Talk:Medo-Persian conflict

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GabeMGriffith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Article is under construction folks.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Sources

The article would be improved greatly by in-text citations and careful re-writing. It should also be compared with very similar texts: that of George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World ISBN 1931956464, also on line here (Google Books).Fconaway (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say more or less identical until modified by some other editors. I've deleted all but the first paragraph (which I'm sure needs work), it should be rebuilt with recent reliable sources. Plagiarised articles like this bring Wikipedia into disrepute, even when it isn't copyvio as it isn't in this case. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's add Rawlinson as a secondary work (the only one, so far).Fconaway (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"22:33, 19 September 2008 Ariobarza (Talk | contribs) (18,058 bytes) (Check the external link and start reading from that page, every word in this article comes directly from Rawlinsons book, thank you, that will be bit by bit referenced soon, goodbye.) -- We have no citations, which we have been patiently waiting for, and expecting. Wikipedia requires them. If you want to continue on line composing, please consider using the sandbox.Fconaway (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely he shouldn't be composing a long article this way, he should use a userpage or the sandbox. But what worries me just as much is that he is relying on one 19th century source which he is simply copying into the article. Doug Weller (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a copy-paste job, even to the point of reproducing Rawlinson's footnote markers without needed format corrections. Numbers just appear in the text, pretty much where Rawlinson had them.Fconaway (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you guys get the point here, Rawlinsons has made the best complete contribution to the information about the whole Persian Revolt in existence, so he the best I could about this subject, I have the book too. And there is no other book like it, THATS IT. Second, Dougy we already settled the issue of modernity so dont bring it up 1900-2000s is considered modern, Im sorry hes the best I can find, usually the best history of the persian empire is written in the early 1900s for some reason, thank you all, after clapping, Ariobarza takes a bow.--Ariobarza (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

Copyright violation

It was brought to my attention here [1] that although George Rawlinson's book was written in the middle of the 19th century, it is being copied directly into this article -- see "acknowledged+some+subjection+to+the+Median+kings+during+the+time+of+their+greatness"&source=web&ots=g0CZXReS90&sig=HaoKUl6hQ3aivFeuvQg_twXJcvs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result and the copyright is 2002 - "acknowledged+some+subjection+to+the+Median+kings+during+the+time+of+their+greatness". Guidance is to revert to a non-violating earlier version -- WP:COPYVIO. In any case, this is not the way to construct an encyclopedia article, to paraphrase the editor who noted the copyvio. An article like this should rely on modern, multiple sources. Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

IF you read his book, he gets every sentence from multiple sources where you see numbers by the letter in his book, Rawlinson referenced for me, and look at the ancient references in this article, all Rawlinson does is do the job for me, and paraphrases sometimes, thanks, but no worries, be happy, I'll still improve it.Ariobarza (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Move suggestion

There are 12 other versions of this article in other Wikipedias, but the English version about this conflict was the first to be created. From its inception until recently, this article has conveyed unquestionably the idea that Persis was a rebellious province that separated from the Median Empire and fought for its independence until defeating the Medes and establishing its own empire. This notion is reflected even in the article's title, which seemingly also influenced the titles of other language versions of this article. It's worth noting that in the first few months after its creation, the article remained entirely unreferenced. However, for 98% of its existence, the entire article has been based on two sources: the 1885 book "The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World" written by George Rawlinson (see here and here) and The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2, from 1985 by I. Gershevitch. But scholars' views have changed significantly in recent decades; both the existence of a Median Empire or Kingdom and the vassal status of the Persians have been questioned by scholars. In any case, a simple look at the sources shows that "Persian Revolt" is not an "official" term for the Medo-Persian conflict, see here, here and here. See the Google scholar results too. I propose the title "Medo-Persian conflict" for this article due to its neutrality. British historian Amélie Kuhrt said in one of her writings: «According to the most trustworthy information (Nabonidus Chronicle), the Median king Astyages attacked Cyrus of Persia (Anshan) in 550 BCE “for conquest." However, his soldiers revolted, took him prisoner, and handed him over to Cyrus, who marched to the Median capital of Ecbatana and emptied it of its treasures. The bare bones of this account tally in outline with the elaborate story of the Median king's treachery and despotism in Herodotus. Both he and Ctesias present the Medo-Persian conflict as a long drawn-out rebellion led by Cyrus against his Median overlord. That the confrontation is likely to have been longer than the concise chronicle entry conveys is indicated by an inscription from Sippar where the Babylonian king Nabonidus seems to refer to a struggle between Persians and Medes already in 553. Although it has been usual to accept Herodotus and Ctesias' image of Median overlordship of Persia, this is nowhere borne out by contemporary evidence. It is, indeed, contradicted by the Cyrus Cylinder, where Cyrus states categorically that he is the fourth "great king, king of Anshan" in a direct line of descent. The classical stories of Cyrus rise to kingship are echoes of the later legends woven around him, at home and abroad, as the heroic founder of empire.» Mawer10 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

MightyWarrior, AndrewHowse, Angel caboodle, Egsan Bacon, Doug Weller, Fconaway, and Ariobarza. Mawer10 (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)