Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 3

A new proposal
I'd like to propose a new approach to resolve this dispute. We've been arguing here about how to present individual translations and quotations from those translations. This has resulted in the description of the battle getting bogged down in a lengthy description of a (really quite minor) difference of opinion between translators. Let's sidestep this by not presenting individual translations or quoting at length from the Nabonidus Chronicle. Instead, let's simplify by summarising what the translations as a whole say, and where they disagree, summarising the disagreement without going into detail about who says what or attempting to endorse any particular version. I suggest the following wording to replace what is currently under "The battle":


 * The Nabonidus Chronicle records that the battle took place in the month of Tashritu (27 September-27 October) "at Opis on the [bank of the] Tigris." It does not provide any details of the course of the battle, the disposition of the forces on either side or the casualties inflicted, other than that the battle involved a Persian army under Cyrus and "the army of Akkad" (meaning the Babylonians). The outcome was clearly a Babylonian defeat, possibly a rout, as the Babylonian army was forced to retreat and is not mentioned again in the Chronicle. Following the battle the Persian forces "took plunder" from the defeated Babylonians. Most translations of the Chronicle also describe a massacre of "the people", though translators dispute which side was responsible and who was killed - the population of Opis or the retreating Babylonian army.

Also, we should really move the description of events after the battle - i.e. the captures of Sippar and Babylon - into the "Aftermath" section, as they are (obviously) not part of the battle itself. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi ChrisO. Hope it is going well.  Okay can you give me a sample of that edit in your talkpage.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or possibly make the edits you are recommending and if we don't agree we can always go back to the disputed version. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened? Please add this proposed new version User:ChrisO/Battle of Opis. It's been a few days already. Khoikhoi 00:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Patience! Some of us have a life outside Wikipedia, you know... I'll post it later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The new version although it is better but preferably it is better to leave out commentaries like Brosius or Kuhrt. Unless it is balanced out by other commentaries who have seen it from different angle.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe they should be left out? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say necessarily leave it out. But either it should be balanced or left out.  That is the other POV should also be given with regards to the aftermath.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is "the other POV" and where is it documented? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sherwin, Kuhrt..etc. is based on one reading (Grayson). I got a response from another university Professor and he told me that both Grayson and Lambert can be right or wrong.  So we simply do not know and will never know.  As per the other viewpoint, there are a lot of sources on liberation of Babylon by Cyrus and how Nabonidus  was unpopular and etc.  So we should either balance this section or just forget the interpretation and say it was a hard battle.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As it now stands, the section on the Battle itself, a few paragraphs, uses the word "massacre" fully five times, a virtual meme. Despite the fact that at least one highly respected contemporary historian/translator  (Lambert) has written that the word is an exaggeration and has been mistranslated, we will make sure that it is drummed into the unsuspecting readers' consciousness.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh noes, brainwashing!


 * But seriously, that's a strawman argument. Lambert is, as far as I know, the only translator who has ever disputed the view that there was a mass killing of some sort at Opis. Every single translation back to at least 1925, and probably earlier, refers to a massacre. The translators have differed on who was responsible, but historians generally appear to attribute the responsibility to the Persians. So the situation is that historians have so far (a) agreed unanimously that there was a massacre, and (b) mostly agreed that the Persians were most likely responsible. So of course you are going to get a disproportionate number of commentaries discussing a Persian massacre at Opis. Lambert presents a contrarian POV, of course, but in terms of how we have to treat it, it's a fringe theory - an "idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study," as WP:FRINGE puts it. He's the only source I know of in 120 years of scholarship on the Babylonian Chronicles that disagrees that there was a massacre at Opis. Add to that the facts that he published his note only recently and in a fairly obscure journal. It's not surprising that there are no published commentaries, discussions or even mentions of his ideas yet. There may be in due course, but not yet. Right now it's a tiny-minority POV. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need specific statements from scholars calling one view tiny minority view or etc. The statement by Sherwin has no relationship to this article, and in the end you are basically confirming one translation as correct by using such statements.  I think Lambert's linguistic arguments need to be put back into the article.  Lambert is much more weight than Sherwin or Kuhrt.  So we need to balance that last section out with Lambert's viewpoint.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need such statements. I would if I was planning to put a statement in the article about it being a tiny-minority POV. But all I need for the purposes of this talk page is the fact - which you haven't disputed and you can't dispute - that Lambert is the only historian to have presented that POV, and there are no other sources mentioning, discussing or in any way whatsoever referring to his POV. You literally can't get a tinier-minority POV than something which one person alone says. And please stop the nonsense about Lambert having "much more weight". Weight is determined by the significance that other sources give to a POV, not by your own personal assessments. Lambert's POV has zero weight because only Lambert expresses it. It wouldn't make any difference if it was God expressing it - if it's an undiscussed, unmentioned one-man POV which is radically different from the mainstream, it's a tiny-minority fringe theory by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes according to Wikipedia rules, you need such a statement. Besides the fact that many books have taken Oppenheims translation, so you will need to prove Lambert/Oppenheim are minority viewpoints and not just Lambert's viewpoint.  And you will need scholars stating such a position that their viewpoint is minority, since Wikipedia users can not claim so.  I have asked two Professors one from Harvard and another one from University of Chicago.  The Harvard one said he believes Lambert's is preferable the Chicago one simply stated that translation will always be imprecise.  Then we had Dr. Hurowtiz who stated basically the same thing.  But besides that, the statement of Sherwin is a minority viewpoint.  If we are talking about the character of Cyrus the Great, then the following quotes need to be brought into the article.  Amelie Kuhrt is a revisionist according to one review with regards to Selucids.  You have used her and given her much more weight than she deserves although you could not even prove that she knows Akkadian on a academic level.  So we need to be careful and balanced.  We need to balance that section by quotes on how Nabonidus and etc. were disliked by the population and did X Y Z (based on sources I have already brought).  Finally, if Sherwin is going to stay, we need to bring the linguistic arguments used by Lambert, actually in references.  So my compromise is 1) remove Sherwin or bring back Lambert's linguistic arguments besides many quotes here: .   2) Reintroduce intrepretations/aftermath viewpoins based on Oppenheim's translation (I have brought some already).   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also again some of my sentences were deleted during archiving process and this is the second time that this has happened. But I had brought books that have taken intrepretation of Oppenheim and describe the aftermath based upon that.  If the article is about the character of Cyrus, then it should be balanced by the link I provided. Curtis has much more weight than Kuhrt/Sherwin when it comes to Achaemenid manners.  Even the way Briant describes the aftermath (and Briant according to Lendering is the Achaemenid scholar) is much more scholarly than sherwin/kuhrt.  So another compromise is to just leave it with Briant's viewpoint.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are samples:Another POV: "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels'" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984. Another POV by Pierre Briant, a world famous achaemenid scholar: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously).  Another POV: "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007).


 * So as you can see, there are different intrepretations of the aftermath and it is not just Lambert. If the issue is weight, which is what you seem to be concerned about (assuming good faith), then briant has been quoted the most and is recognized even by Jona Lendering as the achaemenid scholar.  So I suggest as a compromise we mention his statement.  Yet you quote unknown scholars in Achamenid history or controversial scholars, and then claim that I am pursuing undo weight. If this is an attempt on Cyrus's character, then I can quote all this: besides other books I named (two of them were deleted from the archive by the way).  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I do not need to prove a negative. You need to prove the positive - show that any reliable source gives any weight to Lambert (hint: none do). Lambert presents a fundamentally different POV to any other source, so don't try bracketing him with Oppenheim - Lambert doesn't follow anybody else's line. Every other source states that a massacre occured at Opis. Lambert uniquely says that no massacre at all happened. No other source takes this line. No other source quotes or mentions Lambert, or gives his view any weight at all. He is in a class of one for his theory. An unrecognised theory held by one man, no matter who that man happens to be, is a fringe theory by definition.


 * Please quit quoting your correspondence with anonymous professors. They're not reliable published sources. They can't be used as sources. Stop wasting my time with this, please.


 * Oppenheim is the only translator to blame Nabonidus for the massacre at Opis, but you're correct to say that several other sources have cited Oppenheim. I've therefore said in the article that "Most translations of the Chronicle also describe a massacre of "the people of Akkad", though translators disagree on which side was responsible and who was killed - the population of Opis or the retreating Babylonian army." That is an accurate and neutral summary. What we cannot do is present a fringe theory as being in any way equivalent to the mainstream viewpoint(s). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Chris, I agree with almost everything you've said here--and I should emphasize that I think the article reflects the various viewpoints in the scholarship very well. But I don't think that Lambert's view is best described as a fringe theory. When we say that something is a fringe theory, we usually mean things that are so far out of the mainstream that they're easily rejected as bizarre ideas--e.g. that the moon landings were a hoax, that the earth is flat, etc. In contrast, Lambert is the only person who has published the opinion that the chronicle doesn't say there was a massacre, which places him in a distinct minority of one, but there's nothing obviously bizarre about his viewpoint. As far as I can tell, it's a reasonable argument--just not one that should be given any more weight than it deserves, i.e. it should be mentioned as a minority viewpoint. I should emphasize again, though, that I think the current article text reflects the state of affairs quite well. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, perhaps I should explain this point a bit more. I'm using the term "fringe theory" in the very specific meaning ascribed to it by WP:FRINGE, rather than the colloquial usage of it. To quote: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study... Examples include ... novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." The notability of a fringe theory derives from it being "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." (Any such references need to be reliable sources, of course.) "If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."


 * Lambert's view is exactly what Wikipedia regards as a fringe theory. It significantly departs from the mainstream and it is a novel reinterpretation of history. It has no notability, as it is not referenced by any reliable secondary source. No such sources has "commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it", therefore it is "not notable enough for Wikipedia." Note that this does not mean that Lambert's view is somehow not respectable. It's obviously not bizarre or nutty like the moon landings conspiracy theories. It simply means that it's not notable. If it becomes the subject of discussion in reliable secondary sources, then we can consider it notable, but until and unless that happens, it has zero notability. As WP:FRINGE says, "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas." -- ChrisO (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lambert's viewpoint can be expanded upon in the reference. What I am concerned about is undo weight given to revisionists like Kuhrt and ignoring Briant and two other sources I have mentioned which mention the afthermath.  Also ignoring many sources on Cyrus the Great and just quoting Sherwin out of the blue.  This shows that there is a bias here, else someone like Briant has much more weight than Kuhrt or Sherwin.  Or there is no viewpoint explaining the afthermath based on Oppenheim.  Briant's viewpoint is closer in my opinion to Lambert and his book has been quoted more numerously than others, yet why is he ignored and called undo weight?  Or Sherwin's viewpoint is not the mainstream viewpoint on Cyrus.  ChrisO in my opinion does not have a firm background on Achaemenid history and sometimes quotes Kuhrt as a Akkadian scholar and sometimes ignores people like Briant who are giants in the field and supports unknown in the field like Sherwin.  I believe this is my cherry picking to get a viewpoint and then using different execuses to ignore Briant or Lamber or many sources on Cyrus the Great' character.  Unfortunately this article is being held hostage, but I have explained why I have put the dispute tag, and it is not just because Lambert's viewpoint has been ignored.  It is because ChrisO came with intrepretations from eithe revisionist scholars (Kuhrt) or unknown scholars in the Achaemenid field, and ignored Briant and other quotes which give a different intrepretation on the aftermath or ignored many sources on Cyrus the Great Character's and then cameup with Sherwin who is not known in Achaemenid studies field.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As per the comment: Please quit quoting your correspondence with anonymous professors. They're not reliable published sources. They can't be used as sources. Stop wasting my time with this, please is that a threat? Or typical rude behaviour by an admin who has power to break 3rr and does, and when he wants he harrases, threatenes, bullies and intidimate others from editing?  Adding a "please" after being rude  does not do anything.  Mind WP:OWN as others will be interestd to get the opinion of University of Chicago and Harvard Proffesors on the issue and they will see what experts think about the issue.  Many of the archive texts items have been deleted every time you have archived here.  For example when you cut the sentence of Kuhrt in half, it was covered up by archiving.  Did Wieshofer make a translation? No.   Was Kuhrt proven to be an Akadian expert?  No.  Why is the intrepretation of Briant deliberately ignored and even erased from the Archives when ChrisO was "archiving"?  Again why was Briant's quote deleted from the Archives? Briant's book can not be climed to be a minority viewpoint yet ChrisO when archiving deleted his viewpoints from the archives.
 * As per the comment: No, I do not need to prove a negative. You need to prove the positive - show that any reliable source gives any weight to Lambert (hint: none do).  accoring to Wikipedia rules, if a majority holds an opinion, then a scholar needs to state it is a majority or concensus position. I am just stating the rules.  Just because you have not found sources supporting Lambert's viewpoint, it does not mean they do not exist. Obviously it is from 2007, so it is harder to find.  On the other hand, it is newer than other positions and unique in terms of linguistic arguments which other sources lack.  And that is what corresponds with real Professors which admins were copied were to confirm if Lambert's viewpoint is correct, possibly correct or totally wrong.  Thus far no one has said totally wrong.  The issue I have currently is not the Lambert issue.  I can obviously give his whole viewpoint in the reference section and expand upon it there.  The problem is with the Kuhrt, Sherwin and etc and ignoring the three sources I just brought, specially Briant.  And note Briant is not definitely a minority viewpoint neither(even Jona Lendering accepts him as the greaest Achameenid scholar) or the two other intrepretations I have brought for the aftermath are also sourced and verifiable.


 * I will add three quotes I have brought from Briant and the other two authors since they are sourced and verifiable, and give an opposing viewpoint towards Sherwin/Kurt/Brosius. Note the issue is not Lambert (where I will add his linguist comments in the reference).  Obviously Briant has more weight than Kuhrt/Sherwin and etc for making a comment on the battle.  These are the quotes I will probably put in the article in the Weekend:
 * "Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984).
 * Pierre Briant, "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist." (Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002)
 * "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument is not just about Lambert. What we have is a primary Akkadian source, secondary translation and then scholars intrepreting the aftermath based on translations.  Briant would be the most weighty scholar (in terms of his book which has been quoted numerously and his recognition in the field of Achamenid studies) that has intrepreted the aftermath, yet magically when I mentioned this source a while, it was deleted from the archives.  Kuhrt was shown to be a revisionist and thus far I have not seen anyone claim Simon Sherwin is an Achaemenid scholar.  Yet his opinion has come first in order to deliberately give a one-sided viewpoint on Cyrus's character.  The quotes I brought from Briant has been deleted when ChriO was archiving.  If the article is about Cyrus's character, then that is where Sherwin's quote belongs (assuming he is an achaemenid scholar).  But then again there are many quotes (even from Plato whom I persume would fit the definition of Iranian nationalist according to our "experts" and the same with Xenophon, Herodotus and etc.) till today on Cyrus's exemplary character (look at all these Iranian nationalists: Will Durant, Max Von Mallowan, Klefter, Cuyler young, Arthur Cotteral..).   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A compromise solution (one which fits Wikipedia's definition of weight) is to simply include Briant and Kuhrt rather than unknown scholars like Sherwin. If Brosius is included then I suggest we also include either Burn/Lewis  or Paul John whom I have referenced above.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar, I have serious concerns about your ability to interpret these sources properly. Briant does not disagree with Kuhrt. The "massacre of those who attempted to resist" clearly refers to the Persians killing those who attempted to resist them.

I don't intend to respond to all of your comments, but ChrisO is quite right to note that the emails/letters you've gotten from scholars carry no weight here, and it's a waste of everyone's time to bring them up. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again you are in the mode that thinks I am just saying Lambert is correct and everything else is wrong. I am not discussing that issue, I am discussing the analysis of the battle based upon the variety of reading.  Please compare what Briant says to what Simon Sherwin states.  "massacare of those who attemped to resist" is very different than what Sherwin states.  Those that resist were obviously combatants.  This actually fits in with Lambert's linguistic argument that soldiers rather population is the correct word.  And this time there is no doubt Briant has much more weight.  Yet, the first statement about the battle is an out of the blue statement (the book not even dealing with the Achaemenid empire and the author not being an Achaemenid empire expert) brought from Simon Sherwin (which in reality is based on Grayson and not Oppenheim/Lambert) which deals with Cyrus's character (and yet there are dozens of reports on Cyrus's character being positive).  So the statement by Simon Sherwin was chosen for nefarious purpose rather than scientific reasoning.  Why else would the statement from Briant be deleted from the archives when ChrisO is well aware that Briant has more weight than Sherwin.  Note I did not say get rid of Kuhrt's analysis, but Sherwin's analysis is more about Cyrus's character and that can easily be balanced by hundreds of sources from Plato, Xenophon till today about Cyrus's character.  The fact that ChrisO chose this statement and then several time has deleted my comments from the archives (just sources that state different opinions) in my opinion shows ill intent.  And note, I assume he has been an admin for a long time and knows exactly how to archive items.  Yet interestingly the same three quotes I brought above were deleted from the archives.  Again I do not have a problem with a revisionist(that is what a scholar has called her) like Kuhrt explaining her analysis on the battle, but it seems problematic when the first guy is quoted is Sherwin and not someone like Briant.  Or three of the sources giving another viewpoint of the battle were deleted in the talkpage during archiving proccess.  By the way Plato disagrees with Simon Sherwin, so if Simon Sherwin is quoted than Plato should be quoted or hundreds of other sources on Cyrus's character.  My suggestion is to simply bring Briant's analysis and possibly Kuhrts.  I will put away the two other sources and Sherwin/Brosius will be put away.  Otherwise we should just list the three sources I have mentioned above as well. That is why the dispute signs are there and not Lambert.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

misconduct issues

 * A)ChrisO deleting comments from valid sources (including Briant) from the archives: and then files claims in ANI about my so called original research!  I have hardly edited this article.  I am discussing three valid sources and why they are not included in the aftermath.  I am not discussing Lambert, I consider that part to have been partially resolved (we can of course add his linguistic arguments to the reference). I am wondering if the three sources I mentioned from published textbooks are WP:OR that ChrisO deletes them from the archives before they have been put in the article?


 * B)Note the three sources which were deleted from the archives by user ChrisO:
 * 1) "In the month of Tesri(October), says the chronicle, 'Cyrus did battle at Opis on the Tigris against the troops of Akkad' One battle broke the Babylonian king's paid army; and there was no popular resistance anywhere. Indeed one reading of the text, Akkad broke out into open revolt, and Nabonidus' last military achievement was slaughter of rebels" (Andrew Robert Burn, D. M. Lewis, "Persia and the Greeks", Published by Stanford University Press, 1984. 2) Pierre Briant: "Besides the chronicle (III. 12-13) refers directly to an initial battle won by Cyrus at Opis on the Tigris, dated 10 October 539. This victory was followed by an immense haul of booty and the massacre of those who attempted to resist" (Pierre Brian, From Cyrus to Alexander: History of Persian empire, Published by EISENBRAUNS, 2002) (note those who attempted to resist were soldiers obviously and the important part is "those who attempted to resist" which is not covered in Grayson's translation but it is scholarly intrepretation by Briant). 3) "Opis revolted against Babylon when Cyrus attacked. Allegedly Nabonidus massacred the confused inhabitants for revolting" (Paul John, The Genesis of Misconception: Book 1, Published by Trafford Publishing, 2007).


 * C) ChrisO quotes Kuhrt in half(deleting the crucial part of a sentence) and cuts off half of her sentence: and then deletes it from the archives when this is pointed out:


 * D) ChrisO violates 3rr as an admin and gets two hours and simple warnings. Sometimes he is just let go.


 * E) Finally ChrisO has been driving away different users from contributing in this and various other articles.  In the last two months, he has had problems with at least 5 different users.  I believe he adopted a policy of WP:OWN with regards to different articles and uses his administrator power to enforce WP:OWN through threats of permanent bans on non-admin users.  In the last month or so, he has had problems with several users (Iranian, Jewish and etc.) of variety of backgrounds and constantly labels them.  Obviously as an admin he can be rude to these users.


 * F)I made a mistake for not reporting him another time for 3rr violation. Partly due to what I thought was a veiled threat by another admin  but partly I was just trying to resolve the issues nicely in this article.  Unfortunately that was a big mistake by me and I should have reported him.
 * G) I will take a break from this article, since with the effective bureaucracy, it is obvious what happens to those who point out ethical mistakes by the user who is also typically rude (behind the monitor).  Amazing someone can delete three valid sources from the archives, cover his track (when caught deleting half a curical sentence) and delete other parts of the archives, break 3rr when he feels like and violate WP:OWN.  Sure he can cross out his own comments or delete them, but he should not delete comments by other users from the archives.  So for now, I believe I will leave this article alone, specially considering the treatement of other users( Tundrabuggy and etc.).  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the three valid sources that were deleted from the archives. If those sources are removed(and none of them were Lambert's source), then that is removal of valid sources.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nepa could you please put the three sources here on this talk page so we can understand exactly what you are talking about and take a look at them? How can they be removed from the archives?  I thought wiki saved everything?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I recently asked for a peer review of this article. The results are here: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Opis. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Figuring out a source
There's a citation in the text referring to "De Gobimeau, J.A. (1964). The Cambridge Ancient History: IV. The Persian Empire and the West (Edited by Bury, J.B., Cook, S.A., & Adcock, F.E.). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. In Gray, Chapter One: The Foundation and Extension of the Persian Empire, pp. 12-13". In another context, it's been claimed that this is actually a reference to Arthur de Gobineau - who was a racist theorist who died in 1882. Could someone who holds the book in his hand verify what the cited source is, and what it says? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was an error, a mix of sources, even De Gobineau was misspelled. I had jotted down some notes/sources, apparently deleted the middle and somehow added that jumble as a reference.  I have deleted it.  sorry about the confusion!  Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing this up! --Alvestrand (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book to hand but it's clearly the same person (albeit with a misspelled name). De Gobineau published a Traité des Ecritures Cunéiformes in 1864 - not 1964 as in that erroneous citation - after he served as French minister to Persia from 1854-58 and again from 1861-1864. The Cambridge Ancient History: IV. The Persian Empire and the West was first published in 1926, so de Gobineau's writings would still have been fairly current at the time. The citation was added by Tundrabuggy in this diff - I suggest that you ask him why he added it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

dispute tag
If everyone is happy with the current format, we should remove it. Overall I think there is currently a balance and I added Lambert's linguistic argument to the reference. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the references to A. Cotterell (who does not address the Battle of Opis) and to Paul John (who does not seem to be an academic historian - according to the back sleeve of the book quoted by you "[h]e has a degree in engineering as well as a graduate degree from a Jesuit University following his conversion to Catholicism"). And D.M. Lewis did not co-author "Persia and the Greeks" (as you seem to believe), he only wrote a postscipt. --Konstock (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Paul John should be moved. It is WP:RS and WP:Verifiabile.  Many of the authors that are quoted are not really Achaemenid studies Professor either.   Originally, I wanted to just concentrate on experts in Akkadian and Achaemenid studies (Lambert, Grayson, Briant).  From weight perspective, Briant would come first.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nepa, I believe that some reference to Lambert's view could be/should be added in the #Battle section, which currently reads: "The outcome of the battle was clearly a Babylonian defeat, possibly a rout, as the defeated Babylonian army is not mentioned again in the chronicle. Following the battle the Persian forces "took plunder" from the defeated Babylonians.[11] Most translations of the Chronicle also describe a massacre of "the people of Akkad",[13] though translators disagree on which side was responsible[14] and who was killed - the population of Opis or the retreating Babylonian army.[15]. Perhaps something to the effect that a recent translator/historian/scholar... has argued that the traditional translation of the word "massacre" was an exaggeration and should only have the more benign meaning of "killed". There is no reason not to add his view here where we are talking about the various translations. It is conceivable that in the future his view may be the accepted one, even if it is not now; and considering his notability in the field I think it should be mentioned. I see you mention something further down in the article, but I think it should be here, either as well or instead of... Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree, there is already a paper in the works from what I hear with this regard. But I am not sure if the other side agrees.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The other side" certainly doesn't agree. That would be undue weight; Lambert's view is outside of the mainstream and is completely unreferenced, unmentioned and undiscussed by any other source. I'd suggest that we stick with the balanced compromise wording that I wrote, which notes the dispute but goesn't give undue weight to either side. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay the current version at this time in my opinion is acceptable until new papers are published. So I propose we remove the tag :) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lambert himself is a (highly respected) scholar well inside the mainstream. His opinion is meaningful even if it is/were not mainstream. The views of mainstream scholars writing in mainstream and respected journals, such as theNouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (N.A.B.U.) can not be considered "fringe."  The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD) also lists the word "daku" as "killed."  (along with other options)- I would suggest having a look at this:   in relation to Lambert's thesis.  It is clearly not out of the mainstream among contemporary Assyriologists. This is what we are ignoring.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fringe theory" has a very specific meaning around here - to quote WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Lambert's hypothesis very clearly is in this category. Literally every other translator and commentator on the Battle of Opis has interpreted the Nabonidus Chronicle as indicating that a massacre occurred at Opis. They have disputed who carried it out - Nabonidus (Oppenheim and supporters) or Cyrus (everyone else). They have not disputed that it occurred in the first place. In 125 years of interpreting that text, Lambert appears to be the only historian who has rejected the otherwise 100% consensus that there was a massacre. That's what makes it something that "depart(s) significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view". Lambert is currently literally in a minority of one - no other published reliable source even mentions his view, let alone discusses whether it's right or wrong. If that changes with new papers being published that do discuss Lambert's view, then we can look again at this issue, as Nepaheshgar says. Let's leave this issue for now and come back to it if and when things change. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give some links about Lambert's qualifications? If I'd said something like "X is a highly respected scholar" in a mainpage article, someone would have slapped a tag on it.... I'm collecting some links about scholars of ancient Persia on User:Alvestrand/Ancient Persian sources - even though it's strictly a no-background-in-the-field operation, it's kind of useful to help me figure out who's being quoted. (I'll be copying Konstock's notes from above there later). --Alvestrand (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent thing you are doing. I have read the works of some of these cholars.  For example initially in the discussion page, I knew Wiesehofer did not Babylonian..and etc.  In one word if you ask the experts in Babylonian: Lambert is the most qualified assyriologist that is alive (you can contact semitic department of Harvard university for example).  Note the comments by Prof. Hurowitz who clearly shows the more than above average rank of Lambert when it comes to Akkadian language. He calls Lambert a "Leading Assyrologist"(comment posted by Doug). I will also quote more independent sources here:  "After confirming his suspicion with Prof. Wilfred G. Lambert, the world’s leading scholar of Babylonian literature, now retired from the University of Birmingham in England, Spar reported that he had uncovered about 22 missing lines of the Babylonian flood narrative." Again: "The eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " . Again " by the eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " . "noted Assyriologist WG Lambert " .  Grayson and many others have done their Ph.D. under him  in Assyrology.  Note for example, I would not quote Lambert if he wrote something about Old Persian or Latin or etc.  But in his own field, he is eminent and well known.  My previous argument was also based on these facts: 1) Lambert is the world's most qualified assyrologist 2) He is the only one that has written a paper analyzing linguistic elements of the disputed passage.  3) His paper is from 2007.  4) Kuhrt is not a linguist or Assyrologist..  But anyhow as I said, I do not think the other side will agree with these statements.  My rejection of Kuhrt as a source for Babylonian/Assyrian linguist is obvious as she is not an expert in the area.  So I had suggested we list sources only from famous late Babylonian experts initially but this was rejected. Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The JSTOR link by Tundrabuggy is very interesting: [ and does mention Lambert's usage of the word. Perhaps we can expand the fact that the main issue is the word "daku".  Lambert does state: "The verb "daku" for "defeat" is well known and while it also has a sense "kill"-, "slaughetered" and "massacare" are exaggerations.  Now Tundrabuggy found a source that simply states it as a defeat from 1954.  At least a statement to the fact that the translations really rely upon the fact that how the word "daku" is translated/intrepreted seems like a good addition?  --[[User:Nepaheshgar|Nepaheshgar]] (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a good idea. We've been through this before in the mediation. That source from 1958 says nothing about Lambert's hypothesis (how can it, since it's 49 years older than Lambert's 2007 paper?) and any attempt to tie it up with Lambert will violate the prohibition on original research through synthesis. This is a case of a word having multiple meanings depending on the context; the historians who render it as indicating a massacre are doing so because they think the context merits it. In any case, this is not a good place to get into technical details of translating ancient texts. We're here to present an overview of a topic for the general reader. Going into a lot of detail about the meaning of a single word would completely unbalance the article. This isn't an academic controversy - there is no great debate among academics about this passage of the Nabonidus Chronicle - it's merely a dispute among Wikipedians. Our internal dispute doesn't need to be played out in the text of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are we all agreed that Lambert's first name is "Wilfred"? Because in Battle of Opis, it's listed in the references as "William"; I'd like to make sure before correcting it. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with ChrisO, now more than ever. I find the Hayim Tadmor article highly convincing that Lambert is basing his opinion on both facts and context. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We can't base articles on your personal opinions - that's original research. We have to base them on reliable, published sources. There is no source whatsoever that discusses Lambert's hypothesis. We can't declare it to be "right" or "wrong" on the basis of our own views. Wait and see what the historians have to say about Lambert's hypothesis before coming to your own judgment. You're not remotely an expert in ancient Akkadian, so you're not exactly well placed to make a judgment about Lambert's correctness. Of course, nor am I - that's why I've made a point of not arguing for or against Lambert's conclusion. I think you should do the same rather than jumping into fields in which you're totally unqualified. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh. No, he didn't say anything about "Lambert's hypothesis" but he did discuss the word, "dâku" and essentially precursed Lambert regarding the word "dâku" (see Nepa's post above) and discussed the importance of that word, not for this battle (only) but for historical interpretation in general.  The only description we have of the Battle of Opis includes the word "dâku" -- we cannot talk about some scholars' interpretations of it as "massacre," without talking about others'  differing view(s).  It is at the very essence, not only of this dispute here at wiki, but of the article itself. It is not "original research"... it is research/opinion of Lambert, with verification by Hayim Tadmor in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago University).  As for my qualifications or lack thereof, I simply don't remember sharing them with you.  Thus your characterisation of me could be seen as a WP:PA.  Please discuss the content, not me.  Thanks.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "completely unbalanced" -- that is what some of the rest of us think about the way it now stands, and why the tag is on it and has been on it. The inclusion of Lambert's view would provide balance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Tadmor said nothing about Lambert's interpretation, claiming that he verifies Lambert's research is original research. Seems fairly obvious. I'm going to guess that Tadmor wasn't talking about the word daku in the context of the teensy little bit of the Nabonidus chronicle that's in question here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After a quick skim of the Tadmor article, it says nothing about the Nabonidus chronicle, and the documents it covers are from an earlier era of Akkadian--and, obviously, it says nothing about Lambert's 2007 article. I don't see how it's a useful source for this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a great example of the problems some of us are trying to deal with on this and other articles. And pointing out something is OR or even that an editor is not qualified in a field is not per se a personal attack. dougweller (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not want to be involved in this dispute, but, is there anything wrong with including the Tadmor articles conclusion on the word "daku" in the Battle of Opis? As Tundrabuggy said, it would provide a balance, because I keep seeing Kuhrt's (as she believes Cyrus slaughtered the people) name appear in the article more than all others, while better translating scholars are kept out of the article, why is this? If it helps Lamberts conclusion of the battle inscription, than why does it hurt to just include it in the article and say, "The Tadmor article seems to agree with Lambert's interpretation of the word daku." Note: As Akhilleus and Dougweller said above (as I too agree with them) it does not verify Lambert's research, and it is original research on our part to claim that, BuT, my main concern is, Why can't we just say Tadmor and Lambert agree with the meaning of "daku", but it does not mean it verifies it. As verifying and agreeing are to seperate things, IF we say it VerifieS it, then it is original research. But if we say they agree (not totally with Lambert) BuT they AgreE with the meaning of "daku", then it is nOt original research, am I right? And unless we include Lambert's interpretation itself, I'm afraid the dispute tag must remain, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Three good reasons why not:


 * 1) Connecting two unrelated sources to advance a position is original research by synthesis - we can't do it.
 * 2) It's unbalanced. This isn't a significant dispute in academia; there's no burning controversy over the translation of this passage of the chronicle. We shouldn't put more weight on this issue than our sources do (which is next to none - Lambert is the only one who raises this issue).
 * 3) The point that you and Tundrabuggy are both missing is that there are several possible translations of this word. This issue isn't about whether the word should be translated in the way that Tadmor suggests. Nobody is disputing Tadmor's translation of the word. It's simply that every translator except Lambert has chosen to translate the word in a different way. Lambert is the odd man out, and he has yet to receive any published support for his hypothesis. Until his views receive more support (which may or may not happen), they constitute a tiny-minority POV - technically a fringe theory. It's not about whether Lambert is right or wrong, it's about how prominent his views are, and right now they have zero prominence. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1) I have a question, is Kuhrt highly qualified?

2) Why does her name keep appearing all over the place, while other scholars names are kept out?

3) Although Lambert might have a fringe theory at the moment, in trying to prove his point, why doesn't (because now he is famous for his fringe theories) deserve ONE mention in the article, is it that bad? [actually Ariobarza you might be right, because the Tadmor article has given him some support over the translation of the word "daku" and possibly more, which would not make Lambert a fringe theorist anymore.}

Note: I have seen some translations were it says, In the month of Tammuz (June) on the Opis battle happened on the Tazallaht (scholars theorize the Tazallaht word means a by the canal, were a second engagement of the battle occured, were they were slaughtered). In the 50's THIS translation was most famous, (research {Tammuz Opis} yourself) then a fringe theorist re-examined the translation, and the translation became, In the month of Tishriti (september-october) Cyrus fought a battle in Opis, and so here we are today!

Please answer all 3 questions. IF Lambert and Tadmor agree on the word "daku," 'then on the word both of their works are related'', which then would not make it original research by synthesis FOR us to put on Wikipedia. And if there are several translations they all should be included, plus Lamberts, so to have equal weight on BOTH sides. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, your making it a POV encyclopaedia (choosing who to put based on your PATRIOT ACT type laws that you have made for Wikipedia is not right buddy).

Plus, read this from the fringe theories article itself, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, in proportion to their prominence.[1] (the [1] will take you to Wikipedia(WEIGHT) This guideline establishes which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how articles about them should approach their subjects.

Your giving undue weight to certain (Kurht) translators. Which makes the "battle section" unbalanced/ uneutral, period. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * Using Tadmor in this article is original research by synthesis, unless there's some section of the Tadmor article that addresses the particular section of the Nabonidus chronicle that's relevant to this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) WRT Kuhrt - please see Amélie Kuhrt. To my layman's eyes, seeing that she's an UCL college professor specializing in the area and time, and a Fellow of the British Academy, it seems like she's highly qualified.
 * 2) Please provide diffs of what you mean by "kept out". Can't evaluate this claim without specifics.
 * 3) I'm a layman, so whether they agree or not is unknown to me. Who's Tadmor, what has he written, and what are his qualifications? I haven't found his name in any of the references to any of the articles. Provide sources!
 * --Alvestrand (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry to intrude in the middle here, but Kuhrt is not an expert in Akkadian languages. She could be a Historian but she is not a linguist.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop wasting people's time with this silly argument - it's a complete waste of time. You have no basis to believe that she doesn't understand Akkadian, you've never presented any source to support your claim and you've ignored the fact that she recently published a massive two-volume collection of her own translations of numerous texts in Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Egyptian and Latin. Quite a feat for someone who's "not a linguist". -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then please provide a single paper from her about linguistics with regards to Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramic, Egyptian and Latin! Lets not kid ourselves, no one in the world knows all these languages at an expert level.  Her book is mainly just copy & paste of other translations and compilations.  It is not that she learned each of these languages at an expert level and started translating.  As an example to illustrate this point.  I e-mailed a Harvard Professor who is a real expert in linguists and semitic languages  and asked him about Lambert's translation.  This was his response:I suspect that Prof. Lambert's analysis is preferable; but late Bablyonian is not my area of expertise. You should ask Prof. Paul-Alain Beaulieu of the University of Toronto, who may also be able to supply the email of Prof. Grayson, which is not given in the usual lists of Assyriologists. Or contact Prof. Matthew Stolper at Chicago..  Just look at his website, his papers and books (all about linguistics) and compare to Kuhrt (not a single paper on linguists).  Yet he has the humility to say "late Babylonian is not my area of expertise"!  Now are you claiming "Greek, Old Persian, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Egyptian and Latin" are the expertise of Kuhrt (which she does not claim so)!  For someone who constantly criticizes the rests of us as non-experts in history/classics and assumes he is the Professor in classics for Wikipedia, this is really an unsound statement.  Prof. Lambert has published dozens of books and articles on babylonian/akkadian.  How many has Kuhrt published?  Or in Old Persian how many has she published?   Okay maybe perhaps other readers will understand what I am saying with regards to specialization in a particular field and linguistics.  Kuhrt is not an expert in any classical language and if you think she is, then please provide some of her journal papers with this regard.   --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re who's Tadmor:
 * contributer to Cambridge Ancient History Vol. 6: The Fourth Century B.C.
 * wrote : The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyria -Critical edition with Introductions, Translations, and Commentary published by-Israel Academy of Science, 2008
 * From 1958-1993 he taught at the Hebrew University, where he founded the Department of Assyriology. from obit here:

There are many other works and journal articles. I was not intending to use him in the article except as corroboration (on the talk page, to achieve consensus) for Lambert's assertion that the more common translation in this case is mistaken. If memory serves me correctly, at least one translation refers to a "slaughter" and another (2?) to a "massacre". One translation refers to Nabonidus as the perpetrator. That singular view is included. There is no real reason not to include Lambert's singular (yet supported) view that the word should be translated "defeat." I am not suggesting that we put all sorts of weight on it, just that it is included as one of the contemporary interpretations of that line by a leading scholar. A simple line in the battle section acknowledging that this interpretation (Lambert's) exists. I can even be just a few words, not even a full line. (Later in the day I will put up Lambert's credentials, if that will help) Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with putting in something about Lambert's translation--a short sentence, such as "Lambert has suggested that this line be translated as 'In Tishri when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad)'" would be fine with me, as long as the article text is clear that Lambert's view diverges from scholarly consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Something to that effect is exactly what I had in mind, Akhilleus. What does Nepa think?  Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of quoting Lambert's translation when (a) we don't quote anyone else's translation of the disputed line and (b) the important point is Lambert's interpretation, not the literal wording of his translation. I've modified the footnote to read: "Wilfred G. Lambert has suggested that the relevant line of the Nabonidus Chronicle should be read as referring to the Babylonian army rather than the people of Opis, and that it reports a defeat rather than a massacre." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2008


 * Let me know how it looks and we can then decide. The thing is that there is no source that says there is a scholarly consensus (something Akilleus is implying).  All items regarding the term "scholarly census" needs to come out from a secondary source (per wikipedia definition) or else it doesn't matter if 100 sources say it, since that would still be a synthesis/OR by wikipedia users to claim consensus.  I think the whole issue of this scholar says this and that scholar says that so there must be differences between them and subsequently a  consensus, all this is actually a creation of wikipedia user with regards to this particular sentence (or should I say disputed word or two).  I don't think with the exception of Lambert, any other Akkadian linguist has done a detail study of this sentence.  Some of the people quoted are not known to be Akkadian experts like Kuhrt.  So when implying consensus, different criterion can be chosen.  I think it is best to leave out any sentence that suggests there is a consensus, since there is no consensus.  Maybe one or two versions (Oppenheim and Grayson) appear more in the literature, but that by itself does not imply consensus.  Consensus to me means scholars have been debating the issue and now majority believe in version X.  With regards to this matter, except for the paper of Lambert which has criticized other translations from an Akkadian linguist paper and started a debate, there has not been a debate and until there isn't a debate, a consensus has not been reached.  What we do have though is two version (Oppenheim and Grayson) that have been quoted widely in the literature.   So if we can put Lambert without violating WP:OR/WP:synthesis (that is wikipedia users making up the claim that there is a consensus), then I welcome it.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're being obtuse now (and stop pushing rubbish about Kuhrt!). Every single historian who has published a commentary on or translation of that line has interpreted it as indicating a mass killing of some sort. 100% of sources, with the sole exception of Lambert, take this view. Oppenheim and Grayson differ only on who did it, not on whether it happened in the first place. Lambert presents an interpretation that is fundamentally different from any that have previously been published. Now, if every source bar one man agrees on the core details, there is indisputably a consensus in the literature. Consensus does not mean unanimity, and the fact that one man disputes everyone else's interpretations does not mean that there is a substantive debate on the issue, particularly if nobody else has responded to his hypothesis. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the law. "The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source.".  The fact of the matter is that in order to have a consensus, there should be a debate about the issue.  With the exception of the 2007 paper by Lambert, there has not been a debate on the issue and different people have taken different readings.  There will be another paper on the issue soon.  In order to have a consensus, you need to have the debate first.  The issue is not like the debate" If Iraq had WMD or not".  It is about two words of Old Akkadian and scholars have not debated the issue in order for a consensus to be formed.  As per Kuhrt, please see above.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)