Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyrus the Great/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Cyrus the Great

edit

Self-nomination. A lot of work has gone into this article in the past while. Various people, particularly those who helped out in the peer review, have put great effort into improving the article. The Military History project rated it as A-Class, and it's also listed over at WP:GA. I think it's time to get it up to FA status, and maybe you can offer suggestions if you don't feel it meets FA standards. ♠ SG →Talk 12:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's a nice summary article of the life of one of the great conquerors. If I could change one thing about the article, it would be the fact that it ends on a quote and, by the nature of the quote, on a POV note. I'm not sure what the summary sentence could be, but I'm sure there should be a closing sentence of some sort that is not a quote and not pushing a novel aspect that was not previously introduced in the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see what you mean. Well, I can't really think of anything to add to the end of the "Philosophy" section, so instead, I've moved it up and brought "Politics/Cyrus Cylinder" down. How do you feel about the end now? ♠ SG →Talk 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, thanks for your support! ♠ SG →Talk 21:27, 19 August 2006

(UTC)

  • Oppose:
  1. "In historical artifacts discovered in the ancient ruins of Babylon and Ur, Cyrus identifies himself as King of Iran,": references needed.
    Inserting a {{fact}} or {{cite needed}} in the article following the statement that is unsupported can help keep track of things more easily. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "including the eventual Acheamenid Shah". "Sha" is a middle Persian word derived from old persian (Achaemenid) "Xshayathiya". I think it is better to use Xshayathiya instead of Sha.
  3. "An old Iranian portrait of Cyrus the Great." It should be re-written to state clearly thet it is not contemporanous to Cyrus.
  4. "Inscriptions indicate that when the latter died, two of his sons shared the throne as Cyrus I of Anshan and Ariaramnes of Persia. They were succeeded by their respective sons Cambyses I of Anshan and Arsames of Persia" It is not neutral, the inscriptions mentined are sometimes belived to be a fake. See "Arsama" and "Ariaramna" at http://www.iranica.com, and Arsames and Ariarames at http://www.livius.org for references.
  5. Family: Cassandane, his wife (Herodotus, II 1; III 2-3), and Artystone, his doughter (III 88), are not metioned. http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/artystone/artystone.html
  6. "During Astyages' rule, the Medes had conquered all Assyrian kingdoms apart from Babylonia, including Anshan and Persia." Assyrian kingdoms? What does it means? It is the first time I read that Babylonia and PErsia were Assyrian kingdoms.
  7. "In 547 BC, the Lydians attacked the Achaemenid Empire. During the winter, before the allies could unite, Cyrus pushed the war into Lydian territory and besieged Croesus in his capital, Sardis. Shortly before the final battle between the two rulers, Harpagus advised Cyrus to place his dromedaries in front of his warriors; the Lydian horses, not used to the dromedaries' smell, would be very afraid. The strategy worked; the Lydian cavalry was routed. Cyrus defeated and captured Croesus at Pterium. Cyrus occupied the capital at Sardis, conquering the Lydian kingdom in 546 BC. According to Herodotus, Cyrus spared Croesus' life and kept him as an advisor, but this account conflicts with the contemporary Nabonidus Chronicle, which records that the king of Lydia was slain." I belive the place and the moment od the battle of Pterium are mistaken. In Herodotus (I 76) I read thwe following: Croesus crossed the Halys and attacked Cyrus, a battle happend in Pterium, near Sinop (that is, near the Halys), Croesus went to Sardis and was bessiged by Cyrus, who took the city and the its king. It also should be noted that some scholars as R. Rollinger think that the king mentioned by the Nabonidus Chronicle is not Croessus. http://www.achemenet.com/ressources/souspresse/annonces/Rollinger-Iran.pdf
  8. Babylonia: Tolini, G. (2005): "Quelques éléments concernant la prise de Babylone par Cyrus (octorbe 539 av. J.-C)", in Arta (www.achemenet.com, go to Ressources, Publications en ligne, Arta, Table of Contents; I find it difficult give a better link). Here are given some remarks about the violence or non-violence of the persian conquest of Bebylon. I think they would be usefull.
  9. I belive it is necesary to give further information about the conquest of the eastern provinces and of the Levant (Syria-Palestine). The Encyclopaedia Iranica article about Cyrus the Grat gives many theories. http://www.iranica.com . I'll look for more references anyway.
  10. It would be nice to see a section on Cyrus' religius belives and policies, apart from the one al the Legacy section.
  11. It would be nice to see this relief http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Relief_cyrus.jpg shown and explained somewhare.
  12. References Section: Long time ago, I uploaded a section entitteled "Sources". It was intented to be an account of primary and secondary -ancient- sources about Cyrus, but not necesary used to write the article. They are not proper references.
  13. I'm not sure about the accurency od Shapuor Suren Pahlav http://www.cais -soas .com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_the_great.htm , often mentioned as a source. He doens't gives his own sources, and his version of the Cyrus Cylinder (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php) adds lines to the one given by James B. Pritchard in Ancient Near Eastern Text Relating to the Old Testament (1950 http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html), and the one of Rogers (1912) http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/meso/cyrus.html .Amizzoni 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alrighty, here's what I've done about those issues:
    1. Per the discussion in the peer review, I moved references from the intro into the other sections. Not a rule, but I seem to agree after reading this discussion.
    2. This is the English Wikipedia, and as such I'm inclined to use Shah instead of "Xshayathiya."
    3. Good point, I'll reword that caption.
    4. Perfect ref from Iranica, I've added that in.
    5. I've changed the end of "Dynastic history" to accomodate for that.
    6. Ha, that's definitely been changed.
    7. The place of the battle is correct, but I should have clarified that the first battle happened at Pteria. I'll clarify that section, including the dates. I don't know about the Histories quote, this is what I was able to find from Herodotus' writings:
      Having passed the Halys with the forces under his command, Croesus entered the district of Cappadocia which is called Pteria. It lies in the neighbourhood of the city of Sinope upon the Euxine, and is the strongest position in the whole country thereabouts. Here Croesus pitched his camp, and began to ravage the fields of the Syrians. He besieged and took the chief city of the Pterians, and reduced the inhabitants to slavery: he likewise made himself master of the surrounding villages. Thus he brought ruin on the Syrians, who were guilty of no offence towards him. Meanwhile, Cyrus had levied an army and marched against Croesus, increasing his numbers at every step by the forces of the nations that lay in his way. Before beginning his march he had sent heralds to the Ionians, with an invitation to them to revolt from the Lydian king: they, however, had refused compliance. Cyrus, notwithstanding, marched against the enemy, and encamped opposite them in the district of Pteria, where the trial of strength took place between the contending powers. The combat was hot and bloody, and upon both sides the number of the slain was great; nor had victory declared in favour of either party, when night came down upon the battle-field. Thus both armies fought valiantly.
      Croesus laid the blame of his ill success on the number of his troops, which fell very short of the enemy; and as on the next day Cyrus did not repeat the attack, he set off on his return to Sardis, intending to collect his allies and renew the contest in the spring. [...]
      As for the king not being Croesus, I was unable to find any such thing in that PDF file. All I found was a note that the dates of Cyrus' capture of Lydia could be wrong.
    8. That is a very interesting PDF! I've used it to add in the part about Cyrus' negotiations with Babylonian generals to avoid an armed confrontation. Is there anything from that document that you feel would be very important to see in the article?
    9. See #10.
    10. I have found it difficult to find detailed information about these topics. If you could, I would very much appreciate any links about them.
    11. I, too, would like to have that picture, but the image isn't of use in its current form. It is overexposed, zoomed too far out of the relief, and not high enough resolution for that level of zoom. I personally tried my hand at cropping the relief itself and changing the lighting levels of the image, but it darkens the top (shadow) too much and still doesn't capture the relief as it should be. If we could get a better (and free) version, the article would greatly benefit from it.
    12. With the exception of the "Biblical books," I say the "ancient sources" section should stay. Some of them are rather important. We don't necessarily use those sources directly, but rather indirectly from the "notes" section.
    13. I see what you mean. Well, the first time the site is used as a reference is for the meaning of "Cyrus," which was balanced out by your addition about "Karl Hoffmann and Rüdiger Schmitt." The second one is now balanced as well, thanks to your above note about the authenticity of the inscriptions. The only one left is about the Cyrus Cylinder being translated by the UN, which I don't think is a problem.
  1. I think I get your point, but I'm unable to find any information about these documents, and I really would like to. I don't know in what way, but there must be references. Where ware this documents found? When? Who says that? --Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OK--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good. It would be nice to see something about the origin of the picture -when it was drawn.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OK--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OK--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "His overlord was his own grandfather, Astyages, who had conquered all Assyrian kingdoms apart from Babylonia." 1) Cyaxares is the king said to be the great median conqueror, not Astyages. 2) Assyrian kingdoms? What are you trying to mean? I know one Assyrian kingdom, and it fall in 612 BC.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed, let me know if it's still incorrect. ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is still incorrect. Assyria was a kingdom in the Upper Tigris. You are using this term to the whole Near East. You should write "all Near Eastern kingdoms", instead of "all Assyrian kingdoms".
  7. Page 6: "Thus the passage contains important information for the end of Urartu. We must therefore translate Chronicle 7 15-17: In the month Nisan Cyrus (II), king of Parsu, mustered his army and / crossed the Tigris below Arbail. In the month Iyyar [he march]ed to ^Ú\[rartu]. / He defeated its king, took its possessions, and stationed his own garrison there. " But in the Oppenheim's translation: "In the month of Nisannu, Cyrus, king of Persia, called up his army and crossed the Tigris below the town of Arbela. In the month of Ajaru he marched against the country Ly[lacuna; probably Lydia], killed its king [Croesus?], took his possessions, put there a garrison of his own. Afterwards, his garrison as well as the king remained there." Where Oppenheim reads Lydia, Rollinger reads Urartu. Croesus is the king of Lydia. For Rollinger, Croesus is not the king mentioned.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, you're absolutely right. However, Cyrus did in fact gain control over Lydia, that's not disputed; the years of the conquest, however, are disputed, due to the Nabondius Chronicle. I've given a notice in that section warning readers about the possible incorrect date.
  8. Yes. I may be messing myself with my poor French, but I understand that this guy founded babylonian documents talking about heavy demage in the fortifications of Babylon. It contradicts the Babylonian Chronicle version ("without battle"), which he belives is propagandistic.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. see the following
  10. OK. let me search--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. However it can't be shown, it steel must be explained. And I belive It's better to have a bad picture, than don't have it. In this picture, we can guess that there is a man, and if in the epigraf we read "he's Cyrus, and he has some kind of wings and egyptian symbols in his head", we would belive it. --Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The article needs a section summarizig and explaining the relevant (or all if possible!!) ancient sources on Cyrus. I've made a quite complete one for es:wiki, I should translate it.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at the Esp. version, looks like you've got some sections which we could really use on the English Wikipedia. If you could translate them, I'd love to add them in. Even if it's a rough translation, I can probably get enough from it to be able to search for exact details. ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Are you sure that the Cyrus Cylinder was translated by the UN? I'm not. It seems reliable, but ote that I haven't found anything about it in the UN webpages.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure either. And the fact that ONLY Iran-related websites seem to give that information is a little suspicious. The best we can do for now is remove the sentence (which I have done) until, perhaps, we contact the UN to see if they have any information. ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - The Philosophy section seems a bit schizophrenic. The first sentence mentions that there is a discource named after the ruler, but it doesn't say why. The second sentence states that he is still cited as a significant leader, but not why or how this relates to philosophy. The third sentence states that Cyrus is an important historical figure, but also not why or how it relates to philosophy. The fourth sentence at least seems slightly relevent to the topic as it mentions Cyrus' influence on ideas of human rights. This section should probably be rewritten to explain how Cyrus' leadership style and personal philosophy have impacted philosophy in general. Or if that's not possible, perhaps it should just be deleted outright. Kaldari 05:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've combined the "Philosophy" section with "Politics" and changed some of the text. What do you think now? ♠ SG →Talk 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is an improvement, although the section still reads a bit like a list of bullet points rather than a coherant section of prose (especially the last few paragraphs). Sorry to be so picky. The rest of the article seems very well written. Perhaps just deleting or rewriting the section on The Garden of Cyrus would fix it, as that paragraph seems especially out of place and without context. Kaldari 06:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object
    1. The claim that Cyrus was the first to use "the Great" requires explicit and credible sourcing. There are two problems here:
      • Did he use it himself? It is the natural Greek distinction between himself and Cyrus the Younger; if so, it is more than a century after his time.
      • Is he the first? "The Great" is certainly now used of Sargon of Akkad and Ramesses II.
        • If the editors mean that he was the first Persian ruler called "the Great", that is far more plausible; but does not belong in the lead.
    2. The use of the Cyrus cylinder as "the first document of human rights", without qualification, is unacceptable. As the British Museum site linked to says: "Such a concept would have been unrecognizable to Cyrus or his contemporaries."
    3. Ascribing the institutions and stability of the Achaemenid Empire to Cyrus, rather than (say) Darius, is unsourced, and unlikely.
    4. The sections on Herodotus are plainly original research from a primary source. Consult an annotated edition, like Rawlinson, and get back to us.
    5. still needs proof-reading. "his son eldest son, Cambyses," leapt out at me, and it's probably not alone.
    Septentrionalis 20:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reponse:
      1. Ah, my mistake. I should have put "Persian ruler" instead of merely "ruler" in that sentence. (And there was also Yu the Great.) Anyhow, I've fixed the sentence.
        • From my understanding, he did not call himself "Cyrus the Great." However, in the Cyrus Cylinder, he does state:
          [...] I am Cyrus, king of the world, 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; great-grandson of Teispes, the great king, king of the city of Anshan; [...] [1][2]
          I am unaware of when usage of "the Great" started. Regardless, it shouldn't matter anymore, as I've changed the wording. I hope it's more acceptable now.
      2. Copying exactly what I wrote above: Per the discussion in the peer review, I moved references from the intro into the other sections. Not a rule, but I seem to agree after reading this discussion. The ref is in the Cyrus Cylinder section.
      3. If you're referring to the introduction paragraph of "Legacy," I've changed it a bit.
      4. I made a huge mistake here. This information was not from Histories, but rather Stories of the East from Herodotus. A freely available version can be found at The Baldwin Project, ISBN 0-76618-928-7.
        • There is only one work by Herodotus. Like most ancient texts, it can be tricky to use. Please consult a secondary source. Septentrionalis 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is Stories of the East not a secondary source? It wasn't written by Herodotus himself. Regardless, there is no account of Cyrus' early life other than that of Herodotus, except for the fictional story by Xenophon. Yes, the story by Herodotus is probably fiction as well, but it wasn't presented as such, yet we do leave a notice at the start of that section about its factual accuracy. I'm not sure what else to do with that section. ♠ SG →Talk 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Bringing Yesterday's Classics to Today's Children". OK, use it as a secondary source, NPOV, you know. But use also schollary sources, please.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't let the website's slogan fool you, they don't do any research. All that website is, is a repository of REAL books which have since fallen out of copyright, thus being free to put on the Internet for others to read freely (ie. children). Anything I use from that website is a real book, probably from before 1925. ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      5. A small error; I also found one typo (Acheamenid instead ae). Other than that, I couldn't find anything — I even put it through a word processor just in case.
    • With all that in mind, please look over the article again and let me know if it's up to par yet. ♠ SG →Talk 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article needs more sections and a wider bagage of modern sources. The sections needed are the following: 1) Cyrus policies. 2) Religion in the time of Cyrus (his suposed zoroastrism, his polyteism, and all such subjects . 3) Ancient sources on Cyrus. 4) Sections on other subjects (Cysurs army for example, or whatever).
Regarding the "modern sources", it is related with NPOV. Most of the references are from the internet. I'd like to see more printed references to get a wider view. Cyrus is an important subject, and to get a Featured Article status, there are much to be written.--Amizzoni 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Internet sources are unreliable; and printed sources will tell you when a scholar believes this or that story from a primary source. Septentrionalis 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree here. For example, Jona Lendering is a reputable source. Just because he uses the Internet as his medium should not discredit his work; times are changing, books are going digital. Many of my sources are in fact printed books, for which I've not only provided ISBN numbers, but also links to the books available on the net. These include: The Garden of Cyrus, The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Stories of the East From Herodotus. Other reputable sources include the Encyclopædia Iranica, Jona Lendering of Livius, and any sites which footnote their information.
I know this comes off as very defensive, but if there's something I'm going to defend strongly, it'll be against comments that simply discredit work because of their medium. ♠ SG →Talk 04:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I absolutely agree with SG. We live in the 21st century! Of course, Internet can be a reliable source. Britannica is on-line now! So many books are online. Jona Lendering is doing an exceptional job! How can we discredit the work of all these people?! Even Google Book is an Internet based research. Editing in Wikipedia, I found some excellent non-printed articles on-line. I was obliged to use them, because they were so good! Do not discredit Internet!--Yannismarou 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that Lendering citates primary sources. But I've another question: You say "Cyrus was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC.", but you citate no ref for this statement. I loved this article! I cannot object. But for supporting I need a convincing anwer for the lack of citation in this particular point. Who makes these estimations about Cyrus' date of birth? Anyway ... Excellent work, pal! The star is not far away!!--Yannismarou 09:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't a single source for that statement. The problem is that varying sources give either one or the other, and I've found these two years to be the most common. I've placed a footnote after that statement to clarify; it is by no means a real source, but simply a footnote explaining the sentence. ♠ SG →Talk 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have no problem with internet resources, I use them (http://www.livius.org, http://www.achemenet.com, http://www.iranica.com) and I encourage you to use them; meny of them are actually very good. But we also have to use printed sources, if we want to get a wider view, a neutral view. 2) Talking about Cyrus birthdate, I belive the existences of two dates is related with the possible identification of Cyrus I with one persian king mentioned by the Assyrians during the middle VII century. I should chek it. 3) "Cyrus the Great" is on his way, but it's still so far of a FA status. Although most of the mistakes have been corrected (and all af them will be soon, I hope), It still needs more sections, more topics to be considered, we need to read more, -I repeat- to get a wider view, we have to write a lot. --Amizzoni 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.--Yannismarou 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kyriakos 21:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tototom 17:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Neutral; there have been some improvements in the writing.—1a. Here is an example, taken at random.
    • From the lead: "Little certain is known, however, of his actual life or reign. He is best known for the stories told about him later and by foreigners, which range from depicting him as the exemplar of a princely education, or as the fulfillment of prophecy, to earning a death of bloodthirsty arrogance. He is perhaps most remembered for restoring the exiled Jews to Jerusalem." The first two words, plus "actual", and "or", are problems. "Best known" needs a hyphen. Use "for" if he told the stories. "Stories told about him later and by foreigners"—two items, one temporal and one the agents of the storytelling, don't mix. "Range from depicting" is not right here. Avoid "perhaps", particularly in the lead.

The whole text needs intensive copy-editing. Tony 08:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been away for the past two weeks, so I haven't been able to really respond to this FAC since then. I'll be back tomorrow to patch up any issues with the article. On another note, I find it amusing that Septentrionalis wrote the second paragraph, and now agrees with Tony about it being poorly written. Make up your mind, man! (And don't take that as an insult.) ♠ SG →Talk 21:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I like my writing better than that; and Tony's ear for idiom is not perfect. But he is right that the article could use a proof-read. Septentrionalis 02:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose There are far too many grammatical errors.

Eg: "While Cyrus seems to have accepted the crown of Media, by 546 BC, he had officially assumed the title of King of Persia instead."

Although the size of their area of influence is not certainly known

This account is corroborated by Babylonian, nearly contemporaneous, sources

This apparent contradiction may reflect that the war was longer

The dates of the Lydian conquest are untenable

There are plenty more. The second paragraph of the article reads: Little certain is known, however, of his actual life or reign.

Why is the word ‘actual’ there? Needs re-writing, for example: Little is known for certain of his life and reign.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say in the next sentence. "He is best known for the stories told about him later and by foreigners, which range from depicting him as the exemplar of a princely education, or as the fulfillment of prophecy, to earning a death of bloodthirsty arrogance."

Are you saying that what we know about his life is mainly derived from subsequent stories of his life as told by Persians and non-Persians (foriegners) alike? If so it needs re-writing. It badly needs copy editing. Too many typo and punctuation mistakes, and in too many places it is badly written eg: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence of Cyrus’ Cylinder’.

"The cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, as early as the third millennium BC, kings such as Urukagina began their reigns with declarations of reforms, the cylinder of Cyrus has been referred to, as above, as the "first charter of human rights"; though such a concept would have been alien to Cyrus and his contemporaries." For FA status, these errors are far too prevalent and apparent. Raymond Palmer 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • More remarks: Why did you remove my additions regarding the conquest of Media? They were sourced. Such things need to be told if you want a FA status! The article is actually too (too!) short, because Cyrus is an important matter: many people wrote many things about him, but I see little of this in the article. You don't tell anything, for example, about the capital cities of Cyrus. I reccomend you to use the Encyclopedia Iranica article about Cyrus, the Cambridge History of Iran (available in google books) and a book by Dandamaev (also in google books). It is muych to be written yet. --Amizzoni 19:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't remove all of your additions, I rewrote and compacted them per the comments above; the writing wasn't very clear. The only addition of yours that I removed was the Herodotus section, which was extremely confusing and far too small to warrant its own section. ♠ SG →Talk 19:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know the writing wasn't very clear, but now it is shown as a fact, in spite of it is not a fact, it's just a conjeture. I belive it is very important to tell what the Babylonian sources say about the revolt against Media, and to ascertain that they corroborate the general situation depicted by Herodotus. Talking about the Herodotus section, it isn't mine. I agree with you that it "was extremely confusing and far too small to warrant its own section". Hawever, I think it is necesary to have a section about Herodotus' Histories as a source. --Amizzoni 23:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject and close This will not be a good article, much less a featured article candidate, until it is rewritten. When it is rewritten, it can be renominated.
    1. The narration of Herodotus's stories as factual is merely the most obvious example of failure to distinquish between fact, fiction, and conjecture.
    2. The presence of the Cyrus cylinder in the lead is nationalist POV=pushing.(I've removed it, again. When it comes back, it will be met with a tag.
    3. It still needs a copy-edit to be reduced into English. Septentrionalis 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that is quite bold of you. I didn't know you could "reject and close" a nomination so easily; I suppose you meant to vote "strong oppose," which you have already done.
    Herodotus' description of Cyrus is one of the best sources we have. Most of what he says is backed up by various other sources, with the exception of Cyrus' early life (and it is already stated in the article that it "belongs to a genre of legends [...]").
    And how on Earth is using the Cyrus Cylinder in the lead "nationalist POV?" I didn't say "the cylinder is wonderful, amazing, the best thing ever to happen since women!" It is to Cyrus II what the Behistun inscription is to Darius I.
    And finally, what parts need copy editing?
    (P.S.: It is already a good article; score one for Cyrus!) ♠ SG →Talk 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The changes you made have improved it a lot, particularly the nonsensical sentences. It may benefit from a genealogy diagram to make the relationships clearer. If you want to make a comment about the reliability of Herodotus, you could link his name in the article to a short paragraph to the 'Notes'. It is a good article, certainly better than what it was, but not a great article, and not yet FA material IMO. Raymond Palmer 01:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination goes nowhere! Too many disagreements! I still support the article, but I think it would be better for SG to take his time, address without pressure the concerns of the users who object and then renominate it for FA. I think this is the strategy for success. Hence, I agree with Septentrionalis' proposal for closure, but from a different point of you. I think that closure right now is in SG's interest and, most importantly, in the article's interest.--Yannismarou 10:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment: Good article but the lead doesn't do it justice. Can you please expand to 2-3 paragraphs? - Tutmosis 01:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cyrus_the_Great/archive1&oldid=1138458367"