap of the back cover of his SHADOWS IN THE DESERT book, I cant find it on the net because GOOGLEBOOKS only shows the outside of it, and apparently this text is inside, and this information might even be on Wikipedia about him, AND THE EDITOR OF THE BOOK IS PHD. RICHARD NELSON FRYE, sound familiar?,

'Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has been researching the military history and technology of Persia for two decades. He obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia, where he specialized in the spread of Persian langauges. He has given lectures and seminars at the University of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. He is the author of Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 (2005). He also acts as a historical advisor and expert for film and documentary, working on projects including the film Cyrus the Great and a History Channel documentary on the Persian Empire.'

You have no way of knowing that I did not make this up, but what you can do is go to your local BARNES & NOBLES OR BORDERS, and look for the copy of it, so this disproves the notion that he is just a good author, this message is to DOUGWELLR--Ariobarza (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Ah, I didn't realise at the time that you were simply using George Rawlinson's book into the article in question, which really is not a good idea, he wrote what, 150 years ago? So that comment of mine is withdrawn as it was based on a misunderstanding. Now as to 'academic', to me that means being a full time teacher or scholar in a University, not someone who gives the occasional lecture and certainly not anyone with a PhD. I'd call him a military historian perhaps, but not an academic. Perhaps I'm biassed by having been one myself, but I'm also, because of that, aware of how much universities bring in outside specialists for lectures and seminars without suggesting that those specialists are academics. Doug Weller (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Albert Kirk Grayson a "full time teacher or scholar in a University"? And has Albert Kirk Grayson ever dispute his teacher's correction of his translation in this case , or the other cases of translation errors by Grayson which have been corrected by Lambert? And lastly, who is a more credible academic, Professor Wilfred G. Lambert or his student Albert Kirk Grayson who still seeks Lambert's expertise as his teacher and his counselor before writing a book? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggestiong Farrokh is in Grayson's league? I don't know who is the more credible academic, but seeking other people's expertise enhances someone's credibility in my eyes. It is NOT our job to decide who is more credible, and the fact that you keep hammering on about this shows that you still don't understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As Grayson is referred to as Professor Grayson in academic publications, I presume he is or was a professor somewhere. He certainly seemts to be an extremely respected scholar if you go by the comments about him in academic books and journals. No one seems to have discussed Lambert's translation in NABU, which is the problem. Ah, I see you still refer to 'translation errors' when there is actually a disagreement. We can say Lambert disagrees with Grayson's translation, what we can't do is call them translation errors ourselves or say that one is the correct translation. Doug Weller (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Prof. A. K. Grayson, Director of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project of the University of Toronto. Doug Weller (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Grayson, for the record, was a professor at the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Toronto. I think that is slightly more relevant than Farrokh's background, and Dougweller is right in saying that he's extremely widely cited - far more so than Farrokh. According to the blurb in his book "Shadows in the Desert", Farokh "obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia, where he specialized in the spread of Persian languages. He has given lectures and seminars at the University of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. He is the author of Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 (2005). He also acts as a historical advisor and expert for film and documentary, working on projects including the film Cyrus the Great and a History Channel documentary on the Persian Empire". So he clearly does have some relevant background, but definitely not at the level of a tenured academic at a major university. Nor is he a qualified historian. It's none of our business trying to work out whether Lambert or Grayson is "more credible" (how the heck do you work that out objectively anyway?). -- ChrisO (talk) 10:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug, stop lecturing me on how Wikipedia works in your condescending and typical "elitist " fashion, and answer my main question. Has Albert Kirk Grayson ever disputed his teacher's correction of his translation in this case , or the other cases of translation errors by Grayson which have been corrected by Lambert? --CreazySuit (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the insults. I have no idea (we can't say he has or hasn't without evidence), do you know if anyone has discussed Lambert's brief note? And could you please stop denigrating Grayson in this way? Grayson was Lambert's students decades ago, students often excell their teachers (not saying he has, just pointing out the fact). Your turn, I asked for your evidence about Grayson still consulting Lambert (it doesn't matter if he does but I would like the evidence). Doug Weller (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
"You have no idea", I thought so. As per your question, pick up one of Grayson's book, and you'll see what I mean. I am already in touch with Lambert. I am trying to get in touch with Grayson to publicly declare that he has no opposition to Lambert's correction of his translation error ( I hear from a reliable person that he doesn't) , and when I do, there will be no more no ifs and buts, or anymore of this pointless discussion here. --CreazySuit (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that wouldn't count - we would only have your uncorroborated word on Lambert's views and frankly, considering how much nonsense you've spouted over the last few days, I don't think many people are going to consider you a credible source. You're certainly not a reliable source as Wikipedia's policy would require. Remember that Wikipedia:Verifiability requires reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you want to argue that 30 years' worth of scholarship is obsolete, you'll need to find a reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that says that. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It definitely can't be used. I've had various emails from academics about things I wanted to check but they couldn't be used. If he can get Grayson to write something up, that will be fine. I don't care which translation is correct (and I don't see how it can be definitively decided which is correct as Lambert's translation (also?) rests on assumptions. I note that Creazysuit doesn't answer my questions. Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, watch for WP:Civility, OK? It is not up to you decide to what counts and what doesn't. Once Grayson has commented on this issue and confirmed Lambert's correction, this discussion would be over. Any further attempts by you to use the disowned false translation at that point or any material associated with it, would be regarded as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and you will be dealt with accordingly by the community and the Arbitration committee if necessary. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain, then, how a personal communication to an anonymous individual (you) would count as a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Or you could of course take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, but you'll get the same answer there that you're getting here. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest he take it now, as any attempt to add a personal communication will be reverted. Doug Weller (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If I do get in touch with him, the communication will be verifiable, so don't you guys worry about that. --CreazySuit (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If it's published in a reliable source, that would of course be fine and a good addition to the article. Doug Weller (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And "published in a reliable source" does not mean "fished out of CreazySuit's email inbox", of course. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The email can be forwarded to an administrator or OTRS for verification. I think WP:IGNORE is applicable in this case. Khoikhoi 20:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'd be wrong there; WP:IGNORE doesn't override Wikipedia:Verifiability for some very obvious reasons. The whole point of WP:V is (as the very first paragraph says) that "readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." OTRS isn't checkable by our readers. As an admin, you really should know this. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm gob-smacked anyone would suggest that. And any administrator who 'verified' it would be working outside their remit. Khoi, take this to the RS noticeboard if you really think it will fly. I've got quite a few emails from academics I'd love to use in articles, why this could revolutionise Wikipedia! I wouldn't dream of trying to use them of course. Doug Weller (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
No one has suggested that an email be used as a reliable source in an article, the verified email would just be used on the talk page, for us to determine if the disputed translation and the associated sources are still relevant, and can be used in this article without compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.) Khoikhoi 21:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to us to determine whether "the disputed translation and the associated sources are still relevant". All we are here to do is to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" (per WP:NPOV). At the moment the majority view endorses the Grayson translation and bases its conclusions on that. There is not one single reliably published source that anyone has been able to find that even cites Lambert's recent paper, let alone endorses it. That may happen over time; academic paradigms do shift with new information. But what we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot do is to declare that what is currently a tiny-minority POV is correct and that anything based on Grayson's translation is no longer "still relevant". We are not going to put ourselves ahead of the entire field of historians of ancient Mesopotamia, period. Come back in five years and make your case then - we'll see if Lambert's paper gets any wider endorsement. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If the author of the disputed translation, in a verifiable fashion, confirms that his old translation was inaccurate, why would any Wikipedia editor in his right mind insist on using the wrong translation as a source on Wikipedia -- knowing that it's wrong? IMO doing so it a blatant violation of Wikipedia's integrity. We are here to build an accurate encyclopedia, the rules are here to serve that greater purpose, they're not absolute and inflexible. You're going by the book a bit too much here. Khoikhoi 03:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable by our readers would work. That excludes email. Where can you find an example of people agreeing that a reliable source can be used that readers can't, even with some effort, verify? If he thinks he is wrong, I'm sure he will declare that publicly and then it can be used. Doug Weller (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Khoikhoi's argument is moot anyway because we now have a second translation, from Glassner (see my comments here), which corroborates Grayson and is much more recent (2004). Both translations are accepted and cited by the academic community; Lambert's is not, at least not yet. That really is all that needs to be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
ChrisO: how about CAD (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary) in which nishu means soliers in NeoBabylian? It verifies Lambert's translation? Are you going to say that it is rubish as well? Just read my comments below--Larno (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • While I haven't read all of the KB above, I would suggest that the existing material based on the supposedly wrong translation should be covered in the article – per WP:ASF, with attribution, and without endorsing its presentation as fact – and that Lambert's point that this translation and the conclusions based on it may be wrong should be given a bit more prominence than just a footnote – he should have a paragraph in the article body, again with attribution etc. Jayen466 14:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

{{editprotected}}

Please fix the grammar in the lead by replacing "The Battle of Opis, was the second and final engagement, after the one which was somewhere in February, was between Cyrus the Great of Persia, and Nabonidus of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, even though his son fought it." with "The Battle of Opis, , fought in September 539 BC, was the second and final engagement, between the forces of Cyrus the Great of Persia led by his son, and Nabonidus of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. It followed an earlier battle on the Tigris said to have taken place some time in February 539 BC." This would be a non-controversial edit that does not involve any of of the disputed items.--CreazySuit (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't fix the grammar, let alone deal with the wholesale removal of sourced text. It should be left as it is an example of what happens when you allow wholesale removal of sourced text. Doug Weller (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not insist to restore the older version when I realized that it is not in a good shape. However, there is one fundamental problem here. Like his previous work on Cyrus Cylinder, the article was being written by ChrisO like a political essay. The problem is that ChrisO does substantial and controversial changes in favor of a certain POV without getting consensus. I don't know how we can get to a stable version by this method--Larno (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the requested noncontroversial edit. Please continue the discussion about improvement of the article rather than engage in personal attacks Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In what respect does deleting a sourced, comprehensive article with a barely intelligible unsourced text not constitute blatant POV vandalism? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Khoikhoi asked me - privately - to intercede in this mess; he said that he could not do it himself because he was involved. So I just stepped in and froze everything without concern for what version the article was in. I think we can all agree that edit wars suck, yes? Anyway, full protection may be excessive - is there a consensus, at least, to reduce it to semi? DS (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The edit warring is only part of the problem - the bulk of the problem is that CreazySuit et al have systematically disregarded NPOV and NOR and are editing the article on that basis. Quite honestly, deleting a sourced article and replacing it with an incoherent unsourced stub is vandalism, plain and simple - it should have resulted in a block. I would ask you in future to take note of what is actually being done to the article. Blatant violations of wikipolicy shouldn't pass without comment. I have to say I'm also not surprised that Khoikhoi should have been acting behind the scenes, he has a POV dispute with me concerning Cyrus cylinder - this is an extension of the same dispute. In answer to your question, the protection should be lifted altogether (semi will do nothing to deter CreazySuit et al) and further disruption needs to be tackled at the root. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I asked Khoikhoi this morning to take a look, I (obviously) didn't know he'd asked you to intercede, and didn't know about the conflict with ChrisO. I don't think article protection of any kind is suitable for this issue, we don't have a problem with IP editors, what we have is a problem which involves, in part, removing well sourced text simply because an editor thinks that a more recent translation must be right. There are solutions other than page protection (although I might have been tempted this morning to protect it if the wholesale removals had continued and you hadn't blocked it, and I hadn't been involved of course, simply to stop removal of sourced text and give a short (24 hours at the most) cooling off period). I hope we don't have to block anyone for removing sourced text now that we've gone through all of this. The sourced version did have the Lambert translation as well, and I've asked for other reliable sources if there are any (web pages won't do, in this case we need academic publications). We are at RfC with this now. Doug Weller (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

DS, we do not need admin "blindly locking things" when the "dispute" is one of the encyclopedists vs. the nationalists. We are not agnostic as to whether we want Wikipedia to be a propaganda outlet or an encyclopedia, remember? Blindly protecting is fair enough when the dispute is between two equally choleric parties. It is not when one side is trying to fix disruptive and unencyclopedic pov-pushing: As a rule, if one side can arguably be warned under WP:DISRUPT, don't be agnostic and don't lock the article. When both sides are equally disruptive, warn or lock even-handedly. Yes, that distinction requires you to spend a minute looking into what is going on. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  • dab, do you have any better rational other than editors' nationality. If somebody take your side he is OK but if not, he is labeled as nationalist by you, no matter what he is saying and no matter even he is a well known scholar like Dr. Farrokh.
  • You are only pushing your agenda. Different people (most of them are non-Iranian and can't be accused to be nationalist by you)commented in Cyrus Cylinder on how you guys are using fringe sources to write a politicized essay instead of encyclopedic article. And you are continuing POV pushing in this page and in Cyrus Cylinder. For this specific dispute, I clearly stated how you are ignoring updated information and cherry picking outdated fringe sources to prove your political agenda. I emphasize on the term cherry picking because as I discussed before, even outdated sources that you are trying to push have different views on the Battle of Opis. Some say Nabu Na'id's army killed people and some other say Cyrus army did that but you guys only pick sources that are in favor your POV.--Larno (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Cyrus cylinder uses only mainstream sources from mainstream publishers, with the possible exception of Kaveh Farokh (we'll need look at this again). Which do you consider to be "fringe" and why? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I hope no one is comparing Farrokh with scholars like Lambert and Grayson. I'm sure Farrokh writes decent military history books, and he has other interests as well, but he is not an academic but an author who teaches part-time. I note that he isn't on the staff list of the University of British Columbia. Doug Weller (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, this is boring. You edit based on your nationality, not me. Come and edit Swiss topics (if you can get your indoctrinated mind to stop thinking about Iran for five minutes) and see if I behave like a chauvinist idiot in topics that concern my own nationality. Farrokh seems to be the guy who harvests his Warholian 15 minutes from this Cyrus cylinder thing. I am not saying Farrokh is a crackpot. He appears to be a bona fide historian who just happens to pursue a patriotic agenda. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See also what I've just posted in the section immediately above: Farrokh's qualifications are in linguistics, not history, and he's never been a tenured academic. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The original editprotected request, above, was  Done, so I've cleared the template. If there are additional edits being requested, please repost the template. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments

I have started a request for comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man on the disruption that has been afflicting this and other articles on Persian history. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


SHOUTING REALLY HELPS

If someone does not accept your argument, SHOUTING IT REPEATEDLY ALWAYS WORKS. It works because THE ONE WHO SHOUTS LOUDEST IS ALWAYS RIGHT. Most importantly, if your argument is drawn from a single primary source whereas the article content is based on multiple secondary sources, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO SHOUT IN REALLY SARCASTIC TONES, in case someone does not realise that Wikipedia's true mission is to blaze the trail in promoting the very latest theories well before they have reached the mainstream. Anyone who does not realise this NEEDS SHOUTING AT SOME MORE in case they dno't realise that WE SHOULD BE MAKING THE RUNNING, NOT WAITING FOR INDEPENDENT SECONDARY SOURCES. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I've discovered today that there are not two, but actually three main translations:

1. Oppenheim (which is cited as much if not more than Grayson's). It differs from Grayson when it comes to that portion of the Nabonidus chronicle. You can find a translation here: [4]

Note the following:

  • "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."

and:

  • "the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle"

This translation is from 1950 and is cited more often than Grayson. It also does not say that Cyrus massacred the inhabitants. It even clearly states that his army entered Babylon without battle.

2. Then we have Grayson which is from 1975. It agrees that Cyrus's army came to Babylon without battle.

3. Finally we have Lambert, who has been called an "expert". His translation has been published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal. If anything, a peer-reviewed journal has more weight than a self-published book. So IMO the most recent opinion should be there and that is Lambert's. Both Oppenheim and Grayson agree that Cyrus entered Babylon with no resistance. The idea that Cyrus was a "master of propaganda" and the assertion that the classical sources were wrong (Herodotus, Xenophonon, Bible), are mainly based on the translation of Grayson which started in the 1980s.

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories." Note that all of the scholars who are proponents of the "propaganda" theory relied heavily on that passage of Grayson.

Lambert's translation is a highly valuable peer-reviewed journal and is much more recent. That is how it works, scholarship relies upon the newest materials (Einstein's theory which replaced Newton's theory). So taking this all into consideration, Lambert's translation seems more credible than Grayson's in this case. Khoikhoi 21:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Once again, as Dougweller, dab and I keep telling our resident nationalists, Wikipedia editors are not experts. It is none of our business to decide which translation is "more credible". We rely on the real experts, the academics, to do that. All we are here to do is to report what they say - not what some editors think they should be saying. As for NABU being "peer reviewed", CreazySuit has been making this claim repeatedly but hasn't backed it up; Dougweller says it's not (and he's in a position to know); what is your evidence? Your assertion about "self-published books" is frankly tendentious. None of the books referenced in Cyrus cylinder or the pre-vandalism version of this article were self-published - they all came from respectable mainstream and specialist academic publishers. It's not the case that the only sources using Grayson are old ones. Amélie Kuhrt's 2007 compilation The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period includes the very same section that our nationalists are complaining about. And also, it's patently obvious that you've not been keeping up with Talk:Cyrus cylinder; see this from an impeccable source which falsifies your claim that the "propaganda" viewpoint is recent.
Finally, it turns out that there's another translation which backs up Grayson, by Jean-Jacques Glassner in Mesopotamian Chronicles (2004, p. 237). The relevant line reads: "In the month of Tešret, Cyrus, having joined battle with the army of Akkad at Upû on the [bank] of the Tigris, the people of Akkad fell back. He pillaged and massacred the population." Professor Victor Hurowitz of Ben Gurion University comments on this specific issue of which source is "more credible": "The last phrase, which seems to be closer to Grayson’s rendition is “un.me$ gaz”. Un.me$ is Akkadian ni$e, people, GAZ is Akkadian daku, to kill, so I would think that Grayson is right." And before you ask, yes, Glassner's version is cited by multiple academic sources. Lambert's isn't. We can acknowledge its existence but until academia pays any attention to it - which it hasn't so far - we can't give it any substantial weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Dougweller is in a position to know NABU is not an academic journal? according to whom? Our resident eurocentrists? Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires is a peer-reviewed journal. Khoikhoi also brings up a great point about academic journals being preferred to books by Wikipedia policy. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read what I've said. It's a reputable journal, but so far as I know is not peer-reviewed. I've asked you for the evidence that it is and all you do is repeat yourself. And I wonder if you are clear about peer-review. It doesn't mean an author is right, it means that their peers think that he has a reasonable argument. Lambert's note (which is what it is, by the way) is based upon the historical context, and Professor Horowitz, after reading it, told me yesterday that this is something for the historians to decide on its own merits. Doug Weller (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't think NABU is peer reviewed, it's a journal for 'breves', brief notes - not sure what the rest means but it sounds similar. Peer review is intensive but only to make sure there are no obvious mistakes, the argument is sound, etc. Which still lets through some weird stuff at times. As I've said, peer review doesn't mean something is correct and you can easily find peer reviewed articles disagreeing with each other. And Lambert's non-peer reviewed note will presumably at some point be commented upon by other scholars. Doug Weller (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer to some questions and some thoughts

This is answer to some questions and some thoughts on how the article should be


Lambert work is not a reliable source.
Lambert's translation is published in Nouvelles "Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires" (N.A.B.U.) which is one of the most academic journals in this field. Lambert is one of the best known experts in the world and as far as I know Grayson was his student. No one can question Lambert's expertise or the NABU.

Nobody commented on Lambert work.

  • As I said N.A.B.U. is one of the most academic journals in this field. It means that before it was published, the article was peer reviewed by number of experts in this field and they agreed with the new translation.
  • If you check CAD (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary), in which the word nishu meaning people in Old Babylonian, is "soldirs" in New Babylonian as mentioned by Lambert.
  • Very few people can read cuneiform and those people have a close working relationship. In this field, if one person makes a little mistake, other scholars would attack instantly. I never heard that an old translation is more reliable than a new translation. For sure Professor Grayson has read the new translation and if he had disagreed with the new amendment of his previous work he had reacted. so, no response could be the sign of acceptance.
  • One of experts who can read cuneiform is Dr. Shahrokh Razmjou from "Ancient Iran Museum" in Tehran who noticed this mistake in Professor Grayson work and followed up the issue until Professor Labmert amended the translation.

What is the difference between Lambert and Grayson translation
line 14 of iii column, Chronicle 7 regarding the battle: "hubta(sar) ihbut(sar) nishu mesh"
hubta= means to plunder, nishu = means people according to Grayson but soldiers according to Lambert, ihbut= means to slaughter according to Grayson or completely destroyed/defeated or scattered.

Grayson version:

Lambert correction:


Many sources can be found in 70's and 80's support Grayson

  • Maybe, but which one of those authors, can read a sentence in cuneiform? They just repeated Grayson work and can't be considered independent sources.

But why we should mention outdated sources when our understanding on cuneiform is much better than 1920's or 1980's. It is like mentioning that earth is flat because once scientist believed in flat earth! Do sources in 70's and 80's use translations before 1920's. Grayson's translation is much better than those who worked on this text before in 1920's. They invented some words that don't exist in the text at all. Such as "Cyrus burned the people by fire"!!! For sure, now we have more understanding of Babylonian today than 1920's and 1960's.

  • Even considering 70's and 80's sources you find out that scholars are divided on what happened in Opis Battle. Some says Nabu Na'id killed people, some says Cyrus and many are unsure which one did that. If you read following qoutes, you will find that the recent changes by ChrisO is not NPOV. He simply selected one view among different views

Just look at following quotes from different sources:

On Internet I saw even funny things like this:

In what context this Nabu Na'id chronicle sentence should be interpreted

Babylonian is an inflective language, which means it can be interpreted in various ways based on the context - which means line 14, can be translated as totally 'defeated soldiers' or 'slaughter people'. But even when you compare with chronicle itself 'defeated soldiers' make sense and 'slaughter people' inconsistent with the rest of the text. For example, there is also another fragment belonging to the same text, saying that Cyrus after entering Babylon, announced a staus of peace and didn't allow his troops to enter sacred shrines.

Translation to 'slaughter' in the context of Assyrians and Babylonian history of warfare makes sense, but more than likely not in the context of the Persian warfare.

The best reason to translate to 'scatter' vs. 'slaughter' is the account of the two other known battles Cyrus - Battle with the Medes and Battle with Lydians. There were no 'mass slaughters' after the first two battles were won and there was no military reason for it at Opis either - especially Cyrus always tried to do the least amount of damage to the people, so they would be peaceful once they were a part of the empire. It was just plain common sense. If there was mass slaughter at Opis, it would have impacted the reaction of Babylonians and others to the Persian rule and there is no record of it that I could find. Babylon was peaceful until the death of Kambujia and their revolt was due to dynastic uncertainty not Persian brutality.

Last comment: Double standards
Ok, suppose that Lambert translation is wrong and the older translation is correct. Why Cyrus Cylinder, Biblical accounts and classic Greek and Old Persian works are propaganda or lie and Nabu Na'id Chronicle is %100 truth. Why some people question all pro-Cyrus classic accounts and accept this single line in Chronicle without any question. Why this can't be lie or propaganda and others are lie or propaganda. There is also another fragment belonging to the same text(Nabu Nai'd chronicle), saying that Cyrus after entering Babylon, announced a staus of peace and didn't allow his troops to enter sacred shrines. Why they don't refer to these examples and other texts? --Larno (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Final solution
To add to the last comments, it is fact, that Babylon was stormed and some guards and maybe the prince was killed at the time, which means we might have to make an article on that, that even some historians called the Siege of Babylon, but this also shows that if he did slaughter the people, it made no difference and Babylon was still difficult to capture, anyways this has nothing to do with the current dispute, the end.

As I hope ChrisO and others do not go back on their own word, for once ChrisO is getting on the right track. What we can do, in all agreement is to put all the different translations on the battle section of the article, and also lay out the usual events that is not disputed, and provide pros and cons to it. And to finally leave it up to the reader to decide which translation is true, like what they are doing with the Cyrus Cylinder. As Wikipedians were not experts, all we can do is to present all the evidence in a consensus, and leave the deciding to the audience. I believe, and others I hope too, that this is the only solution to all our problems. And if one remembers, I was brought into this quarrel, which in the beginning had not taken any sides. So anyways, in all conclusion, this is all we can do, Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

"I said N.A.B.U. is one of the most academic journals in this field. It means that before it was published, the article was peer reviewed by number of experts in this field and they agreed with the new translation."
This is not correct. First, it is very reputable but not peer reviewed. And peer review does not mean that the reviewers agree with it, it means that it isn't rubbish, that it is a reasonable argument. I think this misunderstanding is causing a lot of problems. Peer review doesn't mean 'correct'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually wonder if Ariobarza et al actually understand what peer review means? It's not equivalent to the sort of routine editorial review that journals and books use all the time; it's a far more intensive process. And would a brief note such as Lambert's be the subject of peer review in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, how about CAD (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary) in which nishu means soliers in NeoBabylian?--Larno (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It is't that simple (and I think that is part of the problem, translation of ancient languages just isn't straightforward), eg:
"Glassner in 2004 translates: In the month of Teshret, Cyrus, Having joined battle with the army of Akkad at Upu on the [bank] of the Tigris, the people of Akkad fell back. He pillaged and massacred the population”. The last phrase, which seems to be closer to Grayson’s rendition is “un.me$ gaz”. Un.me$ is Akkadian ni$e, people, GAZ is Akkadian daku, to kill,". Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Does Glassner read cuneiform or just repeats Grayson work? What's the matter with you guys? Are you going to prove your agenda or you want to improve WP? The older translation is not even consistant with itself nor with other Biblical, Greek and Old Persian documents?--Larno (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The clue is 'Glassner translates. This is nothing to do with an agenda. And this comment of yours still is WP:OR. Doug Weller (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
While I hope Crazy contacts Lambert and others, I declare this user battle a Stalemate, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Yeap, any logical response or question that does not fit the agenda of our resident eurocentrists, is somehow WP:OR or dismissed with another excuse. Who is Glassner? Is he even a translator of ancient texts? Where is the proof that he simply did copy Grayson? Finally. N.A.B.U. is an academic journal, which is regarded as superior to books by Wikipedia policy. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The newest translation by Professor. Lambert should be accepted based on the fact that there are 4 different translations now. Oppenheim, Lambert, Grayson and this one when Cyrus attacked the army of Akad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants which also quoted by Frye[5]. Now this is confusing, but one can not just push one opinion here. All four agree that Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. But the battle of Opis has four different translations and I think there are three options: 1) Lambert. 2) State all four opinions in terms of chronological importance. 3) Wait for Creazysuit to see if he can get in touch with Grayson. Lets wait for option 3 for two weeks and then if it is not successful, probably option 1 or 2 will work. --Nepaheshgar 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally we can't push one opinion. Option 1 would put us in the postion of effectively deciding who is correct, decidely not what we should be doing. We should state all four opinions in chronological importance, we should not make comments about which is correct, who taught who, etc. And we can't use email. There is a lot of confusion over what it means to translate something like this. CreazySuit has said "Linguistics is a science, not a matter of opinion." and that's flat out wrong. Sadly, the Akkadians never gave us a dictionary. Even sadder, words have more than one meaning. As Professor Hurowitz has said about this specific issue, the problem is historical, not lexical because both the words ni$u and daku have specific as well as more general meanings. They combine into numerous interpretive possibilities and “scenarios”..So you may need evidence external to the particular text itself to determine what really happened historically. There are editors in this debate who don't seem to understand this, and that is possibly the major reason that we are having an acrimonious discussion about Grayson being falsified, etc. But maybe we've moved beyond that and we can all agree with Professor Hurowitz? Doug Weller (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay I am not an expert on Akkadian. Virtually no one that has quoted Oppeinheim, Grayson, Lambert and the other translation is also an expert. But I think it is best to get the opinion of Professor. Grayson on the matter. There will be methods to verify it through neutral admins. That is why I am willing to wait for two weeks or so and see if the matter is resolved. Afterwards, if nothing happens, then putting the four different translations will suffice although that will make a very confusing article. But as long as it is mentioned that the translation of Lambert is the most recent and Lambert was the Professor of Grayson, then I have no problem with it. --Nepaheshgar 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any Admins would want to verify an email. I don't think it's possible. And why mention who taught who? We don't normally do that. Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I am hopeful that creazysuit will get more than an email. Like a video or etc. Well Professors usually correct the student  ;). The little extra information does not hurt and it is factual. --Nepaheshgar 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A good teacher should hope their students surpass him. The problem is, that relationship has been used as somehow being proof that Lambert must be right. That's why I don't like the idea. Doug Weller (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it is not a proof. It is just stating that Lambert is Grayson's Professor, since it is an interesting bit of information. These guys definitely know each other well. I for one confess that I have not so far surpassed my thesis advisor in my own field, but maybe I will one day. Anyhow, I think for now I will wait for Creazysuit to bring proof (more than e-mail) and later on we can get feedback on stating that interesting piece of information. --Nepaheshgar 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Lambert is retired, it seems, and I would guess he must be very old by now (probably late 70s or 80s), as the earliest published works that I've found by him date back to around 1950. Grayson appears to have studied with Lambert in the late 1950s and has been a professor or assistant professor since 1964; 44 years of professorship is quite an achievement in itself. He certainly can't be dismissed as some sort of know-nothing newbie academic, which seems to be an implication being put forward here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, you are in no position to decide whether or not my communication with Grayson would be verifiable. If and when I do get in touch with Grayson, I will make sure that the communication is verified through methods suggested by Khoikhoi. So please stop speculating on the verifiability of something that hasn't even happened or doesn't exist, and stay on topic. --CreazySuit (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as the two of us have already suggested, you can try taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for an independent view, but you'll be told what we've told you. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
CreazySuit, I'm sorry to tell you this, but... when it comes to academic issues -- and especially academic issues which are the subject of heated debate -- simply stating that you have had a personal communication with an expert... that's not verifiable. You're the one who got fussy about whether "the British Museum" was a verifiable source on Cyrus cylinder, so I hope you can understand why this is likewise problematic. DS (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You can be sure that it won't be "simply my word" or even a "personal communication" for that matter. Grayson's say on the matter would be verifiable... but I'd rather not get into further details right now, as this is a moot argument over something that hasn't happened or doesn't exist as of yet.. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
And it might not happen at all (personally I doubt it will). We have a second, separate translation by the French historian Jean-Jacques Glassner, published in French in 1993 and in English in 2004, which corroborates Grayson's 1975 translation. Even Lambert, in his NABU note, calls the Grayson and Glassner's reading of the text the "accepted translation". I see absolutely no reason why we should not use it if it is the accepted translation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not use Lamberts translation too, to be fair and balanced of course, as this note also appeared in the area where I represented a solution to this problem and was, ignored. And of course Lambert would say "accepted translation" as it was the accepted translation at the time, it does not mean it is correct. Finally, ChrisO your choosing a translation again, I would listen to Dougweller as it is not up to us, but CreazySuit likes the new translation, and ChrisO the first, so it is always cheery picking time. But name calling, uncivil behavior, and pissing me off, then spreading false rumors and taking the truth to the extremes will not help Wikipedia. Apparently ChrisO version of fair and balanced is adopted from FucxsNews. Don't worry, I'm currently calm, joyfull, and not yelling, so don't put this in the request for comments page about me, as if it does happen I will be forced to personally delete it, and then make the page of my dreams I was hoping for. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Also whoever reading this, do not think this article does not concern me, because it really does, as it was ME (suprise, surprise!) that created it. HOLY CRICKEY WHAT A SHOCKER MATE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariobarza (talk • contribs)

Unprotected

So we have one wholly unreferenced version (which I've tagged as such), and one alternate referenced version. It makes no sense to leave the unreferenced version protected until the 9th. Dealt with accordingly. Moreschi (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to a sourced version and, considering the dispute underway, I am IARing a slight technicality and also re-protecting that version instead of waiting around for more edit warring. I have no stake in the article itself or the ANI discussion, and as likely as not I have protected The Wrong Version, but there it is. Expiry time is the same as the last protection. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Khoikhoi has decided to resume the edit war while the article was still protected, and with the same NPOV-ignoring rationale as CreazySuit and pals. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith on that. Our edits were only a minute apart so he probably had an edit conflict and didn't notice the protection. I restored the protected version, and I'm sure it won't happen again. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
All editors are encouraged to remain calm, and to give careful thought before taking rapid actions. A discussion about the conflict at this page is now ongoing at the administrators' noticeboard. --Elonka 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

General Announcement

This article has recently been subject to tendentious editing in violation of neutral point of view. Please use extra care to follow Wikipedia's content policies when editing this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Editors who violate relevant policies and guidelines may be warned, or blocked, to deter or prevent further violations. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fresh start

The article has now been unprotected and CreazySuit blocked, which hopefully should calm things down a bit. I've archived this talk page to make it a bit more readable. I've replaced the older article text with an expanded and amended version, giving more prominence to Lambert's 2007 translation and also referencing other recent translations (Wiesehöfer and Kuhrt) which are very similar to Grayson's. What issues do people think need fixing? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Opis/Archive_1&oldid=1064271355"