Talk:Cyrus Cylinder/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hormuzd Rassam

In this article Hormuzd Rassam is mentioned as known for his "brutality" however if you follow the link to his page, there's nothing there to support it. I think the line either needs a reference or his page needs an addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.216.74 (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It already has a reference - see reference 13. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sured why the dispute sign was removed. The fact is that the Christian Science Journal in 1911 way before the Pahlavid dynasties has used similar terminology [[1]].

The 1911 Christian Science Journal article should come first in the section because it specifically how such connection to a human rights occured.

Also one of the sources was removed, where-as a new Bryn Mawr review should make it valid:[2], since the reason for its removal was a previous Bryn Mawr review.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're looking at in that link - it only produces a summary page about the CS Journal, without any references to the Cyrus Cylinder. As for the Bryn Mawr review, note that it's rather artfully phrased in that it talks about "a number of scholars" supporting the "human rights" claim. The sources they cite are written by three lawyers and an archaeologist. They conspicuously don't cite any historians. I don't know why anyone would quote non-experts while ignoring the expert views, unless of course they are trying to make a political point. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at this page 283: [[3]]. Do a search for the words I am about to quote if you do not see it. The 1911 article talks about the cylinder. Note where it says(: "Upon the cylinder record of the time of Cyrus the following significant inscription has been found: "All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle.)

So it makes a direct connection with the cylinder in 1911 about concepts of human rights. This seems to contradict Wieshofer viewpoint about the Pahlavids, when they ddi not even exist in 1911.

On the Bryn Mawr review, how do you know the profession of these? But Archeologist are usually also familiar with history. But also if someone is looking at the cylinder from moralistic point of view, they might come to the conclusion. These are still scholars and actually scholars judging the text isolated from any other event, might reach the same conclusion. Part of the re-characterization of the Cyrus Cylinder is due to the battle of Opis, which a new article is on its way as well. The authors of the Bryn Mawr review note that it is not the position of all contemporary scholars (or many), but at the same time, many texts have referred to it as such. Furthermore it demonstrates two things: 1) The 1911 articles show the characertization of the Cyrus Cylinder as a human rights concept was not an internal Iranian phenomenon. 2) Many scholars cited (archeologists, lawyers and I am sure I can find some historians) are not Iranian and yet they have made such a characterization. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can download the whole Christian Science Article from 1911 here: [4]. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The link is dead. I removed the word "first", though. Wiesehöfer writes on the forging and promoting of the Cyrus myth by the Pahlavi regime, he does not state explicitly that no one else had similar ideas before. --Konstock (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Due a search under "Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle" in google books. Wiesehofer does say first, which makes his arguments questionable since the source I brought is from 1911, before the existence of such a regime. So the 1911 source should be included. The dispute tag therefore is there because this 1911 source is not included and obviously contradicts Wiesehofer's claim about "first". There is no OR here, just a 1911 source contradicts Wiesehofer who claims Pahlavids made such an assumption first, but this 1911 source is not included. Thanks.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me put this very simply - I've said it before: You cannot cite a 98-year-old article from a media source and claim that it is in any way representative of modern scholarship. You are engaging in original research by synthesis. As for the article's provenance, can you tell me who wrote it, or are you just looking at a snippet? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misintrepret my word. I said that the 98 year old article shows that Wiesehofer's claim about "It was First the Pahlavid monarch" is wrong. There is no original research. The article source is here: [5] and it is in full, not a snippet. PDF file here: [6], it is on page 283. What I find confusing is that you had Wiesehofer mentioning that the intrepretation as a human rights charter or etc. was first coined by the Pahlavids. But here we have a source from almost 100 years ago. "Upon the cylinder record of the time of Cyrus the following significant inscription has been found: "All of their people I gather and restore their dwelling places". This statement would seem to indicate a fixed national policy, and strenghten the impression that Cyrus believed in the sacred rights of individual freedom' and has a keen sense of human justice based upon the demands of principle". As long as this source is not included in the section on charter of human rights as a source that uses such characterization, then I believe I am entitled to have the dispute tag present. Because this source directly contradicts any claims that the Pahlavids were the first to make such comparisons. Thank you and I have no intention to do any origina WP:OR but I just note there is contradiction between what Wiesehofer attributes to Pahlavids (as first to mention it as a human rights charter) and such a source which uses the same characterization. So if we can somehow include this source in the text of that section (and I do not care about its validity but rather the fact that in 1911 such characteritizations were made which is significant from the viewpoint of timeline), I'll be satisfied. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Nepaheshgar is right for: to disprove a claim (e.g. Wiesehofer's) one counterexample is enough which he has found.--Xashaiar (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the very definition of original research, and it's strictly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. You're both clearly attempting to refute Wiesehofer's statement attributing the claim to the Pahlavids. That's original research by synthesis - combining or using sources to make an argument that is not explicitly stated by the source(s), in this case the argument being that Wiesehofer was wrong. You can't use a source from 1911 to refute a statement made in 1999. What you need to do is to find a source - necessarily published after 1999 - that discusses Wiesehofer's attribution. You can't do your own research and then present your personal conclusions as fact. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is suggesting to "explicity write it contradicts" Wiesehofer in the text, although it obviously does. I just want to mention this 1911 source in the text since it is important also from chronological order. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again Nepaheshgar is right in my opinion. Let facts speak for themselves. Why Nepaheshgar can not include a sentence like "however a document form 1911 states explicitly...[the sentences above]..." just after Wiesehofer's statement? This is not OR nor SYNTH.--Xashaiar (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the google books links work for me. Does google limit this geographically? It would be understandable, but I get no warning. shellac (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me either. I'm in the UK, btw. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Both work fine for me. Should I indicate where I'm located?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not in Oz any more, Toto! -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I worked out why some people can see the CSJ article while others can't. As others have suggested, Google does indeed have country-based restrictions on what you can see, presumably for licensing reasons. There is a way around this: use a public proxy service to "simulate" access from within the United States. If you go to http://www.online-browser.com/ and enter http://books.google.com , you will get the US version of Google Books, with full access to the CSJ article that Nepaheshgar has cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisO. Of course this information circumvents copyright protection. You wouldn't steal a handbag, would you? shellac (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but I can't promise not to use a policeman's helmet as a toilet... -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery?

Slavery says: "The Cyrus Cylinder, inscribed about 539 BC by the order of Cyrus the Great of Persia, abolished slavery and allowed Jews and other nationalities who had been enslaved under Babylonian rule to return to their native lands."
I do not see any specific mention in Cyrus Cylinder of abolition of slavery.
What are the facts here? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a reference to the very popular fake translation, which is mentioned in this article. For the actual text, see [7]. Astarabadi (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is a case history in exaggeration, bad translation, bad facts, hyperbole, highly problematic sourcing* and a presents a highly marginal view on the topic. On the whole the idea that the empire under Cyrus, or the Persian empire generally, was more beneficent to conquered peoples is baseless. It leads to statements such as "Cyrus's policies toward subjugated nations were certainly different from those of the Assyrians and Babylonians" which are not true. Cyrus' regime engaged in massacre, massacre of women and children, mass deportation, burning of cities and slavery.

The "As a charter of human rights" section presents views by non historians who extrapolate the actual missing text with amazing creativity, and leave out the context of the cylinder, as well as other develompets in the acnient world.

We appear to have a wikipeida article that is a repetition of concoctions and inventions by nationalists in the Pahlavi regime years ago.

(*)Lots of it is secondary sourcing creating a mask of credibility. EG Hirad Abtahi takes at face value and uses in his works many of the earlier claims that have since been debunked. But by quoting Abtahi, editors are reintroducing debunked claims.DavidRub (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a look at it. Unfortunately, as the discussions above show, the development of this article has been hampered by political issues which have distracted from focusing on high-quality academic sources. It would help if you could list which points in the article you disagree with. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So then, was there or was there not slavery in the Persian Empire? I myself have never heard of an ancient civilization that did not have some sort of slavery, serfdom, or indentured servitude, because of the dire need for lots of cheap labor prior to the invention of modern industrial technologies. However, I am not an expert on this topic. So, I guess that my main question for the Wikipedia community is this: what is the academic consensus on slavery in the Persian Empire? Is there any scholarly evidence that suggests that it did not exist (or that Cyrus the Great abolished it)? Are politically-biased translations and interpretations of the Cyrus Cylinder the sole sources for this claim that Cyrus abolished slavery? Is there any independent confirmation of Cyrus' abolition of slavery from other ancient sources? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Emperors or Kings?

Wasn't Persian monarchy Kings, not Emperors? Warrior4321^talk 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point - I've amended the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What is controversial about that? Cyrus the Great did have an empire and was its ruler, and hence Cyrus was an emperor. Moreover, I do not understand the sentence "Wasn't Persian monarchy Kings, not Emperors?" I would like to understand the reason of change form "emperor" to "king".--Xashaiar (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simply that Cyrus is conventionally described as a king, not an emperor. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But the title emperor is not unconventional either, and "Achaemenid empire" is quite conventional as well. It is undisputed that Cyrus founded the "empire". Therefore Cyrus was an emperor. I do not see a real problem here, if there is any wikipedia policy that supports change from emperor to king, then go ahead and change it again.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"I am Cyrus, king of the universe, the great king, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters of the world, son of Cambyses, the great king,, king of the city of Anshan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city of Anshan, descendant of Teispes, the great king, king of Anshan, the perpetual seed of kingship, whose reign Bel and Nabu love, and with whose kingship, to their joy, they concern themselves." shellac (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What better source than the man himself? ;-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be serious. Do you have any doubt that Cyrus the Great is the best source? Have you read wikipedia's universal guidline? 1. He has called himself that way mentioned above. 2. There are many sources who call him with any available honorary title that you can imagine (king, best king, divine, emperor, law giver, greatest king,...). Right? 3. Since there are sources that are RS and V, and call him "emperor", therefore wikipedia may use that title. I am confused about ChrisO's attempt to make Cyrus the Great only a king and not emperor. I do not see him commenting next door or opening any can.--Xashaiar (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue should not be made into a big deal. We cannot commit intrepretation of primary sources. Here is another one: "Onesicritus, however, states that the tower had ten stories and that Cyrus lay in the uppermost story, and that there was one inscription in Greek, carved in Persian letters, "Here I lie, Cyrus, king of kings," and another written in the Persian language with the same meaning. "[8]. But I think the best title is "King of Kings". An emperor is also a King by default. That is every emperor is a King but not every King is an emperor. Here it gets 2190 results in google books.[9] in Total. That is obviously not a small number! Cyrus was a King at one time also (of the area of Pars) and there many references to him as a King as well, but once he established his empire, then he is a King of Kings (emperor). In Achaemenid Persian inscription, the title of the rulers are uniformly "King of Kings" or Shahanshah. The Cyrus Cylinder was just the start of the empire and the empire extended much further when Cyrus passed away. So one cannot just go by the Cylinder since it was not the empire at its extent at the time. If we take what Strabo says to be true, then it seems King was slowly transformed to King of Kings (emperor). Many lands simply accepted the Persian emperor as their King of Kings. It is better to look at Cyrus's legacy once he established his empire. The Achaemenids did not call themselves Kings once the empire was established (which is after the Cylinder's time), but "King of Kings". Old Persian: "xshâyath xshâyathiyânâm" (modern Persian: Shahanshah with XShayath->Shah after Old->Middle->Modern Persian). This also reflects the structure of the empire where either Satraps or Kings ruled their own locality but were under the King of Kings. So I think the word King of Kings is reflected better. Of course an emperor and King of King is also a "King" but a King is not necessarily an emperor and Kings of Kings. That is emperor already includes King but King does not include emperor. So I think given the number of google hits, emperor is more accurate. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly agree it's not a big deal. English language sources seem to use 'King Cyrus' far more than 'Emperor Cyrus', although the appellation 'Cyrus the Great' is (of course) more common. There are plenty of regents who ruled an empire yet are known as king or queen (Victoria, various Spanish rulers etc). If there is a pattern here I can't discern it :-) shellac (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

True King is common also and so is emperor. However from one perspective I think emperor or even better "King of Kings" is better than King. Some areas in the Persian empire had their own local King (alongside a Satrap usually) and so when we say King/ruler of X province in Persian empire, we are not sure if it is the Achaemenid emperor, the local King or Satrap or etc. Shahanshah (the official Achaemenid title in their inscription) is my preferred choice in terms of technical accuracy. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Code of Hammurabi addresses human rights?

Some people might dispute that, since the code of Hammurabi contains many harsh punishments, treats aristocrats more leniently than free men and free men more leniently than slaves, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If there was anything "humanitarian" respected in Babylon there was no need for Cyrus the Great to liberate them. Xashaiar (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Code of Hammurabi had nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. The addition was unsourced original research, so I've removed it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, easy there. The code of Hamurabi is not a human rights charter, just as the Cyrus cylinder isn´t. But it DOES addresses human right, and that is what I wrote. It was by no means the first document to address human rights, but there is no question that it does and it predates Cyrus cylinder, defining rights and duties of free men and women as well as children and slaves. It exempts from guilt raped women for instance, something that eve today some countries don´t do. Do you disagree that it addresses some human rights? Please give me your opinions. Also, I´ve changed the section title, it was not written anywhere that the code was a human rights code. Last but not least, Xashaiar, please stop trolling, this is not a forum, if you have nothing useful to add to the discussion, then don´t enter the discussion. Thank you and good night. Uirauna (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

This sentence of yours: "But it DOES addresses human right, and that is what I wrote" is a good example of editing based on own understanding and sourcing for the sake of intended conclusion. Xashaiar (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're missing the point that the concept of "human rights" is a modern one - talking about human rights in the context of ancient Babylonia is completely anachronistic. Hammurabi's code, like Cyrus's cylinder, was an exercise in royal justice, regulating the affairs of their subjects, rather than a "human rights charter" (a concept which would have been completely foreign to both Babylonians and Persians). The code makes this clear right at the start when Hammurabi states that the gods had sent "me, Hammurabi, the obedient, God-fearing prince to make manifest justice in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doer, that the strong harm not the weak". In other words, the justice comes from Hammurabi himself, not from some universal set of natural rights. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC) -- ChrisO (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, guess I got it know, but shouldn´t something like your explanation be in the article? Or else it might be misleading. Anyway, thanks for the explanation ChrisO. Good night! Uirauna (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not discussed in our Code of Hammurabi article - I'm not aware of any particular controversy over "human rights" in relation to the Code - but since there is such a controversy over the Cyrus Cylinder, it's discussed in this article, including the point about anachronism. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Uirauna -- Probably no one would dispute that one goal of the code of Hammurabi is an ordered society under law, but the Cyrus cylinder also includes much material on liberating peoples from their burdens and allowing them to worship their own gods etc., so while the idea of a "code of rights" may strictly speaking be anachronistic for both texts, it's less of a stretch for the Cyrus cylinder. AnonMoos (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

as a charter of human rights

i copyeditted some of this, but i think it is a very long and obtuse paragraph that could do with an overhaul, to get out an error i spend much time editing one small mistake because it is so long and somewhat concocted. i think that is also for the reader.24.132.171.225 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's a fringe theory in any case, so it could do with being given far less prominence than it does at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out the obvious

The magnanimity of Cyrus may have sprung from political considerations, or they show Cyrus as the most humane ruler until that time. No argument there but as the article stands it is presented as an either or question. The two interpretations do not rule one another out. Cyrus may well have been a humane man who found that humane rule (at least according to the standards of the time) fit his policies perfectly. Beware of the tertium non datur. All the best 85.220.116.227 (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

New Discoveries

IP who follows wikipedia

[10]. "An important discovery has very recently been made at the British Museum in the form of two pieces of cuneiform tablet that cast light on the famous Cyrus Cylinder that is sometimes described as the first Declaration of Human Rights." [11]. Such new development and news are not reflected in the article. Here is also another excerpt from another article [12]: "The British Museum’s (BM) loan of the Cyrus Cylinder to Iran has been delayed, because of a major discovery in London. Part of Cyrus the Great’s text has been found on two fragments of inscribed clay tablets.". And I also quote: "The BM’s Middle East keeper John Curtis describes the find as “very significant”, ". Note the article is dated 20 Jan, 2010. So the FA status of the article should be put on hold until these major discoviers are brought to light. How much this new information will change the content of the article is to be seen, however the article currently lacks these information about Cylinder. And it is possible the content of the article can change in the future based on these major discoveries. Of course, not every BM article will have major discoveries in 2010, however the present Wikipedia article not only lacks any information on these major discoveries, but it would be a shame to have an incomplete article as an FA.

I did note a small mention of this new find. However, the article claims it is the same text as the Cylinder. This newsreport contradicts this assertion: "One of the tablets clarifies a passage which could not be properly read on the Cyrus Cylinder. The other supplies part of the missing text (since a section of the cylinder was broken off before it was excavated). "[13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum 2010-01-20 press release states "these small pieces belong to the same text as on the Cyrus Cylinder". -- Matthias Blume (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

violation of WP:Synth and wp:NPOV

Because of the fact that previous experience with this page by myself and some others who believe(d) that this page is not neutral and our try turned into block of many people for days but nothing happened to those disagreeing with us, I want to make some comments and leave.

1. wp:synth: several times like mentioning of the word IRANIAN (Ebadi, Abtahi, Magazine,...) in front of any person with positive view on Cyrus Cylinder. This is obviously because the author want to mean: "look only Iranians have this view, and this view is because of nationalistic view.... " Would we accept to put "born in Nazi time" in front of any person qho qualifies and has a view on something somewhere? Another example is the quote by Ebadi and linking it with the fake translation: who says Ebadi went to a library and took the fake translation and copy paste it into her speech? Ebadi may have invented the things she wanted to say because she believed in it. The appearance of her quote along side with mentioning of a fake translation is a violation of wp:nor and is wp:synth. Other example is the the inclusion of an image with the caption "Monument to the Cyrus Cylinder in Balboa Park, San Diego, California erected by an Iranian emigré organisation. The quoted text about human rights is, however, from a fake translation." This is obviously wp:synth and wp:or. Why should we care that people are abusing the legacy of Cyrus the Great? By saying "Iranian" again isnt this article trying to make a political point?
2. wp:npov: The entire article is full of "However", "Persian propaganda", "Extensive Persian propaganda", .... what is that? Another example is about Jerusalem: "which other historians say [Cylinder should have mentioned that].." It is crystal clear that this is non-sense and a minority view on proved facts of history.

This article should be edited by neutral editors. Xashaiar (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your points, 1) another editor has recommended providing more info about the individuals commenting, which I have done. Hence "Assyro-British archaeologist Hormuzd Rassam", "the historian Morton Smith", "German historian Hanspeter Schaudig", "Durham University's Dr Johannes Haubold" and so on. As this shows, there is of course no attempt to single out Iranians. Ebadi's reference to the fake translation is explicitly mentioned in the cited sources (Lendering - "a fake translation has been made that can still be found on many places on the internet and was, for instance, quoted by Shirin Ebadi when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003" and Schulz - "Even Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was taken in by the hoax.") The point being made by this and by the image is simply that the fake translation is being widely quoted. 2) Yes, I know you personally disagree with this interpretation. But the fact remains that it is the view of the overwhelming majority of professional historians in this field. NPOV dictates that majority views must be prioritised. Minority views, or in this case fringe views, are not given equal validity. This has been explained to you many times before. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight problems

I'm not happy with some of the changes that have recently been introduced by User:Wragge, in particular the amount of weight that is being put in the British Museum's recent, very brief announcement of new fragments relating to the Cyrus Cylinder. We simply do not yet know fully what is the significance of these pieces. They haven't been the subject of any academic works. They have only just (literally within the last week) been presented to experts outside the BM. We can certainly mention their discovery and the BM's initial view of their significance, but we can't draw any conclusions at such an early stage and we certainly can't state or imply that they overturn everything that is previously understood about the CC. The references to the new fragments that have been added at various points in the article represent undue weight on a new discovery; we need to be more cautious. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In contrary I am unhappy with your edits that are clear violation of wp:npov and wp:synth (as seen here. The problem: BM non-sense or anything else when you agree with are present and repeated over and over, but BM's own finding (wrong or right, sense-full or not), when you disagree with, becomes irrelevant! This is not neutral pov). Also I propose changing the title of the section "Scholarly view" to best fit title "Eurocentric view" (and edit accordingly) to make sure that people know what they are going to read. An acceptable Wikipedia article is supposed to have acceptable tone which this article does not have. Xashaiar (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me (Wragge) with your feedback about those changes, ChrisO. I see your point, but these are pretty definitive announcements by the museum responsible for studying the Cylinder. It's odd that you write "we can't draw any conclusions" from a press release that the page had already cited several times, but I understand that a more considered countpoint would be even better. The main issue is really one of neutrality; Of course it would be great to update the page with a better source for the the "other side" of the argument that this page is trying to make, but the first thing was to add at least one: When we have twenty separate scholars quoted at length about how the cylinder was not a pronouncement and none at all about how it was, and then the BM says that in fact it was a pronouncement, I don't see we can completely exclude that POV, on purely WP:NPOV grounds... do you? (That's especially true when the announcement specifically contradicting the clear viewpoint on this page doesn't hedge & is actually in one of the links we give ourselves... people going to it would get the wrong impression about how carefully we are reading the sources we cite, don't you think?)--Wragge (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Update P.S.: The July press release was linked already, but only because it was on the same web page as early BM releases, so I might have exaggerated slightly in the above in saying that we had already drawn from that recent release. Of course, you should remove references that you feel are invalid, but please be careful in making that judgment: in a way, it's not the Wikipedia way to rely on expertise, since there's a fine line between deciding what is a fringe view and presenting a slanted picture. The more expertise you have, the greater is the risk of presenting the evidence in such a way that it presents the 'real story' as you see it (we've all done it). I'm just the opposite on this subject... I'd never heard of the Cylinder until it was brought up this week for review, and I know nothing about the Ancient Near East.... but, I can read a source, so I was concerned when checking through the various sources that those same sources had, in several cases, made other points (e.g. on other pages, or other press releases) that contradicted some of the many Points-Of-View presented here. I think it's risky to selectively sample from sources.

Anyway, I've made some attempts to bring the page into line with WP:EDITORIAL and WP:NPOV policies (as I see them - especially WP:CLAIM) and hope that some of that contribution might be helpful. There's certainly a role for expert judgment, so I'll leave the page to those experts now. This article has a lot going for it, and it's a very important subject, so I hope to see it soon as a featured article. To do that quickly, I advise reducing the number of controversies it covers to the minimum: since this page must necessarily deal with the "Iran vs. BM" controversy, and the "Is it really a human rights?" controversy, I strongly suggest delegating the controversy over what sort of ruler Cyrus 'really was' to the Cyrus the Great article. I mean, two separate controversies are enough for any one page, right? (I don't think there's a need to take on a third, though it is, of course, related. Probably better to focus on THE CYLINDER itself, and reduce the digressions into the later rule of Cyrus, and historical/scholarly views thereof.)--Wragge (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to add the following at the end of relevant section.

According to British Museum, the recent research on other 130,000 pieces of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, all kept in the British Museum, can help to have better understanding of the Cylinder and these tablets show, according to British Museum that "the ‘declaration’ on the Cylinder is much more than a standard Babylonian building inscription. It was probably an imperial decree that was distributed around the Persian Empire, and it may have been pronouncements of this sort that the author of the Biblical book of Ezra was able to draw upon when writing about Cyrus".BM statement

Any objection? If so why? This is newest find of BM and the older stuff are out-dated now. Notice that the ONLY PART of this official statement that asks for future view of scholars is the part "[it .. was] an imperial decree that was distributed around the Persian Empire" ... . The statement is definitive about "the Cylinder is much more than a standard Babylonian building inscription". BM can certainly be trusted for this last part, but deciding on what this "much more than a standard Babylonian building inscription" means can be postponed a bit. Xashaiar (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're making a fundamental misunderstanding. The British Museum has put forward a new and very interesting hypothesis. But that does not make everything else "outdated". The British Museum is one voice among many (though an important voice, to be sure) but so far it is the only source to have put forward this new view. That will change in due course, when people start writing papers about the new finds, but in the meantime it's simply too early to put much weight on this, certainly not the extreme weight that you want to put on it. History isn't like science, where a new discovery can change an entire field overnight; people put forward new interpretations, which may gain support over time. We can certainly mention the BM's latest finds but we can't use them to state or imply that everything previously known is wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The 06:19, 1 July 2010 version of the article states "the British Museum hypothesized ...". There is no claim that everything else is outdated. There is not "extreme weight" -- the edit added just two sentences in the middle of a large section. I agree with you, the British Museum is an important voice. Consequently it should be OK to quote and cite a statement by this institution about "an important discovery" on Wikipedia. Sometimes, a single discovery really does change established views on a topic. I think that is true in history as much as in the physical sciences. In this case, the British Museum claims to have made such a discovery -- an ancient manuscript. If the BM's claims are later refuted, that would also be newsworthy and Wikipedia-worthy. -- Matthias Blume (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A press release by the BM about a workshop given to support a novel hypothesis is not a good source. The BM is a museum and a publisher, this does not mean that "it" has an opinion, so to add such a statement we would need to refer to the expert(s) behind the press release and I would wonder why anyone would want to reference a PR statement about subjects that should be published in properly peer-reviewed academic journals. If no such peer-reviewed sources are available then it would seem to have doubtful long-term value in this article unless a range of independent sources can demonstrate significant impact of these views for non-academic reasons (i.e. significant political or financial impact). Fæ (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the press release in question is dated 2010-01-20 and is not about the workshop but rather about the discovery and interpretation of the fragments themselves. The fact that the British Museum has not issued any retraction or modification in the past five months indicates that the institution stands by the original statement. When dealing with new developments (discovery of an ancient copy of the text of the cylinder), it is often necessary to rely on press releases and news reports. Peer reviewed journal articles are typically not published sooner than a year after the discovery. Newsworthy finds of historical artifacts are often announced to the press prior to publication in a scholarly journal. The reason for Wikipedia's cite press release template is to facilitate citing press releases, so this is accepted practice on Wikipedia. The press release mentions Professor Wilfred Lambert formerly of the University of Birmingham and Dr Irving Finkel of the Department of Middle East in the British Museum, so these experts presumably stand behind the statements. -- Matthias Blume (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There are now other sources making similar statements, citing experts. For example http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Major-discovery-delays-Cyrus-Cylinder-loan-to-Iran/20089. I'll add one or more additional reputable references, or please feel free to add them. -- Matthias Blume (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Wragge has certainly done some very useful work here, which I'm grateful for. However, I think we need to understand that there are basically three viewpoints here:

a) that the Cyrus Cylinder is a standard building inscription - this is the overwhelming-majority viewpoint among historians;

b) that the CC is a "human rights charter" - this is strongly rejected by historians but is popular among Iranian nationalists in particular;

c) that the CC is a royal proclamation - this is a brand-new hypothesis put forward by the British Museum that has not yet been commented on or verified in print by other historians.

Note that the BM is not endorsing the "human rights charter" interpretation. It's putting forward a third interpretation, though it's effectively a development of the building inscription interpretation rather than a completely new interpretation. The problem, from the point of view of undue weight, is that the first explanation is the overwhelming-majority position, the second is clearly a minority viewpoint and the third is currently (as far as NPOV is concerned) a tiny-minority viewpoint - the BM is the only source for that new interpretation. As such, we have to give the majority viewpoint priority. Now, given time, the BM's new interpretation is likely to lead to new academic commentary which will require us to re-evaluate where the balance of opinion lies. But it's simply too early to give much weight to this. Fæ is right to point out the additional difficulties of sourcing this, i.e. the lack of peer-reviewed sources; a PR statement is not equivalent to a peer-reviewed academic journal. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight states "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'." Furthermore, it states "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The British Museum, owner of the cylinder, is clearly prominent w.r.t. the cylinder. It is normally a reliable source -- a research institution rather than a private and possibly uninformed collector. Adding two sentences from the press release quoting the BM's viewpoint seems like 'due weight'. -- Matthias Blume (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read Fæ's comments above. This is a new hypothesis that has been published in a non-academic context (by the museum's press office) that does not as yet have any wider currency among the academic community. Your addition is redundant - I've mentioned it in para 2 of Cyrus Cylinder#Mesopotamian tradition and Persian propaganda, in the proper context. I think that's a good compromise between not mentioning it at all (which I don't advocate) and giving it a very prominent mention (which is the effect of your edit). But until it gets wider comment from the academic community, we cannot put greater weight on it at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Until quality secondary sources are produced in order to demonstrate the impact of any new theories then inclusion in this article can be challenge under the WP:NPOV guidelines. The single source quoted has been a press release (which quotes no independent sources and makes no attribution). The British Museum publishes well respected text books and guides to its collection which cite quality peer reviewed sources to support content, this does not apply to press releases. There seems to be no benefit in adding novel poorly sourced theories to this otherwise well sourced article.

If you wish to continue challenging this opinion, then I suggest applying one of the dispute resolution processes as I see no fresh arguments being put forward at this point and have no desire to loop around the same points. The RFC process may be appropriate; personally, I see little scope for re-interpretation or a local consensus for an exception to the standard RS, NPOV or FRINGE guidelines. Fæ (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested regarding including the British Museum quote. See User_talk:ChrisO#Cyrus_Cylinder. Matthias Blume (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote is from valid source and is fine. BM has been quoted 10 times to promote the POV of this article, why it can not be quoted to show different opinion? The quote is from RS and is word-for-word from source therefore there is no wp:pov problem. Xashaiar (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I did self revert myself. I forgot my editing restriction on this page. But I guess a few pov, dubious, .. tags should be put into this article.Xashaiar (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once Irving Finkel publishes any new conclusions these can, and probably should, be added to the article. Speculation based on publicity statements before that point seems to fail recentism and maybe fringe and mention as part of the current diplomatic hoo-ha with Iran seems only worth a very minor note, if any, in the long term. Fæ (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote should be there and the section should be edited accordingly. Now the section is 100% sure on 1. The doc was a standard building doc, which is false, 2. The doc is not related to the Empire policy, which is again false. 3. The sources are rather old and are with clear and extreme POV. I guess some other editors (neutral, excluding myself if you want) should rewrite the article.Xashaiar (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I have misunderstood something about the unattributed press release being referenced but it appears to say that the new fragments found are speculated to be the from same text as the CC, potentially making the CC more than a individual document but a possible imperial decree. This is the reason why the loan to Iran was delayed, causing a diplomatic issue. If you eliminate the newsworthy diplomatic issue (as you seem to prefer) then the speculative unpublished interpretation of what Finkel has called "dog biscuits" (as they are so hard to read) probably should not be mentioned at all until Finkel chooses to make a proper publication of his findings.

I feel this debate is stale and stuck in a loop. If you wish to continue to lobby to change this article then please use a dispute resolution process rather than being tempted to edit war. Fæ (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Look the BM website speculation is not what I want to add: I added only the part that says "these tablets show, according to British Museum that "the ‘declaration’ on the Cylinder is much more than a standard Babylonian building inscription." the part that was speculating something was added with "may, probably, ..". Also there is a serious problem with the way people are justifying the removal of content: BM is regarded as RS in all cases except for the part that gives a different opinion. Here is the question: why we can not add the exact quote referring to its date. Note that according to wp:endue and wp:pov which the editors seem to abuse is clear on this: if a point of view is significant, there should be a mention of it. 11:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate significance, then there is no issue with adding a mention in proportion to the presence of this theory in sources (as per WP:NPOV). To demonstrate significance, independent reliable sources are needed in addition to the primary source. At the moment, none has been identified. Fæ (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Another example of neglected views: In this article "The Cyrus cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy (A Kuhrt - Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1983) link" the author (who has been quoted many many times (violating wp:undue) in this article) is an author with a clear POV, but this author mentions what she disagrees with. In contrast to that article and other scholarly publications, this wikipedia article does attack on all positive aspects regarding Cyrus Cylinder but it does not say "what this article disagrees with". I mean we should mention what has been said by X and then try to say X is wrong! For example in the linked article we have this: Some scholars have "described the Cyrus Cylinder as introducing a new and humanitarian tone in a world, at that time, too often ’ruled by the most implacable cruelty'" Why this can not be mentioned? Why we can not say that there have been views by non-Iranian (if you like) which A. Kuhrt disagrees with? Why this article says what A.Kuhrt believes but does not mention "what" A. Kuhrt disagrees with?... I suggest you read the archive of this talk page and history page of the article to see how many sources, quotes, opinions, tags, .. have been simply disregarded. Xashaiar (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)