Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 28 September 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Middle East / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

tag

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

Allow me to quote parts of the article mentioned:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice the following corrections made by Professor Lambert:

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

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

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

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

• 1] The city of Opis and its Babylonian inhabitants remained intact well into Seleucid times, after the fall of Darius III to Alexander's forces. If the inhabitants had been "massacred" as averred to in the flawed translation, then how and why did it survive centuries after Cyrus had passed away?

• 2] Opis had stayed in place after the fall of the Achaemenids to the armies Alexander the Great. The successors to Alexander, the Seleucids, built the city of Seleucia-city just across Opis. When the Parthians ejected the Seleucids from Iran, they allowed both Seleucia-city and Opis to thrive. Both would become merged into the larger settlement of Ctesiphon which became the Partho-Sassanian capital. It was only after the fall of Ctesiphon to the Arabo-Muslim armies in 637 AD (following the Battle of Qadissiya) that the city (which included ancient Opis) finally disappeared as an inhabited city, close to 12 centuries after Cyrus had entered Opis."--Larno (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising that issue, though I have to say it would have been helpful if you could have said where you copied and pasted the above from (apparently here). What we have here is a new hypothesis by a reputable scholar. Lambert may well be right, but as we're not experts, we can't state that on the basis of our own belief. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that his views have been accepted or corroborated by other experts in Babylonian cuneiform. Therefore we can't put much weight on his views - we definitely can't say that he has "disproved" the previous interpretation. What we can do, though, is to mention in a footnote that he has put forward a different hypothesis. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Lambert was the supervisor of Grayson. Moreover, the Lambert translation is the most recent research and prior to outdated translation of Grayson. Therefore, it should mention as the most updated studies and not in the footnote. Even by comparing older sources, I noticed a huge disagreement between different writerss on Battle of Opis All of them (1960, 1964, 1984) say: "when Cyrus attacked the army of Akad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants" not Cyrus. Even Lendering (2008) and/or Oppenheim and/or Pritchard (1950) are in doubt: "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants."

You see in brackets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point you're missing is that this is entirely according to Lambert - it's a very recent, uncorroborated hypothesis. I've not found any other source which corroborates or cites his hypothesis. On the other hand, numerous sources use the Grayson and other translations which refer to the Persians killing their opponents, and they advance interpretations based on those translations. Misplaced Pages's policy requires us to not give undue weight to a minority viewpoint, even if that viewpoint may be correct: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." It is certainly worth mentioning Lambert's viewpoint as it comes from a respectable source, but as I already said, we're not in a position to declare him to be correct, because we're not experts. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO is correct. Mention him in a footnote (ie as the article is now) and that's fine as it was in Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires no. 1, 2007. But we shouldn't comment on it or treat it as the 'official' or best translation. It will be interesting to see what other scholars say about it. And it really should not matter to us as editors. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Lambert work is published in a peer reviewed journal and it means that other experts reviewed his work. Lambert translation is a reliable source (See: WP:RS) and should be our reference as the most updated reference.

Moreover, there is a disagreement among all older sources on who killed Opis people. Some say Nabonidus and some say Cyrus and many are unsure which one. But I don't know how ChrisO can be such a confident to strongly say that Cyrus army did that.--Larno (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journal? I presume you have evidence for that. 'Breves et Utilitaires'. Doug Weller (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Suggestion

Would it be feasible to address both interpretations, even though (as I understand it after doing a cursory skim of the dispute) the two interpretations contradict each other at a very fundamental level?

"(Blah Blah Blah) is the most widely-accepted interpretation, based on the translation by X; however, recent research by Y argues that, to the contrary, (Halb Halb Halb). Y's interpretation has been criticized by X, Z, Q, and also π, because of (reason)."

How's that? It would (I hope) address CreazySuit's concerns, while also restoring the article to its previous form (and if I'd gotten to the article two minutes earlier, it would have been frozen before CS's last edit instead of after; oops). DS (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that solution doesn't really work, because it doesn't take into account undue weight. Grayson's translation is widely accepted, widely quoted and used as the basis of literally dozens of scholarly works published over the last 30 years. Lambert's translation which CreazySuit has been pushing is barely a year old and as far as anyone has been able to determine, it has not been cited by any other scholars. That's not to say that it's wrong; it's simply that the academic community hasn't accepted (or perhaps more accurately, hasn't had time to accept) it as a valid translation. It constitutes a tiny-minority viewpoint in terms of WP:UNDUE - as it's the so-far uncorroborated viewpoint of one man, you literally couldn't get any tinier. The way I attempted to deal with this in the version that CreazySuit wiped out was to add this footnote to the article noting the new translation but not giving it any more weight than that, as no third-party academic sources have given it any weight at all; they haven't even mentioned it. We can't give viewpoints more weight than our sources indicate. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And that seems appropriate but the disputing editors seem to think that because Lambert was Grayson's teacher, that proves he's correct. If they can come up with a way of acknowledging that Lambert's translation is, at the moment, just that, not the 'correct' or 'best' or 'better' translation, just different and as yet undiscussed, that would be nice. Doug Weller (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the disputing editors are insisting that Grayson's translation is (I quote) "false", "discredited", "untrue" etc, and are demanding that it be deleted and anything based on it must be discarded - that means a hell of a lot of sources, going back over 30 years. This is basically a case of editors with a particular POV - in this case a nationalist POV that portrays Cyrus the Great as a sort of Iron Age George Washington - insisting on "THE TRUTH". But as everyone here should know, the very first line of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability says: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Dougweller still thinks Farrok is not an academic, which he is, second, if you followed my directions and went the link I provided on the MY FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS DO YOUR GD RESEARCH, notice it says do your research! Anyways this shows that there is a tablet from Nabodonis chronicle saying people of akkad revolted and the king(nabidonis at the time) burned or slaughtered them, and this is a tablet of nabidonis to himself. BUt the guy you quote above apparently (and this is shown by Lambert himself) some historians mix the two different tablets of Cyrus and Nabodinus TOGETHER! But it seems at this time I will be ignored, and message will be forgotten in a pile of insignifigant comments, IS ANYONE OUUUT THERE??? I might have to contact the NATIONALISTIC Lambert, apparently and according to CHRISO Lambert is a NATIONALIST too?! So he can explain to CHRISO himself why the translation is wrong, CHRISO get ready to meet a ancient translator! I think. A--N--D dont forget before I GOT THE NATIONALISTIC DISEASE A WEEK AGO, I used to believe that Cyrus slaughtered the people of akkad, that is why i put thousands of civilian casualties in the campaign box! So BEFORE you label me as a Nationalist, check the history EDITS for Battle of Opis. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Of course Farrok is an academic. But he's not a historian, he's a psychologist. Very different field. Ariobarza, please calm down. Everyone involved in this battle has been dead for thousands of years. Whatever happened, happened. Nothing we do or say will change any of it. DS (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

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

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

Note the following:

• "In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants."

and:

• "the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle"

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

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

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

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

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

No. Once again, as Dougweller, dab and I keep telling our resident nationalists, Misplaced Pages editors are not experts. It is none of our business to decide which translation is "more credible". We rely on the real experts, the academics, to do that. All we are here to do is to report what they say - not what some editors think they should be saying. As for NABU being "peer reviewed", CreazySuit has been making this claim repeatedly but hasn't backed it up; Dougweller says it's not (and he's in a position to know); what is your evidence? Your assertion about "self-published books" is frankly tendentious. None of the books referenced in Cyrus cylinder or the pre-vandalism version of this article were self-published - they all came from respectable mainstream and specialist academic publishers. It's not the case that the only sources using Grayson are old ones. Amélie Kuhrt's 2007 compilation The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period includes the very same section that our nationalists are complaining about. And also, it's patently obvious that you've not been keeping up with Talk:Cyrus cylinder; see this from an impeccable source which falsifies your claim that the "propaganda" viewpoint is recent.

Finally, it turns out that there's another translation which backs up Grayson, by Jean-Jacques Glassner in Mesopotamian Chronicles (2004, p. 237). The relevant line reads: "In the month of Tešret, Cyrus, having joined battle with the army of Akkad at Upû on the of the Tigris, the people of Akkad fell back. He pillaged and massacred the population." Professor Victor Hurowitz of Ben Gurion University comments on this specific issue of which source is "more credible": "The last phrase, which seems to be closer to Grayson’s rendition is “un.me$ gaz”. Un.me$ is Akkadian ni$e, people, GAZ is Akkadian daku, to kill, so I would think that Grayson is right." And before you ask, yes, Glassner's version is cited by multiple academic sources. Lambert's isn't. We can acknowledge its existence but until academia pays any attention to it - which it hasn't so far - we can't give it any substantial weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller is in a position to know NABU is not an academic journal? according to whom? Our resident eurocentrists? Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires is a peer-reviewed journal. Khoikhoi also brings up a great point about academic journals being preferred to books by Misplaced Pages policy. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I've said. It's a reputable journal, but so far as I know is not peer-reviewed. I've asked you for the evidence that it is and all you do is repeat yourself. And I wonder if you are clear about peer-review. It doesn't mean an author is right, it means that their peers think that he has a reasonable argument. Lambert's note (which is what it is, by the way) is based upon the historical context, and Professor Horowitz, after reading it, told me yesterday that this is something for the historians to decide on its own merits. Doug Weller (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't think NABU is peer reviewed, it's a journal for 'breves', brief notes - not sure what the rest means but it sounds similar. Peer review is intensive but only to make sure there are no obvious mistakes, the argument is sound, etc. Which still lets through some weird stuff at times. As I've said, peer review doesn't mean something is correct and you can easily find peer reviewed articles disagreeing with each other. And Lambert's non-peer reviewed note will presumably at some point be commented upon by other scholars. Doug Weller (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Answer to some questions and some thoughts

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

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

Nobody commented on Lambert work.

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

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

Grayson version:

Lambert correction:

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

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

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

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

Just look at following quotes from different sources:

On Internet I saw even funny things like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I said N.A.B.U. is one of the most academic journals in this field. It means that before it was published, the article was peer reviewed by number of experts in this field and they agreed with the new translation."

This is not correct. First, it is very reputable but not peer reviewed. And peer review does not mean that the reviewers agree with it, it means that it isn't rubbish, that it is a reasonable argument. I think this misunderstanding is causing a lot of problems. Peer review doesn't mean 'correct'. Doug Weller (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually wonder if Ariobarza et al actually understand what peer review means? It's not equivalent to the sort of routine editorial review that journals and books use all the time; it's a far more intensive process. And would a brief note such as Lambert's be the subject of peer review in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about CAD (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary) in which nishu means soliers in NeoBabylian?--Larno (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is't that simple (and I think that is part of the problem, translation of ancient languages just isn't straightforward), eg:

"Glassner in 2004 translates: In the month of Teshret, Cyrus, Having joined battle with the army of Akkad at Upu on the of the Tigris, the people of Akkad fell back. He pillaged and massacred the population”. The last phrase, which seems to be closer to Grayson’s rendition is “un.me$ gaz”. Un.me$ is Akkadian ni$e, people, GAZ is Akkadian daku, to kill,". Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Glassner read cuneiform or just repeats Grayson work? What's the matter with you guys? Are you going to prove your agenda or you want to improve WP? The older translation is not even consistant with itself nor with other Biblical, Greek and Old Persian documents?--Larno (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The clue is 'Glassner translates. This is nothing to do with an agenda. And this comment of yours still is WP:OR. Doug Weller (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While I hope Crazy contacts Lambert and others, I declare this user battle a Stalemate, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yeap, any logical response or question that does not fit the agenda of our resident eurocentrists, is somehow WP:OR or dismissed with another excuse. Who is Glassner? Is he even a translator of ancient texts? Where is the proof that he simply did copy Grayson? Finally. N.A.B.U. is an academic journal, which is regarded as superior to books by Misplaced Pages policy. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The newest translation by Professor. Lambert should be accepted based on the fact that there are 4 different translations now. Oppenheim, Lambert, Grayson and this one when Cyrus attacked the army of Akad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants which also quoted by Frye. Now this is confusing, but one can not just push one opinion here. All four agree that Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle. But the battle of Opis has four different translations and I think there are three options: 1) Lambert. 2) State all four opinions in terms of chronological importance. 3) Wait for Creazysuit to see if he can get in touch with Grayson. Lets wait for option 3 for two weeks and then if it is not successful, probably option 1 or 2 will work. --Nepaheshgar 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally we can't push one opinion. Option 1 would put us in the postion of effectively deciding who is correct, decidely not what we should be doing. We should state all four opinions in chronological importance, we should not make comments about which is correct, who taught who, etc. And we can't use email. There is a lot of confusion over what it means to translate something like this. CreazySuit has said "Linguistics is a science, not a matter of opinion." and that's flat out wrong. Sadly, the Akkadians never gave us a dictionary. Even sadder, words have more than one meaning. As Professor Hurowitz has said about this specific issue, the problem is historical, not lexical because both the words ni$u and daku have specific as well as more general meanings. They combine into numerous interpretive possibilities and “scenarios”..So you may need evidence external to the particular text itself to determine what really happened historically. There are editors in this debate who don't seem to understand this, and that is possibly the major reason that we are having an acrimonious discussion about Grayson being falsified, etc. But maybe we've moved beyond that and we can all agree with Professor Hurowitz? Doug Weller (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I am not an expert on Akkadian. Virtually no one that has quoted Oppeinheim, Grayson, Lambert and the other translation is also an expert. But I think it is best to get the opinion of Professor. Grayson on the matter. There will be methods to verify it through neutral admins. That is why I am willing to wait for two weeks or so and see if the matter is resolved. Afterwards, if nothing happens, then putting the four different translations will suffice although that will make a very confusing article. But as long as it is mentioned that the translation of Lambert is the most recent and Lambert was the Professor of Grayson, then I have no problem with it. --Nepaheshgar 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any Admins would want to verify an email. I don't think it's possible. And why mention who taught who? We don't normally do that. Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hopeful that creazysuit will get more than an email. Like a video or etc. Well Professors usually correct the student  ;). The little extra information does not hurt and it is factual. --Nepaheshgar 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A good teacher should hope their students surpass him. The problem is, that relationship has been used as somehow being proof that Lambert must be right. That's why I don't like the idea. Doug Weller (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it is not a proof. It is just stating that Lambert is Grayson's Professor, since it is an interesting bit of information. These guys definitely know each other well. I for one confess that I have not so far surpassed my thesis advisor in my own field, but maybe I will one day. Anyhow, I think for now I will wait for Creazysuit to bring proof (more than e-mail) and later on we can get feedback on stating that interesting piece of information. --Nepaheshgar 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lambert is retired, it seems, and I would guess he must be very old by now (probably late 70s or 80s), as the earliest published works that I've found by him date back to around 1950. Grayson appears to have studied with Lambert in the late 1950s and has been a professor or assistant professor since 1964; 44 years of professorship is quite an achievement in itself. He certainly can't be dismissed as some sort of know-nothing newbie academic, which seems to be an implication being put forward here. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, as the two of us have already suggested, you can try taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard for an independent view, but you'll be told what we've told you. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit, I'm sorry to tell you this, but... when it comes to academic issues -- and especially academic issues which are the subject of heated debate -- simply stating that you have had a personal communication with an expert... that's not verifiable. You're the one who got fussy about whether "the British Museum" was a verifiable source on Cyrus cylinder, so I hope you can understand why this is likewise problematic. DS (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You can be sure that it won't be "simply my word" or even a "personal communication" for that matter. Grayson's say on the matter would be verifiable... but I'd rather not get into further details right now, as this is a moot argument over something that hasn't happened or doesn't exist as of yet.. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And it might not happen at all (personally I doubt it will). We have a second, separate translation by the French historian Jean-Jacques Glassner, published in French in 1993 and in English in 2004, which corroborates Grayson's 1975 translation. Even Lambert, in his NABU note, calls the Grayson and Glassner's reading of the text the "accepted translation". I see absolutely no reason why we should not use it if it is the accepted translation. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not use Lamberts translation too, to be fair and balanced of course, as this note also appeared in the area where I represented a solution to this problem and was, ignored. And of course Lambert would say "accepted translation" as it was the accepted translation at the time, it does not mean it is correct. Finally, ChrisO your choosing a translation again, I would listen to Dougweller as it is not up to us, but CreazySuit likes the new translation, and ChrisO the first, so it is always cheery picking time. But name calling, uncivil behavior, and pissing me off, then spreading false rumors and taking the truth to the extremes will not help Misplaced Pages. Apparently ChrisO version of fair and balanced is adopted from FucxsNews. Don't worry, I'm currently calm, joyfull, and not yelling, so don't put this in the request for comments page about me, as if it does happen I will be forced to personally delete it, and then make the page of my dreams I was hoping for. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

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

Unprotected

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

I reverted to a sourced version and, considering the dispute underway, I am IARing a slight technicality and also re-protecting that version instead of waiting around for more edit warring. I have no stake in the article itself or the ANI discussion, and as likely as not I have protected The Wrong Version, but there it is. Expiry time is the same as the last protection. Kafziel 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Khoikhoi has decided to resume the edit war while the article was still protected, and with the same NPOV-ignoring rationale as CreazySuit and pals. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith on that. Our edits were only a minute apart so he probably had an edit conflict and didn't notice the protection. I restored the protected version, and I'm sure it won't happen again. Kafziel 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

All editors are encouraged to remain calm, and to give careful thought before taking rapid actions. A discussion about the conflict at this page is now ongoing at the administrators' noticeboard. --Elonka 22:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

General Announcement

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

Fresh start

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

Consensus, or lack of

The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop. The premature archiving of the talk page, which included many unresolved discussions, was also inappropriate. Sweeping the problems under the rug will not help anyone achieve a consensus here. I'm going to restore the tag, and have also restored some of talk page sections that were deleted. I'll also be making some edits on the article soon. Khoikhoi 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is a policy issue, and if you as an administrator are unwilling to recognise that because of your own apparent POV, you're failing in your duties as an admin. I have absolutely no problem with working out issues amicably and I look forward to seeing what you do with the article. However, it must be within the framework of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, which means that you don't dictate which translation is "true" and you don't put undue weight on a very recent minority viewpoint. As long as you follow our basic policies, there won't be any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are not the ultimate authority on Misplaced Pages policies and their application. Your attempts to frame content disputes as policy issues, in order to get your opponents intimidated and blocked are unacceptable. You have been picking which policies are applicable to others as a means of advancing your position in a content dispute, yet you ignore the policies yourself. For example, you see no problem in discussing other editors' movies, by labeling your opponents with loaded adjectives (i.e. "nationalist"), yet when somebody else brings up your own motives, you issue them civility warnings? Khoikhoi 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You said editors plural. Are you calling me a bully for arguing that editors should not be deciding which translations are correct and which are 'falsified'? Is that not a policy issue? Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A disagreement over which translation to use is a content issue. An attempt to impose a preferred version by repeatedly deleting all alternative perspectives is a policy issue - specifically a violation of NPOV and disruptive editing. I would have thought the distinction was easy enough to understand. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My comments as to why this article was labeled "not neutral"

I think it is the Aftermath section that needs improvement and is littered with problems.

Aftermath

Historians are divided about whether the description of a massacre and looting in the accepted translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to an attack on the city of Opis or whether it refers to the fate of the main camp of Nabonidus' broken army, assuming that the Persians captured it intact.

As one can see, the above is purely neutral (I gave each sentence its own section were I point out if its neutral or not really neutral) so these below sentences are the ones that have to be resolved.

• The battle and massacre {NOTICE 1.; Since when are we 'sure' that there was a massacre, this sentence should be reworded by saying, 'The battle and supposed massacre'... You know the rest.} are not mentioned from the later Cyrus cylinder inscription, which portrays Cyrus as liberating Babylon peacefully and with the consent of its people.

• Simon J. Sherwin comments that the battle at Opis "gives the lie to the idea of Cyrus as a benign liberator" and suggests that the aim of the massacre was "to terrorize the population" to intimidate Sippar and Babylon into surrendering without resistance.

{NOTICE 2.; Here we see the first attempt by a academic to theorize what the the true purpose of the Cyrus Cylinder was. I have personally nothing against this sentence, but I can tell who ever said it, had to be ignoring the chronology of these events. First, Cyrus' battle is already recorded on another tablet, so the Babylonians knew he might not liberate them from its own king. Second, the Cyrus Cylinder was a proclamation to the jews (of the city of Babylon, and not to all of Babylon) who were being liberated, not all of the Babylonian citizens. Thirdy, whether it does or does not "give the lie to the idea of Cyrus as a benign liberator," archaeological and migrational (due to evidence of a small Jewish population in Iraq in the early 1900s) evidence proves the jews were set free and their temple was rebuilt, and they, before Cyrus invaded Babylon called him a liberator regardless of what Cyrus himself says, so he had no way to edit the Torah in his favor, because a Jewish prophet (which the name now escapes me) says Cyrus was to free the Jews, before Cyrus was even born. Finally Sippar was captured because the Babylonian king had given up ideas of how to escape, and opened the gates to Cyrus's armies. And Babylon, depending if one believes the Biblical account was almost besieged, so the population was not terrorized, and still was willing resist Cyrus. Finally, I want to assure the reader, if it apppears I am overly sensative in this comment, that is not the case, I just have a lot of information, as one can see above, disproving this emature qoute. It just seems to theoretical and childish to be included in Misplaced Pages, whether or not Cyrus slaughtered the people, I think we should just find a better qoute that is against Cyrus. So in all, like I said before, we should try to put opposing arguements by each other, and NOT let one quote, like the sentence above to just get away. The sentence above shows that even academics do not do their whole research (as one of them has just been almost proven wrong by a Wikipedian user) before uttering a false theory thats backed by a disputed translation. My solution is that we remove this sentence and come up with a better one, or keep the sentence. And also for sure we should try to look for an opposing sentence after or before it, to make it seem neutral, and from what I know there are a lot of academic quotes we can find that is opposed to the above sentence.}

• Maria Brosius similarly interprets Cyrus's actions as punitive, "mak an example of a city trying to resist the Persian army".

{NOTICE 3.; Now here is the problem, this sentence is not opposed to the previous sentence, and it further supports the previous sentence. As I pointed out above, the academics quote should be highly disputed, if one does the their research. So, we can do two things, remove the previous sentence, or keep it and start this sentence by saying, 'Academics who support the idea that Cyrus slaughtered the people, interpret... You know the rest.}

• Amélie Kuhrt comments that the reference to an apparent massacre and looting suggests that the battle was "probably a hard-won victory."

{NOTICE 4.; I suggest we keep this sentence, if we carry out the task that is insisted above.}

• Although later inscriptions such as the Cyrus cylinder and the Verse Account of Nabonidus portrayed the Persian conquest of Babylonia as essentially peaceful, the battle demonstrates that the existing Babylonian regime actively resisted Cyrus's invasion of Mesopotamia.

{NOTICE 5.; Thank you, the first true fact I see here, so we should keep this.}

• It was perhaps a sign of the divisions in the regime - Nabonidus was reputedly highly unpopular among the Babylonian elite - that some Babylonian subjects appear to have welcomed the Persians.

{NOTICE 6.; Yes, true again, I suggest we expand on this to balance it with the previous sentence.}

• It is, however, unclear how widely the Persians were supported within Babylonia, as accounts of the invasion and Nabonidus's rule are coloured by Cyrus's subsequent propaganda.

{NOTICE 7.; Again, we should expand this sentence, this time against Cyrus on what exactly his propaganda was about.}

• The account related in the Chronicle indicates that after the battle Cyrus halted at Opis, sending his general Gubaru with an army to invest Babylon.

{NOTICE 8.; Another true fact.}

• The king did not travel to the capital until well after it had been secured, some three weeks after the battle.

{NOTICE 9.; It would not hurt to expand here, seriously.}

• Sherwin draws attention to Cyrus's non-participation in the taking of Babylon, suggesting that it demonstrates that Cyrus "was not expecting an easy victory".

{NOTICE 10.; That might be true, but this whole suggesting game from academics, should at least be backed up by some more evidence.}

The conclusion: Finally and overall, these are the problems of the Aftermath section that is the reason why this article is not neutral. So, as I have pointed out, I did this on a basis to solve this whole Opis issue once and for all. User ChrisO has promised me that he is neutral, and currently I await his message on how he is going to be neutral. Nevertheless, as for the reason to improve this article, I suggest to the readers of this paragraph, to comment below on whether they are AGAINST or FOR 'My comments as to why this article was labeled "not neutral".' Whether you are for or against my undertaking here, please also state a solution at the end of your sentence. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

This is tl:dr material. Well, I have read it, and I can't understand it. Ariobarza, unless you start abbreviating your posts and writing them in clear, comprehensible English, meaningful communication is going to be difficult. In general, you don't quite seem to understand that we don't get to decide here which academics are right and wrong and which have and haven't done their research properly: we just cite them. As far as possible we also try to state what academic consensus is or isn't.

Some of your points appear perfectly valid, in which case {{sofixit}}, and some appear a touch odd. As example: "so he had no way to edit the Torah in his favor, because a Jewish prophet (which the name now escapes me) says Cyrus was to free the Jews, before Cyrus was even born" - sorry, you are getting this from where, exactly? If you cite reliable sources to support your claims, as the current article does, we can work together here. Nitpicking over the sources used is pointless if you have nothing to replace them with. Moreschi (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Grayson and Lambert

Lambert says the translation of Grayson has "serious difficulties within context". Where does he call it exactly as a "widely accepted" translation. --Nepaheshgar 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the quotation is cited. And why do we have blank sections? Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The citation is incorrect. He is saying : According to the accepted translation in reference to translation accepted by Grayson and the French translator. He does not say "Widely accepted"(no where does he use "widely") and the context is with regards to those two scholars (Grayson and the French Scholar). By "accepted" he means that their "accepted" translation by them. We also agreed to put it in chronological order. There are four different translations after all.--Nepaheshgar 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wieshofer and Ameli Kuhrt are not translators of that text. They are quoting Grayson. Else there are a lot of texts that quote the Oppeninheim translation (Richard Frye) for example! I think only the people that have translated the Babylonian text should be mention to bring about different interpretations. --Nepaheshgar 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. And the blank sections? Moreschi (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see that section . My bad. --Nepaheshgar 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

But hang on a sec. Why was this material deleted?

The tablet goes on to state: "On the fourteenth day Sippar was captured without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day Ug/Gubaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus without a battle entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus returned, he was captured in Babylon."

You say this is because Kuhrt is just quoting Grayson. But here, as I understand it, Grayson's translation is not in dispute, so why have we cut it? Moreschi (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, Wiesehofer and Kuhrt give independent translations and say so. They don't just quote Grayson. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. In this case the cut material should go back in. Moreschi (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored with some amendments - Nepah's right about one point, I did misread what Lambert had said about Grayson. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No they do not. Wiesehofer and Kuhrt are translating Grayson. There is no evidence they are giving an independent translation of the text. Wiesehofer for sure is not a Professor of Semetic studies and does not know ancient Akkadian. --Nepaheshgar 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed by your ability to know what's in a book you apparently don't have. Kurht says: "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". Wiesehofer gives his own separate translation, the wording of which differs from Grayson's, but which has the same basic gist. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Frye for example does not quote Oppenheim but gives his translation.--Nepaheshgar 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• This edit is now misquoting Lambert! Nepaheshgar, please slow down. Moreschi (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right I wanted to correct it. I removed the misquote "widely" accepted. --Nepaheshgar 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian and has never been cited for translating ancient Akkadian text. He is a Professor of Iranian studies mainly Sassanid era. He is not a professor of semitic studies. Also Lambert does not use the term "widely". We are arguing about the "accepted" part. Also the agreement was to list the four translations in terms of chronological order. There seems to be a POV push here where-as I am just trying to list the four translations in terms of chronological order. ChrisO has no proof that Wiesehofer has given an independent translation. I know Wiesehofer's academic background well enough and he has articles mainly on Sassanid and Parthian Iran. He is not a scholar of Akkadian or for that matter has published anything with regards to Akkadian translations. There seems to be a gross violation of POV. I am just listing 4 translations which is the NPOV thing to do and the reader can judge.--Nepaheshgar 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Amélie Kuhrt, ibid pp. 174-175.
2. Cite error: The named reference Young was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Sherwin, Simon J. "Old Testament monotheism and Zoroastrian influence" The God of Israel: Studies of an Inimitable Deity, p. 123. Robert P. Gordon (ed). Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 0521873657
4. Brosius, Maria. The Persians, p. 11. Routledge, 2006. ISBN 0415320909.
5. Kurht, Amélie. "Usurpation, conquest and ceremonial: from Babylon to Persia." Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, p. 48. David Cannadine, Simon Price (eds). Cambridge University Press, 1992. ISBN 0521428912
6. McIntosh, Jane. Ancient Mesopotamia, pp. 113-14. ABC-CLIO, 2005. ISBN 1576079651

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Stub-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles
• Stub-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles