Talk:Cyrus Cylinder

Loaned to Iran

I wonder if, once the page is unprotected, the sentence 'According to a recent report, directors of British Museum and National Museum of Iran in Tehran have reached an agreement whereby the Cyrus Cylinder will be displayed in National Museum of Iran.' could be reworded? Apart from needing a few basic grammar tweaks, and some clarification as to when this 'recent report' was (there have been stories about the cylinder being loaned to Iran circulating since 2004), the 'displayed' bit could do with being clarified. Is the cylinder being returned (seems unlikely given that the museum is legally prohibited from doing so (viz the Elgin Marbles controversy) or merely loaned, and if the latter, is this actually the case, since all of the sources are Iranian based, and there hasn't been any mention of this in any other sources, nor any announcements by the British Museum, etc. Benea (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow up, I've had a reply from the British Museum. They have been working on negotiations to loan it for a second time (the first was in 1971) for a special exhibition, but so far nothing has been finalised. The reports in the Iranian news agencies are probably somewhat influenced by patriotic bluster about 'returning' (the British Museum is prohibited by law from actually returning items) the cylinder. This could probably do with being clarified in the article, and a more neutrally worded statement about the two museums working on trying to arrange a loan for a special exhibition, since these reports have been around for the last four or five years. Benea (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Critics of the second theory

The second theory, against the cylinder as a human rights document, indeed is criticized. The objection against providing readers with one paragraph on critics of the second is baseless. I don't think that that the second theory is such a perfect theory that we can't mention anything against it.--Larno Man (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to old version

I reverted this awful, new version to the one of the locked article. The change wasn't approved. The old version begins to look much better, at least in comparison. 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You come back after one month and another disruptive mass-revert. You cant revert because you do not like one view. NPOV means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. Do you want to censor the critics of the your loved views just because you don't like them.--Larno (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Where were you? You failed to discuss and just come back and do your disruptive mass-revert and your slurs with racial contents. This is not the way of making consensus. State your concerns clearly and be specific. Which part should be imprioved? What sentences? Which reference? Why? What is your suggestion. You get nowhere by general remarks such as I do not like it, it is awful, you are nationalist. --Larno (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting too much. There was no failure to discuss, but simple persistence from a couple of editors. Even the locked version wasn't agreed upon so you decided to edit it into your awful, preferred one (that makes perfect sense). We've been through all this, the arguments are up there. 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I did the last edits(prior to your major revertion), if you'd care to check. I found the article difficult to read, so I improved the wording. Take Dbachmann's advice and get over your nationalistic agenda. Kansas Bear (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person you're addressing. I asked Dbachmann to take a look. 3rdAlcove (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

guys, you need to try to improve the article. If you just keep insisting on a fixed version, the problem won't go away. There are huge issues with this article that neither of you even bothers to address. I've tried to refactor it into something a little more presentable. My main points are

• discuss the actual cylinder first, and various interpretation, or its role in popular culture etc. at the end of the article
• the full quote of the translation of the text is excessive, and probably even problematic in terms of copyright.
• we don't need six consecutive footnotes establishing that the thing has been dubbed "the world's first declaration of human rights". Especially if half of them are rather dubious. Just keep the best one or two references and dump the others
• this isn't a pissing context, or a matter of national pride. We are discussing an Iron Age document. As such this is a matter of ancient history and has nothing whatsoever to do with current nations, states or politics.

--dab (𒁳) 12:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ok, sigh, you've been edit-warring all this time, and you still failed to make clear what this is all about? Namely, a complete recentism of two newspaper articles reporting on the 1971 Pahlavi propaganda stunt, and redneck Iranian nationalists writing angry retorts? This is such a recentism, a brief online flareup of patriotic sentiment with notability confined exclusively to Iranian blogs in July 2008. Can we please put this to rest now? Or perhaps you want to go over to Talk:300 (film) to vent some more patriotic spleen? (no, that has ceased to be interesting after if fell out of the blogs about four months ago, hasn't it) --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are really looking for a constructive discussion you should get over your western centric mindset as well. Maybe it is not intentional but do you notice that you guys become soft to everything Greek and many people here even can't hide their satisfaction when they hear something against east and they should stand and applaud. --Larno (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, once again, the section you keep re-adding is WP:SYNTH. The statement "The second group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements." comes from here, but even then indirectly. As long as no source makes such statements, you can't synthesize elements to make one, yourself. The last sentence "Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human rights are so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that it can't have Eastern roots" is not even specifically about the Cylinder. You just took a random book that has Eurocentrism as its general thesis. And so on, and so on. Nice argument, by the way; so much for "racial(sic) slurs". 3rdAlcove (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement "The second group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements." is not WP:SYNTH. It is clearly discussed by Cyrus Kar and Farrokh [[1]].

The last sentence "Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human rights are so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that it can't have Eastern roots" is the direct answer to this sentence on the 2nd paragraph "The concept of "human rights" is an anachronism alien to the historical context of the Iron Age"--Larno (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, you obviously have no idea what "human rights" even are. They are different from the concept of just being nice to people, or of pleasing the gods by being righteous, which are concepts indeed as old as the hills, and which is what Cyrus presents himself as doing. I will thank you to stop this childish campaign now. If the Spiegel isn't an appropriate source for this, then online "refutations" of the Spiegel article sure as hell aren't. This is a non-issue. --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many human rights activists including peace Noble prize winners consider the Cylinder a human rights documents. Or you mean all those people in UN who accepted to exhibit the cylinder as a human rights documents had no idea about human rights. By your rational Athen wasn't the first democratic state in the history as well. Obviously it was far from what we expect from a democracy. You look at the issue from the the perspective of a 21st century man.--Larno (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You clearly suffer from Occidentalism. I find it funny that you should accuse me of an anachronistic viewpoint. I haven't even mentioned Athens, so you are clearly arguing at some sort of stereotype "Western-centrist" in your head instead of talking to me. We get it, you like Iran. Is there anything pertinent you have to say though? dab (𒁳) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. If the information has sources, why is everyone so bent out of shape? It's quite apparent that the Cylinder is a topic of dispute in the international academic community. Shouldn't we show both sides of the dispute and leave it up to the reader(s) to decide? Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not occidentalist. This is a personal attack and reportable to admins. That is not the matter of patriotism. Both views on the Cylinder are provided and material are sourced but you want to push your favorit theory and can't stand any any other view.--Larno (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And you said that I have the stereotype "Western-centrist" in my head instead of talking to you. Could you tell me how you are discussing your points? Did you argue any specific sentence or one specific part and tell me why it is wrong? You just use general words like: It is obviously wrong, you are nationalist..... Oh, wait! Wait! You did! You came out of the blue and angrily called me nationalist [[2]] and called my draft an obvious crap without addressing to any specific sentence!--Larno (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

and yes you mass-revert my sourced entries for couple of times!

Disruptive mass-reverting

Thank you for showing me the civil way of discussion. You only agued two sentences and revert all of my edits. This is really disruptive. Do you think that we get anywhere by this type of behavior? Could you please stay Civil? How many times you should get blocked for incivility?--Larno (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Really funny:! This is your comment on Dab talkpage. "The problem is that some people either don't get it or simply don't want to. Discussion, and even compromise, mean nothing." Could you tell me how many times you discussed your points before vandalizing, edit warring and reverting the page. --Larno (talk) 02:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Larno, please drop it. So the Spiegel and the Daily Telegraph insulted Cyrus and in his person the nation of Iran in July 2008. Get over it. This is the article on the cyrus cylinder. Discuss the Iron Age, and keep out the childish modern day patriotism. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not about those neo-con and right wing writers. Their political views don't matter on a historical issue. I simply want NPOV. Different views should be addressed here. lol, I am sure if the cylinder was a Greek documents your view was 180 degree different. The lead that you wrote was simply OR. Sack of Babylon?

As I am human and prone to mistakes, I might be wrong, however I see the flag of Greece waving in Olympic games which supposedly should lead nations towards friendship and non-racism. Seems so much for the Ancient Olympic Games in which only free Greek-speaking men could participate! When we review the history of women's suffrage, it can be found that even in 1959, the majority of men in a western country were against it, while in a part of the history of the East, women could "vote" nearly 1300 years before that. Okay, we might not call that "vote" as you call Cyrus's conduct being only "nice to people". However I think none were just being nice. They were more than that, because you could not find nearly the same behavior in the contemporary times and sometimes down to modern times. It seems to me there are serious issues about this article that should be resolved before talking about Wikipedia rules of sources and alike. It seems we should wash our eyes a little. For example, 300 was not just a "Film" as some like to call it, it was more than that (Please note that I am not daft to mistake "Film" with "non-Film"). Look at this for example [3]: there is a quote cited from here: [4]. To my surprise the former doesn't have the bracket: "[Cyrus or Nabonidus?]", but the latter has. Based on the quote, some Wikipedians have been enthusiastic enough to attribute the massacre to Cyrus! Remembers me the Spiegel author and others who live in the aura of the wrong translation of "Nabonidus Chronicle". I haven't edited the quote so that others could see for themselves what is happening. As you might call this talk of mine as irrelevant here, I think even "Nabonidus Chronicle" is not off-topic regarding the before-mentioned "serious issues" of Western-centrism which is circulating here about Cyrus Cylinder.--Raayen (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

what, pray, about the "sack of Babylon" do you propose is OR?

Sigh, so the patriots have taken over. Have fun, I'll be back and clean up the mess in a couple of months. Raayen, your defense of "the East" has some merit (although hardly in points of personal liberty), but the point is that this isn't the place for it. This is the article on the Cyrus cylinder, not for your views on the East/West paradigm in general. FOr the record, your allegations of "Western-centrism" are ideological nonsense. Your claim of "women's suffrage" in the "East" makes about as much sense as calling the "Cyrus cylinder" a "human rights charter". Please be reasonable.

dab (𒁳) 15:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why you insist to push your favorit view? It is not the place of Wikipedia's contributors to decide on behalf of readers which opinions are right and which ones are wrong. Two different views are addressed and sourced? Why you don't let reader read and decide?--Larno (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

see WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is supposed to summarise the main body text of the article (see WP:LEAD). It's not viable to have an article that spends a lot of time on interpretation and not mention that in the intro. It certainly isn't acceptable to remove all mainstream interpretations from the intro and leave only the dubious "human rights" stuff. If you don't like the summary that I've written, please modify it - don't delete it. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your efforts, Chris. The "human rights" thing is still blown out of proportion. The article shoud just state, the Shah presented the copy to the UN in 1971, associating it with "human rights". The applicability of this term has been questioned. Period. This could be done in three or four lines. Allowing this to be expanded into a lengthy paragraph is a concession to our Iranian patriot zealots, nothing else. This article deals with the ancient artifact, all present-day political noise belongs removed to Iranian nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be polite and Assume good faith ! I don't think such sayings as "Iranian patriot zealots" is under the Wikipedia's roles . Thank you !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to point out that there is a huge difference between "civility" and "politeness". Confusion of the two, and of "friendliness", "meekness", "political correctness" etc. keep making WP:CIV the most misapplied policy on the project. If you have followed a few Iran-related disputes, you will realize that Iranian patriot zealots is an accurate description of a part of Wikipedia's editor demographics. Through no fault of mine or yours, that's just how it is. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, indeed, but it's interesting to see how an ancient work of propaganda has been reused for modern propaganda purposes. As Neil MacGregor has pointed out, it's a bit ironic that the Shah promoted the cylinder as a human rights text when his own human rights record was not exactly exemplary. I might look at rewriting the "human rights" section to get the size down a bit, as some of it seems to be repeating statements made earlier in the article. I'm sure we can make the same points with fewer words. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section as promised but ironically it's actually ended up being a bit longer than before. The story behind the "human rights" claim turns out to be rather interesting - not simply a random nationalist trope but part of a systematic campaign by the government of the former shah. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, the article has indeed made progress since you intervened. There are still a lot of scare quotes, and quoting Farrokh is propably undue, but at least the section can now be read without cringing or eye-rolling. Now, I guess it would be proper to export a detailed discussion of the Pahlavi "nation building" campaign to Iranian nationalism, and keep only a brief summary and a wikilink in this article. The rationale being, it has become clear that the Cyrus cylinder has some relevance to the topic of Iranian nationalism, but this does not imply that Iranian nationalism has any relevance to the topic of the Cyrus cylinder. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all the scare quotes I could find in that section - anything that's left in quotes is a direct quotation. Regarding moving that section, Iranian nationalism is in very poor shape and isn't really in any fit state to migrate content into. I'd suggest overhauling that article first, then migrating content. If this section was migrated at the moment, it would be marooned without any context. I'm also not sure it's fair to say that "Iranian nationalism has [no] relevance to the topic of the Cyrus cylinder". The Times describes the cylinder as being, symbolically, to Iran what the Elgin Marbles are to Greece - there is of course a lengthy discussion in Elgin Marbles of the repatriation controversy, which has a great deal to do with Greek nationalism. It seems reasonable to have a section in this article describing the cylinder's contemporary significance, particularly as this has a major bearing on how the inscription has been interpreted. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags

This page is beginning to read like one big political editorial/essay intended to prove a thesis. Instead of NPOV, we've gone from one extreme to the other. The article full of quotes and one-liners, which appear to have been hand-picked to advance a certain point of view. We have to remember that history is subjective, one cannot look at things in terms of black and white, some things are in grey. I'll be working on this page tomorrow. Khoikhoi 04:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I certainly haven't been trying to advance any POV, nor have I been cherry-picking anything. I've done a systematic survey of the relevant literature (though not yet journals, since I don't have JSTOR access at home - I'll try to do that this weekend). Very few sources even mention the "human rights charter" POV, and those that do generally dismiss it. The few sources that do support it are very fringey (e.g. "Mysteries and Secrets of the Masons: The Story Behind the Masonic Order", which argues that Cyrus was a Freemason and the cylinder was a masonic emblem - needless to say, this is nuts). The vast majority describe the cylinder in a political context, specifically relating it to a policy of obtaining support from his newly acquired subjects. Since that is the mainstream modern interpretation, that is essentially what we have to focus on. As I said to CreazySuit earlier, Wikipedia editors shouldn't seek to downplay or dismiss the mainstream academic view because they have personal POV disagreements with it - NPOV requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". I would caution you against deleting or changing material based on your own POV, rather than what the sources actually say. If you have issues about particular aspects of the article, please raise them here and we'll work through them together. Please don't just jump into the article and start deleting material. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits like this are unacceptable WP:POINT. ChrisO has been doing a good job. At least familiarize yourself with the debate first. This is all about a minor online fad dating to July 2008. It is unacceptable to have some non-issue like that hold an otherwise good article hostage. Place a messagebox in the "human rights" section if you must, but leave it at that. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Khoikhoi. The page has been turned an essay with a thesis. This is an Encyclopedia, not a journal. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What specific concerns do you and Khoikhoi have? Rhetoric and covering the article with tags doesn't help anyone. Let's have some specific issues, please. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what concerns me, to start, are the last two paragraphs in the Cyrus cylinder#As an instrument of royal propaganda section. Do the sources used actually mention the cylinder? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do, extensively. Why do those paragraphs concern you? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they appeared to be more about portraying Cyrus in a negative light than about the cylinder itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Negative"? I don't see that. One of the biggest mistakes you can make in writing history is to judge the past - especially the distant past - by the standards of the present. People who lived only a few hundred years ago had a totally different moral, philosophical and cultural outlook to that which we have today. How much more different were the people of 2,500 years ago? Things that you might see as "negative" by modern standards, like the Roman practice of massacring the inhabitants of cities that resisted them, were seen as entirely reasonable and normal back then. We have to describe things as the experts believe they were, not make our own anachronistic value judgments along the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, which is what concerns me about your edits to this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What are written on the "Interpretation" section are really "construals". There is no way to find out Cyrus's intentions. The sources' seeming assertions like "Cyrus's conciliatory treatment was because of the interests of the whole empire" seems to be just speculations. Whether he was politic or benevolent or both, we don't know. What we know is that he didn't tread on the path of many previous rulers. He didn't chose destruction and/or massacre as Alexander and Genghis Khan did. Didn't they have significant strategic locations within their empires like Cyrus?! Your stress on presenting only one view has led to something like a conspiracy partaken by ancient texts, the Old Testament and other religious text, Herodotus, Xenophon and others. Propaganda are not always biased, why not saying some of them maybe proudness? Please note that I am not stating what you've added are OR (like "Dbachmann" thought so, above), however your really nice arrangements reaches to "a" view. I think other views should also be included with more weight than the present version. The Previous version by Lanro Man included all views..... BTW, why not makeing the "Old Testament" section a sub-section of "Propaganda"?! It seems Bible was included in Cyrus's propaganda machine according to Dandamaev and Vogelsang, page 53. Somebody here already said that "This has been answered a million times. No, Cyrus' character is quite off-topic here", but now you have included something about Cyrus's conduct at the end of the forth paragraph in "human rights" section based on "almost all the texts" whereas there were Criticisms that mentioning Nabonidus Chronicle was not pertinent. The word "but" and ending the paragraph with the sentence of Dandamaev is yours, making your view a fact by attaching two sources. You wanted to say that Cyrus wasn't necessarily a humane ruler, but your arrangement dosn't help it. The same Dandamaev says in the same book, page 54: {quote:within this context it is necessary to emphasize that, while Cyrus trod in the footsteps of ancient Babylonian traditions, his policy towards subjugated nations in some aspect differed from that of Assyrian and Babylonian rulers.} At last, Cyrus's character is off-topic here or not?! Why all authors are global, but Farrokh is Iranian?! What do you mean by "Iran" in "The Cyrus cylinder is considered by Iran to be the first declaration of human rights"?--Raayen (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, you make a number of points here; let's break them down:

1) Yes, obviously we can't "know" what was in Cyrus's mind, but it's not random speculation - it's an informed assessment by experts on the period, based on what we know of the political situation of the time.

2) There's no "conspiracy partaken by ancient texts". What many of the modern sources say is that ancient sources are coloured by Cyrus's successful propaganda.

3) I think it's worth treating the Bible's relationship with the cylinder separately as (a) it's such a massive topic in itself and (b) it allows us to spin the section out into Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

4) What do I mean by "Iran"? I mean the country between Iraq and Afghanistan... Seriously though, that's what the source says - check it for yourself. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Khoikhoi, and others here, that the article "reads like one big political editorial/essay intended to prove a thesis" (in particular the 'propaganda' section) and that the tags are appropriate. I agree with Raayen's points above as well. It has long been accepted history that Cyrus was an "enlightened" leader, "above the common level of warrior kings" and that "Cyrus gave Near Eastern peoples and their cultures his respect, toleration, and protection." [John P. McKay, et al A History of Western Society Third Edition Volume 1: From Antiquity to the Enlightenment Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1987] In fact, when the cylinder was first found it was 'widely accepted (and still is) that it supported the many [23] references to Cyrus made in the OT. There is little in this article that reflects this mainstream view. Still, despite the fact there is little to no new information, there seems to be no paucity of new theories.

Specifically, while the cylinder may well be in the tradition of the Babylonians and Mesopotamians, it is only theoretical that Cyrus "co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon." The reference to the cylinder as a "declaration of his own righteousness" doesn't appear to be supported by the references given. (one calls it a "declaration of reform") Comments such as: "The author of the cylinder is somewhat economical with the truth in describing the immediate circumstances of Cyrus's entry into Babylon," followed by this: "While this was technically accurate ..." strikes me as more (negative) editorializing. This: "Julye Bidmead also notes that "the [Persian] propaganda regarding Nabonidus' rule is extensive" and the cylinder's claims about his record are not supported by many of the known facts. - more editorializing. This statement: However, it is unclear how much actually changed on the ground; there is no archaeological evidence for any rebuilding or repairing of Mesopotamian temples during Cyrus' reign. - doesn't appear to be supported by the source quoted, which can be found here: [5].

After the 70's new wave of historical thinking surfaced that looked with a jaundiced eye on "pro-Persian" versions of history, such as that championed by the Shah of Iran. Reinterpretation of history goes on all the time, but one needs to be careful of new versions of history influenced by contemporary politics and not by new discoveries. While some may consider it a stretch to say that Cyrus wrote a "charter of human rights," certainly this negative interpretation of the cylinder as sheer empty boasting by a tyrant is a stretch as well. It has long been accepted by scholars that much in the OT is valid history, and there is no reason to denigrate it as fantasy, even if historians can be found that do so. It can certainly be mentioned that there are respectable historians who consider Cyrus a boasting typical do-nothing tyrant, but I believe we need to be careful not to give it undue weight as seems to be the case here. --Tundrabuggy (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your comments are once again an example of projecting the values of the present onto the past, plus your own personal views rather than what the sources actually say. I don't think anyone is arguing that Cyrus was "a boasting typical do-nothing tyrant" or that the cylinder was "sheer empty boasting by a tyrant" - that's your personal interpretation, it isn't what the sources say and it certainly isn't what the article says. We can't say that "there are respectable historians who consider Cyrus a boasting typical do-nothing tyrant" because that's not what any of them are saying.

It isn't "theoretical" that Cyrus "co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon" - let's not forget that he was a follower of Ahura Mazda, not Marduk, so he was very clearly adopting Babylonian rather than Persian symbols in the cylinder, as the sources note. (If the OT is accurate, he did the same thing with the Jews and Yahweh.) The bit you describe as "negative editorializing" is a direct paraphrase from the cited source - I've tried not to turn it into a quotefarm. It's inaccurate to claim that "no new information" has been found. What has happened in recent years is that researchers have compared the cylinder to other comparable examples and have found that there are numerous other cylinders from Babylonian rulers which are very similar to the Cyrus cylinder. As Walker has said, the cylinder isn't sui generis. When you say "some may consider it a stretch to say that Cyrus wrote a "charter of human rights," the fact is that hardly any modern historians appear to support that POV. The few that even mention it do so only to dismiss it. It would be undue weight to present it as anything other than a minority viewpoint among modern historians. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Projecting the values of the present onto the past" is exactly the point I was making regarding some of the contemporary historians quoted here whose interpretations seem to be a reaction to Iran today. Many of the articles quoted here that support this "negative" view of Cyrus and actually do refer to Pahlavi and contemporary Iran at some point.

I agree with you that the if one reads the sources carefully, (and I have only read a few) they do not say that Cyrus was "a boasting typical do-nothing tyrant," though I believe that Amélie Kuhrt can be read that way, and she is quoted fully eight times. It is the article itself that reads that way, and if that is not what we are trying to achieve, then we need to revise it.

To your point that it isn't "theoretical" that Cyrus "co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon," the actual quote is here: "By publishing such a document, Cyrus cannily manipulates local traditions to legitimate his claim to Babylon; he is doing what a good and pious Babylonian ruler (in contrast to bad Nabonidus the blasphemer) was expected to do" -- not meaning to nit-pick but I do think that there is an implication in "co-opt" that is not necessarily found in "manipulates" and ditto for "control" vrs "claim." As your source points out, he is doing what the locals expect of him as a good and pious ruler, nothing less.

Finally, I am not sure what exactly you are saying is a minority viewpoint, but it is still the mainstream view that Cyrus was an enlightened leader who "gave Near Eastern peoples and their cultures his respect, toleration, and protection." My "Western Civ" book above says "Cyrus's conquest of the Medes resulted not in slavery and slaughter, but in the union of Iranian people. (pg. 54) "Cyrus won the hearts of the Babylonians with toleration of and adherence to Babylonian religion, humane treatment, and support of the efforts to refurbish their capital." "Cyrus's benevolent policy created a Persian Empire in which the cultures and religions of its members were respected and honored. " (pg. 56) This mainstream view gets a very short shrift in this article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is the obvious issue; minority views which put Cyrus in a bad light are emphasized, whereas the standard view is minimized. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

And again, that's a combination of your personal POV and a misreading of the article. There is a long-standing portrayal of Cyrus from ancient sources (Xenophon, Herodotus, the Book of Ezra etc) as an enlightened ruler. However, what we're talking about here is specifically the interpretation of the Cyrus cylinder. What's emerged in the last 20 years or so as a result of the work done at the British Museum and elsewhere is that the cylinder is not in any way a unique artifact but is simply a fairly standard example of a foundation deposit, of a form and using themes that were centuries old in Cyrus's time. Perhaps more importantly, the cylinder is an example from Cyrus's own time of how he wanted to portray himself - we know from the cylinder that he explicitly wanted to be seen as an enlightened ruler, which sheds a new light on why later sources make the same claim. Now, that doesn't mean that Cyrus was a "boasting tyrant" as Tundrabuggy has put it. It simply means that we have to interpret those sources in the light of the fact, illustrated by the cylinder, that Cyrus wanted to depict himself in a particular way. You're making the mistake of seeing any view which doesn't match the traditional ancient portrayal of Cyrus as being somehow "putting him in a bad light." I have to say I think that's your own perspective. I'm simply going by what the sources say about the cylinder, and the article reflects the modern mainstream interpretation of the cylinder. It's not in any way a "minority view". The view that the cylinder is a "human rights charter" on the other hand is very definitely a minority POV - it has negligible support in the academic literature that I've read. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a list of the academic literature you've read? Kansas Bear (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See the list of sources in the article for a partial list. Believe me, there's more that could be added, but I don't see the point of quoting half a dozen sources for every statement made in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear ChrisO, let me try to comment on the points you have arisen after my comment above.

1-The other view is not also a random speculation. Of course we may talk about their degree of randomness, but seems a waste of time.

2-OK. You think they has been colored and that, not a conspiracy.

3-OK. But we can mention that the Bible caught in Cyrus's propaganda trap!!

4-So by "Iran" you mean present Iran. The source doesn't read that! On the other hand that is a blunder and one reason some people are beating a dead horse. Most Iranians are not aware of Cyrus Cylinder. The government of Iran has been really considering nearly all kings as despots. I would not be surprised if I'd hear that some of them are happy with the Spiegel article! Specially they dislike pre-Islamic Iran to a nearly great extent. In the recent years the situation has changed a little, but not so much. After the victory of Islamic revolution "attempts were made to marginalize not only Iran's pre-Islamic past but also the cultural production from the Islamic era that did not conform to new Islamic requirements".[6]. I also believe that the Cylinder is absolutely not a charter, but has an importance for human rights.

-The sources say because Israel and Babylonia were tactical, Cyrus acted strategically. Is there any evidence that Cyrus massacred or destructed in non-strategic parts of the empire? There is an evidence that Sargon II did, here: "I conquered all 430 towns in 7 districts belonging to the Urartian Ursa and I laid waste to his land." [7]. However this source reads "Cyrus II continued to subdue all of the Asia minor. He permitted religious freedom among his subjects and levied reasonable taxes." [8] Was Asia minor strategic too!? The present version reads: "Nabonidus seems to have been deeply unpopular with the Babylonian priestly elite for his northern ancestry, his introduction of foreign gods and his self-imposed exile which was said to have prevented the celebration of the vital New Year festival". For the case of "foreign gods" the following source is reading "However, how much hostility Nabonidus's devotion to Sin aroused cannot be gauged: The texts claiming this postdate his fall and may have been Persian propaganda." [9] So the former source says that Nabonidus introduction of foreign gods became a tool for Cyrus to overthrow him, but the latter reads that Nabonidus's devotion to the foreign god might be a Persian propaganda! The latter source continues with an alternative view which is more near to the former source. You see there are different views. We see expressions like "seems to" and "alternative views" and "may". Of course both of the sources talk about "Propaganda", but they are not sure how it was. These are what meant by construals instead of elucidations.--Raayen (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the problem is with the article reading like one big political editorial/essay intended to prove a thesis. But would the critics here please appreciate that this is what ChrisO is trying to fix? This article has come under pressure from Iranian nationalists. There are two ways to address this: either insist on keeping out the Iranian patriotism under WP:UNDUE / WP:RECENT, or go all the way and put it into proper perspective based on actual scholarly sources. I tried to take the former approach, which is the less labour intensive. ChrisO choose to dig his heels in and take the second, more tedious path. So could everyone feeling they should comment here please take the trouble to look into the history and details of this, and appreciate that ChrisO is part of the solution, not the original problem? Or alternatively argue more radically that while the discussion is fair and circumspect, it is still WP:UNDUE to the bleeding cylinder. Yes, the thing is a piece of propganda. Well duh, so is every royal inscription in the Ancient Near East. We don't need a long-winded explanation of what is perfectly obvious because some patriots chose this particular artefact in their quest to create their own version of history. --dab (𒁳) 08:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I so agree with Dbachmann that this is a politically charged issue. i can understand the passions of national pride as well as the need to show all counter points. but there are some fundamental mistakes in its current posting. for example, the assertion that the "cylinder represents the first human rights charter in history" is recent simply is not factual. this had long been conventional wisdom. the cylinder's discover in 1879 indeed made a big splash in the West when Biblical Archaeology still trumped secular archaeology. a simple google search will verify that. the first calls to reconsider its human-rights value came in the mid 1960's when A.K. Grayson published his new translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle which seemed to diametrically contradict Cyrus' humane image. Hence it is the notion that "scholars generally depict it as a major work of Achaemenid propaganda" which is "recent" not the notion of it being a human-rights charter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutchb*y (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

yes, the cylinder was important for "Biblical Archaeology", no debate there. The human rights thing is "recent" in terms of "40 years", not "4 years", sure. The Shah made it into a political issue in 1971. If it has been called a "human rights charter" before 1971, you are ever so welcome to quote the reference. --dab (𒁳) 07:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. I checked this point with the British Museum last week. According to the BM, "for almost 100 years the cylinder was regarded as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda. This changed in 1971 when the Shah of Iran used it as a central image in his own propaganda celebrating 2500 years of Iranian monarchy. In Iran, the cylinder has appeared on coins, banknotes and stamps. Despite being a Babylonian document it has become part of Iran's cultural identity." So the interpretation of the cylinder as Achaemenid/Mesopotamian propaganda is actually very old. It certainly appears in works before Grayson's translation (which I believe was mid-1970s, not mid-1960s); the earliest I've found so far is the Rand McNally Bible Atlas, published in 1956. On the other hand, the "human rights charter" interpretation appears in no sources that I've found prior to 1970, when the Shah made it the centrepiece of his own propaganda. There had certainly been people before then who interpreted the cylinder as indicating that Cyrus was a humane ruler, but nobody seems to have associated it with "human rights", a different concept altogether. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

this is really plain as plain. I am not sure what there is left to discuss (Wikipedia is WP:NOT for idle discussion for the sake of it). The cylinder is a perfectly regular piece of Iron Age royal self-glorification. The Shah made use of it for his own propaganda in 1971. You can be interested in either point, or in both, but there is nothing to provide any sort of "dispute" here. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting quite cheeky. I notice that even antisemitism has been brought forward as an argument by CreazySuit. 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this anywhere. Please point it out. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Dr Kaveh Farrokh was born in Athens, Greece, in 1962 and immigrated to Canada in 1983. Kaveh has collected data and primary sources on Sassanian cavalry for 18 years resulting in travels to locations such as Naghshe-Rustam (Iran). He has given lectures and seminars in the University of British Columbia and the Knowledge Network Television Program of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. Kaveh obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia where he specialized on the acquisition of Persian languages. He is currently a learning and career specialist in Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia. He acted as a historical advisor on a film film project titled ‘Cyrus the Great’, and has appeared on the History Channel documentary as an expert on the Persian Empire.-- from Osprey publishing.[10]

Thanks for that info. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some more. According to the blurb in his book Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642, he is "currently a learning and career specialist at Langara College in Vancouver, British Columbia". It looks like he's basically an amateur historian, which probably explains why I've not found any academic citations of his historical works. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Note also that on this page attributed to him he apparently calls himself Professor Kaveh Farrokh! Very dubious... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A doctorate of Acquisition of Persian languages is "very dubious", yet an Associate Professor of Religious Studies is quoted for a clearly historical topic? Apparently there must be an invisible line that allows one but not the other, I'll remember that. Whilst you are vilifying Dr. Farrokh, you should include the ethnicity of all the other "scholars" quoted within the article, since I don't see the validity of its inclusion towards him.

Another incident I've noticed is that twice, once on this talk page and once on the [11] Battle of Opis talk page, there have been calls for both interpretations to be presented in a balanced way. Both have been categorically ignored.

Sadly, yet another incident, is someone's attempt to remove an article[12] only AFTER finding out said article mentions an academic that has an opinion differing from that certain person. Undoubtedly a coincidence!

Also, apparently the Cyrus Cylinder and the Battle of Opis have fallen out of the historical realm and into the wiki-political realm, where certain articles will be deleted and certain views(calls for both interpretations) will be suppressed. The use of a multitude of sources clearly attributed to a certain "interpretation" do not prove the validity of that interpretation, simply the choice made by those sources. Blatantly ignoring a correction to said interpretation implies a willingness to suppress any difference of thought. Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting that Kaveh Farrokh who can read Pahlavi and old Persian texts is not regarded as expert in ancient Iran history but work of people who cannot even read one line in Akkadian or Old Persian texts and people who just copied works of others are cited here. Farokh is Iranian but others are international scholars--Larno (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Iranian? Elsewhere I'm told "He was born in Greece and is of Ossetian descent (he is half-Azeri I think towards Georgia’s southeast region). He never grew up in Iran and has no political connections there or elsewhere." Why is everyone so confused? And I've clearly said that I would be happy for all the interpretations to be shown. Of course, we can't say which is correct, that's not our role. Doug Weller (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Doug Weller, look at the history edit of your NPOV lover friend ChrisOin Cylinder: "The Iranian writer Kaveh Farrokh". I doubt that farrokh has even Iranian Passport. The same thing for Iranian editors. Nobody has connection t shits who are running our country. But people have prejudice about us because our stupid ... government--Larno (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

?? You're Iranian and you just posted that Farrokh is Iranian. If you are confused about him, it's not surprising others are. I have the greatest respect for the Iranian people. Doug Weller (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not post that. As I said, your friend ChrisO did that. Check Cyrus cylinder--Larno (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you did, here's the diff. [13] Doug Weller (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that Farrokh was not born in Iran and even doesn't have Iranian passport. I meant what your friend ChrisO did. In Cyrus cylinder. Only the ethnicity of Dr. Farrokh is addressed, but no talk about about all the other "scholars" quoted within the article. So, based on ChrisO, Farrokh is Iranian and other scholars quoted are international. Sigh!--Larno (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now. But for the record (and not about the point you are making), Farrokh says he was born in Greece of Iranian parents. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. What we are supposed to do, for the nth time, is report on the views of reliable, verifiable published third-party sources, giving due weight to the majority viewpoint and avoiding undue weight for the minority viewpoint. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a conduct issue - editors refusing to recognise NPOV, NOR or V. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you've somehow mistaken your own behavior for mine. Now moderate your rhetoric please, it's embarassing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognizing NPOV, you mean like this: Although later propaganda such as the Cyrus cylinder inscription portrayed his conquest of Babylonia as essentially peaceful, the battle demonstrates that the existing Babylonian regime actively resisted the Persian invasion of Mesopotamia. I don't believe calling something "propaganda" is NPOV. 75.41.39.20 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view"." We are required to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In this case, the dominant viewpoint - which according to the British Museum has been stood for over 100 years - is that the cylinder is regarded "as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda" (that word again). The alternative "human rights charter" viewpoint literally doesn't seem to have existed before the Shah came up with it in 1970-71. It has negligible support from academic sources. So the term "propaganda" is NPOV in this case, because it's the standard academic interpretation of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No ChrisO, the main reason that people changed their views toward Cyrus and his legacy in 60's and 70's was the new translation of Nabu Na'id Chronicle by Grayson who amended 1920's translation by Smith and showed humanist character of Cyrus. Before Grayson people invented some sentences like Cyris burnt people. Of course nobody agrees on those outdated translation now--Larno (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep making claims like this without bothering to cite any sources. If you want to be taken seriously, it's time you stopped doing that. What is your source for those claims? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your reaction when I brought different sources including your favorite blogger Lendering (2008) and/or Oppenheim and/or Pritchardin in Battle of Opis proved how unbalance is your edits in favor of certain view. --Larno (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources (not guidebooks, etc), I find [14] discussing the issue, and [15][16] - and this, which can't be searched "Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persiaby John Curtis, Nigel Tallis, Béatrice André-Salvini - History - 2005 - 272 pagesPage 59 ... 1 12 6 Cyrus Cylinder The Cyrus Cylinder was found in ... has in recent years been referred to in some quarters as a kind of 'charter of human rights'. ..." - none of these seems to accept it as such a charter. Doug Weller (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I should be able to dig up Forgotten Empire to get the rest of that quote. It was the companion book to an exhibition by the same name that the BM put on in September 2005, showcasing the Achaemenid Empire. I went to it at the time; the Cyrus cylinder was one of the star exhibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

British Museum

I notice that much is made of the British Museum in the lead what with a couple of footnotes that include a quote. I also notice that there is nowhere we can check this out. So I did a little googling on my own and found the British Museum in a few places, namely here [17], here [18], and here[19]. Oddly, these sources do not seem to support what they are said to support. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Chris, you could find a source (link) to back your contention that "the dominant viewpoint - which according to the British Museum has been stood for over 100 years - is that the cylinder is regarded "as ancient Mesopotamian propaganda" ? None of the British Museum sources that I found above use the word "propaganda" at all. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The British Museum text is given in footnote 2. It's taken from the exhibit, isn't it? That's how I read it, but perhaps that should be clarified in the footnote. Providing links to physical things is beyond our current technology, alas. shellac (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably should be clarified. People sometimes forget there's a whole world of verifiable stuff outside the Internet. Doug Weller (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, people do forget that (or perhaps disbelieve it). As shellac says, it's from the exhibit's explanatory note. I've clarified this in the footnote. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

er...According to the links above from the British Museum, which appear to me to be from the exhibit's "explanatory notes", there is no such comment re "propaganda." Considering that I have three verifiable links [20][21],[22] from the British Museum in regard to this and not one makes that statement, I think it is time to dump the British Museum footnote altogether since it is apparently anecdotal, not verifiable, and conflicts with other, verifiable information. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"This clay cylinder is one of the most famous objects from ancient Persia. The Cyrus Cylinder is inscribed with a foundation inscription of Cyrus II (559-530BC) in Babylonian cuneiform. It was placed in the foundations of the city wall of Babylon soon after Cyrus’ conquest of the city in 539 BC, and was found in March 1879 at Amran, Babylon.

With its references to just and peaceful rule, and to the restoration of deported peoples and their gods, the Cyrus Cylinder has been seen as an early ‘charter of human rights.’ However, such a concept would have been alien to Cyrus and his contemporaries"

Amran, Babylon

Catalogue no. 6 The British Museum website

I see, so you're calling me a liar now, are you? Have you actually been to the British Museum and personally read what they say about it? No? Then you have no reason to claim otherwise. It's perfectly verifiable, as others have noted. Nor is there any reason to believe that it's in any way out of line with the consensus of historians, since plenty of other sources say the same thing. It's not even contradicted by the BM sources you quote. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please Chris, you would have no trouble at all insisting that anecdotal evidence put up by others should be removed in favor of verifiable information, especially when using loaded words like propaganda in the lead of a disputed article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundrabuggy (talk • contribs)

What is "anecdotal" about it? I've quoted the text in the article. It's eminently verifiable - it's just not online. Don't mistake "offline" with "anecdotal". -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I understand that this isn't ideal, but it isn't 'anecdotal'. Wikipedia appears to be full of references that require more effort to verify than a click, something that I (as a lazy person) resent. I'm sure you don't think ChrisO has fabricated this, and if he had he's taking a foolish risk since the evidence is publicly available. Perhaps he plans a daring raid on the British Museum to falsify the evidence? (National Treasure 2 has rotted my brain) shellac (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes worry that the Internet is producing a generation of people who won't bother to look at anything offline and refuse to believe it exists if they can't click on it... -- ChrisO (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Chris. Maybe you and shellac could truck on over to the BM and get us a photo op. Your assertion is OR. My links are not. Tundrabuggy (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is time for Chris and I to swallow our foolish words. Everything is online nowadays shellac (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, you're right. Is nothing sacred? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, now you want us to accept an unlabeled and unsubstantiated Flickr photo as being from the British Museum?! I think I will stick with www.britishmuseum.org links above. I find it surprising that an administrator and an experienced editor would be trying to ram such weak "proof" down our throats. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to wonder if there is any evidence that will satisfy you? Are you claiming that it was Photoshopped or something? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as neither an administrator nor an experienced editor I was not intending to ram anything down you throat. You seemed to doubt Chris's word, I found independent corroboration. The photo is part of a set taken at the museum, which is corroborated by other pictures on the web I saw. Scepticism is a trait I admire, by all means ask for proof, but this is sophistry. Sorry Tundrabuggy. shellac (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm thinking that we don't have any apparent reason to disbelieve the source even if it's someone taking a snap and putting it on Flicker. Would be best off course if we can verify this further somehow, but this source seems genuine enough unless there's evidence to the contrary. Is there a reason to believe that the content is bogus that I'm unaware of? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I put up three verifiable links to the British Museum about the Cyrus Cylinder in the first paragraph of this section. Not one mentions the word "propaganda." Considering that before I removed two references to "propaganda" (which no doubt by now Chris has edited back in -- see history) the word "propaganda" was in the lead twice, has its own section (the largest in the whole article) and was mentioned a total of ten times. The word itself is "loaded" and it is clear (to me and to others) that the way it is being used by Chris is part of a larger attempt to discredit Cyrus and this cylinder. The motivation is clear to me as the cylinder is generally thought to corroborate that Cyrus invited the Jews back to Jerusalem. This goes against the grain of those who would prefer that Jews did not have an historical claim to Jerusalem. Why not simply use the British Museum links I have posted, and dispense with this poorly sourced (Flickr) version? There is surely a large enough section below where the concept of "propaganda" is duly investigated. Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could go back to the BM and take a picture myself, but since it would only show the exact same thing, which TB would disbelieve anyway, what would be the point? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, Tundrabuggy: if you're really concerned about this, why not raise it at the reliable sources noticeboard? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pahlavi propaganda

Josef Wiesehöfer has written an article on the creation of the Cyrus myth by the Pahlavi regime: Kyros, der Schah und 2500 Jahre Menschenrechte. Historische Mythenbildung zur Zeit der Pahalvi-Dynastie, in: Conermann, Stephan (Hg.): Mythen, Geschichte(n), Identitäten. Der Kampf um die Vergangenheit, EB-Verlag, Schenefeld/Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-930826-52-6, pp. 55-68.

According to Wiesehöfer the "human rights charter" interpretation can be traced back to The white revolution of Iran, a book by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi published in 1967 (Wiesehöfer p. 58; the German edition, Die soziale Revolution Irans, has it on page 15).

According to Wiesehöfer the scope of the Cyrus cylinder declaration is local, not empire-wide (Als reichsweite Deklaration ist diese babylon-zentrierte Urkunde jedenfalls nicht anzusehen, p. 66), and Cyrus can be viewed as a human rights pioneer just as little as the Shah can be viewed as an enlightened and philantropic ruler (Kyros als Vorkämpfer der UN-Menschenrechtspolitik [...] ist genauso ein Phantom wie der aufgeklärte und menschenfreundliche Schah von Persien, p. 67).

Wiesehöfer refers to and recommends an article by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg: Cyrus en de sjah, in: Groniek 62 (1979), pp. 3-9. --Konstock (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for that. Ali Ansari says something rather similar in his book Modern Iran Since 1921 (quoted in the "As a charter of human rights" section of this article), in which he relates it to something the Shah termed the "Great Civilization" (which I think was his term for a modernised Iran). It also fits with what I found in researching that section of the article - I found literally no sources in English referring to the "human rights charter" interpretation dating to before 1970. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)