Jump to content

User talk:GoetheFromm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello, GoetheFromm! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Netalarmtalk 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Adoption request

[edit]

Hello there, GoetheFromm! I'm Netalarm and I've been around on Wikipedia for quite some time now. It appears that you've indicated that you want to be adopted on your user page. While you can wait for an adopter to come forward and offer to adopt you, I would highly recommend that you also actively seek an adopter. From the cases I've seen, I've noticed that it is often much faster if the adoptee also actively participates in the matching process.

When choosing an adopter (click here for a list), there are a few things you'll want to check. First of all, you'll want to check if they are available. The column with the label "Adoption status" will tell you if they are able to accept more adoptees. You may also want to choose an adopter that has similar interests, which are indicated in the "Interests" column, though it is not required you do so. Once you have found an adopter you want, you may message them on their talk page and ask to be adopted. If you have any questions about this process (or about Wikipedia in general), feel free to message me on my talk page.


Click here to view a full list of adopters

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Netalarmtalk 21:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

[edit]

Hello, I see you're looking for an experienced user to adopt you. I'm very familiar with Wikipedia and I would be happy to adopt you. Just let me know on my talk page if you're interested! Swarm X 09:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, we can proceed however you want! Adopters are very flexible. I can help you find and get involved in areas of Wikipedia you're interested in, I can teach you just about anything, from maintenance tasks to creating articles, or you can go about your business, consulting me only when you need to. I'm willing to help in anyway you want. So the question is really, "how would you like to proceed?" Swarm X 12:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

[edit]

I read down, damn. But I was reverted because "the latest research shows contrary." and WP:SYNTH, which is what set me up. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? GoetheFromm (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that I looked at the paragraph and what was below, I hadn't noticed all the other stove above the 'roots' sentence about its 'roots'. But my replacement of the 'roots' sentence was reverted with the comment that it was synth and 'the latest research shows contrary' - look at the history. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get what your are saying after having looked at your comments on the Cyrus Cylinder page and having responded to them. I also have looked at the editing history (which I do anyway) and see that your undo was reverted under "latest history shows contrary." (In joking fashion)Doesn't this strengthen my point that the Cyrus cylinder needs more work to reflect an encyclopedic level of information? lol... GoetheFromm (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm lost now, X wrote " the latest research shows contrary.". Not 'history'. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugghh, don't be lost. "History" was mistake, it is indeed, "Latest research shows contrary." We were talking about comment : "Latest research shows contrary" on history page. GoetheFromm (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


So I'm not going mad. But I doubt that X is right, it's pretty clear that the text is not unrelated to any past texts, and of course you'd expect it to be related. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can help let you know that you aren't going mad. My pleasure to help you with that. Perhaps it would be best to speak to X re: your concerns. And perhaps we should get a better idea as to what his point is, because it hasn't been fleshed out to make accurate assessment on his points, eh? GoetheFromm (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, at this juncture, since it is evident (see below) that I have not violated 3RR, nor ever intend to, I will not self-revert last edit. Thank you again for your suggestions, though. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, 3RR re: what? GoetheFromm (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at my contributions and have revisited WP:3RR, don't think that I've hit 3RR. Please explain. GoetheFromm (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how do you send messages to people? GoetheFromm (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
I only count 2 in the last 24 hours, FWIW. Swarm X 13:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Swarm!!! GoetheFromm (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller, thank you for your diligence. I think it is pretty evident that I do a lot of discussing on talk page. I'm concerned that you might be mixing me up with other editors, who do not provide rationale, reasoning, or explanation for edits even in edit summary. GoetheFromm (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was trying to save you from a possible block. My count is 3 reverts today (consecutive edits counting as one), [1] [2]

and [3]. Two this morning UTC, one a few hours later. What in the world did you mean by my 'extensive edit and talk page history'? As one of the most active editors on Wikipedia, it's obviously extensive. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are also claiming that I said you violated 3RR. How do you get from my statement above saying "no violation yet", which you've quoted elsewhere, to a claim that I said you violated it? Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize it's taken me long to respond. Anyway, GoetheFromme, I totally understand how it is when you've taken a side in a dispute and things in an article aren't necessarily going the way you want them to. It can be extremely frustrating, especially if edit wars break out and you get warned for simply doing what you feel is right for the article. I completely understand where you're coming from. However, right or wrong, things get heated. It's always better to leave the article in a state that you're not happy with and discuss something on talk pages than edit warring to try to make your preferred edits. Even if you don't violate 3RR, it's best not to even test that rule. As for your comments about Dougweller and Prioryman: WP:No personal attacks (hear me out, the title can be misleading) tells us to "Comment on content, not contributors". This is excellent advice; simply not commenting on other contributors in a dispute goes a long way. Now, if you have a concern about an admin action, the best thing to do is talk to that admin. If you have a concern about 3RR, you can report it at WP:AN3. Concerns about any other user's action can be discussed with users individually or, in serious situations, reported at appropriate noticeboards. I'm not taking any sides in your dispute, I'm just trying to give you the best advice I can. If you would like, you can explain the problems to me and I'll offer my opinion, if not, I'm here if you need anything. Swarm X 13:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

[edit]
Hello, GoetheFromm. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Think you might want to look at this

[edit]

Crazy...History_of_human_rights Jdravan (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify this

[edit]

With the edit summary "Admin/editor action re: seemingly selective 3rr warnings." on your mentor's talk page, you wrote "is it typical for admins/editors to ignore some and not others? Incidentally, Should I be concerned with this behavior and what is my recourse to have it rectified?"? You didn't have the courtesy to tell me you thought I was being selective, and you suggest that you'd like to take further action. Now as there was clearly no need to warn Prioryman since he hadn't hit 3RR, I'd appreciate it if you would acknowledge your error. Thaks. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller, if you read my comment to my mentor carefully, I was asking my mentor's advice on what my recourses were before proceeding (in the interest of approaching the issue correctly). In other words, I wanted to double check with my mentor on the selectivity of 3RR and learn ways to rectify before taking any action. The comment to which you are referring was not posted anywhere other than his talk page (which is where it was supposed to be for me to receive help). Hope this clears that matter and that you don't feel that I am being discourteous to you. Of course, I will keep your concerns in mind.
Let's talk business now: For the record, my impression is that Prioryman HAS violated 3RR on December 15. My reasoning is this: his edits on the 15 of December were largely manual reverts of others. Next, his edit summaries acknowledge that his edits were reverts. Last, his reverts totaled more than 3. Ergo: Prioryman has 3RR violation. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As I've said, it isn't the total number of edits that count. Each set of consecutive edits counts as one (and must include a revert). If an editor reaches that, they should be warned. If they carry on regardless, you can report them. But not now for the 15th as that would be stale, no Admin would block just for that (and he wasn't warned, that's a vital bit also). So 10 edits in a row count as 1 for this purpose. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DougWeller. GoetheFromm (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:CC

[edit]

Hi. The point is that the article on Cyrus Cylinder and alike are subject of much unfair, pov pushing, and eurocentric editing. People have been "deleted" from wikipedia for touching those articles, and myself have got a "block followed by a 1 revert limit forever" on that article and related ones. Guess why. Because I was engaged in "using the talk page of certain other article". I repeat: I was blocked and banned not because of editing but because of using a talk page. That article is, in its current form, a good example of eurocentric pov pushing in wikipedia... good luck. Xashaiar (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your situation sounds terrible. But I don't get it. WHY did you get blocked for using a talk page? GoetheFromm (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xashaiar, I invite you to assist in editing the article so that it may be to wikipedia standards. GoetheFromm (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually what happened. If you read this [4] it will give you some of the background to his block (and to a comment of mine), and his talk page explains his block. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, this is contentious and looong. Will have to look this over. Thanks Doug.
Xashaiar, you still editing, then? GoetheFromm (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion

[edit]

Hi, I read your contributions and I am convinced you are a level minded person. How do you feel about certain "administrators" dominating a wikipedia article, particularly from the looks of it The Cyrus Cylinder. Do you think it warrants further investigation? I need not to name and I don't think neither do you, but would you agree that there should be a limit on the intervention of a Single authority figure on one single article? Cheers :)! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, janitors are allowed to edit just as much as anyone else. In fact, because we are involved in an article, we wouldn't be involved in using our mops on the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If an adminship is such a humbling experience, then by all means give us the tools to clean up as a janitor does! I like nothing more than to put my energy on a positive change! Dr. Persi (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are, indeed, over zealous admins and editors who seem to jump at every possible chance to push their direction on article edits and talk pages. Sometimes to the point of incivility and other more worse violations. I think that all editors involved should get neutral, non-affiliated admins. in the picture who can assist with the contention on the pages in questions. I've brought this issue up before on different talk pages related to Cyrus Cylinder, Human Rights, etc. I'm thinking of posting this issue on the Incident Noticeboard. Any feedback? DougWeller and Dr. Persi? GoetheFromm (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more experienced editors the better, normally. New editors with little knowledge of our policies and guidelines and who are only interested in one article or issue (I'm not thinking of you or Dr Persi) are often not as helpful, and that's happening now - and they are the source of abuse. If Dr Persi wants to be an admin, he not only needs to do more editing, he needs to show his interest and experience in fighting vandals, an understanding of how our policies and guidelines work, etc. Meanwhile he shouldn't be telling those of us who do spend most of our time cleaning up at the expense of actual editing that we shouldn't be allowed to edit as much as those with only a handful of edits. If either one of you wants to complain about me or any other Admin, please stop making innuendos and complain formally at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the strong reaction on my talk page, DougWeller? What innuendo? Thanks for the info re: [[WP:AN}}. GoetheFromm (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not particularly pursue to fight vandalism although I have reverted quite a few vandal cases, as per common sense, and my duty to Wikipedia. My major focus is on medical articles as that is where my expertiese lies, and I (as you all have seen) have refrained from editing too much or altering too much in articles where I feel I am not well educated or articles where I stand on one side of the point of view. Also I have reverted vandalism in other wikipedia pages when I come across it as well. At any rate, I am not focused on "becoming an admin" but I believe that adminship should not be given to just any body who comes across the door and that those who already are an admin, need a good long look at themselvse and for a minute, see how they are perceived from the other end of the spectrum. It is all about inclusion of neutrality and an attempt to be as fair without being false. Anyhow I believe GoetheFromm and I make excellent admins and unlike some we would not obsess over certain articles, nor try to push our own POV. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'innuendos" are the comments that appear to be directed to me but don't actually name me. The bit about " I need not to name and I don't think neither do you" - does that refer to me? The suggestion about someone being affiliated, does that refer to me? Dr Persi, are you suggesting I'm 'just any body who comes through the door"? Adminship, by the way, is not given to anybody who comes through the door, in fact I've seen it suggested that it's harder to get than an ArbCom post. By the way, not WP:AN, WP:ANI -- and that is not for complaints about content but about behaviour. The bottom line though is that I have not acted as an Administrator but as an experienced editor, and my only pov here is that of a Wikipedian trying to write articles that follow our policies and guidelines. And as someone with an interest in seeing that ancient history articles reflect a scholarly viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not your page so I wouldnt drag this discussion any longer. This was not even aimed at you and clearly you are constantly "surveying" the articles. It seems you have nothing more significant than to locate "innuendos" at yourself. Also I highly doubt creating aritcles filled with weasel type statements and negatively toned words is a wikipedia policy. And you do exercise your right as an admin nay the authority that comes with it when you edit whether u know it or not. Furthermore you just contradicted yourself, as you initially said anybody is becoming an admin and now you are saying there is a strict criteria. Anyhow, I expect if you like to talk to me to do on my page and not enter discussion that I have with other users here, that do not even name you or address you even if you might feel there is "innuendo" in them that refers to you! OK, thanks and happy hollidays! Dr. Persi (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you are going to make comments about me anywhere, I've a right to respond. And I don't create articles filled with weasel type statements and negatively toned words. I never said "anyone is becoming an admin". Yes, I am constantly watching thousands of articles. A lot of Admins do that - there are serious vandal fighters who watch virtually all changes to any article. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you undo my edits again on History of human rights, I strongly suggest that you review my comments on the fringe theories noticeboard. It's absolutely inexcusable to misrepresent sources like that. The cylinder does not mention slavery or freedom of religion and the cited sources do not even mention claims about such topics. This isn't a matter of different interpretations - it's simple fact. Might I ask if you bothered to check the sources before you undid my edits? Prioryman (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that it is inexcusable to misrepresent sources like that.
Also, you know very well that I've been reviewing your comments on the fringe theories noticeboard As you know, I am perhaps one of the more prolific commentators on that page. I've taken care to address many of your points and I've found myself wondering if you've been reading them. I gonna assume that you've read mine in response to yours. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your latest amendments are no better - you are adding material that clearly comes from the fake translation (freedom of religion and slavery), you are citing no sources for anything you're adding, and the existing sources at the end of your material say nothing whatsoever about the claims that you are making. Could you answer my question about whether you bothered to read this sources? Where are you getting this stuff from?
Prioryman, I haven't been adding anything. And I'm not introducing any new sources. What I AM doing is preventing the removal of entire sections with out proper editing and discussion. You have continually tried to remove material of an entire section because of a' couple of sentences that were misrepresented' or unsourced. That is not how editing works on wikipedia. Time and time again, I've proposed and agreed with the necessity of well sourced sentences, but I take issue with the manner that you've misrepresented some of the issues. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see Talk:History of human rights#A modest proposal for a suggestion about where we go from here. Prioryman (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, checked it out. Fine proposal to me. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, next time please a new section on my talk page and not use one that was for a different topic/issue. GoetheFromm (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Request

[edit]

Dear GoetheFromm, thank you for your kind message. Regrettably, at present I am too busy with my work outside Wikipedia, whereby I feel unable to get involved with a Wikipedia project that is almost certain to end up in a fist-fight, as it were. My personal experiences have proved, time and again, that some Wikipedia entries act like magnets in drawing the attention of a number of people who know nothing about the subject matter but mysteriously know everything about the regulations whereby to close down one's Wikipedia account. The traces of my last encounter, on a humble "fish", can still be seen here; for almost one month my account was closed down for having said the right thing all along (please see my message in the bottom of the latter page). The Cyrus Cylinder is one of such Wikipedia entries. Nonetheless, should I suddenly feel inspired and ready for a "fight", I might join the discussion. In the meantime you might like to leave a note for User:Khodabandeh14. With kind regards, --BF 02:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

ps. Just to mention that to my best judgement Cyrus Cylinder is a true Human Rights Act, and not a piece of state propaganda. That it were a piece of propaganda does not stand the test of a vast body of historical evidences that there are regarding in particular the world view of the Achaemenids. There are a large number of clay tablets, now held at University of Chicago (if some people get their wish granted, these tablets may be sold to the highest bidders on the open market, which to my judgement amounts to crime against humanity and the humanity's common heritage --- these tablets are our cultural DNAs, yet philistinism seems to be a bottomless pit) that unequivocally show that none of the public works and palaces built by the Achaemenids were works of slaves; e.g. all labourers involved in the construction of Persepolis received payments for their labours; there were many women amongst the heads of construction projects; families of even the lowest of labourers received fresh meat from the state as part of their nutritions, people had rest days once in ten to fourteen days, people received retirement pensions, etc., etc. No, ancient Persians were civilised people and deeply humane, and the wealth of historical evidence that there is, is not and cannot be for propaganda purposes, much less a tiny cylinder which was meant to be buried inside the foundation of a building (propaganda is never buried, to begin with!). Just read the teachings of Zoroastrianism (the state religion of the Achaemenids) and realise that it is a deeply humane religion, which does not approve of slavery, untruthfulness, injustice, etc., etc. Just read Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, which shows ancient Iran in historical perspective, some 1200 years later. Rostam for instance, is a man of great integrity, great magnanimity, etc. He does not win fights by deception, but fights most honestly. I can go on and on, but make a long story short by saying that some philistines have the tendency to see the history of a great nation from the narrow perspectives of their own narrow mental eyes. They cannot simply imagine that Cyrus was truly a great man --- we do not have much written history about ancient Persians beyond what a hostile nation, namely Greeks, wrote about them (even so, in Xenophon's Cyropaedia we read only good things about Cyrus the Great --- but of course, the anti-Persians say that Xenophon were a toady, sucking up to Persians), however those who know the ups and downs of the Persian culture, the traces of which can still be found inside people's hearts in the small towns and villages of today's Iran, can see history written all over the place. Ancient Persians had some 70 days of festive days per year! Even today, the number of public holidays in Iran is greater than in any other country in the world! This is going to become a long epistle, if I do not stop here. Actually, we have now a much older civilization in Jiroft, the surface of which we have as yet not touched! With kind regards, --BF 03:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dorood.. the problem I think is perspective. Read here for example: "Such interpretations of Iranian identity seem to have been influenced by Eurocentric notions of national identity, drawn from Western civic-territorial experiences of nationhood and nationalism. Pre-modern, non-Western nations do not fit easily into this ethnocentric Western paradigm. The idea of nationhood in societies of Asia is often derived from fictive genealogical and territorial origins and vernacular culture and religion, whereas Western ideas of nationhood have been historically based on the specific boundaries, the development of legal-rational communities, and civic cultures "[5]. I recently had to explain to an admin the difference but I doubt they understood it. They thought that some of the old identities in the Near East are "something new", whereas we know that is completely false based on hundreds of sources. The same now applies with the concept of "human rights". The person who abused Wikipedia users and now has left claimed that "Human Rights" is a Western invention.. Where-as if we think about it, human rights is really nothing more than applying the Golden Rule which has existed in every major religion, including Zoroastrianism. On the Cyrus Cylinder, the traditional European view has been positive (up to 1980s and also partially influenced by Christianity/Judiasm), but it seems a sort of "leftist/atheist" and "posivist" viewpoint is now becoming more prevalent. Also, since history of 2500 years does not change much, in order for some historians to make a mark, they have to comeup with radical viewpoints that challenges the mainstream. This is all becoming too common now. I would try to argue for something like page 59 here: [6]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khodabandeh14, at issue is not whether the sense in which "human rights" is used by us today, in particular in the Western hemisphere and since 1945, had a counterpart at the time of Cyrus the great and in that part of the world relevant to the present discussion. It is being claimed that the text inscribed on Cyrus Cylinder is merely a piece of propaganda, some sort of make-believe, a scam on a grand scale, with no roots in the actual facts as we know them. It is of course futile to argue about the sense in which we understand human rights today and the sense in which it was perceived over 2500 years ago. Yet, the claim that Cyrus Cylinder were merely a piece of propaganda would be credible only if we knew of things committed by Cyrus the great and his dynasty that were contrary to the spirit of the text on Cyrus Cylinder. As I have mentioned above, we know for certain that ancient Persians did not use slaves. The word Paradise, pairi-daēza, came into being because Achaemenids built gardens all over the place. Freeing slaves, building buildings and public works, etc., these are things that Achaemenids did, and these are more of less the things that are recorded on the Cylinder. What is propagandistic about them, one might wonder.
I have just the summary of the text of the Cylinder, as recorded in the Wikipedia entry, before me. Lines 1-19 revile Nabonidus. Fine! Cyrus could not have praised him, could he?! For argument's sake, just imagine that on the American armed forces entering Baghdad, President G.W. Bush would go on the American television and praise Saddam Hossein! The latter was reviled for more than ten years before he was finally got rid of! Lines 20-22 recount Cyrus' Royal Titles. Fine! Since when has naming oneself become propagandistic? Lines 22-34 commend Cyrus for restoring Babylon. Unless the Old Testament is written on Cyrus' order, I should say that Cyrus' commendations are corroborated by independent authors! Lines 34-35 contain a prayer to Marduk. This just shows how open-minded Cyrus the great has been, to pray to a God who is not his own God. The other possibility would have been that Cyrus, having just gained undisputed control over a new territory, would have said: to hell with your god; worship my God or die! He didn't do these things. Instead, he placed himself on a lower place than a local deity and prayed to him. This is nothing short of showing respect to people and their beliefs and traditions. Just consider what many centuries later Moguls did to Iran! They did not leave a green tree standing, not a library standing, etc. Lines 36-37 report on Cyrus enabling people to live in peace and increase their offerings to their gods. If we had historical evidence to the contrary, we had all reason to consider this as propaganda. But I for one have never encountered a document indicating that Cyrus for instance took the women and children from Babylon for slavery back to Iran. If he had done so, we could rightfully say that Lines 36-37 were propaganda. In fact, Old Testament is full of praise for the release of the Jewish folk being kept in captivity; Cyrus the great is referred to as Messiah in Old Testament. Lines 38-45 record the building projects in Babylon ordered by Cyrus. Do we have any evidence that these projects were non-existent?
It is overwhelmingly evident that by inserting an unpleasant word into a discussion (here "propaganda"), certain individuals manage to divert attention to things that are utterly irrelevant to that discussion, exactly like what magicians do --- by motions of one hand, they divert the attention of the viewer, and with their other hand they perform their trick. In point of fact, the proponents of the "propaganda" theory, if it is a theory at all, are just minor figures. Van der Spek, a minor and controversial figure at Free University of Amsterdam (my Dutch friends consider him a fantasist and a laughing-stock; one of van der Spek's theories is that Old Testament is a Persian fakery; he asserts that Persians just invented Judaism, gave a group of people a manufactured book and a manufactured history and then settled them in an area in Middle East that was of strategic significance to them. The most astonishing of all is seeing a Jewish scholar like Amélie Kuhrt sitting in the same boat as van der Spek who has unequivocally declared Jewish history a grand fakery), Mathias Schulz, a right-wing journalist with der Spiegel (an utterly illiterate man by all accounts, with an inborn hatred of anything Iranian --- have never read an article by him that made sense to me), Johannes Haubold, a junior lecturer in Greek literature at a second-tier British university --- Durham University is not one of the twenty universities of the Russell Group (most likely, he has just read too much of anti-Persian Greek texts), etc., etc. All the anti-Persian references of the Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder are also to conference books. As you must know, these conference books are just a mishmash of everything, good, bad and things in-between. What is needed as a reference is a treatise on Cyrus Cylinder, written by a select group of authorities, not just some conference books filled with undergraduate work, by people whose sole academic "reputation" is based on reading some classical Greek texts, if at all (I cannot believe that Mathias Schulz can read Greek), and rendering them into German or English.
In point of fact, to my best judgement the discussion now being conducted on the talk page of Cyrus Cylinder is a discuss about irrelevancies. And the participants in this discussions, they just talk about their gut feelings and hearsays. None of them seems having any idea of the background to the manufactured show that has been staged since a number of years against things Iranian (do any of them know for instance who ven der Spek is and what ideologies he espouses?). It is just barely one months since Pentagon officially ordered the US Navy to call Persian Gulf "Arabian Gulf" in all their communications. Cyrus the great suddenly becoming a reprehensible dubious guy, living off propaganda and lies, is just another facet of the same strategy. The message being sent out is that Iranians are just bad and untrustworthy, as evidenced by the "fact" that even the jewel in the crown of their history were a corrupt, scheming scum. Kind regards, -BF 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Making this into a pro vs anti-Persian debate is nonsense. And anyone who thinks Durham is a 2nd tier university hasn't done their research. See League tables of British universities and our article Durham University. It's up in the top of the first tier. I't also very much of a WP:BLP violation to call Johannes Haubold a junior lecturer. This sort of attack doesn't even belong on users talk pages - he's a Senior Lecturer, to be specific he is Leverhulme Senior Lecturer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to turn this issue into a debate about the academic merits or otherwise of certain individuals and universities. Yet, I stay by my earlier statement that Durham University is not one of the twenty universities of the Russell Group. In fact, the ranking to which you refer is only tangentially related to the academic excellence of universities in general and of University of Durham in particular, and much less with that of the Department of Classics and Ancient History of this university (the things I am talking about are not measured by newspapers, but by peers*). Further, Johannes Haubold is a junior lecturer in my accounting, and in everyone else's accounting for that matter. In the British academic system, you have Lecturer, Reader and Professor, and the rest are just inflated titles (titles with shins put on them) with absolutely no legal status, whatever. In point of fact, I know full well what Leverhulme Foundation does and need no lecturing about them.
Actually, these are all unnecessary diversions, as my main point is that Johannes Haubold is not qualified to opine on Persian History (neither about any other History that he has not studied explicitly), merely because of translating some classical Greek texts into some other language. In fact, I am being unnecessarily too harsh on Johannes Haubold, as he was merely quoted in that empty and substandard article of Mathias Schulz' in der Spiegel of some years ago (mind you, der Spiegel is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, yet it is this very article by Schulz that has given rise to the present debate); to my best knowledge, Haubold has never gone out of his way to make the statements that Schulz has made outside academic environments.
*) On the webpage of Department of Classics and Ancient History of University of Durham one reads that in the Research Assessment Exercise of 2008, 65% of their research was ranked 4* and 3*. These are just appalling results in which way one looks. Anything below 5 (and then for 100% of the total research, and not just 65% of that --- clearly, 35% of their research have not be up to standards at all) is just unacceptable, and I strongly suspect that the Humanities Department of Durham University will not survive the cuts that are now under way. The real fight is about overall 5 and overall 5*. The fact that they are quiet about the precise percentage of their research that has received 4*, gives me the suspicion that they are being economical with truth (1% 4* and 64% 3* would perfectly fit their specific formulation). Some years ago they closed down the entire Department of Chemistry of University of Exeter, just like that; it was deemed not good enough, so it had to go. The ranking of universities by newspapers is mostly about the overall quality of life in universities and their surrounding towns. People contributing to these rankings (which without any doubt are very relevant measures) are mostly undergraduates, and for this group of people the quality of research, which is measured by expert panels of Research Assessment Exercise, is not very relevant.
-BF 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DougWeller, Durham and Haubold point taken. But how do you respond to the rest of what they are saying? What are you reasons for saying that their points are nonsense? GoetheFromm (talk) 21
54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

reply

[edit]

I have lost track of this, hm, discussion, but since you asked me a direct question, "Are you stating that every editor that disagrees with the idea that the 'Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights' is fringe, is a nationalist?" let me put my position in perspective.

I have been active on Wikipedia for more than six years. Wikipedia has its own dynamics and its own mechanisms. It isn't comparable to either scholarly or personal opinion-building. Wikipedia is very often targeted by opinionated groups who organize online, in internet fora, blogs or the like.

One very vocal and persistent such group is into Iranian nationalism. These are mostly young expatriate Iranian males living in the US. They have no interest in discussing Iranian history encyclopedically or critically, they just want naive glorification of Iran in order to feel better about themselves. Trying to discuss reason with these editors is just a waste of time. One item they have targeted is the Cyrus Cylinder. This has been going on for years. Everything that can reasonably be said about this has been said years ago. The case is closed, and now it is just a question of protecting Wikipedia content against an orchestrated malevolent campaign. My position is that anyone who comes to Wikipedia to make noise about "the Cyrus Cylinder is a charter of human rights" as if this was somehow a new insight or something Wikipedia has been missing is part of an Iranian nationalist trolling campaign and should be shown the door. I can very well distinguish this from potentially constructive comments on the topic, such as people who modestly point out a passage in scholarly literature that may illuminate a new angle or suggest a rephrasing of our current coverage. But as long as we just see a bunch of accounts trying to tout the Cyrus Cylinder in a discussion of the history of human rights, my position is that these edits should be rolled back on sight, the editors warned or blocked, and no further time wasted in fruitless discussion of a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann, thanks for the clarification.
I certainly understand and support your position of wanting to prevent articles from being vandalized or to contain false information. But, with all due respect, my impression of you (after reading the way you've written to others) is that you have taken the extreme, if not fanatical, position to react whenever the topic remotely discuss the Cyrus Cylinder and human rights, and accusing a subset of editors of being trolls, nationalists, etc, whatever else that you've been calling them. Again, I'm not saying that they don't exist. But I fail to see how your occasional aggressive, and brash behavior helps with being constructive. It has made me feel that you have your own POV to push (your recent comment above negates that impression, btw).
I can list editors on many sides in the past (looking at page histories, discussion pages etc.) that have been banned for pushing POV and willfully engaging in inappropriate editing behavior. I won't name them unless asked...and still think that you get my point anyhow. So, I think it is safe to say that the Cyrus Cylinder with regards to human rights, for whatever reasons, has become contentious. Perhaps it might need to have semi-protection to prevent the campaign to which you've alluded (in which a bunch of new users merely edit one page)?
All this being said, I respect your prolific presence and I appreciate that you can distinguish this from potentially constructive comments on this topic, such as people who modestly point out a passage in scholarly literature that my illuminate a new angle or suggest a rephrasing of our current coverage. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Dab: as you can verify, I certainly have systematically kept away from Cyrus Cylinder and related discussions. Further, you cannot find anywhere a statement by me pro or con the Cyrus Cylinder being a Human-Rights Act. In fact, I have very consciously kept away from the discussions being conducted on the talk page of Cyrus Cylinder. My appearance here is solely a response to the invitation by GoetheFromm, placed on my talk page some two days ago. All these raise the serious question with me as to your motivation for recording your above specific comment here, on this very page.
BehnamFarid, and Khodabandeh, I have really been enjoying the depth and pithiness of your arguments. I would like to suggest that both of you actually take an active part on the discussion and editing of relevant articles, instead of systematically staying away from them. Whether or not others agree to your points and edits, I think that you will, nonetheless, assist in creating an accurate portrayal of the famous Cyrus the Great. I truly think it would be a shame for you two to refrain from the discourse and editing. We need editors with your knowledge and passion. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoetheFromm, thank you for your kindness. As I have said earlier, I have my reservations about getting into editing entries that by their nature attract too much attention. But of course I may change my mind later. Before closing, there is something in DB's remarks with which I sympathise: when I was trying to get the "fish" off the Haft-Sin table in the Nowruz entry, I was accused by one of my compatriots of "Khamenh-izing" the English Wikipedia, whatever that may mean (here "Khamenh" refers to Ayatollah Khamenei). I was never offered an apology by this person, even after confronting him with the verdict of one of the highest Zoroastrian institutions in the world, namely the Assembly of Zoroastrian Mobeds in Tehran. Some of my compatriots are readily inclined to see anything said or written about things related to ancient Iran as an offensive action, and they should be made to understand when they become unreasonable. With kind regards, --BF 22:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The essence of the issues that I have raised on this page is that the Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder has been rudely turned into an indictment sheet against Cyrus the great. While I am not a person readily to add my voice to the chorus of the Cyrus-Cylinder-Human-Rights-Act people, I deeply resent to see the character assassination of Cyrus the great on the present Cyrus-Cylinder page. I believe, largely based on my personal knowledge of the Persian culture and the Persian literature, that the inscriptions on Cyrus Cylinder truly reflect aspects of the ancient Persian culture, a culture that you will find fully intact to this day in some people by visiting small hamlets and tribal areas inside Iran, where people still live like thousands of years ago (for instance, there is a place in Esfahan Province, called Varzaneh, where commonly all women wear white chadours, and the tradition goes deeply into ancient history of Iran, long before the arrival of Islam; after the Revolution of 1979, some women in Varzaneh changed into wearing black chadours, however since sometimes ago a strong local campaign has begun to urge the women of Varzaneh to return to white chadours). In fact, if you know Old Persian, you will still be able to hear very strong reverberations of this ancient language in the languages and dialects spoken by these people. I have known these people from close quarters. You may not believe it, but you may delve as deep as you wish into these people's psyche, but you will fail to find the slightest trace of such thing as, say, jealousy in these people's minds. You will not trace a sense of superiority in these people. You will not find these people ever telling a lie, etc. They are just pure people, without being naive or simple-minded (if one's intentions are not right, they will smell it, as it were, from miles away). Actually, many of these people live in the West of Iran, in the Zagros-mountain region (they trace their roots to the ancient Elamites) and it stands to reason that the forefathers of these very people were the soldiers in Cyrus the great's army, accompanying him in his Babylon campaign. From this perspective, it is overwhelmingly evident to me that the contents of Cyrus Cylinder cannot be a piece of state propaganda, as asserted in the present Wikipedia entry regarding Cyrus Cylinder. See the short video trailers here, and the corresponding production photographs here.
Knowing history is not solely about being able to read classical languages, but also, and significantly, about having the ability to connect historical facts with the reality on the ground. The tail-end of an ancient culture about which I wrote above, is not separate from the culture of the ancient Iranians itself. This understanding is utterly missing in the present Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder. Consider a mathematical function, say f(x), that for large x to leading order decays like 1/x (the "tail-end"). Although this information does not specify f(x) fully, it reveals, amongst other things, that f(x) cannot be an even function of x (f(x) is even if f(-x) = f(x)). Likewise, my knowledge of the Persian culture and Persian language inform me that the Cyrus of the present Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder is not the real Cyrus, but an intentionally disfigured Cyrus. This I know for certain. In this connection, I could say something about the belief in Farr-e Izadi, roughly translated as God's Grace, by ancient Persians, which I leave unsaid. I suffice for now by saying that a person like Cyrus the great did not believe that he was an anointed king for life, but for so longs as Farr-e Izadi was with him. Amongst others, injustice to people would lead to Farr-e Izadi to fly away, as it were. He needed Farr-e Izadi, and for this he had to respect a set of ethical rules. Almost all, if not all, of the people who have the temerity to write about Cyrus the great negatively, are absolutely ignorant about the concept of Farr-e Izadi.
To summarise, it is my deepest conviction that the present Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder is scandalous by any standards. It has been systematically and meticulously manipulated by a professional propagandist (as evidenced by the quality of the references used in building the case against Cyrus the great --- almost none of the people cited are considered serious scholars by the real scholars; these are just fringe people with absolutely no following or even something resembling traction in the academic world; as I have written above, e.g. van der Spek is considered a demented clown by the people in the know --- he takes for example the dreams of Daniel in Old Testament, and says that these prove that Old Testament were a Persian forgery, since Persians were obsessed with dreams! He clearly doesn't know where Daniel lived! Daniel's Shrine is in Khuzestan, Iran! I mean, this man even does not know the rudiments of the culture of the people about which he has the temerity to write, and less about the geography! And now he is cited as the prime witness in a case brought against Cyrus the great in English Wikipedia! This is nothing less than a scandal of the first order! I have for too long kept quiet about this scandal, hoping that some sane minds might correct the entry, but all in vain as it has proved. People must read something about someone and his/her works before citing that person! There are bunch of lunatics who say Quantum Mechanics cannot be a correct theory because the constant of Planck in SI units is of the order of 10 to the power -34 and this is smaller than the machine accuracy according to the quadruple-precision arithmetic in digital computers! Most modern digital computers are equipped with double-precision arithmetic, for which the machine accuracy is 10 to the power -16. Importantly and revealingly, these people clearly do not even know the notion of number of significant digits. Now go and modify the Wikipedia entry on Quantum Mechanics on the lines of these people's views --- they publish books on their stuff, so there is absolutely no shortage of published references, if one looked for them!). I stop here, as I have already written far more than I had intended to. Kind regards, --BF 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Further to what I have written above, regarding Mathias Schulz, to my best judgement he is a fraud. At the time I analysed his text in der Spiegel, and found a wealth of contradictions in what he ascribes to Old Testament and the actual text of Old Testament. Actually, those who know a little bit the book can immediately see the disfigurements. I suspect that he is simply illiterate, rather than a fraud, unable to read and comprehend a piece a ancient text. Needless to say, his der Spiegel article is yet another heavily-cited article in the Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder. One has to wonder whether those who have turned this entry into its present sorry form had some ulterior reasons for their undertakings. -BF 18:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoetheFromm, I certainly hav a "pov" in this. My point of view is that the encyclopedicity of our article needs to be protected, and that we are not required to waste time over questions that have been fully addressed in the past unless new evidence is presented properly and coherently. Yes, I agree that the Cyrus Cylinder should be mentioned in the context of the history of human rights. It should be mentioned in the context of the 1970s history of the United Nations, and the eroding of the notion of human rights as it arose during the Age of Enlightenment, by cultural relativism, propaganda and realpolitik. This is a process that started in the 1970s and peaked with the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and the travesty that is the United Nations Human Rights Council. This needs to be based on solid, scholarly secondary sources and it needs to take place entirely within a historical context of "1945 to present". This is what we should be discussing. I am not trying to stifle that discussion, I am trying to make it happen by preventing people from abusing Wikipedia as a prapaganda platform for anachronistic pseudo-scholarship about the Iron Age. I will continue to insist that the "history of human rights" discussion loses its ridiculous "Iron Age and classical antiquity" angle and focusses on modernity instead. --dab (𒁳) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DBachmann, I could not agree with you any more. I have been actively proposing time and time again, that editors focus on the topic at hand, and not get sidetracked with other irrelevant concerns (Ludwig2, in my opinion, is the only editor that really hit the issues on the nail). Love what you are saying regarding putting the history in the context of 1945-Present (Post WWII, the Cold War, Middle East politics, Oil Crises, etc....) . I also agree with the history of human rights losing it "Iron Age and Classical antiquity" angle to focus on modernity instead. Absolutely. You will see that I've supported your point on the History of Human rights talk page. GoetheFromm (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A senior lecturer in a British University is generally the equivalent of a Reader. There is a huge difference in the number of Professors in British Universities compared to other English speaking countries, and it many countries most Senior Lecturers here would be full professors. It makes no difference to any article, but I'm not leaving this error unchallenged. It looks as though on the important things we may be making progress. Dougweller (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, this is really a diversion, of no consequence to the discussion at hand regarding Cyrus Cylinder. I stand by what I have said earlier, and if you believe that I am in the wrong, that is fine with me. I am certainly not immune from errors, so that you should not interpret what I have just said as anything other than what I have just said. How things are organized at Universities outside the UK was never part of my argument, so I shall not go into it. Kind regards, --BF 22:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'll make a comment here I guess. I totally agree with what Behnam states. A Ph.D. is also no substitute for basic logic, and I have pointed out gross mistakes in major Encyclopaedias by some of the major orientalists, and yet I have a Ph.D. in the technical fields not related to history. I just wanted to add something to Behnam's statement.

  • One thing is that research about the Cylinder is not over judging from the very recent 2010 BM statement[7]: "In addition, they show that the ‘declaration’ on the Cylinder is much more than a standard Babylonian building inscription. It was probably an imperial decree that was distributed around the Persian Empire, and it may have been pronouncements of this sort that the author of the Biblical book of Ezra was able to draw upon when writing about Cyrus."

This was suppressed in the Cylinder article due to the general atmosphere of quoting anything pro-Cyrus is considered "nationalism".

  • The other false idea is that the Shah of Iran cameup with the "Human rights" concept is nonsense. Here is an article from 1911[8]: "Upon the cylinder record of the time of Cyrus the following significant inscription has been found: "All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle.) " . Already Hassan Pirnia and other writers from Iran way before the late Shah have made similar statements, but somehow I guess relating the statement to "Shah" is more attractive than Western Scholars taking the credit with coming up with such a concept.

Let me cut alittle bit here into another story. As you know, in Persian and Arabian folk story, there is a pre-Islamic guy name Hatam Tai who is well known for his genority, mercy and charity. His noble deeds and acts were so great that his name spread. This Hatam Tai had a brother who became jealous of Hatam and tried to construct a way for himself to get famous. In the end, the way he decided to get famous is to take a leak in the Zamzam Well. But till this day, he is simply known as "the borther of Hatam Tati". The moral of this story is this. Up to the 1980s this was the opinion on Cyrus.

  • Richar Frye:

(Richard Frye)

  • Dandamayev:

."

  • Max Mallowan:
  • Will Durant:

Anyhow the list goes on.. but all the sudden.. inorder for unnamed historians to make a name for themselves, just like the brother of Hatam Tati, they have to pea in the water and call Cyrus's action as "Propoaganda".

Now the funniest part is this. You ask an American that if they love Osama Bin Laden.. They will say no, despite all the propaganda. You ask an Iranian if they love Saddam Hussein.. they would say no. You ask the French if they like Hitler or the Germans if they like Stalin and etc... The answer is No. But the funny thing is this. The only sources we really have on the characteristics of Cyrus the Great, is from the main enemies of the Persians, who were the Greeks.

  • Plato:
  • Aeschylus in his poem Persae(the Persians) pays tribute to Cyrus:

So there are two mutually exclusive viewpoints. A) Somehow, Cyrus the Great 2500 years seems to have had a better propaganda machine than Fox news today. Because Fox News is not able to somehow make the millions of anti-American fanatics in South Asia and Near East to become pro-American. But somehow, Cyrus the Great was able to win over the Greeks who considered the Persians as their biggest rival and enemy. B) Take the simple's solution. Cyrus was an exceptional man in order for the Greeks to praise him. If someone checks the annals of history now in 2500 years in the future, they will read about a polarized world. But if someone focuses attention to the annals of history 2500 years, all the statements about Cyrus the Great are from the Greeks(not the Iranians) who praised him lavishly. Now these Greeks did not praise alll the Persian Kings, so they were not forced. Somehow, "Persian Propoganda" 2500 years was powerful enough to win over the Greeks with regards to Cyrus but not with regards to the other Kings is itself problematic proposition.

Anyhow on this whole idea and relationship with Human Rights (which might sound anachronistic in some sense, but I firmly believe Human Rights for its own time and space is preached by the major religion and Zoroastrian/Judaism at that time which followed the Golden rule...). My overall opinion is shared by these two modern scholars.

  • W. J. Talbott, "Which Rights Should be Universal?", Oxford University Press US, 2005. excerpt from pg 40): Perhaps the earliest known advocate of religious tolerance was Cyrus the Great, king of Persia in the sixth century B.C.E. Cyrus also opposed slavery and freed thousands of slaves. These facts do not make Cyrus or Ashoka an advocate of human rights. They do show that ideas that led to the development of human rights are not limited to one cultural tradition.
  • John Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Beatrice Andre-Salvini, "Forgotten Empire ", Published by University of California Press, 2005. excerpt: Because of the reference to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods the cylinder has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'Charter of Human Rights'. Such a concept would have been quite alien to Cyrus's contemporaries, and indeed the cylinder says nothing of human rights; but return of the Jews and of other deported peoples were a significant reversal of the policies of ealier Assyrian and Babylonian Kings(page 59).

I think Goethefromm can work these two modern sources in the appropriate article. BTW Cyrus the Great is represented in traditional Persian lore partly by Kay Khusraw. Abu Rayhan Biruni identifies these two as the same person more than 1000+ years ago and of course the ancient Persians had a tendency to mythicize history (which is actually fine, since the essense is what counts not the form), and the character of Kay Khusraw is sublime in that mythological tradition. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for budding in on this talk page, but I couldn't help following the discussion from the History of human rights. As far as I can see, these two sources seems to explicitly state that the Cyrus cylinder is not an "early form of human rights", but that they may be counted as one of the "ethical contributions" to modern human rights, just like Ishay states in that work I mentioned on the discussion page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorood

[edit]

If you need mores sources for your study, I have copied a portion of the book by the late Professor Shapur Shahbazi on Cyrus which quotes many of the classics. Feel free to send me an email and I'll be happy to send it to you. However, on human rights, the overall viewpoint is that it would be anachronism for 2500 years ago. Piruz Baashid --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Khodabandeh, this is just to point out that in my comment of 21 December 2010, 19:59 (hereabove), I wrote the following:
"It is of course futile to argue about the sense in which we understand human rights today and the sense in which it was perceived over 2500 years ago."
Explicitly, the issues regarding Human Rights, insofar as the Cylinder is concerned, have never been of any concern to me. My concern is that the Wikipedia entry on Cyrus Cylinder has been used as a launching pad for a wholesale assault on Cyrus the great and what he truly stood for. The whole subdivision of the entry into sections regarding the views of the human-rights proponents and the human-rights opponents is just an artificial construct, cleverly (now, what is "clever"?) contrived to sling mud at Cyrus and his personality (what I earlier called the "character assassination" of him). With kind regards, --BF 20:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
ps: I seem not to have your e-mail address. --BF 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Dorood Behnam Jan, yes I totally agree and have put my critic of Kuhrt above. MY email may be accessed through my infobox by enabling your email. I have changed my email address from two years ago. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Bakhtiari people

[edit]

Above I have given two links related to a recent documentary on the Bakhtiari people. Here are links to an older documentary by Shusha Guppy on the Bakhtiari people: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5. Incidentally, it is in this documentary where Shusha Guppy sings some of the by now famous Bakhtiari folk-songs for the first time. -BF 01:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Happy Holidays!

[edit]

My dear friend! I wish you a wonderful holliday with family and friends! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorood

[edit]

You are correct, "Many" is a weasel word...You can change it to according to "Amelie Kuhrt and Wieshofer..".. Sources are need directly to say "Many Historians...". Piruz Baashid.. Raasti agar misheh yek raayaanaameh beh man befrestid. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.GoetheFromm (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I see no evidence that those links are not copyright violations. I'd like you to revert yourself. See for instance WP:ELNEVER which although about external links applies to any YouTube links that may be copyright violations. I can't understand why it isn't obvious to you that they are copyright violations. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying it is "copy right violation" to make reference to a video on youtube? So then why is it not also a violation to make a reference to "a book". ? I am not sure I am following the logic. Explain? Thanks. Dr. Persi (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, among other reasons it is because that's our policy. But the difference is that when you link to a book, you are linking to the product itself. If you linked to a knockoff of the book, or more often, a copy of an article placed illegally on the web, that's copyvio. And the same goes for YouTube. If you link directly to an official site, no problem, if you link to a YouTube site that's not official where someone has just uploaded a copy, that's copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, GoetheFromm, please consider my posting here a warning. You took it upon yourself to replace the copyvio without asking me why I said it was copyvio. You should never take it upon yourself to do that, always start a discussion in an appropriate venue. I really do suggest that when an experienced editor, whether or not they are an Admin, tells you something like that you start a discussion and not just tell them they are wrong. That's just polite. And when it involves policy violations (not just guidelines), it's also wise. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DougWeller, you can be assured that I consider all your postings with the equality of a warning. However, I'd like to politely remind that the onus of editing, not reverts, remains on the one making the edits. I provided rationale for my reverts (this is clear in history log). Also, as mentioned before you are prolific, I'd like to see you replace instead of remove highly useful links. Otherwise, you are doing more damage than help to the article that we are collaborating on. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editing includes making reverts. When you reverted my edits you restored copyvio material, which made you responsible for adding it. Those links weren't necessary and we do not allow copyvio. Keeping it in the article is what does more harm than good. I don't understand why you don't think you should have found alternatives rather than restore copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I put DIRECT link to the VIDEO on History Channel and we will see what other superfluous excuse u can come up with! Is that acceptable by the policy? Dr. Persi (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old. Why the insults? You've been doing some good editing recently, and now this? I doh't appreciate the suggestion that I removed copyvio because I didn't like the source. GoetheFromm, why shouldn't I be frustrated if my motives are impugned here? Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dr. Persi, for putting a direct link. That was the right course of action once DougWeller suspected a copyvio. GoetheFromm (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DougWeller, am I denying you the right to feel whatever it is that you are feeling (in this case frustration)? Of course I am not. At this point it is only coincidental that you are so adamant about copyvio but unable or unwilling to find a suitable replacement. This is especially in light of your past displayed ability to conjure invaluable information, resources and links. It would've been better for you to actually find a direct link, instead of Dr. Persi doing so. But I understand that sometimes these things just don't happen...c'est la vie! Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions of my edits

[edit]

I've also just realised that you've reverted me twice in row, and in both cases you didn't give any content reasons - the first was because you didn't like my edit summary, possibly because it was incomplete (although you by doing that replaced an unreliable source and ignored the fact that the editor I reverted had also left an incomplete edit summary), the 2nd time of course is the one I mention above. Please make sure you deal with content and aren't reverting just because it's me. This is probably a coincidence, but you know what they say about 3 coincidences in a row...? Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DougWeller, what do they say about 3 coincidences in a row? Why don't you communicate clearly instead of intimating what you want to say?
Next, I'm really tired today so I'll be quick...there is no expectation that an edit summary matches work completely. But in your case, the edit summary, to my opinion, sorely missed your revisions. You revised the actual content without rationale. Hence, the revert.
Please do not take edits personally, you've displayed some frustration in the past few weeks (if you'd like I'd be happy to point out a few examples). WP:NAM.
Last, as you know, you and I have been working on the same articles and have been collaborating. There are times I agree and there are times I disagree with you. Please kindly remember that and do not overwhelm.... GoetheFromm (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else have thoughts on this? GoetheFromm (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted Dr Persi,his edit was the revision. I went back to the original text, noting specifically that a source he added wasn't a reliable source. I don't see any essential difference between my edit summary, which mentions the source and explains my removal, and his which mentions the source and also said "The section already references the main article "the cyrus cylinder" so no need to focus on shah's agenda, as this is about Cyrus the Great, not the former." which I didn't understand anyway. He didn't mention rearranging the paragraph and I didn't either. So no, I didn't revise the content, I replaced the original content. Sorry if my comment isn't clear, but then I've had some problems with your comments not being clear also - I'll try to be clearer in the future . It simply means that if you revert me twice with what I see as inadequate reasons that could be coincidence, a 3rd time (which would be your restoring the copyvio which I hope you won't) looks more personal. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, DougWeller, if you read my comments carefully you will have known that I have no intention restoring copyvio, but I am concerned with your lack of concern about including a very useful source for the purposes of the page....
For the record your implication was quite clear, but it is better that you state rather than implying it even though others know what you are talking about. Thanks.
Polite question: is English your second language? Is German better for communication between us? GoetheFromm (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that question. For a while I have been wondering what nationality you are Dougweller. You have every right to deny to answer this question and do not take this the wrong way it is not that I am implying anythign but I just feel that it be interesting to know where you hail from! Dr. Persi (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter? And I don't understand why I'm being asked about my native tongue. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Achaemenid Empire

[edit]

Thank you for your message, and would like to also welcome yourself to Wikipedia (as you appear to be oblivious to many policies in place).

<um...I edited before I noticed the message>

I'd like to bring up to your attention that you are, as of now, three edits of replacing Palestine with Israel on the Achaeminid Empire page constitutes disruptive editing. And had I not intervened, your document would remain in contravention of several UN resolutions. Not to mention falsification of actual history and geagraphy anyway - regarless of the ongoing questionable political situation. Let there be no question: Israel has no place in any *neutral* documentation. Nor does it have legitimate standing as is. You yourself are now complicit in the 'legitimisation' of an illigitimate,immoral, zionist (and this racist, anti-semite, facist) and rogue state. A so-called 'state' that is in violation of several UN resolutions. A state that is - without any doubt - complicit in war crimes.

Aside from the possible 'emotive' accusations you may attempt to place upon me in this regard, I draw your attention to the facts (60 or so UN resolutions, Goldstone Report and so on). Please, if you are going to attempt to write an article for an cyber institution, of which a vast majority of the general *international* polulation rely upon for legitimate and historic fact (I know, god help us!), then please remain up to date on legistations and resolutions against terrorist states which thus draws their legitimacy into question.

As for the following:

//Please consider this a warning of your behavior.//

No. I will not consider it a warning of my behavior. I do not accept this contract.

However, I do propose that you consider this a warning of your illegal, biased, unreliable and unfair behaviour on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, feel free to talk to me on my talk page. Thank you. Peskypix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peskypix (talk • contribs) 18:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Palestine anymore. Palestine was a British naming now obsolete. Israel is the official and by many accounts the correct historical term. I dont know what you are talking about Perskypix or why change is "illegitimate." I wouldnt mind Palestine personally but no preferrence should be given. Dr. Persi (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Peskypix, reverting vandalizing and disruptive editing is not considered violation of WP:3RR, please read carefully. My warning was friendly to prevent any future blocks by an admin. Take it or leave it, but it is fairly common to issue such warnings.
Next, I am in support of you including accurate information. but replacing Israel with Palestine is clearly a political, "emotive" statement. Regardless of your position that: Israel has no place in any *neutral* documentation. Nor does it have legitimate standing as is or that I am complicit in the legitimisation of an illigitimate,immoral, zionist (and this racist, anti-semite, facist) and rogue state. or that Israel is a so-called 'state' that is in violation of several UN resolutions. A state that is - without any doubt - complicit in war crimes... If you would like to include Palestine then I suggest that you included Palestine without replacing Israel (which is additive rather subtractive). If you feel that Israel must be replaced with Palestine then I suggest you bring it up on the talk page and respect other editors. Get it?
Last, please keep in mind that your tone in attacking me an editor is in violation of WP:NPA. And you general edits, thus far, is WP:TE.
Also, don't forget to sign after your comments. Use four tildes (4 of these: ~) after your comments.
Last, I'd like offer advice to you: you seem to be passionate and knowledgeable about certain topics. My advice to you is to conform and respect the forum upon which you are editing so that you knowledge and contribs are not sabotaged by your lack of discipline or order that is commonly accepted. You seem to be an editor that'll go far if you can play the game. GoetheFromm (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Gulf

[edit]

Please do not put the Persian version of the name. This would give the conception that the article is dominated by the Persian point of view which is not true and in turn would lead to the Arabic term and then the whole page is full of different versions that ppl keep coming up with. Persian Gulf would be the solemn term and the Name Dispute would address the name variations. Thanks man I know you would understand :) Happy New Year and I really wish we could get together and chill bro! You are a great guy and a wonderful editor! Dr. Persi (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and I understand what you are saying. Thank you for your diligence on the topic. Also, thank you very much for your New Years wish. Would like to extend the same wish to you. So sorry that I'm returning your well wishes on this day, though...

Feel free to contact me via e-mail on private matters by the way...let me know if you can access it. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, GoetheFromm. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank You!

[edit]

Thank you for your impartial, helpful, and policy oriented assistance. You are truely not just a great friend but a great Wikipedian. Have a wonderful week and I look forward to reading more of your input! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?

[edit]

I havent spoken to you in a while. I hope all is well. You just wanted to get me addicted to history so you can leave Wiki, didnt you :P? I hope all is well Geo, hope to hear from you! Dr. Persi (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

[edit]

All is well actually. As usual been busy reading and learning. The whole shift of focus from medicine to history has been bitter sweet. I have learned so much about Persian history, mostly thanks to Google books online that allow me to read a good volume of pages. I got motivated enough to delve into a few Architectural books since the coverage for Achaemenid architecture has been non-existing and so I ended up making Achaemenid architecture which I hope the readers would like. I also started reading on Egyptian (ancient egypt) history as well. It has also been bitter since I was put on WQA by user Artacoana for mispelling Afghanestan (as we both know my spelling is horrid) but thankfully Dougweller was nice to let me know and so that issue blew away. Then I had a bit of an interaction with another user Athenean who is a motivated contributor to Greek history so we had a bit of a friction at first but I believe we came out good friends out of it. I have also been studying on Achaemenid art lately just finished a 100 page book I got from a local library. Otherwise, in real life dealing with the work, educating myself and hoping the best. Glad you are back and once again thanks for the contributions. Hope to see more of each other as time goes on :). All in all, I have learned a lot in the while u were away but no matter u r back and welcome back! Dr. Persi (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that you've had the ability to resolve differences... especially with Athenean. Sorry about the Artacoana incident, I remember that, but it was very obvious that much ado was made about nothing. Like the direction that you are taking, though, as it is history that is sorely lacking in wikipedia. Do you have an email listed for your account, by the way? GoetheFromm (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Just FYI, I mentioned you here. Dreadstar ☥ 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Slavery in Iran

[edit]

Would you care to comment on the section "Text deleted on phony grounds" in the talk page of that article? It doesn't show your editing practice in a good light. Astarabadi (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well consdering the fact that you started the topic, I should say that it is you, not the talk page, that doesn't show my editing practice in good light. Will have to address at a later date. I am doing some research tomorrow on Iranians as it is Noruz. GoetheFromm (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nowruz !!!

[edit]

Happy Nowruz my good friend! May you, your family, and your children, and your children's children enjoy 3,000 years of Zoroastrian tradition and the Persian New Year. May you and your loved ones be safe and healthy! Thanks for your wonderful contributions and happy Charshanbe suri as well :D Dr. Persi (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA restrictions

[edit]

Hi Goethe, perhaps you did not realize it, but the Victoria Affair article, like all articles that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict, is subject to editing restrictions of one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period. Your recent editing violated this restriction. In fairness, the notice about this was not placed on the talk page until today, so you may have violated this restriction in good faith. In the future, be mindful of this restriction. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category

[edit]

I think those author show up already because of the template. But I think the category is find also and provides further information. So feel free to revert him. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of these authors were not on the template. I am not sure why he removed the category and I do not see a valid reason. Perhaps a warning should be given to him. Also some ip seems to be vandalizing Rumi and other articles. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask for permanent ip protection for some of these articles..--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GoetheFromm. You have new messages at Green Giant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Images, etc.

[edit]

Hey. Very, very sorry I haven't gotten back to you until now! Truth be told, I got distracted from that thread and intended to get back to it but kind of didn't. Again, my apologies.

So you asked about adding images. Well, Wikimedia Commons (commons.wikimedia.org or the wikilink Commons:) is virtually a database of copyright-free images. There's tons of excellent photos there that aren't even used in articles, so that's really where you should start. Images on Commons are easily viewable and added to articles on Wikipedia. When it comes to adding and removing, it's really quite simple once you get the hang of it. Images are added like wikilinks. They will be at file pages, so they'll be called "File:Image name". To add one, you just type [[File:Image name]].

You will, of course, need to scale down most images for use in articles, so to do that, it would be [[File:Image name|250px]]. Just judge how big to make it with the preview button, I'd say anywhere from 150px-300px is "typical". I believe the image will go to the right side by default (it might be the left, I don't recall), but you can control this by adding the parameter "right" or "left". We would have [[File:Image name|250px|left]], for example.

That, however, won't get you the "thumbnail", where the image is in a box with a caption. To do this, you would write [[File:Image name|250px|left|thumb|caption goes here!!!!]] And that's it! Pretty simple. Oh, and you can omit any of the parameters if you want. If the image is already a good size, for example, you could just write [[File:Image name|thumb|caption]].

If you can't find an image, there's always the option of uploading a one, but Wikipedia's really serious about copyright, so I would have to go into non-free vs free images, fair use, etc. It's not too difficult, but it would require more typing, so I'll refrain unless you request it. Be happy to explain it to you if you want.

Yeah, it's cool that you're mostly doing minor editing, it's basically what I do as well. I know what you mean about not making major changes to articles; sometimes there are a lot of people who are happy with the status quo and much of the time it's not worth the drama or effort. However, sometimes it's a matter of 'if you won't fix it, no one will'. I definitely encourage you to be bold. You may be surprised that most of the time, people won't be offended or criticize your actions. If you're acting in good faith in a non-controversial way, you really can't go wrong. If someone disagrees with it, follow the BRD cycle and try to work out a consensus or compromise on the talk page.

One last thing, have you experienced any more personal attacks since I warned Biosketch? Sorry for the long message. Swarm X 04:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Propose to simplify the A, B, C scaling system

[edit]

Can you see the Wikiproject Iran article. Template_talk:WikiProject_Iran

Many users have known this issue already. I propose to simply it by over-riding all the control and limits set to assign B. If you agree or disagree, please write your comment on the talkpage there. Currently, it is very hard to assign a B rating to articles and many Iran related articles have a C although users have assigned it a B. Thanks --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Droping by to say hello to my good friend :)

[edit]

I wish you and your wonderful family the best to come in this great summer. I just haven't talked to you in a while, so just checking on you. Best to you brother :) Dr. Persi (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agha-ye Persi,
Been VERY busy, but well. Will be returning to editing in a short while after things settle. I hope all is well with you, too. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again

[edit]

Please do not edit war. You know what it will lead to if you continue. Discuss the issue on the article talk page (remember, bold, revert, discuss). Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, there is no edit warring. It is ridiculous that you would accuse me of edit warring. I warn you not to edit war. Thank you. GoetheFromm (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some confusion here. We've been through bold and revert before you became involved. We should be discussing now and I hope you will respond to my questions and Prioryman's. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult other editors

[edit]

I have a thick skin and don't take it seriously, but when I ask you to avoid insults and you post to my talk page describing an edit of mine as "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous ..." it doesn't exactly set a friendly atmosphere for discussion. And I agree with the above, you should try to reach consensus, not just replace the contentious material. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoetheFromm&oldid=1063841380"