Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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^[1] or whether it refers to the fate of the main camp of Nabonidus' broken army, assuming that the Persians captured it intact.^[2]

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.^[3]

{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 Wikipedia, 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[ing] an example of a city trying to resist the Persian army".^[4]

{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."^[5]

{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.^[6]

{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.^[1]

{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".^[3]

{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)

Okay, before you go off on my head, I want to thank you for responding. Secondly, only one thing appears a touch odd, I will provide the prophets name and the exact verse which he mentions Cyrus the Persian by name, freeing the Jews from Babylon before he was born. And finally even if I am lying, this should not change the fact that my comments in NOTICE 2.; is perfectly valid as you said before, so thank you. And as a message to all Wikipedians, I am in favor of either bad or good information, so I believe for a certian subject, all the information should be included.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Grayson and Lambert

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

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 [6 October] Sippar was captured without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day [12 October] Ug/Gubaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus without a battle entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus returned, he was captured in Babylon."[6]

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)

"Widely" has been removed already. If you want to list the 4 translations in chronological order, I would assume this means oldest first. Either way I don't mind. But please try to do so without mangling the translations and attributing the wrong translations to the wrong authors, as you have done twice now. "Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian" - Kurht definitely does, and Wiesehofer seems to be able to read and translate ancient Akkadian based on Chris's post just above. Just because I have never been academically cited for my translations of ancient Greek doesn't mean I can't read the language (I can). Moreschi (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the point is of including Oppenheimer, considering it's at least 68 years old (published in 1950, I believe). I thought we were trying to present modern historiography here? I've found it quoted in a number of books, but mostly from the 1960s and 1970s. Grayson's translation is the standard version, very widely quoted (by literally hundreds of works) from publication in 1975 right up to this year. There are translations dating all the way back to the 1880s, but I don't see anyone arguing to include them here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither Kuhrt or Wiesehofer know ancient Akkadian and they have never published translations. All scholars rely on Oppenheimer, Grayson and etc. Ancient Akkadian is a serious business. Wiesehofer for sure does not know it. Unless there is proof that Kuhrt and Wiesehofer did an independent translation(they specifically mention it), then they should not be mentioned, since they have not published their own translation. They can simply cite Grayson in the reference books or quote an article that cites Grayson in the back of the reference. But to claim they did independent translations is not correct. Else I can claim Richard Frye did an independent translation since he does not put a citation right after the translation in the chronological order I will mention. But I know for a fact he does not know ancient Akkadian. Neither does Wiesehofer. And I have not seen any proof Kuhrt has done an independent translation. As per Oppenheimer, obviously many books (more than Grayson) have quoted his translation, but mind you, Grayson is now 33 years old! Plus I can cite many books that quote Oppenheimer and for example Frye (1984) quotes an older translation. So the POV thing to do is to mention all translations in chronological order (from the latest to the earliest). --Nepaheshgar 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the quote I gave above, from Kuhrt? She says explicitly in her Persian corpus that she (re)translated the primary sources that she presents. Wiesehofer presents a translation that is different from Grayson's. I don't know where you're getting those claims from. As for Oppenheimer, I'm sure you can cite "many books", but are they recent books - that is, within the last 20 years or so? A chronological order doesn't really work, because it obscures the primacy of Grayson's translation. Like it or not, that is the standard modern translation, and we shouldn't be shy about saying so. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian. I did not find your comment about Kuhrt that she translated this chronicle. Also I can claim Frye(1984) and another scholar Katzstein (1979) did their own independent translation. Grayson does not have primacy actually, Oppenheimer is quoted by much more texts. And in terms of chronology Grayson falls between the two (Oppenheimer and Lambert). You are simply picking and choosing based on what you believe has "primacy". My solution is to quote the four differing translations in chronological order. Simple as that and it is not up to wikipedia to decide which has primacy. --Nepaheshgar 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again I see a sign of bias. Why isn't Grayson or Oppenheimer quoted that Cyrus entered Babylon without any battle. Yet Herodotus who does not mention anything about the battle of Opis is quoted. If that is the case, we should mention Oppenheimer, Grayson mention Cyrus entered Babylon without an battle. --Nepaheshgar 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If anything, an encyclopedia should be up to date and give the latest translation. The compromise is simply to list all four translations (or more if there is any). To simply say Oppenheimer is this, Lambert is that and Grayson is good smacks of advertant POV pushing. I have worked with articles where people disputed and in the end, the best solution was to quote the different intrepretations in chronological order. --Nepaheshgar 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to believe me about Grayson's primacy; let me quote Lester L. Grabbe in "Who Were the First Real Historians? On the Origins of Critical Historiography": "The standard treatment of the Chronicles is AK Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles". Or A.B. Bosworth in The Legacy of Alexander: "The standard edition is at present AK Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles". Or Tom Boiy, in Between High and Low: A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period, who refers to "Grayson, the editor of the standard chronicle edition". Or... I could go on but what's the point? Avoiding undue weight on minority views is a key part of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which requires "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Clearly, the standard academic text is the most prominent. I suppose I don't really object to mentioning Oppenheimer's translation, but it needs to be made clear that the primary interpretation is Grayson's and that Oppenheimer's is a much older one. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the very latest translation is Kurht's (published August 2007), not Lambert's (March 2007). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Lambert's would be the latest, since Kurht's is not necessarily a new translation (she uses the same translation in her older articles). I have an article I believe from 1993 that she uses the same translation. So Lambert's translation would be the newest in terms of meaning and context. You have thus far not shown Wiesehofer made a new translation. And I have not seen anything that Kuhrt specifically made a new translation of the above disputed two lines or so in 2007. As per Grayson's treatment, you are quoting out of context. You need to show Grayson's book has primacy with regards to the translation of this specific chronicle over Lamberts. Yes we know Grayson's book is an important book. So is Oppenheimer per its own time and I can quote of course many books that quote Oppenheimer. What you need to show from an article is that Grayson's translation has primacy over Lambert's translation with regards to this specific chronicle (or any chronicle for that matter). Else Newton's laws after 400 years are thought in undergraduate physics and used in almost all sciences except modern physics. So it is standard. But you need to show that just like Einstein's law are superior to Newton's, then Grayson's translation is superior to Lamberts. Thus far this is not shown and the popularity of Oppenheim or Grayson is a separate matter than this specific two-three lines. As per Kuhrt, we should e-mail her and see if she made a new translation in 2007. Else that is WP:OR to assume she made a new translation in 2007. I even doubt she made a translation herself of the Akkadian since the article I have somewhere from her had quoted Grayson and criticized Oppenheimer. --Nepaheshgar 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am 99% confident that Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian. Unfortunately I have his book at home, but he is a Professor of Parthian and Sassanid era and is not someone that is fluent in ancient Akkadian. As per Kuhrt, it is unknown and I am waiting for exact statement where she has translated the chronicle in 2007! I do not see it. --Nepaheshgar 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". Quotation from Kurht, apparently. And do you actually have any reason to think Wiesehofer can't read ancient Akkadian, other than that he has not been cited for translating the language? This is logically tenuous. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So has Kuhrt credited the translation or not? Does she cite Grayson in her book or not? I mean does she know Old Greek, Aramaic, Akkadian, Old Persian and etc on a professional level? No one is an expert in all four languages. For example Rudiger Schmidt is an expert in Old Persian but not Akkadian. Grayson and Lambert are experts in Akkadian but not Old Persian. Wiesehofer knows Parthian, Old Persian and Pahlavi, but he does not know Old Akkadian. How about this, you can (since I contact her, no one would believe it) Amelie Kuhrt and ask her if she has re-translated the text. Here is her contact [1]. If she answers back and says yes, then I'll accept it. If she does not answer back, then we can further discuss it. But if she is quoting Grayson, then it is invalid to quote her claiming that she has done a translation. So for now, I propose Wiesehofer and Kuhrt are left out until it is verified that they did their own translation of Old Akkadian. Wiesehofer for sure does not know Old Akkadian. Neither authors have ever published any journal or books specific to translating Old Akkadian. It is like my quoting Frye and several other people and claiming they made a translation. Where-as they do not specifically cite the translation, they just simply mention it as a reference in the end of the chapter and it is assumed people know that it came from Oppenheimer or Grayson or etc. --Nepaheshgar 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindented) Let me explain this very simply for you:

Grayson's translation of the Babylonian Chronicles as a collection is regarded as the standard version.
WP:NPOV requires us to put priority on the most prominent view. In this case, that's Grayson's translation.
Lambert's translation is only just over a year old, and is completely uncited by any other academic source that anyone has been able to find. It has zero prominence as far as its academic recognition is concerned. We can mention it, but we can't put any more weight on it than our sources do (in other words, no weight at all). That means no long quotations from Lambert. We can summarise his arguments briefly, perhaps, but that's all.
It's not up to us to declare any translation to be "superior" to any other translation. Claiming that Lambert's is "superior" is pure original research, since no sources even mention Lambert's translation, let alone endorse it.
Your beliefs about Wiesehofer are also original research, since you've not cited any sources, and to be honest they're not relevant anyway. The undisputable fact is that he presents a different translation to Grayson, albeit one that corroborates Grayson's version. Does it really matter whether Wiesehofer personally translated it or got someone else (uncredited) to do it for him?
Kurht says explicitly in her book that she has (re)translated the documents contained in it, except where otherwise noted. (There is no "otherwise noted" in the case of the Nabonidus Chronicle.) What is unclear about this? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you are repetioning the same thing which has gone back and forth:

Kuhrt [2]"My areas of expertise lie in the social, cultural and political history of the ancient Middle East (c.3000-100 BC), especially the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Seleucid empires. There is no where that says she knows ancient Akkadian or ancient languages. Simple as that. She and Wiesehofer have never translated ancient Akkadian and have not published a single journal or book on ancient Akkadian. She is not in the same league as Lambert or Grayson or Oppenheimer when it comes to Akkadian , since she does know the language. Wiesehofer does not know Old Akkadian.
Grayson's 1975 is not superior to Lambert's translation on this specific issue. Newton's laws are standard to in Physics (they are thought), but it does not make it superior to Einstein's law. Else Oppenheimer is quoted as much. Infact since Lambert's translation discounts that of Grayson, it should go first. Encyclopedia should contain the most recent research.
My belief about Wiesehofer is not original research. He and Kuhrt do not know ancient Akkadian. You have to show that Wiesehofer is making a new translation and not quoting Grayson's. His book has been translated to English, so we do not know what he has said in German. Since in his book, he probably has Grayson as a reference somewhere, then we can not claim he made a new translation. It is WP:OR to claim he has made a new translation.
We need to cite people that did the translations (know Old Akkadian) by chronological order. Whether you like it or not, Lambert's is the newest translation and he knows Old Akkadian. Neither Wiesehofer (who does not old Akkadian) or Kuhrt(again not a single book or journal on Old Akkadian and does not claim to know Old Akkadian on her page) have published any papers or journals in Old Akkadian. Wiesehofer does not know Old Akkadian. Neither has Kuhrt claimed to do so on her page. Her area is not linguistics and Old Akkadian. --Nepaheshgar 22:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

1) So because she doesn't say she knows Akkadian on her (very brief) web page, that means she doesn't know Akkadian? How do you reconcile this with her clear statement that she translated the ancient documents in her Persian corpus? How do you suppose she managed this without knowing the languages? (Google Translate doesn't yet do ancient Near Eastern languages.) Moreschi is right - you're not arguing logically.

2) I'm not sure how much you know about physics, but Einstein disproved Newton. Newton's law of universal gravitation was replaced by Einstein's general relativity. But science isn't like history anyway. A paradigm can change overnight in science if someone makes a discovery that disproves a previous paradigm. In this particular case, though, nobody has discovered new chronicles that invalidate previous views. All we're talking about here is a new interpretation of an old document. It may or may not be right - it can't be proved in the same way as a mathematical equation. It's up to the academic community to decide whether they think Lambert is more likely to be right than Grayson, Kurht, Wiesehofer and all the rest. So far there's no sign from the literature that anyone has even noticed Lambert's views.

3) Yes, your belief is original research. It's OR by definition, since you're not citing any sources for your claims. Wiesehofer, in his book, does not cite anyone for the translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle so there is really no good reason to suppose that it comes from anyone other than Wiesehofer. We certainly have no evidence of that proposition.

4) As I've already explained, citing by chronological order doesn't work because it ignores the requirement of WP:NPOV to give principal weight to the principal viewpoint.

5) Please stop making unsourced inaccurate claims in the article. It's not true to say that "There has been [sic] four translations". There have been far more than this, if you would know if you'd done any research yourself. -- ChrisO ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 23:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Response 1) Yes Kuhrt does not mention she knows any of the ancient languages. It is a matter of simply asking her if she is an expert on old Akkadian or not. She will say no obviously given the fact that she does not have a single journal about Old Akkadian nor does she claim to know the language in her page. 2) The law's of newton are still valid for low velocity. Thus his Physics is the standard undergraduate physics and the standard physics used by majority of engineering field. The point is that just because it is cited, it does not give it primacy. Else the book by Oppenheimer has been cited many times as well. 3) Wiesehofer's book is a translation. Again until you prove that Wiesehofer and Kuhrt know Old Akkadian (which Wisehofer does not) you are doing WP:OR. Where has any of these authors published a single article on Old Akkadian? He is quoting Grayson but does not cite it right afterwards. Simply he chooses to put it at the end of the chapter or the end of the book reference. By assiomg that Wiesehofer is making a new translation, you are simply violating WP:OR. 4) There have been different translations. At least four. Citation by chronological order does not violate WP:NPOV. Specially if one is from 2007 and the other from 1975 and the one from 2007 disclaims the one from 1975. Your simply pushing a WP:NPOV. On the other hand Lambert is as much if not more of an expert than Grayson and he is Grayson's teacher. His translation is from 2007 which is one year ago. And he has many publications in his field (Old Akkadian) unlike Wiesehofer who does not know Akkadian and you are simply doing WP:OR by claiming he does. --Nepaheshgar 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to show a scholar that says Lambert's translation (2007) is inferior to Grayson's (1975). If you can not, then you can not claim it. Arguing that Grayson's is cited or is standard (for say a course in Old Akkadian) is invalid, since I can claim Newton's laws are cited or for example Oppenheimer is cited and etc. Infact, the users in my side have made enough compromises and Grayson should not even be mentioned given that Lambert simply over-rides him by claiming his translation is wrong. When a scholar at the rank of Lambert (Grayson's Professor) says that Grayson is wrong, then it is not up someone in Wikipedia to push for Grayson. In fact Lambert should be quoted first precisely for the fact that he says Grayson(1975) is wrong in 2007. Also I have quoted from Lambert the reasoning why Grayson is wrong. There is no need to cut that portion out. It is a long quote but it is valid and it is not undo weight given that Lambert (2007) is an expert in the field.. --Nepaheshgar 23:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC) It is simply amazing that a scholar in the rank of Lambert says Grayson's translation is wrong and a user in Wikipedia is claiming that he knows more than Lambert and claims that Lambert should go second or should not be given the same weight. When infact one translation is from 2007 and the other is 1975! Then there are two other Professors who do not know Old Akkadian and their relevance to that portion of the article is unknown and no solid proof has been given that they know Old Akkadian. Wiesehofer for sure does not know Old Akkadian or claim to be an expert on it. We known Oppenheimer, Lambert and Grayson are experts in Old Akkadian. So they should be quoted in chronological order and the issue should end.--Nepaheshgar 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I also note that it says: "Amelie Kuhrt presents here an unprecedented collection of key texts to form a balanced representation of all aspects of the Empire, in translations from their original Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Egyptian or Latin." She is not an expert in all of these languages(no one is!), so she can not be put in the same level as Lambert. Not a single journal is listed from her about any of these languages neither does she claim to know any of these well in her page. In fact if no one contacts her, I will and simply get her feedback on Lambert's translation. It is the same with Wiesehofer whose book is originally in German and does not offer a new translation. --Nepaheshgar 23:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Amelie Kuhrt via E-mail and asked her about Lambert's translation as well as her own knowledge of Old Akkadian and whether or not she made a translation. Note her book has Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Armaic, Egyptian and Latin quotes. She can not be an expert in all these languages and for example has no journal paper on Old Persian or Akkadian or Egyptian. So she can not be given the same weight as Lambert. Neither can Wiesehofer who does not Akkadian. I still insist the version here is the best one [3] and given that Lambert's article is 32 years newer than Grayson's and there is only a handful of experts in Old Akkadian in the league of Lambert, Grayson and Oppenheimer, that this version which mentions different translations should go first. Also Lambert's explanation on why Grayson's translation is wrong is crucial and should be quoted in full. Unfortunately on user is pushing his POV and claiming to know more than Lambert. Whese-as Lambert a scholar and Professor of Grayson in 2007 mentions that Grayson's 1975 translation (which is the basis for all other wrong interpretations) is wrong, the user has tried to minimize this fact by various irrelevant arguments(Grayson is popular..so is Oppenheimer and Frye..). I believe Encyclopedia should contain up to date contents. I will write more soon.--Nepaheshgar 00:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Note there is no "nationalist" POV pushing here and I think some users are abusing this concept. There are several translations. We should list them all(don't know why Frye and Katzstein were removed?!). The main issue is that I believe Lambert's (2007) translation over-rides Grayson(1975) and the other user believes it does not. I do not believe a user in wikipedia is qualified to claim Lambert's 2007 translation is inferior to Grayson's 1975 translation! The arguments brought so far with this regard were irrelevant. Specially since Lambert's article is just not a translation but also an intentional rejection of Grayson's translation. This factor has not been taken into account sufficiently. That is Lambert examined Grayson's translation and then rejects it. Encyclopedia should contain the newest up to date research. As per Kuhrt and Wiesehofer, they are not experts in the matter of Old Akkadian and I hope to get a response back from Kuhrt soon. Infact they do not mention this word in Akkadian means X and that word means Y and etc. Only Lambert has taken a recent close view of Grayson's translation and has rejected it. The matter should be simple to see. --Nepaheshgar 00:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Example of POV violation. Wiesehofer does not make his own translation. But he simply qoutes Grayson here: [4] (note pg 262). And note the footnotes on pg 262 cover page 50 where the Nabondinus chronicle is mentioned. So as I said, Wiesehofer does not know Akkadian and he quotes Grayson. His book though has been translated from German to English, so the translation varies in one or two words (but it is the same essentially). But unfortunately, given the autocratic power, a person comes and claims that Wiesehofer knows Akkadian!!(which he does not!) and claims he has made a translation. I hope at least the issue with Wiesehofer is resolved and the other side provided no proof that Wisehofer who does not know Old Akkadian has made his own translation. In fact the pages in his book (pg 42-55) directly references Grayson(pg 262). And that is why Wiesehofer on pg 262 (when mentioning pages 42-55) he has repeatedly quoted Grayson's translation of Nabonidus's chronicle. --Nepaheshgar 01:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again I'll repeat. It is amazing that a person will go into all this trouble to push a translation from 1975 over a translation from 2007. Specially since the translation in 2007 examines the 1975 translation and shows that it is out of context and wrong. That is the article from 2007 is not an alternative translation but a translation with a comment on why the former translation is wrong. I might as well push the translation mentioned by Katzstein (1980) or Frye (1984) over Grayson (1975). Or why not Oppenheimer? The selective push for a particular translation based on irrelevant reasons(Grayson is more popular! as if that matters with regards to this particular issue where a Professor of equal if not superior rank has rejected his translation) is abhorrent. It is amazing some people think they would know more than professor. Lambert where has claimed his translation is more correct than that of Grayson. Obviously, assigning weights and undo-weights should be based upon other scholars in this case Professor. Lambert (2007). So until there are scholars who have said Lambert's viewpoint is wrong and Grayson's is right, then Lambert should not only be given equal weight, but also more weight since his translation is from 2007. No other scholar has thus far claimed that Grayson's translation is better than Lambert's. Actually none of the people quoted (Kuhrt, Wiesehofer) have a single journal or article on Old Akkadian and neither of them has mentioned they know Akkadian. And it was shown Wiesehofer quotes Grayson. And Kuhrt does not know Old Persian, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, Akkadian and etc. So far the users have failed to show one article from her in Akkadian or Old Persian. Which hints her re-translations are basically taken from other book. Unfortunately I do not have access to her 360 dollar book(I hope she writes back) but I do not trust people who just made the same mistake about Wiesehofer and put a "wide" next to "accepted".. --Nepaheshgar 01:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the user should not summarize Lambert's quote:

“

The main problem is that according to the accepted translation (Grayson, Jacquest) Cyrus defeated the Babylonian army at Opis, whereupon the people of the town withdrew, Cyrus plundered(presumably the town of Opis) and slaughtered the population. The difficulty is that after defeating the Babylonian army it appears that nothing more was done about that army, but instead the local town was looted and the population slaughtered. "Akkad" means "Babylonia," but while "the army of Akkad" is an appropriate designation for Noboniduns' troops, "the people of Akkad" should then mean "the people of Babylonia," which is absurd. There was no non-Babylonian population around Opis or Sippar. A solution which makes perfect sense is to take nišu in the common meaning "men" to refer to the Babylonian army. Cyrus did battle with the Babylonian army at Opis, that army retreated, Cyrus looted their camp, then he caught up with them and defeated them.

”

unless there is an agreed upon formulation about how to summarize this, then one side should not take it upon themselves to summarize it. For example the portion:'The main problem is that. So what does that tell us? There is a problem with Grayson's translation, but unfortunately the user wanted to gloss over this subtle point and just say Lambert has another translation. Where as infact, Lambert not only has another translation, but he has "problems" and disagreement with Grayson's translation. That fact needs to be mentioned. Lets face it, the article should quote the varied translations and unless there is a direct quote from a scholar that states: "Grayson is right, Lambert is wrong" where-as Lambert has pointed he is right and Grayson is wrong, then it is not up to Wikipedia users to give prominence to one view over another. --Nepaheshgar 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A plea for sanity

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

It's obvious that people are reverting blindly without bothering to read the article, because the text is now in completely the wrong order. Note that Lambert does not retranslate the entire Nabonidus Chronicle - he only translates one line. The only full translations (at least since 1950) are those of Oppenheim, Grayson, Glassner and Kurht, in that order. Lambert does not dispute 99% of Grayson's translation. Wiesehofer only translates selected lines, Frye and Katzstein present what is clearly Oppenheim's translation with a one-word gloss added. Nor is it even the most recent translation - Kuhrt (August 2007) is plainly more recent than Lambert (March 2007).

Nepaheshgar, this is not about which scholar is "right" and which is "wrong". Lambert thinks he's right - of course he does. But it is not our jobs to decide that he is.

You appear to regard Lambert's views as proven fact. But this is not the case. All Lambert has done is to put forward a new hypothesis. It may or may not be correct, but it's not up to us to decide that.

When you claim that Lambert's view is "superior" to everyone else's, that's pure original research - you have no source to support that. No academic source has even mentioned Lambert's paper yet.

Your claims about Lambert being "of superior rank" are nonsensical. Academic disputes are not decided on the basis of who is the older professor. Academia isn't like an army, where a general gives an order and all the troops have to fall in line. If Lambert's peers (note - he's not superior to them, in fact he's a retired academic) think he has a case, they will say so in due course. So far they haven't even mentioned his paper.

Your claims about Kurht are equally nonsensical. She says explicitly, "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". You claim that she can't have done so because her (very brief) web page doesn't say she understands ancient Akkadian. Are you calling her a liar?

In short, you're doing exactly the same as CreazySuit before he got blocked: you're insisting on the basis of your own belief that your preferred version is superior to all the others, misrepresenting the views of other academics, and relentlessly trying to impose your original research on the article.

And why are you constantly deleting the description of Grayson's text as the "standard version", when that's what academia regards it as, and I've provided sources documenting that?

Also, why are you constantly deleting the link I added to Herodotus's Histories and my corrections of your spelling mistakes? It's painfully obvious that you're just reverting blindly without looking at what you're removing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You claim that " Frye and Katzstein present what is clearly Oppenheim's translation", this is clearly WP:OR unless you have a source that says so. In light of this, can you also please explain what difference is there between Grayson's translation and Kuhrt's translation or Kuhrt's translation from 1993, and Kuhrt's alleged "new" translation from 2007?--CreazySuit (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well, let me amend that to "Frye and Katzstein present a translation which is word-for-word identical to Oppenheim's". I don't have their books in front of me so I can't say where they got it from - I'll try to check that point. As for Kuhrt, as I've already pointed out, in her August 2007 book of Persian documentary sources she explicitly says she's (re)translated everything she presents. I'm not going to try to guess when she did those translations as that would be OR. But what we can say safely is that it's the most recently published translation - last time I checked, August 2007 came after March 2007 in the calendar. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me how Kuhrt's translation from 1993 differs from Kuhrt's "new" translation from 2007? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite where "Kuhrt's translation from 1993" can be found. You've not done that yet. Not that it really matters; it's still the most recently published version. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This again shows the user abusing his administration powers and breaking 3rr. Of course I will not get a 1.5 hours slap on the wrist and so I will not do the same. Then a meat puppet comes in who has not joined the discussion and r.v.'s to your version. Wiesehofer has not made a translation. Period. Read the above. He has quoted Grayson in the end of the chapter for those pages. I have said this several times, and I even brought the page, but you seem to not want to accept this. I even brought the google books link from Wiesehofer. And I correctly asserted Wiesehofer does not know Akkadian and the end of the chapter references prove me right. Since he directly refers to that portion of Grayson (1975). What happened was that Wiesehofer's book is originally German and was translated to English. So it was not exact replica of Grayson but it conveyed the same meaning. But Wiesehofer has quoted Grayson. Kuhrt is not more recent than Lambert's, and she has been writing articles with regards to Cyrus and using Grayson's translation for a while. You are right, her's is the most recent published book. No proof that she knows Old Akkadian has been given and the issue resembles that of Wiesehofer. There are only three names thus far that has been mentioned that know Old Akkadian: Lambert, Grayson and Oppenheimer. That's it. Neither Frye or Kuhrt or Wiesehofer know Old Akkadian. Again you can not claim you know more than Lambert. So what we have really is 2007(Lambert), 2004 (French), 1975 (Grayson) and 1950 (Oppenheimer) who knew Old Akkadian. Lambert(2007) is the only one that examined Grayon(1975, and the French translation 2004) and the only one that has examined the issue in detail (the lines of contention). No other scholar has done an examination of another translation and rejected it and offered his own.. No other scholar has written an article about that particular disputed line. We are not saying Lambert is superior to Grayson or Grayson is superior to Lambert(Professor of Grayson). Obviously Kuhrts is not the same league. I am not calling Kuhrt a liar(that is your take), but I believe you have misintrepreted her. Just like perhaps you misintrepreted Wiesehofer and claimed he made a new translation, where-as he has Grayson quoted for those pages (pg 262). Retranslated could mean that she has brought back old translations from Grayson or other papers with slight intrepretation or wording or many other meanings. Else no, she is not an expert in Old Persian, Old Greek, Latin, Old Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew and etc, which the Corpus has quoted. You have failed to produce from her any papers that have to do with linguistics. No one in the world is expert in all of these languages and in her webpage, she says nothing about linguistics/old languages. Yet you are claiming she has made new translations in these languages. So I believe you have misread or misintrepreted her and I will try to seek clarification from her. The issue resembles that of Wiesehofer. Until it is 100% proven that she is an expert in Old Akkadian and has offered something new (not Grayson's), then she can not be quoted. And yes, Lambert's 2007 is superior to Grayson's 1975 translation. Because Lambert has examined Grayson's and he is an expert in the field also like Grayson and Oppenheimer. And "standard" here is a POV word here and out of context. We are discussing one particular line and Grayson has not examined Lambert's translation. Lambert(2007) has examined Grayson's translation(1975). We can say that Grayson has been widely quoted since 1975 and it was Oppenheimer who was widely quoted before hand. But we can not say his version is "standard"(which can be intrepreted as correct). Newton's theory is the standard in undergraduate physics but it has been supplanted by Einstein's special and general relatively. Same here. Lambert examined Grayson's translation and has supplanted it. It is not for you to decide Lambert is correct or not, since he is more than qualified to make this assertion himself. He is the expert of the particular field and if he says Grayson is wrong, then you can not meddle in and say Grayson is right. It is your word's vs Lambert's and we have to choose Lambert. This is an Encyclopedia and it needs to be up to date. A Professor(and Grayson's Professor) and an expert in Akkadian has in 2007 examined Grayson's translation in 1975 and has said those particular lines translated by Grayson are out of context and are wrong. That is Wikipedia works by quoting scholars and not users deciding which scholar to support. But this needs to be up to date and hence Lambert should come first. If one scholar in 2007 has examined another scholar's 1975 translation and has shown it is wrong, then you can not simply push your POV. With this regard, Lambert is quoted as saying Grayson's translation is out of context and has problems. Oppenheimer does not say who did it, but Katzstein/Frye specifically say so. So it could be Oppenheimer or it could be something else. The version I had was NPOV. And again please do not summarize Lambert until there is an agreement on what should be summarized. Else the whole quotation needs to be there. Specially the part about the "main problem". And I am not interested in threats, edit warring and etc., as my record in Wikipedia has been clean since day one and I intend to keep it so. Again the issue is simple, we have three or four people who know Old Akkadian and they should be quoted. The only person who has examined the particular line in detail is Lambert (2007) and has rejected Grayson's 1975 translation. No other article or book brought so far has concentrated just on those few lines and has been specialized to concentrate on those few lines. That is what an up to date Encyclopedia is about. Lambert's article has much more worth not only because it is from 2007 rather than 1975, but because his article is specific to only that one disputed line. Grayson's 1975 book is about hundreds of inscriptions which had to be translated. It is not on the specific matter of that specific line which Lambert tackles in 2007. --Nepaheshgar 14:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not do a single r.v. or edit until this matter has been resolved. I do not have too much problems with that portion of the article (the current version) except based on the argumentation I have given, Lambert should come first. His article (2007) is specific in analyzing those two lines. No other author that knows Akkadian has examined those two lines in detail and wrote an article about it. Where-as Grayson (1975)(Lambert's student) has translated 100s of inscriptions and his book is not devoted to those specific lines. Lambert in 2007, examined those two specific lines in Grayson's massive book and believes it has problems and is out of context. To push the 1975 Grayson translation instead of 2007 article devoted to those two lines is misleading Wikipedia readers.. --Nepaheshgar 14:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Standard"

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Unless there is a source explicitly saying "standard translation", such description is WP:OR. Lambert uses the term "accepted" as in "accepted by X and Y", not as a general designation of the translation. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See [5]. Lots of sources call Grayson the standard. Our own article on the Babylonian Chronicles does the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Standard here is being misquoted out of context. Standard here means used in Academia and it is used because it is the translation of most of the ancient Akkadian texts of the period. It is not standard because that particular line is correct. It is standard, because it is the full textbook. You are violating WP:synthesis by trying to relate Standard here with the "correct translation". Two different issues. To take a comparison, it would be mentioning that Lambert is Grayson's Professor. You said it is unrelated, but the reader will get the suggestion that Lambert is correct. If anything, an article devoted only and only on those two lines and has been published in 2007 should have primacy over a 1975 book which has translated hundreds of old inscriptions and is not devoted to those two specific lines. Grayson's book is not about the battle of Opis. Neither are the books of Wiesehofer who does not Old Akkadian(quoted Grayson) or Kuhrt who does not know old Akkadian(does not claim so and has not published any papers on linguistics). Lambert's article in 2007 is specifically about the battle of Opis and those two lines. His article is the only article/book thus far that has been devoted to examinaning those two lines. No other article or book has been written that are devoted to those two lines. If I sound like a broken record, it is because this is an important point to bring across. For example a journal paper(in 2007) on specific narrow(very narrow only two lines) topic is superior to a general textbook even if the textbook due to its age (1975) and due to its size and availability, has ben quoted more widely. But the textbook (1975) is not devoted to those two lines. Lambert's 2007 journal article has examined only those two lines, examined Grayson(1975) and has shown it is out of context and has a main problem. Wikipedia should have up to date content and if there is an article/journal that has specifically devoted itself to those two lines, and says Lambert is wrong(meaning it examines Lambert's translation in 2007 and says it is wrong because of X or Y), then it should come first. --Nepaheshgar 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And finally, my assertion about Kuhrts not knowing Old Akkadian is correct. You can view it from her 2007 book here which User:ChrisO has quoted in the article.

The actual $300 book with regards to the battle of Opis can be read here. [6]. Note pg 50-51, she is NOT offering a new translation. She is quoting Glassner (2004) on the Nabonidus chronicle.

Unfortunately User:ChrisO tried to show that Wiesehofer and Kuhrt had made their own translations. They did not. Wiesehofer quoted Grayson(1975) and Kuhrt has quoted Glassner(2004 rehash of Grayson on the two lines). So no I am not calling Kuhrt a lier, but as I said just like Wiesehofer, her work was misread just Wiesehofer's book was not examined correctly. Note I am trying to assume good faith and assume that this was just an intentional gloss over.

But lets look at this [7]. User:ChrisO mentions:

“

<large>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</large>

”

.

But let's see what Kuhrt says:

“

<large>Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable</large>

”

(same book pages xxix to xxx)

User:ChrisO has the book (I have Wiesehofer's by the way), but those of us that do not have $300 right now to buy a book (or are on a trip or are married and have jobs..) expect that user:ChrisO does not delete the crucial bolded portion and also mention it.

So neither Kuhrt or Wiesehofer are experts on Old Akkadian or for that matter know the language. It is only Lambert, Grayson and Oppenheimer. Wiesehofer quotes Grayson on this issue and Kuhrt quotes Glassner. We should present their views based on chronological order. I also have an article from Kuhrt from 1987 where uses the same wording(see for example:Kuhrt, Amélie. "Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia." In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price, 20-55. Past and Present Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). I already knew Wiesehofer and Kuhrt do not know ancient Akkadian. That is because I have read articles and books from both of them. So Kuhrt has not made a new translation nor has Wiesehofer. This was I hope an mistake, and not an intentional attempt to mislead leaders. But it is suspicious while the bolded portion of Kuhrt for example was not mentioned. Or why Glassner (2004)(whom Kuhrt is quoting) was not mentioned. Or Wiesehofer who quotes Grayson is not mentioned and his wording is intrepreted as a new translation. Folks, only few people in the world are experts on Old Akkadian, they are like Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheim, Glassner. Lambert's article in 2007 is the only one that examined the two lines that are contentious. The others have written general book. Lambert's article is the newest translation and is devoted to the two lines we are discussing. --Nepaheshgar 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that we agree to leave this for now and go to mediation (see the next section) to resolve the issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, or lack of

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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. Khoi khoi 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 Wikipedia 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? Khoi khoi 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)

I've just been following this from afar, and will not be making edits in it. But the Talk: Section is very interesting as a Cyrus spinoff and thus I have been lurking. The way I read the disagreement is that Nepaheshgar is not attempting to stifle any versions, but to put them all in, clearly documented. Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, but aren't you trying to get in a particular translation as the dominant one? The whole thing has been a little hard to follow. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC):::::No way am I going to look for diffs but this is what I am referring to: "We also agreed to put it in chronological order. There are four different translations after all.--Nepaheshgar 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)"Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is a dominant translation, or let's say a dominant view, followed by most translators: that a massacre followed Cyrus' victory at Opis. Lambert's recent article of 2007 has a different translation, in which no massacre occurs. (It's probably worth saying, though, that Lambert sticks only to the translation of the passage, and doesn't talk about the implications of his re-translation: he doesn't say "and therefore there was no massacre" or something like that.) As has been pointed out many times on this talk page, Lambert's piece is so recent that there are no printed reactions to it, and given the speed with which academic publication in the humanities works (especially fields with relatively few scholars such as the ancient Near East) I would not expect that there will be published reactions all that soon. So, Lambert's translation should certainly be included in the article, but not as anything more than a minority opinion (though a respectable one to be sure). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the dominant translation of the Babylonian Chronicles is Grayson's - it's enormously widely cited, and it's described in many sources as the standard version (as does our own article on the Chronicles). That doesn't automatically make Grayson right and Lambert wrong, of course, but it does show the context in which we're operating here - a well-established, widely cited viewpoint versus a very recent, totally uncited viewpoint. I note that none of the editors who are arguing for Lambert to be given the priority have addressed the point that his piece isn't even mentioned by any other sources that anyone has been able to find. Declaring it to be somehow "definitive" or "superior" is plainly original research given the total lack of any reliable third-party references to Lambert's piece. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I recommend that the editorial disputes at this article be brought to mediation. Reverting and arguing is not the way to solve disagreements. There is a better way. A request for mediation can be made here. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely happy for this to go to mediation. Nepaheshgar and others, what about you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends who is doing the mediation. --Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You can file a request, and the relevant users will be notified. If everybody confirms acceptance of the mediation request, a neutral mediator will be appointed by the Mediation Committee. Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is fine with me. Moreschi (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay , it depends who is doing the mediation. Let me look into the process. I am seeing high level buddy buddying in different articles. Of course I am not accusing User:ChrisO, but we need a neutral mediator. For example when I said Amelie Kuhrt does not know Akkadian(that is she is not a linguist like Lambert or Grayson), another admin tried to say I was making it up. And it seems lots of times, admins are supporting other admins. I rather see user:ChrisO respond to why Amelie Kuhrt was not quoted in full(the rest of her sentence which was crucial and it was cut off, I have bolded the portion above) or why it was not mentioned she is relying on the translation of 2004 and she did not make her own translation. Or why Wiesehofer's mention of Grayson was not mentioned and it was claimed he is proposing a new translation. Until this is resolved, I see no point in further mediation. Since this is not even about content anymore and we need to assume good faith by both sides of the dispute. The stuff with the latest translation by Kuhrt needs to go as it is a lie, based on what as brought as she did not make a new translation. She quotes Glassner (2004). This matter of honesty (or hopefully a mistake) does not require mediator like the issue if Lambert should come first or Grayson. I would like to know why the rest of the sentence of Kuhrt was cut off and why it was not mentioned she is quoting Glassner and she did not do the translation.--Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are making it up, since you haven't cited a single source that says Kuhrt doesn't know Akkadian. But this is the kind of issue that will need to be dealt with at mediation. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No I am not. Note this: Let's see what Kuhrt says:

“

<large>Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable</large>

”

(same book pages xxix to xxx)

On the other hand you deleted the bolded portion when mentioning this setence. Furthermore, You said Kuhrt makes her own translation, but she does not. Note pages 50-51 [8] she quotes the translations.

This issue about Kuhrt does not need a mediator to resolve it. I would like to know: 1) why the bolded portion was cut off. 2) Why it was not mentioned that she is quoting translations like Glassner. --Nepaheshgar 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will post a request for mediation later today and will add a link here so that you can follow it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)