Talk:Battle of Opis

Tadmor
I am rather disappointed to find User:Tundrabuggy questioning my intentions in this edit summary. As I have already explained, unless Tadmor comments specifically on the use of the word daku in the passage of the Nabonidus chronicle that deals with the battle of Opis, it is original research by synthesis to include him in this article. This is an elementary application of the no original research policy. Perhaps Tundrabuggy can explain to us why he thinks it isn't. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I was disappointed to see you revert a footnote that was a direct quote from Lambert in relation to this particular passage, not from Tadmor. I see now that you perhaps misunderstood the situation, and it was not a bad-faith edit.  Tadmor simply corraborates Lambert's comments on the word dâku, though not in relation to this particular use of it...though I am not sure, not having read the whole article.  Perhaps I will buy the article later in the day and see... Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tundrabuggy, will you agree that unless Tadmor comments specificlly, as Akhilleus says, on the word 'daku' as used in the relevant passage, it's OR? dougweller (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. See my comment in section above re: Tadmor.  I am not using him as an independent source and do not intend to use him in the article, except to demonstrate here on the talk page that the Akkadian word "dâku" can be (correctly) translated as "defeat" as Lambert suggests.  Lambert's notability in the field is sufficient that his opinion should carry some weight, and Tadmor essentially demonstrates that his interpretation is evidence-based. (I will not be able to get back to this until later in the day.)  Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're bringing in evidence that Lambert doesn't cite to support Lambert's argument? That's an obvious case of WP:SYNTH. It's puzzling that you don't understand this. I hope that you will explain clearly on the talk page why you don't think this is OR; right now, it looks to me like you are trying to edit the article in contravention of basic content policies. I hate to sound alarmist, but that's what it looks like. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, you just want to use Tadmor on the talk page. That's fine, although unnecessary; I don't think anyone disagrees that daku might mean "defeat" in this passage; the issue is that no one but Lambert has translated the passage that way, and the mainstream position is that a massacre occurred. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To Akhilleus, please read what you are reverting instead of reverting without reading. My edit had nothing to do with Tadmor! I expanded Lambert's quote in the reference from his journal article and there is nothing that was synthesized from any other article or Tadmor. Can you please tell me what that has to do with Tadmor? If you have not read the original article from Lambert, it is readily available and you can check out. I just expanded Lambert's quote about Daku in the footnote. Are you calling Lambert's article a synthesis? It had nothing to with Tadmor, or Synthesis, since it is all from the same source (Lambert). Next time please analyze what you are reverting. Your r.v. in my opinion shows bad faith, since without reading what was inserted, you just r.v.'ed it and assumed it was tadmor. Thank you. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) For Tundrabuggy, I'll send you Tadmor's article via e-mail, just remind me. But Tundrabuggy was right in r.v. Akhilleus as Akhilleus assumed we have quoted Tadmor, where-as I just expanded Lambert's quote in the reference tho him. --Nepaheshgar
 * I see, that's a direct quote from Lambert. I thought the citations to the CDA were your own contribution. Thanks for pointing out my error. However, aside from the stylistic problem of putting huge direct quotes into footnotes, which I think is a bad idea, we have included so much text from Lambert's article (which is fairly short) that I think we might be approaching a copyright problem. The quote should be shorter. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC) (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then we can ask a neutral person to rewrite what Lambert wrote (which I rather not do since I like his exact statement), if it is approaching a copy right issue. Although as you can see, what Lambert has stated is exactly what Tadmor has stated about the same word and perhaps this was the reason you thought I was synthesizing.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we could add a bit of the content to the battle section, it wouldn't require much in a footnote. @ Nepa...I'd love it if you emailed me the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Lambert's view belongs anywhere, it belongs in a brief footnote rather than the main body of the article. As I've pointed out repeatedly, it's a fringe view in Wikipedia's sense of the term - an idea that "departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study" (WP:FRINGE). We report significant views in proportion to their prominence. The degree of prominence is determined by the current level of acceptance among the relevant academic community. In the case of Lambert's view, it has zero prominence and no acceptance, or even mentions, anywhere in academia. That needs to be reflected in how we treat it in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to the summary we should metnion Daku, nishu and etc. That is rewrite the sentences of Lambert but not truncate them to one sentence.  It is useful for the readers of the footnote to know what words are being disputed.  Maybe a 3rd party can be invited to summarize/rewrite it while mentioning daku/nishu..--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an academic controversy - it's a Nepaheshgar controversy. You're giving the issue far more prominence than any academic sources give it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in the footnote of the article, so what is the issue here? The issue with the words Daku and Nishu and Lambert can be put in the footnote in two sentences. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The ancient Near East in 540 BC, prior to the Persian invasion of Babylonia
This map is incorrect. The Phoenician's were conquered by the Achaemenid Empire by 540, yet show the area in red. JanderVK (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)