Talk:Battle of Opis/Archive 7

My comments as to why this article was labeled "not neutral"
I think it is the Aftermath section that needs improvement and is littered with problems.

Aftermath
Historians are divided about whether the description of a massacre and looting in the accepted translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle refers to an attack on the city of Opis or whether it refers to the fate of the main camp of Nabonidus' broken army, assuming that the Persians captured it intact.

As one can see, the above is purely neutral (I gave each sentence its own section were I point out if its neutral or not really neutral) so these below sentences are the ones that have to be resolved.


 * The battle and massacre {NOTICE 1.; Since when are we 'sure' that there was a massacre, this sentence should be reworded by saying, 'The battle and supposed massacre'... You know the rest.} are not mentioned from the later Cyrus cylinder inscription, which portrays Cyrus as liberating Babylon peacefully and with the consent of its people.

{NOTICE 2.; Here we see the first attempt by a academic to theorize what the the true purpose of the Cyrus Cylinder was. I have personally nothing against this sentence, but I can tell who ever said it, had to be ignoring the chronology of these events. First, Cyrus' battle is already recorded on another tablet, so the Babylonians knew he might not liberate them from its own king. Second, the Cyrus Cylinder was a proclamation to the jews (of the city of Babylon, and not to all of Babylon) who were being liberated, not all of the Babylonian citizens. Thirdy, whether it does or does not "give the lie to the idea of Cyrus as a benign liberator," archaeological and migrational (due to evidence of a small Jewish population in Iraq in the early 1900s) evidence proves the jews were set free and their temple was rebuilt, and they, before Cyrus invaded Babylon called him a liberator regardless of what Cyrus himself says, so he had no way to edit the Torah in his favor, because a Jewish prophet (which the name now escapes me) says Cyrus was to free the Jews, before Cyrus was even born. Finally Sippar was captured because the Babylonian king had given up ideas of how to escape, and opened the gates to Cyrus's armies. And Babylon, depending if one believes the Biblical account was almost besieged, so the population was not terrorized, and still was willing resist Cyrus. Finally, I want to assure the reader, if it apppears I am overly sensative in this comment, that is not the case, I just have a lot of information, as one can see above, disproving this emature qoute. It just seems to theoretical and childish to be included in Wikipedia, whether or not Cyrus slaughtered the people, I think we should just find a better qoute that is against Cyrus. So in all, like I said before, we should try to put opposing arguements by each other, and NOT let one quote, like the sentence above to just get away. The sentence above shows that even academics do not do their whole research (as one of them has just been almost proven wrong by a Wikipedian user) before uttering a false theory thats backed by a disputed translation. My solution is that we remove this sentence and come up with a better one, or keep the sentence. And also for sure we should try to look for an opposing sentence after or before it, to make it seem neutral, and from what I know there are a lot of academic quotes we can find that is opposed to the above sentence.}
 * Simon J. Sherwin comments that the battle at Opis "gives the lie to the idea of Cyrus as a benign liberator" and suggests that the aim of the massacre was "to terrorize the population" to intimidate Sippar and Babylon into surrendering without resistance.

{NOTICE 3.; Now here is the problem, this sentence is not opposed to the previous sentence, and it further supports the previous sentence. As I pointed out above, the academics quote should be highly disputed, if one does the their research. So, we can do two things, remove the previous sentence, or keep it and start this sentence by saying, 'Academics who support the idea that Cyrus slaughtered the people, interpret... You know the rest.}
 * Maria Brosius similarly interprets Cyrus's actions as punitive, "mak[ing] an example of a city trying to resist the Persian army".

{NOTICE 4.; I suggest we keep this sentence, if we carry out the task that is insisted above.}
 * Amélie Kuhrt comments that the reference to an apparent massacre and looting suggests that the battle was "probably a hard-won victory."

{NOTICE 5.; Thank you, the first true fact I see here, so we should keep this.}
 * Although later inscriptions such as the Cyrus cylinder and the Verse Account of Nabonidus portrayed the Persian conquest of Babylonia as essentially peaceful, the battle demonstrates that the existing Babylonian regime actively resisted Cyrus's invasion of Mesopotamia.

{NOTICE 6.; Yes, true again, I suggest we expand on this to balance it with the previous sentence.}
 * It was perhaps a sign of the divisions in the regime - Nabonidus was reputedly highly unpopular among the Babylonian elite - that some Babylonian subjects appear to have welcomed the Persians.

{NOTICE 7.; Again, we should expand this sentence, this time against Cyrus on what exactly his propaganda was about.}
 * It is, however, unclear how widely the Persians were supported within Babylonia, as accounts of the invasion and Nabonidus's rule are coloured by Cyrus's subsequent propaganda.

{NOTICE 8.; Another true fact.}
 * The account related in the Chronicle indicates that after the battle Cyrus halted at Opis, sending his general Gubaru with an army to invest Babylon.

{NOTICE 9.; It would not hurt to expand here, seriously.}
 * The king did not travel to the capital until well after it had been secured, some three weeks after the battle.

{NOTICE 10.; That might be true, but this whole suggesting game from academics, should at least be backed up by some more evidence.}
 * Sherwin draws attention to Cyrus's non-participation in the taking of Babylon, suggesting that it demonstrates that Cyrus "was not expecting an easy victory".

The conclusion: Finally and overall, these are the problems of the Aftermath section that is the reason why this article is not neutral. So, as I have pointed out, I did this on a basis to solve this whole Opis issue once and for all. User ChrisO has promised me that he is neutral, and currently I await his message on how he is going to be neutral. Nevertheless, as for the reason to improve this article, I suggest to the readers of this paragraph, to comment below on whether they are AGAINST or FOR 'My comments as to why this article was labeled "not neutral".' Whether you are for or against my undertaking here, please also state a solution at the end of your sentence. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
 * This is tl:dr material. Well, I have read it, and I can't understand it. Ariobarza, unless you start abbreviating your posts and writing them in clear, comprehensible English, meaningful communication is going to be difficult. In general, you don't quite seem to understand that we don't get to decide here which academics are right and wrong and which have and haven't done their research properly: we just cite them. As far as possible we also try to state what academic consensus is or isn't.


 * Some of your points appear perfectly valid, in which case sofixit, and some appear a touch odd. As example: "so he had no way to edit the Torah in his favor, because a Jewish prophet (which the name now escapes me) says Cyrus was to free the Jews, before Cyrus was even born" - sorry, you are getting this from where, exactly? If you cite reliable sources to support your claims, as the current article does, we can work together here. Nitpicking over the sources used is pointless if you have nothing to replace them with. Moreschi (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


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

Grayson and Lambert
Lambert says the translation of Grayson has "serious difficulties within context". Where does he call it exactly as a "widely accepted" translation. --Nepaheshgar 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the quotation is cited. And why do we have blank sections? Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation is incorrect. He is saying : According to the accepted translation in reference to translation accepted by Grayson and the French translator.   He does not say "Widely accepted"(no where does he use "widely") and the context is with regards to those two scholars (Grayson and the French Scholar).  By "accepted" he means that their "accepted" translation by them.  We also agreed to put it in chronological order.  There are four different translations after all.--Nepaheshgar 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wieshofer and Ameli Kuhrt are not translators of that text. They are quoting Grayson. Else there are a lot of texts that quote the Oppeninheim translation (Richard Frye) for example! I think only the people that have translated the Babylonian text should be mention to bring about different interpretations. --Nepaheshgar 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. And the blank sections? Moreschi (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did not see that section . My bad.  --Nepaheshgar 20:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But hang on a sec. Why was this material deleted? "The tablet goes on to state: 'On the fourteenth day [6 October] Sippar was captured without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day [12 October] Ug/Gubaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus without a battle entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus returned, he was captured in Babylon.'[6]"


 * You say this is because Kuhrt is just quoting Grayson. But here, as I understand it, Grayson's translation is not in dispute, so why have we cut it? Moreschi (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, Wiesehofer and Kuhrt give independent translations and say so. They don't just quote Grayson. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. In this case the cut material should go back in. Moreschi (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Restored with some amendments - Nepah's right about one point, I did misread what Lambert had said about Grayson. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No they do not. Wiesehofer and Kuhrt are translating Grayson.  There is no evidence they are giving an independent translation of the text. Wiesehofer for sure is not a Professor of Semetic studies and does not know ancient Akkadian.   --Nepaheshgar 20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed by your ability to know what's in a book you apparently don't have. Kurht says: "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". Wiesehofer gives his own separate translation, the wording of which differs from Grayson's, but which has the same basic gist. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Frye for example does not quote Oppenheim but gives his translation.--Nepaheshgar 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit is now misquoting Lambert! Nepaheshgar, please slow down. Moreschi (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right I wanted to correct it. I removed the misquote "widely" accepted.  --Nepaheshgar 20:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian and has never been cited for translating ancient Akkadian text. He is a Professor of Iranian studies mainly Sassanid era.  He is not a professor of semitic studies.  Also Lambert does not use the term "widely".  We are arguing about the "accepted" part.  Also the agreement was to list the four translations in terms of chronological order.  There seems to be a POV push here where-as I am just trying to list the four translations in terms of chronological order.  ChrisO has no proof that Wiesehofer has given an independent translation.  I know Wiesehofer's academic background well enough and he has articles mainly on Sassanid and Parthian Iran.  He is not a scholar of Akkadian or for that matter has published anything with regards to Akkadian translations.  There seems to be a gross violation of POV.  I am just listing 4 translations which is the NPOV thing to do and the reader can judge.--Nepaheshgar 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Widely" has been removed already. If you want to list the 4 translations in chronological order, I would assume this means oldest first. Either way I don't mind. But please try to do so without mangling the translations and attributing the wrong translations to the wrong authors, as you have done twice now. "Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian" - Kurht definitely does, and Wiesehofer seems to be able to read and translate ancient Akkadian based on Chris's post just above. Just because I have never been academically cited for my translations of ancient Greek doesn't mean I can't read the language (I can). Moreschi (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know what the point is of including Oppenheimer, considering it's at least 68 years old (published in 1950, I believe). I thought we were trying to present modern historiography here? I've found it quoted in a number of books, but mostly from the 1960s and 1970s. Grayson's translation is the standard version, very widely quoted (by literally hundreds of works) from publication in 1975 right up to this year. There are translations dating all the way back to the 1880s, but I don't see anyone arguing to include them here. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither Kuhrt or Wiesehofer know ancient Akkadian and they have never published translations. All scholars rely on Oppenheimer, Grayson and etc.  Ancient Akkadian is a serious business.  Wiesehofer for sure does not know it.  Unless there is proof that Kuhrt and Wiesehofer did an independent translation(they specifically mention it), then they should not be mentioned, since they have not published their own translation.  They can simply cite Grayson in the reference books or quote an article that cites Grayson in the back of the reference.  But to claim they did independent translations is not correct.  Else I can claim Richard Frye did an independent translation since he does not put a citation right after the translation in the chronological order I will mention.  But I know for a fact he does not know ancient Akkadian.  Neither does Wiesehofer.  And I have not seen any proof Kuhrt has done an independent translation.  As per Oppenheimer, obviously many books (more than Grayson) have quoted his translation, but mind you, Grayson is now 33 years old!  Plus I can cite many books that quote Oppenheimer and for example Frye (1984) quotes an older translation.  So the POV thing to do is to mention all translations in chronological order (from the latest to the earliest).  --Nepaheshgar 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the quote I gave above, from Kuhrt? She says explicitly in her Persian corpus that she (re)translated the primary sources that she presents. Wiesehofer presents a translation that is different from Grayson's. I don't know where you're getting those claims from. As for Oppenheimer, I'm sure you can cite "many books", but are they recent books - that is, within the last 20 years or so? A chronological order doesn't really work, because it obscures the primacy of Grayson's translation. Like it or not, that is the standard modern translation, and we shouldn't be shy about saying so. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian. I did not find your comment about Kuhrt that she translated this chronicle.  Also I can claim Frye(1984) and another scholar Katzstein (1979) did their own independent translation.   Grayson does not have primacy actually, Oppenheimer is quoted by much more texts.  And in terms of chronology Grayson falls between the two (Oppenheimer and Lambert).  You are simply picking and choosing based on what you believe has "primacy".  My solution is to quote the four differing translations in chronological order.  Simple as that and it is not up to wikipedia to decide which has primacy.  --Nepaheshgar 21:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I see a sign of bias. Why isn't Grayson or Oppenheimer quoted that Cyrus entered Babylon without any battle.  Yet Herodotus who does not mention anything about the battle of Opis is quoted.  If that is the case, we should mention Oppenheimer, Grayson mention Cyrus entered Babylon without an battle.  --Nepaheshgar 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, an encyclopedia should be up to date and give the latest translation. The compromise is simply to list all four translations (or more if there is any).  To simply say Oppenheimer is this, Lambert is that and Grayson is good smacks of advertant POV pushing.  I have worked with articles where people disputed and in the end, the best solution was to quote the different intrepretations in chronological order.  --Nepaheshgar 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to believe me about Grayson's primacy; let me quote Lester L. Grabbe in "Who Were the First Real Historians? On the Origins of Critical Historiography": "The standard treatment of the Chronicles is AK Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles". Or A.B. Bosworth in The Legacy of Alexander: "The standard edition is at present AK Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles". Or Tom Boiy, in Between High and Low: A Chronology of the Early Hellenistic Period, who refers to "Grayson, the editor of the standard chronicle edition". Or... I could go on but what's the point? Avoiding undue weight on minority views is a key part of the Neutral point of view policy, which requires "that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Clearly, the standard academic text is the most prominent. I suppose I don't really object to mentioning Oppenheimer's translation, but it needs to be made clear that the primary interpretation is Grayson's and that Oppenheimer's is a much older one. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the very latest translation is Kurht's (published August 2007), not Lambert's (March 2007). -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, Lambert's would be the latest, since Kurht's is not necessarily a new translation (she uses the same translation in her older articles). I have an article I believe from 1993 that she uses the same translation.  So Lambert's translation would be the newest in terms of meaning and context.  You have thus far not shown Wiesehofer made a new translation.  And I have not seen anything that Kuhrt specifically made a new translation of the above disputed two lines or so in 2007.  As per Grayson's treatment, you are quoting out of context.  You need to show Grayson's book has primacy with regards to the translation of this specific chronicle over Lamberts.  Yes we know Grayson's book is an important book.  So is Oppenheimer per its own time and I can quote of course many books that quote Oppenheimer.  What you need to show from an article is that Grayson's translation has primacy over Lambert's translation with regards to this specific chronicle (or any chronicle for that matter).  Else Newton's laws after 400 years are thought in undergraduate physics and used in almost all sciences except modern physics.  So it is standard.  But you need to show that just like Einstein's law are superior to Newton's, then Grayson's translation is superior to Lamberts.  Thus far this is not shown and the popularity of Oppenheim or Grayson is a separate matter than this specific two-three lines.  As per Kuhrt, we should e-mail her and see if she made a new translation in 2007.  Else that is WP:OR to assume she made a new translation in 2007.  I even doubt she made a translation herself of the Akkadian since the article I have somewhere from her had quoted Grayson and criticized Oppenheimer.  --Nepaheshgar 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am 99% confident that Wiesehofer does not know ancient Akkadian. Unfortunately I have his book at home, but he is a Professor of Parthian and Sassanid era and is not someone that is fluent in ancient Akkadian.  As per Kuhrt, it is unknown and I am waiting for exact statement where she has translated the chronicle in 2007!  I do not see it.  --Nepaheshgar 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". Quotation from Kurht, apparently. And do you actually have any reason to think Wiesehofer can't read ancient Akkadian, other than that he has not been cited for translating the language? This is logically tenuous. Moreschi (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So has Kuhrt credited the translation or not? Does she cite Grayson in her book or not?  I mean does she know Old Greek, Aramaic, Akkadian, Old Persian and etc on a professional level? No one is an expert in all four languages.  For example Rudiger Schmidt is an expert in Old Persian but not Akkadian.  Grayson and Lambert are experts in Akkadian but not Old Persian.  Wiesehofer knows Parthian, Old Persian and Pahlavi, but he does not know Old Akkadian.  How about this, you can (since I contact her, no one would believe it) Amelie Kuhrt and ask her if she has re-translated the text.  Here is her contact .  If she answers back and says yes, then I'll accept it.  If she does not answer back, then we can further discuss it.  But if she is quoting Grayson, then it is invalid to quote her claiming that she has done a translation.  So for now, I propose Wiesehofer and Kuhrt are left out until it is verified that they did their own translation of Old Akkadian.  Wiesehofer for sure does not know Old Akkadian.  Neither authors have ever published any journal or books specific to translating Old Akkadian.  It is like my quoting Frye and several other people and claiming they made a translation.  Where-as they do not specifically cite the translation, they just simply mention it as a reference in the end of the chapter and it is assumed people know that it came from Oppenheimer or Grayson or etc.  --Nepaheshgar 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also the user should not summarize Lambert's quote: The main problem is that according to the accepted translation (Grayson, Jacquest) Cyrus defeated the Babylonian army at Opis, whereupon the people of the town withdrew, Cyrus plundered(presumably the town of Opis) and slaughtered the population. The difficulty is that after defeating the Babylonian army it appears that nothing more was done about that army, but instead the local town was looted and the population slaughtered. "Akkad" means "Babylonia," but while "the army of Akkad" is an appropriate designation for Noboniduns' troops, "the people of Akkad" should then mean "the people of Babylonia," which is absurd. There was no non-Babylonian population around Opis or Sippar. A solution which makes perfect sense is to take nišu in the common meaning "men" to refer to the Babylonian army. Cyrus did battle with the Babylonian army at Opis, that army retreated, Cyrus looted their camp, then he caught up with them and defeated them. unless there is an agreed upon formulation about how to summarize this, then one side should not take it upon themselves to summarize it. For example the portion:'The main problem is that. So what does that tell us? There is a problem with Grayson's translation, but unfortunately the user wanted to gloss over this subtle point and just say Lambert has another translation. Where as infact, Lambert not only has another translation, but he has "problems" and disagreement with Grayson's translation. That fact needs to be mentioned. Lets face it, the article should quote the varied translations and unless there is a direct quote from a scholar that states: "Grayson is right, Lambert is wrong" where-as Lambert has pointed he is right and Grayson is wrong, then it is not up to Wikipedia users to give prominence to one view over another. --Nepaheshgar 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Very well, let me amend that to "Frye and Katzstein present a translation which is word-for-word identical to Oppenheim's". I don't have their books in front of me so I can't say where they got it from - I'll try to check that point. As for Kuhrt, as I've already pointed out, in her August 2007 book of Persian documentary sources she explicitly says she's (re)translated everything she presents. I'm not going to try to guess when she did those translations as that would be OR. But what we can say safely is that it's the most recently published translation - last time I checked, August 2007 came after March 2007 in the calendar. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how Kuhrt's translation from 1993 differs from Kuhrt's "new" translation from 2007? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite where "Kuhrt's translation from 1993" can be found. You've not done that yet. Not that it really matters; it's still the most recently published version. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * See . Lots of sources call Grayson the standard. Our own article on the Babylonian Chronicles does the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Standard here is being misquoted out of context. Standard here means used in Academia and it is used because it is the translation of most of the ancient Akkadian texts of the period.  It is not standard because that particular line is correct.  It is standard, because it is the full textbook.  You are violating WP:synthesis by trying to relate Standard here with the "correct translation".  Two different issues.  To take a comparison, it would be mentioning that Lambert is Grayson's Professor.  You said it is unrelated, but the reader will get the suggestion that Lambert is correct.  If anything, an article devoted only and only on those two lines and has been published in 2007 should have primacy over a 1975 book which has translated hundreds of old inscriptions and is not devoted to those two specific lines.  Grayson's book is not about the battle of Opis. Neither are the books of Wiesehofer who does not Old Akkadian(quoted Grayson) or Kuhrt who does not know old Akkadian(does not claim so and has not published any papers on linguistics).   Lambert's article in 2007 is specifically about the battle of Opis and those two lines.  His article is the only article/book thus far that has been devoted to examinaning those two lines. No other article or book has been written that are devoted to those two lines.  If I sound like a broken record, it is because this is an important point to bring across.  For example a journal paper(in 2007) on specific narrow(very narrow only two lines) topic is superior to a general textbook even if the textbook due to its age (1975) and due to its size and availability, has ben quoted more widely.  But the textbook (1975) is not devoted to those two lines.  Lambert's 2007 journal article has examined only those two lines, examined Grayson(1975) and has shown it is out of context and has a main problem.  Wikipedia should have up to date content and if there is an article/journal that has specifically devoted itself to those two lines, and says Lambert is wrong(meaning it examines Lambert's translation in 2007 and says it is wrong because of X or Y), then it should come first. --Nepaheshgar 14:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And finally, my assertion about Kuhrts not knowing Old Akkadian is correct. You can view it from her 2007 book here which User:ChrisO has quoted in the article.
 * The actual $300 book with regards to the battle of Opis can be read here. . Note pg 50-51, she is NOT offering a new translation.  She is quoting Glassner (2004) on the Nabonidus chronicle.
 * Unfortunately User:ChrisO tried to show that Wiesehofer and Kuhrt had made their own translations. They did not.  Wiesehofer quoted Grayson(1975) and Kuhrt has quoted Glassner(2004 rehash of Grayson on the two lines).  So no I am not calling Kuhrt a lier, but as I said just like Wiesehofer, her work was misread just Wiesehofer's book was not examined correctly.  Note I am trying to assume good faith and assume that this was just an intentional gloss over.
 * But lets look at this . User:ChrisO mentions:I'm impressed by your ability to know what's in a book you apparently don't have. Kurht says: "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything". Wiesehofer gives his own separate translation, the wording of which differs from Grayson's, but which has the same basic gist.
 * But let's see what Kuhrt says:

Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable(same book pages xxix to xxx)
 * User:ChrisO has the book (I have Wiesehofer's by the way), but those of us that do not have $300 right now to buy a book (or are on a trip or are married and have jobs..) expect that user:ChrisO does not delete the crucial bolded portion and also mention it.
 * So neither Kuhrt or Wiesehofer are experts on Old Akkadian or for that matter know the language. It is only Lambert, Grayson and Oppenheimer.  Wiesehofer quotes Grayson on this issue and Kuhrt quotes Glassner.  We should present their views based on chronological order. I also have an article from Kuhrt from 1987 where uses the same wording(see for example:Kuhrt, Amélie. "Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia." In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price, 20-55. Past and Present Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987).  I already knew Wiesehofer and Kuhrt do not know ancient Akkadian.  That is because I have read articles and books from both of them.  So Kuhrt has not made a new translation nor has Wiesehofer.  This was I hope an  mistake, and not an intentional attempt to mislead leaders.  But it is suspicious while the bolded portion of Kuhrt for example was not mentioned.  Or why Glassner (2004)(whom Kuhrt is quoting) was not mentioned.  Or Wiesehofer who quotes Grayson is not mentioned and his wording is intrepreted as a new translation.  Folks, only few people in the world  are experts on Old Akkadian, they are like Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheim, Glassner.  Lambert's article in 2007 is the only one that examined the two lines that are contentious.  The others have written general book.  Lambert's article is the newest translation and is devoted to the two lines we are discussing.  --Nepaheshgar 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Consensus, or lack of
The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop. The premature archiving of the talk page, which included many unresolved discussions, was also inappropriate. Sweeping the problems under the rug will not help anyone achieve a consensus here. I'm going to restore the tag, and have also restored some of talk page sections that were deleted. I'll also be making some edits on the article soon. Khoikhoi 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing is a policy issue, and if you as an administrator are unwilling to recognise that because of your own apparent POV, you're failing in your duties as an admin. I have absolutely no problem with working out issues amicably and I look forward to seeing what you do with the article. However, it must be within the framework of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, which means that you don't dictate which translation is "true" and you don't put undue weight on a very recent minority viewpoint. As long as you follow our basic policies, there won't be any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia policies and their application. Your attempts to frame content disputes as policy issues, in order to get your opponents intimidated and blocked are unacceptable. You have been picking which policies are applicable to others as a means of advancing your position in a content dispute, yet you ignore the policies yourself. For example, you see no problem in discussing other editors' movies, by labeling your opponents with loaded adjectives (i.e. "nationalist"), yet when somebody else brings up your own motives, you issue them civility warnings? Khoikhoi 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You said editors plural. Are you calling me a bully for arguing that editors should not be deciding which translations are correct and which are 'falsified'? Is that not a policy issue? Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A disagreement over which translation to use is a content issue. An attempt to impose a preferred version by repeatedly deleting all alternative perspectives is a policy issue - specifically a violation of NPOV and disruptive editing. I would have thought the distinction was easy enough to understand. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * I'm entirely happy for this to go to mediation. Nepaheshgar and others, what about you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends who is doing the mediation. --Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable(same book pages xxix to xxx)
 * On the other hand you deleted the bolded portion when mentioning this setence. Furthermore, You said Kuhrt makes her own translation, but she does not.  Note pages 50-51  she quotes the translations.
 * This issue about Kuhrt does not need a mediator to resolve it. I would like to know: 1) why the bolded portion was cut off. 2) Why it was not mentioned that she is quoting translations like Glassner.  --Nepaheshgar 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


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

Consensus, or lack of
The bullying and intimidating of the opposing editors here by framing this content dispute as a policy issue has to stop. The premature archiving of the talk page, which included many unresolved discussions, was also inappropriate. Sweeping the problems under the rug will not help anyone achieve a consensus here. I'm going to restore the tag, and have also restored some of talk page sections that were deleted. I'll also be making some edits on the article soon. Khoikhoi 05:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing is a policy issue, and if you as an administrator are unwilling to recognise that because of your own apparent POV, you're failing in your duties as an admin. I have absolutely no problem with working out issues amicably and I look forward to seeing what you do with the article. However, it must be within the framework of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, which means that you don't dictate which translation is "true" and you don't put undue weight on a very recent minority viewpoint. As long as you follow our basic policies, there won't be any problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not the ultimate authority on Wikipedia policies and their application. Your attempts to frame content disputes as policy issues, in order to get your opponents intimidated and blocked are unacceptable. You have been picking which policies are applicable to others as a means of advancing your position in a content dispute, yet you ignore the policies yourself. For example, you see no problem in discussing other editors' movies, by labeling your opponents with loaded adjectives (i.e. "nationalist"), yet when somebody else brings up your own motives, you issue them civility warnings? Khoikhoi 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You said editors plural. Are you calling me a bully for arguing that editors should not be deciding which translations are correct and which are 'falsified'? Is that not a policy issue? Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A disagreement over which translation to use is a content issue. An attempt to impose a preferred version by repeatedly deleting all alternative perspectives is a policy issue - specifically a violation of NPOV and disruptive editing. I would have thought the distinction was easy enough to understand. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


 * I'm entirely happy for this to go to mediation. Nepaheshgar and others, what about you? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends who is doing the mediation. --Nepaheshgar 18:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable(same book pages xxix to xxx)
 * On the other hand you deleted the bolded portion when mentioning this setence. Furthermore, You said Kuhrt makes her own translation, but she does not.  Note pages 50-51  she quotes the translations.
 * This issue about Kuhrt does not need a mediator to resolve it. I would like to know: 1) why the bolded portion was cut off. 2) Why it was not mentioned that she is quoting translations like Glassner.  --Nepaheshgar 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


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

This is moronic
The article is now devoting almost 50 percent of its current content as to who it was that Cyrus killed. The basic facts surrounding the battle and the taking of Babylon are not in dispute. This is just one of those times where the academics have clearly agreed to disagree over something comparatively minor - with most agreeing with Grayson, but not all - and the typical reaction has taken place: the talk page is filled with pointless squabbling. The Battle of Opis article should not be devoted to academic disagreement over 1 OR TWO LINES of disputed ancient Akkadian. That's lame, not to mention an undue coatrack. Moreschi (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no agreeing or disagreeing with Grayson. Most people quoted Oppenheimer, then Grayson and now Lambert has offered a new translation.  None of the people doing the quoting know ancient Akkadian.  Only a few like Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheimer know it.  For example Frye, Kuhrt, Wiesehofer do not know it.  I resolutely believe that Lambert must come first (and I am not saying to remove Grayson) for the various reasons I have mentioned.  I am willing to go to mediation based on this.  But there needs to be an explanation on why the rest of the sentence of Kuhrt was cut off and why it was not mentioned she is quoting Glassner (2004).  I have bolded that portion.--Nepaheshgar 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have still not offered any sort of proof that Kurht and Wiesehofer cannot read ancient Akkadian. Kuhrt explicitly says she has retranslated the text, taking other translations into account: I see nothing in the google books link to disprove this. Which must logically mean she can read the language. And the entire quote from Lambert is classic undue weight. No one else gets such generous treatment. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiesehofer I have already shown. He is quoting Grayson for that portion.  I have provided page number.  As for Kuhrt, she is quoting Glassner, see pages 50-51.  I also have an article from her in 1987 where she is quoting the same lines from Grayson.  It is absolutely WP:OR to claim they are making a new translation based on the Akkadian.  I did say they are not scholars of ancient Akkadian and my proof is that there is no journal or books from them about ancient Akkadian.  Kuhrt has quoted Latin, Greek, Old Persian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian in her book.   They have not made new translations.  Lambert's quote is not undo weight, since it is from 2007, it is an article devoted to those two lines and it is 32 years ahead of Grayson and it criticizes Grayson's version.  No other book or article has been devoted to just those two lines.  Mediation will be fine, once we know why crucial part of Kuhrt's was not brought and this mislead the reader.  --Nepaheshgar 18:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just get this clear. Kuhrt says she personally retranslated the text. Are you saying she's lying? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No I am saying you did not mention two things and the issue is just like Wiesehofer which you claimed had made a new translation but instead he just quoted Grayson (except Wiesehofer's book is originally German so it has been translated). See the references for those pages in the end of the book.  Note Kuhrt says:Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitably my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made.  Intentionally or not, the bolded portion was not mentioned.   On page 50-51 she is quoting older translations.  She is giving credit to a  whole bunch of translations.As and her translation is exactly like Glassner/Grayson.  I said, she is not a scholar of Old Akkadian(show me some journals and books she has specifically wrote on that language), this is what is called undo weight.  Lambert is a scholar of Old Akkadian, so is Grayson, so is Oppenheimer.  Lambert's article is the only one that is devoted to those two lines and it is from 2007.  Kuhrt is just quoting other scholars (Glassner). Wiesehofer is quoting Grayson.  Grayson's book (1975) is not devoted to those two lines.  Those are not new translation.  Only Grayson, Oppenheimer and Lambert can be considered translations since they are the ones that know Old Akkadian and translated it directly.  Kuhrt has the same thing in the 1987 article I mentioned.  Again the bolded portion left out when mentioning her as well the notes on pg 50-51 are important.  Just like the references for Wiesehofer were important.  --Nepaheshgar 19:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Kuhrt doesn't say anywhere in that section that she is quoting someone else's translation - it's not an "instance where they are credited" as she puts it. Where are you getting the information that the translation she presents is Glassner's? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They are credited in the intro of the section(pg 50-51). In the intro is Glassner 2004 and host of other sources.  She does not need to quote it line by line that she obtained from that or this book.  Specially if there are multiple sources already that she has mentioned.  With regards to that specific line: "He carried off plunder and slaughtered the people" that is in her sources(Glassner and others) that she is using.   Note the translation is the same as Grayson and Glassner with that line.  We can say Kuhrt uses this translation in her book, but we can not assume she has translated Old Akkadian as she is not a linguist in that field.  Kuhrt obviously does not provide any analysis in Akkadian with regards to that crucial line.  Furthermore, as I noted, in another article from Babylonia to Persia, she says: "In 539, a battle was fought at Opis, east of Tigris in which Cyrus was eventually victorious; that it was probably a hard won victory is indicated by the fact that it ended in a massacare of the population of the city and extensive looting"(Kuhrt, 1992). So to call her book a new translation of the Old Akkadian is OR.  The fact is Lambert's translation directly from Old Akkadian would be the latest translation.  Kuhrt has quoted other scholars and she even had said the same thing in 1992.  And Lambert's article is the only text available that is devoted to those two lines.  Grayson's book, Oppenheimer, Wiesehofer, Frye, Kuhrt and etc. are not concentrating in analyzing those two lines.  So Lambert should be mentioned first.  I am not saying excise Grayson or Oppenheimer or etc.  But this is an important point along with the fact that Wiesehofer/Kuhrt have not made translations and they are not scholars of Old Akkadian.  I have taken the initiative of sending Kuhrt the translation by Lambert but her e-mail said she won't be back until August 23, 2008! so I think she might be in a longer than anticipated trip.  Anyhow , I do not see any reason to remove the rest of the sentence from Kuhrt.  The claim that she has made a new translation directly from the Old Akkadian is incorrect.--Nepaheshgar 19:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is ironic as Lambert's translation is based upon his understanding of the historical context. Doug Weller (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats part of it, he also gives linguistic reasons (analyzes some words and other). He is the only scholar quoted from  all the scholars that has written something specific about that line.  --Nepaheshgar 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my comments as to why this article is labled as "not neutral"
I promised Moreschi that I will provide the quote and the prophet who said Cyrus would liberate the Jews before Cyrus was even born. The point of this message is to show that Cyrus did not need to be a propagandist in his conquest of Babylon, but of course in some parts all the ancient rulers were sometimes. So the bottom proves that he could not have influenced the Jews to write well about him, because the Jews wrote good about him before he was born, I know its hard to believe that such a prophecy came true, as the prophet mentions the liberator by name, which is Cyrus, which to me is just short of a miracle, I WELCOME anyone to research more about this if they want to disprove me and say that I am religous, which I am barely. Anyways, check the link below, and read the bottom left of page 99, where I think Isiah mentions Cyrus! So check it out, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Annals of the World p.99.5


 * You're referring to the quote that says "Many years before these events, Isaiah called their deliverer by his proper name Cyrus {Isa 44.28 45.1}", right?
 * We can be more direct than that: gives the text of the Book of Isaiah in Hebrew and English, saying "Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:".
 * Of course, there are always other explanations; if you read the article on Isaiah, you will find that it says scholars currently consider the Book of Isaiah a "post-exilic work" - that is, it was written after the Jews came back to Israel. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, do not get me wrong, I have always known that even the Torah can not be trusted, as most of the stories were plagarized from ancient mesopotamia, but thanks for the reminder. I think I have heard somewhere else that other prophets talked about him before he was born, which I am currently looking into. Anyways, even if the whole Isiah thing is false, I still think and have proven how wrong that sentence that I am critisizing is, in the Aftermath section of this artcile, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

It may interest you to know that the Jerusalem Bible says (about the Book of Isaiah):"...some prophecies from the time of the Exile, about a hundred years later, have been included. These include oracles against Babylon (ch 13-14), an apocalypse (ch 24-27) and some poems (ch 33-35).....Toward the end of the Exile, some very fine and profound prophecies were made by an unnamed writer...form chapters 40-55 of the book.....Chapters 56-66...appear to date from different times thoughout the whole age, from the call of Isaiah to the restoration in Jerusalem after the Exile." ---Introduction to the Book of Isaiah -- Jerusalem Bible, Reader's Edition, 1967. The point being that since Isaiah was written at different times by different (unknown) authors, we rightly know exactly when what was written. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What does any of this have to do with the Battle of Opis? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

suggestion
Here is my suggestion on the battle portion. Note it does not differ from the current version except I will summarize Lambert's argument and also Lambert is brought first. Kuhrt and Wiesehofer are not mentioned since they do not translate the Akkadian and rely on Glassner and Grayson. I brought Lambert first since his article is from 2007 and his article is the only piece of paper that is devoted to the specific line of contention and is the only article/book that is devoted to the topic of hand. There is simply no other book or article that is devoted to the analysis of the contentious line and Lambert is heavy weight when it comes to Akkadian language (along with Oppenheimer and Grayson). Note unlike what some other users had suggested earlier I have not removed anyone, but have just given priority to Lambert based on the reasoning mentioned. Anyhow, once I know why the bolded portion of Kuhrt was removed by User:ChrisO (nothing against him personally and wish him the best of health) for the readers, I will be happy to try mediation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I waited a bit but nothing happened. I didn't change the article, but mentioned it based on chronological order of translation.  Note Kuhrt does not count as a translator of that line as she is referencing Glassner and others and she had that same view on that line the 90s and late 80s article I already mentioned.  So Lambert's is the newest translation.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Kurht explicitly calls it "my translation" in her book. She references several previous translations, not just Glassner. I've held off posting a request for mediation because I'm hoping to get an uninvolved expert to offer advice. Can you leave it as it is for a couple more days? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She does not make a new translation as I mentioned her other books way before and she quotes other authors when mentioning the chronicles. Plus she is not known for her knowledge of Akkadian like Lambert or Grayson.  So for these reasons she can not be called the newest translation.  Also it has been a week but anyhow I will wait, but the expert needs to be neutral, no history of predujice and should preferably be an expert in Akkadian.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't even know if he'll agree to participate, but I'll post the mediation request shortly anyway. Apologies for not having been able to do it earlier, I've been unwell for a few days. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Again, preferably we should have an expert that has access to someone that knows Akkadian well.  Also I do not think putting Lambert and "Iranian nationalists" together helps in the article.  We are discussing a topic from 2500 years ago when such concepts did not exist.  Lets have it as a purely historical and academic argument without such terms.  Thanks.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the effort. Also the mediator should know either Akkadian or have access to someone that knows Akkadian. And should be uninvolved with the recent series of articles and their name should not have came up (unless they are at the level of Lambert or Grayson or somethng). We need someone that will look at arguments based on their merit. For example, despite liking the good and informative work of Jona Lendering on his website, but we know he does not know Akkadian. This can totally clutter and bias the mediation effort. We need someone totally uninvolved who has access to someone well known in his or another university that knows Old Akkadian. The whole dispute is about one line of Akkadian and which translation should come first. The language is dead and so we need expertise here from unvinvolved people/users. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I please remind people that my expert says that the argument is basically a historical one, ie what interpretation is most likely given the historical context. It isn't a question of does X mean Y or Z, it's a question of X can mean Y or Z, what does it mean in this case? Doug Weller (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another solution is let your expert write the confusing portion! --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More outrages claims from Ariobarza
Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being selectively inflicted upon the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

The only “slaughter” that one finds is that committed by the Babylonian King Nabonidus as noted in the Nabonidus Chronicle (see prior references in this article regarding ANET- Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament):

In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.

The only “slaughter” that has been recorded by history is that made by Nanbonidus, not Cyrus. The Akkad citizens had probably risen in revolt against Nabonidus in anticipation of the eminence of Cyrus’ victory.

Objectively speaking, the case is closed; there is no evidence to back any “list of atrocities” by Cyrus, as alleged in The Daily Telegraph.

Do not blame Ariobarza, blame Kaveh!

--Ariobarza (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Translations
I've gone through all the English-language translations of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle back to 1925 (there's an earlier translation of 1882 that I've not been able to locate yet). Here's how they treat the disputed line - the formatting is exactly as in the originals:

A few points:


 * There are obvious similarities between the translations of Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt. However, they're not simply copying each other. Brosius and Kuhrt agree with Grayson's translation of this particular line but disagree on other lines. Many lines elsewhere in the translations are markedly different.


 * All of the translations published since 1925 agree on three points: that (1) there was a battle between Babylonians and Persians, (2) that the Persians won, and (3) that there was a mass killing at Opis. Lambert's recently published paper appears to be the only published source that disputes point 3.


 * Every post-1925 translation apart from Oppenheim puts the blame for the massacre on Cyrus. Oppenheim stands out as the only one to blame Nabonidus.


 * The key changes between Oppenheim and the later translations appear to be that:
 * All later translators definitively blame Cyrus for the massacre;
 * The word that Oppenheim translates as "revolted" is interpreted by all later translators (including Lambert) as "retreated";
 * The later translators (including Lambert) all reject Oppenheim's translation of a word as "confused" (Smith seems to think this is "burnt with fire") and translate it as "plundered" or "pillaged" instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that the so-called "translations" by Brosius and Kuhrt, neither of whom are linguists, are nothing but word-by-word copies of Grayson's translation. Also, if anything, Smith's translation proves Lambert's interpretation that "people" here means "people of Akkad" (as in his entourage and soldiers). Khoikhoi 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That struck me immediately. Also I have seen in some of Kurht's works that she clearly attributes Grayson. Why would she attribute Grayson if she did her own translations? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) That's funny; I think that I have at least several ounces of common sense, and I doubt that Brosius and Kuhrt's translations are "word-by-word copies" of Grayson's translation. (You seem to be alleging that they're plagiarists!) ChrisO mentions that Brosius and Kuhrt differ from Grayson in other passages; clearly, they're translating the Akkadian themselves, but it's inevitable that the translations are going to be similar in most passages and identical in some. If you took a relatively unadorned ancient Greek or Latin text, like the Parian Marble or something, and had several people translate it, I imagine that there would be a lot of similarity in the results.


 * Also, I don't see the point of saying that Brosius, Kuhrt, or anyone else isn't a linguist. You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just found Kurht's book in Googlebooks and did a search on Grayson:  In fact she seems to credit him as a source.  Also Brosius. I have seen the same in other of her works.  There is no clear indication to me that she translated the works herself. Can ChrisO provide a book and page number where Kurht says specifically that she has translated the whole of the Chronicle (or at least the disputed section) herself? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In her book "The Ancient Near East" she references Grayson fully 16 times. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly, Kuhrt's translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle appears on pp. 50-51, and Google Books tells me "Pages 50-51 are not part of this book preview." However, p. 53 is a commentary upon the translation, and there, Grayson is cited as follows: "Translation of ll.24-8 follows the new reading, after collation, of Andrew George (1996:379-80); it is preferable to the rendering of the lines by Grayson (ABC, no.7). The passage indicates that Cyrus, wearing Persian (= 'Elamite') robes, installed his designated successor, Cambyses..." Here we have Kuhrt disagreeing with the reading of Grayson, so it should be fairly obvious that she's not reproducing his translation. Nor is there anything here, or in anything else anyone has said on this page, that suggests that Kuhrt is not translating the text herself. ChrisO has already quoted her statement that she retranslated everything herself. There's nothing ambiguous about that statement. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found the "(re)translation" line here:


 * "I have (re)translated everything although inevitably my translations rely heavily on existing ones to which reference is made. pg xxx The Persian Empire.  Nor is it surprising that the passage  sounds just exactly like Brosius' translation as well, whom she thanks in the introduction: "I owe a debt of gratitude to many people ... I should like to thank ....Maria Brosius...advice and correcting sections of the manuscript," -- and whose translations she credits at least 24 times.  My guess?  Kurht "relied heavily" on Brosius' translation, and Brosius relied on Grayson's. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, all this speculation is kind of amusing. You don't have all the translations in front of you, do you? I do, and I can tell you that if you put them side by side there are very substantial differences. It's true that Grayson, Brosius and Kuhrt translate the disputed line in the same way. But that merely means that they all agree on how that particular line should be read. There are plenty of other places where they present different translations. So it's obvious that they're not copying each other; they're reviewing previous translations, using the same interpretation where they agree with it, and using different interpretations where they disagree. As for "why would she attribute Grayson?", are you serious? Grayson is widely regarded as the standard translation of the Babylonian Chronicles. Of course she's going to reference Grayson, as do Brosius, Glassner, Tavernier (a Dutch translation from 2003 that I haven't included here) and of course Lambert. Historians don't operate in a vacuum. Incidentally, Grayson references his own predecessors, Oppenheim and Smith. Does this mean he's merely relying on them? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again the fact of the matter is Kuhrt relies on Glassner and she is not an Akkadian expert. We can take a look at google books.
 * She is referencing Glassner, Tavernier, and Brosius. She could have retranslated it from French (Glassner) or another language.
 * Those are her sources. You have failed to prove that Kuhrt is a notable figure in Akkadian studies.  She has not produced a single journal paper on the matter of Akkadian and thus her translation/reliance upon past translations can not be put in the same league as people that know Akkadian .  Until you prove that Kuhrt is an Assyrologist and is an expert in matter of Akkadian studies, she simply is not reliable. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As per the comment: "You don't need to be a linguist to be able to understand and translate an ancient language. Nor do you need to be a linguist to dispute the reading of a text, or the meaning of individual words within a text. You just need to be conversant with the relevant languages.". You can not be really converstant in an dead language.  And a scholar of Latin/Greel languages is more reliable with its translation than a non-scholar in Latin/Greek.  In very well known history departments (say university of Toronto or Harvard..) there are experts in Old Akkadian.  It is a sub-field by itself.  The bottom line is that the book of Kuhrt has Latin, Greek, Old Persian, Hebrew, Assyrian, Akkadian and etc. translations.  It is a very general book and she is not an expert in any of these languages, so it can not be put in the same league as Grayson or Lambert.  I do think for a such controversial matter, it is important to have experts in Akkadian language to decide which translation is correct.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the Smith, Oppenheim, and {Grayson, Brosius, Kurt} translations: it is obvious there is enough doubt in the original to allow quite different translations. Oppenheim points at Nabonidus, one talks of "fire" and burning.... Glassner adds a place name not in any of the others.  If the interpretation can vary so, how is it that at least three are totally identical?  Kurht acknowledges "relying heavily on others" for her translation.  If you are "(re)translating" something, why would you need to rely on anyone?  You simply look at the original work and translate. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nepahesgar, why do you keep ignoring that the issue is not 'which translation is correct', as though it was some sort of mathematical or logic problem, but 'which is more likely to be historically accurate' since key words involved have more than one meaning? Hasn't that been made clear by a couple of experts so far? Same thing for Tundrabuggy, that isn't the way translation works, even with modern languages. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point is that the understanding of the signs being translated has developed over the last 82 years, as you would expect. Cuneiform is extremely complex - there are anything up to 1,500 separate recognised signs. It's not like Latin, where the identity of a character is unambiguous (and Akkadian doesn't work in the same way anyway). The word translated by Smith as "burnt" is clearly being interpreted a different way by all the subsequent translations, most likely because the sign itself is being recognised differently. First you have to transliterate the line from cuneiform to identify the words being represented. You then have to work out the most likely translation of those words.


 * Kuhrt evidently relies on Glassner because he gives a transliteration of the entire chronicle from the original cuneiform; he renders the disputed line as bala.ki sar sar unmeš gaz. Only a few sources - Smith, Oppenheim, Glassner - provide transliterations; Glassner's is the most recent. (Lambert cites basically the same transliteration, so that isn't in dispute.) Brosius and Kuhrt clearly agree with Grayson's translation of this line. If a translator thinks a particular translation is correct, why change it? This doesn't mean that they are simply copying. There are plenty of other places in the text where they disagree with Grayson's translation. Complicating things further, as Dougweller notes, Akkadian words can have multiple meanings. Note that Oppenheim translates a particular word as "revolted". All the other later translations render the same word as "pillaged" or "plundered". The transliteration doesn't appear to be different between Oppenheim and Lambert, but the later translators evidently agree that the appropriate translation for the word in question is some kind of synonym for "looted" / "plundered" / "pillaged".


 * As for the place name, Tundrabuggy, Upû is Opis. "Opis" is merely a Greek rendering of the name Upû, just as "Babylon" is a Greek rendering of the name Babilu. See the very first sentence of Opis. Glassner has merely chosen to use the Akkadian name rather than the better-known Greek name. Both are correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see my error with the place name. But I still have serious problems with the differing translations, "the people" "the population" "the confused inhabitants" one translator believes that Nabonidus is the culprit...the population (people, confused (?)  inhabitants...) leave, and then they are slaughtered or massacred by Cyrus or (possibly) Nabonidus...? and why isn't Lambert's translation on your chart?  It is a valid translation by a highly respected translator and Akkadian expert.
 * Now Chris, Help me to understand this: "my translations rely heavily on existing ones." When I translate (or re-translate) a manuscript, I have the manuscript in front of me, not other peoples' manuscripts. And if I am translating myself, and expect credit for my translations, then the translations are totally my own and I should not  have to "rely heavily" on others' translations.  In fact I would not rely on them at all.  Now it is possible that Kuhrt looked over a number of versions and decided which one she most approved of.  She cites Brosius' translations at least 2 dozen times, and says that Brosius corrected her manuscript.
 * To Akilleus I would add that if we are going to make a judgment regarding Cyrus based on a few words in an ancient text, it is important for those words to be "correct" -- or at any rate demonstrate consensus among translators. That is one reason Nepah's point regarding the specific look that Lambert took of this particular passage is so important. Lambert is a highly respected authority in the field.  If he sat down and (re) translated that particular passage and came up with a different interpretation, we have to sit up and take notice. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As Dougweller has said, the same word can have different meanings, and different translators have interpreted the contexts differently. Don't forget that words in one language may not map precisely onto words in another language. What our translators are doing is looking at the different meanings of the Akkadian words and trying to work out from the context which one is the most appropriate.


 * Why do you suppose that your personal experiences in a different language are relevant to those of our translators? We're talking about a very specialised field here. I've found only eight published translations, published in English and Dutch, from the last 125 years of research. Is there any reason why Kuhrt shouldn't draw on previous translations or acknowledge Brosius's help? We know already that she's not merely copying Grayson, since her translation of the full text is significantly different, even if a few individual lines may be the same. I find it very strange that people seem to be implying (per Nepah) that she must be lying about translating it or (per you) must be a plagiarist.


 * Lambert's paper doesn't appear in that table because it isn't a translation of the full text of the Nabonidus Chronicle, unlike all the other items I've listed. I've listed all the items that three reliable sources (Smith, Grayson and Kuhrt) list as translations of the Chronicle.


 * Nepah's entire argument about Lambert is an appeal to authority, a classic logical fallacy. Yes, Lambert is an expert in Akkadian. But this does not mean that he is correct. We have no business deciding whether he's correct! It's not up to us to "sit up and take notice". Our undue weight policy relies on the prominence of differing POVs, not on the "authority" of the person making a statement. Right now, the only source advocating Lambert's POV is Lambert himself. It's literally a tiny-minority viewpoint - you can't get much smaller than one man. Also, we are not making a judgment about Cyrus. We are simply reporting the judgment that mainstream historians have made. And as the table shows, every full-text translator since 1925, bar Oppenheim, have made a consistent judgment about Cyrus's actions at Opis, even if they disagree on some of the details.  -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tundrabuggy, there needs to be a source to show that there is a consensus among translators and there is a majority and minority POV about the specific line. On Kuhrt, we have had this discussion and she is not a noted linguist of Akkadian and has relied on other translators and has indicated so.  She is simply not in the same class as Lambert or Grayson when it comes to the Akkadian language.  She is tertiary source.  Again, unless we mention the complexity of Akkadian and that there is no correct translation (per Doug Welter I agree)(there never will be because it is a dead language and we do not know its context and symbols 100%) in the introduction of the section, the mediation should go on.  I have proposed actually that we mention this fact.  Furthermore, to claim a majority POV or minority POV with regards to this line needs a source by itself that says majority of scholars say this and minority say that.  The fact is only few scholars have translated this line of Akkadian(among thousands of line) and only one of them has actually written an article solely for this line and delved into linguistic/historical arguments.  I would be more flexible obviously if the recommendations of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz with regards to the nature of the source itself is included in the introduction of the section.  Yesterday and Today, I have e-mailed two scholars in Akkadian from two major universities.  (I have CC'ed admins as well and what they say will have a large effect on my POV).  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are other translations for Tundrabuggy: "In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt ; people were killed;" Theophilus Goldridge Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, Published by Society for promoting Christian knowledge, 1903.

(does not say who did the killing).

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)

Unless there is a source that states "The majority of Akkadian scholars view the line to be correctly translated this way...", then we can not establish minority and majority POV. What we should do is state the various translations from Akkadian scholars and I believe since Lambert's translation is from 2007 and he is the world's leading expert and his translation has provided linguistic analysis/commentary and historical context and is devoted to the single line that is contested, his point of view should have primacy. Of course I have e-mailed two scholars this weekend and I hope they respond back.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The last two quotes aren't translations, they're paraphrases. All of these have a massacre following the battle, which is good evidence that this is the standard interpretation of the meaning of the verb daku. Obviously, they differ about who was responsible for the slaughter. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Who" is responsible for what is the whole issue here. It makes a huge difference whether it is Cyrus or Nabonidus...  As for paraphrases, they are paraphrases by scholars and their interpretation of these matters matters. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Not that it is sufficient proof but I would like to see evidence of other scholars actually citing a Kuhrt translation, as they do Grayson or Glassner or Oppenheim.... Not simply from her books, because she is very prolific and does muchas interpretation which others do quote as supportive of a view. But something like "From the translation by A. Kuhrt...." etc. I did find an interesting on-line review of one of her books (one she has written with a colleague)(From Samarkhand to Sardis. A new approach to the Seleucid empire.) here: in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review (very prestigious). Waldemar Heckel, from the University of Calgary, takes her to task for "revisionism" and says, what is the crux of the whole matter to me, put much better than I could:
 * But the "near-easternism" of the authors, like so many new approaches (especially, those which can be labeled "-isms"), is perhaps a little too aggressive. One approach should not replace the other entirely. The "hellenic" contribution, both ancient and modern, to our knowledge of Seleukid history must continue to exist, juxtaposed and yet in harmony with Near Eastern evidence and the interpretations of Near Eastern scholars, just as in the past hellenism found an accommodation with non-Greek culture. "New approaches" are fine, indeed desirable, but they are at the same time little more than new ways of asking the old questions: for the most part, the answers continue to elude us. 

Kuhrt's "new approach" in interpreting the Nabonidus Chronicle is to paint Cyrus the Great as Cyrus, just your average Joe tyrant. It is this same intention that would see this article making a claim that is disputed by other respected translators(Oppenheim for one), as well as scholars (see Nepa's list of interpreting scholars above.) As for Lambert's claim, it is new, and their has been no criticism of it as yet. It is clearly different from the others in a major way, but it is within the tradition of Cyrus history, and cannot be dismissed offhand. One cannot say it is a appeal to authority, any more than referencing the authority of Kuhrt or Grayson is such a call. No difference at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a misreading of the review (by the way, BMCR isn't a particularly prestigious place for book reviews to appear). The "revisionism" here is the attempt to write the history of the Near East that gives pride of place to Near Eastern sources, rather than giving Greek sources pride of place, as was done in the past. Whether Kuhrt's view of Cyrus is "revisionist" or not, I don't know enough to say, but this has nothing to do with what Heckel is saying in the review. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For Tundrabuggy. You actually nailed it.  In your review it clearly states:What we get, in fact, is a revisionist view of the empire in the third century: not a tottering colossus destined to collapse, but a vibrant and cohesive unit in which Greek and non-Greek cultures and systems are juxtaposed. and In this case, I have expressed disappointment that this is not a history of the Seleukid empire, at least not in the traditional sense   More troublesome is the authors' attempt, unsupported by any evidence, as far as I can see, to restrict the Parthians to the modern border region of northern Iran/southern Turkmenistan, "specifically the area including the two ranges of mountains, the Kopet Dagh range in the north ... and the south Khorasan (or Binalud) range" (p. 84).(Waldemar Heckel of University of Calgary.).   You see history once it is written and analyzed and agreed upon, is very boring and there is not much a historian can do except repeat the basic facts.  Specially if it is based on few old sources and chronicles and there is nothing left to examine (except perhaps new archaeological finds that might yield something new).  Some authors thus have to make a name for themselves, try non-traditional/revisionist approaches and this is the case with Kuhrt where revisionism/non-tradiational viewpoints are proposed.  She has not produced a single paper or journal on Akkadian.  But based on inconclusive translation of Grayson she came to the conclusion that the bible, herodotus, xenophonon and all classical sources were propaganda tools, and the Cyrus was the average joe tyrant as you pointed out and Xenophon, Herotodus, Bible, Aramaic sources, Plato(who praises Cyrus) were all victims of a propaganda(I presume Cyrus had several Fox news channels so the Greeks who were rivals of Persians would like him and write books in his praise or perhaps has learned to spend $300 million dollar in another country to win heart and minds)  and magically, after 2500+, this fact was discovered(and all this reasoning is due to that faulty translation).  For example note Plato(A Greek who at the time were rivals of Persians):Under Cyrus the Persians liberated themselves and became master of others, but allowed some freedom to subjects, even allowed them to be equals; so soldiers were loyal and wise counselors could be found and there was a spirit of freedom, friendship and community(Laws).  Imagine that now.  After 2500+ years, suddenly a revisionist comes and claims everything about Cyrus is propaganda.  They won't be able to explain why the city of Opis was flourishing in Achaemenid times and the simple arguments given by Lambert basically will not go well with the revisionist effort.  Her view is revisionists and the biggest proof of this revisionism is the one line translation that was debunked by Lambert.  Based on this simple one line which is disputed, she basically took Grayson's translation and dismissed all other sources about Cyrus(not only other translations but all other historical sources).  In the end, I will again quote the fact that there is no consensus on the disputed line and ChrisO tried to use the fact that Grayson is widely cited (I can say Oppenheim is more widely cited if not the same) to basically minimize all other views and translations.  Until there is clear scholarship on the disputed line that says: "The consensus of scholars is X", then we can not claim consensus or majority POV.  Kuhrt certainly can be quoted but she is not a linguist/philologist of Akkadian and we know she is no authority relative to Lambert.  So she is not even secondary source.  To give her primacy over Lambert(known for expertise in Akkadian with many papers/books in the language) is just aggressive POV pushing. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way among the other viewpoints I provided, the one that was from Briant is very significant. 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). If it is a matter of Achaemenid history "bible", then it is Briant's book, not Kuhrt or Wiesehofer.  To quote Jona Lendering(which is obviously liked by the other side): Today, Achaemenid studies are dominated by one man: the French scholar Pierre Briant  Unfortunately some users here will not differentiate between an Akkadian expert like Lambert and a person who does not have a single journal in Akkadian like Kuhrt.  Nor will they themselves differentiate between paraphrases of Pierre Briant in Achaemenid studies and paraphrases of much lesser scholar. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)