Talk:Cyrus the Great/Archive 4

ChrisO please read this, and tell me what is wrong
Hi ChrisO, something conernes me, I think (based on your own neutrality rules) you should stop saying but he shows his take over of Babylon was peacefull, but his battle was not peacefull, therefore the Cyrus Cylinder is propaganda. Have you ever read the Cyrus Cylinder itself? It is clearly talking a decree to the citizens of the city of Babylon (the capital, because the empire at the time was called the Chaldaean or Neo-Babylonian Empire), it says his take over was peacefull, and that is TRUE, because he never besieged Babylon. According to all smushed up accounts, Gubaru diverted its river, and his troops when the water was at hips height entered the city at night, then Cyrus joined later, and then a few guards and maybe the son of Nabonidus was killed with a candle holder by Gadates and or Gubaru (I KNOW the story from all versions). If his decree was to all Babylonia, then it would make sense it was propaganda because he had fought a battle before, BUT when he is speaking to the Jews of Babylon, which he is on the tablet, then of course he is speaking to the city of Babylon were all the Jews were! Not all of Babylonia, yet you keep saying he captured Babylon in great bloody battle, when only a couple of guards might have been killed during the night raid. Thanks.

Here is what is wrong with ChrisO's neutral point of view, by referencing this it seems unlikely that this is neutrality;

"After the Babylonian defeat at Opis, both Sippar and Babylon surrendered, opening the gates of their cities to the enemy. In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. The chronicle clearly depicts Cyrus as a ruthless military conqueror, a portrait which stands in sharp contrast to the image of the benign ruler related by himself [in the Cyrus cylinder], and presented in the books of the Old Testament."

1. Now here is the problem, Sippar had no choice because it was running out of supplies, and it was Nabonidus plan to shut himself in the city for some strategic plan he had in mind, but it never worked out (I will cite this if you do not believe me).

2. Babylon did not surrender and open their gates, (EVEN if they thought the Persians were going to destroy everything) the Persians got in themselves, what Kuhrt (I THINK it is a she) says is theoritical commentary, just some extra blah blah to expand her book a little more, it completely contradicts the all the accounts, as you may have read above (actually it might be in talkOpis or talkChrisO) how Babylon was taken, so I will not repeat myself. And I am not saying she did this on purpose, it is possible she did not know. Now history tells us that after the Persians captured Babylon themselves, (and here is the question) did the Persains kill the inhabitants and destroy the city? THIS is what Kuhrt tells us, In doing so, the people of Sippar and Babylon had made a choice between accepting a new ruler or being killed and having their city destroyed. Will according to all accepted history the Persians did not destroy or kill anyone in the city of Babylon (which is the capital), they did the opposite. THE GREAT MYSTERY to me is why does ChrisO keep referencing uneutral, biased, somewhat Greek nationalistic, and out of date with a touch of denial in history SOURCES? Sounds like a good recipe huh? ChrisO I got gut feeling that tells me you might not be neutral, NoW Am I WoRnG?--Ariobarza (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk


 * One thing that you should never forget, it may seem that me (I barely do it though) and others might want to make the Persians look amazing, it is because of ITS HISTORY, we make our points on that, and even if you read Persian history, I think that EVEN you yourself will start talking in a nationalistic tone about Persia. So my point is that I think that you might not know about Persian history that much, therefore you theorise that just because we seem to talk good about Persia we are nationalistic. But what is unfair is that means that all the major historians WHO talk good about Greece are nationalistic too? Generally most historians tend to like Greece more than Persia, because they think the Greeks are the backbone of the Western world, and the IRONY here is that even the Greeks themselves say they got most of their knowledge from the Babylonians, Egyptians, Atlantians, as other historians have also confirmed this whether or not Greeks say it. So up to this time I can assure you that overall this whole problem on Wikipedia, as also do not think that I believe Iranian nationalists dont exist, I believe Iranian nationalist are out there. But we must analyze; WHY there are IN (short for Iranian Nationalists)? And me knowing much about the problem CAN answer that question. IT is because Persians now feel because of tensions between the west and east, 300, Iranian nuclear program, Iranians think the WEST is trying to kill their culture. ((Now just to know, I am not debating or argueing with you in this paragraph, I am saying what I think the problem is here with facts.)) (AS AN EXAMPLE) Imagine if your Jewish, and Hollywood makes an Anti-semitic flick, US invades Syria, and put sanctions on Israel. Than I can assure you will be VERY defending of your culture, and then Ariobarza calls you a nationalist. So, do you see what I mean, you must analyze why these things are happening in the FIRST place, before telling me and others that we are IN and unbalanced, I am a Libra by the way, and I am balanced. I just hope as a human you can be understanding toward this problem, and NOT make assumptions. Thanks for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Guys ignore ChrisO. I have read some of his other post on Persian related articles and he clearly seems to be a anti-persian. This article should be neutral, but that does not mean that we should promote all negative things of Cyrus and ignore his good deeds. ChrisO is talking about propaganda, yet he himself spreads his anti persian propaganda through Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Second Temple
See, dougweller (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC) You guys seem to missa huge point when it come to the religion of Anciant Persia. Do any of you know anything about the Persepolis Fortification Archives? Views of Mary Boyce has been long challenged based on this archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.43.5 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Relgion of Cyrus
What was the religion of Cyrus? Is it unknown? Mary Boyce suggested it was Zoroastrianism, but have other scholars agreed? If it is not a mainstream schlarly view that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, why this article has presented him as such? WP:UNDUE? Ellipi (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If M. Boyce is not mainstream then who is? Xashaiar (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She was only one scholar. Ellipi (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, then he was a very bad one. 68.54.181.46 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? warrior  4321  23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please mind wp:forum. Xashaiar (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Boyce was one of the most knowledgeable scholars about Zoroastrianism, BUT her knowledge of history was not as good. She has tried to put the cart in front of the horse, by stating that Achaemenians were Zoroastrians. I would like to remind everyone that there has NEVER been any single archeological evidence to support her view. If you guys are interested in knowing the archeological evidences, which shows that Achaemenians were NOT Zoroastrians, please refer to Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, which has been in progress for a very long time by the University of Chicago. Here is the link: http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/pfa/. Also one of the most informative books which has been written, based on the most recent discoveries, by Wouter Henkelman. The title of the book is The Other Gods Who Are. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johey11 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You do have a half a point but the other half is here: the question "was Achaemenid Iran Zoroastrian?" is not a properly asked one. Depending on the meaning the answer is "no, as the concept of being Zoroastrian in Achaemenid Iran was not as solid as it was during, say, Sasanid Iran" and also "yes, if an early Zoroastrianism in Achaemenid Iran could have ever existed". (see pages 52-84 of the book idea of Iran vol. 1. I repeat what I had proposed several times: answers to these questions could be to create the article Religion of Achaemenians. Xashaiar (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it surprising to say that Achamenid Persia was not majority zorastrian given the plethora of zoroastrian symbols all over Achamenid structures. GoetheFromm (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When did Cyrus come to power?
The article seems to say he "already" was in power by 559 BC. But that doesn't answer the question. When?Glorthac (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong citation from British Museum Website This sentence is not found on BM:s Website: "an instrument of ancient Mesopotamian propaganda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.152.229 (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Mary Boyce was one of the most knowledgeable scholars about Zoroastrianism, BUT her knowledge of history was not as good. She has tried to put the cart in front of the horse, by stating that Achaemenians were Zoroastrians. I would like to remind everyone that there has NEVER been any single archeological evidence to support her view. If you guys are interested in knowing the archeological evidences, which shows that Achaemenians were NOT Zoroastrians, please refer to Persepolis Fortification Archive Project, which has been in progress for a very long time by the University of Chicago. Here is the link: http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/pfa/. Also one of the most informative books which has been written, based on the most recent discoveries, by Wouter Henkelman. The title of the book is The Other Gods Who Are. Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johey11 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyrus' body
The article is not clear if Cyrus' body survived the test of time. Is it still there in its tomb or was it lost? If it was lost, when and how? --Lecen (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I read a few books and the majority consensus was that (assuming the violent version reported by the Greek scholars is true) that his "remains" were interred in the site. Even after the invasion of the Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great's burial was still maintained. So I believe the tenative answer to your question is "yes." Dr. Persi (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer, Persi. However, is there any reliable information regarding his remains? If there was that 2,500-year celebration in the 1970s something must have been said about what is in the tomb. --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He was supposedly buried in a golden casket. That hasn't been found and was certainly looted. It seems to have been first looted unsuccessfully in 334 BCE when Alexander discovered an unsuccessful attempt had been made to steal the sarcophagus, with the bones scattered and the tomb resealed. Alexander had what was left put back on the sarcophagus and the tomb resealed, but I believe it was looted again 6 years later. It's quite possible that when the sarcophagus was removed the bones were removed with it and dumped somewhere. So we don't know when it was lost but it may have been around 328. In any case, they aren't in the tomb now. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well,, that's certainly sad. Shouldn't the article be more precise, then? Be clear that the tomb is now empty? --Lecen (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is sad. The problem is there is only assumptions as to the events taking place after Alexander the Great's attacks and the suppposed second loot is not confirmed, although frankly it sounds very likely. Even if they did an assessment today to find remnants inside the tomb, it would probably be too late, since by then any bone would decompose. The tomb is more of a symbolic gesture, then an "actual" tomb. Part of the issue is the loss of historical documents in following conflicts be it the Alexander invasion, or the subsequent arab invasion. So ya, it is anybody's guess. Good points though Lechen. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A second loot is definite if the story about the first looting is correct and the golden casket/sarcophagus was still there, as it clearly isn't there now. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Ctesias, the Persians defeated the the Derbices soon after the death of Emperor Cyrus the Great! And Ctesias also described that Emperor Cambyses II returned his father's body to Persia and buried him!Ti2008 (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran's view about Cyrus
I don't whether now the modern Islamic Republic of Iran regard him as a national hero (or at least a positive historical character) or criticize him as a absolutist , cruel and reactionary monarch! Can anybody explain? Thank you very much!Ti2008 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume that it is either one or the other? GoetheFromm (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! I have already thought that he may be a national hero (or at least a positive character) in the Islamic Republic of Iran. But I began to wonder at their view about him after reading these passages: "The 1971 2,500th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire at Persepolis, organized by the Shah's regime, was attacked for its extravagance. "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving." Five years later the Shah angered pious Iranian Muslims by changing the first year of the Iranian solar calendar from the Islamic hijri to the ascension to the throne by Cyrus the Great" (see: Islamic Revolution) and "After the Iranian revolution, the tomb of Cyrus the Great survived the initial chaos and vandalism propagated by the Islamic revolutionary hardliners who equated Persian imperial historical artifacts with the late Shah of Iran"!Ti2008 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to be honest. The Iranian Regime now is an enigma to say the least. On one side they are censoring Achaemenid history from their history books, and attacking him in every fashion possible including vandalism and destruction of Persepolis and all that remains of the cultural signature of the Achaemenids and on the other hand ironically they are suddenly interested in protecting the name of Persian Gulf from Arab investments in Europe and also their attempt to censor Persian Gulf. So the Islamic republic is a paradoxical regime to say the least. Cyrus the Great, is in the view of the majority of the people of Iran a national hero to say the least. There is no dispute on that ground. The Iranian regime however is corrupt, and disorganized and this disorganization shows even in their own agendas. The original "revolutionary" mullahs were anti-Achaemenid because of the attribution that Shah of Iran made to the "continous picture of monarchy for 2,500 years" and in fact a few of the radical mullahs decided to destroy Persepolis and were only barely stoped by the interim government that felt sorry for 3,000 years of history to go down because of transient sentiment of a few revolutionaries, but it feels as though the Mullahs also have a religious issue with Cyrus the Great since for the most part they consider him to be a Zoroastrian, and having seen the recent clashes between what is essentially a modernly oriented youth of Iran, and their love for their ancient history (for most part, I assure you they are exceptions), and what is in fact a cruel, dictatorship of a regime, I have to say that it is wisest to completely dissociate the Iranian Islamic Republic from people of Iran as one is governed by chaotic, power struggles that result in different outcomes and the other is a cultural, ethnic group. Interestingly, even the Mullahs are not all the same, they have elements that are progressive and culturally oriented and those elements would most be curious about Dhul- Qarnayn which is the title that a good minoroty of scholars attribute to Cyrus. So for the moment I would have to say we have to treat Cyrus as an important pan-Persian and pan-Iranian figure with major achievements and a signature best seen in his home town, Pars, Persia. That is my opinion anyhow. What you quoted above is mostly all true which should perhaps further the notion that 1)Islamic republic is fickle and 2) that at the moment (last few decades) the conservatives are in power and so they reflect their agendas. I hope that helps a bit :) Dr. Persi (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your answer is valuable! So Cyrus the Great is'nt like Trajan who reputation always survive in the history!Ti2008 (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcomed! Actually the reputation and memory of Cyrus the Great, at least in my view can not be underestimated. He is like the idealogical glue that unites the Iranian people. Cyrus's image is comparable to that of Confucious in China, or Constantine in Rome. In a sense (and this is my belief), what Makes Cyrus stand out is his humility despite his massive power and control. There were and will be many other figures who own empires bigger than him but none of the emperors do the progressive, humanistic things that he does. Even though most of the Persian history is understood in the contenxt of war, and border control, an even bigger part of it is about social interactions such as paying those who work under the king, creation of social structures like postal system, and roads, primitive concept of human rights and allowing the conquered people to practice freely their religious traditions, and an attempt to include, maintain, and incorporate, as opposed to the previous (and later) empire's attempt to obliterate and include. At any rate, reading about this figure has been nothing but joyful for me, and the more I learn about him, even about his errors, and his flaws, the more I am content about his role. In short, he was a simple guy, lived simply, and died simply. Hope you would not mind my little philosophy piece :D Dr. Persi (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

For User Debresser
I have studied Achaemenid history for a year now. I can cite you many sources that will distincly state that Cyrus the Great originated from Persis which is the Greek name given to the region to which Persians referred to as Parsua, also equivalent of Fars, which has always been within the Iranian cultural and geopolitical reference.

Additionally the text which you keep censoring state that "Aside from his own nation Persia (or Persis which is where he is from) in Iran (which is the historical, cultural name of the region of which he hails), he left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion, etc." This means that he left a cultural signature that defines identity of the people of the Persis (Persia) and that also concurrently his origin. I have written this in conjuction with the earlier authors who made this article, and even in conjuction with experienced editors and admins like Doughweller. You have no right to censor this information or remove sources that are reputable. I am not stating anything that is outside of the historical and established scholarly facts. If you want sources. I will provide it for you.

All you have done is removed the piece and called it "disputable" without any backing. I do not even see a dispute in the talk page. I hope this clarifies the issue. Dr. Persi (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Debresser exact objection is, but the term "nation" may have to used with some care here. The Persian empire was "multinational" or better multi-ethnic state, even without its later western expansion (and so is Iran today).


 * Another I've noted is, please avoid textbooks being >100 years old (in particular for issues of national or ethnic identities), as they often do not reflect they current state of knowledge. Also do not use google search strings as urls. Usually you can provided a short handy url giving direct to the a page in google books, which is much better than a cumbersome long searchstring which impairs the readability of the source text.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead
I removed from the lead the first part of the sentence "Aside from his own nation, Persia (modern Iran), Cyrus the Great also left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion". Dr. Persi has reverted me three times, each time adding additional citations. Let me explain why I removed this part of the sentence, and why the sources do not change my position a bit.


 * 1) It is quite obvious that Cyrus II of Persia should have an influence on Persia, and this needs no mention.
 * 2) There is no reason to add anything as a preface or introduction to "Cyrus the Great also left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion", which is a complete and understandable sentence in its own right.
 * 3) There is a real problem with the addition "(modern Iran)" to this sentence. If Cyrus the Great had any influence on modern Iran, then that is important enough to warrant its own sentence in the lead, with its own sources. This is not something to be said en passent. In effect, this is mentioned elsewhere in the lead, and there is no reason to mention it here out of context.

I hope Dr. Persi will now understand the pointe of my edit, and why the sources he added, have no bearing on the issue at all. I would, however, recommend, that he add them as additional sources in other, more appropriate places in this article. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine this I can agree to. As long as sources are utilized fairly and properly, I have no issues either way. Dr. Persi (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad we all agree with me. :) Debresser (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Debresser please do not alter the text accompanying Persis. Persis to Iran is like Athens to Greece. Persis has been a constant cradle of Persian civilization and in many senses and important Iranian ancient city. You can not disconnect the cultural links between the two. Dr. Persi (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Greece is still called "Greece" while Persia is now called "Iran". Apart from the fact that the modern state of Greece is not a continuation of the ancient one, just like modern state of Iran is not a continuation of the ancient one. Implying otherwise, is historically incorrect. Debresser (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In simple words, the issue is that ancient and modern term can not be used interchangeably without explaining the connection between them. That is Dr. Persi's mistake, which I try to correct by adding the words "Persis, roughly coinciding with the modern Iranian province of Fars". Debresser (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

slow down
Please resolve the formulation or content dispute on the discussion page first rather triggering an edit war.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to. I physically don't make it before he reverts me again. Debresser (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Debresser, why did you cut my comment above in the talk page? What gives you the right to censor my input here? Dr. Persi (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't. Check again. Debresser (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you seem to have moved it down, and I thought you removed it. Anyhow, I am too old for this. I just ended up a 12 hour shift in the ER where I had to see some 30 patients. I am too old for this childish revert wars. You win. Let's just leave it be. Dr. Persi (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why did you remove the explanation? Again... Strange way of giving up. So I restored the text that makes the connection between the ancient and the modern. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And again. You made valuable additions (which I kept, of course), but again removed the explanation... Debresser (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see your own sources (specifically this one e.g.) that the word "roughly" is correct. In the source it says clearly "approximately equivalent to the modern Iranian province of Fars". Please self-revert your latest edit. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your editsummary here. Yes, and that pattern is you agreeing with me. :) Debresser (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take your word for it. Even though my family has Persian Jewish ancestory I am not able to read in hebrew which is the link you gave me. I am going to assume that is Kuhrt's book. And that is fine. Dr. Persi (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * it is Kuhrts's book. But with me the link opens an English page of an English book. Why you got a Hebrew article, I don't know. Debresser (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, it wasnt loading apparently but upon re-loading it did show in English. Anyhow, I am OK with how the article looks now and wonder why the heck we did not assume this style of discussion earlier. At any rate, I am happy with how it looks now. I suppose it is all in compromise. I hold no grudge. Good working with you! Dr. Persi (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All is well that ends well (also on Wikipedia). Debresser (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources & Google book snippets
I replaced the 1906 book by a current (well known) scholarly website. Please note that fairly old literature is usually not appropriate in particular if an abundance of more recent scholarly resources are available. Moreover it is usually inappropriate to created WP content based on google snippets. An editor needs to make sure that he is not picking one or two lines from a book without being able to read the surrounding (con)text to assure that he understansd the few snippet lines properly. In practice that means, that it is best not to use snippets at all but rather restricted or full preview only. If you want to provide snippets as a convenience link for disputed content nevertheless, make sure that you've read the full text of you which you cite the snippet elsewhere.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if you look at the text you removed and replaced with livus.org you will see that it is not a snippet but a page of the book. I am not sure how extensive it is on the pages prior and after the page from which the source is elicited. Anyhow, I would have instead simply added your source on top of the old one instead of replacing the old one with the new one. Also on topics of ancient history an older book say one from 1906 is as valid as one in 1960. Not much is going to change in way of events as all is in the past. Anyhow, I am fine with the substitution. Dr. Persi (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, a 1906 book on an antiquity topic is usually not as valid as a 1960 book, there's a difference of 50 years of research. Now in some cases the knowledge might nor have changed much, but in case other cases it might have changed drastically. Within 50 years a lot of new archeological evidence might be found or scholarly opinions in general simply might have changed. Another thing is that historic research in the 19th and early 20th century did not quite match today's standards/methodology and often comes with a strong national bias. So, to be on the safe side it always better (and the appropriate thing for WP editors) to cite the most recent (or at least some fairly recent) academic literature. I agree however that for this particular content (the use of Messiah) the knowledge has not changed, hence it was that that problematic to cite an older book. However since in the past this article was plagued by outdated and other otherwise questionable references in general, I decided to fix that anyway, in particular to avoid the impression that it might be ok to use such old books to source other more critical content as well.
 * The link you originally provided for a book was just a snippet (at least at my location, unfortunately google books visibility may vary geographically). The livius.org link however is fairly recent and you can read the whole text. If you want to replace it nevertheless, please only to do so by replacing it with a recent scholarly book or article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is all fine and true but not when both sources say the same thing! Anyohw, like I said I am not arguing. Also I appreciate if you do not use a bold "No." I am not stupid, thank you very much! Dr. Persi (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, though with is particular content is wasn't that critical, your general argument is a bit of a fallacy. You only know whether both sources say the same thing, if you consulted both. I. e. to assure that you do not accidentally use possibly outdated material from older sources you need to read the newer sources anyway. But once you've done that, what's the point in citing the older instead of the newer one?
 * Sorry for the bold letters, I didn't mean to offend, but the use of old and problematic sources is common problem in WP (due to their easy availability on google books) with many editors often not being fully aware how problematic that is. Hence I felt your line regarding books from 1906 and 1960 needed a strong rebuttal.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Return of the exiles
I was just looking at Finkelstein and Silberman's book The Bible Unearthed in response to a query about the Babylonian Exile (for which they find archaeological evidence but no extra-biblical evidence, although they don't query it, and found (p 308):

"From Kings to Priests

The edict of Cyrus the Great allowing a group of Judahite exiles io return to Jerusalem could hardly have been prompted by sympathy for the people remaining in Judah or for the suffering of the exiles. Rather, it should be seen as a well-calculated policy that aimed to serve the interests of the Persian empire. The Persians tolerated and even promoted local cults as a way to ensure the loyalty of local groups to the wider empire; both Cyrus and his son Cambyses supported the building of temples and encouraged the return of displaced populations elsewhere in their vast empire. Their policy was to grant autonomy to loyal local elites.

Many scholars agree that the Persian Icings encouraged the rise of a loyal elite in Yehud, because of the provinces strategic and sensitive location on the border of Egypt. This loyal elite was recruited from the Jewish exile community in Babylonia and was led by dignitaries who were closely connected to the Persian administration. They were mainly individuals of high social and economic status, families who had resisted assimilation and who were most probably close to the Deuteronomistic ideas. Though the returnees were a minority in Yehud, their religious, socioeconomic, and political status, and their concentration in and around Jerusalem, gave them power far beyond their number."

A short mention of this seems appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputable claim about human rights in Cyrus Cylinder
The first paragraph of the article claims the Cyrus Cylinder contained a declaration of human rights. However, Wikipedia's article on the Cyrus Cylinder appears to dispute that claim: The Cylinder has also been claimed to be an early "human rights charter", though the British Museum and a number of scholars of the ancient Near Eastern history reject this view as anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the Cylinder's generic nature. SEppley (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on the cylinder is more precise and the lead here is a simplification. Afaik within the academic community most distinguished scholars support the first view. However there are some exceptions. Also even educated opinions on the subject seemed to be strongly influenced by nationality and the academic field and you definitely reputable sources for both views. So it is difficult to give an appropriate and accurate description in a single sentence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be no longer the case that most distinguished scholars support the first view. In any case, I reworded the lead slightly. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that there are sources disputing the HR interpretation in this article, but in perhaps an obscure place. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2007 Amélie Kuhrt online
See "Ancient Near Eastern History: The Case of Cyrus the Great of Persia" Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but see what purpose in particular. Some context would be appreciated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The context is that it's an online paper by a noted scholar on the subject of this article. I assumed that people might be interested in using it as a source. Maybe at the moment it should be made an EL? Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ah ok. Yes Kuhrt is certainly a notable source. I just thought you might have had a particular piece of content or information in mind. I see no reason not to add it externals links.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Given the current structure of the article it could also be included under "further reading", which might actually the better option, since it seems to be a chapter from an academic book rather than a mere online source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I haven't read it yet. I got to it via the request at Babylonian captivity for historical non-biblical material which I discuss above. But editing this article to suggest the viewpoint that Cyrus was a brilliant leader but not a human rights reformer is difficult. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources for questions on authenticity
I agree it needs expanding, but not that it shouldn't have a separate section or that it should be worded as though only one person doubts its authenticity. See for a start. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Diletant Pahlavist propaganda
Issue:
 * After the Iranian revolution, the tomb of Cyrus the Great survived the initial chaos and vandalism propagated by the Islamic revolutionary hardliners who equated Persian imperial historical artifacts with the late Shah of Iran. There are allegations of the tomb being in danger of damage from the construction of the Sivand Dam on river Polvar (located in the province of Pars) and flooding, but there is no official acknowledgement of this claim. This has nonetheless, caused a petition to be drafted to the U.N. demanding protection of this historical entity.

I've removed this part because it's nothing but diletant propaganda by apologists of former regime. Tomb of Cyrus isn't isolated case, you can find similar nonsenses about "attempts of bulldozing Persepolis", "plans for destroying Cyrus cylinder", etc. None of such claims are supported either by reliable sources (try Iranica) or UNESCO. This is what J. Lendering says about this specific issue:
 * The report that the Iranian authorities will endanger the site of Pasargadae by building a dam in the Sivand, which has often surfaced in the blogosphere and probably is a hoax, was repeated on the CAIS website with a remark that "Iran's pre-Islamic past and Iranians' non-Islamic-national-identity and heritage have always been the subjects of abhorrence for the clerics. This diabolical plot by Ayatollahs in Tehran was set in motion in 1979 to destroy and erase all pre-Islamic Iranian past from the consciousness of the Iranian nation as part of their de-Iranianisation campaign." This is sheer innuendo.

I left this notice because User:Zheek has removed my edits twice, so I hope everything is clear now. --109.60.45.72 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. After reading your comments on talk page (and my talk page), I think your edit is correct/clear and has no problem. So I don't revert it again. But it's good to write better edit summaries. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

cyrus was the first king of the pesia and iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.71.51 (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusion
Is this guy not to be confused with Miley Cyrus? -- Tariqmudallal      ·      my talk  ]]  00:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

25 year discrepancy on his Birth Year?
There is no elaboration on why that is, and the links in the not 40 just lead to Google book searches. Ussher in Annals of the world favors the 600/599 date, but it's precisely reading him giving those dates that I feel the younger is more likely, Example he has Evilmerodoch reigning way to soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Legacy: Thomas Jefferson and Cyrus
Are these articles WP:RS and suitable to use in this article?:
 * BBC News – Cyrus Cylinder: How a Persian monarch inspired Jefferson archiveurl
 * Ancient Persian Ruler Influenced Thomas Jefferson archiveurl
 * Cyrus Cylinder: Ancient Persia Foreshadowed Modern Values archiveurl --Zyma (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyrus the Great in the Quran
I think that we should relocate the sentence which includes ' the Qur'anic figure of Dhul-Qarnayn is Cyrus the Great' to the first paragraph of the article. I see that Cyrus's mention in Jewish Bible is placed in fist paragraph. Anyone agree? elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 18:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea behind this proposal is fine. Just that there is the complication that the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn and Cyrus the Great is not agreed upon by all, and I think if we place this in the lead, it should be done in a way that clarifies this. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it is a fringe theory. Which reliable sources even affirm this identification?  The Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān says: "Dhū'l-Qarnayn, an epithet usually assigned to Alexander the Great but also attributed to Moses by Muslim as well as Jewish and Christian exegetes." (Wheeler, p. 260).  The Brill Encyclopedia of Islam, second edition says "It is generally agreed both by Muslim commentators and modéra occidental scholars that D̲h̲u ’l-Ḳarnayn, “the two-horned”, in Sūra XVIII, 83/82-98 is to be identified with Alexander the Great." (Watt, "al-Iskandar").  The third edition says "Dhū al-Qarnayn (usually identified with Alexander the Great)" (Cook, "Gog and Magog"). The Brill Encyclopedia of the Qurʾān says "Traditional and modern scholars have identified the figure the Qurʾān refers to as the Possessor of the Two Horns (Dhū l-Qarnayn, q 18:83, 86, 94) as Alexander the Great (al-Iskandar in Arabic)." (Renard, "Alexander"). None of these works mention the Cyrus theory.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not fringe, because it is in the lead of Dhul-Qarnayn: In modern scholarship the character is identified as Cyrus the Great. In traditional scholarship the character is usually identified as Alexander the Great etc. Debresser (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's in the lead of a Wikipedia article it is not fringe? That's not a sufficient reason, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  That claim was just added this month:, it did not use any new source from the old claim it replaced, which contradicted it. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was supposing that the lead from that article was up to standards. And there is a source, after all. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fair, but I would be very weary of using Wikipedia as a guide, even when it has sources. Anyway: There are the exact same sources for both revisions, which say opposite things.  Necessarily at least one of the revisions misrepresents the sources.  Which one does?  I can't read the Arabic Eschatology by Tehrani supplied as a source, and I can't find a decent English translation.  No scholar in English, German or French seems to cite this work.  I suspect the current revision misrepresents, as using all of the recent scholars writing in English (just mentioned) as a guide confirms this. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we can't find evidence that the work has been used several times by other scholars, we shouldn't be using it. Some people seem to think that just because they can find a source they can use it. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, now you are already making too strict and too general a statement. In any case, Atethnekos, perhaps we could post a request for Arab readers to check this source? Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should we use a source not using by other scholars? Why isn't this rules out by WP:UNDUE? Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For one, because I doubt you can testify with certainty to the fact that that source is not used by other scholars. It is also possibly the source is relatively new and has not yet been properly discussed by other experts in the field. Which does not necessarily mean it is not reliable or noteworthy (as in WP:UNDUE). Debresser (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The ten volumes were published 1981–1987. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So it isn't new and although we can't testify that no one has used it, if we can't find that it has been used (more than once) then WP:UNDUE applies. If we had to somehow prove the impossible then WP:UNDUE would be pointless. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, so indeed the source is not new. I asked for help on WP:ARAB regarding what the source really says. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

King of Aryavarta?
The infobox boldly claims that Cyrus is/was referred to as "King of Aryavarta", a region comprising modern Pakistan and a lot of Northern India. From what I understand, the Achaemenid Empire did not stretch much past the Indus making this claim rather odd. The references cited are not reliable either. One makes no mention of Aryavarta at all. The other does (in a snippet view) mention Aryavarta once, but with nothing about any Kings of Aryavarta. This claim appears to be quite baseless. Any comments? --Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just remove it. If the person who has placed the source is bothered about it, he/she can put a reliable/complete source next time he/she sees it. - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that was lousy advice. First, try to find a source for it, and if a search for a source doesn't turn up with one, then feel free to remove it. The advice to first remove and then see what others do, is lazy and does not lead to much good in most cases. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Current lead section: Achaemenid Medo-Persian culture?!

 * Cyrus and, indeed, the Achaemenid influence in the ancient world also extended as far as Athens, where many Athenians adopted aspects of the Achaemenid Medo-Persian culture as their own, in a reciprocal cultural exchange.
 * 1) Does not match with the citation: Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity. There is no "Medo" in the source. Source mentioned "Persian culture" not "Medo-Persian".
 * 2) Revision that matches with source, then IP removed referenced text (based on his/her pov and personal analysis), and now this Medo-Persian revision?!
 * Why accepted and sourced revision turned into this pov and original research version? Just because an anonymous editor does not like "Persian" and tried to remove referenced text? The current revision is not based on that cited reference. --Zyma (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Etymology
What is the purpose of the etymology section? Why does the origin and study of his name belong in an article on the person? There is a separate article dedicated solely for this purpose. Should we start the article on George Washington with an origin and study of the words George and Washington? I'd like some feedback on this area as my edit was reverted. warrior4321 ✆ talk ✉ mail  15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC). I would guess it was more than just that reason that got your edit reverted. You deleted a lot of stuff; and while I didn't bother to check your last two edits, in this other one you took so much leisure in interpreting the actual information in the cited source and ended up leaving behind a straight-up dubious paragraph, however it was also very obvious that your copyedit was in very good faith. I wouldn't expect that your style was any different in your two recent edits, so I'm not surprised it got reverted. However, you're definitely unto something with the etymology section. EyeTruth (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose removal of the etymology section, if we made sure that all of it can be found in Cyrus (name). Debresser (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are there any parts that you feel are not present in that article? warrior4321 ✆  talk ✉ mail  18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Messiah
The article claims that Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Messiah (or anointed one), but the source cited in support of the claim doesn't say that. Rather it says that Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Yahweh's Messiah. There is a vital difference. The cited source goes on to point out that others have been called Messiah, including the Aramean king Hazel (who was non-Jew). But Cyrus is still the only non-Jew to be specifically referred to as Yahweh's Messiah (or His Messiah). It is incorrect for the article to state that Cyrus was the only non-Jew to be called Messiah, and it is unsupported by the cited source. That passage in the article will have to get tag because the cited source doesn't support it, or it gets rewritten to fit what the cited source says. Of course, other sources could be brought forward to further clarify things. EyeTruth (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yyou should be more careful when interpreting your sources. Hazel is not called "anointed"! Hazel was anointed king, meaning that Elijah poured oil on him. Those are two different things altogether.
 * Now, regarding Cyrus. The verse says "Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus". So Cyrus is called "meshicho" = "His anointed". He is not called "the anointed of YHWH". The difference is small, but is there. Compare Moses, who is yes called "servant of God", not just "his servant".
 * The reason I insist on this small difference and call it important, is because otherwise "YHWH's anointed" will become a title for Cyrus, and that would be incorrect. Debresser (talk) 06:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In other words you're comparing the primary source (i.e. Bible) against the other source (the webpage). But then it's this other source, and not the Bible, that is cited for that passage in the article. Like I already stated on your talkpage, my primary goal here is to make sure that passage in the article agrees with what the source cited for it asserts. The text of the cited source starts out by listing Cyrus as one of the many people that have been associated with mashiah and its other grammatical forms, and it included Hazel in that list. Up to that point, nothing in the cited source says Cyrus is the only non-Jew to be associated with mashiah. The source then goes on to specially single out Cyrus as the only non-Jew to be referred to as "YHWH’s messiah", and continues to heavily emphasize this unique distinction throughout. Now, whether that is correct or not, you be the judge. But the main problem here is that what the article says is inconsistent with what the source is saying. This is a WP:INTEGRITY issue. Since you already said you consider that webpage unreliable, then shouldn't finding a more reliable source be the next course of action? EyeTruth (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the webpage does not say that Hazel is called "the anointed", of whomever, just that he was anointed.
 * We seem to agree that the source, however reliable it may be, is guilty of paraphrasing. That said, I am not disputing that Cyrus is the only non-Jew who has been called "His anointed".
 * Another question is how important this specific distinction is. Debresser (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, if we're to follow your explanation which is based directly on the original source, then the cited source is clearly very problematic with the assertion it tries to forcefully push forward. Something needs to be done about it then, because that passage belies what its cited source firmly proposes. About Hazel, he was only associated with the term but not called anyone's anointed. EyeTruth (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I don't know what is the best way to resolve this problem. The source is clear. On the other hand, the source expresses this idea with the wrong words. Frankly speaking, I think the old version explains it well enough. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which version? This piece of information is naturally striking, so there should be an abundance of reliable sources that attest to it. EyeTruth (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The version I reverted back to, the present version.
 * I agree with your argument, and think that the fact that there aren't many such sources proves my point. Debresser (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. There has to be better sources that don't make bogus claims; that's what I meant. But I haven't looked into sources yet. EyeTruth (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

ERA war
An unregistered editor has been joined by two registered editors, and  in what appears to be violation of the WP:ERA guideline. As far as I can tell from history, the article originally used AD/BC format. There was a brief period of edit warring in mid-2005 along with several talk page sections. No consensus for change to BCE/CE seems to have been reached, and the article has been fairly stable in the use of BC/AD since then. There may be good reasons to change the format; there is no good reason to do so without discussion and consensus. 2600:1006:B129:A994:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So far all I see is you edit warring against 3 editors. Discussion or not, the simple fact that 3 editors make the same edit already points to a consensus. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go back and check the definition of consensus. Three editors bypassing discussion to force in a change to a format that has peacefully existed for ten years is not consensus building, it is bullying. Sometimes all one sees is limited by all one looks for. Have you even checked the article revisions and history or the talk page archives? 2600:1006:B129:A994:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Debresser, The user is right...the era-style was BC/AD...the change is here. My mistake, didn't see the change. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is not to say, however, that it needs to be a closed subject. Consensus can change, as long as proper processes are followed. By my reading, the 2005 discussion treated the original author's choice as cast in stone and the BCE/CE style a U.S. academia affectation. I'm not sure either view has a lot of support currently.
 * On a related note, a recent edit prompted me to look at Cyrus the Great in the Bible, which seems to be closely enough coupled to this article to be included in any Era discussion we decide to have here. 2600:1006:B129:A994:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We should deal with this on the specific merits of the individual article in question. You're right that we don't treat the original author's choice as cast in stone, nor the BCE style as an academic affectation. I can see no good reason to keep this at BC/AD, it isn't a Christian-related article. Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As opposed to Cyrus the Great in the Bible, which is a religion-related article. This article also mentions Cyrus in relationship to the Old Testament, even in the lead, but that is obviously a minor point in this article. Debresser (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your logic, Doug. Why do you think that only Christian-related articles should use BC/AD? Do you think that only Norse pagan-related articles should use Thursday? That only Roman pagan-related articles should use January? Crumpled Fire (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see good reasons for Christian-related articles to use BC/AD although on the other hand some Christian theologians do not. The same might go for articles on pop music although the reasons there wouldn't relate to religion. You've misunderstood me in any case. There's no religious reason for this article to use a Christian era style is what I meant. Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Material deleted last night
Was copyvio from and written by Sam Kerr not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cyrus the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318042552/http://gravity.ir:80/7-panorama/shiraz/8-cyrus-the-great-pasargadae to http://gravity.ir/7-panorama/shiraz/8-cyrus-the-great-pasargadae

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sections
Should "early life" be its own section? Why is it in "background"? Most biographical articles have "Early Life" or "Family" as its own section then "Later Life" or "Military Career" etc. as later sections. Henry chianski (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Persian links?
In the lede there are no links to help define "Persian" or "Persia" which seems pretty relevant. When introducing Cyrus could links be worked in for Persian_people or Iranian_peoples or to modern-day Iran? There are some links on the sidebar but maybe they could be in the text of the lede as well? Because there is a whole section on Dynastic History which discusses Persian domination but "Persian" is never defined or linked to. Henry chianski (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * why some people want to make a border or a great war against history and all the time they are saying "Modern" "Modern" ??? for example they said that we mustn't add Modern Persian for Cyrus the great and only Old Persian is enough!! old Persian? really? why you dont say old Jewish ?? or old Hebrew or old Arabic?????????? it such an unintentional bad act against us .. me and Cyrus both of us are Persian and Persian are Iranian this classification is for now time cuz in Cyrus era racism wasn't made and all of tribes lived peaceful together . in wiki we must classify if you wanna say old Persian is different with modern Persian i must say every thing modern is different with past cuz time isn stable and classification was just made for this kinda unstable things. but if its not for before any change please go and research and then make old Persian people (like old German people(deosnt exist), old English people(is only a section)) or make its section on Persian people if it doesn't exist. the name was Iran officially from Sassanian empire and legendary or traditionally from Achaemend Empire. Darius the great said im Persian and Persians are Aryan(Iranian) we Iranian make our Identity not you westerns, you westerns make your identity not we Iranians. please respect to what we saying what we wanna and what we are. we are saying we are Iranian and Iran means land of Aryans and Aryan(based on culture not based on race like Nazi western racism) is not made of west (ping me if you wanna resume).  The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Messy article
And the pictures are all over the place, clean this up!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.62.164 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and a messy comment . do not speak like you are a boss here . Wikipedia don't have any boss! The Stray Dog   by Sadeq Hedayat  18:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Template: History of Iran
User:Debresser

Sigh.. do I really have to explain this?

Fine.

The template is made for the dynasties/regimes of Iran, last time I looked, Cyrus the Great wasn't a dynasty or anything like that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see it's made for the history of Iran. Your removal of it from a number of pages was not appropriate (and the edit summary made no sense - "not a country", when of course all kinds of things which aren't countries might be pertinent to the history of Iran). For example it makes perfect sense to have it on this page, since Cyrus is a notable historical figure from the area. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * My points as well. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice one, reverting 10 changes before I even manage to answer back, thumbs up. By using your logic, I'd assume we should add the template on every notable figure in Iranian history? Open up the Template - what do you see? Clearly not notable figures in Iranian history, but the dynasties/regimes of Iran. The template is completely irrelevant with the articles you've put them. I await an answer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Open up the template and we see periods of Iranian history. That seems like something I'd expect, an entirely logical way to divide it up, just as we might divide British history into Tudors, Plantagenets, the interregnum, etc. It's not irrelevant because the subjects of the articles were part of Iranian history. While your offer to add the template to more Iranian historical figures is unexpected, that seems like a useful endeavour, indeed.


 * I reverted many of your changes (not all; I left places alone because they are not only of historical interest) because they were made with a nonsensical edit summary and your talk page comment here to the effect that Cyrus isn't a dynasty also does not seem pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Every country has this kind of template, I'd assume we should just start spamming them on every article? Ooh, Ataturk doesn't have the Template:History of Turkey, maybe we should add that? Suleiman the Magnificent doesn't have that Template either, I'd say we should add it! Do you see what I am trying to say here?


 * And how exactly does my previous comment do not seem pertinent? I see no explanation of that - please do explain. Simply saying a comment is not pertinent isn't helpful at all, nor will it make your opinion the better choice to take. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No. If you think those templates are appropriate on those articles, add them or discuss it on the talk page. If you don't, don't.


 * I didn't say your previous comment seems pertinent. I said it didn't. I find it curious that you object to (wrongly) supposing I said it was pertinent; I think you should probably take a moment to look the word up since plainly you have no idea what it means. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Spelling error mate. I know what it means. And I think you know what I meant. If not, then it's fixed now. I await an answer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't know what you meant. It's hard to know what people mean if they write the opposite (which is far from a spelling error). You already have an answer; all kinds of things that aren't dynasties can be part of the history of Iran, the dynasties serve as convenient subdivisions. 07:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hate to sound like that guy, but that's not really a proper answer now is it? You've completely avoided my earlier argument. At least come with some counter-argument to that instead of saying the same thing you said earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned I have presented a perfectly sensible position on the subject (certainly more sensible than "Cyrus doesn't go in the history of Iran because he's not a country"). I don't really have anything to add to it. Perhaps if some other editor seems to agree with you we can revisit it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope, you are completely avoiding/ignoring my point with the Suleiman the Magnificent example. You can't just leave a discussion like that, especially not after you've reverted 8 of my edits. If you don't want to continue this discussion further, then I see no reason why I should not be allowed to remove the Templates. Unless someone else has something to say of course. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are now threatening to be disruptive. Go ahead, and edit against two editors who disagree with you. Just be aware that being disruptive is likely to get you blocked. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"History of XYZ" templates are usually not added on articles about individuals. They are, verifiably, usually limited to articles about era's, periods, dynasties, kingdoms, etc. Please feel free to check the plenthora of GA- or FA-class articles about individuals -- I don't see any "history of XYZ" template. Take Napoleon for example; without a doubt one of the most important figures in French history (GA class as well), yet I don't see a "History of France" template. We can see the same thing with Elizabeth I of England, which is a FA-class article as a matter of fact, and a pivotal figure in English history, yet no template is to be seen. Though there's no WP that says that the template should, must, or could be included (or for a matter of fact, that it should/could etc. be excluded), we want to maintain and keep consistency throughout our articles. That's just my 0.02$. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a bit more coherent but I think, in fairness, is also the point HistoryofIran is trying to make.


 * I dunno. I take your point about consistency but on the other hand it seems to me like an eminently sensible and worthwhile thing to have on _this_ article. I'm kind of reluctant to remove a template that (seems to me) makes things better here, although I'm not proposing for an instant to try and argue the principle should be applied WP-wide - the difficulty with invoking consistency is that sometimes it means you're stuck at a suboptimal point. You can't change it on one page because of consistency and you can't change it WP-wide because that would be a Herculean task (and at every step you would be met with cries of "consistency"). Pinkbeast (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I get what you mean. We can keep it I guess until the article becomes a GA or FA-class article (for example). I have absolutely no objections about it tbh, other than my opinion about keeping consistency with the rest. Especially if the majority thinks that its really a proper gain to this article, we should keep it. However, we have to bear in mind that such templates can form a ground for edit-wars as well, how ridiculous as it may sound. E.g.; "yo this dude was born and raised in what is now my country so...yeah, a "History of XYZ" template should also be added to it even though the individual has close to nothing to do with the history of my nation." Now obviously this is not the case with a clear-cut figure such as Cyrus the Great, where only one of such templates can belong, but imagine if we were to add it for way more complex figures such as Yaroslav the Wise. Just for a thought. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I still find this silly, oh well. It is what it is I guess. For now at least. And yeah, thanks Louis, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. And your petty words don't scare me one bit, Debresser. I suggest you to take a look at the rules. I wasn't threatening anyone at all, and neither what I intended to do was disruptive. I am done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

meaning of cyrus
in Latin language there is casing or ending for masculine nouns that is "us" ; there for the origin of the word could have been as "shiru" meaning lionly; I can compare it with the word dariush; that was a king in the same dynasty and it's persian spelling is "dara" means owner. amir arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.157.144.74 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Anon but we use Reliable Sources on Wiki for information, not your rambling and quite laughable Original Research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 05:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Title "King of Persia"?
Is this definite? Our article Xerxes says that he adopted that title. This doesn't list it. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't explain the Xerxes article, but I think I've fixed this one. Doug Weller  talk 16:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

King of the kingdom of Anshan or city?
Anshan (Persia) was a minor kingdom, but I've seen him referred to as "King of the city of Anshan", so I'm not sure which is correct. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Religious views
Hi. Under the subheading Religion and philosophy, a sentence claimed that Cyrus views on religion are expressed in the content of the Cylinder. It has a "citation needed" tag. But the translated contents of the cylinder are already available as shown in the cited excerpt that followed and they included Cyrus thoughts on religion (e.g. devotion to the Gods Bel and Nabu, his worship of Marduk, etc.). Are these not enough? Darwin Naz (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that the religious content in the Cyrus Cylinder says relatively little of the king's personal views. If you read inscriptions in Babylon by other conquering powers (e.g. Assyrians, Seleucids) they also devote themselves to the Babylonian deities in their inscriptions (but would have been unlikely to follow them in real life). It's essentially a propaganda move to show yourself as just as much a Babylonian as whoever you replaced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed ^^, it was just propaganda at the end of the day, even the late Sasanians did something alike that with Christianity, yet they were deffo not Christian. Cyrus was most likely an adherant of some sort of (Indo-)Iranian religion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It was original research and the two sentences before it, sourced, say "Though it is generally believed that Zarathushtra's teachings maintained influence on Cyrus's acts and policies, so far no clear evidence has been found to indicate that Cyrus practiced a specific religion. Pierre Briant wrote that given the poor information we have, "it seems quite reckless to try to reconstruct what the religion of Cyrus might have been." We shouldn't follow that with a statement denying that. I've removed it. And the "well" from "well documented", although now I'm thinking that "documented' is too strong a word  - the different texts were written for different reasons, and I don't think we should assume that they all actually document anything reliably.  Doug Weller  talk 13:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert
I have reverted because Bart Ehrman stated:

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Where is Cyrus The Great's Standard?
Why didn't anyone add Cyrus The Great's Standard? Is it wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_of_Cyrus_the_Great_(White).svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.7.218 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing in Cyrus' Caspian expeditions?
It's mentioned in the intro but that's it even though the expeditions were significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4D03:3100:FC33:99A0:6542:5435 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)