Talk:Cyrus the Great

• Clean up clutter (Beautiful Arabo-Persian letters that curve like a sexy womans' body, but still clutter)
• Make the Rulers of Persia template more attractive and colorful (check out the WWII template). Done, for this article and for immediate predecessor & successor. Repeat for other articles as neccessary.
• Continue to use BCE dating and add dates of his reign in ancient dating systems where appropriate, if appropriate. Same if you think AH dates are appropriate, since he is still revered in modern Iran.
• Definitely do not mention Billy Ray Cyrus (we all love him, but he doesn't belong here). That was mostly intended as a joke - and maybe, just maybe - mention of him might belong here. How did his family come to adopt that surname? Was one of his ancestors a fan of Xenophon or Sir Thomas Browne, or perhaps an evangelical Christian who read about the King of Persia in his KJV? If anybody can dig the information up in a published source, they should feel free to put it here. --Jpbrenna 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, they should put it in the Billie Ray Cyrus article, and have it link here. Ok, why am I obsessing over this issue? Time to go do something productive - like mowing the lawn.

Looks like a good plan of action. I will help out with the clean-up. With respect to the reproduction of the Persian characters, I do think they look good. Take a look at I Ching for an example of the reproduction of letters of the native language pertinent to the article. Perhaps we could get other authors of articles on Persia (such as User: SouthernComfort or User: Zereshk) to comment. Sunray 16:27, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include a bit more biblical reference, namely the fact that Isaiah prophesied the coming of Cyrus to overthrow Babylon 100 years before Cyrus was born. Isaisah 45:1-4 "1)Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him...2) I will go before thee...I will break in pieces the gates of brass...4)...I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee though thou hast not known me." Indeed, the Bible has a lot to do with it.... User: Solacium Christiana

Can you please tell me why the quote was bogus?

This decree was discovered "at Achmetha [R.V. marg., "Ecbatana"], in the palace that is in the province of the Medes" (Ezra 6:2).

What does that mean? Where and when was the decree discovered? What does the Bible have to do with anything? Man, this Bible dictionary really sucks. AxelBoldt 21:31 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

'as long as' is not the same thing as 'until'

yeah

Yes, but...

I just wanted to give props to whoever wrote this article - and, I assume, a lot of the near-east history articles - for doing stuff like digging up historical figures' real names, like Sharrukin and Koroush. Lord knows the Anglicized and Latinized versions are what people know these days, but having an idea of what these guys called *themselves* can only provide that much more of a connection to the past.

I too give "props" the inclusion of English transliterations of the Persian names in addition to the Latinized Hellenized forms that have come down to us, but I think it should be noted that the ancient Persians did not use the Arabo-Persian alphabet. All these names are given in the modern rendering, and though they are pretty close to how the Persians in question would have pronounced their own names, they do not reflect how they would have spelled them. If only we could get Pahlavi fonts to work here, we could include those spellings too. Which gives me another idea: how about a chart of Persian names in their Pahlavi, Arabo-Persian, Greek and Anglo-Latin forms, for comparison? --Jpbrenna 20:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Perso-Arabic, of course ;)

Another thing...

The transliteration of Cyrus's name as given at the top of the article would be "Koroush Kabir." But "kabir" is an Arabic word. Wouldn't they have called him something else in pre-Arab times? Like "Koroush Bozorg?" Or did they use some form of "Kabir" via Aramaic. --Jpbrenna 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this was an HW assignment or a suggestion for making the article better...

Just a question: who was Cyrus married to? I can't find anything about it! I know some of his daughters and his mother, but I cannot find ANYTHING about his wife! Please answer in the space below. Wife's name: How old she was when married Cyrus: Wife's native country: Wife's birth and death date:

I removed the above from the top of the page. See the Article History for more info. --Jpbrenna 17:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dates and numbers in this article

Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE appears to make the most sense. Sunray 17:59, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

The authors of the article appeared quite happy with BC/AD until Slrubenstein's friends decided to implement his failed proposal - which is already quite divisive and causes enormous offence to many people worldwide. Why do you wish to perpetuate this silly offensive dispute? jguk 18:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "Slrubenstein's friends." Perhaps we could take a poll of authors of this article and other articles on Persia and other non-Christian regions of the world to see which dating system they prefer. Sunray 18:16, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Using AD for this guy makes about as much sense as putting his name in the anachronistic Arabic alphabet and using the Arabic "kabeer." But since we're doing that, we might as well be consistently whacked and us "AD" as well. --Jpbrenna 18:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Would "two wrongs don't make a right," perhaps apply? Sunray 19:04, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Yes, it would. I guess what I mean to say is that the whole AD/CE issue is just one of the many problems with this article, which aren't being addressed. There's a lot more that needs to be changed than that.

So far we have one author of this article (User: Jpbrenna), who has indicated his preferance for BCE/CE. Anyone else who has worked on this article care to weigh in? Meanwhile, I will revert to that. Sunray 06:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Use of language

...these Arabo-Persian spellings aren't somehow more "authentic" than the Latinate names. Cyrus the Great didn't spell his name "Cyrus," but he didn't spell it کوروش either. Actually, he probably didn't spell anything at all -- he dictated to a bunch of scribes. At the beginning of the article, it should give Cyrus's Latinate name (which is what he is most commonly known by in English), followed by Old Persian cuneiform (when technically feasible), followed by a Latin-alphabet transliteration of the Old Persian with appropriate diacritics. Then we should give the Modern Persian and Greek spellings. The Arabo-Persian spellings of names other than Cyrus should be taken out and put in their respective articles. Yes, these people remain important to modern Iranians, and many of them were important in Greek literature as well, and we should include those spellings. But کمبوجیه etc. just clutter up this article. کمبوجیه belongs at the beginning of the Cambyses article, and nowhere else.

What you are saying makes sense to me but I'm way out of my league on Persia. You may want to get some others who regularly work on Persian topics to comment. On the other hand, it's a wiki, so you can go ahead with the approach you describe and see what others think. Be bold. If you describe what you are doing on the talk page, people who have concerns can comment. Sunray 21:25, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

they are not more 'authentic' but they are very appropriate considering that persia, basically, has had roughly the same borders for thousands of years, and many modern iranians consider themselves in the lineage of cyrus the great, and modern iranians use arabic letters if i am not mistaken, and have for many hundred years.

Continuing discussion on dates and numbers

Jguk has reverted again, with the edit summary "rv - restore consistency (per policy) and use original authors style (as recommended as a last resort by policy." I request that he specify what policy he is refering to. Please direct me to it in case I have overlooked something. Sunray 19:57, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Jguk is clearly not respecting the views of Jpbrenna who is a major contributor to this article and refuses to discuss this on the talk page appropriately, instead choosing to revert to what he prefers (and he is not a contributor). SouthernComfort 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid To Do/Policy

User:Jpbrenna/Achaemenid - Comments? --Jpbrenna 21:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please think of our readers

Please think of our readers - we have a worldwide audience from lots of different backgrounds, not just a US academic one. Our readers should always come first. The article was already in the style that is preferred and most used worldwide (and by a very very large margin at that). We don't all come from a US academic background - we all want to be able to understand and like reading articles without having to submit to neologisms and changes for changes sake, jguk 06:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems you think you know best what our readers need to read. As I've mentioned to you before, but you don't get it: This is an encyclopedia. It is all about learning. Some people may actually become more conscious of things like dating conventions and how they relate to cultural imperialism. You can go on with your bloody crusade as far as I'm concerned. I wish you well. May you find peace. Sunray 07:43, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Please do not use such emotional words as "crusade". Such language is clearly inappropriate here.

I try to chose my words carefully. This one seemed apt, given the behavior. I'm sorry if the truth is upsetting to you. Sunray 07:00, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Readers come to learn an encylopaedia to learn about what they want to know. And we should provide text to them that they find easy to read (from a stylistic point of view). Writing in a style that suits US academics is just not appropriate - almost all of our readers are not US academics. We should write in a style that suits them. It is not by chance that Encarta, Britannica, www.historychannel.com, www.discoverychannel.com, and others choose BC/AD. It is because they recognise that that is the style the world uses nowadays (and by an overwhelming advantage at that). Since you and I have come to agreement that we should put our readers first, I am surprised that you continue to preach invective rather than address quite what it is that our readers expect. Kind regards, jguk 19:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Brittanica is using BCE now ;)--Jpbrenna 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And the History Channel are American. What do those Yanks know about Ye Queene's Propeur English? --His Grace John Bull, CMG, GCB &c....ok, ok, it was really --Jpbrenna 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Cyrus Cylinder

I object to this sentence in the opening paragraph:

He is perhaps best known for having declared the first ever charter of human rights (the Cyrus Cylinder)

For the following reasons:

1. The Cyrus Cylinder is not a "charter".
2. The Cyrus Cylinder has nothing to do with human rights.
3. In no way is Cyrus the Great "best known" for issuing it.

--JW1805 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can say - and my view is confirmed by a really remarkable part of people and historians - the declaration of Babylon contains a really amazing amount of ideas which represent thoughts and values protected by a modern understanding of "human rights": e. g. Cyrus condemns slavery (throughout the world!), regards the freedom of religion and the freedom of choice of profession as elementar rights of individuals, he strictly fights the violation of rights etc. The modern ideas of "human rights" are rather seen on the base of some occidental philosophical and social developments. However, this is not contradictory to the fact that similar ideas and values were expressed, realized and even translated into policy by some other, ancient cultures with different philosophical and religious origins and experience. Regarding the question wether the word "charter" is used correctly it would be of value to emphasize that the other, perhaps more adequate term often used in order to depict this document is "declaration". Furthermore, here Cyrus identifies himself as the "King of Iran" (and not "King of Persia" which would correspond to the Greek term used for that country). (195.93.60.145)

• The text is available here. In no way is that a "Charter of Human Rights". It is the decree of an absolute monarch who is saying "I am great, I am just, etc." A standard declaration that would be issued after a great victory. It doesn't "condem slavery throughout the world!" or say anything about the "elementary rights of individuals". Such concepts would have been alien to this time.--JW1805 03:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also, it doesn't say "King of Iran".--JW1805 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Cyrus the Great has been regarded and respected as a symbol of tolerance throughout history and cultures (even by the Bible and the Old Greeks (see e. g. Herodot)). In this document, he defines visions of individual rights which should not be violated by anyone and he declares that he will defend such rights against violators: rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of profession, prevention and prohibition of slavery:

"I prevent unpaid, forced labor. Today, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights... I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over. " Of course, he did declare a clear opposition to slavery "the world over". Self-evidently, the terminology used in ancient iranian times was not exactly the same as today regarding modern philosophical developments. But the values defined, expressed and defended here (more than 2544 years ago) by a king who would have been able to act in another way (but did not) are the same. Furthermore, Cyrus defines himself as the King of "Iran" and not as the King of "Persia" which is a term used in Old Greece and consequently in European languages: " Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran ... Until I am the king of Iran" etc.

See for example the precise translation by The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies at The School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) - University of London which is the only higher education institution in the UK specialising in the study of Asia and Africa: link:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm

Signed: 195.93.60.74

• I question the accuracy of that website. See my comments at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder. The bit at the end (with the "I abolish slavery", and "I will impose my monarchy on no nation" language) seems remarkable intact, compared to the other sections which have gaps (corresponding to places where the clay has chipped off. Other translations on other websites don't contain this last part. I would like to see a translation from a more reputable source. On the face of it, it seems dubious. Of course slavery was part of the Persian Empire, and of course the Empire was based on conquest. The modern concept of "human rights" would have been completely alien to people at this time. --JW1805 19:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The author claims that the Persian word for sun is khour which is incorrect. The word for sun is آفتاب

What are you saying? Slavery in Persian Empire? As Cyrus the Great said in his cylinder, he mentioned that i payed all those who worked for me. That was what separated Persians and Greeks. And Cyrus cylinder was the first inscription of human rights. 2500 years ago someone wrote an inscription like this. It's not supposed to be like the human rights of these days. (The One We Call God 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

As it is mentioned here: I prevent unpaid, forced labor. READ please. (The One We Call God 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Why did you guys erase the Persian writing of Cyrus' name?

I think it's very important to add Persian spelling of Cyrus the Great, since he's is Persian. Thank You. (The One We Call God 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Bozorg not Kabir

the persian word for great is Bozorg and not Kabir

kabir is an Arabic word.

Gol 10:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Kabir is an Arabic word. But it is also a word in Farsi. Persian in English language means Farsi and not Parsi (old Persian). Korosh-e Kabir is the most common used name of Cyrus the Great in Persian (Farsi). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.157.210 (talk • contribs)

I put Kabir there, I was not sure whether its Arabic or not but Kabir the highest of Persian titles given to a ruler, given only to the best and certainly not given to any Arab rulers of Iran so its up to you if you wanna change it or not -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Kabir or Bozorg in this sense are used interchangibly. The fact that Kabir is originated from Arabic makes Kabir a bit more formal. Like you do not use Kabir to describe a thing but you would for a king but you use Bozorg for a king and for a thing. Arabic to Persian is like Latin or French to English. In fact the only text I have read with little or almost no Arabic word in Persian is Shahnameh and I am impressed how Ferdowsi could do it. If you try to use pure Persian words only, say in the Iranian capital, Tehran, you could hardly be understood in a day-to-day conversation. Also remember once I tried to read one of very Persianized book of Nashre-Daneshgaahi on Physics. I could hardly understood the text without the help English glossary at the end of the book. They had used "Kheft" for "Toul" (Length in English) and "Behanjaaresh" for "Normal Kardan" (Normaliztion in English)! Mind you, some of those efforts have been good and successfull. Sometimes, I envy Americans for not being have to care too much about purity of their language and they use whatever comes into their language. 203.48.45.194 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Arabic is to Persian certainly not at all like Latin is to French or English. First off, French is based on Latin, whereas English is a Germanic language, i.e., not based on Latin. Second off, Persian (Farsi) once existed independent of Arabic influences. Arabic words in Farsi are an advent of the Arabic invasion of Islam in the 700s AD, while Iran and Persian language has existed since c. 550BBC. Arabic words are used in day to day language in Iran, but there is a long history of a movement to preserve Persian as a "pure" language (Firdawsi's Shanamah brought Persian back into popular use after a few centuries of Arabic-only usage in Iran). While some Iranians use Kabir rather than Bozorg in everyday use, the proper Persian translation of Great is indeed Bozorg and that's how it should be listed.

His tomb....

Dumb question....

Is his tomb now empty? When was it emptied out? And what happened to his body? PatrickJ83 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on censoring Cyrus, The Great Shepherd

Your censorship and anti-shepherdic behavior is embarassing. Just see google for evidence that he was a shepherd. Togrol 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Google does seem to suggest that there is a legend describing Cyrus raised as a shepherd, similar to the story of Oedipus. This seems to be present in the article, under the King of Persia section. It just never explicitly explains that he was raised as a shepherd. But him being raised as a shepherd and his name meaning shepherd are two different things entirely. On my google search, i did find a number of sites, such as baby name sites, that stated that Cyrus means shepherd in Hebrew, of all languages. They offered no etymology, and i checked my Hebrew dictionary to be sure - the Hebrew word for Cyrus is Koresh, and it wasn't in the dictionary, nor did any related words mean shepherd. If anyone can shed any light... СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He both raised as a shepherd and his name means shepherd. http://www.greatcommission.com/Daniel.pdf Nothing is said about shepherd in the article. Togrol 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the encyclopedias mention anything about Cyrus meaning shepherd. Regardless, what "Koroush" means in other languages has no relation or significance to this article as "Koroush", in Persian the native language of Cyrus, means "sun". --ManiF 12:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus is the same is Koroush; It is (a Latin transliteration of the Greek Κῦρος) is the Greek version of the Koroush. So no need for straw man argument. Togrol 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is original research, see WP:NOR -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No rersistance please! It is sourced. Togrol 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What source exactly? The source you have provided says the root of the word Cyrus means shepherd, and compares it to Jesus. Although it does mention something about it being an elamite word, but it doesn't provide any reliable sources to say this. See WP:V, in a dispute source has to be of STRONG reliablity and verifiable. In this case the document is not about Cyrus but a Jewish prophet, and has nothing to do with linguistic roots of the word Cyrus. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In its 89th page it explains the cyrus means shepherd. It is enough and verifiable. In adition to that here is another evidence. Togrol 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a strong linguistic source to claim what it means. The second source is contradictory!:

"The name Cyrus means shepherd, in Hebrew the name is koresh (from which David Koresh of Branch Davidian fame coined his name)."

It says it in Hebrew it is Koresh and claims its the hebrew it is talking about not the Elamite. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Ref: “having an idea of what these guys called *themselves* can only provide that much more of a connection to the past”. A very valid point, I cannot agree more. Why not put the Iranian names in parenthesis so that Iranians can find the articles too! We know these guys by their Iranian names, who the hell is Cyrus?

Ref: Dispute on censoring Cyrus, The Great Shepherd. The name Cyrus means shepherd, in Hebrew.

So? What is your point? The Guy's name was not “Cyrus” anyway! It was Korush!

Ref: The cylinder. Where is the UN’s 1971 translation of the cylinder? I cannot find it on the UN websites! They spend lots of time and money to do something then hide it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great In 1971, the UN translated it into all of its official languages.

PS: There are many sites on the web that are set up by individuals or groups (either ill-informed or biased), when searching the web always check the authenticity of the information on the website.

Ref: The king of Persia. Guys I am totally confused! Was there a country called Persia (by its native people) at the time? Was there a country called Iran (by its native people) at the time? If the two countries co-existed, where were their territories? Who was ruling Iran at that time?

82.70.40.190

Cylinder transcript

It's ok to cite the cylinder here, but the full-text version belongs at Wikisource. --Jpbrenna 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did a huge cleanup.

Alrighty. That took a while, but I managed to clean up the article, add a lot of information, add in footnotes and actual references, the Template:Infobox Military Person box à la Alexander the Great, got rid of the now-useless "see also" section, etc. Don't get me wrong, this isn't even CLOSE to being a Good article yet. So, my fellow Wikipedians, I ask of you to join me in my crusade (*ahem*), in improving this article all the way to Featured Article status. So, let's get cracking! ♠ SG →Talk 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment filed

I have filed a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The details for which are as follows, copied from the RfC page:

Cyrus the Great is in an edit war between myself, User:SG, and User:Spahbod. We have reached the three-revert-rule, and so the article is in a state of limbo for the next little while. Here is my revert: [1], the reasons for which are the fact that the additions made are poorly written and that the images are NOT free (licensed as GPL, when they clearly are not). The images in question are Image:2500 sal4.jpg and Image:Cyrus3.jpg. I have tagged them as improperly licensed, but Spahbod continues to revert my tagging. The discussions for this can be found on our user talk pages at: User_talk:SG#Cyrus_the_great and User_talk:Spahbod#Recent_image_uploads.

♠ SG →Talk 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

An update from me, it is highly likely that I used the wrong template to tag the above images. Nevertheless, they are incorrectly tagged as GPL. ♠ SG →Talk 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you for vandalism, and personal attacks, which clearly you have done. And in the future please refrain from changing image info, or you will be blocked for vandalism. Thanks. --Spahbod ☼ 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe SG is correct. These images are clearly not GFDL. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria before uploading any additional images from other websites. The sites in question do in fact have copyright statements which allow for limited non-commercial use. Wikipedia does not allow images under that rationale. (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses.) It is possible that the images might be used under fair use, if they conform to Wikipedia's policy on that, but there are conditions for that which you will find at the previous links. KWH 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses, which might be clearer. KWH 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Those websites along with iranchamber.com are well known for letting their images be used in sikipedia as long as their name is mentioned. There are many images uploaded from those websites with pretty much the same summaries. --Spahbod ☼ 06:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read all of the above links on Wikipedia copyright policy. Also, let me know the other images from those sites with the same summaries. Thank you. KWH 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus Portrat

It would be nice to make it obvious if the portrat that begins the article is likely an actual depiction of the historical figure or just an artists depiction. It doesn't seem very clear and could be quite misleading I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.113.146.66 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 July 2006.

That is true. --Amizzoni 18:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It is definitely an artist's depiction of Cyrus, as that type of drawing had not been around during his time (as far as I know), and probably would not survive until now. There's a possibilty that it was copied from a relief, but I don't know about that. Until we can find some real sourcing, how about we just call it an artist's depiction? Still, I'd rather be more sure, so I'll send the CAIS-SOAS an email about it. ♠ SG →Talk 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the most contemporany relief of Cyrus is this one /media/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Relief_cyrus.jpg . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amizzoni (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 July 2006.

The name

I added this to the article:

The realtionship between the name ";Cyrus" and the word "sun" is also stated by the ancient historians Ctesias and Plutarch. However, some modern historians prefer interpretartions as "young" or "humiliator of the enemy in verbal contest".

And I cited my source: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/Cyrus/cyrus_name.htm (also aviable at the Enciclopaedia Iranica wbsite: http://www.iranica.com ), an article by Rudiger Schmidt in Encyclopaedia Iranica. Enciclopaedia Iranica is a respected publication of Columbia University, and Schmidt is a respected scholar on Iranian language. He is also cited in the article Iranian languages. Then, I see no reason to delete my addition. If someone doesn't think so, please, discuss it here before deleting. I belive we can get a consensus. Remember that we shouldn't give only one view if we want to follow the NPOV policy. --Amizzoni 18:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have to apologize for that. After I got into my argument with Spahbod, I completely forgot to mention to you why I did that. And now, I no longer remember. I'll just clean it up, though. ♠ SG →Talk 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You just changed it again, and I reverted it. The way it is now is proper, and there's no need to change the wording to something a lot more ambiguous. And we use cite Schmitt because we are using Iranica as the reference, which in turn names Hoffmann as the origin of the idea. Also, in the future, please check your links; the link to Karl Hoffmann is in fact a disambiguation page, which doesn't even list the aforementioned person. (I see you added him; please accept my apology. However, it is still a disambiguation page.) Wikipedia tries to avoid linking to disambiguation pages. ♠ SG →Talk 00:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

SG wrote: The way it is now is proper. I believe the word you are looking for is: in my opinion or i think or i beleive its proper. You don't go around teling people whats proper and whats not. Like i mentioned before everyone has the right to edit, this article does not belong to you nor anyone else. Noticing that my uploaded images had improper license then reporting them all over wikipedia does not mean you have the right to tell people whats proper. I see you reverted the image to be in line with the headline instead of introduction. As i mentioned before the "least" you could do is to look at all other articles in wikipedia and see the "proper" place of images. I am busy with other things right now, but i will be back to edit this article later, i hope you will be more cooperative than you were before. Thank you, --Spahbod ☼ 01:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, would you mind relaxing a bit? You have no need to be so hostile all the time. Bringing in the completely irrelevant topic of the image copyright problems into this discussion was rather inane. Honestly, I was even about to come to your talk page and apologize for before, as well as note that I uploaded some alternative images that you might be interested in. I don't think I'll be heading that way, now.

It is implied that "the way it is now is proper" is my opinion; how can it be someone else's opinion? ♠ SG →Talk 02:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hostile? irrelevant copyright? it is impied that ...? :) I really do not know what you are talking about, the post above was a reminder that your incivil behavior will not be tolerated, and if you want this to go easy you have to cooperate with other editors when they edit this article, please keep that in mind. Thank you, --Spahbod ☼ 18:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary:implied ♠ SG →Talk 18:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

LOLol, dear lord, showing me links to dictionaries, searching web all over for god knows how long to prove a few pics are not mine. Please take a deep breath and calm down, i do not understand why you being so hostile for, i am not your enemy. Lol and i really would remember if i asked for your apology. And again keep in mind that speaking like this: the way it is now is proper, is not civil. Other editors that wants to edit artices you have worked on are not your enemies. I mention this again, wikipedia articles do not belong to anyone, so i suggest being cooperative with other editors and do not make sush comments, instead say i believe or i think or in my opinion. I am sure you understand :). --Spahbod ☼ 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Ctesias and Plutarch didn't know that "khour" means "sun" and "vash" is a sufix of likeness. They only knew that the name "Cyrus" was somehow related with the persian word of "sun" (they even didn't know, or at least didn't tell it, how to say "sun" in persian!). 2) Hoffmann doesn't suggest "humiliator of the enemy in verbal contest" as a transation for "khur", he gives it as a translation os "Kurus", the entire name. 3) I think we should write "Hoffmann (cited by R Schmitt)" or "Hoffmann (followed by R Schmitt)". I think is better to give first the original proposer of the translation (Hoffmann), instead of someone (Schmitt) who is just citing his source. 4) Excuse me if my English is not completely accurate. If my additions are not so clearly expressed / have ortographical or gramatical errors, feel free to correct it. --Amizzoni 21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Amizzoni if your sure of your sources then go ahead and correct the text yourself. Editors do not have the right to remove sourced material, and that includes user SG of course. If he insists on reverting sourced material then you should simply report him, admins will know what to do with him. --Spahbod ☼ 21:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't so much time to waste in wikipedia! If some guy wrongy "corrected" my good sourced additions, then he should revert it! ;-) Well, well, I'll do it by myself anyway. --Amizzoni 23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone who can actually explain his issues clearly! Amizzoni, you have my sincere apology, and I appreciate your lightheartedness about it. However, in response to #1, doing a quick search brings up that Greek and modern sources note the meaning/translation of khur, khor (or other variations) as "sun." The entire name is translated as "like the sun," Khor -vash inverted. I've changed the wording again; how do you feel about it now? ♠ SG →Talk 02:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Plutarch refrence is -as I can read in the Encyclopedia Iranica article- "Live of Artoxerxes" 1. 3: "Cyrus {the Younger} took his name of the ancient Cyrus, as he, they say, had his from the sun, which, in the Persian language, is called Cyrus." (quoted from Dryden's translation [2]). The Ctesias refernce is Photius epitome of "Persica" 52: "After his accession she bore him another son, called Cyrus {Cyrus the Younger} from the sun." (quoted from Freese translation [3]). In the refrnce you give, Suren Pahlav writes: "His name "Cyrus" (a transliteration of the Greek Kυρoς) is the Greek version of the Persian Koroush or Khorvash meaning: "Like the sun" in Persian khour means "sun" and vash is a suffix of similarity." Then, nowhere is said that Plutarch and Ctesias "gave its meaning as "like the sun,"" They only knew that "Cyrus" was somehaw related with the persian word for sun. The rest, is not told by them. --Amizzoni 21:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I had not been looking at the right sources. I'm trying to write this in a way that fits the context of the rest of the paragraph, so hopefully now it's more acceptable. I think now you'll find it better. ♠ SG →Talk 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

some scholars like abayev ,an ossetian iranologist believes that the word is probably derived from koros that means son[boy],even now in persian kore mean boy child,and interestingly we can see in greek word diocorous that means son of the god.Spitman 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization and images

sg i am glad you chosen to be cooperative with other editors. Good choice, --Spahbod ☼ 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem being cooperative with others. I'm sorry that you interpreted my actions as hostile, but rules are rules, and images need to be tagged properly. I don't appreciate your constant telling me that I will be blocked, but I would appreciate it if you would explain why you reverted the images in the article. ♠ SG →Talk 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

First please read this post again carefully: [4]. Yes rules are rules, and if you keep deleting categories, waging revert wars and being incivil you will get blocked, its very simple really. I don't recall saying anything about the image tags, that was an error from my part and has been cleared up with user KwH, and i do appreciate your search to find copies of them in the web, you saved KwH's time. However i see that you from telling user Amizzoni whats proper and not and reverting his changes, has been improving your behavior and did apologize to him, and did not revert his sourced material, that is what being cooperative: Wiktionary:Cooperative means, and i am glad you finally decided to work with him.

Regarding your reverts on my last changes, lets say achaemenid empire is a subcat, what gives you the right to remove all other cats i added along with that cat? And the previous images were fine before you changed them, you should explain your changes, not me. I am sorry but even though you have worked on this article does not mean you own it, i have told you this before, but it seems your ignoring it. I am not being hostile to you nor am i your enemy, so i advice you to be cooperative, do not delete categories, do not delete sourced material and do not tell people whats proper. Consider this a mild warning, i will not be so nice next time you delete categories and such. Thank you, --Spahbod ☼ 01:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You've threatened me many times about being blocked, and I've yet to see anything emerge. I suggest you read the page history and look at the reason for my edit. And we don't "say Achaemenid empire is a subcat" – it IS a subcat, therefore ONLY the subcat needs to be added, that's how MediaWiki works.♠ SG →Talk 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, #3 in particular. By the way, you made me realize that Category:Achaemenid dynasty is in fact a subcategory of Category:Persian history, so I've removed the latter and replaced it with the only category you rightfully added, Category:History of Iran. Finally, do you have a reason for using Category:Figures in Zoroastrian history? It has not been in use since its creation, and doesn't seem to be supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism. ♠ SG →Talk 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Cyrus the Great is a good article because:

• It is broad
• It is neutral
• It is well cited (w/ inline citations)
• It has well-chosen photos

--GoOdCoNtEnT 19:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is not neutral.

"The dynasty had been founded by Achaemenes (ca. 700 BC), who was succeeded by his son Teispes of Anshan. Inscriptions indicate that when the latter died, two of his sons shared the throne as Cyrus I of Anshan and Ariaramnes of Persia. They were succeeded by their respective sons Cambyses I of Anshan and Arsames of Persia." Many scholars think the "inscriptions" mentioned are a fake.

"the cylinder of Cyrus is widely referred to in modern times as the "first charter of human rights."", Why "widely"?

• It hasn't well-chosen photos. The griffin cames from Persepolis, a city founded by Darius I. It's later that Cyrus. The farahaver is not attested in the reign of Cyrus, and his zaraostrism is disputed.

Cyrus the Great is not a good article. --Amizzoni 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It's taken me a while to respond, but here goes. I'm not sure who the "many scholars" you're referring to are. If you can get some proper referencing for names and reasons of why they believe the inscriptions are fake, then we should most definitely put that in there. (A note on this, you've made me realize that the current sentence needs referencing.)

The "widely" in the cylinder sentence has been changed to "often."

While the griffin photo itself was taken in Persepolis, I was using it to replace another unfree image of a griffin. If I'm not mistaken, griffins were symbols of the Achaemenid Empire as a whole, but they were more popular during and after Darius the Great's reign.

Lastly, the article never mentions whether or not Cyrus himself was a Zoroastrian, I know this is disputed. However, he was at the very least influenced by Zoroastrianism. For example, had Zoroastrianism not been promoted to some extent by Cyrus, I find it hard to believe that the Jewish faith itself would have been influenced by Zoroastrianism on its own. Most sources seem to note that Zoroastrianism became the official religion of sorts under Cyrus' reign, but they don't clarify whether or not he himself was a major follower (Darius, for example, was a clear follower, but some other inscriptions note that he paid respect to other religions, such as polytheistic ones). For some sources:

• Moulton, James Hope, Early Zoroastrianism, ISBN 1417974001. This book details the difficulty of finding out Cyrus' religious beliefs, and further details on Darius.
• Boyce, Mary, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, ISBN 0226069303. This one shows that Cyrus made Zoroastrianism the "Iranian religion."
• Nigosian, Solomon A., The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and Modern Research, ISBN 077351144X. This book notes that at least one Fire Temple was built during Cyrus' reign.

♠ SG →Talk 11:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

The implication that Alexander was called the Great because he was King of Persia requires citation. If this is not true, he doesn't belong here at all. Septentrionalis 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've responded about this on the FAC. The section has been removed, so all should be well. ♠ SG →Talk 04:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Date Wars

WP:DATE says: When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.

This article has used BC since 2004; any effort to import the date wars here will be reverted, exactly as Anglo-American usage wars would be. Septentrionalis 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus cylinder

There has already been too much pov-pushing about this minor archaeological find; if anything, Cyrus is unusual among rulers of Babylonia in having only one cuneiform inscription praising him. Putting it in the intro is unacceptable undue weight. Septentrionalis 01:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call the Cyrus Cylinder a "minor archaeological find." It gave us great insight to the rule of Cyrus II and his lineage. Anyhow, I am tired of bickering over this small issue. I've rewritten the sentence in question. If you find it acceptable, please feel free to remove the POV template. ♠ SG →Talk 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Good work SG --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

moreover, extremely important things are not allwed to be copied and duplicated for trivial reasons. i would be more surprised if the cyrus cylinder was similar to other things. it should stand out as it has.

Assessment

This is the current critic at Assessement for the A-class: The last paragraphs of the conquest of Lydia should be reveised to correct the Pactyes/Pactyas mix up, wich is hte real one or are they two different people. Also in the prior paragraph the pointform of Cyrus' conquest of Croesus should be worked over. As well, why is it mentionned "including Syria and Palestine", their modern names, while the rest of the article speaks of the states and territories' names as known then? Lastly the map should be moved higher in the article, due to all the movements and cities mentioned (If possible indicating these cities would be appeaciated) Could anyone here look to implementing the changes? --Dryzen 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Cyrus the Great

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fraudulent translation of Cyrus Cylinder

The link I have removed refers to an incorrect translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. A correct translation can be found here. The translation that I removed, contained sections that are not included in the origin. The falsification is well-known, was probably made by Iranian refugees wanted to create a secular hero for Iran, and was discussed at Iranica-L (registration required).

The most recent edition of the Cyrus cylinder is in: Hanspeter Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros' des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. (Ugarit-Verlag, Muenster 2001), 550-556.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jona Lendering (talk • contribs) 21:01, November 20, 2006.

Jona, I insist that you do not know what you are talking about and your comments are crazy and outrageous. What do "Iranian Refugees" as you put it have to do with the Cyrus Cylinder? I think you have other issues that need to be dealt with, but not here. - I will give you a chance to state why this translation (which is available in every history text on the Achaemenid Dynasty and Cyrus the Great) is incorrect. By the way the translation you have provided is only a fragment of the full text and it was part of a school exercise! Please do some research before making anymore changes.Mehrshad123 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mershard (why not offer your full name?): Any translation must now be based on Hanspeter Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids van Babylon und Kyros' den Grossen (etc). 2001 Ugarit Verlag Münster. This version, nor earlier editions as you can find in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, contain claims about religious freedom. Translations that do claim that the Cyrus Cylinder was a human rights charter, are quite simply adding elements that are not there. These translations have been made by post-Revolution Iranian refugees who have -for reasons I can to some extent understand- tried to show that Iran was once a civil society; but keeping up the Shah's ideas, and creating fake translations, has nothing to do with the real Cyrus.

As to your advise that I must study the subject: funny that you bring up to subject. I published several books on the ancient Near East. Have a look at my site and you will find that I've put online all Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions and Babylonian Chronicles, usually the original text plus the translation. You will find the full Babylonian text of the Cylinder, as it was known in 2001, here.

I removed a link to a fraudulent translation and you accused me of vandalism. That's not very polite. In fact, it's rude. Now here's the challenge: you give me the Akkadian text of the part about the human rights that is in my opinion a fraud, and you show me that this text is on the Cylinder, and I will apologize. Otherwise, keep out of Akkadian scholarship if you can not check Schaudig's book. Jona Lendering 23:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"the great"

The section I removed is not based on any Achaemenid royal inscription; I have put them online here. Like all oriental rulers from Sumerian times on, Cyrus has the title of "great king", that's all - nothing special. The first ruler to receive the surname "the great" was probably Antiochus III or -almost just as likely- Alexander III of Macedonia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jona Lendering (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 20, 2006.

Cyrus and Zoroastrianism

There used to be a period, somewhere at the mid-twentieth century, in which it was believed that monotheism was preached by Zarathustra, and that these teachings became popular in Iran during the age of Darius. There may be an element of truth in this, but there are several reconsiderations.

• There is no direct evidence - we simply have no texts in Persian from the age of Cyrus because the script was invented by Darius;
• The only Babylonian text (the Cyrus Cylinder) is polytheistic;
• No serious scholar maintains that Zoroastrianism was the sole religion of Iran. There is strong evidence for religious pluriformity (e.g., the Zoroastrian burial practice -exposure- was not used by the Achaemenid kings) and the idea that one nation must have one religion is, of course, nice for a tyranny, which Cyrus did not establish. (Cf. the Christian religions, which have the same God, scripture, etc, but are completely different. Likewise, the fact that Darius mentions Ahuramazda does not make him a Zoroastrian.)

Finally, it must be noted that the idea that Zarathustra was important, was created in Germany to show that not the Jews, but an Aryan nation had invented monotheism. This of course does not mean that it was not an Iranian invention, but must make us skeptical —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jona Lendering (talk • contribs) 09:54, November 21, 2006.

• That sounds fine to me. By the way, glad to have you working on this article. Your website was the main resource I used when I began rewriting this article. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. ♠ SG →Talk 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Point taken on Cyrus, Darius and Zoroastrianism, but attributing the Prophet Zarathushtra's importance, to the machinations of German Aryan ideology is, itself, a little offensive and disingenuous. Quite a few Parsis, Zoroastrian scholars, and comparative religion students might have a bone of contention there. I know it's a valid point. But a lop-sided one nonetheless, worthy of debate elsewhere - since many Zoroastrian ideas did seem to find their way into the Judeo-Christian tradition. Monotheism (or henotheism, et al.) was probably a contemporary development of both Jews and Zarathushtra, I'm not arguing with that. Anyway, off topic. I agree with the Cyrus point. There is no evidence for it. Although, I would not say that because they were not put in dakhmas (Towers of Silence) proves anything either. Rulers have a habit of following their own rules. Constantine wasn't exactly the model Christian, etc. I would say there is inconclusive evidence either way, and I myself, lean towards the theory that he wasn't an orthodox Zarathushtri Mazdayasnian by any means. Khirad 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool

Have you read this? --Striver 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jona please stop vandalizing.

Your argument is utterly nonesensical. The suffix 'the Great' is derived from Great King. Alexander got this title from the Achaemenids. If you can't understand the link between Great King and "the Great", you must have Downs syndrome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I fact, as far as I know, the sufix "the Great" is not related with the Persian title "Great King". All the Persian kings used this title (see Kent, Old Persian, quoted online here [5]), but only three (Cyrus II, Darius I, and occasionally Xerxes I) are know in monern times as "the Great". Please, don't revert Jona Lendering's contributins anymore. --Amizzoni 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mershad123: Arguments are better than insults. All Mesopotamian kings were called "great king".

You and Jona are both leaving yourself wide open for insults. (a) Cyrus the Great is not a "Mesopotamian King" - If you dont know that, then you have no business editing these articles! (b) Which Mesopotamian king was ever called "the great"?? Again please stop this stupid game and Read a book.

You have no idea what you are talking about and are essentially vandals.--Mehrshad123 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to insult me. Nor is there need to discuss that Cyrus Cylinder, which calls the supreme god Marduk and is written in Akkadian by a Babylonian scribe for a Babylonian audience, is part of Mesopotamian tradition; likewise, every king since Sargon is called "the Great". Either you prove that the link that I removed is to a better translation than the one here, or you back off.Jona Lendering 18:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Caption Wrong: Image:Cyrus II le Grand et les Hébreux.jpg

The current caption of the image, Cyrus II le Grand et les Hébreux.jpg, states, "Cyrus the Great allowed the exiled Hebrew pilgrims to resettle and rebuild Jerusalem, earning him an honored place in Judaism." I believe this is in error for two reasons:

1) The Hebrews in question were not pilgrims; they were captives. A pilgrim makes his travels at his own will, on his journey to a destination (usually for relgious reasons). The Hebrews were captives, forcibly removed from Palestine by foreign armies.

2) The decree of Cyrus only allowed the Hebrews to rebuild their temple, not the city. A different king gave the Hebrews permission to rebuild their city.

I will wait a week before I make a change to the caption of the image, unless someone presents an objection before then. Pooua 23:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; in fact, the article text itself supports your statement. I've updated the caption per your suggestions, but with one difference.

If I am not mistaken, Cyrus did actually allow them to go back and rebuild the city, not just the temple. However, Ezra, who maintained the city after the Jews returned to Jerusalem, only managed to finish the temple; one can only assume that he was occupied with other issues. Nehemiah, the governor of Judea after Ezra, was the one who essentially rebuilt the city. He didn't need more permission to do so, as Ezra already had authorization.

By the way, be bold with edits in the future! You needn't wait around when a caption is obviously wrong (ie. the "pilgrim" statement). ♠ SG →Talk 02:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cylinder

However, it can be argued that the cylinder decrees the normal themes of Near-Eastern rule: respect for the gods of all peoples, just and peaceful rule, and the power and glory of the empire. By this argument, pointed out by several scholars, Cyrus may have been unusually generous, but the cylinder cannot be regarded as a charter of human rights.

1- Please stop adding 3 references in to one, there is no need. The Lendering page is not academic. The other two can be discussed.

2- Many Assyrian kings are known to have destroyed temples of kingdoms and boast about it in their inscriptions, e.g. "The Babylonian Chronicle retells how Egypt "was sacked and its gods were abducted" (ABC 1 Col.4:25)", also "I reduced the temples of Elam to naught; their gods and goddesses I scattered to the winds" (Ashurbanipal).

So how can this cylinder have the normal theme of decrees of near eastern rulers?! --Rayis 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As to #1: I propose a reference to "Schaudig (title) and Van der Spek (title)" to which may or may not be added something like "summarized, in collaboration with S and VDS, by L".

As to #2: Perhaps "many of the normal themes" (i.e., "respect for the gods of all peoples, just and peaceful rule, and the power and glory of the empire") is a better phrasing? I'd say Assyrians are a bit atypical.Jona Lendering 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you direct me to these decrees which are the norm that you are referring to then? --Rayis 18:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The one I can find easiest online, is the Nabonidus Chronicle, which also records pious acts. If you allow me a day or two, I will put the full text of a translation online.Jona Lendering 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jona, although this would be only one example and wouldn't support a claim that it is the "normal theme" for "near-eastern rulers" which is a rather explicit remark. --Rayis 01:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point again. For this article, my word is insufficient that there are verbatim quotes in the Cyrus Cylinder from the Nabonidus Cylinder, which in turn quotes a text by Assurbanipal. What we need is a reference to a book on Mesopotamian propaganda, that sums up the common motifs, and it must be in English. I'll have to think about it.Jona Lendering 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to the Nabonidus Cylinder or Sippar Cylinder, not to the Nabonidus Chronicle... just to clarify... --Amizzoni 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the Cylinder of Nabonidus from Sippar. It's now online here. The parallels are clear: long titulary with identical titles, the gods' anger being toned down by a just ruler who surpasses his predecessors by making larger sacrifices, and the division in several parts like titulary, story about gods, personal prayer. The only difference is that Nabonidus tells the story about three shrines, whereas Cyrus is content with one.Jona Lendering 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jona and SG

You have both demonstrated that your knowledge on this topic is superficial and partial, yet you use every opportunity to introduce original source information with no external references other than yourselves. Do not modify this article without well-accepted textbook and web references, which are not written by yourselves.--Mehrshad123 01:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have quoted Schaudig. If you know anything more recent, quote it. So please quote a "well-accepted textbook" based on Schaudig, okay? I have already announced that I will gladly -because in the interest of truth- admit that I am wrong, but you mus present evidence based on the best available edition of the Cylinder. Am I asking too much?Jona Lendering 01:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jona Lendering is a highly-regarded expert on the antiquity and ancient Near East. I cannot say the same for yourself. I cannot believe how insane it was to revert his edit because he linked to his site, Livius.org, which has ALREADY been used by many other editors for this article. If he had been the sole person to use that site as a reference, I could see a problem, but he isn't. Lendering didn't pull the Cylinder translation out of thin air, he used Hanspeter Schaudig's writings; this is not original work, Lendering merely translated it to English and placed it online. You also claim that we are introducing original sources written by ourselves, yet I don't even have a website, let alone one about Cyrus the Great.

Make note that I used the following sources since I first started working on this article: The Biblical Lands (ISBN 0-87226-247-2), The Heritage of Persia (ISBN 1-56859-008-3), History of the Persian Empire [Achaemenid Period] (ISBN 0-226-62777-2), La Perse Antique, Stories of the East From Herodotus, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Herodotus' The Histories, Encyclopædia Iranica, among others.

Since we have been using his work as a source since before he even registered on Wikipedia, I do not see how it could possibly be a problem. Wikipedia needs more editors with expertise in subjects, such as medical professionals for medicine-related topics, and historians (such as Lendering) for history-related subjects.

As a Persian myself, I can understand your nationalism, particularly about the Cyrus Cylinder. However, you need to look at the situation from a neutral point-of-view and understand that this is not a smear campaign against Cyrus the Great or his work. ♠ SG →Talk 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus As A Potential Messiah link

A link to a site about "Cyrus As A Potential Messiah" has been readded to this article. It was originally inserted by 87.110.109.84 (talk · contribs), whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to add links to the aletheiacollege website. Generally an external link is not used when an internal link already covers the topic (Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition). Unless the experienced editors here think it is important, I don't see a purpose here other than as part of a linkspam campaign. I will remove it again but look for responses from anyone who asserts its importance to this article. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't see the purpose of having that external link while we still have the internal article for Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which discusses the topic in a more encyclopedic manner rather than strictly religious. ♠ SG →Talk 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

Surena recently removed and changed some of the images in the article. Though the changes were good, the removals I'm having a harder time agreeing with.

I can understand the removal of the homa griffin, though I have argued this before, and the image was kept. But Croesus, why would that be deleted?

Now, as for the tomb image, I'm not sure. I like the fact that it is a more whole photo of the tomb, but the one we had previously had two greater aspects to it: a much higher resolution and the people in the photograph served as a measurement; looking at the current image, I can't really see how massive the tomb is.

The relief photo is a bit better, since it allows us to actually see it in more detail due to the shadows. I think it needs a crop and color balance adjustment, but I'll get to that later. ♠ SG →Talk 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

SG, I don't see the relevancy of the griffin-capital image here, which is allegedly being called Homā. Homā (i.e. Av. Sen-Mūrv, NPer: Simorgh), is a mythical bird, and no archaeologist or historian has ever connected the Persepolitan-capital with the mythical bird! With regard to Croesus image, this is an artist impression, which has no historical value or relevancy to be used in this article as example -- Anyhow, I'm not going to delete them since you like them. Surena 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have added another image to the article with people in the photograph served as a measurement. Surena 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, very nice. I just rewrote the caption as prose to go along with the other image descriptions in the article, but I really like the addition. Great work. ♠ SG →Talk 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to anyone who made edits after Feb.7

The article was vandalized by SG again after much time was taken in undoing the damages from the previous edits.

I will forward a request to Wikipedia admin to have his IP address banned in response to several months of continuouss large-scale vandalism on this article and the usage of profane language.

Regards.Mehrshad123 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit is a common expression. I guess Wikipedia needs to ban itself for containing articles about "profane language". ♠ SG →Talk 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistake about his daughters

This is a quote from the page, "Cyrus also had several daughters, of which two would marry Darius the Great, Artystone[9] and Atossa. The latter is significant, as she gave birth to Xerxes I, Darius' successor.[10]" What doesnt make sense is that, it says two of the daughters married 3 of the men. Maybe its just worded incorrectly, but it needs fixing. Peoplez1k 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The wording is not clear. What it tries to mean is that two of Cyrus' daughters (Atossa and Artystone) married the future king Darius I. I'll write it in another way, but feel free to change it if you find a better one.--Amizzoni 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Cyropaedia claims

Now, here is the problem. You are correct; generally, if it is sourced, it is fine. But there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, while not a mandatory rule, it is excellent at avoiding conflict between editors. I myself do not consider Cyrus Kar a reliable source, because, per the official policy of using questionable sources:

A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves.

I find Cyrus Kar's view on the Battle of Thermopylae to be rather extreme, comparing Leonidas and the Spartans to bin Laden. He has provided no sources for his arguments, as if pulling them straight out of thin air.

I WILL support your addition of Thomas Jefferson having read Cyropaedia, IF, and only if you can find proper sources regarding it. ♠ SG →Talk 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not quote Cyrus Kar. The references I made to are Ted Koppel and a scholar from West Point Military Academy. Their direct quotes only appear on the Kar video clip. That's why I'm asking you to restore the section. If you wish, we can leave out the Kar link. The entire paragraph still stands untouched and adequately sourced.--Zereshk 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Achaemenidian?

As it now reads, the article can easily be read to say that Cyrus is an Achaemenidian. How-ever, see Rollinger 2007 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-02-46.html#n3): "Cyrus and Cambyses I are Teispids and should not be confused with the Achaemenids of Darius' line. See Robert Rollinger, Der Stammbaum des achaimenidischen Königshauses oder die Frage der Legitimität der Herrschaft des Dareios. In: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30 [1998 (99)], 155-209, and most recently D. T. Potts, Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan. In: Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart (eds), Birth of the Persian Empire (The Idea of Iran, Vol. 1), London 2005, 7-28."

Achaemenid or Achaemenian, but not Achaemenidian! :P Yes, and see also M. Waters, "Cyrus and the Achaemenids", Iran 42 (2004), in http://www.achemenet.com/ (> ressources > sous presse); he gives more references in note 6. Of course it is not a fact, but a references to this discussion would be great in the "Dynastic history" section. Amizzoni 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

" reached this conclusion when I discovered five copies of Xenophon's Cyropaedia at the Library Of Congress in Washington D.C. Two copies belonged to Thomas Jefferson, the author of the U.S. Constitution (one in Greek, the other in Latin). Another would have almost certainly belonged to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson's closest confidant and another framer of America's Constitution. The curator told me that there were many more copies of the Cyropaedia before the fire of 1851, which destroyed much of the library" http://www.payvand.com/news/07/jan/1334.html

This is how Cyrus Kar create this theory. The man is lunatic. I m sure that Thomas Jefferson had in his possession numerous classics. There is no indication that thomas jefferson was influenced by cyropaedia. Anyway cyropaedia is a greek fictional philosophical work. its not a biography of cyrus as mr Kar wishes to suggest.

"The largest nation the world had yet seen" is potentially misleading.

The end of the first paragraph claims that "The empire expanded under his rule, eventually conquering most of Southwest Asia, much of Central Asia, and up to the Indus River, to create the largest nation the world had yet seen" and a source is cited. http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus.html . However, this statement has two issues:

1. The cited source makes no such claim. A broad claim like this needs a strong citation, as this kind of superlative language ("the biggest", "one of the most..." etc) is used flippantly around here and ultimately makes these articles devoid of meaning. I'm not saying the Persian empire wasn't the largest the world had yet seen, but that there has to be a valid source for this claim. The source does back up the statement about the regions that were conquered, but it makes no comment about the overall size of the resulting empire.

2. It is a stretch to call the ancient Persia empire a "nation." The nation itself would've been where Cyrus came from, but I think most people would agree that conquered territories aren't instantly assimilated into the "nation." Nation has more to do with cultural and linguistic regions than political boundaries.

Just some thoughts- I'm not going to change anything because I've never edited this page before and don't want to just jump in... --Canjecricketer 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why, but someone moved that source there. A while back it was sourcing something else in the lead. Regardless, I've changed "nation" to "state" and I've attributed a proper source. 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)