Talk:Cyrus the Great/Archive 5

On a Kurdish translation on Cyrus the great.
@HistoryOfIran "Stop its completely irrelevant". I don't understand your viewpoint, you state a Kurdish Translation is irrelevant but that is simply not true. Its not true at all, Kurds split off from the rest of Iran in about 800 AD, Kurdish had not yet devolved instead a distinct entity and Cyprus is a common name in Kurdish. Cyprus spoke Proto-Iranian, so why are you removing it? see Wikipedia on Names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_commonly_recognizable_names. As an example King Arthur, he was king of the Brittons when there was at the time no distinction between the Cornish, the Welsh or the Bretons, and therefor a Welsh, Cornish and Bertonish translation, for all existing Brittonic Langauges which are spoke there is a translation for it. The reason there is a translation for Cornish, and not Scottish or Irish is because the Common Brittons evolved into the Welsh, Cornish and Breatons however the Scots and Irish come from the Gaelic Root not the Brittonic Root and because of that you can justify a Cornish translation but not a Scottish one. Pashtu and Hindi had at this time split off from, while Kurdish had not yet devolved into a distinct language as it would later become a distinct language. The same principle applies to Cyprus and the Kurds, Cyprus language would evolve into Kurdish and Persian although there already at the time began to split off into Kurdish with differing words, and grammar. So why do you feel as though the name has no relation to Article when it very clearly does? Vallee01 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Seems like you didn't read my edit summary, so I'll post it here as well: cyrus speaking proto-iranian doesnt mean every variant of his name in iranian languages should be there. the only iranian spellings that are relevant is Persian and Median. Kurds as a ethnicity have absolutely nothing to do with the pre-Islamic civilization, let alone Cyrus. Also, you might wanna read WP:NAMB and WP:CON before you start throwing silly accusations towards me. Reading your user page, it seems you have strong feelings regarding this subject, so you might wanna read WP:NPOV as well. I would highly advise you to revert your edit. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Why would New Persian be relevant in that case, since Cyrus clearly didn't speak it nor write in the modern Arabic script? Herodotus for example, does not have his name rendered in Modern Greek, only in Ancient Greek. I'd say add Kurdish to the lead as well, it's as relevant as New Persian especially given Cyrus was half-Median too. Kurds have as much to do with ancient Iranics as modern Persians do, so quite frankly I don't see much of an issue here. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that New Persian should be removed as well, considering its anachronistic. The only counter argument I could think of would be the importance and vast legacy of Cyrus to keep New Persian. Kurdish, however, has no place here, and there is no proof that Kurds are descended from Medes. Even if they were, it would still be irrelevant, considering they two different peoples, with Kurds first emerging as an ethnicity in the Middle Ages.--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, the importance and legacy of Cyrus is held by all West Iranics and Iran as a whole, not just Persians. And as for the Kurd -> Mede connection, we do have Vladimir Minorsky as an advocate of that connection, it's not a rejected hypothesis, just a disputed one. David Neil Mackenzie in fact claims Kurdish is actually Southwest Iranic, descended from Middle and Old Persian. Either way, there's a good case to build for Kurds having the legacy either from the Medes or Old Persians (either conclusion of which would qualify their language to be included in this article); if not in the lead then in the Etymology section. Kurds being noted from the Middle Ages onwards doesn't mean they can't be mentioned in this article; they very clearly didn't fall from the sky and they must be descended from one of the three major West Iranic tribes (Persians, Medes, or Parthians). The Kievan Rus' article actually has translations of the state's name in Russian, Ukranian, and Belorussian in the "Names" section, even though the latter two identities are only a few centuries old. Maybe remove modern language names from the lede, and mention them in the Etymology section; for all West Iranic languages, not just modern Persian. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that's because the languages actually has some relevancy in the Kievan Rus' article. Either way, the Kurds being an Iranian group doesn't make it relevant to have the spelling there, imagine if we were to use that argument elsewhere, regarding Kurdish or any other language. That would be a mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no a Kurdish ethnicity back then, while there was a Persian ethnicity. It's true that Cyrus' mother was Median, but Cyrus is nowhere mentioned as a Median king (as far as i know). Also, there are several theories about the origins of the Kurds, them being of Median origin is only one of these theories, since other peoples are strong candidates to be the ancestors of the Kurds (like the Mannaeans). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that seems to be WP:FRINGE. No one is pure by the end of the day. Kurds are Kurds, not Medes, Mannaenns, or any other group, and they first appear in the Middle Ages, many decades from Cyrus' time. (struck my waffling to avoid confusion). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know if your last post was for me, if so, then i think you got me wrong, Kurds are not "pure" (nobody is, actually ...), this is why i said that otther candidates exist for their origin. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

The reason you justify a Kurdish Translation and not a Pashtu translation is because Cyrus has no interaction with the Pashtus, There was a large amount of interactions between Cyrus the Great and Kurds during his reign, there is a Hebrew translation as well so why do you not believe there should be a Kurdish one? The Kurdish language was at this point more similar to proto-indo european then it is to Modern Kurdish and had not evolved yet. If Cyrus had large amounts of interactions with Kurds it justifies a translation of his name because he had large effects on Kurds, just like he had large effects on Jews therefor justifying a translation in Hebrew. With his empire stretching through much of Kurdistan. And helping contribute to Modern Kurdish. If he had so much of effects to the development of the Kurds and his empire stretching though the modern region of Kurdistan, and Kurds having large effects in his empire how is that irrelevant, I don't understand your viewpoint. Also you don't control this article redirects even more niche subjects are great for Wikipedia, you don't get to police the article. I am not throwing accusations at you, you  are policing the article.

Also I want to make very clear there definitely was a Kurdish ethnicity at that time just it was a dialect of Proto-Iranian being mutably understandable to other areas in Persia. There definitely was a distinction between Kurds and the rest of Iran, just the language had not yet developed fully. Vallee01 (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "Also I want to make very clear there definitely was a Kurdish ethnicity at that time" What you want to make very clear has no importance here, what sources say has. Please provide reliable soures supporting what you say or please stop posting WP:FORUM-like messages here. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ops ignore that message, my brain has already melted due to lack of sleep. I didnt even see ur name. I'm leaving lol. HistoryofIran (talk)
 * Haha, i know very well what you're talking about, take care. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if you claim "There was no Kurds back then", one that's not true, but that's still wrong, King Arthur lived during a time where all Welsh, Cornish and Breton people were all simply Brittonic, yet there is a Cornish, Welsh and :::Breton translation because they all are necessary for more information to the article. So using your own point, all translations need to be removed? If so you also need to remove a Modern translation of french on Charlemagne, he :::never spoke Modern French he spoke native Frankish as well as possibly Latin, never French so according to you its irrelevant.
 * If you believe Kurds and Persians were truly "Identical", then why justify a Modern Persian translation? Why justify a Modern Hebrew translation? If Kurds and Persians both descended from the common ancestor, that also means there was ::::no Persians back then. So therefor you contradict yourself, if there was no Persians back then why include a Modern Persian translation. There should be a Modern Persian translation as Cyrus is important to Persians, just as it is to ::::the Kurds, thusly the principle applies to King Arthur. Answer and explain yourself clearly
 * Hardly seen so many nonsenses in a single thread ... "There was no Persians back then" uh ??? For your information, Cyrus was a Persian king. With your rationale, one should also add his name in Azerbaijani because his Empire included Azerbaijan, in Baluchi because Baluchistan was in his Empire etc ... So far, You failed to provide a single source that supports your above claims. Just drop it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  04:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hardly seen so many nonsenses in a single thread ... "There was no Persians back then" uh ??? For your information, Cyrus was a Persian king. With your rationale, one should also add his name in Azerbaijani because his Empire included Azerbaijan, in Baluchi because Baluchistan was in his Empire etc ... So far, You failed to provide a single source that supports your above claims. Just drop it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  04:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * When referring to Persians I am referring to modern Persians not Old Persian. Old Persian more closely relating to Proto-Iranian then Modern Persian, and I am correct Modern Persian had not yet devolped.


 * After doing some research I need to state I was wrong, as it turns out Kurds were definitely completely distinct to Persians even at this time. Kurds had already diverged from the rest of Iran. Cyrus spoke Old Persian, while what would become Kurds were still culturally Medes at this time speaking Median, the Medes would eventually turn in both the Balochi and Kurdish. So Old Persian and Median at best would be extremely difficult to understand. Cyrus never spoke Proto-Iranian he spoke Old Persian. So at the time all Kurds were Medes, with Kurdish simply referring "mountain dweller" in Iranaic languages. This reference here also describes Cyrus Empire and being Median and Persian meaning Medes had a massive effect on the Empire. I gave a government sanctioned research site in Europe which defenitivily proves the point that the Medes had a large effect as to Achaemenid Empire and a large effect on Kurdish identity. Here is something which also directly relates to Kurds, the mother of Cyrus himself was a Kurdish(Mountain) Mede.


 * Page 153 "The Kurdish girl from Media empire, mother of Cyrus the Great" It also details other influences effects Kurds had on Sassanid Empire.


 * Relationship between Kurds and Medes.


 * Unrelated: "Dr Mehrdad R. Izady says that there is evidence to push the origin of the word 'Kurd' back at least to the early 4th millennium BC, if not earlier1. According to Piotr Steinkeller, professor of Akkadian and Sumerian languages at Harvard University, the Akkadian term 'Kurtei' denoted an indeterminate portion or groups of inhabitants of the Zagros (and eastern Taurus) mountains. On the other hand, to their end in the 6th century BC, the Babylonians loosely (and apparently pejoratively) referred to almost everyone who lived in the Zagros-Taurus system a "Qutil," including the Medes. But Babylonian records also attest to many more specific sub divisional names such as the Mardi, Lullubi, Kardaka and Qardu, the last two of which have all been used frequently in the controversy over the roots and antiquity of the ethnic term 'Kurd' and the question of the presence of a general ethnic designator."
 * This definitivily shows there was an extreme difference cultural difference between those who lived the Zagros Mountains (Kurds) and Persians, if we look at records at the time Persians are almost always described as wealthy.
 * So it is extremely clear Kurds adopted the traditions of other Iranic groups however always maintained large amounts of cultral and linguistic independence orignating from Neolethic speakers. With almost all Kurds ancestors being Pre-indo european Neolethic farmers.


 * I would like to note if Cyrus the great had a large effect on Bolichistan, and it has some historic importance to modern Bolichistan then it is worthy of a translation, and it should be added.


 * If you are acting from a NPOV this is where the discussion ends, I am adding a Median and Kurdish translation back. Thank you. Vallee01 (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Here we go ... Your first source does not make any mention of Kurds, if you think i'm mistaken, then quote the relevant part of it where Kurds are mentioned ... Your second source does not mention Kurds either ... Your 3rd source is from Hamma F. Mirwaisi whose sole "expertise" seems to be a Kurdish patriot, far from being reliable ... Your 4th source is ... a blog ! blogs are not considered to be reliable. On your talk page you said "I know about Wikipedia works and Wikipedia's policies" but you seem to not be aware of WP:BLOG ... Your 5th source may be reliable, but it does not support the existence of a Kurdish ethnicity 2500 years ago, it only supports the existence of the word "Kurd" 6000 years ago ... Your 6th source does not mention the existence of Kurds 2500 years ago either ... ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read through all of it, don't skim through it.


 * You either didn't read what I said or skimmed through it: "Kurds were still culturally Medes at this time speaking the Median Language, the Medes would eventually turn in both the Balochi and Kurdish." Please read for gods sake, there were at this time Kurds at this time, as in Medes who lived in modern day Kurdistan and would eventually become Kurds. Your right there was no proper Kurdish language until about 100-300 AD, but there was Median "Kurds" (Name for Zorgos Mounatian Dwellers). There is no denying Medes were one of, if not the main force behind Cyrus's empire so therefor there needs to be a Median Translation. "most powerful kingdoms of the time, including Media, Lydia, and Babylonia." "Sources tell us that Cyrus overthrew the Medes to establish his own empire." As well as countless other sources as to the effects of the Medes on Persia at this time:

.

Also the source of the mother of Cyrus is a proper conducted research paper, it is a reliable source as it gives it list of sources at the bottom. All sources given before were not references on "Kurds" they were sources relating to the Medes. Also the source given does support the existence of Kurds in 500 BC, however it can state for certain, so that's not correct. Adding a Median translation is better then simply adding a Kurdish translation, although Kurdish had some dissent effect being Median Kurds, Median itself is more directly related during the time period and also encompasses Bolichi which evolved from Median Language, as well as other extinct languages that came from Median. Vallee01 (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "You either didn't read what I said or skimmed through it" Nobody is interested in reading your WP:TLDR messages that are not supported by any reliable source. Indeed, Medes existed at the time of Cyrus (and even earlier), but you need to provide sources that support stuffs like "all Kurds were Medes at that time". No offense, but judging by your broken English and what you said so far on several talk pages, i seriously doubt you have the competences to do so. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  06:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, moreover I can't have a reasonable discussion with you if you are going to read what I say. I am finding a source relating to Median translation of the word Cyrus once I find a reliable source to a translation of the name Cyrus I will add it, again Please read, I made this very clearly you either didn't read what I said or skimmed through it again. However if you again decide to not even read what I say the TL:DR version is: I am adding a Median translation not a Kurdish one.


 * Seriously if you don't even take the time of day to read anything I say why on earth should I even talk to you? How can you ever reasonably be able to have a discussion when you don't even know what I write! Its almost funny, my message takes 2 minutes to read, its not a 30 page thesis. I expect better of you. You are not going to be able to have a meaningful discussion with anybody if your response to peoples messages that only takes 2 minutes to read is boiled down into: "Lol, your incompetent and also not here to build an encyclopedia, I didn't even read anything you said but I will now assume bad faith and respond to you". Why should anybody even talk to you if you don't even read what they say, how can you even ! There is no real reason to add a Kurdish translation, I am looking for a Median Language translation as it encompasses both a Kurdish translation and a Balochi Translation and will add that, its more directly related to the article then .some loose connection to Median Kurds In your own words as you rudely stated on my talk page "Were done here". Vallee01 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in this discussion anymore since you keep saying the same things while it's cristal clear that what you say is not reliably sourced. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources and scholars
HistoryofIran: Ma'arefat Al-Maad – Ma'ad Shanasi is not a reliable source; nor are Maulana Maududi, Abul Kalam Azad, and Allameh Tabatabaei scholars by modern definitions. If you wish to keep adding these to the article, take it to dispute settlement. Achar Sva (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Was it so hard to say that from the start instead of randomly removing information? We have edit summaries for a reason. Fine you got a point, I won't object. But if you didn't have, you are the one to take it to the dispute settlement, not me (I did not 'add' anything either, I simply restored the original revision) - read the rules. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see I owe you an apology - I was under the impression that I'd given an edit summary, but I see I hadn't. I do think, however, that you could have looked at those "sources" that I deleted - actually just one source, www.motaghin.com, and the fact that it's in Persian would be enough in itself to rule it out. Achar Sva (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did, but my eyes are sometimes whack in front of the screen. I only just realized when you said it. It is unreliable indeed, but not because of the fact that it is in Persian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

False narrations of Cyrus the Great's Death
i have joined Wikipedia for 5 days and the first day i have tried to make an edit on this page in the "Death" section. while i have cited reliable sources, which are visible for all to see below, the two users "HistoryofIran" and "Wretchskull" tried to revert my edits to a false narrative, that not only is false, but is also disgusting and insulting to the people of Iran and our rich heritage, and to the father of our nation Prohpet-king, Cyrus the Great. i have been reported by these 2 users to the administration board, and since i started editing for mere one day, i did not know how any of the rules worked in this site, and instead of having an impartial juror presiding over this dispute, i have been blocked by the administration on the reports of "Wretchskull" due to his accusations of and i summarize "false narrations", i have been trying to defend myself eversince and it is there for all to see in the talk section of my page. i admit i have been new to all of this and i did not know how any of the rules in here worked, i have simply seen a false narration about the the father of my nation which would make the blood of any True iranian and zoroasterian Boil. even though i have been pretty thorough with my sources, where i have literally cited sources, by chapter, page and passage, i was still accused of "citing unreliable sources", that is why i decided to write down my original edit down here for all to see, so that you can judge whether or not my claim is true or not, and since this comment was edited by someone (do not know who, but can be one of the two users that were attacking me as i mentioned above), i have rewritten my original draft so that it can be visible for all to see:

——— Death ———

The alleged Time of Cyrus the Great's Death reported by Hellenic Historians is said to have been in 529 B.C.E, in his 28th or 30th year of rule over Anshan, and 22nd years after the conquest of Median Empire. There are different stories about the death of Cyrus the Great. Most people who wrote about his death have pointed out that it happened in a battle with the Scythian tribes to the North East of his Empire. But there is a dispute about the name of the tribe that he fought with or the wound or blow that resulted in his death. Herodotus says it was the Massagetae Tribe, Ctesias says it was the Derbices Tribe, Berossus says it was the Dahae tribe, all of which are tribes that lived in the North East of Iranian Mainland (from today’s Golestan province of Iran to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan). And the result of the battle is also unclear. By Herodotus’s account, Cyrus the Great’s Army was defeated, by Ctesias’s account he won the battle with the help of a Scythian tribe. However Herodotus goes on about it in length, in what seems to be a myth more than the truth, stating that Cyrus the Great had created a ruse in which he feigned a retreat from one of his base camps, while leaving behind a great deal of wine for the Massagetae forces to find, which they had become drunk on and lost control of their senses, and then Cyrus the Great attacks the drunken forces and defeats them, and amongst them was the Son of the Massagetae’s Queen, Spargapises who was the General of that army. And after his loss, he demands to be released of his bonds so that he can commit suicide in his shame. But the Queen of Massagetae Tomyris leads a second force against Cyrus the Great which Based on Herodotus’s story will ultimately result in the defeat and Death of Cyrus the Great.

However, Ctesias (a Greek Physician who stayed at the court of the Persian king Artaxerxes II from 404 to 398/397 B.C.E) completely Disagrees with the Accounts of Herodotus and accuses him of falsehoods in many passages of his book "Persica", and calls him an inventor of fables. In his account, the Death of Cyrus the Great was the Result of his battle with the Derbices, in which he entails the event in great detail in the 11th Chapter of his book: “Cyrus marched against the Derbices, whose king was Amoraeus. The Derbices suddenly brought up some elephants which had been kept in ambush, and put Cyrus' cavalry to flight. Cyrus himself fell from his horse, and an Indian wounded him mortally with a javelin under the thigh. The Indians fought on the side of the Derbices and supplied them with elephants. Cyrus' friends took him up while he was still alive and returned to camp. Many Persians and Derbices were slain, to the number of 10,000 on each side.

Amorges, when he heard of what had happened to Cyrus, in great haste went to the assistance of the Persians with 20,000 Sacan cavalry. In a subsequent engagement, the Persians and Sacae gained a brilliant victory, Amoraeus, the king of the Derbices, and his two sons being slain. Thirty thousand Derbicans and 9,000 Persians fell in the battle. The country then submitted to Cyrus.

Cyrus, when near his death, declared his elder son Cambyses king, his younger son Tanyoxarces governor of Bactria, Chorasmia, Parthia, and Carmania, free from tribute. Of the children of Spitamas, he appointed Spitaces Satrap of the Derbices, Megabernes of the Barcanians, bidding them obey their mother in everything. He also endeavored to make them friends with Amorges, bestowing his blessing on those who should remain on friendly terms with one another, and a curse upon those who first did wrong. With these words he died, three days after he had been wounded, after a reign of thirty years.”

However the Russian historian, Muhammad Dandamayev, calls these accounts out for being no more than a dramatic novelization of the event, rather than the Truth of how it has transpired. Despite a lack of actual account of Cyrus’s Death, it is clear that he was buried in the city of Pasargadae. This Fact will debunk the accounts of Herodotus, however, it is also speculated that the Body of Cyrus the Great could’ve been taken back from the Enemy and returned to Pasargadae for burial. American Scholar Richard Nelson Frye, calls Herodotus’s remarks Made up and Fake, but states that the Conquest of Middle Asia by Cyrus the Great is Truthful, since the farthest city in Scythia is called Cyropolis, which is named After Cyrus the Great and Proves his conquest of Scythia and Middle Asia. Ctesias also mentions in his Book, that Cambyses sent the Body of his father with Bagapates to Pasargadae to be Buried. And this account actually contradicts the whole story of the battle between Cyrus the Great and Tomyris. Because if Tomyris was successful in defeating and killing Cyrus the Great and beheading him, then how the Achaemenids were able to recover his body with a Defeated army that had “200000 casualties” as Herodotus described it, and then return it to their Capital ? Another account of Cyrus the Great’s Death by Hellenic Historians comes from Xenophon who contradicts the others and says in his book “Cyropaedia”, that Cyrus the Great is informed of his death in a dream in his sleep, and after saying his prayers and stating his will to his family, friends and his court, he passes away on his death bed due to natural causes.

And the Last account of Cyrus the Great’s Death is by Berossus who only states that Cyrus the Great was killed, fighting the Dahae tribe in the Northwest of the Headwaters of the Syr Darya.

In the recent Archaeological Discoveries, it is found out that in the 12th of August 530 B.C.E a Babylonian woman by the name of Borsippa, named one of her relatives a plot of land near the Ishtar Gate. The date of this clay tablet, written in Akkadian Cuneiform, showed “the Ninth year of Cyrus, The King of nations”. In the 31st of August of the same Year in the Capital of Babylon, a man sold his mule. The date of this tablet is related to “the beginning year of the Reign of Cambyses, King of Nations”. These 2 tablets may not appear significant at first glance, but in fact, they prove that Cyrus the Great had passed away in the time between 12th and 31th of August, 530 B.C.E or at least that is when the news of his passing and ascendency of Cambyses to the Throne had reached Babylon. this discovery, proves beyond doubt that the accounts of Herodotus and Ctesias are false and in fact the date alleged by those Hellenic historians as the date of Cyrus the Great’s death, is false. Which in turn proves that their accounts of Cyrus the Great’s Death is Fictional and are not historically accurate. Through the Accounts of multiple historians mentioned above and the discovery of the aforementioned tablets, two things can be confirmed: one is that the Conquest of Scythia had been a Success and had happened during the Time of Cyrus the Great since the City of Cyropolis had been founded by Cyrus the Great in 544 B.C.E and marked the end of the Scythia and Middle Asia; and two, the fact that Cyrus the Great had been killed in battle in the Years alleged by Hellenic Historians is a falsehood, since the alleged year of his death, reported by the said historians, does not match the Actual year of Cyrus the Great’s passing and the Ascendency of Cambyses to the Throne based on the years mentioned in the Tablets Founded by Archaeologists. Soldier of Ahura Mazda (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked indefinitely.


 * what's the source for "These 2 tablets may not appear significant at first glance, but in fact, they prove that Cyrus the Great had passed away in the time between 12th and 31th of August, 530 B.C.E or at least that is when the news of his passing and ascendency" - at the least we'd have to attribute that, not state it as fact. Ditto the two things that can be confirmed, who says that? Please read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. We really need secondary sources for most if not all of this.  Doug Weller  talk 14:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)