![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The previous translation of the cylinder was seriously inaccurate. Specifically, it made Cyrus the Great seem much more progressive than he really was. I have taken this better translation from "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures", edited by James B. Pritchard, from Princton University Press. I have also tried to summarize the gist of the text after the translation. Specifically, I have removed the idea that Cyrus "abolished" slavery. It seems that what was really happening was that Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, had imposed "corvee-work" (forced labor) on the free men of the city, thereby essentually reducing them to slavery; Cyrus freed these former free men, but we should NOT assume that this emancipation would have also included those who had been slaves even before Nabonidus' ruler. The key phrase to understand is: "I abolished] the corvee (lit.: yoke) which was against their (social) standing" (the parathesis are not mine, but from the translation given in the book). This phrase suggests that those who had not been slaves before Nabonidus' rule were now returned to their former position in society; however, those whose social position had always included "corvee-work" - in the other words, the slaves - were not affected by Cyrus' new decree. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and it seems that this idea that the Persian Empire did not have slavery because Cyrus the Great abolished it is becoming very popular - BUT IT IS SERIOUSLY IN ERROR!!! All ancient empires had slavery - it was necessary to maintain their pre-industrialized, pre-technological, pre-modern economies. It is a sad, deplorable fact that all of our ancestors instituted and tolerated some form of human bondage, but it is, alas, true nonetheless. We must strive to diligently maintain accuracy on Wikipedia, and not allow false rumors to spread simply because one group feels that one version of a story makes it look better. Now, don;t get me wrong, I am not blind - I think I understand what this is all about... ever since Hollywood made the movie "300", Iranians around the world have, understandbly, been zealous in the defence of their heritage, history, and culture. (Now I am not going to debate that film, but let me just say that it was NOT history but utter fantasy, and I will leave it at that.) Many Iranians are trying to set the record straight about their history, but this defence CANNOT simply create "mew history" as an attack against lies or misperceptions told by Hollywood. If the Iranian historical community wants to take the high moral ground on history, then they should be honest and realistic, and no one should invent alternate histories in revenge for someone else's biased account of their own history.
We can all, Iranian or not, appreciate the achievements and ideas of this progressive, tolerant, and genius leader, Cyrus the Great, without having to view history through the ofren distorting and clouded lens of nationalism and jingoism.
(Having said all of this, I just want to add that one could argue that slavery in the Persian Empire was less harsh than in any other empire in history, save maybe for the British Empire after it abolished its slave trade in 1807. It goes without saying, I think, that the Persians were far more progressive and humance about slavery than the Greeks were. However, this does not change the fact that all ancient empires were forced to rely on some sort of human bondage for economic survivial.
On a slightly realted note, let us not forget that all empires are by nature oppressive and tyraniccal - they have to be in order to maintain stability within and to defend from invasion from without; this is not necessarily a condemnation of the Persian Empire or any other empire, just a law of human history. Cyrus, like Alexander or Genghis Khan or Napoleon, was forced to use brutal and deadly force at times, even if his own personal ideals may have suggested he act with peace and tolerance. One does not conquer an empire without blood and iron. Perhaps we should look at Cyrus as more of a tragic figure, doomed to fail in his dreams of conquering the world and of uniting humanity in one large superempire of peace, tolerance, and prosperity. The Greek historian Herodotus portrays Cyrus as such - a man too brilliant for his time, but ultimately brought down by his own genius and pride. But, anyway, this is straying into philosophy and not history, and this article on the Cyrus cylinder is historical in nature. So please just keep in mind the more correct translation that I have put up.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IonNerd ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am not very talented at working with Wikipedia, so maybe others who can manipulate it better can make it look nicer and cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IonNerd ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[Question: where does Zoroastrianism explicitly forbid slavery? I was not aware of this... is it in the Avesta? Maybe you are trying to say that Zoroastrianism forbids slavery of other Zoroastrians (Islam has a similar law - it is forbidden for a Muslim to hold another Muslim as a slave; if the slave of a Muslim were to convert to Islam, then the owner is obligated to free him/her).... If you could find a quote that would be helpful...] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.234.48 ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Response from IonNerd: Well, excuse me, sir... but at least I tried to find a better translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. I can assure you that "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures" is a scholarly source, and not something I found on the Internet. If you are so convinced of what constitutes "professionalism" than maybe you should have taken the time to look up a translation and type the entire thing into Wikipedia. I already wrote that I am new to Wikipedia, and I am still learning my way around. Look, I don't want to start a flame war or anything, so please just appreciate that I put up a more correct translation of the text. And just so you know, I do agree with your deletion; I see what you are saying about not putting up my own original research, and I acknowledge that elements from my summary were my own interpretation of the text. But please, for next time, try being a little more tactful and polite in your criticism. I accepted it, but others might just get angry and ignore you altogether. This article is in bad shape as it is, seeing as how it has essentially become a forum for people's ideological and nationalistic sentiments. The last thing we need is for the rhetoric to escalate.
Just a point: the previous quote was from J. Wisehöfer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, that I'm pretty sure quoted Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts.... But in fact it differs from the one that is now shown in the article. Perhaps Wisehöfer quoted it from another edition of ANET. Apart from this, Wisehöfer is a reputed researcher. Amizzoni ( talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Response from IonNerd: I do not know anything about J. Wisehofer's translation. "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures" is a text that I used in college. I cannot comment, however, on how it compares to other scholarly translations, but I can guarantee that it is indeed scholarly and not taken from an Internet source or anything like that. I think that the previous translation was taken from the Internet, so it's validity is harder to assess. Anyway, please let me know more about J. Wisehofer's translation, since I do not know anything about it.
Some people do not like IRAN. They put their hands to demonize this great country. Wikipedia schould not allow these people to change the history, just because of their political attitudes. Next, the enemies of IRAN will say the Poems of SAADI which decorate the entrance to the Hall of Nations of the UN building in New York are False too!!!!!
بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند، که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار، دگر عضوها را نماند قرار تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی، نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی
"Of one Essence is the human race, Thusly has Creation put the Base;
One Limb impacted is sufficient, For all Others to feel the Mace."[4]
This is an Iranian tradition, for more than 2500 years. People loved Cyrus and Darius like christisns love Jesus, because they were just!!! Iran is GREAT, you can not fool people.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpHKincVcew 62.178.51.59 ( talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After googling for more info I found that a good portion of this article is plagiarized from here and/or here. How do I report this? I'm too lazy (and busy with other articles) to rewrite this right now. Stuff like 'continents' needs to be changed as well. Khirad 09:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wiki administrators;
The above information is false. I added the article from (dash) soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies. The article was written by founder of the organization himself. According to (dash) soas.com/CAIS/copyright.htm their copyright policy:
Unlimited distribution is permitted without permission (unless otherwise noted) subject to:
The files will be used for Non-Commercial (no fee is charged to the users), your personal and educational use only.
The entire contents (Textual & Graphic) including the header, the author name, are not permitted to be altered.
The source (including web link address: http://www.cais (dash) soas.com) should be acknowledged.
The copyright notice (Copyright © 1998~ CAIS) should remain intact.
I even sent the author an email and aknowledged him about adding his article to Wikipedia.
Though the article was not taken from http://www.iranchamber.com ,but I contacted them (I thought maybe someone from that society is doing the deletions); and here is their reply:
Dear Mehrdad,
We never add, remove or edit anything to, from or on Wikipedia.
We were also noticed by some editors of Wikipedia that some people are adding materials from our site, and asked our permission to keep them on Wikipedia. In all of the occasions we did not express any objection. But later we did notice that some pictures and articles are removed again. We believe these removals and unnecessary editing's more or less caused by an unmanaged group of editors who are crossing each others works.
We support the cause of Wikipedia as a free source of information, and our copyright notice is only subjected to the commercial use of our materials which we do not grant any permission for such purposes at all. Above all we support what ever can more introduce our beloved Iran to the world.
Best regards,
Shahrzad Rouzrokh Editor of Iran Chamber Society http://www.iranchamber.com
Regards, -- Mehrdad 06:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
1) There is no evidence cited by any serious historian that the cylinder has anything whatsoever to do with Cyrus.
2) The text is known to be highly fragemented. 99% of the text has nothing whatseover to do with human rights but rather quite opposed concepts such as the divine right of kings and the right of conquest.
The extrapolation seems to be based on a single phrase, the "freeing" of a city from the "yoke" of another ruling class, and the failure to kill the inhabitents as they surrendered instead of fighting. This terminology and practice of not killing the inhabitents of a city that surrenders is notable no sense and indeed ubiquitous throughout history. 72.75.18.6 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source for this statement: "In 1971 the United Nations translated and published the Cyrus Cylinder as the first declaration of human rights into all official U.N.languages." The UN translates a lot of things. Did they really declare this decree to be the "first declaration of human rights"? Do legitimate historians agree with this interpretation? The text can be found here. In no way is this a "charter of human rights". -- JW1805 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be different versions of this declaration on the internet. Compare the two at this site and (dash) soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm this site. The second site has a version with a lengthy extra part at the end, containing highly dubious material like: "I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign." Some of the hyperbole on the various sites mentioning this declaration make me doubt their accuracy and objectivness. Is there a translation of this text from a reputable source (like the British Museum)? -- JW1805 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That is the real problem, I did a lot of searching but I was unable to find the real UN translation. Many sites translate it themselves and so the result is different. I will continue my search. -- Aytakin 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The best place for a translation of the Cyrus Cylinder is, unfortunatly, in university libraries. There are many people adding their own parts to this so-called 'declaration of human rights'. It is no such thing. I have studied the cylinder as part of my dissertation (and I can read Akkadian) and I can assure you that many of the web sites are simply telling lies regarding the content of the cylinder. Basically, Cyrus was presenting himself as a ligitimate ruler of Babylon whilst trying to 'demonise' the previous ruler, Nabonidus. The 'human rights' stems from the Jewish tradition and has its roots in the fact that the Persians apparently gave them money to re-build their temple. It is no accident that Cyrus is praised in the bible yet is strangly absent from Persian epics. Cyrus was also used as an example of a good King by Xenophon of Athens in the Cyropedia, but this is purely a piece of rhetoric and most shcolars agree that it bears no resemblance to the 'real' Cyrus. In all, Cyrus was a very canny politician. He knew what he had to do to legitimise his rule and he made extensive use of propagander to do it. He could be described as 'tolerant' to other cultures as this was another tool to keep the empire (and they were not really intersted in non-Persians worshipping Ahura-Mazda anyway). However, to talk about Cyrus in modern terms of 'Human Rights' is ridiculous. It must be noted that Babylon was one of Persia'a 'hotspots' (along with Egypt) and there were several rebellions here. That is until Xerxes, the fourth King, decided to exterminate much of the population to keep them quite, as well as impose ridiculous levels of taxation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.253.63.15 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, December 13, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
One of the reasons Wikipedia is fast becoming a joke is the comments above. People with no real expertise in a field tearing apart and reconstructing history to reflect their own personal beliefs. Cyrus the great may indeed have not been perfect, but the facts speak loudly that he was more than just a "canny politician". It may be fashionable to find middle eastern historical figures and ascribe them with hidden motives and evil characteristics, but genuine scholars do no such thing. The foremost expert on Achaemenid Persia, Professor R.N.Frye (who I have indeed met, and who is incredibly astute), says this in "The Heritage of Persia" (pp. 123-134):
"In the victories of the Persians... what was different was the new policy of reconciliation and together with this was the prime aim of Cyrus to establish a pax Achaemenica..... If one were to assess the achievements of the Achaemenid Persians, surely the concept of One World, .... the fusion of peoples and cultures in one 'Oecumen' was one of their important legacies"
While the translations indeed may be overambitious in what they purport to translate, and have tacked on various meanings, including some wishful thinking, let's not turn this discussion, and Cyrus' Cylinder, into something else to suit political agendas. The Cylinder is unique, and so was Cyrus, so much so that his enemies respected him and his honor. The tradition of announcing reforms at the beginning of rulership is not unique, and thus this may not be the first declaration of human rights, but it is a very significant one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.62.119 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, December 17, 2005.
TO ADD ON, the part I mentioned that I agree with the comments made by the unsigned user, I only meant the fact that its hard to find a relieble source for the translation, with the rest of it I do not agree with. I just want to clear that up!! --(
Aytakin) |
Talk
22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A good part of this translation is made-up. The Babylonian text is in fragments and never as perfect as this. I will put on a scientific translation (from a "university library") up soon. -- Khodadad 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have confirmed the translation on http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html to be a full translation of the Cyrus Cylinder and is in agreement with the translation found in "The Inscriptions Relating to the Rise of Cyrus And His Conquest of Babylonia". This book and many others have been scanned and made available in pdf format from www.brainfly.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.76.122 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, March 22, 2006
Sorry, i cannot trust the above mentioned livius.org as a seriously run source of knowledge. For example, search for the Word Arians to see how Jona Lendering reduces this term as to be only a Tribe in western Afghanistan!!!!! So, that joke is enought for me. Under Aryans, you will see only few words that would never cover the whole historic meaning. For him, it seems only be of importance that the term was misused by Nazis. This is not a professional work. 62.178.51.59 ( talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
UN Translation: Where is the UN translation of 1971? I cannot find it on the UN websites! They spend lots of time and money to do something then hide it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great In 1971, the UN translated it into all of its official languages.
Have a look at this:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php
62.178.51.59 ( talk) 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
One would suggest that the people above naming such academics as Frye read more up-to-date studies on Cyrus, such as the Acheamenid History Workshop series of publications that have changed the way Persia itself is studied. I did not, I think, present a picture of a demonised Cyrus, just a more realistic one. I have spent many a year studying this most famous (in the west - his impact on the eastern tradition of ancient folklore is limited) monarch and have deep respect for his achievements and the dynasty he created. It is now unfortunate that the myth preceeds the man...
Further to the disscussion, the best place to find an accurate and accepted (though by no means totally uncontested) translation is in Maria Brosius' book on Persian inscriptions as part of the LACTOR series:
Brosius,M (2000) 'The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I' in London Association of Classical Teachers 16: London.
This is the text usually presented to university students to study, at least in the UK anyway. Oppenheims text (cited above) is, unfortunatly, now considered 'out of date' (if I may use so bold an expression) though it does contain much colour in the prose.
Shouldn't the Cyrus Cylinder be kept in Iran as it is their property, or is it that the Shah let them keep it as he was nothing but a puppet of the England.
Uh, this has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.... 24.148.19.254 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the edit "Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi has claimed that" [2]
1- Where is your source? Besides the article on your own website which seems to claim this without providing any sources.
2- "has claimed" suggests that he continues to do so. However I think we both know that he is no longer with us :) -- Rayis 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are clearly some problems with this page, not least that it actually contradicts the material on Cyrus the Great. Text copied verbatim from a site which is, to say the least, opinionated doesn't help matters. I made some changes which I think rectify these and help with NPOV. However, I thought I'd check I haven't done anything glaringly wrong before I actually saved the edit, so I put the edited page here. All being well, I'll make the actual change in a day or two when everyone has have had a chance to object to my mutilation of their work. Dan TV 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"However, it can also be argued that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were more or less usual for a conquering monarch in contemporary Babylon and the surrounding area [1]. By this argument, Cyrus may have been unusually generous, but the Cylinder cannot be regarded as a charter guaranteeing rights. At least one translation of the Cylinder’s text found online has been ‘elaborated’ with promises founding Cyrus’ right to reign on the acceptance of the people [2]. This is in contradiction with the early part of the text, which recounts the god Marduk’s offer of a tyrannical monarch’s kingdom to Cyrus, founding his conquest on divine right [3]."
First of all, excuse me for my last change, it wasn't bad intentioned -I didn't even get the right place! For more references to the paragraph you moved here, see the following:
"[A]lready prior to the identification of the relevant fragment [i.e., the Yale fragment mentioning Assurbanipal] [J. Hamatta] had remarked on the similarity of style between the Cyrus Cylinder and the inscriptions of Assurbanipal. In this connection, CBF Walker correctly remarked that the Cyrus Cylinder is a normal building inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition, and can certainly not be regarded as some declaration of human rights (Walker 1972:159; see also Kuhrt 1983; Van der Spek 1982)."
(from M. Dandamaev A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, pp. 52-53, the publications refered to are: A. Kuhrt "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy" in Journal of Studies of the Old Testament 25 pp. 83-97., B. van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great introduce a new policy towards subdued nations? Cyrus in Assyrian perspective" in Persica 10 pp. 273-285, and C.B.F. Walker, "A recently identified fragment of the Cyrus Cylinder", in Iran 10, pp. 158-159; if you search "cyrus cylinder" + "human rights" you can get the relevant passage in http://books.google.com/)
Furthermore, Jona Lendering is not just "someone on internet", notice that he's an scholar, and that Livius.org is indexed in Abzu (also known as the Holy Canon of Ancient Near East Online Resources), of the Chicago University Oriental Institute. It doesn't means that all that he writes is true, but we can take him as a serious source.
I agree that there is a problem with the last sentence, it can't reference to the Cylinder itself -it would be original research-, and I also believe that words like tyrannical sounds quite sensationalistic, so we should refrase it, or just remove it.-- Amizzoni 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"By this argument, Cyrus may have been unusually generous, but the Cylinder cannot be regarded as a charter guaranteeing rights"
- Arguably, no charter of human rights will ever "guarantee" anything so I am not sure what this sentence is trying to imply here. -- Rayis 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
For criticism section, there needs to be a more clarified paragraph explaining Cyrus's policy that he wanted to make people like him (rather than the word propoganda), and also stop putting "it cannot be regarded as charter guaranteeing rights" or anything like that which doesn't make sense. --
Rayis
21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it all seems almost fine on this article. Lets keep it short on the Cyrus' article. -- Rayis 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Rayis had asked additional references to back up the statement that there are many parallels for the CC, which I inserted; I also polished the notes and reworked the propaganda bit, offering more context. I thought it was fine, but it was all removed and an incorrect summary was inserted. I have now rolled back that rollback. I propose that people who want to roll back large sections, as was done, will announce it first. Jona Lendering 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*Besides, Mary Boyce has made it clear in many publications that the Iranian religions of that age were not monotheistic, [4] which makes it impossible to state that Cyrus, although himself a monotheist, allowed his subjects to keep their own beliefs.
Because the Cyrus Cylinder can not be used to support the late Shah's opinion about Cyrus, at least one falsification has been made, probably before Fragment B was discovered. It can be found online and has been ‘elaborated’ with promises founding Cyrus’ right to reign on the acceptance of the people. [5]
-> Jona, this is all your original research and findings! what you conclude from evidence you choose to accept, is YOUR conclusion. There is no evidence that Mohammad Reza Shah was the first to call this a charter of human rights, and there is absolutely no reason for you to go all the way on to research to prove him wrong!. -- Rayis 17:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There are loads of entries from IranChamber and Livius too. CAIS was part of SOAS (University of London), and it is considered as a scholarly based website. Most of the articles there are written by renowned archaeologists and historians. However, other two websites, IranChamber and Livius are both private-websites with no academic affiliations, and should be treated cautiously. Surena 08:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Cyrus_cylinder/Uncivil_remarks_by_194.145.161.226 -- Rayis 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the problem is with Livius, I don't see any reason to remove this:
"However, it can also be argued that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were made by some conquering monarchs in contemporary Babylon and the surrounding area. According to this argument, "the Cyrus Cylinder is a normal building inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition, and can certainly not be regarded as some declaration of human rights" [6]."
Note 6: "A. Kuhrt "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy" in Journal of Studies of the Old Testament 25 pp. 83-97, B. van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great introduce a new policy towards subdued nations? Cyrus in Assyrian perspective" in Persica 10 pp. 273-285, M. Dandamaev A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, pp. 52-53. The quotation is from Dandamaev."
Well, I put it here to prevent war editions. I believe it is not POV because it is balanced with the previous part (Frye, the UN, etc). So if you agree, just add it to the article.-- Amizzoni 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
<>Does it really need its own article, its made the whole thing look a bit messy now, cant you just talk about the conflict of opinion in the main article.
Okay, attempt to create something meaningful, in line with decent scholarship, and on which we can all agree.
(a) The latest textbook, which must be our main source of reference, and about which we can all agree, is Pierre Briant's brick, isn't it? (I mean, of course, Histoire de l' Empire Perse, 1995; English translation 2002). I know Briant is not perfect, but his book is simply the best summary there is.
(b) The latest meaningful publications are Kuhrt and R.J. van der Spek, we can all agree about that. So far, I have seen nobody claim anything that is more recent.
(c) The only valid text edition is Schaudig 2002.
I think this can be our common ground, and no one will challenge this. I propose to write an article that only refers to these articles, and not to older stuff (Dandamaev, Frye, etc.). If anyone disagrees, let him/her post articles, written after Briant's well-accepted synthesis, and explain why this particular article is important as an addition to Briant. Jona Lendering 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus the Great, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription - all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king, the historian Joseph Wisehöfer wrote about Cyrus in 1996". Surena, I'm afraid you have to cite passages that explicitly refer to the Cyrus Cylinder. It belongs to Cyrus the Great article, not to here. Where Wisehöfer talks about the Cyrus Cylinder (pp. 44, 49, 87), he calls it "an Achaemenid propaganda document intended to legitimize Cyrus's rule over Babylonia" (p. 87).-- Amizzoni 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there still controversial remarks on the article or can we start removing the tags? -- Rayis 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, of course there are. I have written a new draft for the section "The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights", tell me what do you think:
"The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights, [7] and it was translated into all official U.N. languages in 1971. [8] [9] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [10]
Passages in the text have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity. It promotes a form of religious tolerance and freedom. [11] He allowed his subjects to continue worshipping their gods, despite his own monotheist beliefs. [12] Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects. [13]
However, it can also be argued that the cylinder is a stereotypical bulding inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition. By this argument, it can not be considered a declaration of human rights, but a piece of propaganda [14]. Of course, it does not mean that the Persians imposed a tyrannical rule oven their new subjects; in fact, they are widely regarded as more tolerant than their predesessors Baylonians and Assyrians.
As Joseph Wisehöfer wrote about Cyrus in 1996 [15]:
“In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus the Great, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription - all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.”
"
“In the victories of the Persians… what was different was the new policy of reconciliation and together with this was the prime aim of Cyrus to establish a pax Achaemenica… If one were to assess the achievements of the Achaemenid Persians, surely the concept of One World,… the fusion of peoples and cultures in one ‘Oecumen’ was one of their important legacies.”
At least one translation of the Cyrus Cylinder has been elaborated with more promises and can still be found in many websites. [17]. It can be recognized for the mention of Ahura Mazda and for frases such as: "I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I shall never resolve on war to reign."
For the content of the notes, see the source (click on edit). Feel free to post any comment.-- Amizzoni 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss any major edits here prior to adding to the article. Kurt and Livius are not considered as neutral sources. Kurt is well known for her hatred towards Iranians, and Livius is a product of one or two individuals (sorry Jona), which contains their personal opinions (more like a Weblog) than a neutral and scholarly based website, to be used as a reliable source here. Also as discussed before, we can add a new section to the article such as “conflicting views”, in a respectable manner, which is free from any WP:AWW words, (i.e. “political motives” rather than “propaganda”) or POV pushing to accommodate the notion that you, Jona and alike are subscribing to, without insulting a nation's identity! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I made major edits because the discussion seemed to be death, and because removing sourced material is vandalism. I agree with you concerning the tags, but I'm affraidd I disagree about almost all. We have to say "Kuht say ...., but .... considers her not neutral". Do you have any source that considers Kuht not neutral? Please add it, but Kuht must stay. This is what NPOV means, to show all the conflicting views. And until you find any source that considers Kuht not neutral, Kuhrt must stay. Note that Dandamaev (in A Political History and his Iranica articles) and Weisehofer cite her article on the Cylinder, and both express nothing but agreement. About the word "propaganda", it is used by Weisehofer, so it must stay. But if you have a source that states "I consider that the use of words such as 'propaganda' to describe the Cyrus Cylinder is a way to insult the national identity of Iran", please, add it, but that Weisehofer uses the word "propaganda" must stay. As you say, conflicting views, but why in a new section, since all the conflicting views are about the subject of human rights? About Livius: it is not in the level of a blog, not at all. Livius is indexed in Abzu, the list Ancient Near East online resources of the University of Chicago. Moreover, it is the only source that says that there are elaborated "translations" of the cylinder -something that we all who have read any scholarly edition of the cylinder know, let agree in this point.
To sum up:
Too much disagreement, so I suggest calling a mediator. -- Amizzoni 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we are closer to a solution than I believed. There just a couple things I want to point out:
If the sections were reorganized as I show it in point 1, I believe would be able to remove the NPOV tags. It is not the solution of all our problems (for instance, it ramains the usage of Livius as a source, and one or two minor points), but I think we are in the good way and we don't need any mediation.-- Amizzoni 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
___________________________________
I am concerned over the tone of this article and the fact that the 'conflicting views' section only gets 2 sentences while the 'pro-human rights charter' section has a quote from a scholar written 45 years ago (and pre-Acheamenid History Workshop days). I am also concerned with this passage: "Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects." The Darius Behistun inscription clearly identifies 2 revolts in Babylon in which the name of Nabonidus was invoked as a 'call to arms' - not only does this cast doubt on the whole Nabonidus the Tyrant issue that the Cylinder expounds, but it also makes this statement false (at least for Babylon). Again, this is all related to the general tone of this article and I think a much more 'measured' approach is better for a contested topic (and a topic that will probably remain contested for the foreseeable future).
IN URGENT NEED OF CORRECTIONS
As the wiki entry stands it does the very thing you profess you aim to avoid. It deceives the reader by presenting the Cylinder as the de facto first Human Rights Charter while only acknowledges some conflicting views in a passage resembling a footnote. Since the characterization of the Cylinder as a ‘Human Rights Charter’ only reflects one view of the debate, the layout of the entry should be such as to eliminate any possible bias that could arise from its presentation. In my view the main section of the entry should be entitled “The debate surrounding the Cylinder” or similar, under which all views should be presented thoroughly. The section presenting the characteristic passages according to you, is loaded with bias as they are taken completely out of context. And the context of those passages is of the outmost importance in judging the exact nature of the inscription. In addition, you create the impression that the only significant passages are those that revolve around the debate and by that the wider historical significance of the Cylinder is undermined. The ‘Biblical Significance’ section along with its title, to someone aware of the debate seems to reinforce that perceived bias. ‘Biblical References’ should be more appropriate. At its present state the entry cannot be considered credible. Under the title ‘The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights’ you state that the cylinder has been described as such and for the purpose of verification you provide a link that is itself biased. In it we learn that “The cylinder describes the Great King not as a conqueror, but as a liberator and the legitimate successor to the crown of Mesopotamia” as if the Cylinder is an objective source expressing the view of an objective judge whereas in reality it expresses the view, Cyrus himself –rightly or wrongly- wanted his people to have of him. The unchecked manifestations of admiration towards the Cylinder from your part, that are spread throughout the entry, only serve to discredit the presentation of the inscription. They alienate those who disagree with you, and deceive the rest.
62.30.182.16
01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The official site of the british museum disagrees with your assertion regarding the cylinder being the first bill of human rights.
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cyrus_cylinder.aspx
"This cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms"
So why do you keep insisting on this crap? There is a lot of sick persian nationalism in this article.
Please discuss prior to any major edits as agreed before (see above), to prevent any possible edit wars. There is a section that is named "Conflicting Views" to accommodate the sceptics – of course must be accompanied by references, rather than “here say” which is POV! Also please do not remove the entries that are supported by citations. Xodd 16:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, what you say is that if you disagree with Frye then you can feel free to erase it. Instead, it's better to add a new reference that contradicted Frye's one. In any case, now I don't see what's the point of Frye's quote: it doesn't even mention the Cyrus Cylinder. I'd say the same for the last two paragraphs. I prefer to have all views in the same section, too, since all of them are about "The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights". So I've made a new daft, tell me what you think:
"The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights, [18] [19] and it was translated into all official U.N. languages in 1971. [20] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [21]
Passages in the text have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity, and as promoting a form of religious tolerance and freedom. [22] By this argument, Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects. [23]
However, there are many scholars who disagree with the concept of Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context -they prefer to describe it as a building inscription or a propaganda document instead-, and that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were made by some conquering monarchs in ancient Babylon and the surrounding area. [24]"
It is more or less my idea of how the section should be, at least until it were expanded. Amizzoni 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the important thing is to state clearly that most scholars nowadays reject the view of the Cyrus Cylinder as related in any way to humans rights (something that is absent in your version). But you're right, it was quite ambiguous and perhaps the concept of propaganda should be discussed in another place. So here is another version of the last paragraph:
However, there are many scholars who disagree with the concept of Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They also point out that Mesopotamia has a long tradition dating back to the third millennium BC of Kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns and thus Cyrus' own declaration was neither unique nor the first. [25] [26]"
As for the religious tolerance, I think the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia reference is OK for now, but of course much remains to be written. I don't remember any reputable source calling Cyrus' a monotheist, and the British Museum reference that the article gives now is empty (at least in my PC): "He allowed his subjects to continue worshipping their gods, despite his own monotheist beliefs. [27]". About the Nabonidus Cylinder, it's an interesting piece and relevant to the article. I remember that there were drawn parallels with Assyrian royal inscriptions too. So I repeat, much remains to be written. Amizzoni 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I did find one university that referenced the Ahura Mazda version. The Rogers is old and I tried to find recent translations but they all were much like Rogers/Schaudig with differences that were insignificant and mostly only available in books and not online. My OR is that perhaps the Weisehofer is probably biased to the Human Rights concept for (possibly political) or POV purposes. I don't think it's fraudulant as it's just the choice of POV words used so I'm not claiming that.
I think that section is ok for now as a base to work from for possible future edits.
What are thoughts on moving "The characteristic passages of this (earlier popular translation of the) Cyrus inscription are: xxxxxx" to the end of the UN part of the Human Rights section? Of course we can edit it down to the relevant sentences used by the UN to shorten it considerably. Then possibly adding the same more current? translation passages for comparison at the end of the alternate view? That puts both versions in for readers to check themselves.
Now comes the tough one. "Biblical Significance". It's not too bad but there is repetition that needs fixing and I think a bit on the view that possibly the prophesies were written by several people over a long period of time is needed, including mention of the relevant verses being possibly written after the events they "predicted". The WP articles on them admits this so it should be no problem to add it here in some form without diminishing the religious view. Wayne 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Whether the cylinder is the first bill of rights or not makes no difference to Persian nationalism as the country was still the worlds first democracy as we know it."
Τhe worlds first democracy as we know it? Wayne you must be joking. what was the percentage of the population of persian empire that took part in the elections. was it above 0,00000000000001 %? There was only one vote in the ballot.
Actually Cyrus was the first imperialist and he was the first to proclaim himself king of the world 'by the grace of god'. In this respect everyone copied him. From Alexander the GREAT and the Romans till the British and the French. So the Persians nationalists should be proud of him. At least there was a persian first in the world's history. So stop insisting on the foolishness of the world’s first charter of human rights and find a reliable source for the translation of the text.
'The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights' Described as the world first charter of human rights by whom? Historians, elmer fudd, or maybe the late persian shah.
And why did you remove the link from livius.org? ( http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html). Maybe because Jona Lendering disagrees with the fairy tale that was created by the persian chauvinists.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php. So why do you use him when at the same time you question his credibility?
"undo weight, 2-3 scholars does not = most" (user CreazySuit's edit summary)
We've cited Amélie Kuhrt, R. J. van der Spek, Muhammad Dandamaev, Josef Wiesehofer, Pierre Briant, that is, 5 scholars. Dandamaev also cites CB Walker, so we should count him too: 6 scholars. I could also add P.-A. Beaulieu (see for example "An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians", JNES vol. 52 n. 4 Oct. 1993. p. 243.) and Jona Lendering (see [7]): 8 scholars.
The only author the article cites supporting the "human rights" view is Abbas Milani.
8 vs 1. So I'd say "some scholars" is misleading, as it's clear that, right or wrong, most of them agree with this viewpoint. Amizzoni ( talk) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The translated text does not fit Webster's Online Dictionary's definition of a declaration (see here:
[8]). If anything, it is simply one person's description of a series of historical events, including a somewhat glorified description of a ruler's character and actions.
As far as human rights are concerned, they are totally not mentioned and to quote the text, "As to the inhabitants of Babylon, [who] against the will of the gods [had/were…., I abolished] the corvee (lit.: yoke] which was against their (social) standing." The "corvee" was simply against the social standing of the inhabitants of Babylon, not other people elsewhere (slaves?). Therefore, there is no declaration of human rights whatsoever, but instead an indication of a social standing (lower class), where corvee may have been seen as part of the social order of the day.
WriterHound (
talk)
21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Spiegel is a right-wing newspaper with a political agenda, not an academic journal. Here are two academic rebuttals to Spiegel's nonsense by two academics and experts on the region. [11] [12] -- CreazySuit ( talk) 12:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed a source about an award presented to Kofi Anan by the Persian Center of northern California because I do not consider it that important. [14] I removed a source that is spreading the fake translation. [15] I removed a commercial source that is raising funds (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I removed the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge because it looks a bit outdated to me. [16] I added Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Le Monde and The Telegraph. They are reliable per definiton. I restored Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, which has been removed without explanation twice by CreazySuit and twice by Larno Man. CreazySuit has argued (in his edit summaries) that undo weight is given to theories of 2-3 people, when all the other acadamics disgree. Count them again, then: Jona Lendering, A. Kuhrt, R.J. van der Spek, M. Dandamaev, P.-A. Beaulieu, J. Wiesehöfer, P. Briant, Neil MacGregor, [17] Hanspeter Schaudig, [18] Klaus Gallas [19] and Francis Joannès [20]. I count eleven. Konstock ( talk) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, self revert the article. Assume good faith! Bring your draft to the talkpage and post it after compromise. You changed the article substantially without getting consensus. You wrote the article in a way that nobody else other than Shah's beleives that it is the fisrt charter of human right. I can provide you with tens of scholarly references. The newspaper articles that you provided are not reliable. You started current edits after der Spiegel article. Even you want to use these type of references. At the same time, National Geographic published an article on Iran's history and admired the Cyrus legacy and called the Cylinder the first charter of human right. I am wondering why this article didn't attract you and Der Spiegel did? Which one is more reliable on history? National Geographic or ...?-- Larno Man ( talk) 03:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"You wrote the article in a way that nobody else other than Shah's beleives that it is the fisrt charter of human right." Well, the Sha, Abbas Milani and Shirin Ebadi. If you know more people supporting the human rights view, just provide the references. I'll be waiting for them.
"The newspaper articles that you provided are not reliable." I don't particularly like these articles, specially the Der Spiegel one -it's just a piece of sensationalism. But the important thing is where they are used:
You base your proposal of reverting the whole edition in the argument that newspapers are not reliable. But all the newspaper notes (except the "1971 translation" reference) are supported by academic publications, UN press releases and Livius. Amizzoni ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. At the same time, National Geographic published an article [21] on history of Iran and admired the Cyrus legacy and called the Cylinder the first charter of human right. I am wondering why this article didn't attract you and Der Spiegel did? Which one is more reliable on history? National Geographic or ...?-- Larno Man ( talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. Why I brought that quote? Because, the manner and life story of Cyrus testify that this document is not a propaganda as you think. He was tolerant and magnanimousand. Several independent Hebrew, Greek, Mesopotamian and Persian sources reported his tolerant, respect to other cultures and religions, and human freedom. He practiced what is written in the Cylinder and it was not only a propaganda.-- Larno Man ( talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's neither a propaganda document nor a declaration of human rights. I believe it's an ideological representation of the priests who wrote it, and that although it might reflect in some way a royal policy of tolerance (it relies on how we define it), it doesn't allow us to call it a "declaration of human rights", as it is not a declaration, as what it says doesn't apply to all humans, and as it doesn't concern rights of any kind. But it isn't important what I think. The important thing is that the great majority of scholars rejects the "human rights" conception, and consider it as a propaganda document. And as for the Frye quote, it would be original research: it doesn't mention the Cyrus Cylinder. Note that very similar quotes can be taken from Briant's book, but he calls the cylinder a piece of propaganda. Amizzoni ( talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to quote parts of the article mentioned:
"Schulz has also cited the fall of Opis on the second page of his article. It was in 1966 that A. K. Grayson published his translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle:
In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people."
Note the following two words: "slaughtered" and "the people".
A number of scholars knew that the translation was flawed, however the issue was not academically addressed until 2007, when Shahrokh Razmjou consulted Professor Wilfred G. Lambert of the University of Birmingham, England, who is the world's foremost expert in the cuneiform. It is worth noting that A. K. Grayson had been a student of Professor Lambert in the past.
Razmjou asked Professor Lambert to review Grayson's translation. Lambert immediately noted that the translation that had been made by his former student was false. Here is the correct translation:
In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad).
Notice the following corrections made by Professor Lambert:
Mr. Schulz in his article in Speigel has, amongst his numerous errors (as noted in my humble retort cited earlier) has relied on:
Lambert's translation was published in the 2007 publication of the French journal N.A.B.U
Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being done to the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle. To that end, two further observations may be inferred: </[>
So please note how a misreading which supported the thesis of Wieshofer is now totally debunked. I would like also point out to many positive news paper articles on Cyrus [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. The fact that Shultz did not know about Lambert's translation makes his article unworthy and same thing about theories of Wieshofer/Kuhrts. Their major thesis lies on the Opis event and their reading is based on Grayson. On the other hand, much material based on classical Greek, Hebrew and etc. paint a positive light on Cyrus and one can not dismiss these classical materials because few scholars keep inventing new history ideas which are now debunked due to Professor. Lambert's new reading. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The passage from the Nabonidus Chronicle that refers to Opis is mentioned neither by Kuhrt, nor by Dandamaev, nor by Briant, nor by Weisehofer (at this moment I have no access to the article by Van Der Spek). So the new translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle has no implications on this matter.
Furthermore, the newspaper articles say that Cyrus was a good king, but only two of them mention human rights. The article by Paul Cartledge [29] (an academic specialized in Greek history) is clearly against the human rights position: "the text of the Cylinder has been hailed a touch enthusiastically - not to mention anachronistically - as an early declaration of human rights. Actually, it concerns the repatriation of religious statues and human deportees, recalling that it was the same Cyrus who earned the title "Lord's Anointed" from Deutero-Isaiah for restoring the exiled Jews from Babylon to Judaea." The other one is quite ambiguous: [30]. But as someone said in an edit summary, academic publications overweight newspaper articles. Let use only academic publications. Well, anyway: I'm writing a new draft and I'll paste it here as soon as I finishedv it. Amizzoni ( talk) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]"predating the Magna Carta by more than one millennium". [34] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored. [29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971, [31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi's twin sister Ashraf Pahlavi to then UN Secretary General Sithu U Thant on October 14, 1971 and has since then been kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [35] The Cyrus Cylinder played an important part in the 2,500 year celebration of Iran's monarchy organizad by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi during the same year. The Shah's régime supported the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and it has been claimed that such notion originated in the régime itsef. [36]
However, many [37] scholars now disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They point at the fact that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as reflecting royal propaganda. [38] [39] [40]
A fake translation of the cylinder - affirming, among other things, the right to self-determination - has spread and even been quoted by Shirin Ebadi when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. The fake can be recognized by the mention of Ahura Mazda, absent in the original. [40]
I think some parts are poorly written, but generally speaking this how I think it should look like. Amizzoni ( talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you and others think about this? based on your own:
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights.
[41]
[29]
[42]
[31]
[32]
[43]"predating the
Magna Carta by more than one millennium".
[44] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.
[29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971, [31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by Pahlavis to the UN Secretary General on October 14, 1971 and has since then been kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway [45]. It has been claimed that the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights originated in Pahlavis themself. [46]
However, some scholars disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They point at the fact that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as reflecting royal propaganda. [47] [48] [40]
A fake translation of the cylinder - affirming, among other things, the right to self-determination - has spread. The fake can be recognized by the mention of Ahura Mazda, absent in the original. [40]. The fake translation has misled some to overemphasize on Cyrus's tolerance, however in spite of the argumentation of making similar declarations by other kings, some other scholars believe that Cyrus's approach toward subdued people differed from that of previous rulers in some aspects. [49] and that he was a tolerant and magnanimous sovereign, [50] which is also supported by his treatment of Jews in Babylon and the reflection of his generosity in the Old Testament [51], the policy which was continued by two of his successors: Darius I and Artaxerxes I.-- Raayen ( talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, Amizzoni. Your version is much more neutral than the current one.
@Raayen: Quotes about Cyrus' "tolerance" are best inserted in Cyrus the Great and not the particular section discussing the specific interpretation of the Cylinder as a "charter of human rights" since they're quite off-topic. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When you call this cylinder Cyrus' propaganda. It is necessary to provide information for readers to show in which context Cyrus declared these decrees. Cyrus character and his legacy help readers to judge whether it was propaganda or not. Therefore, quotes about Cyrus' "tolerance" is not off-topic. -- Larno Man ( talk) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Cyrus’s King-Arthur-like image was shattered in 1965 when a post-graduate student by the name of A.K. Grayson retranslated the Nabonidus Chronicle for his doctoral thesis. His interpretation revealed a bloody massacre by Cyrus of the entire civilian population at the city of Opis (near today's Baghdad). The following passage is what cynics like Mr. Schultz and his experts have zeroed in on for the last 40+ years:
“In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people.” The naysayers finally had their red meat. The Herodotian East/West divide was secure. But unbeknownst to Mr. Schulz, this passage was corrected last year by none other than A. K. Grayson’s former professor, W. G. Lambert and published in the 2007 issue of the French journal N.A.B.U.. The amended translation reads as follows: In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad). Cyrus did not “slaughter the people,” he “defeated the soldiers.” Two words can change history, which is why it’s so incumbent on Spiegel to get the facts straight before setting out to revise it. This revelation leaves Mr. Schulz’s article with nothing but speculation and conjecture. |
” |
-- Raayen ( talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for delay. I needed sometimes to do some research. This is my proposal which is inspired by the previous two drafts-- Larno Man ( talk) 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC):
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights.
[52]
[29]
[53]
[31]
[32]
[54]"predating the
Magna Carta by more than one millennium".
[55] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.
[29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971,
[31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by
Pahlavis to the UN Secretary General on
October 14,
1971 and has since then been kept at the
United Nations Headquarters in
New York City in the second floor hallway
[56].
It has been claimed that the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights originated in Pahlavis themselves
[57], and some scholars disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They state that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as self ordered decrees by Cyrus, trying to make himself appears righteous.
[58]
[59]
[40]
This view is criticized though. The supporters of this view fail to mention why the independent Mesopotamian, Greek, and Biblical sources, as well as archaeological findings are consistent with statements of Cyrus Cylinder. [60] [61] These group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements. This translation was later amended in 2007. [62] In spite of the argumentation of long tradition of making similar declarations by other kings. In Cyrus age, invaders considered massacring and enslaving of of conquered people prosperity. At that time the conquering kings proudly recorded brutality in sacking and destruction of the invaded lands in royal inscriptions. On the other hand, Cyrus was a tolerant and magnanimous sovereign [60] [63] [64] [65] which totally differed from approach toward subdued people of previous rulers [64] [66]. Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human right is so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that can't has Eastern roots. [67]
This version is even worse than the current one. It violates WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL and probably a million other policies. Once again, we aren't going to comment on Cyrus' character or hypothesise about the motives of scholars. I'll offer no comment for expressions such as "anti-Cyrus writers". Please, either make some serious proposals or let's get the article unprotected and use Amizzoni's version. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Find one weasel word in the proposal. Actually the first proposed had some that was amended by User:Rayis. Although, the second theory is directly criticized by sources and not widely acceptable, you insist to keep the second fringe theory. In spite the fact that the eligibility of the second groups of writers as experts on Persian Empire history are questioned by critics too. Tired of POV pushing of 3rdAlcove, I reluctantly accept to keep the second fringe theory. So, let us bring the critics of the second theory too. The draft is only talking about the article. It is only talking on Cyrus Cylinder as the charter of human rights and its context. This version is comprehensive. Talking about the main theory, the opposite theories and its critics. If you have problem with the last paragraph and think it is irrelevant, the second theory should be gone as well. Regarding "anti-Cyrus writers" propose a better expression if you think there are better alternatives.-- Larno Man ( talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Larno Man, I don't know why you should feel so strongly about an Iron Age ruler, but be aware that you come across as hysterical. You fail to address valid and coherent concerns, and all you seem to be doing is stalling progress by revert warring with less than helpful summaries such as this one.
In short, some people need to get over their patriotism here and stand down a little bit. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if, once the page is unprotected, the sentence 'According to a recent report, directors of British Museum and National Museum of Iran in Tehran have reached an agreement whereby the Cyrus Cylinder will be displayed in National Museum of Iran.' could be reworded? Apart from needing a few basic grammar tweaks, and some clarification as to when this 'recent report' was (there have been stories about the cylinder being loaned to Iran circulating since 2004), the 'displayed' bit could do with being clarified. Is the cylinder being returned (seems unlikely given that the museum is legally prohibited from doing so (viz the Elgin Marbles controversy) or merely loaned, and if the latter, is this actually the case, since all of the sources are Iranian based, and there hasn't been any mention of this in any other sources, nor any announcements by the British Museum, etc. Benea ( talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The title Mesopotamian tradition and Persian propaganda is a violation of wp:npov. It promotes the extreme POV of this article. It either should be changed or change the other section Scholarly view to Eurocentric view and change/copyedit the section accordingly. Any objection? Xashaiar ( talk) 09:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Propaganda" is not being used negatively. It's used here in the sense in which Hanspeter Schaudig uses it: "shorthand for the complex processes whereby rulers shape their subjects' views of the world and are in turn affected by them" (p. 51, "Xerxes' Homer". Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the Third Millennium). The CC isn't the only piece of pro-Cyrus propaganda - the Verse Account of Nabonidus is another example, though it's much less well-known. As Matthias Henze puts it (The madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, p. 61), "Immediately following the demise of the Neo-Babylonian empire in 539 BCE, there arose a significant body of polemic literature leveled against Nabonidus", which historians clearly relate to a Persian or pro-Persian campaign to discredit Nabonidus and promote the new regime. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see parts of this article reorganized to have just one section that focuses on the use of the Cylinder in propaganda, just one section that focuses on the fake translation, and one section that focuses on the significance (or lack thereof) of the text at the time of Cyrus. But keep "propaganda" out of the scholarly "building inscription or more?" analysis. It should be possible to reduce the length of the article by consolidating some of the redundant or less significant text in the process. Matthias Blume ( talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is sad to lose ChrisO.. although I disagreed with him (and I believe the action of some nationalists in other media might have given a too much negative reaction), he was needed. Hope to see him back. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a big mess..I am sad to see someone like Moreschi leave and then ChrisO. There really needs to be a separate body of experts (with preferably 50 active admins) who basically crack down on users such as these [32]. I disagreed with ChrisO on Cyrus Cylinder, but always tried to use sources. Anyhow the only good admin that is left now is Dbachmann. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I saw that this article has been mentioned in an Al Jazeera blog which claims a conspiracy regarding it. [33] I don't think it has any credence. However, I think there are some things the article gets wrong, so if nobody minds I would like to try fixing them. They won't require major changes. L'ecrivant ( talk) 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You can see translation of Nabonidus chronicle HERE, it states:
In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Babylonia in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Babylonia revolted, but he [Cyrus, Nabonidus?] massacred the inhabitants. On the fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, [the Persian commander] Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there.
So, we don't know did Nabonidus or Cyrus massacred the inhabitants, but since author aplied that to Cyrus we can talk about strict violating of wp:NPOV. The same goes for section about veracity of the Cylinder's claims - only few out of few thousand scholars are questioning it's veracity because all primary sources (Herodotus, Xenophon, Nabonidus chronicles, Old Testament) are saying about Cyrus' tolerance, while only few historians (along with our dear Wiki-revisionist) claim otherwise. -- 93.143.46.224 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
1) Since some Wiki-revisionist is trying to divide opinions about human right nature of Cyrus Cylinder to "Pahlavi propagandists" and "Scholars", I added two more subsections which proves that many academic scholars and current Iranian government also accept it's human right nature.
2) Removing sentence which doubts Cyrus' tolerant policy (cited in M.A. Dandamaev) because it's not about Cylinder but Cyrus the Great, and we already have article about him. Wiki-revisionist clearly tried to deny Cyrus' tolerant policy using one single source, but there are at least few hundreds (!) which claim otherwise, including Richard Nelson Frye - the most highest autority on Iranian studies today ( source).
3) Correction of issue about "fake citation" - while Jona Lendering talks only about changing Marduk to Ahura Mazda, Wiki-revisionist has added his own fake citation about "faking abolished slavery". He quoted Lendering, but you won't find anything like that on his Livius pages ( 1, 2). Also, official text from British Museum is clearly mentioning words "I freed them from their bonds" ( part 26) which proves that revisionist has faked it. There is only one source which actually mentions it, but it's made by Stéphane Foucart, French journalist but not a historian (and not reliable source, also). The same goes for journalist Matthias Schulz "famous" for his anti-Iranian sentiment by calling Cyrus the Great as "despotic ruler", which may confuse some people because there's also a notable historian of the same name. -- 93.143.46.224 ( talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the new edits improved the article. I'm not going to try to fix the English or anything else right now as I don't think it's (which means 'it is', not 'belongs to') possible to keep this article NPOV, but I will say that changing 'propaganda' to 'proclamations' is silly. Every government indulges in propaganda, Cyrus's certainly did and this was part of it, and to try to hide it in this way is simply wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 07:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean? The ownership is and should be disputed. Unsourced. I change it to "and being kept in the British Museum". Xashaiar ( talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The tone and substance of this article is so unbalanced, that even the media outlets such as Al Jazeera English are discussing it. Now, Al Jazeera is neither an Iranian media outlet, nor considered to be Iran-friendly. There is obviously a problem here. It appears that overzealous editors`s work on this page, has done a lot of damage to Wikiedia`s reputation as an independent open project . The article should be reviewed and rewritten by neutral editors. and by `neutral` , I don`t mean agenda-driven individuals who just don`t happen to be Iranian, but are obviously motivated by political agendas, and are as much at fault for the current sorry state of affairs on this page, as the overzealous Iranian editors. IMediaObserver ( talk) 16:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: The IP 93.143.18.126 is a sock of the banned User:Orijentolog (a Croatian IP that espouses pro-Persian views, a unique phenomenon). Athenean ( talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Knowing and having read about the Cyrus cylinder, I was shocked at the tone of this article. After researching for the last hour I conclude that this article in non-neutral and biased against Cyrus. Please change it. It reeks of a partisan tone. Genjix ( talk) 06:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"...is a Babylonian document" If this is a document I'm a monkey's whatsit. The phrase is, in any case, unnecessary - just say when it dates from, and where from, and who from. Do that, muy son. and you'll have done well. PiCo ( talk) 08:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have read the whole article and its talk page; the overall tone of the article is so deliberate and biased that it makes it clear that some of the editors are influenced by the current Anti-Iranian theorizations. The article tries to introduce the Cyrus Cylinder as propaganda, while the over-emphasization of such claims throughout the article, makes the article become a conspicuous propaganda itself. This article is not only non-informative but also distortive of facts; therefore, it is in contrast to the basic Wikipedia rules. Most of the mentioned authors are not really reliable scholastic references, some of them have even clear instances of Anti-Iranian inclinations in their works. Moreover, many of the quotations are just biased theories and subjective interpretations of such authors from the actual historical accounts. One cannot shun the actual historical accounts (Cyrus Cylinder, Verse Account, Nab Chronicle, Dynastic Prophecy, etc.) themselves and try to hypothesize them in a way that is clearly controlled by political propaganda. If we consider ourselves Wikipedians, we have to stop such activities in Wikipedia. For a more information on some of the facts behind this article, please refer to the following links; http://www.savepasargad.com/2010-March/Koorosh-ahmadi-Cyrus%20Cylinder%20in%20Wikipedia.htm
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/cyrusthegreat.html
Regards. NBTPro ( talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It is incorrect to allow historians of questionable authority to be used as sources for an article that is on a historical figure. Lendering does not have a doctorate in the field, nor is he affiliated with any real research on the topic. Yes, he has written some books, but they are of questionable accuracy. DougWeller, please don't claim that I attacked a BPV, my edit on Lendering's page was justified and strongly sourced. It only made sense that I would edit the use of his research on the Cyrus page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 09:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Doug, you are mixing two issues and perhaps revealing the fact that YOU are in violation of editing guidelines. 1) I removed Lendering as source on the "Cyrus Cylinder page" because he is a not notable enough to be mentioned in reference to a historical figure. 2) YOU were the one who utilized my edit of Lendering's page as a reason to undo my revisions on the "Cyrus Cylinder" page, which is mixing issues on your part. Please address your Lendering edits on the Lendering page. I only explained myself on the Cyrus cylinder page as a courtesy to you. I am going to undo your edit on the Cyrus Cylinder page, with the expectation that if you feel compelled to undo my edit that you will explain why Lendering is a reliable source for the Cyrus Cylinder page. Thanks! 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Bozorg, Thank you!!!! 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 10:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is in and of itself a propaganda probably generated by a few fake scholars if you can call them that to attack Persian history. It makes unsubstantiated claims and tries to muddy the name of a great name who should be kept out of the political games of the day. I believe that to call the Cyrus Cylinder which is a true peice of human rights advocation a "Propganda" is dirty. The sources cited are disgustingly biased and I think this artcile has to be ENTIRELY RE WRITTEN. That British chose to call it a propaganda is not a suprise. KEEP POLITICS OUT OF MY HISTORY! Cyrus was a great man, that united nations across continents and as such he deserves respect! Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The tone of this article is defamatory. Also what this article does is use excuses like the one you just mentioned to further its own agenda. There are many alternative versions for "propaganda." Propaganda has a negative connotation and also is not appropriate for this work. Also the tone of this piece is so harsh and polar that it is almost impossible to digest. How can something this polar be even in Wikipedia? I dont know, you guys clearly have the upper hand, I tried to change it but you seem to be always here watching this article. So I just want people reading this article know that in my view, this is very biased, and even if the points made here are salient they are presented so poorly that either way makes this a bad presentation. P.S. UNITED NATIONS classifies the Cyrus Cylinder as Human Rights piece. Who is some lackluster British interest to call it a "propaganda?". That is all. Best of luck to you! Preceding comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is that Propaganda has a negative connotation. Let me cite Wikipedia on Propaganda becasue I think you have some issues with the meaning of the word: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience." Also based on your previous statements which are all false you keep selling the idea that "propaganda is in essence a 'good' thing" as if presidents, politicans, and public speakers would like to be remembered as great generators of "propaganda." Having established the negative connontation of the word propaganda, I like to move further with the article and explain why I have such an issue with it. The sources of this article are not impartial, and in fact by a very realistic assessment, this article is in and of itself a propaganda against the Cyrus the Great. Remember that you as a Wikipedian are supposed to be a representation of impartiality and balance. You and I both know that this article and its tone exists today, because of inappropriate comments made by one stupid iranian president to whom I bear the same resentments, but it is really not appropriate, neither is it right to attack a nation's history with some 5,000 years of history citing as your sources only a few statements written by essentially a private company like the British Museum of art and citing a few very contemporary scholars, some of whom are questionable if not completely misguided. What is my suggestion? Maybe we should change the tone a bit to appeal to BOTH sides of the story and additionally an unconditional removal of the term "propaganda" and replacing it with "Proclamation" as advocated earlier by some other users. It is really sad however, because as long as the British museum continues to imply "propaganda" in an attempt to appeal to its daily political needs, we will have this issue with the name. However, Wikipedia should NOT take sides, and if it does (as it HAS CLEARLY taken an anti-persian attitude in this article, at least in my view), then it loses its IMPARTIALITY and validity as a world wide tool for information dissemination and communication! Dr. Persi ( talk)
Yes, I am the same person as above, hence why I replied to you, in this section which is a section that I generated. Regarding broadcasting, I really do not understand how that makese sense with regards to "impartiality" issue. I have nothing against broadcasting views agaisnt the cylinder as propaganda, as long 1) the tone of the article is appropriate reflecting proper weight to the soureces and their credibility and 2) as long as both views are entertained. In other words, if there is a discussion as to validity of a hypothetical point, you can not choose the title of discussion to reflect only one of the contending points. It has to be more broad. Also, I think there is plenty of ANCIENT documents and sources that far outweight the contemporary sources cited here. Again, I still think storngly that this article needs to be re-written by an independent third party, certainly not you and I, who will in an impartial manner deliver the information keeping in mind weight of ancient documents, United Nation declarations, and bringing in (but not dominating!) the points made by the British museum. Thanks you and I appreciate our chat Doughweller. I just hope that this article was not so un-wikipedian. Preceding comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the veracity of Cyrus Cylinder is soooo long, but I'd like to address the paragraph below.
I feel that that the above paragraph may be more reflective of "original research" instead of on the topic of the veracity of the cylinder's claim.
1) Why WOULD the cylinder make mention of the battle of Opis? The question here is on the veracity of cylinder's claims, not on what the cylinder should include. The exclusion of the battle of Opis does not indicate any sort of falsehood. Next, the battle of Opis was not any more gruesome that any conflict (don't think that it is true that Cyrus massacared all of Nabaodinus' army, but not sure).
2) Fried's comments, as the paragraph states are SPECULATIONS (I'm not yelling by using caps, just emphasizing). Speuclations already indicate original research.
3) Walton's research that the proclomation is standard conqueror's rhetoric seems to be original research or jsut simply opinion. First off, that is simply not true, many conquerors ruled by intimidation and domination and NEVER used such rhetoric. Next, using that rhetoric doesn't mean that the statements aren't true.
4) I have one more point but most leave.
In conclusion, I think that it'll be useful to revisit this paragraph and revise. And also revise this entire section, because it is quite sloppy for wiki standards.
sorry forgot to sign, GoetheFromm ( talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit odd. In June, with this edit, [36], the paragraph below was added:
"The text of the cylinder also has deeper roots in Babylonian tradition, as the German historian Hanspeter Schaudig has pointed out. It alludes to a much older work, the Enuma Elis or "Epic of Creation", in which Marduk is described as defeating Tiamat, creating the world and building Babylon. The portrayal of the Persian conquest repeats the pattern, presenting Cyrus's takeover as a moment of ultimate restoration not just of political and religious institutions, but of the cosmic order that underpinned the existence of the universe itself. [73]"
Earlier today it read:
The Cylinder's text has deeper roots in Babylonian tradition. The German historian Hanspeter Schaudig has identified a line on the Cylinder ("He [i.e. Marduk] saved his city Babylon from its oppression") with a line from tablet VI of the Babylonian "Epic of Creation", Enûma Eliš, in which Marduk builds Babylon. [74] Johannes Haubold suggests that this allusion represents Cyrus's takeover as a moment of ultimate restoration not just of political and religious institutions, but of the cosmic order underpinning the universe. [75]
The first line was removed this morning by someone who seems to have been tightening up the article, with the edit summary 'removed line'. I thought the sentence was useful and replaced it. Then a 3rd editor comes along and although it's been there since June, removed it saying it is WP:SYNTH and new evidence proves it's wrong (which is probably not the case, 'proves it's wrong' probably means 'disagrees', and if so we can show the disagreement. The editor's next edit was to denigrate the former Director of the British Museum, who has recently been awarded the Order of Merit and is presenting some stuff on the BBC, by adding not the Order of Merit but the BBC presentation work, which is clearly irrelevant to this article.
I'm replacing it again, but I'll add more references. Dougweller ( talk) 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "livius" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 65 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Kuhrt-2007a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The previous translation of the cylinder was seriously inaccurate. Specifically, it made Cyrus the Great seem much more progressive than he really was. I have taken this better translation from "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures", edited by James B. Pritchard, from Princton University Press. I have also tried to summarize the gist of the text after the translation. Specifically, I have removed the idea that Cyrus "abolished" slavery. It seems that what was really happening was that Nabonidus, the king of Babylon, had imposed "corvee-work" (forced labor) on the free men of the city, thereby essentually reducing them to slavery; Cyrus freed these former free men, but we should NOT assume that this emancipation would have also included those who had been slaves even before Nabonidus' ruler. The key phrase to understand is: "I abolished] the corvee (lit.: yoke) which was against their (social) standing" (the parathesis are not mine, but from the translation given in the book). This phrase suggests that those who had not been slaves before Nabonidus' rule were now returned to their former position in society; however, those whose social position had always included "corvee-work" - in the other words, the slaves - were not affected by Cyrus' new decree. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and it seems that this idea that the Persian Empire did not have slavery because Cyrus the Great abolished it is becoming very popular - BUT IT IS SERIOUSLY IN ERROR!!! All ancient empires had slavery - it was necessary to maintain their pre-industrialized, pre-technological, pre-modern economies. It is a sad, deplorable fact that all of our ancestors instituted and tolerated some form of human bondage, but it is, alas, true nonetheless. We must strive to diligently maintain accuracy on Wikipedia, and not allow false rumors to spread simply because one group feels that one version of a story makes it look better. Now, don;t get me wrong, I am not blind - I think I understand what this is all about... ever since Hollywood made the movie "300", Iranians around the world have, understandbly, been zealous in the defence of their heritage, history, and culture. (Now I am not going to debate that film, but let me just say that it was NOT history but utter fantasy, and I will leave it at that.) Many Iranians are trying to set the record straight about their history, but this defence CANNOT simply create "mew history" as an attack against lies or misperceptions told by Hollywood. If the Iranian historical community wants to take the high moral ground on history, then they should be honest and realistic, and no one should invent alternate histories in revenge for someone else's biased account of their own history.
We can all, Iranian or not, appreciate the achievements and ideas of this progressive, tolerant, and genius leader, Cyrus the Great, without having to view history through the ofren distorting and clouded lens of nationalism and jingoism.
(Having said all of this, I just want to add that one could argue that slavery in the Persian Empire was less harsh than in any other empire in history, save maybe for the British Empire after it abolished its slave trade in 1807. It goes without saying, I think, that the Persians were far more progressive and humance about slavery than the Greeks were. However, this does not change the fact that all ancient empires were forced to rely on some sort of human bondage for economic survivial.
On a slightly realted note, let us not forget that all empires are by nature oppressive and tyraniccal - they have to be in order to maintain stability within and to defend from invasion from without; this is not necessarily a condemnation of the Persian Empire or any other empire, just a law of human history. Cyrus, like Alexander or Genghis Khan or Napoleon, was forced to use brutal and deadly force at times, even if his own personal ideals may have suggested he act with peace and tolerance. One does not conquer an empire without blood and iron. Perhaps we should look at Cyrus as more of a tragic figure, doomed to fail in his dreams of conquering the world and of uniting humanity in one large superempire of peace, tolerance, and prosperity. The Greek historian Herodotus portrays Cyrus as such - a man too brilliant for his time, but ultimately brought down by his own genius and pride. But, anyway, this is straying into philosophy and not history, and this article on the Cyrus cylinder is historical in nature. So please just keep in mind the more correct translation that I have put up.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IonNerd ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am not very talented at working with Wikipedia, so maybe others who can manipulate it better can make it look nicer and cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IonNerd ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[Question: where does Zoroastrianism explicitly forbid slavery? I was not aware of this... is it in the Avesta? Maybe you are trying to say that Zoroastrianism forbids slavery of other Zoroastrians (Islam has a similar law - it is forbidden for a Muslim to hold another Muslim as a slave; if the slave of a Muslim were to convert to Islam, then the owner is obligated to free him/her).... If you could find a quote that would be helpful...] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.234.48 ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Response from IonNerd: Well, excuse me, sir... but at least I tried to find a better translation of the Cyrus Cylinder. I can assure you that "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures" is a scholarly source, and not something I found on the Internet. If you are so convinced of what constitutes "professionalism" than maybe you should have taken the time to look up a translation and type the entire thing into Wikipedia. I already wrote that I am new to Wikipedia, and I am still learning my way around. Look, I don't want to start a flame war or anything, so please just appreciate that I put up a more correct translation of the text. And just so you know, I do agree with your deletion; I see what you are saying about not putting up my own original research, and I acknowledge that elements from my summary were my own interpretation of the text. But please, for next time, try being a little more tactful and polite in your criticism. I accepted it, but others might just get angry and ignore you altogether. This article is in bad shape as it is, seeing as how it has essentially become a forum for people's ideological and nationalistic sentiments. The last thing we need is for the rhetoric to escalate.
Just a point: the previous quote was from J. Wisehöfer, Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD, that I'm pretty sure quoted Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts.... But in fact it differs from the one that is now shown in the article. Perhaps Wisehöfer quoted it from another edition of ANET. Apart from this, Wisehöfer is a reputed researcher. Amizzoni ( talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Response from IonNerd: I do not know anything about J. Wisehofer's translation. "The Ancient Near East, Volume 1: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures" is a text that I used in college. I cannot comment, however, on how it compares to other scholarly translations, but I can guarantee that it is indeed scholarly and not taken from an Internet source or anything like that. I think that the previous translation was taken from the Internet, so it's validity is harder to assess. Anyway, please let me know more about J. Wisehofer's translation, since I do not know anything about it.
Some people do not like IRAN. They put their hands to demonize this great country. Wikipedia schould not allow these people to change the history, just because of their political attitudes. Next, the enemies of IRAN will say the Poems of SAADI which decorate the entrance to the Hall of Nations of the UN building in New York are False too!!!!!
بنی آدم اعضای یک پیکرند، که در آفرينش ز یک گوهرند چو عضوى به درد آورد روزگار، دگر عضوها را نماند قرار تو کز محنت دیگران بی غمی، نشاید که نامت نهند آدمی
"Of one Essence is the human race, Thusly has Creation put the Base;
One Limb impacted is sufficient, For all Others to feel the Mace."[4]
This is an Iranian tradition, for more than 2500 years. People loved Cyrus and Darius like christisns love Jesus, because they were just!!! Iran is GREAT, you can not fool people.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpHKincVcew 62.178.51.59 ( talk) 16:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
After googling for more info I found that a good portion of this article is plagiarized from here and/or here. How do I report this? I'm too lazy (and busy with other articles) to rewrite this right now. Stuff like 'continents' needs to be changed as well. Khirad 09:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wiki administrators;
The above information is false. I added the article from (dash) soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies. The article was written by founder of the organization himself. According to (dash) soas.com/CAIS/copyright.htm their copyright policy:
Unlimited distribution is permitted without permission (unless otherwise noted) subject to:
The files will be used for Non-Commercial (no fee is charged to the users), your personal and educational use only.
The entire contents (Textual & Graphic) including the header, the author name, are not permitted to be altered.
The source (including web link address: http://www.cais (dash) soas.com) should be acknowledged.
The copyright notice (Copyright © 1998~ CAIS) should remain intact.
I even sent the author an email and aknowledged him about adding his article to Wikipedia.
Though the article was not taken from http://www.iranchamber.com ,but I contacted them (I thought maybe someone from that society is doing the deletions); and here is their reply:
Dear Mehrdad,
We never add, remove or edit anything to, from or on Wikipedia.
We were also noticed by some editors of Wikipedia that some people are adding materials from our site, and asked our permission to keep them on Wikipedia. In all of the occasions we did not express any objection. But later we did notice that some pictures and articles are removed again. We believe these removals and unnecessary editing's more or less caused by an unmanaged group of editors who are crossing each others works.
We support the cause of Wikipedia as a free source of information, and our copyright notice is only subjected to the commercial use of our materials which we do not grant any permission for such purposes at all. Above all we support what ever can more introduce our beloved Iran to the world.
Best regards,
Shahrzad Rouzrokh Editor of Iran Chamber Society http://www.iranchamber.com
Regards, -- Mehrdad 06:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
1) There is no evidence cited by any serious historian that the cylinder has anything whatsoever to do with Cyrus.
2) The text is known to be highly fragemented. 99% of the text has nothing whatseover to do with human rights but rather quite opposed concepts such as the divine right of kings and the right of conquest.
The extrapolation seems to be based on a single phrase, the "freeing" of a city from the "yoke" of another ruling class, and the failure to kill the inhabitents as they surrendered instead of fighting. This terminology and practice of not killing the inhabitents of a city that surrenders is notable no sense and indeed ubiquitous throughout history. 72.75.18.6 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a source for this statement: "In 1971 the United Nations translated and published the Cyrus Cylinder as the first declaration of human rights into all official U.N.languages." The UN translates a lot of things. Did they really declare this decree to be the "first declaration of human rights"? Do legitimate historians agree with this interpretation? The text can be found here. In no way is this a "charter of human rights". -- JW1805 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
There seem to be different versions of this declaration on the internet. Compare the two at this site and (dash) soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm this site. The second site has a version with a lengthy extra part at the end, containing highly dubious material like: "I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign." Some of the hyperbole on the various sites mentioning this declaration make me doubt their accuracy and objectivness. Is there a translation of this text from a reputable source (like the British Museum)? -- JW1805 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
That is the real problem, I did a lot of searching but I was unable to find the real UN translation. Many sites translate it themselves and so the result is different. I will continue my search. -- Aytakin 04:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The best place for a translation of the Cyrus Cylinder is, unfortunatly, in university libraries. There are many people adding their own parts to this so-called 'declaration of human rights'. It is no such thing. I have studied the cylinder as part of my dissertation (and I can read Akkadian) and I can assure you that many of the web sites are simply telling lies regarding the content of the cylinder. Basically, Cyrus was presenting himself as a ligitimate ruler of Babylon whilst trying to 'demonise' the previous ruler, Nabonidus. The 'human rights' stems from the Jewish tradition and has its roots in the fact that the Persians apparently gave them money to re-build their temple. It is no accident that Cyrus is praised in the bible yet is strangly absent from Persian epics. Cyrus was also used as an example of a good King by Xenophon of Athens in the Cyropedia, but this is purely a piece of rhetoric and most shcolars agree that it bears no resemblance to the 'real' Cyrus. In all, Cyrus was a very canny politician. He knew what he had to do to legitimise his rule and he made extensive use of propagander to do it. He could be described as 'tolerant' to other cultures as this was another tool to keep the empire (and they were not really intersted in non-Persians worshipping Ahura-Mazda anyway). However, to talk about Cyrus in modern terms of 'Human Rights' is ridiculous. It must be noted that Babylon was one of Persia'a 'hotspots' (along with Egypt) and there were several rebellions here. That is until Xerxes, the fourth King, decided to exterminate much of the population to keep them quite, as well as impose ridiculous levels of taxation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.253.63.15 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, December 13, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
One of the reasons Wikipedia is fast becoming a joke is the comments above. People with no real expertise in a field tearing apart and reconstructing history to reflect their own personal beliefs. Cyrus the great may indeed have not been perfect, but the facts speak loudly that he was more than just a "canny politician". It may be fashionable to find middle eastern historical figures and ascribe them with hidden motives and evil characteristics, but genuine scholars do no such thing. The foremost expert on Achaemenid Persia, Professor R.N.Frye (who I have indeed met, and who is incredibly astute), says this in "The Heritage of Persia" (pp. 123-134):
"In the victories of the Persians... what was different was the new policy of reconciliation and together with this was the prime aim of Cyrus to establish a pax Achaemenica..... If one were to assess the achievements of the Achaemenid Persians, surely the concept of One World, .... the fusion of peoples and cultures in one 'Oecumen' was one of their important legacies"
While the translations indeed may be overambitious in what they purport to translate, and have tacked on various meanings, including some wishful thinking, let's not turn this discussion, and Cyrus' Cylinder, into something else to suit political agendas. The Cylinder is unique, and so was Cyrus, so much so that his enemies respected him and his honor. The tradition of announcing reforms at the beginning of rulership is not unique, and thus this may not be the first declaration of human rights, but it is a very significant one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.62.119 ( talk • contribs) 09:17, December 17, 2005.
TO ADD ON, the part I mentioned that I agree with the comments made by the unsigned user, I only meant the fact that its hard to find a relieble source for the translation, with the rest of it I do not agree with. I just want to clear that up!! --(
Aytakin) |
Talk
22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
A good part of this translation is made-up. The Babylonian text is in fragments and never as perfect as this. I will put on a scientific translation (from a "university library") up soon. -- Khodadad 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have confirmed the translation on http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon05.html to be a full translation of the Cyrus Cylinder and is in agreement with the translation found in "The Inscriptions Relating to the Rise of Cyrus And His Conquest of Babylonia". This book and many others have been scanned and made available in pdf format from www.brainfly.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.76.122 ( talk • contribs) 15:18, March 22, 2006
Sorry, i cannot trust the above mentioned livius.org as a seriously run source of knowledge. For example, search for the Word Arians to see how Jona Lendering reduces this term as to be only a Tribe in western Afghanistan!!!!! So, that joke is enought for me. Under Aryans, you will see only few words that would never cover the whole historic meaning. For him, it seems only be of importance that the term was misused by Nazis. This is not a professional work. 62.178.51.59 ( talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
UN Translation: Where is the UN translation of 1971? I cannot find it on the UN websites! They spend lots of time and money to do something then hide it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great In 1971, the UN translated it into all of its official languages.
Have a look at this:
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php
62.178.51.59 ( talk) 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
One would suggest that the people above naming such academics as Frye read more up-to-date studies on Cyrus, such as the Acheamenid History Workshop series of publications that have changed the way Persia itself is studied. I did not, I think, present a picture of a demonised Cyrus, just a more realistic one. I have spent many a year studying this most famous (in the west - his impact on the eastern tradition of ancient folklore is limited) monarch and have deep respect for his achievements and the dynasty he created. It is now unfortunate that the myth preceeds the man...
Further to the disscussion, the best place to find an accurate and accepted (though by no means totally uncontested) translation is in Maria Brosius' book on Persian inscriptions as part of the LACTOR series:
Brosius,M (2000) 'The Persian Empire from Cyrus II to Artaxerxes I' in London Association of Classical Teachers 16: London.
This is the text usually presented to university students to study, at least in the UK anyway. Oppenheims text (cited above) is, unfortunatly, now considered 'out of date' (if I may use so bold an expression) though it does contain much colour in the prose.
Shouldn't the Cyrus Cylinder be kept in Iran as it is their property, or is it that the Shah let them keep it as he was nothing but a puppet of the England.
Uh, this has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.... 24.148.19.254 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the edit "Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi has claimed that" [2]
1- Where is your source? Besides the article on your own website which seems to claim this without providing any sources.
2- "has claimed" suggests that he continues to do so. However I think we both know that he is no longer with us :) -- Rayis 18:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There are clearly some problems with this page, not least that it actually contradicts the material on Cyrus the Great. Text copied verbatim from a site which is, to say the least, opinionated doesn't help matters. I made some changes which I think rectify these and help with NPOV. However, I thought I'd check I haven't done anything glaringly wrong before I actually saved the edit, so I put the edited page here. All being well, I'll make the actual change in a day or two when everyone has have had a chance to object to my mutilation of their work. Dan TV 20:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"However, it can also be argued that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were more or less usual for a conquering monarch in contemporary Babylon and the surrounding area [1]. By this argument, Cyrus may have been unusually generous, but the Cylinder cannot be regarded as a charter guaranteeing rights. At least one translation of the Cylinder’s text found online has been ‘elaborated’ with promises founding Cyrus’ right to reign on the acceptance of the people [2]. This is in contradiction with the early part of the text, which recounts the god Marduk’s offer of a tyrannical monarch’s kingdom to Cyrus, founding his conquest on divine right [3]."
First of all, excuse me for my last change, it wasn't bad intentioned -I didn't even get the right place! For more references to the paragraph you moved here, see the following:
"[A]lready prior to the identification of the relevant fragment [i.e., the Yale fragment mentioning Assurbanipal] [J. Hamatta] had remarked on the similarity of style between the Cyrus Cylinder and the inscriptions of Assurbanipal. In this connection, CBF Walker correctly remarked that the Cyrus Cylinder is a normal building inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition, and can certainly not be regarded as some declaration of human rights (Walker 1972:159; see also Kuhrt 1983; Van der Spek 1982)."
(from M. Dandamaev A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, pp. 52-53, the publications refered to are: A. Kuhrt "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy" in Journal of Studies of the Old Testament 25 pp. 83-97., B. van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great introduce a new policy towards subdued nations? Cyrus in Assyrian perspective" in Persica 10 pp. 273-285, and C.B.F. Walker, "A recently identified fragment of the Cyrus Cylinder", in Iran 10, pp. 158-159; if you search "cyrus cylinder" + "human rights" you can get the relevant passage in http://books.google.com/)
Furthermore, Jona Lendering is not just "someone on internet", notice that he's an scholar, and that Livius.org is indexed in Abzu (also known as the Holy Canon of Ancient Near East Online Resources), of the Chicago University Oriental Institute. It doesn't means that all that he writes is true, but we can take him as a serious source.
I agree that there is a problem with the last sentence, it can't reference to the Cylinder itself -it would be original research-, and I also believe that words like tyrannical sounds quite sensationalistic, so we should refrase it, or just remove it.-- Amizzoni 01:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"By this argument, Cyrus may have been unusually generous, but the Cylinder cannot be regarded as a charter guaranteeing rights"
- Arguably, no charter of human rights will ever "guarantee" anything so I am not sure what this sentence is trying to imply here. -- Rayis 13:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
For criticism section, there needs to be a more clarified paragraph explaining Cyrus's policy that he wanted to make people like him (rather than the word propoganda), and also stop putting "it cannot be regarded as charter guaranteeing rights" or anything like that which doesn't make sense. --
Rayis
21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it all seems almost fine on this article. Lets keep it short on the Cyrus' article. -- Rayis 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Rayis had asked additional references to back up the statement that there are many parallels for the CC, which I inserted; I also polished the notes and reworked the propaganda bit, offering more context. I thought it was fine, but it was all removed and an incorrect summary was inserted. I have now rolled back that rollback. I propose that people who want to roll back large sections, as was done, will announce it first. Jona Lendering 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*Besides, Mary Boyce has made it clear in many publications that the Iranian religions of that age were not monotheistic, [4] which makes it impossible to state that Cyrus, although himself a monotheist, allowed his subjects to keep their own beliefs.
Because the Cyrus Cylinder can not be used to support the late Shah's opinion about Cyrus, at least one falsification has been made, probably before Fragment B was discovered. It can be found online and has been ‘elaborated’ with promises founding Cyrus’ right to reign on the acceptance of the people. [5]
-> Jona, this is all your original research and findings! what you conclude from evidence you choose to accept, is YOUR conclusion. There is no evidence that Mohammad Reza Shah was the first to call this a charter of human rights, and there is absolutely no reason for you to go all the way on to research to prove him wrong!. -- Rayis 17:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There are loads of entries from IranChamber and Livius too. CAIS was part of SOAS (University of London), and it is considered as a scholarly based website. Most of the articles there are written by renowned archaeologists and historians. However, other two websites, IranChamber and Livius are both private-websites with no academic affiliations, and should be treated cautiously. Surena 08:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Cyrus_cylinder/Uncivil_remarks_by_194.145.161.226 -- Rayis 20:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the problem is with Livius, I don't see any reason to remove this:
"However, it can also be argued that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were made by some conquering monarchs in contemporary Babylon and the surrounding area. According to this argument, "the Cyrus Cylinder is a normal building inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition, and can certainly not be regarded as some declaration of human rights" [6]."
Note 6: "A. Kuhrt "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid imperial policy" in Journal of Studies of the Old Testament 25 pp. 83-97, B. van der Spek, "Did Cyrus the Great introduce a new policy towards subdued nations? Cyrus in Assyrian perspective" in Persica 10 pp. 273-285, M. Dandamaev A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire, pp. 52-53. The quotation is from Dandamaev."
Well, I put it here to prevent war editions. I believe it is not POV because it is balanced with the previous part (Frye, the UN, etc). So if you agree, just add it to the article.-- Amizzoni 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
<>Does it really need its own article, its made the whole thing look a bit messy now, cant you just talk about the conflict of opinion in the main article.
Okay, attempt to create something meaningful, in line with decent scholarship, and on which we can all agree.
(a) The latest textbook, which must be our main source of reference, and about which we can all agree, is Pierre Briant's brick, isn't it? (I mean, of course, Histoire de l' Empire Perse, 1995; English translation 2002). I know Briant is not perfect, but his book is simply the best summary there is.
(b) The latest meaningful publications are Kuhrt and R.J. van der Spek, we can all agree about that. So far, I have seen nobody claim anything that is more recent.
(c) The only valid text edition is Schaudig 2002.
I think this can be our common ground, and no one will challenge this. I propose to write an article that only refers to these articles, and not to older stuff (Dandamaev, Frye, etc.). If anyone disagrees, let him/her post articles, written after Briant's well-accepted synthesis, and explain why this particular article is important as an addition to Briant. Jona Lendering 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus the Great, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription - all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king, the historian Joseph Wisehöfer wrote about Cyrus in 1996". Surena, I'm afraid you have to cite passages that explicitly refer to the Cyrus Cylinder. It belongs to Cyrus the Great article, not to here. Where Wisehöfer talks about the Cyrus Cylinder (pp. 44, 49, 87), he calls it "an Achaemenid propaganda document intended to legitimize Cyrus's rule over Babylonia" (p. 87).-- Amizzoni 02:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there still controversial remarks on the article or can we start removing the tags? -- Rayis 20:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, of course there are. I have written a new draft for the section "The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights", tell me what do you think:
"The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights, [7] and it was translated into all official U.N. languages in 1971. [8] [9] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [10]
Passages in the text have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity. It promotes a form of religious tolerance and freedom. [11] He allowed his subjects to continue worshipping their gods, despite his own monotheist beliefs. [12] Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects. [13]
However, it can also be argued that the cylinder is a stereotypical bulding inscription within the Assyrian-Babylonian tradition. By this argument, it can not be considered a declaration of human rights, but a piece of propaganda [14]. Of course, it does not mean that the Persians imposed a tyrannical rule oven their new subjects; in fact, they are widely regarded as more tolerant than their predesessors Baylonians and Assyrians.
As Joseph Wisehöfer wrote about Cyrus in 1996 [15]:
“In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus the Great, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription - all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.”
"
“In the victories of the Persians… what was different was the new policy of reconciliation and together with this was the prime aim of Cyrus to establish a pax Achaemenica… If one were to assess the achievements of the Achaemenid Persians, surely the concept of One World,… the fusion of peoples and cultures in one ‘Oecumen’ was one of their important legacies.”
At least one translation of the Cyrus Cylinder has been elaborated with more promises and can still be found in many websites. [17]. It can be recognized for the mention of Ahura Mazda and for frases such as: "I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it, and if any one of them rejects it, I shall never resolve on war to reign."
For the content of the notes, see the source (click on edit). Feel free to post any comment.-- Amizzoni 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss any major edits here prior to adding to the article. Kurt and Livius are not considered as neutral sources. Kurt is well known for her hatred towards Iranians, and Livius is a product of one or two individuals (sorry Jona), which contains their personal opinions (more like a Weblog) than a neutral and scholarly based website, to be used as a reliable source here. Also as discussed before, we can add a new section to the article such as “conflicting views”, in a respectable manner, which is free from any WP:AWW words, (i.e. “political motives” rather than “propaganda”) or POV pushing to accommodate the notion that you, Jona and alike are subscribing to, without insulting a nation's identity! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I made major edits because the discussion seemed to be death, and because removing sourced material is vandalism. I agree with you concerning the tags, but I'm affraidd I disagree about almost all. We have to say "Kuht say ...., but .... considers her not neutral". Do you have any source that considers Kuht not neutral? Please add it, but Kuht must stay. This is what NPOV means, to show all the conflicting views. And until you find any source that considers Kuht not neutral, Kuhrt must stay. Note that Dandamaev (in A Political History and his Iranica articles) and Weisehofer cite her article on the Cylinder, and both express nothing but agreement. About the word "propaganda", it is used by Weisehofer, so it must stay. But if you have a source that states "I consider that the use of words such as 'propaganda' to describe the Cyrus Cylinder is a way to insult the national identity of Iran", please, add it, but that Weisehofer uses the word "propaganda" must stay. As you say, conflicting views, but why in a new section, since all the conflicting views are about the subject of human rights? About Livius: it is not in the level of a blog, not at all. Livius is indexed in Abzu, the list Ancient Near East online resources of the University of Chicago. Moreover, it is the only source that says that there are elaborated "translations" of the cylinder -something that we all who have read any scholarly edition of the cylinder know, let agree in this point.
To sum up:
Too much disagreement, so I suggest calling a mediator. -- Amizzoni 19:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we are closer to a solution than I believed. There just a couple things I want to point out:
If the sections were reorganized as I show it in point 1, I believe would be able to remove the NPOV tags. It is not the solution of all our problems (for instance, it ramains the usage of Livius as a source, and one or two minor points), but I think we are in the good way and we don't need any mediation.-- Amizzoni 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
___________________________________
I am concerned over the tone of this article and the fact that the 'conflicting views' section only gets 2 sentences while the 'pro-human rights charter' section has a quote from a scholar written 45 years ago (and pre-Acheamenid History Workshop days). I am also concerned with this passage: "Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects." The Darius Behistun inscription clearly identifies 2 revolts in Babylon in which the name of Nabonidus was invoked as a 'call to arms' - not only does this cast doubt on the whole Nabonidus the Tyrant issue that the Cylinder expounds, but it also makes this statement false (at least for Babylon). Again, this is all related to the general tone of this article and I think a much more 'measured' approach is better for a contested topic (and a topic that will probably remain contested for the foreseeable future).
IN URGENT NEED OF CORRECTIONS
As the wiki entry stands it does the very thing you profess you aim to avoid. It deceives the reader by presenting the Cylinder as the de facto first Human Rights Charter while only acknowledges some conflicting views in a passage resembling a footnote. Since the characterization of the Cylinder as a ‘Human Rights Charter’ only reflects one view of the debate, the layout of the entry should be such as to eliminate any possible bias that could arise from its presentation. In my view the main section of the entry should be entitled “The debate surrounding the Cylinder” or similar, under which all views should be presented thoroughly. The section presenting the characteristic passages according to you, is loaded with bias as they are taken completely out of context. And the context of those passages is of the outmost importance in judging the exact nature of the inscription. In addition, you create the impression that the only significant passages are those that revolve around the debate and by that the wider historical significance of the Cylinder is undermined. The ‘Biblical Significance’ section along with its title, to someone aware of the debate seems to reinforce that perceived bias. ‘Biblical References’ should be more appropriate. At its present state the entry cannot be considered credible. Under the title ‘The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights’ you state that the cylinder has been described as such and for the purpose of verification you provide a link that is itself biased. In it we learn that “The cylinder describes the Great King not as a conqueror, but as a liberator and the legitimate successor to the crown of Mesopotamia” as if the Cylinder is an objective source expressing the view of an objective judge whereas in reality it expresses the view, Cyrus himself –rightly or wrongly- wanted his people to have of him. The unchecked manifestations of admiration towards the Cylinder from your part, that are spread throughout the entry, only serve to discredit the presentation of the inscription. They alienate those who disagree with you, and deceive the rest.
62.30.182.16
01:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The official site of the british museum disagrees with your assertion regarding the cylinder being the first bill of human rights.
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cyrus_cylinder.aspx
"This cylinder has sometimes been described as the 'first charter of human rights', but it in fact reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms"
So why do you keep insisting on this crap? There is a lot of sick persian nationalism in this article.
Please discuss prior to any major edits as agreed before (see above), to prevent any possible edit wars. There is a section that is named "Conflicting Views" to accommodate the sceptics – of course must be accompanied by references, rather than “here say” which is POV! Also please do not remove the entries that are supported by citations. Xodd 16:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, what you say is that if you disagree with Frye then you can feel free to erase it. Instead, it's better to add a new reference that contradicted Frye's one. In any case, now I don't see what's the point of Frye's quote: it doesn't even mention the Cyrus Cylinder. I'd say the same for the last two paragraphs. I prefer to have all views in the same section, too, since all of them are about "The Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights". So I've made a new daft, tell me what you think:
"The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights, [18] [19] and it was translated into all official U.N. languages in 1971. [20] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [21]
Passages in the text have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity, and as promoting a form of religious tolerance and freedom. [22] By this argument, Cyrus' generous policies, support for local religions and stated opposition to repression and tyranny did win him support from his subjects. [23]
However, there are many scholars who disagree with the concept of Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context -they prefer to describe it as a building inscription or a propaganda document instead-, and that similar gestures to those recorded on the Cylinder were made by some conquering monarchs in ancient Babylon and the surrounding area. [24]"
It is more or less my idea of how the section should be, at least until it were expanded. Amizzoni 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the important thing is to state clearly that most scholars nowadays reject the view of the Cyrus Cylinder as related in any way to humans rights (something that is absent in your version). But you're right, it was quite ambiguous and perhaps the concept of propaganda should be discussed in another place. So here is another version of the last paragraph:
However, there are many scholars who disagree with the concept of Cylinder as a Charter of Human Rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They also point out that Mesopotamia has a long tradition dating back to the third millennium BC of Kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns and thus Cyrus' own declaration was neither unique nor the first. [25] [26]"
As for the religious tolerance, I think the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia reference is OK for now, but of course much remains to be written. I don't remember any reputable source calling Cyrus' a monotheist, and the British Museum reference that the article gives now is empty (at least in my PC): "He allowed his subjects to continue worshipping their gods, despite his own monotheist beliefs. [27]". About the Nabonidus Cylinder, it's an interesting piece and relevant to the article. I remember that there were drawn parallels with Assyrian royal inscriptions too. So I repeat, much remains to be written. Amizzoni 03:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I did find one university that referenced the Ahura Mazda version. The Rogers is old and I tried to find recent translations but they all were much like Rogers/Schaudig with differences that were insignificant and mostly only available in books and not online. My OR is that perhaps the Weisehofer is probably biased to the Human Rights concept for (possibly political) or POV purposes. I don't think it's fraudulant as it's just the choice of POV words used so I'm not claiming that.
I think that section is ok for now as a base to work from for possible future edits.
What are thoughts on moving "The characteristic passages of this (earlier popular translation of the) Cyrus inscription are: xxxxxx" to the end of the UN part of the Human Rights section? Of course we can edit it down to the relevant sentences used by the UN to shorten it considerably. Then possibly adding the same more current? translation passages for comparison at the end of the alternate view? That puts both versions in for readers to check themselves.
Now comes the tough one. "Biblical Significance". It's not too bad but there is repetition that needs fixing and I think a bit on the view that possibly the prophesies were written by several people over a long period of time is needed, including mention of the relevant verses being possibly written after the events they "predicted". The WP articles on them admits this so it should be no problem to add it here in some form without diminishing the religious view. Wayne 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Whether the cylinder is the first bill of rights or not makes no difference to Persian nationalism as the country was still the worlds first democracy as we know it."
Τhe worlds first democracy as we know it? Wayne you must be joking. what was the percentage of the population of persian empire that took part in the elections. was it above 0,00000000000001 %? There was only one vote in the ballot.
Actually Cyrus was the first imperialist and he was the first to proclaim himself king of the world 'by the grace of god'. In this respect everyone copied him. From Alexander the GREAT and the Romans till the British and the French. So the Persians nationalists should be proud of him. At least there was a persian first in the world's history. So stop insisting on the foolishness of the world’s first charter of human rights and find a reliable source for the translation of the text.
'The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world’s first charter of human rights' Described as the world first charter of human rights by whom? Historians, elmer fudd, or maybe the late persian shah.
And why did you remove the link from livius.org? ( http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus_cylinder.html). Maybe because Jona Lendering disagrees with the fairy tale that was created by the persian chauvinists.
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/historic_periods.php. So why do you use him when at the same time you question his credibility?
"undo weight, 2-3 scholars does not = most" (user CreazySuit's edit summary)
We've cited Amélie Kuhrt, R. J. van der Spek, Muhammad Dandamaev, Josef Wiesehofer, Pierre Briant, that is, 5 scholars. Dandamaev also cites CB Walker, so we should count him too: 6 scholars. I could also add P.-A. Beaulieu (see for example "An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians", JNES vol. 52 n. 4 Oct. 1993. p. 243.) and Jona Lendering (see [7]): 8 scholars.
The only author the article cites supporting the "human rights" view is Abbas Milani.
8 vs 1. So I'd say "some scholars" is misleading, as it's clear that, right or wrong, most of them agree with this viewpoint. Amizzoni ( talk) 07:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The translated text does not fit Webster's Online Dictionary's definition of a declaration (see here:
[8]). If anything, it is simply one person's description of a series of historical events, including a somewhat glorified description of a ruler's character and actions.
As far as human rights are concerned, they are totally not mentioned and to quote the text, "As to the inhabitants of Babylon, [who] against the will of the gods [had/were…., I abolished] the corvee (lit.: yoke] which was against their (social) standing." The "corvee" was simply against the social standing of the inhabitants of Babylon, not other people elsewhere (slaves?). Therefore, there is no declaration of human rights whatsoever, but instead an indication of a social standing (lower class), where corvee may have been seen as part of the social order of the day.
WriterHound (
talk)
21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Spiegel is a right-wing newspaper with a political agenda, not an academic journal. Here are two academic rebuttals to Spiegel's nonsense by two academics and experts on the region. [11] [12] -- CreazySuit ( talk) 12:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed a source about an award presented to Kofi Anan by the Persian Center of northern California because I do not consider it that important. [14] I removed a source that is spreading the fake translation. [15] I removed a commercial source that is raising funds (see WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I removed the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge because it looks a bit outdated to me. [16] I added Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Le Monde and The Telegraph. They are reliable per definiton. I restored Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander, which has been removed without explanation twice by CreazySuit and twice by Larno Man. CreazySuit has argued (in his edit summaries) that undo weight is given to theories of 2-3 people, when all the other acadamics disgree. Count them again, then: Jona Lendering, A. Kuhrt, R.J. van der Spek, M. Dandamaev, P.-A. Beaulieu, J. Wiesehöfer, P. Briant, Neil MacGregor, [17] Hanspeter Schaudig, [18] Klaus Gallas [19] and Francis Joannès [20]. I count eleven. Konstock ( talk) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please, self revert the article. Assume good faith! Bring your draft to the talkpage and post it after compromise. You changed the article substantially without getting consensus. You wrote the article in a way that nobody else other than Shah's beleives that it is the fisrt charter of human right. I can provide you with tens of scholarly references. The newspaper articles that you provided are not reliable. You started current edits after der Spiegel article. Even you want to use these type of references. At the same time, National Geographic published an article on Iran's history and admired the Cyrus legacy and called the Cylinder the first charter of human right. I am wondering why this article didn't attract you and Der Spiegel did? Which one is more reliable on history? National Geographic or ...?-- Larno Man ( talk) 03:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"You wrote the article in a way that nobody else other than Shah's beleives that it is the fisrt charter of human right." Well, the Sha, Abbas Milani and Shirin Ebadi. If you know more people supporting the human rights view, just provide the references. I'll be waiting for them.
"The newspaper articles that you provided are not reliable." I don't particularly like these articles, specially the Der Spiegel one -it's just a piece of sensationalism. But the important thing is where they are used:
You base your proposal of reverting the whole edition in the argument that newspapers are not reliable. But all the newspaper notes (except the "1971 translation" reference) are supported by academic publications, UN press releases and Livius. Amizzoni ( talk) 07:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. At the same time, National Geographic published an article [21] on history of Iran and admired the Cyrus legacy and called the Cylinder the first charter of human right. I am wondering why this article didn't attract you and Der Spiegel did? Which one is more reliable on history? National Geographic or ...?-- Larno Man ( talk) 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. Why I brought that quote? Because, the manner and life story of Cyrus testify that this document is not a propaganda as you think. He was tolerant and magnanimousand. Several independent Hebrew, Greek, Mesopotamian and Persian sources reported his tolerant, respect to other cultures and religions, and human freedom. He practiced what is written in the Cylinder and it was not only a propaganda.-- Larno Man ( talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's neither a propaganda document nor a declaration of human rights. I believe it's an ideological representation of the priests who wrote it, and that although it might reflect in some way a royal policy of tolerance (it relies on how we define it), it doesn't allow us to call it a "declaration of human rights", as it is not a declaration, as what it says doesn't apply to all humans, and as it doesn't concern rights of any kind. But it isn't important what I think. The important thing is that the great majority of scholars rejects the "human rights" conception, and consider it as a propaganda document. And as for the Frye quote, it would be original research: it doesn't mention the Cyrus Cylinder. Note that very similar quotes can be taken from Briant's book, but he calls the cylinder a piece of propaganda. Amizzoni ( talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to quote parts of the article mentioned:
"Schulz has also cited the fall of Opis on the second page of his article. It was in 1966 that A. K. Grayson published his translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle:
In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people."
Note the following two words: "slaughtered" and "the people".
A number of scholars knew that the translation was flawed, however the issue was not academically addressed until 2007, when Shahrokh Razmjou consulted Professor Wilfred G. Lambert of the University of Birmingham, England, who is the world's foremost expert in the cuneiform. It is worth noting that A. K. Grayson had been a student of Professor Lambert in the past.
Razmjou asked Professor Lambert to review Grayson's translation. Lambert immediately noted that the translation that had been made by his former student was false. Here is the correct translation:
In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad).
Notice the following corrections made by Professor Lambert:
Mr. Schulz in his article in Speigel has, amongst his numerous errors (as noted in my humble retort cited earlier) has relied on:
Lambert's translation was published in the 2007 publication of the French journal N.A.B.U
Suffice it to say that Cyrus had defeated a military opponent at Opis - there is no record of any harm being done to the civilians in the Nabonidus Chronicle. To that end, two further observations may be inferred: </[>
So please note how a misreading which supported the thesis of Wieshofer is now totally debunked. I would like also point out to many positive news paper articles on Cyrus [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. The fact that Shultz did not know about Lambert's translation makes his article unworthy and same thing about theories of Wieshofer/Kuhrts. Their major thesis lies on the Opis event and their reading is based on Grayson. On the other hand, much material based on classical Greek, Hebrew and etc. paint a positive light on Cyrus and one can not dismiss these classical materials because few scholars keep inventing new history ideas which are now debunked due to Professor. Lambert's new reading. -- CreazySuit ( talk) 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The passage from the Nabonidus Chronicle that refers to Opis is mentioned neither by Kuhrt, nor by Dandamaev, nor by Briant, nor by Weisehofer (at this moment I have no access to the article by Van Der Spek). So the new translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle has no implications on this matter.
Furthermore, the newspaper articles say that Cyrus was a good king, but only two of them mention human rights. The article by Paul Cartledge [29] (an academic specialized in Greek history) is clearly against the human rights position: "the text of the Cylinder has been hailed a touch enthusiastically - not to mention anachronistically - as an early declaration of human rights. Actually, it concerns the repatriation of religious statues and human deportees, recalling that it was the same Cyrus who earned the title "Lord's Anointed" from Deutero-Isaiah for restoring the exiled Jews from Babylon to Judaea." The other one is quite ambiguous: [30]. But as someone said in an edit summary, academic publications overweight newspaper articles. Let use only academic publications. Well, anyway: I'm writing a new draft and I'll paste it here as soon as I finishedv it. Amizzoni ( talk) 05:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]"predating the Magna Carta by more than one millennium". [34] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored. [29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971, [31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi's twin sister Ashraf Pahlavi to then UN Secretary General Sithu U Thant on October 14, 1971 and has since then been kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers. [35] The Cyrus Cylinder played an important part in the 2,500 year celebration of Iran's monarchy organizad by Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi during the same year. The Shah's régime supported the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and it has been claimed that such notion originated in the régime itsef. [36]
However, many [37] scholars now disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They point at the fact that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as reflecting royal propaganda. [38] [39] [40]
A fake translation of the cylinder - affirming, among other things, the right to self-determination - has spread and even been quoted by Shirin Ebadi when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. The fake can be recognized by the mention of Ahura Mazda, absent in the original. [40]
I think some parts are poorly written, but generally speaking this how I think it should look like. Amizzoni ( talk) 06:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What do you and others think about this? based on your own:
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights.
[41]
[29]
[42]
[31]
[32]
[43]"predating the
Magna Carta by more than one millennium".
[44] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.
[29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971, [31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by Pahlavis to the UN Secretary General on October 14, 1971 and has since then been kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway [45]. It has been claimed that the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights originated in Pahlavis themself. [46]
However, some scholars disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They point at the fact that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as reflecting royal propaganda. [47] [48] [40]
A fake translation of the cylinder - affirming, among other things, the right to self-determination - has spread. The fake can be recognized by the mention of Ahura Mazda, absent in the original. [40]. The fake translation has misled some to overemphasize on Cyrus's tolerance, however in spite of the argumentation of making similar declarations by other kings, some other scholars believe that Cyrus's approach toward subdued people differed from that of previous rulers in some aspects. [49] and that he was a tolerant and magnanimous sovereign, [50] which is also supported by his treatment of Jews in Babylon and the reflection of his generosity in the Old Testament [51], the policy which was continued by two of his successors: Darius I and Artaxerxes I.-- Raayen ( talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, Amizzoni. Your version is much more neutral than the current one.
@Raayen: Quotes about Cyrus' "tolerance" are best inserted in Cyrus the Great and not the particular section discussing the specific interpretation of the Cylinder as a "charter of human rights" since they're quite off-topic. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 18:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
When you call this cylinder Cyrus' propaganda. It is necessary to provide information for readers to show in which context Cyrus declared these decrees. Cyrus character and his legacy help readers to judge whether it was propaganda or not. Therefore, quotes about Cyrus' "tolerance" is not off-topic. -- Larno Man ( talk) 00:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Cyrus’s King-Arthur-like image was shattered in 1965 when a post-graduate student by the name of A.K. Grayson retranslated the Nabonidus Chronicle for his doctoral thesis. His interpretation revealed a bloody massacre by Cyrus of the entire civilian population at the city of Opis (near today's Baghdad). The following passage is what cynics like Mr. Schultz and his experts have zeroed in on for the last 40+ years:
“In the month of Tishri when Cyrus(II) did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people.” The naysayers finally had their red meat. The Herodotian East/West divide was secure. But unbeknownst to Mr. Schulz, this passage was corrected last year by none other than A. K. Grayson’s former professor, W. G. Lambert and published in the 2007 issue of the French journal N.A.B.U.. The amended translation reads as follows: In Tishri, when Cyrus did battle with the army of Akkad at Opis, on the [bank] of the Tigris, the soldiers of Akkad withdrew. He (Cyrus) took plunder and defeated the soldiers (of Akkad). Cyrus did not “slaughter the people,” he “defeated the soldiers.” Two words can change history, which is why it’s so incumbent on Spiegel to get the facts straight before setting out to revise it. This revelation leaves Mr. Schulz’s article with nothing but speculation and conjecture. |
” |
-- Raayen ( talk) 14:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for delay. I needed sometimes to do some research. This is my proposal which is inspired by the previous two drafts-- Larno Man ( talk) 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC):
The Cyrus Cylinder has been described as the world's first declaration of human rights.
[52]
[29]
[53]
[31]
[32]
[54]"predating the
Magna Carta by more than one millennium".
[55] It has been argued that there are three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.
[29]
It was translated into all six official U.N. languages in 1971,
[31] and a replica of the cylinder was handed over by
Pahlavis to the UN Secretary General on
October 14,
1971 and has since then been kept at the
United Nations Headquarters in
New York City in the second floor hallway
[56].
It has been claimed that the notion of the cylinder as a charter of human rights originated in Pahlavis themselves
[57], and some scholars disagree with the concept of the cylinder as a charter of human rights, and have argued that such a concept is alien to the historical context. They state that Mesopotamia has a long tradition, dating back to the third millennium BC, of kings making similar declarations when beginning their reigns. The Cyrus Cylinder is thus interpreted as self ordered decrees by Cyrus, trying to make himself appears righteous.
[58]
[59]
[40]
This view is criticized though. The supporters of this view fail to mention why the independent Mesopotamian, Greek, and Biblical sources, as well as archaeological findings are consistent with statements of Cyrus Cylinder. [60] [61] These group of writers used the flawed translation of Nabonidus Chronicle by A.K. Grayson to analyze and interprete the cylinder statements. This translation was later amended in 2007. [62] In spite of the argumentation of long tradition of making similar declarations by other kings. In Cyrus age, invaders considered massacring and enslaving of of conquered people prosperity. At that time the conquering kings proudly recorded brutality in sacking and destruction of the invaded lands in royal inscriptions. On the other hand, Cyrus was a tolerant and magnanimous sovereign [60] [63] [64] [65] which totally differed from approach toward subdued people of previous rulers [64] [66]. Moreover, these writers are criticized for Western centric approach to human rights and fallacy of the notion that human right is so Western in its philosophical underpinnings that can't has Eastern roots. [67]
This version is even worse than the current one. It violates WP:SYNTH, WP:WEASEL and probably a million other policies. Once again, we aren't going to comment on Cyrus' character or hypothesise about the motives of scholars. I'll offer no comment for expressions such as "anti-Cyrus writers". Please, either make some serious proposals or let's get the article unprotected and use Amizzoni's version. 3rdAlcove ( talk) 20:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Find one weasel word in the proposal. Actually the first proposed had some that was amended by User:Rayis. Although, the second theory is directly criticized by sources and not widely acceptable, you insist to keep the second fringe theory. In spite the fact that the eligibility of the second groups of writers as experts on Persian Empire history are questioned by critics too. Tired of POV pushing of 3rdAlcove, I reluctantly accept to keep the second fringe theory. So, let us bring the critics of the second theory too. The draft is only talking about the article. It is only talking on Cyrus Cylinder as the charter of human rights and its context. This version is comprehensive. Talking about the main theory, the opposite theories and its critics. If you have problem with the last paragraph and think it is irrelevant, the second theory should be gone as well. Regarding "anti-Cyrus writers" propose a better expression if you think there are better alternatives.-- Larno Man ( talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Larno Man, I don't know why you should feel so strongly about an Iron Age ruler, but be aware that you come across as hysterical. You fail to address valid and coherent concerns, and all you seem to be doing is stalling progress by revert warring with less than helpful summaries such as this one.
In short, some people need to get over their patriotism here and stand down a little bit. dab (𒁳) 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if, once the page is unprotected, the sentence 'According to a recent report, directors of British Museum and National Museum of Iran in Tehran have reached an agreement whereby the Cyrus Cylinder will be displayed in National Museum of Iran.' could be reworded? Apart from needing a few basic grammar tweaks, and some clarification as to when this 'recent report' was (there have been stories about the cylinder being loaned to Iran circulating since 2004), the 'displayed' bit could do with being clarified. Is the cylinder being returned (seems unlikely given that the museum is legally prohibited from doing so (viz the Elgin Marbles controversy) or merely loaned, and if the latter, is this actually the case, since all of the sources are Iranian based, and there hasn't been any mention of this in any other sources, nor any announcements by the British Museum, etc. Benea ( talk) 16:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The title Mesopotamian tradition and Persian propaganda is a violation of wp:npov. It promotes the extreme POV of this article. It either should be changed or change the other section Scholarly view to Eurocentric view and change/copyedit the section accordingly. Any objection? Xashaiar ( talk) 09:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"Propaganda" is not being used negatively. It's used here in the sense in which Hanspeter Schaudig uses it: "shorthand for the complex processes whereby rulers shape their subjects' views of the world and are in turn affected by them" (p. 51, "Xerxes' Homer". Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the Third Millennium). The CC isn't the only piece of pro-Cyrus propaganda - the Verse Account of Nabonidus is another example, though it's much less well-known. As Matthias Henze puts it (The madness of King Nebuchadnezzar, p. 61), "Immediately following the demise of the Neo-Babylonian empire in 539 BCE, there arose a significant body of polemic literature leveled against Nabonidus", which historians clearly relate to a Persian or pro-Persian campaign to discredit Nabonidus and promote the new regime. -- ChrisO ( talk) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I would love to see parts of this article reorganized to have just one section that focuses on the use of the Cylinder in propaganda, just one section that focuses on the fake translation, and one section that focuses on the significance (or lack thereof) of the text at the time of Cyrus. But keep "propaganda" out of the scholarly "building inscription or more?" analysis. It should be possible to reduce the length of the article by consolidating some of the redundant or less significant text in the process. Matthias Blume ( talk) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It is sad to lose ChrisO.. although I disagreed with him (and I believe the action of some nationalists in other media might have given a too much negative reaction), he was needed. Hope to see him back. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a big mess..I am sad to see someone like Moreschi leave and then ChrisO. There really needs to be a separate body of experts (with preferably 50 active admins) who basically crack down on users such as these [32]. I disagreed with ChrisO on Cyrus Cylinder, but always tried to use sources. Anyhow the only good admin that is left now is Dbachmann. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello everybody,
I saw that this article has been mentioned in an Al Jazeera blog which claims a conspiracy regarding it. [33] I don't think it has any credence. However, I think there are some things the article gets wrong, so if nobody minds I would like to try fixing them. They won't require major changes. L'ecrivant ( talk) 07:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You can see translation of Nabonidus chronicle HERE, it states:
In the month of Tashritu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Babylonia in Opis on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Babylonia revolted, but he [Cyrus, Nabonidus?] massacred the inhabitants. On the fifteenth day [12 October], Sippar was seized without battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, [the Persian commander] Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without battle. Afterwards, Nabonidus was arrested in Babylon when he returned there.
So, we don't know did Nabonidus or Cyrus massacred the inhabitants, but since author aplied that to Cyrus we can talk about strict violating of wp:NPOV. The same goes for section about veracity of the Cylinder's claims - only few out of few thousand scholars are questioning it's veracity because all primary sources (Herodotus, Xenophon, Nabonidus chronicles, Old Testament) are saying about Cyrus' tolerance, while only few historians (along with our dear Wiki-revisionist) claim otherwise. -- 93.143.46.224 ( talk) 22:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
1) Since some Wiki-revisionist is trying to divide opinions about human right nature of Cyrus Cylinder to "Pahlavi propagandists" and "Scholars", I added two more subsections which proves that many academic scholars and current Iranian government also accept it's human right nature.
2) Removing sentence which doubts Cyrus' tolerant policy (cited in M.A. Dandamaev) because it's not about Cylinder but Cyrus the Great, and we already have article about him. Wiki-revisionist clearly tried to deny Cyrus' tolerant policy using one single source, but there are at least few hundreds (!) which claim otherwise, including Richard Nelson Frye - the most highest autority on Iranian studies today ( source).
3) Correction of issue about "fake citation" - while Jona Lendering talks only about changing Marduk to Ahura Mazda, Wiki-revisionist has added his own fake citation about "faking abolished slavery". He quoted Lendering, but you won't find anything like that on his Livius pages ( 1, 2). Also, official text from British Museum is clearly mentioning words "I freed them from their bonds" ( part 26) which proves that revisionist has faked it. There is only one source which actually mentions it, but it's made by Stéphane Foucart, French journalist but not a historian (and not reliable source, also). The same goes for journalist Matthias Schulz "famous" for his anti-Iranian sentiment by calling Cyrus the Great as "despotic ruler", which may confuse some people because there's also a notable historian of the same name. -- 93.143.46.224 ( talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the new edits improved the article. I'm not going to try to fix the English or anything else right now as I don't think it's (which means 'it is', not 'belongs to') possible to keep this article NPOV, but I will say that changing 'propaganda' to 'proclamations' is silly. Every government indulges in propaganda, Cyrus's certainly did and this was part of it, and to try to hide it in this way is simply wrong. Dougweller ( talk) 07:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean? The ownership is and should be disputed. Unsourced. I change it to "and being kept in the British Museum". Xashaiar ( talk) 11:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The tone and substance of this article is so unbalanced, that even the media outlets such as Al Jazeera English are discussing it. Now, Al Jazeera is neither an Iranian media outlet, nor considered to be Iran-friendly. There is obviously a problem here. It appears that overzealous editors`s work on this page, has done a lot of damage to Wikiedia`s reputation as an independent open project . The article should be reviewed and rewritten by neutral editors. and by `neutral` , I don`t mean agenda-driven individuals who just don`t happen to be Iranian, but are obviously motivated by political agendas, and are as much at fault for the current sorry state of affairs on this page, as the overzealous Iranian editors. IMediaObserver ( talk) 16:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: The IP 93.143.18.126 is a sock of the banned User:Orijentolog (a Croatian IP that espouses pro-Persian views, a unique phenomenon). Athenean ( talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Knowing and having read about the Cyrus cylinder, I was shocked at the tone of this article. After researching for the last hour I conclude that this article in non-neutral and biased against Cyrus. Please change it. It reeks of a partisan tone. Genjix ( talk) 06:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
"...is a Babylonian document" If this is a document I'm a monkey's whatsit. The phrase is, in any case, unnecessary - just say when it dates from, and where from, and who from. Do that, muy son. and you'll have done well. PiCo ( talk) 08:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have read the whole article and its talk page; the overall tone of the article is so deliberate and biased that it makes it clear that some of the editors are influenced by the current Anti-Iranian theorizations. The article tries to introduce the Cyrus Cylinder as propaganda, while the over-emphasization of such claims throughout the article, makes the article become a conspicuous propaganda itself. This article is not only non-informative but also distortive of facts; therefore, it is in contrast to the basic Wikipedia rules. Most of the mentioned authors are not really reliable scholastic references, some of them have even clear instances of Anti-Iranian inclinations in their works. Moreover, many of the quotations are just biased theories and subjective interpretations of such authors from the actual historical accounts. One cannot shun the actual historical accounts (Cyrus Cylinder, Verse Account, Nab Chronicle, Dynastic Prophecy, etc.) themselves and try to hypothesize them in a way that is clearly controlled by political propaganda. If we consider ourselves Wikipedians, we have to stop such activities in Wikipedia. For a more information on some of the facts behind this article, please refer to the following links; http://www.savepasargad.com/2010-March/Koorosh-ahmadi-Cyrus%20Cylinder%20in%20Wikipedia.htm
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/Rozanehweb/cyrusthegreat.html
Regards. NBTPro ( talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It is incorrect to allow historians of questionable authority to be used as sources for an article that is on a historical figure. Lendering does not have a doctorate in the field, nor is he affiliated with any real research on the topic. Yes, he has written some books, but they are of questionable accuracy. DougWeller, please don't claim that I attacked a BPV, my edit on Lendering's page was justified and strongly sourced. It only made sense that I would edit the use of his research on the Cyrus page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 09:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No, Doug, you are mixing two issues and perhaps revealing the fact that YOU are in violation of editing guidelines. 1) I removed Lendering as source on the "Cyrus Cylinder page" because he is a not notable enough to be mentioned in reference to a historical figure. 2) YOU were the one who utilized my edit of Lendering's page as a reason to undo my revisions on the "Cyrus Cylinder" page, which is mixing issues on your part. Please address your Lendering edits on the Lendering page. I only explained myself on the Cyrus cylinder page as a courtesy to you. I am going to undo your edit on the Cyrus Cylinder page, with the expectation that if you feel compelled to undo my edit that you will explain why Lendering is a reliable source for the Cyrus Cylinder page. Thanks! 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 10:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Bozorg, Thank you!!!! 75.82.13.51 ( talk) 10:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
This article is in and of itself a propaganda probably generated by a few fake scholars if you can call them that to attack Persian history. It makes unsubstantiated claims and tries to muddy the name of a great name who should be kept out of the political games of the day. I believe that to call the Cyrus Cylinder which is a true peice of human rights advocation a "Propganda" is dirty. The sources cited are disgustingly biased and I think this artcile has to be ENTIRELY RE WRITTEN. That British chose to call it a propaganda is not a suprise. KEEP POLITICS OUT OF MY HISTORY! Cyrus was a great man, that united nations across continents and as such he deserves respect! Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The tone of this article is defamatory. Also what this article does is use excuses like the one you just mentioned to further its own agenda. There are many alternative versions for "propaganda." Propaganda has a negative connotation and also is not appropriate for this work. Also the tone of this piece is so harsh and polar that it is almost impossible to digest. How can something this polar be even in Wikipedia? I dont know, you guys clearly have the upper hand, I tried to change it but you seem to be always here watching this article. So I just want people reading this article know that in my view, this is very biased, and even if the points made here are salient they are presented so poorly that either way makes this a bad presentation. P.S. UNITED NATIONS classifies the Cyrus Cylinder as Human Rights piece. Who is some lackluster British interest to call it a "propaganda?". That is all. Best of luck to you! Preceding comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk) 23:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is that Propaganda has a negative connotation. Let me cite Wikipedia on Propaganda becasue I think you have some issues with the meaning of the word: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience." Also based on your previous statements which are all false you keep selling the idea that "propaganda is in essence a 'good' thing" as if presidents, politicans, and public speakers would like to be remembered as great generators of "propaganda." Having established the negative connontation of the word propaganda, I like to move further with the article and explain why I have such an issue with it. The sources of this article are not impartial, and in fact by a very realistic assessment, this article is in and of itself a propaganda against the Cyrus the Great. Remember that you as a Wikipedian are supposed to be a representation of impartiality and balance. You and I both know that this article and its tone exists today, because of inappropriate comments made by one stupid iranian president to whom I bear the same resentments, but it is really not appropriate, neither is it right to attack a nation's history with some 5,000 years of history citing as your sources only a few statements written by essentially a private company like the British Museum of art and citing a few very contemporary scholars, some of whom are questionable if not completely misguided. What is my suggestion? Maybe we should change the tone a bit to appeal to BOTH sides of the story and additionally an unconditional removal of the term "propaganda" and replacing it with "Proclamation" as advocated earlier by some other users. It is really sad however, because as long as the British museum continues to imply "propaganda" in an attempt to appeal to its daily political needs, we will have this issue with the name. However, Wikipedia should NOT take sides, and if it does (as it HAS CLEARLY taken an anti-persian attitude in this article, at least in my view), then it loses its IMPARTIALITY and validity as a world wide tool for information dissemination and communication! Dr. Persi ( talk)
Yes, I am the same person as above, hence why I replied to you, in this section which is a section that I generated. Regarding broadcasting, I really do not understand how that makese sense with regards to "impartiality" issue. I have nothing against broadcasting views agaisnt the cylinder as propaganda, as long 1) the tone of the article is appropriate reflecting proper weight to the soureces and their credibility and 2) as long as both views are entertained. In other words, if there is a discussion as to validity of a hypothetical point, you can not choose the title of discussion to reflect only one of the contending points. It has to be more broad. Also, I think there is plenty of ANCIENT documents and sources that far outweight the contemporary sources cited here. Again, I still think storngly that this article needs to be re-written by an independent third party, certainly not you and I, who will in an impartial manner deliver the information keeping in mind weight of ancient documents, United Nation declarations, and bringing in (but not dominating!) the points made by the British museum. Thanks you and I appreciate our chat Doughweller. I just hope that this article was not so un-wikipedian. Preceding comment added by Dr. Persi ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the veracity of Cyrus Cylinder is soooo long, but I'd like to address the paragraph below.
I feel that that the above paragraph may be more reflective of "original research" instead of on the topic of the veracity of the cylinder's claim.
1) Why WOULD the cylinder make mention of the battle of Opis? The question here is on the veracity of cylinder's claims, not on what the cylinder should include. The exclusion of the battle of Opis does not indicate any sort of falsehood. Next, the battle of Opis was not any more gruesome that any conflict (don't think that it is true that Cyrus massacared all of Nabaodinus' army, but not sure).
2) Fried's comments, as the paragraph states are SPECULATIONS (I'm not yelling by using caps, just emphasizing). Speuclations already indicate original research.
3) Walton's research that the proclomation is standard conqueror's rhetoric seems to be original research or jsut simply opinion. First off, that is simply not true, many conquerors ruled by intimidation and domination and NEVER used such rhetoric. Next, using that rhetoric doesn't mean that the statements aren't true.
4) I have one more point but most leave.
In conclusion, I think that it'll be useful to revisit this paragraph and revise. And also revise this entire section, because it is quite sloppy for wiki standards.
sorry forgot to sign, GoetheFromm ( talk) 21:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit odd. In June, with this edit, [36], the paragraph below was added:
"The text of the cylinder also has deeper roots in Babylonian tradition, as the German historian Hanspeter Schaudig has pointed out. It alludes to a much older work, the Enuma Elis or "Epic of Creation", in which Marduk is described as defeating Tiamat, creating the world and building Babylon. The portrayal of the Persian conquest repeats the pattern, presenting Cyrus's takeover as a moment of ultimate restoration not just of political and religious institutions, but of the cosmic order that underpinned the existence of the universe itself. [73]"
Earlier today it read:
The Cylinder's text has deeper roots in Babylonian tradition. The German historian Hanspeter Schaudig has identified a line on the Cylinder ("He [i.e. Marduk] saved his city Babylon from its oppression") with a line from tablet VI of the Babylonian "Epic of Creation", Enûma Eliš, in which Marduk builds Babylon. [74] Johannes Haubold suggests that this allusion represents Cyrus's takeover as a moment of ultimate restoration not just of political and religious institutions, but of the cosmic order underpinning the universe. [75]
The first line was removed this morning by someone who seems to have been tightening up the article, with the edit summary 'removed line'. I thought the sentence was useful and replaced it. Then a 3rd editor comes along and although it's been there since June, removed it saying it is WP:SYNTH and new evidence proves it's wrong (which is probably not the case, 'proves it's wrong' probably means 'disagrees', and if so we can show the disagreement. The editor's next edit was to denigrate the former Director of the British Museum, who has recently been awarded the Order of Merit and is presenting some stuff on the BBC, by adding not the Order of Merit but the BBC presentation work, which is clearly irrelevant to this article.
I'm replacing it again, but I'll add more references. Dougweller ( talk) 13:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)</)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "livius" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 65 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Kuhrt-2007a
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).