Talk:Battle of Hyrba

Progress on article

 * As of 7/18/08 on 11:40 PM in pacific time, all the issues below have been taken care of, and this article is 95% completed. Also as a new comer, if your looking to improve this article, we will notify you if any new developments arise, just sign your name below if interested. This has been a public service announcement to the users of Wikipedia, as the creator of this article, I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Please include enough information to identify the subject, especially who fought this battle. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's about it, except we don't know where it took place. See . It should not have its own article but should be part of a larger one. Doug Weller (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the gist of it. Cyrus is in the service of Astyages of Media. He befriends a groom (a slave) who does something wrong and Astyages punishes him cruelly. This slave, Oibarus, talks Cyrus into leading a Persian revolt against Astyages. The first battle lasts 2 days, Astyages wins.  This was close to the Persian border with Media, and the Persians head towards Pasargadae. Ctesias (I wish I could find this) says Cyrus beats Astyages in a second battle at Hybra - which is an unknown location. Then Astyages chases the Persians back to Pasergadae. Justinus (I,6) writes about the battles there as does Nicolaus. Another 2 day battle at Pasargadae, with the Medes doing well the 1st day and losing the 2nd day. You can read this in 'A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire By M. A. Dandamaev, W. J. Vogelsang'' here.
 * The Cambridge History of Iran edited by W.B. Fischer, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshster  has a different story, with Cyrus having been King of Persia for some time before these battles. And has the 1st battle at Hybra.
 * What is clear is that these battles of which we know so little do not belong in their own separate article but should be part of the Persian Revolt article. We have Battle of Pasargadae -- 3 sentences, 2 of which discuss the confusion about how many battles. Battle of the Median Border - one sentence telling us "is the second encounter of the forces of Media and Persia together. Siege of Pasargadae Hill which says it "was the first siege between the Persians and Median" -- not who fought it, not where it belongs in the series of battles, etc. And Battle of Pasargadae which says slightly more but is still confusing. Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tried to clarfy some of this text and bring forth the references, but some confusion remains. In this series of short articles, everything seems to be "the first" occasion of (whatever).  A lot of internal contradiction appear; all of this cannot be correct.Fconaway (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FCONOWAY, there is only about five in text citations, but the actual referenced word by word sentences make 85% of the article. It HAS THE MOST AND BEST SOURCES AVAILABLE, it will look too crowded if I add more! thank you, bye!--Ariobarza (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk And everything below this line is outdated or wrong, this is note to people that have came here for the first time! Doing work on this article, I am.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
 * The following sentence is bewildering to the reader, and in need of clarification and supporting citations: "The possible date of the battle can be deduced to have been a little after the summer of 553 BC, when the revolt began, but the battle happened in the beginning of 552 BCE."Fconaway (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You say, "...the actual referenced word by word sentences make 85% of the article." Please specify your citations.Fconaway (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The one huge paragraph is ONE citation, YES, all of it, which I mean some of the huge paragraph, which I added the smaller sentences for clarifications! It is taken word by word from the history of antiquity book.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

'Modern' in the context of sources
To put this into context, if we were talking about combustion, would we include in 'Modern sources' a 17th century book on phlogiston? A 19th century history text is definitely not a modern source. Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How come in Battle of Gaugamela a 1920 source is considered a modern source, and don't forget that the second sources under modern sources in this article is from 1993! Thats seems modern to me in a modern age, so we can average it from 1895(2007 reprint series)+1993=3878 divided by 2=1939, is 1939 a modern source? This is a actual question, and if you can answer it, I would greatly appreciate it, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which although about deletion applies here. If one heading is Classic sources, probably Other sources is better. The thing is, you need to have a justification for having a source at all. What is key here is how up to date it is, not what historical period it comes from. I know stuff from say 1960 that is completely obsolete (and from much later for that matter). I would love to know how in the world you justify including this ? I just can't understand that at all. Doug Weller (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research
At one point in the article a date is 'deduced', at another point it is averaged. Your assignment, should you accept it, is twofold. First, research and find out why the above is against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Secondly, fix it following what you have learned. Your task begins now. Please do not burn this message. Doug Weller (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Motives section
Again this looks like original research, please source it or remove it. Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC) After discovering that the source for the 'song' event says Cyrus was about 17 at the time, making this many years before the battle, I've deleted the whole section. If anyone wants to restore it, please find a source that explicitly discusses motive (using the word). Otherwise it is just WP:OR or WP:SYN. Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyrba
I would like to say that I'll clarify and do the tasks that you have given me on the talk page. But, the if you click on the fourth source in the reference area, you'l go on the page in the annals of history, and if you read the page it shows the second quote I put on the article. Second, I don't know why it's hard for you to accept even a 1960 source? If you read books on ancient persia that came out recently, they get their sources from the early 1900s. So you can call these new books outdated. Most things in history do not change drastically, unless a new discovery is made, so the fragments of Nicolas do not change in 50 or more years, THEY REMAIN THE SAME. Try looking at the references of famous ancient battles on wiki, and look at there MODERN sources, most come from the EARLY 1900s! Because that is considered the renaissance of orientalists. Most great archaeological and historical discoveries were made in that time. So when I change it to modern sources I KNOW SOMETHING. I don't do it do piss you off. But don't worry I will not change your edit, until you realize it for yourself, and see that YOU MUST change every modern source on wiki to OTHER source! And I hope you know that articles on the ancient world are different from other articles, which they are worded different, but I CAN'T imagine what will happen when you go to other articles and see the same things I'm putting, so you have to change every ancient history article on wiki.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Please don't try to compare this with other articles. I didn't say I don't accept a 1960 source, the discussion was about what was 'modern'. And I have no idea where you get things like 'deeply upset'. Can you source that? The whole motives section looks like your opinion, i.e. original research, and either needs to be sourced or removed. Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, Doug, and more Doug
You know I NOTICED recently that you try to make life harder than it already is. And what bothers me the most is that you don't click on the reference above the SONG, to of course, see if that song really happened, and for motives I was working on it, but you hastly delete it. Anyways, when you go on the motives again, click on all the references in the motives to verify its words. If you find something not right with a section, like the THE MOTIVES section, DO NOT DELETE THE hole entire section, you said to prove that astyages was deeply upset, but when I was going to correct it I found that you delete the whole thing, so don't next time, and I sincerly mean that! AND GIVE ME UNTIL 6:00 P.M TO UPDATE THINGS BEFORE YOU DELETE IT MERCILISLY! Also could you explain to me were it says Cyrus was 17 years old,(YOU SAID 17 FROM COUNTING BACK I KNOW, BUT IT DOES NOT SAY IT ANYWHERE) and for the word [motive], again you demand to much, like everything has to be perfect, or the hole world will be terminated. IF YOU READ EVERY OTHER ANCIENT BATTLE ARTICLE, THE ORIGINAL SOURCE BARELY SAYS ''THE MOTIVE WAS BLAH BLAH BLAH! And this is not other crap exists, what you demand is nearly impossible, because the historians use different words or a whole sentence, like I source to say or mean [motives]. AND FINALLY, if you delete the motives section again, you will be deleting not only a the hard work I did. But, you will be deleting reliable word by word references, (that I referenced perfectly), that are both from the authors and historians, so don't break Wikipedia's rules by sensoring, even the song comes from the historians writings!!! YOU said not write something OPINIONATED, so I FOLLOWED your rules and sourced nearly everything in the motives section, so its fix, and you have no reason to delete it.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

And this is an excerpt taken from the article of Modernity, THIS GOES FURTHER ON WHAT IS CONSIDERED MODERN IN HISTORICAL SOURCING TERMS; The sources I put were mostly from the early 19th CENTURY!

EXCERPT: Modernity is a term that refers to the modern era. It is distinct from modernism, which, in different contexts, refers to cultural and intellectual movements of the period c. 1630-1940. The term "modern" can refer to many different things. Colloquially, it can refer in a general manner to the 20th century. For historians, the Early Modern Period refers to the period roughly from 1500 to 1800, with the Modern era beginning sometime during the 18th century. In this schema, industrialization during the '19th CENTURY marks the first phase of modernity, while the 20th century marks the second. Some schools of thought hold that modernity ended in the late 20th century, replaced by post-modernism, while others would extend modernity to cover the developments denoted by post-modernism and into the present.'


 * You haven't read Ussher correctly, I wasn't counting back. I'll take it to WP:ORN. Doug Weller (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Motives & the song
The Angares song is given as part of the motivation for this battle. The source is James Ussher's 17th century work The Annals of the World, which makes it clear that he was a teenager (he was almost 16...took part in a battle...was called home, had one more year of schooling, and puts the Angares song at that point. We also have http://  www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/early_persian_interest_history.htm" (why in the world is this site blacklisted?

Yet another much admired tale told how Cyrus lived in Media as a youth, how he   entered the service of King Astyages, and how he fled to Persia and rose against    his overlord. This Cyrus had previously been chief of the royal rod-bearers and   later commander of the guard; because of his able and ambitious character he    aroused fear and suspicion in Astyages who therefore readily gave him permission    to go to Persis and visit his parents:[52]

Dinon   says: then Cyrus departed; Astyages thereupon celebrated a feast in company with    his friends, and on that occasion a man named Angares, who was the most    distinguished singer, was invited. He not only began to sing other customary   songs but also, at the last, he told how a mighty beast had been let loose in    the swamp, bolder than a wild boar; which beast if it got the mastery of the    region round it, would soon contend against a multitude without difficulty. And   when Astyages asked, "What beast?” Angares replied, "Cyrus, the    Persian." Believing therefore that his suspicion about him had been    correct, he kept summoning him to return . . . but it did no good."

This happened several years before the battle, and it is my opinion that any link with the battle is OR. --Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaus as a source - unreliable
This is interesting: "Classical scholars are agreed that Nicolaus's history of the East, and especially his story of Cyrus, was taken from Ctesias's Persica, a work written early in the fourth century B.C.23 This work has with justification been denounced by both Assyriologists and classicists as a totally unreliable guide to Mesopotamian history." From Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamian Folk History by Robert Drews Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 33, No. 4, (Oct., 1974), pp. 387-393 Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunker
Hi again, sorry I sound harsh, I just don't have the time to write things, so I sum it all up, and I KNOW things but need time to write them. In the last comment on your page, but guess what, I found out that Dunker's translation(translation from Nicolas's greek or roman work) of the qoute of the song is different from the annals of history book, so please tell me which one I should keep? I'm going with annals of history because it is a new source, and the translation might be better, please comment on my page on which one you would prefer. YOU can see the qoute from the history of antiquity book click on the reference, and scroll a little down and find the qoute of the song. Thank you for reading, goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller"

The motives
'''Cyrus was in Ecbatana when the revolt had already began. It was speculated, and later proven in Nicolas' account, that Cyrus fled from Astyages because he knew that he might eventually be executed, and Harpagus might join his revolt. Meanwhile, Astyages was not sure if it was safe to let Cyrus return to his homeland. But he eventually did, at it helped terminate his own kingdom. When Astyages was tricked by Harpagus again into believing Cyrus was not a danger to him, even when the revolt and impending signs of danger had already happened. That is when Cyrus knew of how easily Astyages can be swindled, for this reason, Cyrus may have decided to bring freedom to his own kingdom.[3]''' When Cyrus was again with Astyages, Oibares reminded him of his advice. Cyrus followed it, sent to Persia, and when he found that all was ready, asked Astyages, under the pretext that Oibares had suggested, for permission to go to Persia. The king would not let him go. Then Cyrus betook himself to the most trusty of the eunuchs; when a favorable moment came, he was to obtain permission for the journey to Persia. One day when Cyrus found the king in the best of humors and cheered with wine, he gave the eunuch a sign, and the latter said to the king: ‘Cyrus asks to perform the sacrifice, which he has vowed for thee in Persia, that thou mightest continue gracious to him, and for permission to visit his sick father.’ The king called for Cyrus, and with a smile, gave him permission of absence for five months; in the sixth month he was to return. Cyrus bowed in gratitude before the king appointed Tiridates as butler to the king during his absence, and on the next he set out to Persia.[4] Meanwhile, Astyages invited the best singer of the Medes, and the last song played by the proffessional ministrel that was also a Magi, named Angares, which was also accompanied by a girl, which quieted him. She related this to her husband, who at once went to Astyages, told him all and added that Cyrus had obviously gone to Persia with a view of preparing for the execution of that which the dream had portended. The king was seized with great anxiety, and the Babylonian advised him to put Cyrus to death as soon as he returned.[5] This last song was the wake up call Astyages needed in reminding him how vulnerable he was to Cyrus:[6]

A fierce wild beast, more fierce than any boar, was let go, and sent into a sunny country and he should reign over all these provinces and should, with a handful of men, maintain war against large armies.

THIS IS AN EXACT COPY OF THE MOTIVES SECTION, AND THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS ARE ENTIRELY COMPOSED OF MY WRITINGS BUT REFER TO THE MULTIPLE SUGGESTIONS THE AUTHOR MAKES IN HIS OWN BOOK, WHICH I REFERENCED. BUT THE AUTHORS OWN WRITINGS WOULD TAKE UP TO MUCH SPACE, SO I SHORTENED IT BY WRITING ABOUT IT MYSELF. THE AREAS NOT HIGHLIGHTED ARE EXACT QUOTES FROM HIS BOOK, WORD FOR WORD, THEY MAY ACTUALLY BE THE TRANSLATION OF NICOLAS'S WORK, OR THE AUTHORS WORDS, BUT BASED ON THE WAY ITS WRITTEN, TO ME ITS DEFINITLY NICOLAS'S WORDS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, MOST OF THIS BATTLE ARTICLE IS COMPOSED OF WORD FOR WORD FROM THE BOOKS THAT I CLEARLY REFERENCED, ONLY ABOUT 15% IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN BY ME! THANK YOU.--Ariobarza (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yello
Hi buddy, good all pal, I mean Doug, I ask you, do you think it is still neccessary for some expert, which barely is non-existent on the subject of Cyrus's early conquests (EXCEPT ME) to make even more edits on this article, I already posted, if you look at the first post on the top of this page inviting any expert to come make this article better, and to go ahead and experted. So not counting the issue of saying motives in the motives section, to me this article can't really get better than it already is. I mean your second task is to skim through the ENTIRE article one more time, and tell me if anything is dumbing it down. So the point of my question is; Do we still need the ugly expert attention template at the top of the articles page?--Ariobarza (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Yes. You are still injecting too much of yourself into it. The article should be reflecting what reliable sources have to say, and in particular contemporary ones, not what you or I think the classical sources meant. For instance, you write "later proven in Nicolas' account" -- and the reliable source for 'proven' is? You write "for this reason, Cyrus may have decided to bring freedom to his own kingdom.". What reliable source says that? You write (or Duncker, but you put it in) "that which the dream had portended" - dream? What dream? You write "This last song was the wake up call Astyages needed in reminding him how vulnerable he was to Cyrus:[6]" and have a reference to Ussher, although it is your words -- you need a reliable source once again.

In the background section you have "Astyages decision to let Cyrus return to his father is today considered a history changing decision." By whom? You've got to cite them. Just as you have to say more about 'today's historians'. Who thinks Harpagus and Oibares might be the same?

What does this sentence mean? "Nicolas also prefers to call Cyrus and Cambyses, Atradates, his so called original name..."

Your version of the battle is WP:SYN, you have put together various sources into one narrative. I guess that may be because you are relying on Duncker (do you have his Volume V then or what?). There is no one version of the story and the article shouldn't provide only one version. Eg, you have 300 soldiers, I can find a source for a courier. It certainly should not provide a version that you have developed yourself if that is what it is.

The aftermath looks like a quote but isn't quoted, so I have no idea where it comes from. Doug Weller (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

From now, also promise to read what I put for you all the way, so I don't have to repeat myself, best regards, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Tell me if you watchlisted the battle of hyrba so i could only comment on its talk page from now, not yours
Yes. You are still injecting too much of yourself into it. (TRUE.)

The article should be reflecting what reliable sources have to say, and in particular contemporary ones, not what you or I think the classical sources meant. (LIKE I SAID BEFORE, EVEN DUNCKER, AND PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT, AT THE END OF HIS BOOK HE COMPARES ALL THE VERSIONS OF CYRUS'S LIFE AND SPECULATES ON THAT, WHICH I REWORDED ON THE ARTICLE, PLEASE DO THIS SMALL TASK, BECAUSE I THINK YOU DON'T LOOK THROUGH THE SOURCES I PUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.)

For instance, you write "later proven in Nicolas' account" -- and the reliable source for 'proven' is? (IN THE END OF THE MOTIVES SECTION, I COPIED AN EXCERPT FROM HIS BOOK, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN NICOLAS'S ORIGINAL WORDS, THAT SAY 'THE BABYLONIAN ADVISED THE KING TO PUT CYRUS TO DEATH UPON HIS RETURN,' THAT IS WHY I SAY IT IS LATER PROVEN IN NICOLAS'S ACCOUNT, BECAUSE NICOLAS SAYS IT.)

You write "for this reason, Cyrus may have decided to bring freedom to his own kingdom.". What reliable source says that? (I WILL SOURCE THIS FROM THE END, AS I SAID BEFORE THE AUTHORS FACT SUPPORTED SPECULATIONS APPEAR AT THE END OF HIS BOOK.)

You write (or Duncker, but you put it in) "that which the dream had portended" - dream? What dream? (THE FAMOUS DREAM THAT EVEN HERODOTUS SAYS ASTYAGES HAD BEFORE CYRUS WAS BORN, AND THE MAGI INTERPRETED THE DREAM AS MEANING THAT CYRUS WHEN GROWN UP, WOULD EVENTUALLY OVERTHROW ASTYAGES, THIS TALE IS SAID BY ALMOST ALL ANCIENT HISTORIANS ON CYRUS, THE ACCOUNT IS EVEN IN CYRUS THE GREAT'S ARTICLE.) You write "This last song was the wake up call Astyages needed in reminding him how vulnerable he was to Cyrus:[6]" and have a reference to Ussher, although it is your words -- you need a reliable source once again. (I DON'T KNOW WHY IN SOME MINOR PARTS, YOU TELL ME THAT I SHOULD NOT PUT STUFF IN MY WORDS, SOMETIMES I JUST NEED TO SHORTEN WHAT HE ORIGINALLY SAID, BECAUSE IF I DON'T, IT WILL TAKE UP THE WHOLE PAGE, AND BASED ON THE TONE OF ASTYAGES HIMSELF HE HAS GREAT ANXIETY, AND READY FOR ACTION AFTER HE HEARS THAT SONG, IT'S IN THE BOOK.)

In the background section you have "Astyages decision to let Cyrus return to his father is today considered a history changing decision." By whom? You've got to cite them. Just as you have to say more about 'today's historians'. (THAT I ADMIT WAS THE ONLY OPINIONATED PART THAT I PUT IN, BUT TO ANYONE WHO HAS COMMON SENSE, WE KNOW, THAT IF ASTYAGES HAD STOPPED CYRUS BEFORE HE HAD ESCAPED, AND EXECUTED HIM, THEN THE PERSIAN EMPIRE MAY HAVE NEVER EXISTED, BUT I'LL TRY TO CITE THIS AS YOU TELL ME.)

Who thinks Harpagus and Oibares might be the same? (IF YOU READ ABOUT HERODOTUS HARPAGUS AND NICOLAS OIBARES, AND DON'T FORGET THEY USE DIFFERENT DIALECTS, IT LITERALLY, AND I KID YOU NOT, SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PERSON, AND AGAIN DUNCKER TALKS ABOUT IT TOWARDS THE END OF HIS BOOK, BUT WHAT I PUT IS NOT OPINIONATED, BECAUSE I SAY THAT 'WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON OR NOT', BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THE READER KNOWS A LITTLE HISTORY, SO AS THE ONE WRITTING THIS ARTICLE, I TAKE A NEUTRAL POSITION.)

What does this sentence mean? "Nicolas also prefers to call Cyrus and Cambyses, Atradates, his so called original name..." (I DISCUSSED THIS WITH AMIZZONI A LONG TIME AGO, AND HE SAID TO INCLUDE IT IN CAMBYSES I'S ARTICLE, AND EVEN DUNCKER SAYS THAT FOR SOME REASON NICOLAS CALLS ATRADATES CAMBYSES, BECAUSE HE SAYS ATRADATES WAS CYRUS'S FATHER, AND HISTORIANS TODAY SPECULATE THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN HIS ORIGINAL NAME, NOT HIS ROYAL NAME, THAT IS WHY I SAY 'THIS THEORY IS CONTESTED BY TODAYS HISTORIANS' BECAUSE WE HAVE INSCRIPTIONS THAT SAY CAMBYSES WAS THE FATHER OF CYRUS, SO (Cambyses) IS THE ONLY NAME WE CAN GIVE TO CYRUS'S FATHER.)

Your version of the battle is WP:SYN, you have put together various sources into one narrative. I guess that may be because you are relying on Duncker (do you have his Volume V then or what?). (CLICK ON THE DANG SOURCE PLEASE, ITS BLUE WHICH MEANS YOU CLICK ON IT, AND GO STRAIGHT TO GOOGLE BOOKS. AND I DON'T HAVE THE BOOK, BUT CAN READ ALL OF IT FOR FREE ON GOOGLE BOOKS, AND I DON'T NEED VOLUME V TO CITE SOMETHING FROM ANOTEHR VOLUME.)

There is no one version of the story and the article shouldn't provide only one version. (LOOK IN THE CLASSICAL SOURCES SECTION, AND DON'T FORGET NICOLAS AND OR CTESIAS IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE WHICH WE GET MOST OF OUR MATERIAL.)

Eg, you have 300 soldiers, I can find a source for a courier. It certainly should not provide a version that you have developed yourself if that is what it is. (NICOLAS AND OR DUNCKER (AND IN OTHER BOOKS IN THE REFERENCE) SAY THEY WERE 300 HORSEMEN, OF WHICH 250 PERISHED IN THE BATTLE. AND THE REMAINING 50 BROUGHT THE NEWS BACK TO ASTYAGES.)

This next sentence has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make so you can just ignore it. (AND BASED ON THE LENGTH OF THE CITIES BETWEEN EACH OTHER IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN THEM A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO GET BACK TO ECBATANA, THIS GIVES MORE CREDIT TO DATE OF THE BATTLE, AND NEXT BATTLES BEING IN 552 OR LATER, AND EVEN NICOLAS SAYS FIVE TO SIX MONTH LATER, LOOK FOR IT IN THE MOTIVES SECTION.

The aftermath looks like a quote but isn't quoted, so I have no idea where it comes from. (IT IS NOT A MAJOR QUOTE, SO I JUST LEFT WITH THE NORMAL SENTENCE.)

Lets just get something straight, I feel like I'm doing too much as I should, and I think it is because you want this article to be perfect, and I'm perfectly okay with that. It's just that I think as an editor you might not know about the history of Cyrus as much I do, and I could be wrong. So if you have any questions about what I put, first try asking people interested in the Achaemenid Empire, or Cyrus, and they will prove my words. AND I THINK MY PROBLEM IS THAT MOST OF THE TIME, I ASSUME THE READER ALREADY KNOWS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, JUST IN YOUR CASE, YOUR NOT SURE THAT WHAT I PUT IS RELIABLE, WERE AS IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE TO ME, BECAUSE AS AN HOBBY I RESEARCH ALLOT ABOUT PERSIAN HISTORY. So through your questions, it abled me to identify this problem, and therefore I thank you for that.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

ALSO THE QOUTE IN THE AFTERMATH IS FROM DUNKERS BOOK, AND THE PART THAT SAYS THE DREAM HAS PORTENDED I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU, BECAUSE ITS NICOLAS'S WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN DUNKERS BOOK, WHICH I REFERENCE, SO AGAIN CHECK OUT ALL THE REFERENCES BEFORE RAISING AN ISSUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.250 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE
Hey Doug, despite what I said recently on your talk page with responses to our misunderstandings, I'LL STILL MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON EVERYTHING YOU ASKED ME TO MAKE OR CHANGE IN THIS ARTICLE, SO HAVE NO WORRIES BUDDY.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Google links to Duncker
These only go to a page about the book, although I had thought they would link to the actual page being used as a reference. Thus they should be removed (just the links). Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you can search but you have to guess what to search for, and you only get a snippet so you don't know the context. Unless you actually have the book, you can't be sure that you understand what he's saying. And it's an old book, do you know a fragment of Ctesias has been found since (as a for instance). Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I don't no if any new fragments have been found, but I have the full translation of the fragments from his indica and persica. The issue of finding a new fragment from his persica makes no difference in the references, because I already sourced all the parts that seem to come from his already found fragments, so its referenced. And it may say snippet view, but if it gives enough info on the subject, then that is all that is needed. I also own other essays on history, by the authors I referenced.--67.180.225.250 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

oh ya
Hey Doug, guess what, I just did everything you told me to improve this article. And just so you know, the parts that say 'in Nicolas or Herodotus account blah blah blah', is what I wrote, and all I did was that I shortened the long sentences that the sources wrote. But as always I referenced it so anyone can check if I'm advancing a position or not. 2/3 of the entire article is exactly from the sources that I referenced. So I ask you to please skim through the article one more time, and see the new versions improvements that I made to it. And two things, number one, there is actaully one quote, and that is the song, the other that I had perviously was a mistake, and it did not have soothsayer tone to it, it was a sentence that Astyages had blurped out. Second, if there are any tiny typos in the article, don't tell me about it, just make a minor edit to it. Thanks a lot! Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

AND IF ANYTHING IS STILL WRONG WITH THIS ARTICLE JUST SAY BELOW THIS LINE
Add some pictures, if you can. And please do not use all caps, it gives the impression of yelling, and yelling does not sit well with most people. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearest place to the unknown location
Huh? We don't know where it is, but this is as close as you can get to it? Doug Weller (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New GA Review
I have reviewed this article against the good article guidlines and have failed it.

Well Written
 * I feel that in the light of intothewoods's previous warning not to reapply until the grammar issues have been sorted out, you should not have renominated this article. The level of English all the way through the article is still too poor for this article to be a GA.  The article needs a serious copy edit by a person with fluent or at least professional-level English, since there are many examples all the way through of poor grammar and ambiguous sentences.
 * The article also needs a reworked lead (introduction) paragraph. While this does not have to be three paragraphs, as has been asserted above, it should at least be paragraphed, and act more as a summary which briefly explains where, when, why, how and why it is important as a subject.  Your current lead leaves unresolved and, in a summary, irrelevant questions about other subjects, for example who undertook 'these actions' (incidentally, are the actions referred to the revolt or the battle?).  It also uses a phrase which means nothing: a power vacuum cannot be shifted - what was meant by this?^
 * Regarding the infobox: the creation of the Persian 'rebel alliance' is not a territorial change, nor is 'rebel alliance' a commonly used phrase outside of Star Wars.^
 * Hyrba and Medes are currently both linked in the infobox...to the same article. If there is not an article or specific part of an article about Hyrba, do not wikilink it.^
 * Do not wikilink to articles on basic English words! There are links to 'infant', 'mother' and 'father' here!  The 'mother' and 'father' links should be links to articles about his specific mother and father, and should not be linked at all if these articles do not exist.^

Factually Accurate and Verifiable
 * The article has a good basis of well referenced material, which I realise is particularly difficult in the often mono-source world of ancient history.^
 * The picture used in this article is not referenced - how do you know where Hyrba was and what is closest to it today?^

Broad in Coverage
 * The article contains background, motives, a section on the battle and one on its aftermath. This is good breadth for a battle article.  However, it would benefit from a greater discussion of some things, for example, tell us why Cyrus was in the court of Astyages, and tell us why there are three theories about who his mother is.^

Neutral
 * The article is neutral^

Stable
 * The article is subject to frequent arguments, flaming in the talk page and edit wars, and is not currently stable enough to be a good article.

Illustrated
 * The image, as well as being unreferenced and unverifiable, is fair usage and as such makes gaining GA status very difficult, even for articles which are perfect in every other requirement.

There is a very great deal of work to be done here. PLEASE do not renominate this article until it reads as fluent English and the other issues outlined above are resolved. Chrisfow (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed material irrelevant to the battle
I removed the following material, which seems irrelevant to the battle; I'm preserving it here so that someone can, if reasonable, move it to the pages of the people involved (the only place where it may make sense, in my opinion): Nicolaus also prefers to call Cambyses, as historians think it fits his description perfectly, Atradates - even Strabo calls Cyrus Agradates, his so-called original name, but this theory is contested by today's historians, who say Atradates is the variant name of Mitradates. Nonetheless, the Achaemenid kings are known to have used their original names and royal names interchangeably, right when they became king, even until the time of Alexander the Great. This is also due to the Achaemenid inscriptions that only call Cyrus's father one name, Cambyses. However, for the origin of Cyrus's mother, Nicolaus says her name was Argoste, not Herodotus' Mandane of Media, and Herodotus says the name of the adoptive parents of Cyrus was the royal shepherd of Saspiresian origin, and was named Mitradates with his wife Cyno, therefore are two possibilities. Note that it contains ref tags. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right, it probably belongs in Cyrus the Great's early life details.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Renomination - recommendation against it
In the September refusal for nomination, the review ended with "Please do not renominate this until you get a lot of people to work on the grammer. Sorry for being a bit harsh, but this is not a GA".

I've deleted the "will be nominated for GA very soon" box from the top of the article; on grammar alone, this article is not up to the required standard. Even the intro sentence that starts with "And" and the fair-use picture, both of which were specifically commented on, are still there. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep note, that the battle and half of the aftermath sections are entirely from Nicolaus' mouth, we cannot improve that grammar in there, it is like changing a sentence in Herodotus' book, plagarism, we can improve the other parts. But only if you agree not to change the meaning of the sentence, which would ruin the article, its as simple as that, the image was in fair use and added by someone else. When I made Hyrba, I wanted to make it to set a standard for my other articles, to test myself, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * As I've told you before, putting text that is quoted directly from the source into an article without quotation marks is a Bad Thing. Everything that is outside of quotation marks is the Wikipedia community's responsibility.
 * Fair use applies to only one article at a time; if something is fair use in another article, that does not make it automatically fair use for this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll put: Nicolas says this, "blah blah blah

And ask the creator of the pic if it is fair, I found the image in on google site, the pic seems old, and that it is only used in this article.

Actually one last thing, I am not sure what quotation marks or if I should Italisize them, but if you go in the battle and anfter math sections, look for these, [] they show you how many direct lines (three blocks of writing in total) from Nicolas's fragments which is written in Dunkers book. Please Qoatate one of those blocks, to set an esxample, and I'll do it to the rest, so one day people don't accidently mess up what Nicolas actually says. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * I put in one example of using the "cquote" template. And I repeat - quoting long texts from a single source is NOT a way to write a good Wikipedia article. But at least it makes a truthful, easily visible statement about what is a quote and what is not. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For GOD sakes, for the love of the Holy Ghost, for the mercifullness of the ChristO, for the evilness of Xenu, when are you people going to understand, making history articles is different from modern articles. We know 10% of history, so if 90% was a lie, then all we are doing on Wikipedia is adding verifiable lies. One thing to understand, and this message is to a variety of users, history is currently myth, until we find archeological evidence of a battle, the battle can not be proven. It is almost like proving Martians exist. All we can do is look in Google books for books that TALK about it, but do not provide evidence. This message is for most battles, because some battles have been proven to be true, do not worry Alvestrand, this message was not towards you, but to those that follow certain someones mentality/ideology, thanks you all.
 * "It is over now. Go ahead, take the bow" (in the next message please make a guess from what song that is from)
 * --Ariobarza (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Ariobarza, when will you admit that other people have valid opinions about how to write history articles on Wikipedia?
 * What you can do is to find books (whole books, not Google Books "snippets") by modern scholars that critically evaluate the evidence, including identifying their sources, and then talk about what they say. Retelling of myths is not Wikipedia's role. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kurd.jpg)
Passing this on from User:TomStar81's talk page, as he is currently on leave. As the image is tagged as fair use for this article, people here may be able to decide if the image should be re-added or deleted. -- saberwyn 23:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurd.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Image to Battle Found
Hi, seeing that an image was wanted here, I have recently found this image in my search for an [image} on a blog which has copied the battle from Wikipedia (plus included their own commentary), and made an image map of the battle, which seems accurate to the information in the battle. I was wondering if we could put it on Wikipedia, since the blogger has virtually copied everything from here to his/ her blogspot. It is similar to the map found on Battle of Opis article, and if we could give an image to this article it would improve the quality. Secondly, I am not sure if we should ask the blogger for permission to include the map on Wikipedia (which after copying from Wikipedia without our permission even if we are free, it seems he likes Wikipedia and would not mind). Any response will be appreciated, thank you. Click on the image to view it by itself .--Amerana (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to ask the permission of the one who owns the copyright to the map. If the blogger made it himself, based on freely available sources, that means the blogger; if he used a non-free base map image, it gets more complicated. By basic Wikipedia rules, you can't assume permisison, so you have to ask. Good luck! --Alvestrand (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * now indef blocked as sockpuppet of Ariobarza. dougweller (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)