User talk:Doug Weller/Archive 5

Re: Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world
No problem at all, I am glad you gave the heads-up, as you are right that this is the kind of issue that can get out of control really fast. Complicating issues is that the article does have a number of legitimate problems: The tone is kindof WP:PEACOCKy, it is too long, it is poorly organized and poorly sourced (and many of the claims I find dubious). Those problems aren't unique to this article; a lot of the articles of the form List of Inventions by a Certain Type of Person have those same problems. For instance, Canadian inventions is completely unsourced, but of course it's not like Newsweek is running a front page article about the rift between the values of Canada and the rest of the world ;D

I'll give it a second look, particularly the comment you pointed out. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reviewed Oxyman42's edits, and given him a lengthy warning on his talk page. It appears he is the same as indef blocked User:Protest against islamic imposition, but that is already public knowledge (see this diff).  However, User:Slakr chose not to impose further sanctions at that time, so I will not report to WP:SSP.  He has a number of useful contribs in regards to the London transporation system, so I am not eager to see this user indef blocked -- but I would definitely hope he would stay away from articles relating to Islam, or at least tone it down some.  I'll keep an eye.  Thanks for the heads-up! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I'm found to be so noteworthyOxyman42 (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
Doug, Taiwanboi is calling for a vote on the 20th century scholarship section of the Noah's Ark article ([]). Your voice would be welcome. PiCo (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

COI at Sollog biography
You have been reported for possible COI at the Sollog biography. Go to WP:COIN to comment.Arnold1 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply about redirects
Sorry about the lack of edit summaries. Since some needed a slight wording tweak, or other misc stuff as I was removing the redirects, many of the edit summaries would have needed extra/different info. I figured it was obvious to anyone checking that I was just removing redirects, so I took the lazy option. I apologise :) All done now though. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. I just found a few more, so I'll tidy them with an edit summary since there are only a few. Take care. 58.165.171.92 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Davenport Tablets
Sorry that you oppose the source about the Davenport Relics so vehemently. Your opinion against this source as "Fringe" is simply unjustified and unscientific, despite the careful and complete research that the author did for this significant work. As a contribution to the understanding of the Davenport Tablets, it is unmatched. I have added the Source to the Wikipedia Article as a contribution to the group, despite your strange objections. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not being vehement to point out that Guthrie's article fails the criteria "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." You haven't been able to find any reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, all you can tell me is that it's been discussed by email, etc. That isn't bias, that is just fact, whereas your statement that 'it is unmatched' is clearly your personal opinion.  My objections are not strange, but the idea that this is a 'group' is simply wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You choose to ignore any and all materials including scholarly articles that are relavent that I have referenced. Your personal opinion about Guthries work failing to be a reliable source needs to be verified. As long as your going to run with the source not being reliable, what source did you use for that viewpoint? Once again, wikipedia Sources should present a neutral point of view. 207.193.87.114 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded on the talk page for the Davenport tablets. Wikipedia articles need all significant views from reliable sources, and there are guidelines about what is a reliable source. I'll add this there: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality reliable sources."

Re: post on my talk page
RE: reversion page. Thanks! I like it too. :) To answer your question, a lot of times, after a vandal is warned for the first time, it annoys them that Wikipedia is not as easy to mess around with as they thought. Not believing that it was possible for the good guys to revert them so fast, they go to another page, and, being too lazy to actually type out gibberish by banging on the keyboard like this:


 * asipht['asog'[ shtew[0ht]-u]NQ\R4=Q]V2U[U;OIUHTPWEHT[ VUEPH[v j[''OJ KGJ'goja 'gja'sjg'asjv asopr

they start clicking on the buttons above the edit window, like so:

''Italic text == -- J.delanoy gabs adds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[[Media:

Example.ogg
Insert text Small Text $$Insert non-formatted text here$$
 * 1) REDIRECT [[

]]]] == ''

(sorry, I've always wanted to have a good reason for doing that :D )

Re: Cahokia page You can use ref tags. Ref tags, simply make it so that any text between the tags appears in the list of references when or is used. I fixed one of your refs to (what I assume) is the correct format. Here is the diff so you can see what I did. Just be sure to include a bibliography near the reflist on the page so that people can find your books if they wanted to verify the article. Hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask again. J.delanoy gabs adds 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've never seen that format before. Let me look at it and see if I can figure out what is going on. J.delanoy gabs adds  18:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

New header cause something is broken above
I figured it out. Here is your problem. You accidentally included a ">" where it shouldn't have been. Don't feel too bad for doing that. One time, I was working on an XML document, and I spent the entire afternoon trying to figure out what I was doing wrong. I forgot a closing quotation mark. :D J.delanoy gabs adds  18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know exactly how you feel. I do that all. the. time. J.delanoy gabs adds  18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Worth Hamilton Weller
I note your recent addition of Worth Hamilton Weller to the list of prominent alumni of Walnut Hills High School and your listing him as having graduated in 1932. Have you good documentaiton of that? The reason I ask is that he is NOT listed in the 1932 Remembrancer (the school's yearbook) but is listed in the 1931 edition. This suggests that he actually graduated in 1931. Because of the connection between this alumni listing and your larger article on him, I am not changing the year before checking with you.

By the way, the photo you placed of him appears to be the photo taken for the yearbook. Pzavon (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the yearbook is correct, I don't know what I was thinking. Interesting about the photo. My dad (his brother) gave it to me. Thanks very much for pointing this out, I'll change it now. Doug Weller (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hadrian the head
Wait, did I add a note of thanks to the wrong editor's talkpage? If so, I'm a dunce. Anyway, it looks like someone else has already taken care of the image's talkpage on commons. Ford MF (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that editor had simply reverted some vandalism to my edit, which was the image one. They'll be confused. :-) Thanks for letting me know about the image's talkpage. Doug Weller (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neferneferuaten
Thanks Doug for the notification. The Neferneferuaten Tasherit comment was not referenced. I have now provided the exact reference for this claim by James P. Allen himself on page 15 of his paper on The Amarna Succession. Neferneferuaten Tasherit or (Neferneferuaten Junior) was the fourth daugher of Akhenaten and intriguingly has the exact same nomen as this female king: Neferneferuaten. I added the edit back to the Neferneferuaten article and provided the references in this edit: I also notified the anon IP on his/her talk page on the exact source for this suggestion. I hope this clarifies things. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes...there already was an existing article on Qaa. I'm suprised some people miss it. Leoboudv (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Walam Olum
Hi Doug. Your reasoning seems very sound on the direction the Walam Olum article should take. It's not a topic I am familiar with, which is why I haven't been contributing to the editing or talk page discussion. However, it appears clear that the scholarly consensus is that the account in no way represents a Delaware narrative, and that it is not a product of any Native culture, and that it is rather a blatant forgery. I'd say you (or any editor, really) should feel free to rewrite the article as needed to reflect this. Keep up the good work, by the way. ClovisPt (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Our" copyvio
When I see language like that I look for a copyvio - sure enough, it came from http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5646/. Thanks for pointing it out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re JBS editor
Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 12:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ping Dougweller.en.wikipedia.org Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Qaa
Thanks. I looked up Qaa and found nothing but a Lebanese village, of dubious location. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

reversion at Talk:John Birch Society
If you want to include subjective terms, create a subtitle of "Criticisms" of the John Birch Society and post your viewpoints there. --PubliusOhio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publiusohio (talk • contribs) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Dougweller!

I wanted to let you know that I recently reverted an edit you made on this page. Specifically, you altered a section heading Liberal smear and bias to Accusations of bias, that you did not create. While I fully agree that your edit is more neutral in tone, it may or may not reflect what the original editor wanted. If I may suggest, and you are inclined to keep the edit, contact the original author, and ask them to consider changing what they wrote. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nectanebo II
You are kindly invited to change the strange paragraph title 'Legendary father of Alexander the Great' in the article for Nectanebo II...if you know of something more appropriate? Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The Egyptians did believeAlexander was the son of Nectanebo.Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Two pages make an article
Since the article takes up two pages, it cannot factually be called a "page." Your sharply hostile POV is quite inappropriate. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't 'take up' two pages, it is a page long but that overlaps 2 pages as I understand it. And what you call my POV is a quote from a scholar, not me. Doug Weller (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, how about something like this:

Urrutia wrote a very short article (barely a page of content, plus a page of footnotes), in which he pointed out something that had escaped the notice of Egyptologists and Bible scholars alike: That Psalm 51 and the Egyptian Opening of the Mouth contain some common themes: 1) Opening of the mouth (or lips, in Psalms); 2) Healing of broken bones; 3)Washing of inward parts with purifying herbs.

Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC) The discovery (or idea) of these three themes in common between the Israeli and Egyptian texts is Urrutia's own, and does not come from Nibley. It would be unfair and misleading to create the impression that it does. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri
I'll have a look tomorrow, but I'll be away most of today. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Padan/Rajivlal
hey doug, I responded to his ANI here. I also tried to consolidate the discussion of his fringe theory in one place on the fringe theories noticeboard here (where User:Padan's activities were already being discussed). Jak68 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact reversions
I don't understand your problem regarding the changes I've made to the article in trying to clean up POV wording and using the new GM book concerning the 1434. I've sourced it and it has not been implied to be 100% correct per its location within the article. Since the article starts with the word "alleged" in the lead section, it's quite clear to me that the whole article is not considered fact. Technically, the whole article is a POV fork of Age of Discovery, and should not exist anyway. I'm acting under good faith here...I'm going to assume you are as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That didn't explain why you reverted. If you want me to put the secondary reference in there, I will.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Selective references
Thanks for noting the lack of English references. I responded to your comments with the history of the Russian reference and suggested you to restore the one or more in English. Perhaps you can also find those about dendrochronology. Jclerman (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTICE!
PLEASE READ EVERYTHING THOROUGHLY!!! I am amazed how hard this is becoming, or I think a lack of respect, and starting a edit wars is occuring, when you read all of my replies, and every letter of it, you will not have any doubts. Its so obvious I CAN BARELY FIND IT ANYWHERE, THE SCHOLARS JUST IMPLY IT! And Persian kings while THEY WERE ALIVE WERE CALLED BASILEUS READ THE BASILEUS ARTICLE UNDER USE IN CLASSICAL TIMES! Cyrus was called king of Media after his death, for babylon we have his accidently discovered tablet. For Lydia he was called its RULER, which can mean king, which in greek is basileus, and a babylonian tablet, which I referenced says he killed the king of lydia, and or the son died, even if Croesus lived, he was deported far away to became satrap, and his title as basileus WOULD AUTOMATICALLY PASS ON TO CYRUS, even with another Persian satrap of Lydia! I gave a detailed account with historical evidence, and if you read Cyrus's article and do a little research, what I say is commonly known, before your edits, no one told me I have to cite TITLES, for some reason Lydia is a problem? AGAIN WHAT ABOUT MEDIA, HISTORIANS SAY HE IS KING OF MEDIA, BUT THE HISTORIANS WHO SAID THIS LIVED less than HUNDRED YEARS AFTER HIM, and Xenophon and Ctesias had acces to the official Persian archives! According to YOU then, he is NOT KING OF MEDIA, there is no evidence at the time when he was alive, that he was called that. For Alexander the Great, the last half of the titles you see in his article were not referenced, and were talked about hundreds of years after his death. I'm giving you examples, sources in the talk page, and extra information. But you'll never understand. Please stop giving me the same to meet with Wikipedia's standards notice, its ridiculus for this subject, and people never read it all, notice I'm always saying READ EVERY WORD OF WHAT IS SAID IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE, AND BEFORE REVERTING MY EDITS, READ THE HISTORY SECTION OF THE CYRUS THE GREAT ARTICLE, now recap what I said, read it over, and I finally hope you can understand, F O R T H E  L A S T  T I M E!--Ariobarza (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

There is no reason for Cyrus not to have the title, all the evidence is in place, but no sources DENY IT, AND IT'S NOT ONLY MY OPINION, AS OTHER AUTHORS HAVE STUDIED THIS SUBJECT, AS SAID IN MY OWN BOOKS, but scholars are afraid to venture this far, because they are scared it might cause controversy. It actually helps it by implying he was ruler of Lydia in various books I cited in the talk page, I UPDATED IT READ IT AGAIN! Ariobarza (talk)


 * No sources deny it, and it's so obvious you can barely find it because the scholars don't say it, they imply it. That's your problem in a nutshell. You need to read WP:OR and {{WP:SYN]]. And please don't say 'other articles are bad' because that is definitely not a good argument. And while we are on the subject of sources, I hope you have stopped creating articles with no reliable sources. I've got some good sources for a couple of articles you've created that way, but I can't find any for your Battle of the Median Border -- there is no battle of that name I can find. So,I'll help where I can, but if between the two of us we can't find reliable sources, it'll have to go to AfD.  It's not as though other people have said the same thing to you. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

what is AfD?, does it mean I'm in big trouble, go to cyrus talk page, if you have not already, and read my most recent additions.--Ariobarza (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Arioabarza talk

Exopolitics
Thank you for your concern, but I don't think that people ranting on their blogs about Wikipedia is actionable here. We don't forbid criticism of us or our administrators. I deleted the self-promotional userpage, though.  Sandstein  05:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Revaluation
Well Doug, I am sorry if I gave you any pain during this weak, but sometimes I'm extremely busy, but at the same time want to make article that I CAN SOURCE, AND I HAVE THE SOURCES, but never get time to list them, I'm a little in a hurry most of the time, but should be okay in the next one-two weeks, so don't delete or change anything in that time. I humbly ask of you to keep this promise for me. But, just so you know I NEVER DISAGREED with taking the titles you put for Cyrus out, I mean the king of king, king of the four corners one. I am not sure why Amizzoni took it. But just know that I am modeling Cyrus' article after Alexanders, AGAIN even half of Alexanders titles are talked about hundereds of years after his death, its on no coin or anything. But from a historians stand put know that we construct history from very scant details left for us. And we hope everday that things that prove ours or ancient historians assertians are found to solve the greatest of mysteries, for example Cyrus' titles. But, at the moment please give me time to come up with more sources for the Lydia title. And please don't change the battles. thank you, goodbye!

YO
Hi again, thanks for your message, actually there is a fine book on ancient history that is on google books, and is based on the fragments of Nicolas of Damascus. First thing, Herodotus, though one of the best ancient historians, was a commener, and compared to Ctesias of Cnidas was a nobody. Ctesias as I think you might know, if you read my older comments on Cyrus' talk page was a personal physician to Artaxerxes. And Xenophon and Herodotus say that to know of Cyrus' less popular battles, the reader should read his. Ctesias had access to the official persian archives, that later historians of rome say that persians were good at keeping records like the babylonians. Anyways, if you read Ctesias persica his numbers and stories are a lot more REALISTIC in todays standards than Herodotus tales of large gold digging ants in India, and griffons in Scythia. Too bad only fragments remain, these reminders bring tears to historians knowing that we know only 10% of history! He wrote his Persica first then Phiotus and Nicolas copied and translated them in the Roman times. His Persica was written at the same time as Herodotus' Histories, so both are as valuable as each other. And Ctesias gives details to battles of Cyrus that Herodotus mentions Ctesias in his histories as the one to look to for Cyrus' other battles. Herodotus works were also translated and both accuse each other of pushing the truth or maybe copying wrong. But, even the death of cyrus is a combanation of Ctesias last versian of his fight and a fight with another Scythian tribe that he fought earlier, the similarities are astounding. SO, to know the truth and to cite, one must compare all sources. I am free to discuss two days from now, but please dont do anything JUST yet. So, for Gordium im not sure it was a siege, and again half of Alexanders titles there is only spoken evidence hundreds of years after his death. THE NEXT LINES ARE FOR EXPLANATIONS TO YOU, AND THEY ARE FROM WHAT I KNOW THAT I WILL CITE LATER, SO YOU KNOW NOW.

For battle of the median border, Nicolas says it was fought on the median-persian border on the mostly the median side, he mentions more than 20,000+? persians+even more persians, against the 20,000 gaurd of Astyages+100,000 other soldiers. ITs interesting as he explains and im not sure but he mentions they all rode around, RODE MEANS ON HORSES AND CHARIOTS thats why i included chariots, and in persian revolt originally there was 50,000 persian cavalry and 200,000 median cavalry that is why i put 120,000-200,000 median cavalry and just 50,000 for the persians as they chased each other around the town, So heavy casualties that Cyrus put and WON the first day, which is a TACTICAL VICTORY for the persians. And median STRATEGIC VICTORY for the medes that one on getting the area the second day, but it was not a total victory for the medes because they abandoned the area and still chased Cyrus, and Cambyses I got wounded and died after the battle!

For siege of pasargadae hill Ctesias through Nicolas says(and im only telling you this so you know for now, but later will cite verifiable sources when I have time 2 days to 2 weeks) so he says the persians were besieged (read the persian revolt, WHICH I WAS GOING TO CITE EACH SENTENCE BEFORE YOUR MAJOR EDIT TO IT) on a hill by a defile, and the hill was in junction of pasargadae, but DOES NOT SAY THE EXACT LOCATION WHICH ALSO BOTHERS ME AND FORCES ME JUST TO PUT PASARGADAE HILL. 100,000 medians go up against 10,000 persians, and are heavily killed as huge boulders of rock are hurled on them, and medians lose.

WHO KNOWS BUT IF THE MEDIAN ARMY WAS LARGE ENOUGH, WHICH IT WAS, IT COULD HAVE GOTTEN REPLENISHED IN EACH BATTLE! Next, the battle of pasargadae, he says 100,000 medians finally reach the hill, and a battle begins with 50,000 other median COMMONER MEN stationed to kill any medes that refuse to KEEP scaling the hill to defeat the persians, persians when mothers and children cry in shame, in desperation and courage, the persians drive the medes down the hill and slew 60,000 of them!(I KNOW IT ALMOST SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE LONG BATTLE, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS WHICH I WILL VERIFY SOON).

In herodotus its two battles that harpagus joins the persians in the first one, which i also included that is the only difference between the two accounts. Then Nicolas hints that a fifth battle occurs that Astyages is totally defeated, and handed over to the persians, and that is the Battle of the Pasargaedae Plain. because i thought they fought in a huge plain that STILL sorounds the pasargadae area in Fars or Pars province of Iran. For the dates I equally divide them up, and based on the babylonian tablet Cyrus revolts in summer of 553 BC and his first battle of campgain season is 552 BC and last battle is in 550 BC. So that is why I divided the dates. Siege of Ecbatana is said by Ctesias as Cyrus captures it by force and killS Amytis' husband Spitamas and others for hiding Astyages, so it was a tiny siege or a raid!

Mostly in two days time I will happily discuss any thing that we have to discuss and I MIGHT ask you some citing questions. Anyways thank you for reading such a long ass reply, and now that im getting to be less in a hurry. We can now start on the right foot, and act as gentlemen(talking about myself here). Im in my 20s and have lots of books on persia and other ancient and modern mysteries, and sciences and the arts. I like to play sports to that is why i barely get time to do anything on my sis computer because mines they are fixing still. I like to solve mysteries that is why i just want to get it over with. SO know you have a better picture of me and my interests here that I like contributing to Wikipedia! Thank you! Best of luck to you, and goodbye, for now!--Ariobarza (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

reply
Hi, for gordium it has to do with alexander so im not that worried, so look at the recent changes i did to Siege of Ecbatana, and, based on the sources i know, i can put allot of info, even for a small battle or siege, there is allot of info out there, but as you know i just need to source it, bye for now.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

reply
Thanks for the note about Filquarian. Interesting stuff! I think the article should have a "see also" for Jimmy Wales' publishing venture, but I can't think of the name of that right now... -Pete (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians
An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Know-it-all book
Hi Doug, good observation. Your conclusions are right: I wrote that stuff after getting my MA degree, and I have to admit that I made some major changes but they were all my words. The publisher must have taken their text from Wikipedia fairly soon after I made those edits. I guess that means... I'm a partially published author? brandon cohen (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kashmiri people
I absolutely agree. There needs to be a well-sourced lead with consistent and concise information. However, the sources that the anonymous editor we've been contending with cited were laughable. Hopefully an expert on the subject will show up soon :).

TheSuave (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

At least it must count as something, a raid maybe?
Where do you get a source for Ctesias saying it was taken by force?(Force is suggested by me as explain the tone of Ctesias) It sounds more like he used blackmail. As I've said, this belongs in the Ecbatana and Persion revolt articles, not as a separate article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read this!
As the creator of this article, I have gathered information from this page and from other notable sources which is presented here. This user is also open to the idea of renaming it as RAID or CAPTURE, raid might be better. And from the Babylonian tablets pertaining to Ecbatana, notice it says the words MARCHED AGAINST, SEIZED, CAPTURED, TOOK. Babylonians, because they have an archaic language, and middle English is used for most translations, never use the words Siege of Ecbatana, they use seize though, as SEIZE in military terms basically means SIEGE. Ctesias says he took it, and by force as provided by this user, simply means Cyrus must have gone to some length to successfully control the city. When Ctesias says it, he may have meant the inner walls, and this is not speculation, as Ecbatana has inner walls to the main city, just like Babylon, it was multilayered. Now, he had threatened to kill the daughter, because he could not find Astyages, and Spitamas lied or gave Astyages up, as one may know, Spitamas was a Median noblemen married to Amytis, the daughter of Astyages. So Cyrus executed Spitamas and others. And on the Persian side it is unknown how many died in this minor siege, if not a RAID. But, this might not have been a siege parse, more like a raid, which there WAS CASUALTIES, by very, very few in number, maybe only a couple of people. So as most historians say Ecbatana was not besieged, they are only referring to Herodotus' version of events, so the best I can give this article PERSONALLY is a RAID, but the ONLY reason I call it a siege is for it to have a normal title. Ecbatana is similar to Siege of the Sogdian Rock, in Alexander’s battles, Alexander had 300 men, and only lost 30 men on the climbing, and the city was BARELY besieged, it immediately surrendered, almost like Ecbatana, but its still called a SIEGE! Please someone explain it to me, as you know I model the Cyrus articles on Alexander’s, because Alexander’s article is much more complete than Cyrus'. Anyways, if one checks out Alexander’s siege, they will see what I mean. For now, please read these three sources and more sources are to come.

[[[1. http://www.lastgen.net/articles/biblecharacter-cyrus.html Excerpt: Unable to carry out the inhuman act, Harpugus secretly turns the child over to a Persian herdsman and his wife. And the boy, Cyrus, grows from a helpless infant into a fearless hunter. Gaining the confidence and respect of all Persia, he leads a revolt and storms the city of Ecbatana.

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=0c_fbw5RaCkC&pg=PA591&lpg=PA591&dq=cyrus+siege+of+ecbatana&source=web&ots=jl83Cbq_Co&sig=DCDnVkg-TcBB8c5tYEXfXBEurnI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result Excerpt: Says on page 591, Cyrus had to take Ecbatana to be called the ‘Great King’.

3. http://www.parstimes.com/library/brief_history_of_persian_empire.html Excerpt: Faced with the Persian revolt and the betrayal of the aristocracy, Astyages was captured, and the royal city of Ecbatana had to SUBMIT to Cyrus, according to Ctesias because Cyrus threatened to torture his daughter Amytis, whom Cyrus later married.]]]

Now these are common sense comments from most users that responded on this page;

Keep. Very weakly. This is an ancient battle for which sources are sparse, but it appears to be at least alluded to in the Chronicle of Nabonidus. The text of Nabonidus says “Cyrus marched against the country Ecbatana; the royal residence he seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Ecbatana he took as booty and brought to Anšan." *Comment - WE HAVE A SHORT ARTICLE Ecbatana, WHICH DESCRIBES IT AS A WALLED CITY WHICH Cyrus the Great TOOK AND PLUNDERED. From what is stated above, it seems we have no details as to how he took it - whether by siege, storm, or plain surrender. (ACTUALLY, BASED ON SOURCES, STORMING AND SURRENDERING TOOK PLACE), accordingly, there is little known fact to write an article about. Accordingly, redirect to Ecbatana. Alternatively substitute "Capture of Ecbatana" for "Siege of Ecbatana" in the template and then delete. Certainly there is no place for this to survive as an article, though the campaign leading to its capture does legitimately appear in the Cyrus template, which is all we have on the page at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)*Comment So far I have not found any specific reference to a siege there, but I am still looking. Though some of the potential sources are online, I'd be happier with a proper print search, but that will have to wait for next week. The name seems to have been used for the city, the country around the site, and the palace. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Keep. It is small but as was said above, it is about an ancient battle that does have few sources out there. It can be expanded as more becomes available. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 Merge. To Ecbatana with use of Capture instead of Siege. Britannica mentions the fall of Ecbatana to the Persians (Cyrus) and Herodotus mentions the city surrounded by 7 walls. The idea of the city being sieged is PlAUSIBLE, however, the article is just too weak in its current format to justify anything more than a mention in Ecbatana. I'm somewhat partial to a rename to Capture of Ecbatana as mentioned above, but at this point without more sources and info I think this stub would find a nice home a section within Ecbatana, particularly because that article could use some expansion as well. Expand Siege/Capture article at a later point if required or general Ecbatana info becomes too cumbersome. Just keep it altogether at the moment. Interesting one though! Note for researchers, don't forget this city carries several names: the modern "Hamadan" and the Old Persian, "Hâgmatâna" ("meeting place"), so more may be found there. Ecbatana is the original name. Trippz (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because sources are so sparse, and everyone copies each other, a mere imply or suggestion by the ancient historians must be taken somewhat seriously, and currently there are 7/11 replies that are in favor of either keeping or renaming the Siege of Ecbatana!.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Siege_of_Ecbatana"

And for the date, its an excerpt from the Ecbatana article, {Ecbatana (Old Persian: Haŋgmatana, written Agbatana in Aeschylus, Agámtanu by Nabonidos, and Agamatanu at Behistun) (literally: the place of gathering) is supposed to be the capital of Astyages (Istuvegü), which was taken by the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great in the sixth year of Nabonidos (549 BC).}

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siege_of_Ecbatana"