Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 2

wrong infomation
Hello I am wirting to inform the people this talk page that one of the users (Ariobarza) claims that the infomation on the user page is incorrect,firstly he said that the invasion of Babylon was 540 BC as Chris0 is is incorrect it was 539 BC,however they attemped to attack on 540 BC but they couldn't so they diverted the river into the city and the people opeoned the gates without a fight and gaver the king to Cyrus and the Babylonian king lived at Cyrus's palace as as a assintant. As he said here;


 * ChrisO thinks that Cyrus invaded Babylon in September-October 539 BC, wheras normal history and evidence says that he began his march in winter 540 BC, and resumed his march in February 539 BC, after he was delayed at the Tigris river for a couple of months.


 * And he denies even if he was delayed at the Tigris, that Cyrus ever fought a battle at the Tigris while cuneiform evidence suggests it, with a few lines missing, 4/6 translations by the good historians on the subject welcome the idea, three of which totally say that he did fight a battle in February 539 BC at the Tigris river. Even some of Herodotus' Histories, and Xenophons' Cyropaedia writings say that there was an earlier battle than the last battle and the capture of Babylon in October, when Cyrus conquering Babylonia, and being called king in February 538 BC.

The above was said to me on my talk page by Ariobarza.

Hello I am writing to inform the people this talk page that one of the users (Ariobarza)claims that the infomation on the user page is incorrect,firstly he said that the invasion of Babylon was 540 BC as Chris0 is incorrect it was 539 BC,however they attemped to attack on 540 BC but they couldnt so they diverted the river into the city and the people opeoned the gates without a fight and gaver the king to Cyrus and the Babylonian king lived at Cyrus's palace as as a assintant. As he said here.

ChrisO (and others that he recruited) denies all the evidence, he says Ariobarza does wishfull thinking and it is original research, when in fact, most of the sources available actually agree, (with the main guy who is [A.T. Olmstead] a renown historian of Persia, which wrote and his students updated after his death the famous book, which is titled, History of the Persian Empire), but that is not the point. He lacks a common sense approach to things, and is very strict, Ariobarza said he has trouble editing on Wikipedia, because he knows ChrisO is going to come out of the dark and blow things of little value, totally out of poportion.

In conclusion, most of Ariobarza's facts are correct.

Many thanks, if you would have any enquires, please feel free to ask me about this matter on my talk page.--Secthayrabe   Ø

Another set of translations
Here just shows you that 4 of the 6 translations agree with my assessment;


 * {| width="90%" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" class="wikitable"

So as you can see (sorry the translations became longer for the box, and all the bold is what most agree with eachother) ALL translations agree at least that on Adar/February and where it was said it means it was in 540-539 BC, a battle of the Sea Country/Persians and Babylonians(of course) took place, the Sea Country/Persians killed/defeated their opponents,(But note, here is the main issue, if it was the Sea Country then that means Nabonidus LIED and he did not repel their small invasion, but of course ACCORDING to all accepted history it was the Persians who conquered Babylon NOT the Sea Coutry, so the Sea Country should be quickly ommited from the passage, more comman sense!) on the Tigris, and then Nabonidus seeked divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, which is a statue of a god, unless Ishtar was a real god/evolved human/alien-human hybrid. [Note] even in the story of Cyrus' revolution from Media, Cyrus himself says a god made him revolt (this is an interesting fact but has nothing to do with this issue, so just ignore it).
 * Date
 * Translator
 * Text
 * Source
 * valign="top" | 1925
 * valign="top" | Smith
 * valign="top" | "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..."
 * valign="top" | Babylonian Historical Texts
 * valign="top" | 1950
 * valign="top" | Oppenheim
 * valign="top" | "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..."
 * valign="top" | Ancient Near Eastern Texts
 * valign="top" | 1960
 * valign="top" | Olmstead
 * valign="top" | "B[...] was defeated. On the Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... [the ...] [after] the army of the Persians made an attack..."
 * valign="top" | The History of the Persian Empire
 * valign="top" | 1975
 * valign="top" | Grayson
 * valign="top" | "... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ...the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..."
 * valign="top" | Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
 * valign="top" | 2004
 * valign="top" | Glassner
 * valign="top" | "[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s'''[...]."
 * valign="top" | Mesopotamian Chronicles
 * valign="top" | 2007
 * valign="top" | Kuhrt
 * valign="top" | "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia (?) ...]"
 * valign="top" | The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period
 * }
 * valign="top" | 2007
 * valign="top" | Kuhrt
 * valign="top" | "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia (?) ...]"
 * valign="top" | The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period
 * }
 * }

Also, the oldest translations says Ishtar of Erech, then all other translations say Ishtar of Uruk, Erech and Uruk are not the same, SO as newer translations means they are better, and I can give undue weight to some translations BECause 4/6 agree with my assessment, and thats all it is. Also, Olmstead finds the word [after], which with his whole translations means Babylonians were defeated [after] the army of the Persians made an attack. Just like they as Persians attacked Babylonian army at Opis, [attack] usually means there was a battle. ANd again, do you notice that all the old translations say Sea Country, while all the NEW translations say Persians, more and more reasons(as it is according to all accepted history, again is our only option to consider) to believe it was the Persians, the main branch of the Tigris was to the north, were again, that is where the Persians penetrated Babylon from, hew.

So please review this message carefully and consider all the evidence spanning 2,500 years that agrees that SOMETHING [battle] did take place before Opis, and other details too. I finally do not get how you can just deny all the evidence!? Consider this, just because there is not new books on the hydrualics of a ice-cream machine, DOES not mean that the hydrualics of a ice-cream machine never happened or existed, I know a lot of comman sense stuff, regarding this issue, and if I knew more Wikipedia terms, than by now you would agree with me. Do you understand this last sentence? thanks again(that was just some pshycology for you) lol.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Interpreting these fragmentary sentences is certainly original research. Just to make a demagogical point.... how do you know that the original text resulting in the last translation wasn't "The boat sank, but luckily, the King wasn't killed. The river claimed 100 crew, and the statue of Ishtar of Uruk was recovered from the wreck. This was an omen of the invasion of Persia"? All the words you claim occur in the same sequence, but there isn't a single battle to be found. Let's quote the interpretations, not create new ones. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct. Quote the intepretations, but don't comment on them or try to analyse them. Of course, you can also use the comments of reliable sources so long as all significant points of view are presented proportionately. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys are falling for ChrisO's schemes again, I do not make my own analyzations, few historians that ever talked about the incription agree, please scroll up to where I put a sentence from Olmstead's, you guys may even try to criticize Olmstead, but according to yourselfs you can not choose if they are right or wrong, but just to cite them. Secondly, nearly all the translations say the army of the Persians made an attack, CAN it be more clearer, on the month of Adar or Addaru which is February, and when was it possible, in 540-539 BC. Even if it was the Sea Country that made the attack Nabonidus himself puts in 540-539 BC. You guys LACK the common sense of researching sources and finding connections, this is not original research, I did not interept the inscription myself, I simply stated what the HISTORIANS said, so do not make this like the Opis dispute, it is not worth it! If you do not agree with me your denying a couple of things;


 * Your denying historical inscriptions made by Nabonidus himself.


 * And denying Other key details to the invasion of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, as said by well known historians, ~Herodotus and Xenophon, who says Cyrus fought one or two battles before getting to Babylon.


 * Your also denying 4/6 translations that agree that in the month of Adar on the Tigris a battle was fought between Babylonia and Persia (Sea Country is extremly impossible, because it contradicts the time and day that they invaded according to another inscription by Nabonidus himself) were the Babylonians were defeated/killed.


 * Your denying Olmstead and Rawlinson who explicitly say the Persians defeated the Babylonian army before March, which would mean in Febraury (apparently Rawlinson got it right the first time) its undeniable.


 * Finally denying that there was even a battle, when the inscription itself says a attack/battle ocurred.

So finally please do not make this like Opis dispute, I am tired Maximus. And I do not make my own anyalzations, because most of the historians who talked about this and have ACCESS to more info agree with my assessemt, which I got totally from their books, so please go argue with them, I am here to present information and use common sense, and finally be open minded, thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * You mention 'making connections'. Be careful, WP:SYN says "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in a way that constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.". Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By "Rawlinson" you mean this guy, whose translation was published in 1881 - 127 years ago. You can't present such an old source as representative of current historical thinking, any more than you can use the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - which is actually more recent! - in that way. None of the translations apart from Oppenheim say anything about the Persian army attacking, and even then Oppenheim doesn't say who they attacked, where or when. Even the view that the symbol(s) being translated represents "Persia" is disputed. You simply can't draw any firm conclusions from it, and you personally aren't in any position to do so - you're not an expert, and your own interpretations are original research by definition. One thing you might not be aware of is just how fragmentary the text is. Smith's translation of 1925 has the virtue of being formatted in the same way as the original tablet, showing where the lacunae are (other translators just represent the lacunae as [...]). Here's how he renders it, and for comparison the other translations formatted in the same way (text in square brackets is conjectural reconstructions by the translators):


 * {| width="70%" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" class="wikitable"


 * Date
 * Translator
 * Text
 * Source
 * valign="top" | 1925
 * valign="top" | Smith
 * valign="top" | (1) ................fought. The river Tigris ............
 * valign="top" | (1) ................fought. The river Tigris ............

(2) .................In Adar Ishtar of Erech ...........

(3) ..................of the sea-land (?) ............

(4) .........................................................


 * valign="top" width=20% | Babylonian Historical Texts
 * valign="top" | 1950
 * valign="top" | Oppenheim
 * valign="top" | (1) ................Tigris ............
 * valign="top" | (1) ................Tigris ............

(2) .................In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk ...........

(3) ..................The army of the Persians made an attack ............

(4) .........................................................


 * valign="top" | Ancient Near Eastern Texts
 * valign="top" | 1975
 * valign="top" | Grayson
 * valign="top" | (1) ................Tigris ............
 * valign="top" | (1) ................Tigris ............

(2) .................[In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the ........

(3) ..................[the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ............

(4) .........................................................


 * valign="top" | Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
 * valign="top" | 2004
 * valign="top" | Glassner
 * valign="top" | (1) ................was killed. The Tig[ris] (?) ............
 * valign="top" | (1) ................was killed. The Tig[ris] (?) ............

(2) .................In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk ...........

(3) ..................the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s ............

(4) .........................................................


 * valign="top" | Mesopotamian Chronicles
 * valign="top" | 2007
 * valign="top" | Kuhrt
 * valign="top" | (1) ................killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ............
 * valign="top" | (1) ................killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ............

(2) .................Ishtar of Uruk ...........

(3) ..................of Per[sia (?)] ............

(4) .........................................................


 * valign="top" | The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period
 * }


 * So it's a case of literally only a handful of words being translatable in 3 out of 4 lines, the 4th being illegible. It's not surprising that the translators are so uncertain about how to translate it, and that the historians have been very hesitant about drawing any conclusions from it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * YOU forgot I included Olmstead translation, or what he saw fit. That says the Persians made an attack scroll up to the message where I PUT the translations in BOLD. And I notice your nitpicking certain things I am saying, stop waisting time, Olmstead and Rawlinson, and Oppenheium say that the Persians made and attack and defeated the Babylonian army, AND Olmstead even has Ba..... defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack in his tranlsation. HMM I wonder what that means? You guys remind me of moderate muslims who make excuses for the Koran, and deny that in the Koran says to burn double crossing unbelievers, where as muslims say "no it means to throw the unbelievers into the light and show them the right path, STOP wishfull thinking please. Sorry I am not against religion or you guys, I am just making an example in PSHYCOLOGY, it is a matter of thinking, REMEMBER Rawlinson, Olmstead, Oppenheium agree with me, two others are not sure because they think it was the (obviously proven wrong) Sea Country, and the last guy is coming to my side. So do the math. And if I ever make an article about Tigris I will only put what the historians say, okay, Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Olmstead's translation notes that there's a lacuna in between "In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk" and "The army of the Persians made an attack." That's a pretty big gap, and we have no idea what was in it. Thus, the tablet doesn't tell us whether the Persians attacked in the month of Addaru, or later.
 * However, as many people have noted already, we're not supposed to draw our own conclusions about what the translations mean--we rely on what scholars say about the translations, instead. So far I haven't seen anyone quote what Rawlinson, Olmstead, Oppenheim, etc. say about the timeframe of this attack--just a bunch of assertions about "I saw it in a book once." Some direct quotes might be helpful. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're wrong about Oppenheim. Read what he says: "The army of the Persians made an attack..." He doesn't say who they attacked, where, when, how, why, or anything else. He definitely doesn't say they "defeated the Babylonian army". That appears nowhere in Oppenheim's text. For all you know, they attacked someone else (recall that the Nabonidus Chronicle records Cyrus's campaigns outside Babylonia). Olmstead doesn't say that either, if you read his words carefully. The bit you cited says: "Nabu-naid ... suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March." Olmstead doesn't say who defeated Nabonidus. In any case, no other scholar, as far as I know, has supported Olmstead's interpretation. As for Rawlinson, I pointed out that his book is ridiculously out of date - 127 years old! - in fact, it's the very first published translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle, published at a time when knowledge of Babylonian and Persian history and of the Akkadian language was much less advanced than it is now. I don't think you can put a book that old on a par with modern historical writings. Its age alone means that it would probably not qualify as a reliable source for any discussion of modern historical views. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ChrisO your killing me hear! Oppenheim may not say who the Persians were attacking, But all the translations say it was on the Tigris on February 540-539 BC, Cyrus was returning from his Eastern campaigns and according to everything I have ever read about these dates, Cyrus was planning the invasion of Babylonia in 540-539 BC, what better evidence do you need. Secondly, you did not SEE Olmsteads book, the HEADING ABOVE THE PAGE OF THE BOOKS says "Conquest of Babylonia under Cyrus the Great"; he refers to Cyrus at first, then later says He was on the Border before the snows... You know the rest, thats when Nabonidus panics and transports all the statues of the Gods he likes to thte southern portions of his empire. When I say connect the dots I do not mean to come up with your own analyzations, I MEAN COMPARE THE GOOD AND BAD, be neutral about it. I have connected the dots and outcome I get is that my assessment did happen, GET Olmsteads book to check what I AM saying. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Another set of translations 2
Before anyone reads the below, just know it is from the very first messages about this dispute, which in most cases NO ONE even bothered to read (from now before interfering in a dispute READ ALL THE MESSAGES TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BEFORE SAYING nonesense) and just accepted a misconception face first, please do not ride off the bottom evidence as my analyzations, or wishfull thinking/original research, which I suggest ignoring evidence is much worse than all of the above. Now, before looking down, remember to read this whole message as carefully as you can, thanks;

Firstly, I think (Kuhrt and Smith which have the MOST outdated tranlsations, as they are also coincidently the ones who mention the Sea Coutry fighting) are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org which gets its sources from translations that are not disputed, except the February battle that some think is disputed.

'''[Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.]'''

[large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]

'''[... Tigris. In the month of Addaru (February) the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.]'''

(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, common sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)

Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"

"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."

(Again, this line comes from Olmstead book, and the lacuna that some claim are large, are only a few words, then in Olmsteads translation it says Ba defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack. Also, more evidence a of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. But the inscriptions way above all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, this line of divine help comes from Olmstead and Rawlinson and others, please DO NOT forget to click on the external links here and then accuse me of not putting more sources. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon [Xenophon too talks of other minor battles in Babylon between Cyrus and Nabonidus BEFORE Cyrus got to Babylon itself] agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)

'''[Seventeenth year (539/538); Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he [lacuna]. The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [Âbu?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants.]'''

(Note firstly, NOW in this inscription we see that the words that I bolden which is about the Sea Country PROVES that the February event and the Sea Country invasion are almost a YEAR apart, so who invaded Babylon in 540 BC? Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it from the main page of Opis), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January of the year before?, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon [city]) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, while Cyrus planning took place 5 months before the actual march as said by Olmstead, Oppenheim, and even Rawlinson, which have other crucial information that later historians did not want to go into the translation, which then makes the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9-19 or about 14 months to be exact, 9+19= 28/2= 14, or again according to Olmstead before winter+9 months= 14 months.)

Conclusion;

In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. Secondly, you may ask well how come I know all this other info, well I do part time reseach because this subject is my especiality, and I am interested in studying it, which this whole time has given me more incite, so please do not say the lacuna (which is actually small), mAy say a fishing boat from sea land attacked Ishtar then Uruk killed Persia fought, DO NOT SAY such blashemy!, it is just laughable, and it makes me cry at this ridiculus rendering. To say the least its even a wrong original research, think of your rendering of the lacuna as INDIRECT OR, then I get accused of OR! I know this is a lot of info to review but just look at it step by step, then make a good long counter arguement, not one line criticisms. This is Olmsteads translation;


 * {| width="90%" border="1" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="3" class="wikitable"


 * Date
 * Translator
 * Text
 * Source
 * valign="top" | 1960
 * valign="top" | Olmstead
 * valign="top" | "B[...] was defeated. On the Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... [the ...] [after] the army of the Persians made an attack..."
 * valign="top" | The History of the Persian Empire
 * }
 * }

Notice the [B WAS DEFEATED](No other country in and around the area had Ba in it, the only possiblity is that is was Ba-bylon it is an obscured word, BUT a B can be made of it, maybe the "Ba'bylonian' 'army' 'of' 'borders' was defeated" which is a possiblity (I say possiblity but I am not drawing any conclusions from it, because Olmstead and others already say it was Babylon), NOW the rest of the translation (with some fill ups that have marks that I have added, though you could ignore the below but I reconstructed it from what Olmstead says, in March Nabonidus took the gods, Olmstead places the taking of the gods right AFTER the battle in February which is Addaru, so when I say February it is not original research as it even appears on the tablet ITSELF.)... "On the Tigris. In the month of Adarru the (image of the ) Ishtar of Uruk 'gets' 'taken' 'by' the 'mighty' 'king' 'Nabû' [after] the army of the Persians made an attack."

B was defeated/Someone was killed(according to other translations), after the Persians made an attack.

You see the Babylonians are talking like Yoda (when translating a obscured inscription, so this is just a joke, not OR, though the latter is true), backwards basically, they are saying the outcome of Persia's attack on the Tigris river in February.

The only question is who won the battle? The Babylonians, or the Persians, later Olmstead and Nabonidus inscription says Nabonidus evacuated all the Gods to somewhere else. So why would Nabonidus retreat from Cyrus? Unless of course he was defeated by Cyrus.

Sources;


 * The award-winnig website of Livius.org that includes disputed and undisputed translations. Scroll all the way down and read the tiny line just before the Battle of Opis.


 * As already cited, Olmsteads translation and text.


 * Check out ~Herodotus' and Xenophons' description of the Babylonian invasion.


 * The overall belief of MOST (who dared talked about this issue) historians, which my arguement is based on.


 * Rawlinsons outdated, but still uncontested and amazingly reliable book, which on page 68 says Cyrus restarted his march in spring, which is around Febraury to March, after being delayed at the Tigris for almost a year. And he says because he was making canals, and possibly there was a first battle between Cyrus and Nabonidus, all before the second battle at Opis. Here is the link, 1.

What is said above is what Rawlinson implies, Oppenheim suggests, and Olmstead actually says, and the other newer Translations even by the dreaded Grayson mentions Persian troops on the Tigris. What do you, or one would suppose Persian troops were doing in February 540-539 BC on the Tigris? Singing "Ring Around the Rosey?" Godspeed to all mankind!--Ariobarza (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The below is more of the same criticizing

 * I've lost track of what this is about. Are you making all of these arguments so you can change a caption on an image? Or is there something more significant here? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apparently so. I think he also wants to change the end of Battle of Opis, which describes the uncertainty about what happened before the Battle of Opis. Of course, it's a pointless effort, because just about everything Ariobarza has written above is his personal interpretation - it's just original research, so it can't go in the article. We do need to say a bit more in the article about Xenophon and Herodotus's accounts of the fall of Babylon and why historians regard them as being inaccurate, but we don't need to invent stories about a supposed Babylonian-Persian battle which no modern sources appear to cover. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Akhilleus I understand that you have lost track, I am trying to say two simple things here;

1. The march was from winter to January-October, which Cyrus ended his march in October, when he effectively conquered the Babylon.

2. Also that based on even fragmentary evidence and many other common sense stuff, READ ABOVE and follow through with the Sources, there was a battle on the Tigris in February on 539 BC, which the Babylonian army under Nabonidus which met Cyrus at the border was defeated, and someone of signifigance died, according to the HISTORIANS of today, he fled even with cuneiform evidence, south and emptied the temples of their gods, so it would not land in the hands of Cyrus, and his people complained at him, and he seeked divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, which was a statue of a god, and this was all agreed by Olmstead word for word.

Finally, ChrisO I think they should make a separate Wikipedia for you, why are so hard pressed to ride off the info as original research, you have to come up with a better excuse of criticism soon, or I will be forced to make a Battle of the Tigris or on one of its offshoots which is called the Diyalah river article, when are you going to understand that THERE is too much info here to JUST omit of Wikipedia, even if it did not happen or happened as the way I see fit, it should still have a right to be in a free encyclopaedia. Why not, we will just put Unknown Persian victory, What would you want me to do, I ask you this sincerly and honestly, just tell it to me, and I will try my best to do. I feel like if I do not prove something to you, all of hell will break loose, because you will carry this dispute on until the universe ends. So do not say I want to push something through, your persistent criticisms forces me to over work myself, until I just leave, and do it without your approval. If your going to point out a mistake I am making, at least please try to come up with a solution at the end of your message too,

(I think because you do not have a copy of Olmsteads work your weary of my text, and that is perfectly acceptable, because he says the Persians won that February battle, not me, WHY don't you ever question of where I heard this battle in the begining from, it is because I heard it from Olmstead in the first place and that I also saw others supporting it, it compeled me to think that at least something big happened here. Also even if you do not agree with me, that means your DENYING all the evidence, I am just citing evidence, if I add to it, then it would be OR, but currently it is not.)

AND remember on your next message to outline what is OR in my research and evidence, and what is not, CURRENTLY because your so unclear, I do not know what to do, provide me with a detailed message of my supposed errors. I am also not combining sources, because most of the sources I provided reach their own but same conclusions, without me trying to come up with a conclusion, we can just say they do not fully agree, but overall they endorse the same idea, I suggest if we are to make an article which I purpose we do on the battle, they we should included all sources available, not whether if the sources is old or not, if it is not disproven, and not that outdated its okay, that is all I am saying, and I would not included my own writings, in this message I just expanded on what the historians already believe.

thanks (and I mean that).--Ariobarza (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * OK, I'm going to assume good faith here and explain this one last time:


 * 1) You're misreading your own sources. None of the translations say who the Persians attacked. Several of the translations don't even say that the Persians were involved (Smith, Grayson) or that there was an attack (Smith, Glassner, Kuhrt). All of the translators disagree over how to interpret this passage, which shouldn't be a surprise - Amélie Kuhrt says of the fragmentary lines that you're interpreting: "the broken character of the passage makes it impossible to assess the precise significance of this [reference]". (The Cambridge Ancient History: Vol IV - Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, p. 122) Similarly, the passage that you've quoted from Olmstead doesn't say that the Persians attacked the Babylonians on the Tigris in February 539. It says only that "[Nabonidus] suffered a defeat on the Tigris". It doesn't say who defeated him, and it doesn't say when the supposed defeat happened.


 * 2) I've had a systematic look for other sources that might support this claim of a battle on the Tigris in February 539 and have found nothing - not a single source mentions it. Literally every source I've read speaks of a short campaign in September-October 539. No other historians seem to agree with Olmstead (or for that matter even mention his interpretation). It's plainly a fringe theory. You can't simply ignore the fact that your preferred viewpoint has no support whatsoever from any other academic sources you've been able to find. Not only that, all those other sources you're ignoring contradict what Olmstead says.


 * 3) It's clear that you are trying to fill in the gaps in the sources by drawing your own conclusions. Almost everything you've written above is your own conclusions and speculation. For example, I can guarantee that no source has ever said that "Babylonians are talking backwards like Yoda" (?!). Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. You're not an expert and your own conclusions can't be cited in any article. My advice: stick to the sources, report what they say, but don't add your own interpretations.


 * You've already been told by Alvestrand, Akhilleus and Dougweller why you can't include original research in articles. I suggest that you listen to them. This seems to be a problem you're having in more than one article (cf. Operation Earnest Will, Operation Prime Chance). I think you need to have a look at how you are using sources. I'd suggest that you look at Editor assistance and ask another editor to advise you on how to use sources properly. As for me, I'm going to get on with writing articles - I don't propose to continue this discussion any further, as there's nothing more that can usefully be said. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with ChrisO; it looks to me like you're drawing original conclusions from the translation of the chronicle. From the discussion, it's not even clear to me that Olmstead would agree with your interpretation--you haven't quoted what he says about the invasion, you're forming your own conclusions from his translation. Until you give us a direct quote from a scholar who says that, based on what the chronicle says, the Persians began their invasion in January, what you're saying looks like original research. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why ChrisO is right and wrong.
OK, I am glad you have assumed good faith, as this my intention towards you too, but there is some problems in what your assuming. Below I replied to each sentence you said, which I have shown to be somewhat flawed, SO please do not over look this, for once in your Wikipedian life, fully read my message, and examine each sentence carefully, total time, 20 minutes, thats just it! I would like to say that your RIGHT in some things, and I thank you for your advice about editing assistance, as I have gotten carried away sometimes. And I have messaged other somewhat expert users which now agree with me, including one Persian historian (read the first message on this talk page, as I am gaining supporters), so I do read your messages fully. And here it is; Before you begin just know that my Iran-Iraq war edits was an attempt to get other users attention of its contradictions with the info box, basically a couple articles there were one-sided as said by earlier users, and information was missing, I just got to cite them, so yah.

1) Now I begin... I maybe misreading my own sources, but I say my proposals on what they say. Actually one of the translations (Olmstead) says Ba..... was who the Persians not only attacked but defeated. Several of the translations don't say that the Persians were involved (Smith, Grayson, which its been now proven wrong that is could be the Sea Country, check above if you still doubt this) and that you say that none of translations you mentioned say there was an attack (Actually, Smith says fought, Glassner was killed, Kuhrt says killed/defeated). All of the translators do disagree over how to interpret this passage, but the majority and newest translations are pretty close to what they interpret, but to you it is a surprise - Amélie Kuhrt says of the fragmentary lines in interpretation: "the broken character of the passage makes it impossible to assess the precise significance of this [reference]". (The Cambridge Ancient History: Vol IV - Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, p. 122), this is almost true, but you fail to mention what all the other translators say of the lines, what is unsimilar is that the passage that I've quoted from Olmstead says that the Persians attacked the Babylonians on the Tigris in February 539. It says only that "[Nabonidus] suffered a defeat on the Tigris". You said, "It doesn't say who defeated him, and it doesn't say when the supposed defeat happened." This is very disheartening to me, your basically telling me that you failed to fully read my earlier message titled "A new set of translations 2", and also do not forget that I have the book in my possession. This is what it says before the sentence "Nabonidus was defeated" if you still do not believe me GET THE BOOK YOURSELF; Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"

(After Olmstead summarizes Cyrus's eastern conquests and tells that Babylon was in chaos because of Nabonidus, the below then is the full second paragraph;)

(["The way thus paved by the dissaffected elements of the population, Cyrus made ready to invade the alluvium as soon as he had returned from his eastern campaigns. Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."])

That is the key (Even if all of the evidence was against Olmstead, which he is considered one of best Persian historians, if you ignore what comes from his mouth above, then your denying evidence and censoring information)! The boldened sentence proves that Nabonidus was defeated on the Tigris because it says the only defence he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Here are the main two points, Cyrus would not bring to his defence Ishtar of Uruk, because Cyrus did not worship Ishtar of Uruk, secondly, it says in March, guess what the month is before March? February! And one final thing, Nabonidus tried to explain why he was deporting the statues of the Gods (including Ishtar of Uruk), because the population was getting pissed off. We could also say Cyrus began his preplanning of invasion in October (before the snows of winter) 540 BC, and officially started in January, then in February (in the month of Adarru/Adar which is the same word) the battle occured, then Nabonidus deported many Gods from their temples in March, which pissed off his citizens. At the end Olmstead REFERENCES were he got the boldened sentences from (and do not forget he could have done his own research too, that we do not know), HERE is the reference, [Nab Chron., col. III, ll. 1-2.] Its clearly from the Nabonidus Chronicle, and then when I checked the lines Olmstead referes to, it was the text that this whole dispute is about!

2) I understand that you've had a systematic look for other sources that might try to disprove this claim of a battle on the Tigris in February 539 and I know you have found nothing - not a single source mentions it, you are actually saying a new source, (just becuase new sources do not mention it, it never happened right?) here is your problem (that also part of a wider problem within Wikipedia itself, like there is line in OR saying that, "there is a thin line between new classification and original research," I am benefiting Wikipedia by doing new classification sometimes, not original research), no sources disagree and no sources claim that the information on the battle is outdated. Also, no new sources mention Battle of Pedasa, but according only to Herodotus it happened, and guess what, a page of Battle of Pedasa exists here, so that means you would only believe Herodotus, and ignore everyone else, mostly the modern day historians too? Literally every NEW source you've read speaks of a short campaign in September-October 539. You said, "no other historians seem to agree with Olmstead" thats POV and WRONG (firstly, plainly Xenophon, Rawlinson, Oppeneium, and others that I have not found yet, say explicity that it happened, so they agree with Olmstead, for that matter you do not fully know if the other translators in their books mention his or talk about or agree with his interpretations, so do not say you do). So how can it be a fringe theory, the theory of relativity was once a fringe theory too, and anyways Olmstead does not have a theory and he never says it is a theory, he and others that I have already mentioned believe that it happened based on their own hard to find research and archaeological evidence. You can't simply ignore the fact that your preferred viewpoint is that which no historians seem to say (because your even not sure, you say the text is inconclusive), maybe other than support from the dreaded and baised and truth streching Kurht that says she is not sure, (that is the only support you have). So, going back to the point I am making here, just becuase not a lot of people talk about it or it is not famous, does not mean you can just ignore the information, your job as a Wikipedian is to make the best of what is available to you, and that is what I am doing with what I was able to find. Not only that, all those other sources you're ignoring do not contradict what Olmstead says, but because they say attacked/defeated/killed, they actually strengthen what his+what I have mentioned before, conclusions are.

3) It's clear that I am trying to fill in the gaps in the timeline, not sources, by drawing Xenophons, Rawlinsons, Oppeneiums, and Olmsteads conclusions. Almost everything I've written above is their conclusions and speculation (BE OPEN to the fact that they might have better sources available to them then just a obscured inscription that your saying no conclusion can come from, so it is not up to us to based our POV on limited information. For example, you can guarantee me that no source has ever said that "Babylonians are talking backwards like Yoda" right(?!), IT IS BECAUSE IF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH IT WOULD SOUND ARCHAIC, AND THE OBSCURED LINE SOUNDS LIKE YODA, AND BASICALLY YOU CAN'T TAKE A JOKE! You're not an expert and your own conclusions can't be cited in any article (I furthermore promise you, if I were ever to make an article of it, I'll keep my mouth shut. My advice: stick to the sources, report what they say, but don't add your own interpretations and waist the time of our lives. Keep note, as a controling person, you have made me go through all this dispute, BEFORE I have even made an article about the dates and battles! I know this military history stuff is not your subject, if it were you would have agreed with me by now, this information, because I research a lot about it, is common knowledge to me. So I suggest (as a friendly advice) you should go preach your neutrality on a subject you know has neutrality issues, not waist your time here with unsure military history facts. Thank you very much for reading, IF you want progress on this dispute so we can just put it behind us, JUST make a valid counter arguement to EVERY sentence above, just like I did to your previous message, and write about the main issues that bother you, thats IF you do not feel like writing a lot, goodbye and Godspeed to all!--Ariobarza (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Latest Revision
I have added the tag, but there are other problems: Under the "sources" section is written: "The main source of information on the battle and the events immediately before and after is the Nabonidus Chronicle, one of a series of clay tablets collectively known as the Babylonian Chronicles that record the history of ancient Babylonia. Some additional detail is provided by one of the few documents to have survived from Cyrus's lifetime, the Cyrus Cylinder. Further information on Cyrus's campaign is provided by the considerably later ancient Greek writers Herodotus and Xenophon, though neither mention the battle at Opis and their accounts differ considerably from the Persian and Babylonian accounts. Most scholars prefer to use the Nabonidus Chronicle as the main source on the battle, as it is a contemporary source.[5]"

I am royally confused. IF there is no mention of the Battle of Opis in Herodotus or Xenophon, why are we bringing this up in an article on the Battle of Opis? And if neither mention the Battle, how can their accounts differ? Finally, the Nabonidus Chronicle is hardly contemporary... perhaps contemporaneous with the Battle ?..... Perhaps scholars prefer to use this Chronicle because it is the only source on the battle? This paragraph needs some serious revision. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Next this section "By the time of the battle, Babylonia was in an unpromising geopolitical situation; the Persian empire bordered it to the north, east and west. It had also been suffering severe inflation exacerbated by plague and famine, and its king Nabonidus was said to be unpopular among many of his subjects for his unconventional religious policies. [8] Cyrus may have been able to take advantage of these weaknesses by a combination of military measures, bribery and propaganda that depicted him as a lenient and tolerant ruler.[9] Cyrus was said to have persuaded a Babylonian provincial governor named Gobryas (and a supposed Gadates) to defect to his side. Gutium, the territory governed by Gobryas, was a frontier region of considerable size and strategic importance, which Cyrus was said to have used as the starting point for his invasion.[7]"

It does strike me that if a country has severe inflation, plague and famine -- that would be more than sufficient to make its king unpopular -- "unconventional" religious policies aside. The way I read it, he (Nabonidus) wasn't even around most of the time (read: "neglect") and apparently disrespected the religious conventions of his (own) people. Of course Cyrus took advantage of their weaknesses. If you plan to take over your neighbor's place, you exploit their military weaknesses by using your military intelligently; you exploit a bad situation by trying to convince people that you will be a better leader than the one they currently have. This type of "propaganda" is a nonviolent way of waging war. And in fact Cyrus was a lenient and tolerant ruler, though no one would guess it from reading this article nor any other one related to it throughout Wikipedia, as there seems to be some crusade afoot to paint Nabonidus as a good guy and Cyrus as a bad guy and call this contemporary scholarship. Finally, I did read footnote (9) and I can't find where Cyrus was supposed to have used "bribery," though that method is another nonviolent way of exploiting the situation. Is the fact that someone or other from the other side was convinced to "defect" supposedly due to "bribery?" I didn't find that word in any of the references. Perhaps it is not accurate. This idea that Cyrus was a shrewd, calculating, and self-aggrandizing tyrant may fit the latest political views, but while he was clearly very bright-- he was in fact a highly tolerant leader. As long as this mainstream view is not included in this and other articles on the subject, the tags will remain up-- if not by me, by others. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag because nobody was at that time disputing the new version (obviously, since I'd just posted it). Could you please also drop the hostile and accusatory tone? There is no "campaign going on" and it's not about "the latest political view". Modern historians seek to analyse ancient Persian and Babylonian history in the light of contemporary circumstances, rather than through the religiously and politically biased filter of the Bible/Torah and the ancient Greeks. This is a mainstream historical perspective and it is contemporary scholarship - much more up-to-date than antiquated literal interpretations of biblical or Greek sources. We can't dismiss modern historians on the basis of individual Wikipedians' personal religious or political beliefs.


 * Also, being a tolerant ruler doesn't mean being a nonviolent conqueror. The idea that Cyrus was somehow committed to nonviolence is frankly nonsensical, considering that his entire career was spent fighting wars of conquest - he even died in battle. He may have used nonviolent methods to support his conquests, but the bottom line was that his military power was his most important asset. He used tolerance as a means of maintaining his conquests - nobody is disputing that. Your characterisation of him as a "tyrant" is just rhetorical exaggeration - nobody is portraying him that way. He very likely was "shrewd and calculating", but what's so bad about that? Those are actually very good qualities for a successful king, which Cyrus clearly was. Nabonidus has undergone some reassessment in recent years because of the realisation that almost everything written about him has been through the filter of his detractors, Persian and Babylonian. Modern historians make a point of noting this and compensating for it, rather than just repeating the accusations made against him by his political enemies.


 * Re your first point, that's poor wording on my part - I meant to write that H and X's accounts of Cyrus's campaign differ from the Babylonian accounts. I'll amend the article to make this clear. Re "bribery", source 9 does say this; see page 283: "Cyrus's success is credited to military acumen, to judicious bribery, and to an energetic publicity campaign waged throughout Babylonia". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but it is absolutely true that there is campaigning going on... one need only go to related areas and read the most recent changes ie Cyrus the Great, Cyrus Cylinder, Nabonidus etc etc. And many of those articles are in dispute, and most are edited by you and others insisting that mainstream historical views have changed in recent years.  While it is true that there are some historians who have put forward this revisionist view (Kurht and a few others), this view is based on no new evidence -- it is simply a new interpretation of old facts.  This reinterpretation is relatively new, and has not yet been vetted by the broader historical community.  The idea that this is now somehow accepted by the mainstream of historians is an exaggeration and wishful thinking.


 * No one is claiming that "Cyrus was somehow committed to nonviolence" --those are your words. But by the same token, the idea that he was somehow committed to gratuitous violence has been put forward very readily on the basis of one (disputed) passage. The idea that historians are correct in "compensating" for Nabonidus' reputation on the basis "that almost everything written about him has been through the filter of his detractors" and without any new evidence whatsoever is ludicrous. Perhaps future historians will rehabilitate Hitler and Stalin on the same grounds?


 * Finally, in relation to the Bible as a source, or as you put it "the religiously and politically biased filter of the Bible/Torah and the ancient Greeks." Of course an objective and clear source of information of these times would be preferable to the Bible/Torah, but there is none available.  What little archeological evidence we do have (the Cylinder, the Chronicles) are every bit as religiously and politically biased as the Bible/Torah.  The Bible/Torah has long been demonstrated to be an amazingly rich source of accurate historical information-  information more often proven true than the reverse.  Careful historians will simply discount the more "mythological" aspects, just as they do in other historical documents. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claims about "campaigning" are simply nonsensical and bordering on a conspiracy theory. I really don't know where you're getting your ideas from. The "revisionist" view is based on new evidence - primarily archaeological, as there's little contemporary written material from ancient Persia. That was the whole point of the British Museum exhibition I mentioned earlier; it was specifically intended to present a view of ancient Persia that didn't depend on the caricatures of the ancient Greeks. This view is not only "vetted by the broader historical community", it is the modern mainstream view.


 * "Committed to gratuitous violence" is again rhetorical exaggeration on your part. Nobody is suggesting this, not least the historians quoted in the article. Massacring a resisting city's population was a standard military tactic in the ancient world (had you forgotten the Jewish Revolt?). It wasn't "gratuitous" any more than, say, the bombing of Dresden was - it was simply a way of achieving "shock and awe", to borrow a phrase.


 * As for the Bible/Torah, they're basically a collection of Bronze Age mythology mixed with garbled oral histories, edited and re-edited repeatedly over the course of several millennia. There are certainly some nuggets of historical information in there. However, working out which bits are historically accurate is a difficult and controversial business. It's certainly not something you should be basing your assumptions on. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If the revisionist view is based on new archaeological evidence, what would that be? The Cyrus Cylinder is over a hundred years old, but the new historiography is only a few decades at best.  It seems to have come about primarily as a reaction to the Shah's political use of it.  You answered none of my points regarding the "rehabilitation" of historical characters (Hitler, Stalin). Based on your reasoning, since some might consider their reputations to have been determined by a "filter of [their] detractors," or that past views are mere "caricatures," we should reinvent them as kinder, gentler folk.


 * If I use rhetorical exaggeration, it is in hopes of making my point clear to you. The articles have a certain tone, a certain je ne sais quoi that some would call POV or bias. Nabonidus is rehabilitated on no evidence, we assume the best -- of Cyrus, on the other hand, we assume the worst.  The bombing of Dresden (1945) followed the bombing of Coventry, the Blitz, which struck the British towns of  Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Clydebank,  Sheffield, Swansea, Liverpool,  Hull, Manchester, Portsmouth, etc killing tens of thousands and injuring tens of thousands more.  By the time of Dresden, millions of Jews and Poles and other "non-Aryans" had already been slaughtered.  It was not "shock and awe" - it was punishment.  The analogy/comparison to the Battle of Opis, if it is meant to be one, strikes me as ludicrous. I am not denying that there are those who have said that they believe the translation suggests that Cyrus committed a massacre on the population, but by the same token, other (respected) translators say that that is an exaggeration, others say that it was the soldiers that were defeated or killed, and still others claim that it may have been Nabonidus and not Cyrus who killed the apparently fleeing inhabitants.  To claim that there is a mainstream view that Cyrus committed a massacre at Opis is simply WP:OR on your part.


 * As for this about the Bible/Torah: There are certainly some nuggets of historical information in there. However, working out which bits are historically accurate is a difficult and controversial business. It's certainly not something you should be basing your assumptions on. Indeed there are. And indeed it is difficult and sometimes controversial. But I am not the one making assumptions here. As I said earlier, the Bible/Torah has long been demonstrated to be an amazingly rich source of accurate historical information -  information more often proven true than the reverse.  Now that's a fact. "Bronze Age mythology mixed with garbled oral histories," notwithstanding.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered something recently, which I felt as an American I should say out loud, I would like to add to Tundrabuggy's assessment, though he has no say in what is written below. Its an addition that comes entirely from my experience in dealing with the Wikipedian user, ChrisO;


 * Here are the problems I have with ChrisO's edits, (you can also refer back in this pages archives in the part about the disputed Aftermath of this article and why me and others think its uneutral) he firstly gives a impression, an impression based on fringe theories that exceed my supposed fringe theories for the February battle, which is far worse, because it paints a negative picture of Cyrus when compared to all the other articles.


 * Secondly, I do not understand then why he utterly rejects the supposed fringe theories (which plus archaelogical evidence, has a majority support, and even some say in their own words that it happened, from the historians/ translators that bothered to talk about it) a battle in February, this behavior constitutes an uneutral POV/ OR (when putting his own commentary on the already disputed negative theories about Cyrus and the battle).


 * Thirdly, then these actions would make ChrisO's character hypocritical, when exaggerating my edits too, and if one remembers, after adding me and others to his black list of trouble making users, not the users, but ChrisO had gotten blocked for excessive bitterness.

Finally, though ChrisO has more experience with Wikipedian terms in than I do, my and others (most) overall impression of him (should one care or not), either is that he has an AGENDA, (which in good faith I do not want to believe) or that he lacks common sense. I seriously want to note that couple of users have complained after the War of the Worlds battles we had in the disputes over the Battle of Opis, that they have trouble editing in Wikipedia, because ChrisO watches over them like Big Brother. I don't know whats going on, but I can acknowledge that this is a wonderfully mysterious world we live in!--Ariobarza (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
 * He got blocked (for multiple reverts I believe, not for 'bitterness') for the shortest time possible, 3 hours, and the block was lifted by the blocking Admin before the 3 hours was up. It is very misleading to say he got blocked and then not point this out. I strongly suggest that you go back to discussing the article.


 * Are you seriously saying that ChrisO has an agenda, while, for instance, Tundrabuggy has none? I strongly suspect ChrisO does have an agenda, and that is to make this article a good article adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DougWeller (talk • contribs)


 * I would have to agree with Doug that statements about editors' agendas and other personally targeted remarks are not helpful. Ariobarza, please consider that the reason why you find several editors opposed to your edits is not because of political, ideological, or other agendas, but because we think that you are violating Wikipedia's no original research policy. Specifically, you are drawing your own conclusions based on translations of the Nabonidus chronicle, rather than relying on what scholars have said about the chronicle. This is not the way we're supposed to write Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it that Ariobarza is violating no original research when he has clearly put up at least two translators &/ historians to back his assertions? It appears that ChrisO has gone and changed wiki's verifiable policy by adding an out-dated sources section.  This was clearly generated by the fact that one of Ariabarza's sources - Rawlinson - was 19th century.  The other. A.T. Olmstead is some 63 years old as well.  Is he outdated as well?  Perhaps you editors who are arguing that you know what histories, translations and historigraphies are mainstream and which are not, will write us up a list of acceptable sources in advance, and please to let us know how old is too old -- thus sparing us all a lot of wasted energy looking up information in dusty scholarly tomes that will be rejected out-of-hand?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tundrabuggy, this has already been explained, but just in case you missed it in the reams of text above (can't say I'd blame you for that), here's the explanation in a nutshell:
 * Ariobarza wants to the article to say "Cyrus fought the Babylonians at Uruk in February 539".
 * None of the translations says that. We have three fragmentary lines of text, of only a few words are legible in each line. It's totally unclear how the three lines relate to each other, or what their context is. (See Alvestrand's point.)
 * All of the translators disagree with each other. There is no consensus about what this passage means, or even that the Persians are mentioned in the passage. We can't point to any view and say that it's correct or that it's the majority POV. We can only express it in terms of possibilities, as the article currently does.
 * Ariobarza also quotes a passage from a 1948 book by A.T. Olmstead to support his case. But Olmstead also doesn't say "Cyrus fought the Babylonians at Uruk in February 539". He says (this is a direct quote) "[Nabonidus] suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March." He doesn't say that Cyrus was responsible for the defeat, he doesn't say it happened at Uruk and he doesn't say when the battle happened, only that the image of Ishtar was "brought to his aid ... in March." In any case, Olmstead appears to be the only historian to have put forward this interpretation. It's not corroborated by any later sources.
 * No encyclopedia, journal or work of history that I know of speaks of a "Battle of the Tigris" in February 539. Go and look for yourself - you won't find anything (save possibly a few references to a 1733 battle of the Ottomans).
 * Ariobarza is therefore pursuing original research by synthesis when he tries to promote an interpretation for this passage that doesn't appear in any reliable source. Apart from my comments and Alvestrand's, see also Akhilleus and Dougweller. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me sum it up, firstly ChrisO has not read or ignored my long message that discredited him, and he is again making the same old accusations that are proven wrong, he has a neo-conservative view of sources, he says if sources are not perfectly clear on the subject matter, the article for it should not exist, and he does not know that sometimes for a battle with no names it is okay to make up a title based on were the sources say it was fought, common sense, please do not consider ChrisO WORDS yet, I am planning to make the best message I can with everything in it, that will be mind blowingly clear that the battle did occur, so hold your horses. For the last accusation ChrisO already does OR SYN because for Opis he qoutes unsupported theories that are negative about Cyrus, and one of the historians that he like, like Kuhrt, even support my Feb battle! A. T. Olmstead says Cyrus invaded Babylon above were it says Nabonidus was defeated before March. There is more to come so please wait before taking any drastic and wrong measures, thank you.--99.190.98.184 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Back to the issues
-Ariobarza, I urge you to try to stay on track and not personally attack other editors. This is not helpful. I appreciate that it can be frustrating dealing with other editors with strong opinions, but I urge you to be patient and stay with the article issues, as you did earlier. That is the best way forward. In friendship, Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will, thanks for the advice, therefore I'll make an early apology to you... ChrisO.--Ariobarza (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * T H  E    FUNNY   T  H  I  N  G is; We none of the scholars agreed what the tablet actually said, none said they were sure it was a battle, none really had a name for it so why did the bottom become an article? Because it was famous, thats why! The tablet for the Feb battle says something that all the translators all can agree on (you CAN check the translations by scrolling up a little) they all agree, "the army of the Persians made an attack", the bottom says "Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad", it does not even say Cyrus won! [HYPROCROCY] So the only thing scholars agree on that there was a battle between the two for the Opis and Feb battle, that is why I think some users are giving undue weight to certain inscriptions. SO my point is the Opis tablet is as obscured as the Feb tablet, the Feb tablet is just more infamous, thats all. The below is all the translations for the Opis battle, I actually got it from the archives, which one user found all the translations for Opis;

when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants. ” “ when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. ” “ when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad retreated, but he [Cyrus?] massacred the confused inhabitants. ” “ when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted but he massacred the confused inhabitants ”

On Internet I saw even funny things like this:

“ ...in the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted (to Cyrus) but he (Nabonidus) massacred the confused inhabitants.

This message is NOT the BEST message I said I was working on, that is still to come.. Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Ariobarza seems to be arguing that we should delete the article for failing WP:N... (btw, "infamous" is not a synonym for "less famous". Rather the reverse.) --Alvestrand (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am saying if we YOU people want to delete the Feb article, then why not delete the Opis article, because they are both equally disputed. I am saying this, because ChrisO has made new policies for Wikipedias verifiability, like it has to be popular and to have date sources, nearly half of Wikipedia is made up of old sources that are nearly not verifiable!--Ariobarza (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * That's nonsense - the Battle of Opis is well-documented, widely discussed and actually called "the battle of Opis" by numerous sources . There are no sources whatsoever that discuss a "Battle of the Tigris" in February 539 BC. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)