Talk:Cyrus the Great

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Achaemenid Cyrus The Great Stamp Cyrus Perspolis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Achaemenid Cyrus The Great Stamp Cyrus Perspolis.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:42, 12 December 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)