Talk:Cyrus Cylinder/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Cyrus Cylinder. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Loaned to Iran

I wonder if, once the page is unprotected, the sentence 'According to a recent report, directors of British Museum and National Museum of Iran in Tehran have reached an agreement whereby the Cyrus Cylinder will be displayed in National Museum of Iran.' could be reworded? Apart from needing a few basic grammar tweaks, and some clarification as to when this 'recent report' was (there have been stories about the cylinder being loaned to Iran circulating since 2004), the 'displayed' bit could do with being clarified. Is the cylinder being returned (seems unlikely given that the museum is legally prohibited from doing so (viz the Elgin Marbles controversy) or merely loaned, and if the latter, is this actually the case, since all of the sources are Iranian based, and there hasn't been any mention of this in any other sources, nor any announcements by the British Museum, etc. Benea (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, I've had a reply from the British Museum. They have been working on negotiations to loan it for a second time (the first was in 1971) for a special exhibition, but so far nothing has been finalised. The reports in the Iranian news agencies are probably somewhat influenced by patriotic bluster about 'returning' (the British Museum is prohibited by law from actually returning items) the cylinder. This could probably do with being clarified in the article, and a more neutrally worded statement about the two museums working on trying to arrange a loan for a special exhibition, since these reports have been around for the last four or five years. Benea (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Critics of the second theory

The second theory, against the cylinder as a human rights document, indeed is criticized. The objection against providing readers with one paragraph on critics of the second is baseless. I don't think that that the second theory is such a perfect theory that we can't mention anything against it.--Larno Man (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to old version

I reverted this awful, new version to the one of the locked article. The change wasn't approved. The old version begins to look much better, at least in comparison. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You come back after one month and another disruptive mass-revert. You cant revert because you do not like one view. NPOV means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. Do you want to censor the critics of the your loved views just because you don't like them.--Larno (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where were you? You failed to discuss and just come back and do your disruptive mass-revert and your slurs with racial contents. This is not the way of making consensus. State your concerns clearly and be specific. Which part should be imprioved? What sentences? Which reference? Why? What is your suggestion. You get nowhere by general remarks such as I do not like it, it is awful, you are nationalist. --Larno (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting too much. There was no failure to discuss, but simple persistence from a couple of editors. Even the locked version wasn't agreed upon so you decided to edit it into your awful, preferred one (that makes perfect sense). We've been through all this, the arguments are up there. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the last edits(prior to your major revertion), if you'd care to check. I found the article difficult to read, so I improved the wording. Take Dbachmann's advice and get over your nationalistic agenda. Kansas Bear (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person you're addressing. I asked Dbachmann to take a look. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

guys, you need to try to improve the article. If you just keep insisting on a fixed version, the problem won't go away. There are huge issues with this article that neither of you even bothers to address. I've tried to refactor it into something a little more presentable. My main points are

discuss the actual cylinder first, and various interpretation, or its role in popular culture etc. at the end of the article
the full quote of the translation of the text is excessive, and probably even problematic in terms of copyright.
we don't need six consecutive footnotes establishing that the thing has been dubbed "the world's first declaration of human rights". Especially if half of them are rather dubious. Just keep the best one or two references and dump the others
this isn't a pissing context, or a matter of national pride. We are discussing an Iron Age document. As such this is a matter of ancient history and has nothing whatsoever to do with current nations, states or politics.

--dab (𒁳) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, sigh, you've been edit-warring all this time, and you still failed to make clear what this is all about? Namely, a complete recentism of two newspaper articles reporting on the 1971 Pahlavi propaganda stunt, and redneck Iranian nationalists writing angry retorts? This is such a recentism, a brief online flareup of patriotic sentiment with notability confined exclusively to Iranian blogs in July 2008. Can we please put this to rest now? Or perhaps you want to go over to Talk:300 (film) to vent some more patriotic spleen? (no, that has ceased to be interesting after if fell out of the blogs about four months ago, hasn't it) --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are really looking for a constructive discussion you should get over your western centric mindset as well. Maybe it is not intentional but do you notice that you guys become soft to everything Greek and many people here even can't hide their satisfaction when they hear something against east and they should stand and applaud. --Larno (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, once again, the section you keep re-adding is WP:SYNTH. The statement "The second group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements." comes from here, but even then indirectly. As long as no source makes such statements, you can't synthesize elements to make one, yourself. The last sentence "Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human rights are so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that it can't have Eastern roots" is not even specifically about the Cylinder. You just took a random book that has Eurocentrism as its general thesis. And so on, and so on. Nice argument, by the way; so much for "racial(sic) slurs". 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement "The second group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements." is not WP:SYNTH. It is clearly discussed by Cyrus Kar and Farrokh [[1]].

The last sentence "Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human rights are so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that it can't have Eastern roots" is the direct answer to this sentence on the 2nd paragraph "The concept of "human rights" is an anachronism alien to the historical context of the Iron Age"--Larno (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, you obviously have no idea what "human rights" even are. They are different from the concept of just being nice to people, or of pleasing the gods by being righteous, which are concepts indeed as old as the hills, and which is what Cyrus presents himself as doing. I will thank you to stop this childish campaign now. If the Spiegel isn't an appropriate source for this, then online "refutations" of the Spiegel article sure as hell aren't. This is a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many human rights activists including peace Noble prize winners consider the Cylinder a human rights documents. Or you mean all those people in UN who accepted to exhibit the cylinder as a human rights documents had no idea about human rights. By your rational Athen wasn't the first democratic state in the history as well. Obviously it was far from what we expect from a democracy. You look at the issue from the the perspective of a 21st century man.--Larno (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You clearly suffer from Occidentalism. I find it funny that you should accuse me of an anachronistic viewpoint. I haven't even mentioned Athens, so you are clearly arguing at some sort of stereotype "Western-centrist" in your head instead of talking to me. We get it, you like Iran. Is there anything pertinent you have to say though? dab (𒁳) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. If the information has sources, why is everyone so bent out of shape? It's quite apparent that the Cylinder is a topic of dispute in the international academic community. Shouldn't we show both sides of the dispute and leave it up to the reader(s) to decide? Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not occidentalist. This is a personal attack and reportable to admins. That is not the matter of patriotism. Both views on the Cylinder are provided and material are sourced but you want to push your favorit theory and can't stand any any other view.--Larno (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you said that I have the stereotype "Western-centrist" in my head instead of talking to you. Could you tell me how you are discussing your points? Did you argue any specific sentence or one specific part and tell me why it is wrong? You just use general words like: It is obviously wrong, you are nationalist..... Oh, wait! Wait! You did! You came out of the blue and angrily called me nationalist [[2]] and called my draft an obvious crap without addressing to any specific sentence!--Larno (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

and yes you mass-revert my sourced entries for couple of times!

Disruptive mass-reverting

Thank you for showing me the civil way of discussion. You only agued two sentences and revert all of my edits. This is really disruptive. Do you think that we get anywhere by this type of behavior? Could you please stay Civil? How many times you should get blocked for incivility?--Larno (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Really funny:! This is your comment on Dab talkpage. "The problem is that some people either don't get it or simply don't want to. Discussion, and even compromise, mean nothing." Could you tell me how many times you discussed your points before vandalizing, edit warring and reverting the page. --Larno (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, please drop it. So the Spiegel and the Daily Telegraph insulted Cyrus and in his person the nation of Iran in July 2008. Get over it. This is the article on the cyrus cylinder. Discuss the Iron Age, and keep out the childish modern day patriotism. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not about those neo-con and right wing writers. Their political views don't matter on a historical issue. I simply want NPOV. Different views should be addressed here. lol, I am sure if the cylinder was a Greek documents your view was 180 degree different. The lead that you wrote was simply OR. Sack of Babylon?

As I am human and prone to mistakes, I might be wrong, however I see the flag of Greece waving in Olympic games which supposedly should lead nations towards friendship and non-racism. Seems so much for the Ancient Olympic Games in which only free Greek-speaking men could participate! When we review the history of women's suffrage, it can be found that even in 1959, the majority of men in a western country were against it, while in a part of the history of the East, women could "vote" nearly 1300 years before that. Okay, we might not call that "vote" as you call Cyrus's conduct being only "nice to people". However I think none were just being nice. They were more than that, because you could not find nearly the same behavior in the contemporary times and sometimes down to modern times. It seems to me there are serious issues about this article that should be resolved before talking about Wikipedia rules of sources and alike. It seems we should wash our eyes a little. For example, 300 was not just a "Film" as some like to call it, it was more than that (Please note that I am not daft to mistake "Film" with "non-Film"). Look at this for example [3]: there is a quote cited from here: [4]. To my surprise the former doesn't have the bracket: "[Cyrus or Nabonidus?]", but the latter has. Based on the quote, some Wikipedians have been enthusiastic enough to attribute the massacre to Cyrus! Remembers me the Spiegel author and others who live in the aura of the wrong translation of "Nabonidus Chronicle". I haven't edited the quote so that others could see for themselves what is happening. As you might call this talk of mine as irrelevant here, I think even "Nabonidus Chronicle" is not off-topic regarding the before-mentioned "serious issues" of Western-centrism which is circulating here about Cyrus Cylinder.--Raayen (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

what, pray, about the "sack of Babylon" do you propose is OR?

Sigh, so the patriots have taken over. Have fun, I'll be back and clean up the mess in a couple of months. Raayen, your defense of "the East" has some merit (although hardly in points of personal liberty), but the point is that this isn't the place for it. This is the article on the Cyrus cylinder, not for your views on the East/West paradigm in general. FOr the record, your allegations of "Western-centrism" are ideological nonsense. Your claim of "women's suffrage" in the "East" makes about as much sense as calling the "Cyrus cylinder" a "human rights charter". Please be reasonable.

dab (𒁳) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist to push your favorit view? It is not the place of Wikipedia's contributors to decide on behalf of readers which opinions are right and which ones are wrong. Two different views are addressed and sourced? Why you don't let reader read and decide?--Larno (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

see WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is supposed to summarise the main body text of the article (see WP:LEAD). It's not viable to have an article that spends a lot of time on interpretation and not mention that in the intro. It certainly isn't acceptable to remove all mainstream interpretations from the intro and leave only the dubious "human rights" stuff. If you don't like the summary that I've written, please modify it - don't delete it. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts, Chris. The "human rights" thing is still blown out of proportion. The article shoud just state, the Shah presented the copy to the UN in 1971, associating it with "human rights". The applicability of this term has been questioned. Period. This could be done in three or four lines. Allowing this to be expanded into a lengthy paragraph is a concession to our Iranian patriot zealots, nothing else. This article deals with the ancient artifact, all present-day political noise belongs removed to Iranian nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be polite and Assume good faith ! I don't think such sayings as "Iranian patriot zealots" is under the Wikipedia's roles . Thank you !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to point out that there is a huge difference between "civility" and "politeness". Confusion of the two, and of "friendliness", "meekness", "political correctness" etc. keep making WP:CIV the most misapplied policy on the project. If you have followed a few Iran-related disputes, you will realize that Iranian patriot zealots is an accurate description of a part of Wikipedia's editor demographics. Through no fault of mine or yours, that's just how it is. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed, but it's interesting to see how an ancient work of propaganda has been reused for modern propaganda purposes. As Neil MacGregor has pointed out, it's a bit ironic that the Shah promoted the cylinder as a human rights text when his own human rights record was not exactly exemplary. I might look at rewriting the "human rights" section to get the size down a bit, as some of it seems to be repeating statements made earlier in the article. I'm sure we can make the same points with fewer words. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section as promised but ironically it's actually ended up being a bit longer than before. The story behind the "human rights" claim turns out to be rather interesting - not simply a random nationalist trope but part of a systematic campaign by the government of the former shah. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, the article has indeed made progress since you intervened. There are still a lot of scare quotes, and quoting Farrokh is propably undue, but at least the section can now be read without cringing or eye-rolling. Now, I guess it would be proper to export a detailed discussion of the Pahlavi "nation building" campaign to Iranian nationalism, and keep only a brief summary and a wikilink in this article. The rationale being, it has become clear that the Cyrus cylinder has some relevance to the topic of Iranian nationalism, but this does not imply that Iranian nationalism has any relevance to the topic of the Cyrus cylinder. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the scare quotes I could find in that section - anything that's left in quotes is a direct quotation. Regarding moving that section, Iranian nationalism is in very poor shape and isn't really in any fit state to migrate content into. I'd suggest overhauling that article first, then migrating content. If this section was migrated at the moment, it would be marooned without any context. I'm also not sure it's fair to say that "Iranian nationalism has [no] relevance to the topic of the Cyrus cylinder". The Times describes the cylinder as being, symbolically, to Iran what the Elgin Marbles are to Greece - there is of course a lengthy discussion in Elgin Marbles of the repatriation controversy, which has a great deal to do with Greek nationalism. It seems reasonable to have a section in this article describing the cylinder's contemporary significance, particularly as this has a major bearing on how the inscription has been interpreted. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Dr Kaveh Farrokh was born in Athens, Greece, in 1962 and immigrated to Canada in 1983. Kaveh has collected data and primary sources on Sassanian cavalry for 18 years resulting in travels to locations such as Naghshe-Rustam (Iran). He has given lectures and seminars in the University of British Columbia and the Knowledge Network Television Program of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. Kaveh obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia where he specialized on the acquisition of Persian languages. He is currently a learning and career specialist in Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He acted as a historical advisor on a film film project titled ‘Cyrus the Great’, and has appeared on the History Channel documentary as an expert on the Persian Empire.-- from Osprey publishing.[10]

Thanks for that info. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some more. According to the blurb in his book Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642, he is "currently a learning and career specialist at Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia". It looks like he's basically an amateur historian, which probably explains why I've not found any academic citations of his historical works. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also that on this page attributed to him he apparently calls himself Professor Kaveh Farrokh! Very dubious... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A doctorate of Acquisition of Persian languages is "very dubious", yet an Associate Professor of Religious Studies is quoted for a clearly historical topic? Apparently there must be an invisible line that allows one but not the other, I'll remember that. Whilst you are vilifying Dr. Farrokh, you should include the ethnicity of all the other "scholars" quoted within the article, since I don't see the validity of its inclusion towards him.

Another incident I've noticed is that twice, once on this talk page and once on the [11] Battle of Opis talk page, there have been calls for both interpretations to be presented in a balanced way. Both have been categorically ignored.

Sadly, yet another incident, is someone's attempt to remove an article[12] only AFTER finding out said article mentions an academic that has an opinion differing from that certain person. Undoubtedly a coincidence!

Also, apparently the Cyrus Cylinder and the Battle of Opis have fallen out of the historical realm and into the wiki-political realm, where certain articles will be deleted and certain views(calls for both interpretations) will be suppressed. The use of a multitude of sources clearly attributed to a certain "interpretation" do not prove the validity of that interpretation, simply the choice made by those sources. Blatantly ignoring a correction to said interpretation implies a willingness to suppress any difference of thought. Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting that Kaveh Farrokh who can read Pahlavi and old Persian texts is not regarded as expert in ancient Iran history but work of people who cannot even read one line in Akkadian or Old Persian texts and people who just copied works of others are cited here. Farokh is Iranian but others are international scholars--Larno (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Iranian? Elsewhere I'm told "He was born in Greece and is of Ossetian descent (he is half-Azeri I think towards Georgia’s southeast region). He never grew up in Iran and has no political connections there or elsewhere." Why is everyone so confused? And I've clearly said that I would be happy for all the interpretations to be shown. Of course, we can't say which is correct, that's not our role. Doug Weller (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Doug Weller, look at the history edit of your NPOV lover friend ChrisOin Cylinder: "The Iranian writer Kaveh Farrokh". I doubt that farrokh has even Iranian Passport. The same thing for Iranian editors. Nobody has connection t shits who are running our country. But people have prejudice about us because our stupid ... government--Larno (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

?? You're Iranian and you just posted that Farrokh is Iranian. If you are confused about him, it's not surprising others are. I have the greatest respect for the Iranian people. Doug Weller (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not post that. As I said, your friend ChrisO did that. Check Cyrus cylinder--Larno (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you did, here's the diff. [13] Doug Weller (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that Farrokh was not born in Iran and even doesn't have Iranian passport. I meant what your friend ChrisO did. In Cyrus cylinder. Only the ethnicity of Dr. Farrokh is addressed, but no talk about about all the other "scholars" quoted within the article. So, based on ChrisO, Farrokh is Iranian and other scholars quoted are international. Sigh!--Larno (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now. But for the record (and not about the point you are making), Farrokh says he was born in Greece of Iranian parents. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. What we are supposed to do, for the nth time, is report on the views of reliable, verifiable published third-party sources, giving due weight to the majority viewpoint and avoiding undue weight for the minority viewpoint. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a conduct issue - editors refusing to recognise NPOV, NOR or V. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've somehow mistaken your own behavior for mine. Now moderate your rhetoric please, it's embarassing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing NPOV, you mean like this: Although later propaganda such as the Cyrus cylinder inscription portrayed his conquest of Babylonia as essentially peaceful, the battle demonstrates that the existing Babylonian regime actively resisted the Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. I don't believe calling something "propaganda" is NPOV. 75.41.39.20 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"." We are required to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In this case, the dominant viewpoint - which according to the British Museum has been stood for over 100 years - is that the cylinder is regarded "as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda" (that word again). The alternative "human rights charter" viewpoint literally doesn't seem to have existed before the Shah came up with it in 1970-71. It has negligible support from academic sources. So the term "propaganda" is NPOV in this case, because it's the standard academic interpretation of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No ChrisO, the main reason that people changed their views toward Cyrus and his legacy in 60's and 70's was the new translation of Nabu Na'id Chronicle by Grayson who amended 1920's translation by Smith and showed humanist character of Cyrus. Before Grayson people invented some sentences like Cyris burnt people. Of course nobody agrees on those outdated translation now--Larno (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep making claims like this without bothering to cite any sources. If you want to be taken seriously, it's time you stopped doing that. What is your source for those claims? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your reaction when I brought different sources including your favorite blogger Lendering (2008) and/or Oppenheim and/or Pritchardin in Battle of Opis proved how unbalance is your edits in favor of certain view. --Larno (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources (not guidebooks, etc), I find [14] discussing the issue, and [15][16] - and this, which can't be searched "Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persiaby John Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Béatrice André-Salvini - History - 2005 - 272 pagesPage 59 ... 1 12 6 Cyrus Cylinder The Cyrus Cylinder was found in ... has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'charter of human rights'. ..." - none of these seems to accept it as such a charter. Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to dig up Forgotten Empire to get the rest of that quote. It was the companion book to an exhibition by the same name that the BM put on in September 2005, showcasing the Achaemenid Empire. I went to it at the time; the Cyrus cylinder was one of the star exhibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Babylonians and Mesopotamian influence... DougWeller

DougWeller...How many times do you want the Cyrus Cylinder article to mention the fact that the Cyrus' proclamation was fashioned on an art form and method used by the babylonians/meospotamians and mention its interplay of with the Persian King Cyrus?

I've broken the issue down for you...

Sample 1:

"Although it was written for Cyrus the Great, a Persian king, the Cyrus Cylinder reflects a Mesopotamian tradition of depositing a wide variety of items, including animal sacrifices, stone tablets, terracotta cones, cylinders and figures. Previous to the Cyrus Cylinder, newly crowned kings of Babylon would make public declarations of their own righteousness when beginning their reigns, often in the form of declarations that were deposited in the foundations of public buildings.[36] Some contained messages, others did not. They had a number of purposes: elaboration of a building's value, commemoration of the ruler or builder and the magical sanctification of the building, through the invocation of divine protection."

Sample 2:

"The text is a royal building inscription, a genre which had no equivalent in Old Persian literature. It illustrates how Cyrus co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon.[40] and how Cyrus used local traditions to legitimize his conquest of Babylon.[29] Many elements of the text were drawn from long-standing Mesopotamian themes of legitimizing rule in Babylonia: the preceding king is vilified and he is proclaimed to have been abandoned by the gods for his wickedness; the new king has gained power through the divine will of the gods; the new king rights the wrongs of his predecessor, addressing the welfare of the people; the sanctuaries of the gods are rebuilt or restored, offerings to the gods are made or increased and the blessings of the gods are sought; and repairs are made to the whole city, in the manner of earlier rightful kings.[3]"

Sample 3:

"According to the British Museum, the Cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.[5] Cyrus's declaration stresses his legitimacy as king, and is a conspicuous statement of his respect for the religious and political traditions of Babylonia. It has widely been regarded as an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda,[4][41] most likely created by the Babylonian priests of Marduk working at the behest of Cyrus.[42]"

Sample 4:

The Cyrus Cylinder bears striking similarities to older Mesopotamian royal inscriptions.

Sample 5:

The text of the Cylinder thus indicates a strong continuity with centuries of Babylonian tradition, as part of an established rhetoric advanced by conquerors and usurpers

Sample 6:

The familiarity with long-established Babylonian tropes suggests that the Cylinder was authored by the Babylonian priests of Marduk, working at the behest of Cyrus.[42] It can be compared with another work of around the same time...

Don't you think that this is getting a bit repetitive? Especially Sample 3 and Sample 6? They are practically the same sentence and they are the same source. One instance how the article is too long, not written well, and repetitious. Looking forward to hearing from you with your specific feedback. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume you missed my edit above where I said I was wrong. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I missed your edit was because we were editing at the same time. GoetheFromm (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, got that. Let focus on another issue about article: its readability. GoetheFromm (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

IP editors

Just to note that 75.82.13.51 (talk · contribs) and 76.175.201.69 (talk · contribs) seem to be the same editor. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lendering again

We've discuss this before. I cannot understand why using Lendering here [17] - a removal of the source again - is dubious. I've raised this at WP:RSN#Jona Lendering. I've also pointed out to the editor removing it that this is becoming an edit war on his part, which is unfortunate. If anyone feels so strongly it shouldn't be in the article, here or RSN is the place for such a discussion. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller, there is no 'edit war' occurring and the Lendering issue is being dealt with appropriately.

Regarding the issue of 'edit war'...as the record on my talk page indicates:

You've hit WP:3RR. Maybe you should self-revert that edit and take your concerns to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"I count 3 reversions of various text in the last 24 hours. No violation yet, just don't do it again and I do suggest you self-revert on your Lendering complaint - discuss, don't just revert. I've raised it at WP:RSN. What do you mean how do you send messages to people? I'm going out now walking the dogs so won't be able to answer quickly. You aren't in any trouble right now. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"

"I only count 2 in the last 24 hours, FWIW. Swarm X 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)"

No, 3: [18] [19] and [20]. Two this morning UTC, one a few hours later. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As well as the record on your talk page:

::Please see my response to comment on 3RR on talk page. I don't see a violation and I've requested Swarm for assistance: User_talk:Swarm GoetheFromm (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you had violated it, I said you'd reached it. I'd also appreciate it if when you quote me on other talk pages you'd inform me that you've quoted me. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)''

So, this issue is not becoming an edit war, as you claim it to be.

Next,

With regards to 'Lendering' as a source, I refer you to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. The Lendering source is a self-published online source. The source itself contains very little in-text citations (especially in relation to the reason why it is being cited) and seems to be more of a reflection of the author's opinions.

Doug, as your extensive edit and talk page history indicates User_talk:Dougweller Special:Contributions/Dougweller, you've been involved in this issue before, so I'd like to extend a friendly reminder that you, yourself, might be complicit in promoting an 'edit war.'

You've certainly taken the right step, however, to refer to RSN.

Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll WP:AGF and assume you don't understand edit warring. I was simply pointing out that you had made 3 reverts within 24 hours, and that you should stop and preferably self-revert. You shouldn't have kept reverting. I'll also AGF your referring me to the RS page - with all due respect, I have a lot more experience than you do in dealing with and determining reliable sources. Sure, it's self-published, but if you look at Google Books you will find authors of clearly reliable sources using Lendering, thanking Lendering, etc. And in this specific case he was being used as a source that the false translation was being promoted on the Internet, and his website should be a good source for that - he's notable, and that makes a difference. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like feelings have been hurt, Chill Jdravan (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, nothing to do with feelings. I see this is your 11th edit. Maybe when you make a few more you'll understand my comments. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I note also, from the page that GoetheFromm references, the following: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That clearly covers Lendering's work. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue (Lendering as source) is being addressed in RS noticeboard, as we speak. Comment there. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of non-expert sources

The sources that Rjensen added to this article are a mixed bag, to say the least, and it's wrong to describe them as being by "historians".

Michael Burgan is not a historian but a writer of juvenile non-fiction works.[21] "Empires of Ancient Persia" is one such work - it is not remotely an academic text. Childrens' books are not a suitable source for a serious historical article.

Yunus Jaffery is a professor of the Persian language at Delhi University.

Ali Farazmand is a Professor in the School of Public Administration at Florida Atlantic University. [22]

Damien Kingsbury is a Professor of political affairs at the School of International and Political Studies of Deakin University. [23]

Sabine C. Carey is a political science researcher. [24]

Paul Gordon Lauren is Regents Professor at the University of Montana, focusing on human rights issues. [25]

As you can see, none of these are historians. Some of them may well have some expertise in human rights matters, but they certainly are not experts on ancient Persian history. We have here a situation where the actual experts - the historians - all say that the cylinder has nothing to do with human rights, and a number of non-experts - who are writing on an historical issue outside their field of expertise - claim that it does. We might be able to mention the fact that a some non-historians support the claims but we should not present their non-expert views as being of greater - or even equal - significance to those of the experts.

I suggest that Rjensen should tell us what these cited sources actually say about the Cylinder - then we can agree which sources are worth citing. (I fail to see why a professor of administration, for instance, would count as a useful source.) A simple list of who has supported the "human rights" claims isn't particularly informative. I suspect that we will find that the cited sources are basing their claims on the fake translations that have been circulated. Prioryman (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And Craig A. Lockard does not support the human rights interpretation. And Veenhoven, Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms, Volume 1 (1975) does not even address the issue, neither on page 244 nor anywhere else. Tossing in some random Google findings and mislabelling and misrepresenting them comes close to disruptive editing. Rjensen, please stop. --Konstock (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It did smack of someone trawling Google Books for references to the Cyrus Cylinder. Rjensen, would you care to comment? Prioryman (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, historians, certainly do not apply to every source cited. Moreover, who and how a person is classified as a historian may be an entirely different task. For example, does the source need to be a PhD in history to be a historian? Is an anthropologist or archaeologist a historian.

But the distinction in the page of "historians" and "non-historians" in the article is awkward and artificial, especially since the section is called "scholarly views." Anyway, I think it is safe to refer to most sources as "scholars" or even "academic." Thoughts, please. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"Numerous historians"

Besides the fact that 'numerous' isn't born out by the sources, who do we have here? Michael Burgan: a writer of non-fiction for younger readers [26] - I don't think he claims to be a historian, and it may be a BLP violation to call him one.

Craig Lockard - [27] - a historian, this is a bit outside his field but definitely a historian.

Yunus Jaffery (or Jaffrey, there seems to be different spellings) - historian of Persian literature but I don't think he is the author of page 121, in fact I'm pretty sure he isn't. [28]. So this was added presumably by someone relying on a snippet by an unknown author.

Ali Farazmand is a Professor in the School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University. Clearly not a historian, and writing in Public Administration Quarterly . So the problem I have is that 4 people aren't enough to say 'numerous', and of the 4, only one is clearly a historian. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

DougWeller, I agree with your points re: the term "numerous" and agree with your edit regarding it, "numerous" is also borderline weasely. Please see section directly in reference to the term historian, scholar, academic etc. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Source balance

I like to first begin by saying Merry Christmas, happy chanukah, and happy holidays to all the participants and members. You guys have decided to participate in Wikipedia, when you know there is no monetary reimbursement or any form of recognition. So it must all be from the heart and out of respect for the art of universalism and unlimited sharing of knowledge.

Regarding this article, you can find out how I originally felt about the presenation of the article. It was not so much the content but the twisted way in which it was presented. I have however a few additional points to make. The fist point, which was striking to me was the dominance if not monopoly of the sources for this article using mainly British Museum and European scholars in the field. There seems to also be a selection of which scholars to cite and which undermine. I read quotes after quotes or gestures after gestures from a few likeminded British scholars, yet ceratin others were briefly covered. It seems as if the original person who drafted this version might have, and this I speculate, a liking for these scholars perhaps through personal experience with their work. This is not to say I deny their input in this article, as in fact I welcome it but I believe that there needs to be a ceratin degree of balance on presentation of view points.

Agreed. GoetheFromm (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I first read this article, it did not feel right to me, and it was not mainly due to the shocking negative tone in which it was written and its complete disregard for the man whom I believe and still believe to be one of the most prominent leaders in the world: Cyrus the Great. I was not able, as I did not have much experience with Wikipedia styling, to point out exactly how this article felt wrong. Now, however I can. I believe, and looking back this article has tremendoubly impvoed and I am glad, that there are certain "weasle words" strategically placed at certain critical locations in the article. Wikipedia defines weasles words as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions

"weasle" --> weasel. I still agree with you. GoetheFromm (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The include statements such as some people believe, it is probably, it is indeed, most likely, etc. Basically a weasle word is a way of phrasing a statement without giving the reader the chance to make his or her mind on the conclusion considering the available sources. It is certainly not a bad thing, but it has to be said that weasle words need to be identified and noted in order to give the author the choice to make their own judgment, not to be swayed in one direction or the other by the bias of the writer, which could be on purpose or as innocent as the style of writing of that writer.

Lastly, I would really like to see some Asian, Middleastern, and American sources on the topic. It is understanble as British Museum did dig the artifact but I find it rather monopolizing to only side with those sources.

Yes, indeed monopoly of certain sources. Would also like to see greater diversity of sources. GoetheFromm (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Overall though I enjoyed reading the article today. It is well written and intended to carry information, more or less in a straightforward way however it is still not what I consider wiki worthy, let alone neutral, but I am confident that a cooperative, wiki oriented, and evidence based approach can make that happen.

As for changes that I made they include marking statements that are weasle type, indicating lack of citations for certain claims, and most importantly using whenever appropriate the phrase "Cyrus the Great" instead of Cyrus; I would understand if it is a quote that a person refers to this figure as Cyrus, but for historical reason to call Cyrus the Great Cyrus is as much inappropriate as call Alexander the Great, Alexander. the Great here is not really an attempt to "eulogize" the figures but a reference to the title that they have historically earned and so I like to see it go throughout the article, because at parts it might feel a bit denigrating to the original figure, Cyrus the Great, to merely call him Cyrus. A good comparison would be using Attila, instead of Attila the Hun.

No matter, I enjoyed read the input by everybody, and hope to read more of your contributions. Thank you for tolerating my long essay here and hope that we can make this article a good article once more! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comparison to Attila, which calls him only Attila (although pointing out in the lead that he is also known as Attila the Hun. I think we should follow the example of that article, and not of Alexander the Great. (<-- this post by DoughWeller?)

DougWeller, that article says "Attila, ALSO KNOWN AS Attila the Hun." Cleary that article is structured improperly. It is CYRUS THE GREAT, there is really no variation to that, unless the British Museum decides to take that away as well. Maybe we should in fact call him "Skippy" and find somebody in the British Museum to say that and then have you quote his statement here as a source! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should we, DougWeller? Rationale? Not quite sure where you are going. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to add citation needed tags when you've searched for a source and couldn't find it, but not when, as in your first tag, the sentence already has a citation, or when you can find a source immediately by searching. In those cases you should either add the source or not tag it.

More scholars, fine. Claiming that mostly European scholars support a certain position is not fine, as it is uncited and probably simply some editor's belief. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This point has already been addressed. You edited to fix the problem yourself, DougWeller. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have had to do it. Please, once again, don't add cite tags until you've checked, don't add cite tags when there is a citation already. As for your question about rationale, all I was doing is saying that we should follow the example of our Atilla article. There's no denigration. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, DougWeller, you do realize that you are talking to two different people. I never said anything about "denigration." I am asking you for your rationale so we can discuss it. GoetheFromm (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How is 'unbalanced entry' appropriate

As so far the editor who added this tag hasn't explained the tag (and didn't explain it when he/she added it in September either), I'm considering removing it. The section above is just an attack on other editors with no suggestions as to what the problem is. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, I did explain what the the problem was. You are looking for an excuse to remove the tag, because you're afraid that neutral editors might take an interest in this page. It's an 'unbalanced entry', because it reads like an essay written by an ideologically committed commentator. It's an 'unbalanced entry', because it reads like an attack page. It's an 'unbalanced entry', because contrian views have been censored and suppressed. Even Al Jazeera, a widely respected and reliable source, has questioned the accuracy and neutrality of this entry. IMediaObserver (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not looking for an excuse, I'm looking for specifics about the problem, and your complaints aren't specific. Are you saying that this is far too nationalistic an article? I doubt that is what you mean, but you aren't being at all clear. And although I've asked you to stop the attacks on other editors, you've now extended them to this section which I'd hoped would concentrate only on the article. This is more likely to put off any new editors than attract them as they might feel that if they don't meet your approval they'll be called censors or contrarians. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

An article dominated by a few Germans and the British Museum

On what grounds is the "scholarly" work of so many other scholars from India, Iran, Asia, and middlest inferior to the work of a few living, university professors in Germany and a few curators in the BM? This really irks me. cheers!Dr. Persi (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced entry

The tone and substance of this article is so unbalanced, that even the media outlets such as Al Jazeera English are questioning it. That's significant, since Al Jazeera is neither an Iranian media outlet, nor considered to be Iran-friendly. There is obviously a problem here. It appears that overzealous editors` work on this page, has done a lot of damage to Wikipedia`s reputation as an independent open project. I hold that the entry should be reviewed and rewritten by neutral editors. and by `neutral` , I don`t mean certain individuals who play the anti-nationalist card to hide their alterior political motives, and whose over-zealousness (like censoring well-sourced contrarian and minority views) is much at fault for the current sorry state of affairs on this page, as the Iranian nationalists. IMediaObserver (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This reads in part like a personal attack on some editors. In fact, you used your edit summary to make a personal attack on a specific editor. This sort of thing creates a very difficult atmosphere for editing. I for one would like you to make it clear that you are not suggesting I have ulterior political motives. It may be the Al Jazeera blog in fact that has created the current round of editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You claim I "used my edit summary to make a personal attack on a specific editor". Let me get this clear, saying that editor X censored my edit, is a "personal attack", but biting and slandering other other editors as "tolls", and "nationalists" by the same editor I was addressing [29] is fine and dandy in your book? This type of hypocritical approach and holier-than-thou self-righteous attitude, is the reason why this article must be reviewed and rewritten by neutral editors. IMediaObserver (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said my friend (Imediaobserver).

Allow me to clarify that, I was not talking about you Mr. Dougweller when I spoke of "alterior political motives". I won't name names, but the problem does exist. I would take issues with your judgment , and how you turn a blind eye on civility infringements by certain editors you consider to be "right", but I am sure you have no ulterior political motives. IMediaObserver (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but looking at what I think you are talking about, it looks like more meat or sock puppetry and we have altogether too much of it here. Konstock seems to be referring to a series of edits, 5 by an account created apparently only for those edits, followed immediately by an IP. That sort of editing never helps and does look like trolling. I don't know about political motives as I know very little to nothing about the editors now active on this article. Dougweller (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are still defending and justifying personal attacks, since it's coming from a perceived ally. There is nothing in the rules that says "You are allowed to attack and slander new accounts". People are innocent until proven guilty. That's a clear double standard on your part. This is why I would not consider you neutral. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. IMediaObserver (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

exactly, im an IP and part of the reason i wont even consider opening an account is because of hounding and bullying that experienced users use to impose their bias —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.33.220 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't criticize Konstock a month ago I'm not neutral? As for the IP, I don't understand that reason for not having an account. Not just because it's generally wrong (I guess it must happen at times, and I suspect that the IP doesn't understand 'hounding'), but I don't see how it makes any difference if you have an account or an IP from that point of view, and editing from a school IP means you are much more likely to get blocked if others from that IP vandalise (and they have in the past I note).

I will say that we often have problems when brand new IPs and accounts show up and only edit one article, this one or another. My experience is that either they don't know about our policies and guidelines and ignore them, or in the worst cases are either sock puppets of other users or have been recruited to come here, and none of that helps the project.

Neutral editors of course would be against nationalistic editing as that can never be neutral.

Nowhere in this discussion so far have you explained why you added the unbalanced tag. All you've done is attack other editors. That's never constructive. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand what the mysterious "political motives" implied by Teymoor Nabili (Al Jazeera blog writer) actually are. The Cyrus cylinder was promoted by the Shah as a charter of human rights, as part of his claim to be a pro-western enlightened monarch. So by his logic the removal of the Shah's preferred theory must be in support of post-Revoltionary Iranian politics, and yet that does not appear to be what is being implied. On the other hand, since Cyrus was a pre-Islamic, possibly Zoroastrian, ruler, perhaps the political reason is to deny achievements by pre-Islamic leaders. Therefore, it must be an Islamist political move! Exactly which side in the 2009 election does Nabili think was helped by removing or minimising the claim that an ancient Zoroastrian created a charter of rights which is now enshrined in the United Nations? How does it support one side rather than another? The Shah promoted it because he wanted to show that Iran had 'western' style values in its pre-Islamic past, so logically the only person to gain from the removal of this information much be anti-Western factions. In reality, the whole 'political motivation' argument is utterly nonsensical. It comes down to saying that the cylinder is somehow positive for Iran, therefore anti-Iranians don't want to say anything good about it. But politics is not about being pro or anti a country; it's about regimes. Conservative Shia Islamism is not afftected in any way by denying that Cyrus was the founder of human rights. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New unbalanced tag

I don't think there is any reason for two tags. If the focus is on one section, than the one for the whole article should be removed. We now need specific proposals, not desires for other editors, specific points that editors think need redressing and how those should be redressed. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a tag doesn't belong on the entire article. That is why I put the tag on the section because it is the section that has issue. Shall I remove the article tag? GoetheFromm (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UT

Also agree that specific proposals do need to be presented as opposed to what's been occurring. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, remove it. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On some relevant discussions on the talk page of GoetheFromm's

This is just to bring to the attention of the interested that in the course of past several days some pertinent discussions have been conducted here, the Wikipedia talk page of GoetheFromm's. --BF 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, BehnamFarid, thank you for bringing it up to people's attention...it might be useful in future discussions. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

GoetheFromm, you are most welcome! Happy festive days! -BF 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

General

Where the introductory paragraph read: The Cylinder has been linked to the repatriation of the Jewish people following their Babylonian captivity,[4] an act that the Book of Ezra attributes to Cyrus.[5] A passage referring to the restoration of cult sanctuaries and repatriation of deported peoples is widely interpreted as evidence of a general policy under which the Jews were allowed to return home.[6]

I removed the following cumbersome sentence: Some historians, however, dispute this interpretation, noting that the Cyrus Cylinder identifies only Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and makes no mention of Jews, Jerusalem, or Judea,^[1] arguing, therefore, that the Cyrus Cylinder is only, at best, a coincidental corroboration of Cyrus the Great's policy to those under his Persian Empire and Ezra's account of the exiled Jews who were subjects of the Persian Empire.

because: the opinion is admittedly novel, recent, provided for further in the article, and does not "dispute this interpretation" as the former sentence stands. Read it carefully.Aero13792468 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand the reason why that sentence is there. Please read WP:LEAD - the lead section of the article is meant to summarise its main points, so by definition it will repeat things that are said later in the article. "Novelty" and "recency" are not valid arguments for keeping material out; articles are meant to reflect current thinking. I agree though that the line you removed was clumsily worded and more problematically, half of it was unsourced. I've therefore restored only the half that was sourced. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman is correct. If the lead doesn't repeat material in the article, then maybe there is a problem, but repeating material in the article is its purpose. The dispute should be featured in the lead. Being novel or recent is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Aero13792468 is correct. This article is "THE BEST EXAMPLE" in wikipedia for: how to write a perfect article with Eurocenterism and extreme POV pushing as its core purpose. Xashaiar (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Aero13792468 said that at all. But if you or anyone else can find a reliable source for the half-sentence that I removed, I don't think anyone would object to it being restored (preferably with better wording). Prioryman (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

what? who said who said what? I gave one example. Lead does not allow minority views stated as FACTS. disputing "traditional interpretation" needs extremely well received published articleSSS. "some say that" is rather too POV pushing. Xashaiar (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove reliably sourced scholarly material just because you don't agree with it.[30] The line you removed summarises material elsewhere in the article (under "Traditional view and the Old Testament studies"). The statement in it that "the Cyrus Cylinder identifies only Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and makes no mention of Jews, Jerusalem, or Judea" is fact (look at the translation). It is not a minority view of any sort - it is undisputed fact. Could you provide a source that says different? Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, please do not get into such discussion with me here. people can source WHATEVER they WANT in wikipedia. Just because something is able to be sourced, is not a reason to include them. Please read wp:due and wp:npov.Xashaiar (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The lead says 'some', which is appropriate as the article mentions some. If you are unhappy with this and think it is pov pushing, then take it to the NPOV noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you need another century of wikipedia editing to know that there is a page that tells you to avoid such terms?Xashaiar (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a personal attack. But never mind, the point is that 'some' in this instance is in the lead and who they are is explained in the article. The page you point to lists 'some' under "Unsupported attributions" and in this case 'some' is supported by the body of the article. If you want to take this further, again I say go to WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Unsupported attributions" does not get solved by knowing the same article mention them (some=1), otherwise every "some say" can be attributed to the source or else the guy has to be mentioned whenever his opinion is given. Second: please do not refer me to WP:NPOVN as there is a talk page here that some have to respect before reverting. I wonder why every criticism of pov and eurocentrism in this article get ignored. Anyway do what you want with this article. Xashaiar (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead is a summary of the article, and 'some' in this case refers to named people in the article. Secondly, if you want to complain about pov, the NPOVN is the place to do it. The fact is that some editors see this as having one pov, others as having another. I think that 'Eurocentric' is another way of saying it doesn't reflect your pov. The point of the NPOV board is that you get other input. Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page in full and gone through the references to Janzen and Becking.

There seem to be three problems here. One is the nature of the edict, its intentions, authorship, and ingenuity. The second is the debated Book of Ezra and its consequent interpretation along with the edict by modern writers to point to a cogent event or series of events in history. The third is the contemporary issue ignited by the Shah of Iran's claims of the edict being a charter of rights, similar to the Magna Carta.

The last section of the first paragraph does not delineate these controversies properly, but draws undue and inaccurate attention to the second. The controversy here in fact has nothing to do with the edict and is really a debate surrounding the Book of Ezra as Becking's undisputed statements confirm. The edict is merely being used as collaborative evidence by those scholars who seek a synthetic understanding of these historical events. As to the third controversy, the paragraph has nothing to say.

About the nature of material on wikipedia, if wikipedia wants to encourage authentic, sourced material, then surely novel, recent, and minority opinions should expect a bit more time before making the front paragraph? For instance, the Catholic church will often wait decades before they canonize a saint. It just allows the truth time to settle. Anyone can publish a book these days, but no-one will wait decades for their royalties. Certainly time is not an infallible measuring stick of authenticity, but it should be our first line of defense against perversion. And why should we expect a topic of 2500 odd years to reflect current thinking? What are we trying to achieve here? Lets reproduce the traditions of interpretation faithfully and leave the hype to the rest of the web. This mess is caused by rouge scholars who don't follow channels of tradition but try to rewrite everything according to their own views.

Just to digress slightly, it is curious how the British Museum has commented on this topic. "According to the British Museum, the Cyrus Cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.[4] Cyrus the Great's declaration stresses his legitimacy as the king, and is a conspicuous statement of his respect for the religious and political traditions of Babylonia. It has been regarded as an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda by the British Museum,[42][43] most likely created by the Babylonian priests of Marduk working at the behest of Cyrus the Great.[44]"

this seems contradictory with this quote further down the page: "Comparison by scholars in the British Museum with other similar texts, however, showed that rulers in ancient Iraq had been making comparable declarations upon succeeding to the [Babylonian] throne for two millennia before Cyrus [...] it is one of the museum's tasks to resist the narrowing of the object's meaning and its appropriation to one political agenda."

Other quotes read: "Others argue that, while Cyrus's behaviour was indeed conciliatory, it was driven by the needs of the Persian Empire, and was not an expression of personal tolerance."

and: "It emphasises the re-establishment of local religious norms, reversing the alleged neglect of Nabonidus – a theme that Amélie Kuhrt describes as "a literary device used to underline the piety of Cyrus as opposed to the blasphemy of Nabonidus.""

My question is, what exactly does the British Museum mean by propaganda? They say he was following a long tradition of issuing edicts, and since he is the highest authority in the land, then how else should he manage his empire? Or maybe we should ask what it would take for President Obama's speech to be considered propaganda? There doesn't seem to be an option for a leader. Anything a sovereign king says could be construed as propaganda, so why the label? I find the 3rd quote quite biased. If we can't take Cyrus's edicts or his actions as a sign of his intentions then what should we look to? There's nothing else. Then A.Kuhrt tries to draw some sort of linguistic abstraction from the edict and show by that a disingenuous intent. We could equally say "President Obama's sojourn into the health care reforms was merely a media stunt contrived to underline his own piety." How laughable this is since it is his charge to induce reforms. There seems to be a lot of confusion about what leadership is in the first place.

The page is also terribly redundant. I think it needs to be simplified in the first paragraph at least. Lets leave the many and varied nuanced opinions to the body.Aero13792468 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I don't really understand your objections. Surely it is desirable for an encyclopedic article to be up-to-date with current historical interpretations?

Sure, but they should come in at the bottom of the page so to speak. The first paragraph has far more exposure than the rest of the article. In academic forums and blogs, comments are added to the end. On news pages controversy makes the headlines. So what is Wikipedia, a measured record or a flaming tabloid? It can't be both. Aero13792468 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that the interpretation of the Cylinder as propaganda is "novel, recent, and minority". The oldest source cited in the "Royal propaganda" section dates to 1982 - hardly novel or recent. The same section shows that it is not a minority view - numerous historians subscribe to it (as a book search shows), and it is the view of the British Museum itself. Museums are conservative places, pretty much by definition, so it is highly unlikely that the BM would subscribe to a "novel, recent, and minority" interpretation.

As for the argument of "bias", I think we are at some risk of straying into original research territory here. We are not in a position to dispute the judgements of professional historians and scholars, nor is that what we're here for. As Wikipedia contributors, we're supposed to be here to report what the experts say - not to water down or substitute their views with our own because we disagree with or don't understand what they are saying. Prioryman (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The words "novel, recent, and minority" were not aimed at any opinions in particular. The shameless stab I took at the British Museum and others was only meant to highlight my disdain for the blind acceptance of what constitutes an authority. There is no such thing as a neutral point of view. One edict of some obscure king among all the artifacts in the museum is a fraction to the people who run it. They step out of the building into a populace that never heard of Cyrus and couldn't care less. And yet these same experts hold the identity and global reception of a nation to ransom by their careless statements - labeling one of the few (the only?) written records of a king as 'propaganda'. I ask you. Its like the green on a roulette wheel that favors the house. Is the point of a museum to preserve history or to pass judgment on it?

All of that said, I'm not even suggesting we chuck their comments. We simply need to organize the page better - to delineate those controversies I mentioned and present them with due care. We may not be experts but we still need to understand the material. There's no getting around the need for judiciousness. One of these days someone will invent a wikipedia where members are tied to their contributions and other members will be able to vote the most judicious and clear presentations to greater prominence on a page. Until then, I still think we can do a better job on this page.Aero13792468 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have contradicted myself here about "not aimed at any opinions in particular". It was for the citation to Becking (2006), not the BM. What I meant, responding to Dougweller, was that being novel, recent and in minority should influence how we structure the information on the page. Not whether we present it.Aero13792468 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Aero137, very well stated and I think that your comments distinguish you as an astute editor. This article is terribly redundant with an emphasis on the interpretations of a select few scholars. The article is on the Cyrus Cylinder and its significance as a historical artifact (which is the reason for its notability). It should not be an article on how Amelie Kuhrt etc, believes that it was propaganda because their expertise is on history, NOT interpretations of history.

I'm very busy but I really would like to work with you to implement your articulated points. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to some of these comments, to be honest. We are supposed to use high-quality scholarly sources. That's not optional. Nobody is "blindly accepting" them. They are being used because they are experts in the field. We are not talking about a handful of obscure figures, we're talking about numerous scholars including the leading historians of the period, published in the leading works such as the Cambridge Ancient History. It's also absurd to describe the cylinder as "a fraction to the people who run it". The British Museum is very well aware of the value of the cylinder. It features prominently in one of their books as one of the "Treasures of the British Museum" [31]. It's one of their website's "highlights" [32] and it is the central object in the gallery in which it's displayed - hardly the way an unimportant artefact would be treated. And the point of a museum is both "to preserve history and to pass judgement on it" - the British Museum is a leading research institution and has been the world's leading centre for the study of ancient Mesopotamian artefacts for over 100 years. Don't forget that the BM is responsible for the cylinder's discovery in the first place.

The problem here seems to be that you have a personal disagreement with what the professional scholars say. I'm well aware that some people have strong political views about the meaning of the cylinder, but that is not relevant to how it should be treated in an encyclopedic article. The bottom line is that we are supposed to defer to the experts, not impose our own personal non-expert opinions. I strongly suggest that you should read Wikipedia:No original research, which is one of Wikipedia's most basic principles.

As for improving the article, I suggest that the best route forward would be to invite uninvolved third parties to review it and make suggestions. I propose to submit it for a Good Article review so than an experienced editor - with all due respect, Aero, you only have about 100 edits - can give some guidance on how the article should be developed. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I second your proposal. Aero13792468 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the Good Article review is not going to help us here - that's not its purpose.Aero13792468 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you GoetheFromm. I'm also very keen to contribute my skills. Wikipedia has proved an amazing resource despite all the ups and downs. However I feel that its success has resulted in enormous inertia to the improvement of the software itself. The difficulties we're having with content should feed back into architecture, especially these dang talk pages. To avoid investing too much in a shaky platform, my (current) policy with most articles is to only perform structural changes, basic grammar editing, and to ensure that the introduction to an article is well done. As far as this article goes, I don't have much more to suggest.Aero13792468 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've removed the last paragraph of the introduction again. It read: The Cylinder has been linked to the repatriation of the Jewish people following their Babylonian captivity,^[2] an act that the Book of Ezra attributes to Cyrus.^[3] A passage referring to the restoration of cult sanctuaries and repatriation of deported peoples is widely interpreted as evidence of a general policy under which the Jews were allowed to return home.^[4] Some scholars, however, dispute this interpretation, noting that the Cyrus Cylinder identifies only Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and makes no mention of Jews, Jerusalem, or Judea.^[1], arguing that the Cyrus Cylinder is only, at best, a coincidental corroboration of Cyrus the Great's policy to those under his Persian Empire and Ezra's account of the exiled Jews who were subjects of the Persian Empire

The problem is that the citations are ambiguous. A point of view is mentioned and then a citation is given, which is not first hand, so one has to go rummaging around the source material to find the cited meaning. The 1st sentence, for example, sites the British Museum website, which includes this text "Although the Jews are not mentioned in this document, their return to Palestine following their deportation by Nebuchadnezzar II, was part of this policy." So we've gone from an artifact to a policy to an event. The problem is that both of these connections are in dispute - artifact to policy and policy to event. To then say that the cylinder has been linked to the repatriation, and to cite the British Museum website for that view is simply a mistake. It's not the US Declaration of Independence, where the document, policy, and consequences are commensurate. The sentence "A passage referring..." is also misleading as the holders of this view are hidden inside Becking's work - it isn't his view. This growing abstraction of source material makes it impossible for those working on wiki pages to synthesise the material into a page with any degree of integrity, because we have to go back and research everything all over again. These days people cite Wikipedia, or worse, they create verbatim duplicates, or the material ends up in content farms, infinitely replicated for Google's spiders to index. We need less data and more organisation. Again I want to stress that the information, the sources, are all considered further into the page. No value has been removed. Considering the delicacy of the matter, the position of prominence it is afforded in the introduction, and until someone comes up with a better rendition, I again remove this paragraph, which conveys nothing more than that the cylinder is a topic of dispute. After all what isn't?Aero13792468 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I'm afraid you misunderstand the purpose of the lead. As I said at the start of this discussion, "Please read WP:LEAD - the lead section of the article is meant to summarise its main points, so by definition it will repeat things that are said later in the article." The main points of the article are 1) what the cylinder is; 2) where it came from; 3) what it says; (4) interpretations, viz. royal propaganda / Biblically-linked decree / human rights charter; 5) exhibition history. The lead is supposed to be able to stand on its own as a summary of the entire article. Ideally, if you read only the lead and nothing else you are supposed to be able to get the same basic information that the rest of the article covers in detail.

It's simply not possible to provide a summary that omits entirely the Biblical angle. The cylinder is an essential part of "Bible tours" of the British Museum and the BM even sells a book, The Bible in the British Museum [33] that discusses the cylinder. So there has to be a reflection of that in the lead, because it's a key part of the article. That said, I think the lead didn't do a very good job of summarising main points 4 and 5 of the article, so I've rewritten that part of it. Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note also that the lead is not independent of the content of the article. If the article makes major points they need to be summarised in the lead. An inclusive summary is required as a matter of policy. If you think you can improve it then please do so, but please do not remove coverage of major points from the lead. Any lead will need to cover points 1-5 as listed above. Prioryman (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And here is the relevant bit of WP:LEAD for you to note (I've bolded one key point):

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.

If you wish to query what is required in a lead, please feel free to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section). Prioryman (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Prioryman; it is the job of the lead to summarize the article, & that something there is repeated lower down is exactly how it should be. Equally all major aspects of the subject should be aired there. That is not the place to go into the citations, and there seem to me to be too many citations in the lead, and probably not enough lower down. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The lead summarizes the article and the material that was removed should clearly be in the lead. Leads should have few if any citations as they should be in the body of the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and useful suggestions. Let's see what we can do about improving the citations, then. Prioryman (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced addition

GoetheFromm has added/restored the following unsourced piece of text:

"arguing that the Cyrus Cylinder is only, at best, a coincidental corroboration of Cyrus the Great's policy to those under his Persian Empire and Ezra's account of the exiled Jews who were subjects of the Persian Empire "

What is the source for this assertion, please? I'm not saying it's wrong but it needs to have a source, and it certainly needs to be better worded. Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Prioryman, you've been privy to NUMEROUS discussion on this point. I refer you to the British museum (your favorite ;-) : http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/news_and_press_releases/statements/cyrus_cylinder.aspx

What is wrong with the wording? Perhaps we should remove "coincidental," I guess. Because the way the sentence reads now is that the Cyrus Cylinder is a declaration of Cyrus' treatment of the Babylonians and those who take issue to its misinterpretation still acknowledge that it is a corroboration of Cyrus' enlightened policies etc. Is that right? GoetheFromm (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A source has been asked for and it should be supplied or the text removed. That's the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DougWeller, did you read my comment carefully? Also, please keep in mind WP:EQ because that is the way we work. Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Material from Armaiti

Armaiti is proposing to add some material to this article which is problematic [36]. I'll explain below why I see this material as not suitable for inclusion.

1) Re-reading the article, I see that the Ebadi quotation is already included (under Cyrus Cylinder#The text). There is obviously no point in duplicating it.

2) It's mildly interesting that Bush appears to have cited the fake translation of the Cylinder (the real text says nothing about "the right to worship God in freedom"). If nothing else, it shows how far the fake translation has been circulated. I suppose it might be worth mentioning along with Ebadi's similar citation at the end of Cyrus Cylinder#The text.

3) Armaiti says: "The Cyrus Cylinder has been recognized by some scholars, as the world's first Declaration of Human Rights". However, the sources are not really supportive of this:

Martin [37] says: "Cyrus ... issued a decree on his aims and policies, later hailed as his charter of the rights of nations." Martin is right to say that it was hailed as being that (by the Shah's regime and others) but he's obviously not endorsing it. Additionally, Martin isn't a historian.[38]
Lockard [39] similarly says "Cyrus issued a proclamation on a cylinder, which some historians interpret as the world's first charter of human rights." He's not endorsing this view himself, he's reporting it.
Woods [40] likewise says: "Some modern scholars have called these words the world's first declaration of human rights". Unfortunately Woods relies on the fake translation of the Cyrus Cylinder, the text of which you can find here and many other places on the web. This should exclude Woods from consideration as a source (i.e. obviously a bad source).
Mariottini [41] is a personal blog; however, Wikipedia's sourcing policy states that this isn't a suitable source (WP:BLOGS). Prioryman (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points about the specific sources, they can't be used for the claim. In any case, as I said in my edit summary when reverting him, we already have a section on scholarly views, we shouldn't have something separate on scholarly views.

I think Ebadi's comment needs to be moved out of the paragraph it's in unless we are saying she was relying on the fake translation. Bush I'm not sure about - among other things because he was citing the fake version. If we do, we need to somehow make it clear that he was quoting the fake version. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence that he (Bush) was citing the fake version. You trying to prove that he was is evidence of a bias that you hold about the cylinder. Couldn't it have been possible that Bush was citing scholars and personages who believe that Cyrus was an advocate for human rights? GoetheFromm (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lockard is already a good source to state that historians believe that Cylinder was a declaration of human rights. It supports the statement in the paragraph.
Also, what makes you (DougWeller) think that Woods is using the "fake translation," you provided a link (for the fake translation) that has nothing to do with Woods. You are making it seem like that is what he relied on. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As for wanting to incorporating the material into other parts of the article, I have no problem with that. But enough of the Prioryman-DougWeller alliance to dominate the article with their views. It's getting old.... GoetheFromm (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've read what Woods wrote in his book. He quotes the fake translation verbatim. Likewise Bush's claim about "the right to worship God in freedom" is from the fake translation ("I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion") - it's not in the real thing. This isn't about trying to "dominate the article", it's about being accurate. There is no point whatsoever in quoting Ebadi twice in the article - as I have already pointed out, her statement is already quoted. Lockard is already used as a source under "Scholarly views" - again there is no point in duplicating it. Mariottini doesn't belong at all - personal blogs are not reliable sources. As for the Martin citation, I've worked it into "Scholarly views", although it isn't really needed as that statement already has multiple citations. I've added Bush after Ebadi under the fake translation section, as a compromise. Prioryman (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

GoetheFromm, will you please discuss this before reverting blindly?

Take it from the top:

Is Ebadi's quotation already in the article? Yes or no?
Is Lockard already cited in the article? Yes or no?
Is Bush's claim in the text of the real translation or the fake translation?
Is Mariottini's personal blog a reliable source per WP:SPS? Yes or no?

I expect answers to these points, not stonewalling and being ignored. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

After reading the article over a few times, I've noticed a lot that there is a considerable amount of WP:POV involved and a lot of WP:OR as well through conclusions made. Many of the sources are also of Assyrian origin which may account for its reasoning. For example the word "propaganda" is tossed around the article out of its context. I suspect that there may be some sock puppetry going on as well, with possible Anti-Iranian intentions. Either way, I'm going nominate it for a POV Check and see what others think. --Xythianos (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to be more specific to justify the tag. Make a list of the specific problems you see (not just 'tossed around' for instance). Attacks on other editors are not at all helpful, it's the article that we are concerned with here, don't discuss those accusations here. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that you believe the Tajik people don't exist, I'm honestly not sure that you have a proper understanding of what POV and OR mean. As Doug says, it would be helpful if you could list the specific issues that you believe exist so that we can see whether there is anything that needs to be done. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture upside down

I'm not sure how to do right the situation, but the picture captioned "sample text of cuneiform script" is upside down. Ṭupšarru (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit I reverted

Copying this from my talk page as it is more appropriate and open here: Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Why did you revert my edit? You deleted my references and the explanation of why the Cyrus Cylinder is often called the first human rights. If you think it is not helpful fine, but I think it is helpful! This is wikipedia and even the United Nations mention the Cyrus Cylinder as human rights charter. This is a free wikipedia and if an international recognized organition like un calls it human rights charter it has to be mentioned here to. Further the sentence "though the British Museum and scholars of ancient Near Eastern history reject this view as anachronistic[9] and a misunderstanding[10] of the Cylinder's generic nature.[11]" is false because not all schoolars have this opinion. This sentence has the effect that you might think that all schoolars think so, and this is wrong There are a lot of other schoolars that say that the Cyrus Cylinder is the first human rights charter. Both sides, the defenders and the critics have to be mentioned in same weight. You complained that I have deleted the mention of the British Museum, ok you're right, this has to be added again. I hope you accept my explanation. Look at the old versions of this article, it was called a long time first human rights charter also in wikipedia. Political controversies between Iran and US shouldn't be the reason to reverse and rewrite everything that belongs to Persia. Best Regards Shah Vazraka (talk) 1:24 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Shah Vazraka restored it with [42]. This version interrupts the telling of the history in the lead & I believe that the lead should first summarise that history, as it did in two paragraphs until Shah Vasraka's edits, then have the 3rd paragraph summarise the modern dispute. Now that dispute is broken into two paragraphs, one in the middle of the 2 paras on its history, the other, about biblical scholarship, the last paragraph in the lead.

The old section about the modern dispute read:

The Cylinder has also been claimed to be an early "human rights charter", though the British Museum and scholars of ancient Near Eastern history reject this view as anachronistic[9] and a misunderstanding[10] of the Cylinder's generic nature.[11] It was adopted as a symbol by the Shah of Iran's pre-1979 government, which put it on display in Tehran in 1971 to commemorate 2,500 years of the Iranian monarchy.[12]

The new one reads:

The Cylinder is often said to be an early "human rights charter"[5][6], the announcement to free the jews from slavery or the fact that Cyrus ordered his soldiers not to frighten the people of babylon[7] are some reasons for this opinion. The British Museum and some scholars reject this view as anachronistic[8] and a misunderstanding[9] of the Cylinder's generic nature.[10] It was adopted as a symbol by the Shah of Iran's pre-1979 government, which put it on display in Tehran in 1971 to commemorate 2,500 years of the Iranian monarchy.[11]

Reference 7 in the new version is [43] which does not discuss the issue of reasons for being a human rights charter, the statement for which it is shown as a source. I also think that the reasons for the debate shouldn't be in the lead. Maybe 'some' is ok, I think the earlier version was more logical and left the nuts and bolts of the dispute to the article where it belongs. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the reply on my talk page, 'some' makes it look like a minority, so that doesn't work either. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the points I made there (sorry Doug), the British Museum owns the Cylinder, so its view is obviously very relevant. As for the other scholars, read it carefully: it refers to "scholars of ancient Near Eastern history". Very few if any experts on the period support the "human rights charter" claim. If you look at the people who do support it, they are lawyers, politicians, social scientists etc - but not archaeologists or experts in ancient Near Eastern History. We can't and don't give equal weight to non-expert views. Prioryman (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

GoetheFromm's latest edit is both absurd and original research, to say nothing of misrepresenting what the edit says, and it gives the game away about the nationalist agenda being pursued here. Shah's contribution doesn't say anything about "European scholars". It's ridiculous and OR to say that the dispute is between "European scholars" and others (I bet you won't find any source that says that). As the current version of the lead says, the "human rights charter" claim is specifically rejected by the experts - the historians of the ancient Near East - as well as by the owner of the Cylinder. The United Nations is not an expert in the field, nor are the lawyers, social scientists and politicians who've advanced the claim. It's a political claim - it has nothing to do with expert opinion. Prioryman (talk) 08:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you need to cool down with the name calling and the spurious accusations. I'll consider it an oversight on your part, given your past contributions. But I observe that you are somewhat of a page "dominator," when your views aren't fully supported.

The page needs to reflect that SOME scholar reject the "human rights charter" view. It is clear that there is undue weight on their views. If "human rights charter" question wasn't an issue, then why would some scholars even bother to dispute it? Get what I am saying?

Also, on another matter, the United Nations is an institution designed specifically to promote human rights and it is the best recognized institution as one that does so. So, I don't follow your contention that the United Nations is not an expert on the field of what is considered a human rights charter. Moreover, why are social scientists not considered credible? Isn't social, political, and historical understanding their field of expertise? You consistently seem to place undue weight on what you consider credible, British Museum and the like interpretations of what historical artifacts mean. Mind you that their role is probably best defined as keepers and expositors of the physical elements of the Cyrus Cylinder, not necessarily what the Cylinder means. Let me know if you need me to explain more. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@ DougWeller, No some does not imply a minority. It implies not ALL. ie the logical form of "not all" = "some." GoetheFromm (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I cant agree with you Dougweller! The references that I added are surely acceptable. I do not understand why you insist on the way that you think it is right the article should describe the cylinder. It is still so that the United Nations call the cylinder as the first human rights. If it would be in inverse situation you would use this to prove us that our oppinion is wrong. But in this case you don't accept the oppinion of a lot of scholars, scientists, lawyers and even the United Nations just because of some middle east schoolars!? And by the way, not every middle east scholar rejects this opinion. The sentence: "The Cylinder has also been claimed to be an early "human rights charter", though the British Museum and...." tends to strenghten the view that the cylinder is not a human rights charter. Why else are my reference to couple of pages including the page of the united nations deleted and so many references to the opposite side remained in the article? Thats a big question and has no plausible answer other than I have said! As you can see in older versions of this article it was called a human rights charter. You can't change the article only in that way you like it and think it is correct and ignore all of our oppinions and references. The way that I have corrected the article is neither "supporting" one of the sides, it only says what has to be said in a way that is still said!!! I explained the one side and I still mentioned the other opposite side. I dont insist only to mention one side of this dispute! And please don't try to ignore the United Nations because they have a lot of scholars too, not only the opposite!!! Shah Vazraka (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And by the way my friends, this is not a dispute between western oppinion and the government of Iran! This is only the description of a cylinder that includes the declaration of Cyrus the great, the first persian king that freed thousands of humans from slavery and didn't killed the people of the city that he entered and he didn't allowed to rape innocent people!!! Please read the translation of the cyrus cylinder and don't you think that this is not very common for a time 2500 years ago! You can't compare the human rights of today with the "beginning of human rights" 2500 years ago! You're not comparing the todays science with that of 2500 years ago, so don't try to do it in other cases! So please be fair and accept what is internationally accepted and said, even if there are opposite oppinions, as it is in so many other things too. I only insist to be fair and to mention both sides and I think the way that I have edited the article is fair!Shah Vazraka (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not a situation where there are two equal sides. There are the experts, the historians and archaeologists of the ancient Middle East, and there are the non-experts like the UN (a political body) and various lawyers, social scientists etc. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view does not require all viewpoints to be treated equally, nor should they be - we have to defer to the experts. The only sources you're quoting are non-expert ones. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly states " The United Nations continues to promote the cylinder as "an ancient declaration of human rights."" - right? So that's in it and no one is trying to remove it. Shah Vazraka, it isn't up to us to read a translation and decide anything about it. And it certainly isn't up to us or the article to decide whether or not it is a human rights charter, or for the article to pronounce on that. And the livius.org page didn't back the sentence it referenced. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyrus Cylinder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 18:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
10 images used:

File:Cyrus Cylinder front.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
File:Hormuzd.Rassam.reclined.jpg - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
File:Babylon 1829 cropped.gif - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
File:Cyrus cylinder extract.png - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
File:Cyrus Cylinder detail.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
File:Nabonidus cylinder sippar bm1.jpg - Commons-hosted, tagged public domain
File:Nabonidus.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
File:Cyrus cylinder Mesopotamia.svg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL
File:House of Iran - Cyrus cylinder.jpg - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa
File:London 307.JPG - Commons-hosted, cc-by-sa/GFDL

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Notes

~~1a. In "The text", ...it has been edited... - does "it" refer to the false translation. The false translation circulated on the internet has been edited?~~

~~That bit's ambiguous, I agree - I've taken out the reference to being edited to avoid confusion. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)~~
~~1a. In "Analysis of the Cylinder's claims", Briant comments that... - unclear who Briant is.~~
~~Clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)~~

2a. The Encyclopedia of library and information science is listed in the references but doesn't seem to have an associated footnote. Was it actually used in the article? If not it can be removed or placed in a "Further reading" section. Also, it appears the "Books and journals" is going for an alphabetical list, but the last two are not in order.

Well spotted, I think the thing for which the encyclopedia was used as a citation must have been removed at some point. The last two also seem to be leftovers and don't seem to be in use for anything (and one of them is a dubious source anyway). I've removed all three unused references. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

~~2b. In "The text", "brought relief...to their (main) complaints". - no citation. Is this from [28] like the rest of the quotes?~~

~~No, [29], the following citation. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)~~
~~2b. In "Interpretations", As Fowler and Hekster note, this "creates a problem for...his predecessors." - please provide a footnote for the quote.~~

~~The supporting citation for this paragraph is [47], at the end of the para. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)~~

2b. In last paragraph of "Pre-revolutionary Iranian government's view", there are several quotes in which it is unclear which source they are coming from.

Could you possibly highlight the particular quotes you mean? Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"the history of our empire...in the history of mankind."
"the heritage of Cyrus...human liberty".
"the question of Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflict".
"an ancient declaration of human rights." maclean (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, tackled all of these. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't Hassan Pirnia's opinion be better placed in the "Pre-revolutionary Iranian government's view" section, rather than the "Scholar" section?

Not really, because Pirnia wasn't writing in an official category - he had retired from public service and was acting purely in the capacity of a scholar when he wrote his history of Iran. Prioryman (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

3b. The "Dispute between Islamic Republic of Iran and the British Museum" section is given excessive weight over sections more relevant to the Cylinder. I suggest condensing to one paragraph and under the "Exhibition in Iran (2010-11)" section.

I've condensed it quite drastically - see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

One dead link.

Removed, it wasn't necessary anyway as there was already an alternative link. Prioryman (talk)

Should use WP:LQ consistently.

I've gone through and fixed any examples that I found. Prioryman (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion: I am placing the review on hold (~one week) pending resolution or explanation of the numbered points above. maclean (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion

This is an excellent and valuable article (and well-illustrated!). If you have FA ambitions, it would be best to do a peer review first or at least get one of the FA-regulars to give you an opinion first. maclean (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Article is clearly biased against Significance of the Cylinder as a testament to the influence of Persian culture

The article needs revision, and has to stop reiterating the Western view that the cylinder is an insignificant artifact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And you need to stop deleting material because you don't like it. None of it said that the cylinder was an insignificant artefact in any case. I also note that this IP address has been deleting or changing edits by others on various talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Known Fact; Cyrus Cylinder is corroborated by Nabonidus Chronicle + Cyrus Panegyric + Historians' Accounts + Religious Texts

Dougweller,

This is a known fact that Cyrus Cylinder is historically correlated by Nabonidus Chronicle, Cyrus Panegyric, and historians account such as Herodotus and Xenophon. Plus, it corroborates with various instances in the Bible, i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. The first two sources are Historical and Archaeological accounts at once, you cannot argue their veracity, the Bible is religious, yet you cannot reject what is written in it; it basically calls 'Cyrus the Great', a 'Messiah'; this is by all means the utmost reverence for a human being by at least 3 world religions, who consider the Bible a sacred text.

Also please try and understand the semantics here, there is difference between a 'biography' and a book called "The Ancient World: 'Dictionary' of World Biography" (which is also used as a source in various Wiki articles such as, 'Ancient Greece', 'Ashurbanipal', 'Damnatio ad bestias, etc.). In any case, 'Biographies' may also be used as references in Wikipedia, FYI, and there is no problem in that. Nevertheless we are not citing any 'biography' or 'world biography' here, but a 'Dictionary', and you cannot cancel the reliability of this book, just because its title contains the phrase 'world biography'.

If you want to challenge the reliability of the source, please take it to WP:RSN. Thank you. Armaiti (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe the matter being discussed is this edit which changed:

Modern historians argue that while Cyrus's behavior was indeed conciliatory...

to

Apart from the Cyrus Cylinder itself, the benevolent acts of Cyrus are revered in the Bible; those acts are also historically correlated with other archeological accounts, such as the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Cyrus Panegyric commonly known as the Verse Account of Nabonidus.
[ref]The Ancient World: Dictionary of World Biography, Volume 1, 2003 - By Christina J. Moose, Taylor & Francis - p. 311 - books.google.com.au/books?isbn=1579580408[/ref]
[ref]The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society... > No. 2, Apr., 1926 - p. 285 -http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25220950?uid=3737536&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101484182761[/ref]
Yet, some modern historians argue that while Cyrus's behavior was indeed conciliatory...

in the Cyrus Cylinder#Analysis of the Cylinder's claims section.

Two sources are given, but there are many assertions in the proposed text. What reliable source interprets the Cyrus Cylinder in such a way that "Apart from..." is justified? Similarly, what verifies the claim about the Bible? The claim about "historically correlated" is very broad, and would need to be justified by multiple sources known to be highly reliable (see WP:REDFLAG).

Any source used to justify a broad claim must be known to be authoritative in the fields covered by the claim. A biographical dictionary is not suitable for this topic. A source from 1926 is also unsuitable on its own—if not verified by research since that date, the source is inherently suspect for any broad claim.

The WP:BURDEN of demonstrating that a source is reliable falls upon the editor wishing to add material. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant to get back to this page but you beat me to it. As I have pointed out at RSN, the author of the biography is a specialist in the Greek and Roman people, not in Cyrus or his empire or his people, and not qualified to make such a broad statement. The edit also ignores the fact that Grabbe disputes the authenticity of the biblical Cyrus decree.

I have asked the editor for a quote from the 1926 JSTOR article backing the edit - both because we need to know what it says but also because given the editor's history I think we need to verify that the JSTOR article actually does back this and has been read. In any case, I agree about the date problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Another news story

See [44]... -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is clearly biased

Article is clearly biased against acknowledging the relevance and importance of the cylinder, and needs major restructuring. I have started by removing he whole section that offers an obscure interpretation of the cylinder. Such a translation is of arbitrary irrelevance, and in no way is in line with the justifications of the majority, whom uphold the cylinder as (essentially) a declaration of rights. The George Bush comment was entirely foul, because Bush did not cite the cylinder as the source of his statement regarding Cyrus and religious freedom. There are alternative sources that support that 'fact', that Cyrus was tolerant towards other religious (ie; the bible). - That's just what I could get done in a few minutes. I will continue to contribute until the article is cleaned up, and presents a reasonable point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted you and it's time to discuss your changes - see WP:BRD. We can discuss the deletion you mention, but your addition of the word "western" to describe a viewpoint is I believe a violation of WP:NPOV and obviously unsourced. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Western" is an simple and evident fact, that should not need sourcing. The page is completely biased against all of the numerous claims of the cylinder as a charter of rights. The BUSH comment should be removed, which is entirely inappropriate. It's Ironic that the article speaks of propganda and non-neutral points of view, when itself reflects the epitome of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bush comment I don't care about. Once again there is confusion about propaganda. Governments, Kings, dictators, emperors, all use and have used propaganda. It goes with the territory. Dougweller (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling it 'propaganda' is unjustified. Not only because there is little evidence against that notion, but especially when there are independent sources which are in-line with the fact, the cylinder was an accurate reflection of the morals of the time. This is probably the worst wiki article, in terms of inaccuracy and bias that I've come across, and it reflects the underlying weakness of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

First, we reflect what sources say if those sources meet our criteria. Secondly, how many times do I have to say propaganda is a basic tool of government/statecraft? All proclamations are propaganda. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we reflect what all reliable sources say, not just the ones we like. Your article doesn't take the view of anyone who has suggested the cylinder is a charter of rights. That's the difference between your biased stance, and neutral reporting. And again, you have included the Bush comment, which makes a false implication regarding the cylinder's contents. That reflect the personal agenda you have against persian history.

Absolutely agree that this and the sections about this in Cyrus' article are clearly and immensely biased and based on mere lies from some pseudo-historians that are not regarded by anyone but themselves as being scholars. None of the sources of the outrages claims of the cylinder being propaganda and other nonsense are from reliable sources, not a single one! Including what the Brittish museum has said in the past. Most of the bias in this article and their sources are the works of a "Jona Lindering" of the website Livius.org. He's been on a massive quest to dirty the name of Cyrus and Persian culture in its entirely. I wouldn't be surprised if the administrator called Dougweller here, which seems to have systematically edited the mentioned articles to suit his own agenda, is not Lindering himself!! If he is or not, Lindering has had help from some admins of Wikipedia in the past to promote his biased website and articles. Anyone who actually edits in Wikipedia, if you read this, please take this issue with the highest authorities of Wikipedia. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All this hating on Lendering (not "Lindering") is somewhat sad, but I find the idea that Doug is Lendering in disguise to be quite hilarious. He's not, I can assure you. In any case, Lendering isn't doing anything more than reflecting the views of professional historians who are very much reliable sources - you won't get any sympathy from "the highest authorities of Wikipedia" (sic) by arguing that they aren't. In contrast it's very noticeable that the sources promoting the pseudohistorical Iranian nationalist POV that you favour are almost entirely not historians, and frequently not reliable sources either. Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Publications from the British Museum are indeed reliable sources and they do reflect current scholarly consensus on the matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Lindering, Lendering, I do not care how the guy's name is spelled. However it's spelled, he's still a pseudo-historian, (WP:BLP violation redacted by User:Dougweller), traits which you seem to be in favor of also. "pseudohistorical Iranian nationalist POV" I find that provoking and insulting remark extremely amusing and pathetic. Defending one's history against those with hatred, bigotry and a clear agenda to destroy it, is anything but what you said there. No professional historian support these wild accusations which are written in this article, whether you call them that doesn't make them so. They are only a handful bigots, and they have no whatsoever source for their claims. All sources there are regarding this, shows that the declaration does indeed reflect what Cyrus did, sources being the Bible, Cyropedia and the history of the Jews themselves.

I am not looking for any sympathy by saying we should provide the obvious proof of the pure biasness of this article to the highest authorities of Wikipedia. Rather the proof itself, it is then entirely their choice whether they then choose to disregard the proof and the fact that this article is based on unreliable sources, such as Lendering's site and writings of some mere editor of the British museum. Ironically the current director of the British museum, Dr. Neil MacGregor, gave many talks and interviews in favor of the facts about the cylinder and the human rights it presented at its time.

Ok, so i checked the history if this article, it seems Prioryman here is a big editor to it, most of the nonsense written about the cylinder being propaganda is coming from him, and he had help from Dougweller. This is my last reply to you, I don't normally respond to provocations, but I had to respond to the false claims you did there.

I repeat, anyone who actually edits in Wikipedia, and is interested in this article and of course the truth which nationalists, racists and bigots try to distort and destroy, if you read this, please take this issue with the highest authorities of Wikipedia. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think SomeGuy1122 would be satisfied unless it presented only one pov, the one he favors. I've actually removed Lendering as that seems the biggest point of contention and we don't need him. If we want an example of the fake translation, there are several, eg [45]. That can be compared to the real translation at ANET [46].

I removed some of the attack on Lendering as a BLP violation. It's obviously ridiculous to suggest that I'm Lendering (eg he's Dutch, I'm American) and ignorant and ridiculous to suggest that people like Amélie Kuhrt aren't professional historians. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

All I see is further ad hominem and personal attacks on your part Mr. Doug Weller. First of all mind your manners please, calling me ignorant and ridiculous is the BLP violation you were talking about, I'll keep this screenshoted for later. Moreover, the only "fake translation" is the ones you've presented in your biased article which all were from unreliable sources. And finally, mentioning a couple of names and calling them "professional historians" does not make them so, all bias you and Prioryman and Lendering have put in this article come from biased and pseudo-historians with no whatsoever reliability in respectable academic circles. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you stop with the spurious allegations about bias against other editors right now and start concentrating on the subject of this article instead. You have not provided a single example from the article that supports your claims of bias, and you have not provided a single secondary reliable source in support of your own particular view. On the other hand you have yourself made it quite clear that you are editing with a particular WP:POV in defence "of your history", and with your interest in the nationalities of editors and scholars. You are not doing yourself any favours with such behaviour, nor are you in any way contributing in improving the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

He can save his screenshot, I called the allegation that Amélie Kuhrt is not a professional historian ignorant and ridiculous, not the editor. As for the British Museum, ANET, and virtually every academic who has translated this unreliable sources, what can I say? Ah - I can say that he should put his money where his mouth is and take the BM and ANET translations as well as Amélie Kuhrt to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I see he's still claiming on his talk page that "Jona Lendering's website Livius.org seem to be the major "source" you've put to back up your claims" which is weird since I don't think I've added it. I know I didn't add the stuff about false translations (and as I've shown, there are false translations out there). Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will not respond to further provocations, nor will I repeat myself vs. your claims. Not just by DougWeller of course, but also by his partners in making this biased article and defending it against those who did not share their biased point of views which are presented in this article. You have vandalized and hijacked this article with the help of DougWeller's administrator powers, which he has clearly abused. Evident in the history of this article, and how he systematically has harassed anyone who edited this article who did not share his POV. Again, I request that anyone reading this who actually edits in Wikipedia and has experience of these proceedings, to take this matter to the higher administrators. This is a very serious matter, the biased claims of the Cylinder being propaganda is an attack on history with no whatsoever reliable sources nor a single shred of evidence for backup. SomeGuy1122 (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Noting that SomeGuy1122 was blocked as was a sock he created. Not by me, I'm involved in this article and won't use my Admin tools on it (there are no higher administrators anyway). Propaganda isn't a modern tool of governments, the rulers at the time were just as intelligent as people are today and propaganda, although lacking radio, tv, newspapers, etc was used widely. Another source on Cyrus himself is at [47] p.53. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-incomprehensible comment left on article page.

no one can daily that Cyrus cylinder is related to Arabic stores in many years a go.and we need to now why it is still in the UK scenic that time. 161.73.194.69 (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(Moved by Peaceray (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC))

Discussion on adding a phrase on the lead

Hello dear fellows. Who are involved on this article, such as @Future Perfect at Sunrise:, @Dimadick:, @Ermahgerd9:, @ZxxZxxZ:, @Darafsh:.... I recently added the sentence "which alternatively known as the Cyrus Charter of Human Rights mostly among Iranian peoples" to the lead. Because of the cited references I added to. Then an admin reverted my edit and claimed it was because of being "tendentious fringe-pushing" ^[5]

So I came as I want you to discuss on this phrase if it is eligible to be on the lead or not to be. I think Iranians have rights to say if it (=Cyrus Charter of Human Rights) is "a famous/known phrase among them" for the "Cyrus Cylinder" or not. But It doesn't mean non-Iranians can't discuss, their comment is considered to be judged equal too. If you agree to add the phrase you can put on the word "Agree" or if you don't agree to it, so you can add the word "Disagree" to your comments. Also you must bring your proof to discuss on why you agree or do not. Finally a neutral admin will close the discussion volunteerly and will enforce the conclusion. Thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyrus Cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216001612/http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/history.shtml to http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2008/history.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyrus Cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyrus Cylinder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130615163639/http://www.niasnet.org/iran-history/artifacts-historical-places-of-iran/cyruscylinder/ to http://www.niasnet.org/iran-history/artifacts-historical-places-of-iran/cyruscylinder/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megamattc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

source of "a suitable cuneiform tablet"

When I noticed that the first source, from the british musuem was broken, i decided to start checking all the links for link rot. I located where the source text for As I was checking the first one to make sure all its cited text came from that source before changing the source link, I ran into this quote "a suitable cuneiform tablet" that did not come from the webpage location that the british cylinder page had been moved to on their website. After an hour of searching I give up, discovered wikiblame used it to find Your edit. Do you happen to remember where you got that quote from, @ChrisO~enwiki? Thank you. SmileyTrek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference Janzen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference BM-CC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Free & Vos (1992), p. 204
^ Cite error: The named reference Becking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_Cylinder&action=history=history. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[Janzen-1] Cite error: The named reference Janzen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[BM-CC-2] Cite error: The named reference BM-CC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Free-3] Free & Vos (1992), p. 204

[Becking-4] Cite error: The named reference Becking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[5] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyrus_Cylinder&action=history=history. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Loaned to Iran

Critics of the second theory

Back to old version

Disruptive mass-reverting

Lead

Tags

Kaveh Farrokh

Babylonians and Mesopotamian influence... DougWeller

IP editors

Lendering again

Use of non-expert sources

"Numerous historians"

Source balance

How is 'unbalanced entry' appropriate

An article dominated by a few Germans and the British Museum

Unbalanced entry

New unbalanced tag

On some relevant discussions on the talk page of GoetheFromm's

General

Arbitrary break

Unsourced addition

Material from Armaiti

NPOV Issues

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Picture upside down

Recent edit I reverted

GA Review

Article is clearly biased against Significance of the Cylinder as a testament to the influence of Persian culture

Known Fact; Cyrus Cylinder is corroborated by Nabonidus Chronicle + Cyrus Panegyric + Historians' Accounts + Religious Texts

Another news story

Article is clearly biased

Semi-incomprehensible comment left on article page.

Discussion on adding a phrase on the lead

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

source of "a suitable cuneiform tablet"