Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyrus Cylinder/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 19:35, 6 July 2010 [1].

Cyrus Cylinder

[edit]

Cyrus Cylinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is currently collaborating with the British Museum to improve articles about the museum's artifacts (see Wikipedia:GLAM/BM), with Witty lama as the BM's first "Wikipedian in Residence". I'm happy to put forward Cyrus cylinder for consideration as a possible featured article. I've been working on it for about two years now, but have done a lot of work on it lately to get it up to FA standard. Since this is the fifth most-read article we have on a BM artifact, and the artifact itself is one of the most celebrated and historically significant items in the BM's collection, getting this article to FA status would be a significant benefit for all parties. Ideally I'd like to get it to FA before 12 October this year, the anniversary of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon. I'd be grateful for views on whether it meets the FA criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's great to see this article come up here and I do hope that I can get some of the British Museum curators from the relevant department to give the article a look-over as well. But! The fact of the collaboration with the British Museum does not mean that I or anyone else should be "going easy" on this candidacy. In fact, the reverse - because we have access (to a certain degree at least) to the British Museum curators then this article should be a higher quality than normal. The only "special treatment" that this article deserves is more scrutiny, not less. Witty Lama 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liam, I totally agree. I've tried to be as comprehensive and academically rigorous as possible in writing this article. If at all possible, I'd like to demonstrate that Wikipedia can produce articles that are as good as anything that would come out of an academic institution like the BM. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Comments I won't be delivering a final "verdict" on this as I have my own BM-related nom at Peer Review & intended to come here shortly [now above]. Both articles qualify for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize, which should be made clear, & I want to avoid any suspicion of log-rolling or log-jamming. But I have some points:
  • Imo the location of an artifact should be always in the first para, as early as possible; "now in the British Museum" will fit nicely at the end of the first sentence.
  • The lead is a tad short perhaps; rather more summarizing the text could be added, although I know that is the next section.
  • I've expanded the lead to give more info on the text, the dispute over the "human rights charter" interpretation and the link with the repatriation of the Jews. -- ChrisO (talk)
  • The first para of the "Interpretations" is one sentence long, which is deprecated. It has 8 citations at the end, although pretty much the same thing has already been said and cited in the lead. This is where citation templates take us! I'm sure in this case Johnbod's Law does not in fact apply, but it does not look good. If they are all really needed, just bundle them up into a one-off old style reference.
  • I've split up the sentence and added more info, turning it into a proper paragraph. I know the long list of citations is unwieldy but unfortunately I think it's necessary - there are, regrettably, political reasons why it's needed, so Johnbod's Law is accurate enough in this case. (I'll elaborate further shortly). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, but they can still be rolled up into a single numbered ref.; 3/8 are unique ones anyway. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled the three unique refs. Each of the others is used multiple times throughout the article, so I don't think rolling them up works. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Achieved, finally. Unpicking the refs was rather complex but it's done now. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not make clear what I think is the case, that the cylinder was deliberately laid into the foundations of the building as we still sometimes deposit things, and was never intended to be seen again.
I've taken out the Nabonidus "See also" link. I dislike linking from image captions; it's not required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), as you rightly note, so I've generally avoided it in this and other featured and good articles that I've written. I've replaced the UN picture you mention and amended the caption along the lines that you suggested. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two BM link references in "other sources" should I think be rephrased, and probably explained, to clarify that one is to the "Highlights" (very short) and the next to the "collection database" (very long, and also containing a full translation of the text)
  • "British Museum Highlights" web page, accessed June 16, 2010
  • "British Museum collection database" web page, with full translation of cylinder text, accessed June 16, 2010
- many would be more long-winded on the web-page titles. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've modified those two link refs per your suggestion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the third BM source, the placard or caption (not an "inscription") on the display. These came up for discussion in the Inner German border FAC. It could change at any moment, & then there would be no record of it. If it really must be used, and surely all this must be covered elsewhere, I'd try to get a photo onto Commons as a permanent record - I think the German ones had this in some cases.
  • You're right that the info is covered elsewhere, but that would not be from a BM source. Its value is that it shows how the BM explains the cylinder to the public. I can get a photo easily enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not I think explain that the full text of the cylinder is available online. As well as pointing this out in the refs, I think it should be said in the text as well, especially if a fake version is also online.
  • In "The text" section, I've added a line: "Several versions of the full translated text of the cylinder are available online (see "Editions and translations" below)." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I had missed that. I've capitalised it throughout but I can't move the article to that title, as there's a redirect in place which needs to be deleted first. I've flagged the redirect for speedy deletion to allow the move. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else deleted it, I've moved the article to the Version with Capital Letters, moved the FAC to the new matching title and sorted out everything else. Let me know if I've missed anything. BencherliteTalk 17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton

[edit]

Sources review: No problems with the sources, but a few reference formatting issues:-

  • Notes
  • Books and journals
    • Some of these appear to be in foreign languages: Berger (French), Schaudig (German), Wiesehoter (German), Weissebach (German). In each case the language needs to be stated.
    • Free et al lacks publisher location
    • Shabani et al lacks publication date and publisher location
    • Could the Walker (1972) entry be made a little more informative? For example, does Iran (10) refer to a journal?
  • Other sources

Otherwise sources look fine, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now resolved all of the issues above. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fasach Nua

[edit]

Oppose File:Nabonidus.jpg & File:Tharoor_and_Cyrus_Cylinder.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this seems extreme at first blush, it is correct that neither of these images have Non-free media usage statements justifying their inclusion in this article. As per the FAC rules: "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." So, although these images are indeed good illustrations to the article, I don't imagine that they would greatly harm the article if they were removed. Where is the Nabonidus relief? Is there another photo available? Witty Lama 21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Nabonidus relief is in the British Museum. Shouldn't be too hard to replace, assuming it's on display. shellac (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I should have know that :-P I'll add it to Photos Requested at the BM. Witty Lama 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get a pic of the relief on Friday. I'm fairly sure it's on display. As for the UN image, I'll write up a fair use rationale and post it here for review. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed the UN image, I don't think it really meets the fair use criteria. I've replaced with an alternative fair use image, File:Gift of Iran to the United Nations.jpg. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also replaced the Nabonidus image with a copyright-friendly one. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit

[edit]

Oppose on criterion 3

  • File:Babylon 1829.jpg - The source for this image is unclear. Is it from a book? Library or museum archive? We need to give enough information about it that a user could find it. Also, the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years", so we need a death date for the author.
I've added more sourcing info for this image. However, I don't think we need a death date for the author. The book was published in 1829 - 181 years ago. I think it's safe to assume the author died more than 70 years ago. You can find the entire book on Google Books [3]. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find the death date - 1852, so I think we're safe... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Cyrus cylinder extract.png - Please include full bibliographic information for the source (as if it were being cited in a bibliography). Also, the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years", so we need a death date for the author.
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nabonidus.jpg - This image has no fair use rationale, so I cannot make a determination on its validity as a fair use image. Please add a WP:FURG.
I'll replace this with my own version this Friday. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need, I found a replacement on the Commons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the replacement here so I can check it. Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same file name. There were different files on the English Wikipedia and Commons called File:Nabonidus.jpg. The en.wp version, which lacked a FUR, has been deleted. The Commons version is a Creative Commons work. If you click on the link you should now see the Commons version. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tharoor and Cyrus Cylinder.jpg - This image has no fair use rationale for the Cyrus Cylinder article, so I cannot make a determination on its validity as a fair use image. Please add a WP:FURG. I will say that I can't see a "purpose of use" off the top of my head that will justify the use of this image, but I can be persuaded.
I'll draft a fair use rationale and post it here for review. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the image - see under #Fasach Nua above. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this fair use image is necessary. The purpose of use needs to describe why it is necessary for the reader to see the image. Generally, we include fair use images only when it would be impossible to convey something in words. What is beyond words in this image? Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's a good point. Let me sleep on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose as soon as these issues are resolved. I'm reading the article now and I am fascinated by the cylinder - very interesting stuff! I'll post a full review soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the above issues are now resolved (hopefully). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Note: I am not competing for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize.) This is such an interesting article and object. Clearly, the narratives about it are complex, but the article is generally structured well and makes them clear.

  • It is a clay cylinder, broken into several fragments, on which is written a declaration in Akkadian cuneiform script - Could we add a phrase describing the declaration?
Almost all of the next paragraph is about the declaration so wouldn't that be a bit redundant? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of readers who only read the first paragraph, such as those reading other articles and following links. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that sometimes the article says "Babylon" and somtimes "Babylonia" - What is the reason for each term?
Babylon is the city, Babylonia is the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead feels a little long and overly detailed to me. I noticed that someone above asked for more to be added to the lead, however, I feel now we have a bit much. For example, do we really need all of the following: The Babylonian king Nabonidus was defeated in battle by the Persians and was deposed by Cyrus, who replaced him as ruler of Babylonia. The text on the cylinder commemorates the Persian victory and praises Cyrus's kingly virtues, listing his genealogy as a king from a line of kings, in contrast with the low-born Nabonidus. The deposed king is denounced as an impious oppressor of the people of Babylonia. The victorious Cyrus is portrayed as having been chosen by the chief Babylonian god Marduk to restore peace and order to the Babylonians. The text asserts asserts that Cyrus was welcomed by the people of Babylon as their new ruler and entered the city in peace. It appeals to Marduk to protect and to help Cyrus and his son Cambyses. It exalts Cyrus's efforts as a benefactor of the citizens of Babylonia who improved their lives, repatriated displaced peoples and restored temples and cult sanctuaries across Mesopotamia. It concludes with a description of the work of Cyrus in repairing the city wall of Babylon, in which he found a similar inscription by an earlier Babylonian king. - Could this be shortened to: The Babylonian king Nabonidus was deposed by Cyrus. The text on the cylinder commemorates this Persian victory, praises Cyrus's kingly virtues, portrays him as having been chosen by the chief Babylonian god Marduk to restore peace and order to the Babylonians, and exalts Cyrus's efforts as a benefactor of the citizens of Babylonia.
That's pretty much what it originally said before I expanded it following Johnbod's comments. I feel I'm in a bit of a lose-lose situation here. You want a short description, Johnbod wants a long description. Which way do I turn? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - perhaps we could see what the general feeling about the lead is. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cyrus Cylinder" is always capitalized, but when the "cylinder" is referred to by a single word, "cylinder" is not capitalized. I'm wondering - since we are referring to a specific cylinder, should it be capitalized?
Not sure, but capitalising it throughout doesn't feel right to me stylistically... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • having apparently broken apart in antiquity - How do we know when it broke?
It was found in several pieces. Basically it broke apart some time after it was buried. The British Museum attributes this to the faulty way in which the cylinder was made, and I gather the soil of Babylon is not very conducive to preservation (it has lots of nitre in it, which makes clay objects brittle). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could we add this information into the article? That is really very interesting. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first three paragraphs of the "Description" are awkwardly structured. The restoration is mentioned before the description of how the cylinder was made, for example. I would suggest this order: 1) Description of physical object as it may have looked in antiquity, including dating 2) description of how the object was made in antiquity 3) Damages during burial and excavation; 4) Preservation and restoration efforts; 5) Description of physical object now, including location.
  • Although it was written for a Persian king, the Cyrus Cylinder reflects a Mesopotamian tradition that was already over two thousand years old. Newly-crowned kings of Babylon would make public declarations of their own righteousness when beginning their reigns, often in the form of declarations that were deposited in the foundations of public buildings - Why does this statement have so many citations? It is unsightly and this is not a controversial statement.
Unfortunately it is an extremely controversial statement - not for historians but for Iranian nationalists, who have caused a lot of problems with this article in the past. (I should add that that was some time ago - the article has been stable for a long time now.) The number of citations here reflects that dispute, essentially to make the point that this is not a fringe viewpoint among historians but is in fact the consensus view. I am however looking at merging some of the citations per Johnbod's suggestion above, to bring the number down to four or five. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should cite as many sources as you feel necessary, but not show a cab rank of citations on the face of the article, which looks awful. Just roll them all up into a custom note, which saves people having to chase them down individually if they actually want to see them. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree one note would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please identify all scholars in the text. For example, when you first give their name, say "historian" or "Persian linguist" or whatever.
Done, as much as I've been able to do. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say with much confidence whether or not the article is comprehensive, but I have read about this cylinder is ancient history textbooks. What I read in those textbooks, I read here, so, in my opinion, a basic threshold of comprehensiveness is being met. I can't say more than that. Since we have experts from the British Museum working with us right now, perhaps we could get an expert to look the article over for that particular criteria. Other than the few concerns I listed and image issues, I think the article is well-written and well-organized and I look forward to supporting it soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

[edit]
  • Comment - I'll read over and jot some queries below. My only COI at present is an interest in seeing BM articles improved...unless they started growing banksias in a British Museum conservatory...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...document of the 6th century BC that is now in the collections of the British Museum. - I like "document of the 6th century BC that is now housed in the British Museum." - in that it sounds more elegant.
Fwiw WP:VAMOS is against objects being "housed" or "residing" in museums, or indeed having vacation homes in Florida. Maybe it's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice it's also against "in the collections of". I've reworded this bit to say simply "in the British Museum". -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, never seen that page before...okay, I concede that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead, I think paragraph two may be a little over-detailed.
"reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms". - would be good to de-quote this. The prose as such is unremarkable to warrant keeping the exact wording.
Fair enough. I've dequoted it. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
near the Arab village of Jumjuma or Jimjima - aren't/weren't they all Arab villages? (in which case "Arab" is redundant)
Not at all - Iraq was and is an ethnically diverse country. Don't forget the Arabs are relative latecomers in historical terms. There were also Kurdish, Turkmen, Chaldaean and Assyrian villages in the vicinity. The man who excavated the Cyrus Cylinder was himself an Assyrian. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - my demographics are not too good on the region. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
at a meeting of the Society on 17 November 1879 - where? In London?
Presumably, though I couldn't say that for sure. Is it really necessary to note where? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We-ell, if we don't know we don't know, but I thought it'd give a bit of context if known. Not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:The Mesopotamians deposited a wide variety of items, including animal sacrifices, stone tablets, terracotta cones, cylinders and figures. - if we're doing serial commas, one is needed here.
I try to avoid serial commas - I'm writing to the standard of British English, which generally deprecates the use of serial commas. At least, that's the way I was taught to write. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Older Mesopotamian royal inscriptions bear striking similarities to the Cyrus Cylinder - I would have thought "The Cyrus Cylinder bears striking similarities to older Mesopotamian royal inscriptions" (?)
Good point - done. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might wanna format ref #1 and add some parameters.
Not sure what you're getting at - can you clarify? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider renaming The Cyrus Cylinder and the British Museum section - exhibit history? MOS suggests article name should not be in heading.
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall - I think it is well on the way and am close to supporting. I am still pondering about the prose - overall good but wondering if there is some repetition in places. I will take another look tomorrow and ask some others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - this bit - I am wondering whether we've laboured the point a bit here:

The text is a royal building inscription, a genre which had no equivalent in Old Persian literature. It illustrates how Cyrus co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon. Amélie Kuhrt, a professor in the history of the Near East at University College London, comments that the text's importance lies in how Cyrus used local traditions to legitimize his conquest of Babylon.

why do we need bolded bit as it is stated again a sentence later?

Also para 2 of the Similarities with other royal inscriptions reiterates the point, with the quote of Kuhrt - I think this can be worked into the above bit too.

Here again - we have the same phenomenon spelt out twice - surely this can be folded together somehow? I would have done it myself but am unsure which reference geos with what. It just comes across as somewhat labouring the point:

Emphasis is placed on the fact of Cyrus's peaceful entry into Babylon in implicit contrast with previous conquerors, notably the Assyrian rulers Tukulti-Ninurta I, who invaded and plundered Babylon in the 12th century BC, and Sennacherib, who did the same thing 150 years before Cyrus conquered the region. The massacre and enslavement of conquered peoples was common practice and was explicitly highlighted in statements by conquerors. In contrast, the text of the Cyrus Cylinder presents Cyrus as entering Babylon peacefully and being welcomed by the population as a liberator. Johannes Haubold notes that the text portrays Cyrus's takeover as a harmonious moment of convergence between Babylonian and Persian history; not a natural disaster but the salvation of Babylonia.
Cyrus's policies toward subjugated nations have been contrasted to those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, who had treated subject peoples harshly; he permitted the resettling of those who had been previously deported and sponsored the reconstruction of religious buildings. - in para 3 of scholarly views - we have been told this, abbreviating and including in hte next sentence would make for crisper more interesting prose.

Overall, nearly there - these are the most obvious examples of labouring the point. Other folks might find some but I will support once these are addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I'll revise those lines and notify you here when it's done. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP Comment

[edit]
  • Oppose Reasoning: Article fails to mention new development mentioned by the British Musuem [4]. "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." [5]. Such new development and news are not reflected in the article. So the article which is on ancient history is outdated. It would be better to work on other BM articles until these recent interesting finds (specially these two new tablets) are discussed by scholars. It would be better to have a featured article when these two new tablets are studied in more details by scholars. Here is also another excerpt from another article [6]: "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 and possibly(?) soon to be outdated article as an FA.
  • Further Comment
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).". [7]. I would say it is best to hold the article on the missing section of the Cylinder as well the new clarifications are understood. The news report also mentions: "The BM now plans to hold an international workshop to discuss the discovery with Iranian scholars, probably in June". So once these new discoveries are matured, the article should be renominated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk • contribs)
The workshop was held this week, I believe. But I'm afraid your objections aren't realistic or reasonable. Things change all the time. That means articles get updated to reflect them. It does not mean that we have to put everything on hold until some new discovery has been properly documented. The Cyrus Cylinder has been the subject of 130 years' worth of scholarship, which the article reflects. We have to write articles on the basis of what is known now, not what someone might know at some unspecified future date. That's particularly so in this case, as it is likely to be months if not years before it is clear what the significance of the new fragments is. The article mentions the discovery of the new fragments in the final section, so it's up to date, and it can be updated further when more is known. I have, by the way, removed the two {{fact}} tags that you added to the article, as those lines are cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no reason to put the nomination on hold. Like many of our articles, it will become outdated over time, but that is not a good reason for withdrawal of the nomination. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Whatever the "significance" of the find may turn out to be, it is hard to imagine that much would need altering in an article at this level of detail. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The newsreport indicates that the two fragments contain missing parts of the current cylinder[8]. This is not taken into account in this article. I quote: "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)." This portion that it contains missing part of the cylinder is not reflected in the article.

Besides this there are two other issues: 1) the whole "human rights" controversy is onesided in the sense that it does not mention host of books written by non-Iranians[9] [10] (wether Historians or not these sources need to be mentioned in the article for completeness sake as they are WP:RS and relate to the Cylinder.). 2) It states in the article: "Conversely, the Persian kings could, and did, destroy the shrines of peoples who had rebelled against them.". I put a request for citation and it was removed. However the article needs to provide a concrete example of not Persian Kings, but of Cyrus the great destroying the "shrines of peoples". Barring a concrete example with this regard, such a controversial statement should be deleted. Either Cyrus destroyed shrines or did not. If he did, there should be concrete examples. if not, it should be removed. 3) The portion on fake translation lacks notability. Only one reference and it seems undo weight with regards to the whole article. 4) Article does not encompass 120 years of scholarship on the Cyrus Cylinder. While it does contain the view of some modern scholars, for completeness sake it must contain a summary view points of scholars between 1880 to 1980. Viewpoint of scholars at least in some of these periods regarding the cylinder should be summarized in a paragraph for completeness.

no no ?

[edit]

I think this (<ref name="BM-CC">British Museum: [[#BM-The Cyrus Cylinder|The Cyrus Cylinder]]</ref> ) is a wiki nono(self referernce) used four times.J8079s (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a self-reference - it's to an external source. See Cyrus Cylinder#Other sources for the source (fourth on the list), which is the statement made by the BM on the cylinder's display case. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is a technical problem the one right below it works<ref name="BM-inscription">[[#BM-inscription|Inscription in the British Museum, Room 55]]</ref>. I would just fix it but I don't know how.J8079s (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been going through a few edits lately, so that probably broke it. I've fixed it now - thanks for reporting this problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Land

[edit]

Support with one caveat. The image gallery currently present in the first section is poor style IMV, those images (two maps, of different things, and one portrait) would be better as normal inline images. The gallery also displays funnily in my browser - two images on the top row and one on the bottom row but in the second column. If the gallery is removed, happy to support. (Declaration of interest: I am also involved with the British Museum collaboration project) The Land (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what browser you're using? I'd like to check to see how it displays (I'm using Firefox 3.6.4). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was using IE8 when I made that comment, let me check again... no, works fine in Chrome and IE8 on this computer. But still feel a gallery sin't the best way to present those images. The Land (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

[edit]

I'm sorry to say that an editor who has never previously been involved with the article is attempting to edit-war some material into it and making accusations of "censorship". Fæ and I believe it is undue weight and it is redundant in any case, as it is already covered in a different section of the article. I would be grateful for outside views at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Undue weight problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate seems stale so I have suggested a RFC unless the proponent wishes to withdraw. RFC seems a heavyweight solution and I would encourage uninvolved contributors to chip in with their opinions rather than default to a dispute resolution process which might pointlessly delay any FA status. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom B

[edit]

Comment. Good work. The one problem i've noticed so far is that the intro is too detailed and long; i think it was a good length at the start of the nomination. Also, despite being too long, it doesn't mention the dispute with the Iranian museum which is covered by a whole section in the article, kind regards Tom B (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cyrus_Cylinder/archive1&oldid=390565121"