Talk:Cyaxares II

Copyedit

A significant amount of material was recently added to this article, much of it being unsourced, and apparently based largely on speculation and editor opinion, in additions to problems with tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have begun a copyedit, but I do not have time to review the remaining sections at the moment. If no one else is able to do so, I will continuing the copyedit later.

If the contributing editor disagrees with various changes that have been made, that editor must provide valid citations for the various conclusions made that appear to be conclusions drawn by the editor which constitute original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of particular concern is the editor's apparent POV in support of a 'supernatural' view, evidenced by their somewhat dismissive claims of the "“critical” or anti-supernatural school", in regard to the editor's speculation about Harpocration. The claim about Harpocration's reference to a daric as 'support' for 'Darius the Mede' is itself poorly reasoned speculation, as Harpocration doesn't specify 'Darius the Mede' or anything else about which 'Darius' is intended, other than that he was apparently "more ancient" than Darius I; the use of "ancient" is, at the very least, just as likely to refer an individual who lived hundreds of years prior to Darius I rather than an individual who lived during his youth. The editor's claim that the book of Daniel doesn't mention coins at all, despite the fact that the 'writing on the wall' at Daniel 5:26-27 alludes to two monetary units, may simply be an honest oversight. More serious is the POV claim that a sixth century BCE writing of the book of Daniel is somehow necessitated by the author's possible access to earlier writings about an individual named Darius, which is only worsened by a subsequent straw man argument about Berossus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what is meant by "straw man argument". There is no doubt that Berossus placed a Darius as contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Nabonidus. He does not call him Darius the Mede; just Darius.Chronic2 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You have correctly identified just why it is a straw man argument. Specifically, Berossus does not identify Darius the Mede and nor does Harpocration, so the claim about whether Harpocration relied on Berossus' statement being a 'two-edged sword' is not a valid argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is only an anti-supernatural view supported on Wikipedia? Is it not a POV to say that the only valid viewpoint is one that rules out the supernatural?Chronic2 (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It is appropriate to indicate that a specific source has a specific view regardless of whether or not that view is supernatural (though such statements must be within the bounds of Wikipedia principles regarding matters such as undue weight and pseudoscience), but it is not appropriate for an article to use 'Wikipedia's voice' to assert that "critical" views are supposedly 'anti-supernatural' or to suggest that such views should be dismissed on those grounds.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have given about 40 citations in my edit if those that cite Pritchard are included. Please put in "Citation needed" where you think more references are desired from published works, and I will supply them. I realize that some of the scholarship on this page does not fit various peoples viewpoints. But I have attempted to show both sides of the argument for and against the existence of Cyaxares II. This is not my original research. I will give more citations where you ask them to show that.Chronic2 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Various {{citation needed}} templates have already been added in the sections where a copyedit has already been performed. The number of citations that you have provided is not the issue. The problem is that you have provided sources for some material, but then drawn your own conclusions that are either not supported by those sources, or not properly attributed to any source. When I have sufficient time to address the remainder, similar tags will be added to the rest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Part 2

Still working through the second part of the copyedit, and there are serious POV problems. The article is using 'Wikipedia's voice' to argue against what actually seems to be the mainstream view. This seriously calls into question whether the recent addition of information—much of which appears to be original research—adequately presents the arguments against his existence, particularly since even the 'against' section is dominated with apologetics in favour of what does not seem to be the mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I would welcome anyone who could present the mainstream view better. What is not presented in this matter is the considerable body of evidence in favor of the minority view. What should be important is not what is 'majority' or 'minority', but what the evidence is. If there is some evidence that is omitted or distorted, that should be corrected. Of course it is always in order to mention what the consensus is, and I have tried to do that. Where would we be if only mainstream evidence is presented for any topic? Chronic2 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Providing evidence from sources is fine. But much of what you have added appears to be your conclusions, which is original research. Even where you have mentioned the mainstream view, it is predominantly in a dismissive tone. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to 'defend' minority views. I have added an {{expert-subject}} tag to elicit review by other editors who are experts in the field.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of whether or not Cyaxares II existed

I have mentioned that the existence or non-existence of Cyaxares II is determinative for the chronology of the early kings of Media and Persia. There is another consideration that is related to Xenophon’s different picture regarding the rise of the Persian Empire as compared to Herodotus. This is the relations of the Persians with the Gutians and the Medes. Xenophon says both of these groups submitted voluntarily to the leadership of Cyrus, after which they assisted him in the conquest of Babylon. Herotodus says Cyrus subjugated the Medes and made them his slaves. I don’t recall that Herodotus said anything about the Gutians, but they probably were included among the people that he has being conquered by Cyrus after the defeat of the Lydians. The Persepolis Reliefs favor Xenophon in this matter of whether the Medes were subjects to the Persians or partners with him. If Xenophon is correct, the early relations of the Persians, Medes, and Gutians was one of cooperation, although there were strains in the relationship at times.

According to four references given in the Wikipedia page on the Gutians, they are the ancestors of the modern Kurds. For those of us whose ancestors came from Europe or Africa, it makes little difference what those ancestors did 2600 years ago. This, however, is not the case in the Middle East. An example of this was the Shah’s extravaganza in 1971. If Xenophon’s picture of relations between the Gutians and Persians is even somewhat credible, it could color modern perceptions of relations between the Iranians and the Kurds. I was thinking of summarizing this in just one or two sentences in the present article but decided against it. Does anyone think that such a summary would be relevant here, or in some other place such as the article on the Gutians, giving an alternative to the present history based largely on Herodotus? Chronic2 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Such an addition would likely be out of scope here. It might be relevant to the article on Gutians, but would need to be discussed there. Claiming that ancient relations with the Gutians has any bearing on modern relations in the Middle East would need to be based explicitly on sources rather than a speculative assertion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems like good advice. Also, I don't think it would be necessary or even wise to suggest that, just because the ancient Gutians and Persians got along, this has any bearing on situations in the modern world. Just stating that they did, however, might influence some. Mentioning the Shah as an example of this would not be a good idea either, as he is so unpopular with most Iranians.

It is curious that the present Wikipedia article on the Gutians says nothing about the period of the Achaemenids, whereas Xenophon has quite a lot of information about them in the Cyropaedia. They figure there quite largely. Perhaps the reason for this is the low regard that the Cyropaedia has among many historians. I tend to agree with Steven Hirsch who, while recognizing the limitations of the Cyropaedia, writes "Nevertheless, it is possible to establish that the Cyropaedia has more historical validity than is usually allowed" (Friendship of the Barbarians, p. 76). If a case cannot be made in the present page and elsewhere to support somewhat Hirsch's statement, then adding information in the "Gutians" page from the Cyropaedia may not seem credible, even though information about the Achaemenid period is currently lacking there. Chronic2 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your statement, Mentioning the Shah as an example of this would not be a good idea either, as he is so unpopular with most Iranians is of some concern. The threshold of mentioning something in an article is whether it is based on reliable sources, and information that is otherwise supported by reputable sources should not be censored merely on the basis that it is "unpopular" with a particular social group.

Regarding use of the Cyropaedia... it is a primary source, and beyond quoting it, editors should not provide their own interpretations of its content, because that is original research. If there are reliable sources that address the Cyropaedia in reference to the Gutians, then those sources can be used, so long as minority views are indicated as such and not given undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hirsch's view of the validity of the Cyropaedia is already covered at the article about the Cyropaedia, but is not a justification for providing original research. And I see now that you have indeed also added a large chunk of original research at the Cyropaedia article. In particular, your injection of your own statement into a sentence in a manner that makes it appear cited to Nadon is entirely inappropriate.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is there a reference to Nadon? Chronic2 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I was referring to your related edits at the Cyropaedia article. The insertion into the statement sourced to Nadon is the first change in this diff.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

559 Date for overthrow of Astyages

The date of 559 BC for the overthrow of Astyages is used consistently in this article, but it seems mistaken. Cyrus became co-rex with his father in 560 BC, and only two years later did he become sole-rex, just of Anshan. Most chroniclers date the fall of Astyages to 550 BC, nine years later than the date given in this article. Cadwallader (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The Nabonidus Chronicle, which is believed to be a copy of a contemporary record, places the overthrow of Astyages in the 6th year of Nabonidus, 550/549 BC.

Weasel words

All notations that say "Weasal Words" should be removed from this page. They are insults to the editor rather than comments on the content.108.170.179.17 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The following modifications to the wording of this text should remove the need for all the [weasel words] interjections, and also negate the need for some [citation needed] entries.

From: Umman-Manda is taken by some authorities[weasel words] as a reference to Cyrus' subjugation of the Medes.

To: Umman-Manda could be taken as a reference to Cyrus' subjugation of the Medes.

From: This has been taken as supporting[weasel words] Herodotus

To: This could be taken as supporting Herodotus

From: that Cyrus conquered Astyages and put an end to the Median kingdom, has seemed conclusive to most modern scholars

To: that Cyrus conquered Astyages and put an end to the Median kingdom, could seem conclusive to some modern scholars

From: Most historians do not make any connection between the death of the king's wife in the Nabonidus Chronicle and Cyrus's taking a new wife shortly thereafter (Cyropaedia) because to do so[weasel words] would lend credence to the existence of Cyaxares II.[citation needed] One writer who makes the connection is William Shea.

To: Most historians do not make any connection between the death of the king's wife in the Nabonidus Chronicle and Cyrus's taking a new wife shortly thereafter. (Cyropaedia) This link would lend significant credence to the existence of Cyaxares II. One writer who makes the connection is William Shea.

From: As a consequence,[citation needed] the Medes became "slaves" of the Persians (1.129,130).

To: As a consequence, the Medes became "slaves" of the Persians (1.129,130).

From: The lack of a male heir is an essential part of the story of Herodotus regarding the birth and upbringing of Cyrus, an account that is universally recognized as an adaptation of widespread myths about rejected sons becoming king.[citation needed] The animosity between Cyrus and Astyages that led to Cyrus' rebellion is an integral part of that myth.[citation needed] The rebellion is generally accepted as true by many modern historians.

To: OMIT 108.170.161.72 (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)