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]
|