Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 153.18.20.160 (talk) at 17:42, 30 October 2008 (→Battle of the Tigris). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:42, 30 October 2008 by 153.18.20.160 (talk) (→Battle of the Tigris)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Battle of the Tigris

Battle of the Tigris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Basically there is no such battle, thus issues of notability come in here. There is one mention of a battle in 521 here and there is at least one battle with that name a couple of thousand years later, but this is WP:OR. The article's creator has a history of creating articles on non-existent battles. Doug Weller (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. As well as being blatant OR, this article is also a POV fork from Battle of Opis, where Ariobarza has repeatedly been advised by Akhilleus, Alvestrand, Dougweller and I to stop adding this original research. Ariobarza believes that the Persian king Cyrus the Great fought a battle with the Babylonians at the Tigris river in February 539 BC. No reliable source makes this claim. You will not find any history of ancient Babylonia or Persia that talks of a "Battle of the Tigris" in 539 BC. (There was a "Battle of the Tigris" involving the Ottoman Turks in 1733 but that's not the same one, obviously.) Instead, Ariobarza is relying on his personal interpretation of an ancient Babylonian chronicle (see discussion at Talk:Battle of Opis#Another set of translations). See also the comments by Alvestrand , Dougweller and Akhilleus pointing out the original research and why it can't be included. It's unfortunate that Ariobarza has ignored all of us and decided to create this OR-based POV fork instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The only information I have is that it was a battle between the Ottoman Turks and the Persians. I don't have enough for even a stub article, frankly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless you people have an agenda, please explain why your in such a hurry to delete such a puny article, while other articles with NO text have been left alone for almost a year! I am updating the article everyday, but I guess it hasen't clicked up there you guys's heads. You people lack humanity and common sense, plus, are (for some reason) impatient. Going to be in denial until the bitter end I see, okay then...--Ariobarza (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
    • Comment Point me towards the articles with no text and I'll see what I can do with them. Meanwhile, please don't use this as an opportunity to insult other editors. I've been trying my best to help you avoid such problems for many months now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. What ChrisO said: there are no reliable sources that say a "Battle of the Tigris" occurred at this time between the Persians and Babylonians. Shall I change my username to "impatient Bratz doll" now? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I got an idea, why don't you guys just delete the title! Your changing the subject, the subject is that, does this battle exist, NOT whether or not the title (currently searching) exists, there are lots of battles with no titles, the title is based on the sources it says direct qoute, On the (river) Tigris, furthermore, that corresponds to were Cyrus was invading from, Herodotus says he was delayed/ building stuff, and probable scrimish (attack/ battle) at the Gyndes river (todays Diyalas). Dougweller had let me use Siege of Pasargadae Hill for an untitled battle, BECAUSE the sources said it was a hill in Pasargadae that was besieged, so for certain extreme circumstances its okay to make titles, but the battle must and will and is under being sourced. I know your dying to taste the smell of deletion, but that must waist, so, come again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
But that battle took place in 521. It's not the battle the argument is about. And your 'corresponds' is, once again, OR. Your direct quote has nothing to do with the article, as I think I've demonstrated on the article's talk page. What I don't understand is how you can write an article about a battle without starting with a firm, unambiguous, reliable, verifiable source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with Ariobarza's "research". Read the source that he links above; it says: "521: Darius I ... in December, battle on the Tigris and capture of Babylon". In other words, a different ruler and a different battle, 18 years after the one Ariobarza is claiming. He simply hasn't bothered to read the source properly; a moment's care would have shown that it's nothing to do with the supposed battle of 539 BC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The concerns have been brought up on the article's talk page, and Ariobarza has been unable to produce sources that says there was a "Battle of the Tigris" at this time. No sources, no article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no possibility that it can "come together" because the topic is entirely fictitious and undocumented. You might just as well ask for sources that to confirm that "George W. Bush is a reptilian humanoid". -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: since when did we allow people to post apparently invented information here, and then give them weeks to come up with even one half-decent source that actually mentions the event at all, let alone any sources that mention it under this name or that give any details on what supposedly happened. At the risk of seeming rude, the editor who created this page appears to have a history of inventing his own narrative of historical events and creating pages to match it. And then becoming abusive when challenged on his lack of sources. I don't see what this adds to the project - WP is meant to be a (hopefully) reliable reference encyclopedia that collates known and verifiable information, not a sandbox for aspiring amateur historians or historical novelists to either promote or road test their own ideas. --Nickhh (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just started looking. This may not be the strongest source in the world but this battle seems to be mentioned here at Nationmaster under the Battles of Cyrus: Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm, that's just a version of the WP article on Cyrus, hosted on another site. What's the betting that Ariobarza added that info a while back? I mean come on, if this doesn't tell you where we are with this one I guess nothing will. In addition this highlights the problems with having poor info here - it gets repeated and circulated elsewhere. And eventually is the sort of thing that makes WP a laughing stock from time to time. Even if proper sources are out there somewhere (which seems unlikely), this whole thing is being done back to front - editors here shouldn't just dump stuff here which appears to come off the top of their heads, and then scrabble around googling for something to vaguely back it up. There's way too much of that here as it is. Usually it's a POV problem, but here it's about basic historical accuracy. --Nickhh (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong commentI am really get tired of your (some users) bogus statements about my history. I NEVER made up a battle article, I made two articles TITLEs, not the battle itself (except the Siege of Ecbatana, which some now agree it might have been a raid/ storm not a siege). Secondly, when joining Misplaced Pages I knew disputes like this would arise, because most historians have neglected to provide a conclusive book on Persian history (and this is fact when compared to how many Egyptian, Greek, Roman books have been published). One must do A LOT of research just to find one of their battles, because the sources for them are barely covered by historians, and when they are, they are vague. But even though the Feb battle (a nickname of Battle of the Tigris which I never said was exactly in February) it has no title (as the battle of Opis did not have a title, historians would later call it Battle of Opis). IT Does not mean the battle has no right to exist in Misplaced Pages. For example, please check out Siege of Eion, I could only find a couple sources on the siege (its possibly more scant that the Battle of Tigris), which is part of the Greco-Persian Wars. If you do not know already, this is part of a bigger issue (as ChrisO says), as one must analyze why Persian nationalists even exists. My theory is that historians have been very Greco-Roman centric, which has led Iranians/ Persians to reavaluate their history, and when they did, they became mad when they found out historians were neglecting it. This is my theory, your welcomed to make yours, when coming here I suggest any to user, should go to the Opis talk page and read further, as evidence for the battle is there, I suggest you do that before coming here and saying ill informed things.--Ariobarza (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
The evidence at the Opis talk page is exactly the same as the evidence presented here and at the Tigris talk page: Attempts at synthesis from fragmentary ancient sources, and never giving a quote directly from a verifiable published source that supports the assertions. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. The issue is quite simple here - it's about having reliable sources for information, per policies and guidelines on WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY. You can complain all you like about bias in Western analysis of and discourse on the classical world (an argument I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to as it happens); there are also of course going to be incidents and battles throughout history that may well have happened, but which for whatever reason have gone unrecorded in any detail or which can only be found referenced inconclusively in primary sources. Regardless, it's not up to you or anyone else on WP to embark on some sort of mission to supposedly put that all right, relying simply on what you - as one individual among many - happen to believe is the case. If a topic or incident isn't covered in mainstream reliable sources, it generally shouldn't have a page here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And that of course is a prime example of original research by synthesis - "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research." This really is a textbook case. Unfortunately Ariobarza simply doesn't seem to accept the fact that OR is prohibited. It's not just that he doesn't understand it, as it's been explained to him often enough - he simply rejects it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • HISTORY OF THIS MONTHS PAST EVENTSHypocracy at its best! This occurs when sources are listed (by ChrisO and other users on this page) for Battle of Opis that (historians) are NOT sure whether Cyrus slaughtered the Akkadians or the Akkadian army, or if there was even a slaughter at all. Then ChrisO wanted to push a POV that Cyrus did some sort of slaughtering, which is (original research by synthesis), then from the others users pressure, he backs off. THEN he says Ariobarza can not do what he did, BEFORE Ariobarza has even attempted to update the Battle of the Tigris. Finally, (after a Opis talk page dispute, that ChrisO had enough of, and later ignored Ariobarza's solutions) ChrisO convinces others to delete the Battle of the Tigris. The end. Battle of Opis contains POV DISPUTES, OR, LACK OF VERIFIABLE TEXT, which is different from what the sources book actually says, and many other problems, why don't you guys go after that! Currently I am gathering THE sources for this battle on my talk page, so do not rush this.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
  • Delete. As far as I know, there may well have been such a battle. However, the sources given in the article seem to be all or almost all primary sources. Original research is good, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it. You can write up an article on the battle or possible battle and have it published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and then maybe a Misplaced Pages article can be written about it, citing the journal article. It's not necessary for the battle to have certainly existed or to be certainly fictional in order to have a Misplaced Pages article, but there must be sufficient secondary sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • COMMENTThe problem is that there are secondary sources, that this did happen, some users just dont understand what IMPATIENT means, you'l all going to regret it, I can't say it more simply. And as far as Original research is concerned, 99% of users forget to read the actual article to the end, which says, There is a thin line between NEW CLASSIFICATION and original research, which means if I make, through my original (NOTICE, research is what we do on Misplaced Pages) a discovery, then it is okay, IF it is backed by sources, click on it, it is the original article, not the article titled, "No original reaserch". Period.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
The page you're linking to is not the policy of course, which is what is relevant here. And you are so very wrong about the idea that WP editors should be looking to make "discoveries" of any sort. Quite apart from the unlikely prospect of a single WP editor suddenly, while seated at their PC/Mac and trawling through Google returns, coming across some radical and significant discovery that has eluded professional academic scholarship for decades, were you to have done so, it would still - as has been consistently pointed out - constitute original research and/or synthesis. And finally the impatience is all yours - you're the one who's rushed to create an unsourced and probably junk article without actually being aware of any sources that would back up the article or its contents. If you really wish to contribute here by making material up based on a hunch or a minor fragment of information, and only then Googling for any shred of evidence to support it in any substantive way days later, please do it in your sandbox. --Nickhh (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentHow many times did I say Olmstead said Nabonidus was defeated on the Tigris in February-March, then a few lines later he say in October then Cyrus defeated him in Opis. It is therefore not a made up battle. And the users on this page are being fooled by ChrisO. PLEASE go to the Opis talk page I have listed most of the sources there, AND REMEMBER TO READ THE MESSAGES TO THE END. I am yelling this time, because I can't take it anymore. Thanks. And I am finding sources, so please do not comment here, it is waisting the time of my life, which will end the deletion of this article. I can't hold off two armies at once.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
How many times have you been asked to cite the specific page of the specific book by Olmstead that says that? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. --Folantin (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree that the name of the article is problematic, as many of the articles on Misplaced Pages about events current and historical have names cobbled together from consensus among editors rather than names attributed to specific sources. However, after reading the article, the article talk page, Battle of Opis and Talk:Battle of Opis, this appears to be a rather blatant POV fork full of original research. When consensus doesn't favor your beliefs, you don't create a new article. Ideally you research and come back with excellent sources to back up your position. Unfortunately, this appears unlikely to happen as the new article and previous assertions seem to be mired in original research and synthesis and personal interpretations of what sources already exist. AniMate 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If there are secondary sources, provide in-line citations of them. These will be built on original sources, and will cite them precisely. Those should be cited too, again precisely. Nevertheless, this article seems to be a much less good duplicate of Battle of Opis - i.e. a poor article about precisely the same battle. If so, this article is obviously the one to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Battle of Opis was a completely separate and well-documented event which took place at Opis in northern Mesopotamia in September/October 539. Ariobarza is claiming that there was another, different battle near Uruk in southern Mesopotamia in February 539. But as already noted, there are no sources that say that. It's not a question of this being "a poor article about precisely the same battle" - it's a poor article about a different battle which no source says happened. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


  • Small comment Before anyone reads the below, just know it is from the very first messages about this dispute, which in most cases NO ONE even bothered to read (from now before interfering in a dispute READ ALL THE MESSAGES TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BEFORE SAYING nonesense) and just accepted a misconception face first, please do not ride off the bottom evidence as my analyzations, or wishfull thinking/original research, which I suggest ignoring evidence is much worse than all of the above. Now, before looking down, remember to read this whole message as carefully as you can, thanks;

Firstly, I think (Kuhrt and Smith which have the MOST outdated tranlsations, as they are also coincidently the ones who mention the Sea Coutry fighting) are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org which gets its sources from translations that are not disputed, except the February battle that some think is disputed.

The army of the Persians made an attack.]

(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, common sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)

Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"

"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."

(Again, this line comes from Olmstead book, and the lacuna that some claim are large, are only a few words, then in Olmsteads translation it says Ba defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack. Also, more evidence a of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. But the inscriptions way above all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, this line of divine help comes from Olmstead and Rawlinson and others, please DO NOT forget to click on the external links here and then accuse me of not putting more sources. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)

The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he . The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual . In the month of Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he massacred the confused inhabitants.]

(Note firstly, NOW in this inscription we see that the words that I bolden which is about the Sea Country PROVES that the February event and the Sea Country invasion are almost a YEAR apart, so who invaded Babylon in 540 BC? Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it from the main page of Opis), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January of the year before?, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon ) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, while Cyrus planning took place 5 months before the actual march as said by Olmstead, Oppenheim, and even Rawlinson, which have other crucial information that later historians did not want to go into the translation, which then makes the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9-19 or about 14 months to be exact, 9+19= 28/2= 14, or again according to Olmstead before winter+9 months= 14 months.)

Conclusion;

In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. Secondly, you may ask well how come I know all this other info, well I do part time reseach because this subject is my especiality, and I am interested in studying it, which this whole time has given me more incite, so please do not say the lacuna (which is actually small), mAy say a fishing boat from sea land attacked Ishtar then Uruk killed Persia fought, DO NOT SAY such blashemy!, it is just laughable, and it makes me cry at this ridiculus rendering. To say the least its even a wrong original research, think of your rendering of the lacuna as INDIRECT OR, then I get accused of OR! I know this is a lot of info to review but just look at it step by step, then make a good long counter arguement, not one line criticisms. This is Olmsteads translation;

Here just shows you that 4 of the 6 translations agree with my assessment, plus now I FOUND that Grayson says it was likely Parsu, WHICH now means 5 or the 6 translations AGREE with my proposal to make a article for this battle;

Date Translator Text Source
1925 Smith "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..." Babylonian Historical Texts
1950 Oppenheim "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk The army of the Persians made an attack..." Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1960 Olmstead "B was defeated. On the Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... the army of the Persians made an attack..." The History of the Persian Empire
1975 Grayson "... Tigris. Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ...the ... s of the Sea Country ... y at ..." Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004 Glassner " was killed. The Tig Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk the of Pers." Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007 Kuhrt " killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... Ishtar of Uruk of Per" The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

Notice the (No other country in and around the area had Ba in it, the only possiblity is that is was Ba-bylon it is an obscured word, BUT a B can be made of it, maybe the "Ba'bylonian' 'army' 'of' 'borders' was defeated" which is a possiblity (I say possiblity but I am not drawing any conclusions from it, because Olmstead and others already say it was Babylon), NOW the rest of the translation (with some fill ups that have marks that I have added BUT YOU COULD DISMISS THIS SENTENCE BECAUSE I AM SAYING OF HOW IT MIGHT HAVE POSSIBLY READ, WHICH IS OF COURSE ORIGINAL RESEARCH SO YOU ARE WELCOMED TO IGNORE THE NEXT SENTENCE, BUT IS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE facts that I will state under the sources, and Olmstead plainy states it happened, though you could ignore the below, its made from what Olmstead says, in March Nabonidus took the gods, Olmstead places the taking of the gods right AFTER the battle in February which is Addaru, so when I say February it is not original research as it even appears on the tablet ITSELF.)... "On the Tigris. In the month of Adarru the (image of the ) Ishtar of Uruk 'gets' 'taken' 'by' the 'mighty' 'king' 'Nabû' the army of the Persians made an attack."

B was defeated/Someone was killed(according to other translations), after the Persians made an attack.

You see the Babylonians are talking like Yoda (when translating a obscured inscription, so this is just a joke, not OR, though the latter is true), backwards basically, they are saying the outcome of Persia's attack on the Tigris river in February.

The only question is who won the battle? The Babylonians, or the Persians, later Olmstead and Nabonidus inscription says Nabonidus evacuated all the Gods to somewhere else. So why would Nabonidus retreat from Cyrus? Unless of course he was defeated by Cyrus.

Sources;

  • As already cited, Olmsteads translation and text.
  • Check out ~Herodotus' and Xenophons' description of the Babylonian invasion.
  • The overall belief of MOST (who dared talked about this issue) historians, which my arguement is based on.
  • Rawlinsons outdated, but still uncontested and amazingly reliable book, which on page 68 says Cyrus restarted his march in spring, which is around Febraury to March, after being delayed at the Tigris for almost a year. And he says because he was making canals, and possibly there was a first battle between Cyrus and Nabonidus, all before the second battle at Opis. Here is the link, 1.

More sources, and more on the way;...

  • HERE Grayson's takes back his own translation of SEA LAND, and says that he was wrong, and it should be Persia, now 5 of 6 tranlsatios agree with me, that I THINK AN ARTICLE SHOULD EXIST FOR A BATTLE THAT HAS EXISTED.
  • Book with Page 77 states seventh day of Adar

Conclusion; What is said above is what Rawlinson implies, Oppenheim suggests, and Olmstead actually says, and the other newer Translations even by the dreaded Grayson mentions Persian troops on the Tigris. What do you, or one would suppose Persian troops were doing in February 540-539 BC on the Tigris? Singing "Ring Around the Rosey?" Godspeed to all mankind!(THIS MESSAGE is from the Battle of Opis talk page which none of you bothered to even look at) thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

  • Delete as original research. Ariobarza's comments were convincing in the opposite way that he intended. 14:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Please sign your comments
  • Comment 1) Now I begin... I maybe misreading my own sources, but I say my proposals on what they say. Actually one of the translations (Olmstead) says Ba..... was who the Persians not only attacked but defeated. Several of the translations don't say that the Persians were involved (Smith, Grayson, which its been now proven wrong that is could be the Sea Country, check above if you still doubt this) and that you say that none of translations you mentioned say there was an attack (Actually, Smith says fought, Glassner was killed, Kuhrt says killed/defeated). All of the translators do disagree over how to interpret this passage, but the majority and newest translations are pretty close to what they interpret, but to you it is a surprise - Amélie Kuhrt says of the fragmentary lines in interpretation: "the broken character of the passage makes it impossible to assess the precise significance of this ". (The Cambridge Ancient History: Vol IV - Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean, p. 122), this is almost true, but you fail to mention what all the other translators say of the lines, what is unsimilar is that the passage that I've quoted from Olmstead says that the Persians attacked the Babylonians on the Tigris in February 539. It says only that " suffered a defeat on the Tigris". You said, "It doesn't say who defeated him, and it doesn't say when the supposed defeat happened." This is very disheartening to me, your basically telling me that you failed to fully read my earlier message titled "A new set of translations 2", and also do not forget that I have the book in my possession. This is what it says before the sentence "Nabonidus was defeated" if you still do not believe me GET THE BOOK YOURSELF;

Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"

(After Olmstead summarizes Cyrus's eastern conquests and tells that Babylon was in chaos because of Nabonidus, the below then is the full second paragraph;)

()

That is the key (Even if all of the evidence was against Olmstead, which he is considered one of best Persian historians, if you ignore what comes from his mouth above, then your denying evidence and censoring information)! The boldened sentence proves that Nabonidus was defeated on the Tigris because it says the only defence he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Here are the main two points, Cyrus would not bring to his defence Ishtar of Uruk, because Cyrus did not worship Ishtar of Uruk, secondly, it says in March, guess what the month is before March? February! And one final thing, Nabonidus tried to explain why he was deporting the statues of the Gods (including Ishtar of Uruk), because the population was getting pissed off. We could also say Cyrus began his preplanning of invasion in October (before the snows of winter) 540 BC, and officially started in January, then in February (in the month of Adarru/Adar which is the same word) the battle occured, then Nabonidus deported many Gods from their temples in March, which pissed off his citizens. At the end Olmstead REFERENCES were he got the boldened sentences from (and do not forget he could have done his own research too, that we do not know), HERE is the reference, Its clearly from the Nabonidus Chronicle, and then when I checked the lines Olmstead referes to, it was the text that this whole dispute is about!


2) I understand that you've had a systematic look for other sources that might try to disprove this claim of a battle on the Tigris in February 539 and I know you have found nothing - not a single source mentions it, you are actually saying a new source, (just becuase new sources do not mention it, it never happened right?) here is your problem (that also part of a wider problem within Misplaced Pages itself, like there is line in OR saying that, "there is a thin line between new classification and original research," I am benefiting Misplaced Pages by doing new classification sometimes, not original research), no sources disagree and no sources claim that the information on the battle is outdated. Also, no new sources mention Battle of Pedasa, but according only to Herodotus it happened, and guess what, a page of Battle of Pedasa exists here, so that means you would only believe Herodotus, and ignore everyone else, mostly the modern day historians too? Literally every NEW source you've read speaks of a short campaign in September-October 539. You said, "no other historians seem to agree with Olmstead" thats POV and WRONG (firstly, plainly Xenophon, Rawlinson, Oppeneium, and others that I have not found yet, say explicity that it happened, so they agree with Olmstead, for that matter you do not fully know if the other translators in their books mention his or talk about or agree with his interpretations, so do not say you do). So how can it be a fringe theory, the theory of relativity was once a fringe theory too, and anyways Olmstead does not have a theory and he never says it is a theory, he and others that I have already mentioned believe that it happened based on their own hard to find research and archaeological evidence. You can't simply ignore the fact that your preferred viewpoint is that which no historians seem to say (because your even not sure, you say the text is inconclusive), maybe other than support from the dreaded and baised and truth streching Kurht that says she is not sure, (that is the only support you have). So, going back to the point I am making here, just becuase not a lot of people talk about it or it is not famous, does not mean you can just ignore the information, your job as a Wikipedian is to make the best of what is available to you, and that is what I am doing with what I was able to find. Not only that, all those other sources you're ignoring do not contradict what Olmstead says, but because they say attacked/defeated/killed, they actually strengthen what his+what I have mentioned before, conclusions are.


3) It's clear that I am trying to fill in the gaps in the timeline, not sources, by drawing Xenophons, Rawlinsons, Oppeneiums, and Olmsteads conclusions. Almost everything I've written above is their conclusions and speculation (BE OPEN to the fact that they might have better sources available to them then just a obscured inscription that your saying no conclusion can come from, so it is not up to us to based our POV on limited information. For example, you can guarantee me that no source has ever said that "Babylonians are talking backwards like Yoda" right(?!), IT IS BECAUSE IF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH IT WOULD SOUND ARCHAIC, AND THE OBSCURED LINE SOUNDS LIKE YODA, AND BASICALLY YOU CAN'T TAKE A JOKE! You're not an expert and your own conclusions can't be cited in any article (I furthermore promise you, if I were ever to make an article of it, I'll keep my mouth shut. My advice: stick to the sources, report what they say, but don't add your own interpretations and waist the time of our lives. Keep note, as a controling person, you have made me go through all this dispute, BEFORE I have even made an article about the dates and battles! I know this military history stuff is not your subject, if it were you would have agreed with me by now, this information, because I research a lot about it, is common knowledge to me. So I suggest (as a friendly advice) you should go preach your neutrality on a subject you know has neutrality issues, not waist your time here with unsure military history facts. Thank you very much for reading, IF you want progress on this dispute so we can just put it behind us, JUST make a valid counter arguement to EVERY sentence above, just like I did to your previous message, and write about the main issues that bother you, thats IF you do not feel like writing a lot, goodbye and Godspeed to all!--153.18.20.160 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Categories: