Talk:Belshazzar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV, expand and cleanup labels!

These three labels are being cast about like grass seed by newly-arrived User:CheeseDreams. They are disfiguring, but their value in this entry, where the User has made no edits, can be assessed by a look at this user's contributions. --Wetman 02:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed:Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:CheeseDreams is currently banned for similar behavior here and there at Wikipedia. While he's taking his well-earned Time Out, I'm removing these irresponsible and tiresome labels. Don't stop improving this article, however! And if this article needs clean-up, neutrality, etc, do confront us all here in the Discussion first, won't you? --Wetman 09:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Whether one likes it or not there is an historical Belshazzar and the article should start off by focusing on him. "Belshazzar as portrayed in Daniel", "... Rabbinical literature" etc etc should be in their own subsequent sections. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Appearances in modern works?

Should Belshazzar's appearance as a major character in D.W. Griffith's Intolerance be mentioned here? john k 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

"In 538 B.C. Belshazzar was positioned in the city of Babylon to hold the capital, while Nabonidus, marched his troops north to meet Cyrus. On October 10, 539 B.C. Nabonidus surrendered and fled from Cyrus. Two days later, October 12, 539 B.C., the Persian armies overthrew the city of Babylon."

That makes no sense. If the Persian armies overthrew Babylon in 539, how could Belshazzar be positioned in Babylon to defend it in the following year, 538? It had been lost by then. Nabonidus, too, is said to march his troops towards Cyrus in 538, the year following that in which he surrendered, 539. Unfree (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel 5 content moved

I've moved Daniel 5 content to The writing on the wall page where the {{Daniel chapters}} links to. - Jasonasosa (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Name?

Can we get a breakdown of the meaning of his name, or just an original name breakdown? Its always nice to learn a little Akkadian. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Historicity contradiction

The first extrabiblical artifact listed to suggest Belshazzar's historicity says that Belshazzar is Nabonidus' son, yet the section goes on to say that there is extrabiblical evidence for the figure, but no extrabiblical evidence for this relation? Twin Bird (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

- the section says that there is no extrabiblical evidence for a blood relation of Belshazzar to NEBUCHADNEZZAR. Clearly there is extrabiblical evidence (the Nabonidus Cylinder) for a blood relation of Belshazzar to NABONIDUS. The article does not contradict this. Martin Gradwell (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologetics

To say that the Biblical passage that says Belshazzar was son of Nebuchadnezzar must be understood to mean that Nebuchadnezzar was his "predecessor" or "ancestor" is completely POV. Most scholars believe that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC, and that the author of Daniel is simply mistaken in thinking that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's son. (This appears to have been commonly thought in the second century BC - the Book of Baruch, also presumably written about this time, also calls Belshazzar Nebuchadnezzar's son see Baruch 1:10: "And pray ye for the life of Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days may be upon earth as the days of heaven.") Only apologetical writers offer this dubious "obviously predecessor was meant" explanation. And this article is not the place for discussion of apologetical interpretations of the Book of Daniel. The place for those is Book of Daniel where they should be reported (but not endorsed!) john k 23:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I've attempted a neutral wording with a split of Babylonian sources, Herodotus and Bible. This still needs to be improved further, there is more Babylonian info that can be added and I am not sure if everything stated currently is really from contemporary inscriptions - some is surely from Berosus and should be separated out. Josephus' account and how it relates to Herodutus is also needed.

Bear in mind that the Hebrew usage of av for forefather instead of literal father is extremely common, just search the text of a Hebrew prayer book for example, Jews typically describe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as avotenu = our fathers, even converts to Judaism do this. Famous Jewish scholars, writers and thinkers of past centuries are also referred to by this term. Kuratowski's Ghost

Yes, it can be used in that sense, but there's no especial reason to view the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's "father" in this sense unless one is committed to Biblical inerrancy. My understanding is that in most cases where the word is used in the non-literal sense, it is quite obvious that it is being so used. It is not at all obvious that it is being used in a non-literal sense for Belshazzar's relationship with Nebuchadnezzar. The more logical explanation is that the writer is simply confused and thinks that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. At the very least, both possible explanations have to be mentioned in the text, with the view that this is a non literal usage of av being mentioned as one particularly prominent in apologetics. Can you point to a single secular scholar who would make this argument? john k 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that it is very frequently used in this non-literal sense, typically if one wanted to say that Nebuchadnezzer was the literal father of Belshazzar one would rather refer to Belshazzar as the ben (son) of Nebuchadnezzer and avoid the ambiguous description of Nebuchadnezzer as the av of Belshazzer. Such explanations are not simply about Biblical inerrency but about trying to reconcile different sources. One often sees similar interpretations made when discussing Greek historians yet no one accuses the Classicists of believing in a doctrine of Herodotus-inerrency or Xenophon-inerrency. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I still find this a questionable endeavour. So much of the Book of Daniel is just so far removed from our actual knowledge of the 6th century BC that I don't see why we should be making excuses for it. For instance, nobody tries to come up with some explanation of why Herodotus puts the Pyramid Builders after the New Kingdom, and immediately before the Ethiopian (Nubian) conquest. It is just assumed that he is wrong. It might be interesting to figure out why he made this particular mistake, but that doesn't mean much. It just seems to me that the Book of Daniel is practically useless as a historical source on the period when it was supposedly written. It is so full of garbled apparent errors that there is no particular reason to give it the benefit of the doubt (unless, of course, one believes in Biblical inerrancy). john k 17:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can further NPOV the article, do so, please do not undo the splitting of sources. Censoring the opinions of scholars who attempt to produce a coherent view based on all available sources is POV btw. I'd also recommend some reading up on Modal logic vs Classical logic, the fact that no descent of Belshazzar from Nebuchadnezzer is currently known with certainty is not the same as saying that it is fact that Belshazzar is not descended from Nebuchanezzar. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that Belshazzar is descended from Nebuchadnezzar, save that the Book of Daniel, almost certainly written centuries later, says that Belshazzar is Nebuchadnezzar's son. Given that Daniel also invents the otherwise unknown "Darius the Mede," I do not see anything in Daniel as evidence for anything. john k 05:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The very plausible interpretation of the younger Labynetos of Herodotus as Belshazzar together with his statement that Nitocris was the mother + the likelyhood that she was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzer is another reason to think that Belshazzar was descended from Nebuchadnezzer. Darius the Mede is also mentioned by Manetho so it is not the case that he is unknown, rather there are competing views over whether he is identical to Gobyrus or to the Cyaxares mentioned by Xenophon thought to be the son of the Cyaxares mentioned by Herodotus.

Darius the Mede is mentioned by Manetho? We don't even have an extant Manetho. If he is mentioned by Africanus or Eusebius or Josephus in the course of their paraphrases of Manetho, I don't think that is relevant - all of those figures would have been familiar with the Book of Daniel, and might have interpellated it. At any rate, all this "competing views" is nonsense - most historians believe that Darius the Mede is just an instance of the author of Daniel fucking up because he was writing four centuries after the event. Much like how the Book of Judith makes Nebuchadnezzar King of Assyria, reigning in Nineveh. As to Labynetos, what reason do you have to think that the younger Labynetos is not Nabonidus? It seems to be quite unclear who Herodotus is referring to, and I am uncertain as to why he would think Belshazzar had the same name as his father. john k 16:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Because Nabonidus' father didn't have the same name as him nor did his mother have a name resembling "Nitocris", while on the other hand Josephus mentions a form of the name Nabonidus as another name for Belshazzar. (Personally I believe like you that the author of Daniel screwed up as did Herodotus and Josephus, but thats personal belief, this article should discuss all scholarly views including those of scholars who consider the Bible to have various degrees of accuracy. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that the author of Daniel screwed up, then why are you insisting on all this apologetical flotsam and jetsam being included in the article? If we are going to include apologetical arguments, we should clearly list them as apologetical arguments. That is to say, give the basic story as reconstructed by secular historians, including explanations of how most secular scholars think that Daniel is just wrong. Then we can note that some apologetical scholars have explained the apparent discrepancy in this particular way. (And the Josephus thing is rather easily explicable, isn't it? He had non-Jewish sources in front of him that showed Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon. The Book of Daniel says that Belshazzar is the last King of Babylon. So Belshazzar must be another name for Nabonidus. Josephus didn't posit that Belshazzar was separate from an "elder" Nabonidus, did he?) john k 17:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is meant to give a fair voice to all scholarly opinion and there are many scholars who are not anti-Bible and make these various arguments. My guess is also that Josephus had a source that says Nabonidus was the last king and thus equated him with Belshazzar but this is not something we know for sure, he doesn't use the same form of the name as Berosus used, maybe Josephus knew something we don't. btw Belshazzar did use the Babylonian title used for kings in one inscription so the fact that the Bible and Josephus call him a king is not wrong as one often hears. Bearing in mind that Herodotus talks of two "Labynetos"s it is possible that Belshazzar was indeed also known by the name Nabonidus in which case we do not really know which king would have been meant in a source saying that Nabonidus was the last king. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

These arguments should be mentioned. But it should not be the article making them. Apologetic arguments should be labelled as apologetic arguments. The views of mainstream, non-apologetic, scholars should be mentioned as well, and these should hold the primary place. john k 00:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, as to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's father, the number of times the term is used is utterly absurd. "Belshaz'zar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnez'zar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem...there is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnez'zar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chalde'ans, and soothsayers;...Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?...O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnez'zar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honor:" This is really just rubbing it in - the clear sense of the chapter is that the author believes that Belshazzar is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Obviously, this is not the only explanation, but it seems like the most obvious explanation. Note what Encyclopedia Britannica says: Though he is referred to in the Book of Daniel as the son of Nebuchadrezzar, - no mention of possible alternative meanings of the word av. (Britannica also just says outright that Daniel was written at the time of Antiochus IV.) john k 05:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

How many times its said in no way changes the common Hebrew meaning of forefather in the same way that the repeated reference to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the "fathers" of the Jews found all over Jewish liturgy does not make it mean literally "father". Kuratowski's Ghost 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The main meaning of the word is "father." There is no reason in those passages to think that "father" is not meant in a literal sense, except that we know that Nebuchadnezzar was not Belshazzar's father. But there is no clear evidence at all that the author knows this. You are working from the assumption that the Book of Daniel does not have any errors. In that case, you have to explain this apparent error by means of saying that the non-literal meaning of "father" is being used. But wikipedia is not working from the assumption that the Book of Daniel does not have any errors. We should present as the primary explanation the more common-sensical answer that the author of Daniel thinks that Belshazzar is Nebuchadnezzar's son, and is mistaken. john k 16:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not working from the assumption the the Book of Daniel does have errors? Why cant wikipedia work from the assumption that some people believe that the Book of Daniel has errors and some dont? You say "But there is no clear evidence at all that the author knows this", is there clear evidence that he does not... or is it just assumed? --Daniel newton 09:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And as I pointed out above, Hebrew texts "av" is more commonly used to mean "forefather" than literal "father". The idea that Belshazzar's literal father Nabonidus was unknown to Jewish writers is also wrong, one of the dead sea scrolls is a story about Nabonidus who is referred to as Naboni in Hebrew. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Daniel newton 86.156.118.59 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the Assyrian records wrong in calling Jehu "Son of Omri" no I don't think so, it's the same usage people are arguing for here. Either way thought Belshazzar's mother isn't known, do one can't prove there is absolutely no relation. I can cite numerous times "av" is used of Grandfathers also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Source suggestion

There's a good article to aid with describing the subject from a neutral point. --178.252.126.70 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Achaemenid invasion

To Debresser (talk · contribs), lol... yeah, sorry. Anyway, Cyropaedia is a novel of a sorts. Achaemenid invasion is too broad a title for just one script. That's why I changed the title to a more specific one in context with Cyropaedia. Not a big deal though. Thanks for looking out.  — Jason Sosa 21:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for substantially improving this article. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Two recent revision

We recently had two major revisions (rewrites) of this article. The first by Jasonasosa doing this and the second by PiCo doing this. I am generally not in favor of such major revisions without discussion. However that may be, having two such revisions one after the other makes no sense. I propose undoing the latter, being that I think the first was better. Your opinions please. Debresser (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

At present, PiCo (talk · contribs)'s edit can be considered a revert to my edit. If I revert his edits, it becomes an edit war. There isn't much I can do on this page. Thank you Debresser (talk · contribs) for looking into this, but I'm not sure where I can go with it.  — Jason Sosa 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest I didn't even know that Jason had done his major edits. For sure I'm not looking for an edit war. I suggest that anyone who's interested just take it from here. (But try to concentrate on Belshazzar, not the Book of Daniel).PiCo (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nabonidus

According to Nabonidus, Belshazzar's fahter is Nabonid.

In any other context, fictional characters are identified as fictional characters. We look in vain in the Babylonian kinglists for this fictional "Belshazzar son of Nebuchadnezzar". Wetman 23:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere in the book of Daniel is he called "Belshazzar son of Nebuchanezzar". In one verse Nechadnezzar is called "avihu" = "his father". Unfortunately the word av can mean a literal father or it can mean a forefather, and the latter meaning is not even a rare usage, its quite common. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I was going to move the description of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar's "son" (as described in the Book of Daniel) from the first paragraph to a later one — see my comments under my edit to the article from earlier today. However, I now see that it has already been addressed in a later paragraph, and expanded upon using points brought up by the editor above. Because keeping the reference in the opening paragraph is a bit confusing, especially in the absence of the explanations necessary to put it into context, I'm going to let the "Relationship to Nebuchadnezzar" paragraph be the only explanation of that part of the text.DoctorEric (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Jehovah Witness Commentary

Much of the article relies on a publication from the media arm of the Jehovah Witnesses, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Specifically:

Insight (1988). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1. Pennsylvania: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. p. 282-284. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help))

This is religiously biased source, which could be handled per WP:RNPOV but the way it is presented now is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Especially concerning is the section Nabonidus Chronicles which is copy/paste. It should probably be completely removed. Thoughts? ►Tennis Dynamite◄ 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. The entire paragraph was copied verbatim. The only other 'citation' in the text (Grayson) was merely lifted from the copy-pasted Watchtower source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realise just how bad it was. More copyvio text has been removed. The source used is particularly problematic as the minor denomination source has views about the chronology and events of the Neo-Babylonian period that are at great variance to the mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Delete infobox?

The infobox contains information that's frequently incorrect:

Bēl-šarra-uṣur
Co-regent king of Babylon
Rembrandt's depiction of the biblical account of Belshazzar seeing "the writing on the wall"
Reign	550–539 BCE
Predecessor	Nabonidus
Successor	Cyrus the Great
Died	5 Oct 539 BCE Babylonia
Issue	Vashti
Father	Nabonidus
Mother	poss. Nitocris of Babylon

1. Belshazzar wasn't king - the title is never used for him, he's called Crown Prince, and he isn't called regent of co-regent either (in the Babylonian documents I mean). He was simply Crown Prince with wide-ranging delegated authority.

2. The birth and death dates are hypothetical - in fact nobody knows when he was born or died. The death is interesting: he simply vanishes from the Babylonian records after 543, and might have been killed then. But certainly there's no convincing evidence that he died in 539.

2a - the source for this is Britanica, but Britannica is a poor source, far too often contradicting good sources - as it does here.

3. Nabonidus wasn't his predecessor. He ruled WITH Nabonidus as a sort of high-ranking subordinate.

4. His "issue" wasn't Vashti - that's later Jewish legend.

5. On his mother (Dougherty is an excellent source, but unfortunately not available online), well, yes, but his grandmother was a far more important figure in his life and in history.

6. Death place Babylonia? Says who? There's no information on this.

Anyway, this should be replaced with an information-box that gives the facts and is well sourced. PiCo (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Edit war

See the discussion at #Book of Daniel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@71.213.70.164: See also #Fictional tale. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nitocris

Nitocris, known to be the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and widow of Nergal-sharezer.--known from where? what's the source?

Well its stuff one finds quoted all over the place, its in Easton's for example. Not sure what the sources used in Easton's are, but I'm guessing its partly Herodotus not only contemporary inscriptions, so maybe this needs to be expanded on: what is said in contemporary inscriptions, in Herodotus and in the Bible. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Googling "Herodotus Nitocris" —as anyone might— I found "Herodotus on Nitocris". Anyone depending on Easton's for history might as well be reading "Chariots of the Gods". I shall add this link to Nitocris. Not that anyone would be rushing to do so... --Wetman 01:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Nitocris of Egypt is different to Nitocris of Baylon if I remember. I also wouldn't trust Easton's although this Nitocris as mother of Bekshazzar one always hears, would be interesting to see what is actually said in the primary sources though. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't find this in any decent source. Catholic Encyclopedia [1] says it is conjecture. Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968) says Daniel must have meant "predecessor" not "father". None of the other references I looked at confirm it, except for "God's Word for the Biblically Inept". It doesn't even make sense. Belshazzar's mother was the widow of Nergal-sharezer? Nergal-sharezer was killed in 556 BC, so presumably Belshazzar wasn't born before then, unless Nitocris was cheating on Nergal-sharezer. Belshazzar was made co-regent in 553 BC. So he was 3 at the time? Pfalstad 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus says that the Babylonian Nitocris was the mother of Labynetos. Labynetos is the name he gives the last king of Babylon defeated by Cyrus as well as to the king that was his father. The name is seemingly a garbled form of Nabonidus making the father the king usually called Nabonidus and the younger Nabonidus his son Belshazzar. That explains part of what Easton's says. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I'm not disputing Nitocris being the mother. I'm disputing Belshazzar's blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Pfalstad 13:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Still trying to find out where this idea comes from Kuratowski's Ghost 13:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia could lay Easton's aside just this once and simply discuss literary Belshazzar and historical Belshazzar. Unnecessarily confused and inaccurate statements might well be omitted. --Wetman 05:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote above is an explanation of where part of the stuff in Easton's comes from. Of course it doesn't mean that Easton's interpretation of Herodotus is correct. Since what Herodotus says about the elder Labynetos matches Nebuchanezzer the current thinking is that the younger Labynetos is Nabonidus not Belshazzar and the elder is indeed Nebuchadnezzer. This would mean that Herodotus is saying that Nitocris is the mother of Nabonidus and that Nabonidus was a son of Nebuchadnezzar. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Browsing various Bible study sites which I had previously tried to avoid, there seems to be many ways of interpreting Herodotus. This site argues that the elder Labynetos is indeed Nabonidus and suggests that Nitocris was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzer. Still don't know why Easton's says it with such conviction or where he gets the widow stuff. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

According to Assyriologists there's no extant documented reason to object to the blood relationship of Nebuchad. and Belshazzar, since the identity of his mother along with her parentage is unknown (see Wiseman, D.J. (2004), Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, pp. 11, 12). In Aramaic and Hebrew "father" and "son" are used of lineal descent; there are no words for grandfather or grandson. Assyriologists take seriously the account of Dan. 5; (see Daugherty, 2008, pp. 193, 194, 199, 200) despite hypocritical treatment by biblical scholars. Assyriologist R.P. Dougherty infers persuasively from the Herodotus account that Nitrocis was plausibly the daughter of Nebuchad. through a high level Egyptian consort: Labynetus is a corruption of Nabonidus and the son mentioned against whom Cyrus the Great conducted a military expedition is therefore Belshazzar, who inherited the name (authority) of his father Nabonidus. See Dougherty (2008), Nabonidus and Belshazzar, pp. 38-43, 65, 193, 194. Proveallthings (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Books are 35 and 89 years old. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. If you have superseding evidence to the contrary, please kindly share it and I will be happy to listen. Otherwise, cting the ages of books is not constructive and won't lead to a collaborative effort on our parts. e.g., Wiseman wrote in 1983; Collins' Daniel, cited three times in the page, is from 1984. That does not mean Collins, a Biblical scholar, is ahead of the Assyriologist, Wiseman, in terms of modern discoveries in Assyriology. But I digress. In my personal estimation, the issue is irrelevant seeing as it was customary for Babylonian and Assyrian kings to refer to their predecessors as fathers. This is widely known to be true of both Nebucadrezzar II and Sargon I, et al. Dougherty's information and analysis to my understanding is still authoritative, hence the demand to put his book back in print. You've expressed strong opinions elsewhere in here; I hope you are open to other points of view. Please see Miller (1994), Daniel, pp. 28-32, for the current problems with the Maccabean Thesis. My edition is newer, but that year is available in books.google.com. This being said, I hope we can work together to write a stronger article. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Pardon me, I intended to write Miller, Daniel, pp. 26-32. Proveallthings (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is the scholarly consensus and it has been the scholarly consensus for over a century now. The Book of Daniel is, in fact, regarded as probably the single book in Old Testament that is most obviously a forgery above all others, due to its anachronistic language, historical errors, inconsistencies, or other details. [2]

See also WP:FRINGE. "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel" is conservative evangelical theology, it isn't history. Also, top 100 US research universities don't buy the story "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel", see WP:CHOPSY. "The Book of Daniel is Maccabean" is a historical hypothesis, so technically, it could be shown to be false. Instead, "Daniel wrote the Book of Daniel" is WP:CB. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both! I disagree that the book should be dated upon its predictive ability: I have seen interpretations that plausibly expound the prophecies all the way through to the dissolution of the western empire without any "failed" prophecies. But the book was clearly written well before that. So I think interpretation alone is not enough. The composition of the language, however, that can be verified based upon the DSS, Elephantine Papyri, etc. demonstrates a date much earlier than the 2nd century. Please cf. Source cited above for a summary: 20 old Persian loan words from the Achaemenid era and no middle persian loan words (m.p. is a form beginning c. 300 BCE), some of which were translated as mere guesswork in the Old Green translation (c. 130 BCE). 12 Akkadian loan words. Only 6 Greek loan words, all instruments, when Greek artisans were known to have traded in Babylon much earlier than the 6th century. The lack of supposedly contemporary Greek loan words from the Seleucid era is striking. The Aramaic is specifically official (imperial) Aramaic that differs significantly from the Aramaic of the Maccabean era and DSS, but is nearly identical to Aramaic documents written between the fifth and seventh centuries, and the Elephantine Papyri. The Hebrew text matches that of Ezekiel, but is also markedly different than the Hebrew from Qumran. There are a number of more detailed and thorough examinations of the languge and other internal considerations but Miller is a good survey. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:ABIAS and WP:RGW. And WP:RS/AC. Wikipedia follows academic learning, and academic learning is represented by what those top 100 US research universities teach as fact. We don't have the option of not following what they teach, so for us it is highly relevant what is taught there. To oversimplify a bit, we are only here in order to record what they teach there. I don't think that the views of a fundamentalist apologist are particularly representative for the views of reputable historians or Bible scholars. In his opinion mainstream Bible scholars are from the Devil. Simply put, what they teach at MABTS is far from WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and Wikipedia's allegiance is to mainstream scholarship. The quote from WP:LUNATICS is applicable to every other academic field. Besides, what editors think has never been a good WP:PAG-based argument; we only care about what mainstream scholars think. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please kindly substantiate your claim where Miller states mainstream scholars are from the devil, otherwise a serious accusation is unwarranted. His main sources, Kenneth A. Kitchen, R.K. Harrison, E.K. Kutscher, Edwin Yamauchi, et al., are not fringe scholars, but eminent and highly respected in their fields. Proper weight is applied to research on the merits of the information presented, not according to the genetic fallacy. Mainstream Biblical scholarship relies on the specialized fields, but tends to lag a generation or more behind. So there is commonly one concensus of Biblical scholars, another of linguists, philologists, and Assyriologists. The Maccabean Thesis, for instance, is from c. 1890-1900 by Koch and Driver. But discoveries since that time have shown their philological analysis was incorrect: discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Elephantine Papyri, numerous advances in papyrology, et al. From my understanding, the most reliable Aramaic scholars agree the Aramaic of Daniel is of a type of eastern Aramaic no earlier than the 5th century. WP:fringe then seems really "not invented here". Additionally, these works do not rank among works about the Loch Ness Monster, the "elusive pleiosaur," crop circles, alien visitors, and homeopathy. It is based upon documented, factual literary evidence. Of course we respect the rules, but we do not use the rules to stifle discourse. I hope to work together. Kindly. If you do not wish to collaborate together constructively, then I will say I hope future conversations elsewhere will fare better. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

About collaborating constructively: I'm all ears. Fulfill the WP:BURDEN that your claim passes the WP:CHOPSY test. You seem to want to use a fringe or tiny minority Bible scholar to show that the bulk of mainstream Bible scholars have gotten it wrong. Wikipedia does not work that way. Generally, inside Wikipedia we rarely say that a claim is true or false, we say instead that it is the consensus view or majority view or minority view or fringe. We rarely discuss about true or false, only in very clear-cut cases. For the rest we discuss about the reputation of the authors, the reputation of the journal, the reputation of the publishing house, retraction, what experts say about that source and other clear and objective parameters that may affect the trust we have in the reliability of that source. When there is no way to know WP:THETRUTH or WP:RS/AC, all notable mainstream opinions should be rendered. We're not a research institute, so we cannot say if a claim is true or false, we may only discuss the reliability of the source. Besides, Bible scholarship is an umbrella term for ANE history. I repeat: fulfill the WP:BURDEN to show that it is a mainstream claim; not mainstream, no edit. See also WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I do not have to show that he stated that, it is what all Southern Baptists think about mainstream Bible scholarship (see the 2012 resolution). "Bible scholars and higher critics sow the seeds of unbelief; deceit and apostasy follow them wherever they go."—that's what every good Christian fundamentalist thinks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted from Talk:Adam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but I feel perhaps you are being disingenuous about collaberation. Since you are personally responsible for the vast majority of edits on the Academic bias essay, including the inclusion of the CHOPS(Y) test in 2013, it seems very self-serving to cite it here. I would classify your approach affectionately as "Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection", requiring that every source is filtered through the subjective approval of only six specific institutions to meet your criteria (e.g., above it was the top 100 Academic Universities, now narrowed to six). I doubt most editors will run their sources by each of these institutions for approval, so it is hard to see it as anything more than a disincentive to edit. And you have a consistently voiced bias against Christianity and not wanting to be associated with the "absurdities of the bible," and yet I see you are active in bible related pages. So in terms of bias you don't, IMHO, pass the Duck Test. Understandably, we all have bias, myself included, so I mean no real ill by this, just to tell it like I see it. But opposing views challenge one another and spur progress; stifling discourse produces stagnation. Forgive me for not sourcing above: Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel", pp. 78-79. "[The Aramaic of Daniel] is, in itself, as long and generally agreed, integrally a part of that Imperial Aramaic which gathered impetus from at least the seventh century BC and was in full use until c. 300 BC" p. 79. In Wiseman, Notes on Some Problems in the book of Daniel. His work is the current standard. I hope my plainness of speaking does not offend you. I admire your zeal. Can we pick this up at a later time? Family affairs demand my attention. Thank you for your time this far. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot, Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon, pp. 13, 17, 18, 89-94. Proveallthings (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

First, WP:ABIAS isn't policy or guideline; it was designed as a quick heuristic explanation for what Wikipedia is about, so that newbies know what they should be up to. WP:RNPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are WP:RULES. You have never pledged to obey our WP:RULES. The moment to do it is now. Anyway, all your edits are performed under the legal obligation to comply with WP:RULES. On the English Wikipedia I was accused of writing ads for born-again Christians, while on the Romanian Wikipedia I was accused of being outright Anti-Christian. How can that be? Well, I follow WP:SOURCES, I do not push my own opinions, I can "write for the adversary" (WP:ENEMY). Characterizing me as a POV-pusher (other than for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship) is a personal attack, see WP:NPA. In fact, I am neither the most learned nor the most aggressive editor in this area, I am however very thorough with violations of WP:RULES. About those six universities: the claim should not be booed off the stage, am I asking too much? Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This is in response to your post on the Leonora Piper talk page which has been reverted. Kazuba, I'm sorry to drop into the middle of this but I saw your post and it intrigued me. I think one of the greatest mysteries in the Internet is "What is Wikipedia for?" Quite a few people have tried to edit Wikipedia believing it to be the place to put your findings and your research so that others can see them. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia was built for. Others try and post what they have seen to be the "truth", again they will find themselves getting reverted because that's not a goal of Wikipedia. I guess the best way to describe it is "The Largest Collection In The World". Wikipedia collects all the other knowledge and puts it in one place so it can be referenced. You express above your love and talent for research - I thinks that's wonderful. We need people like you because we already have enough people like me (I can't find my socks on my feet). The issue would be putting that research on Wikipedia, so long as it's in a book or over-sighted article, fine. If not, you'll get push-back. Also, we have to present both sides of an argument. There's no way to quantify how famous a person is, so Wikipedia tries to stay away from determining who's more or less popular. To say that a thing was very popular is one thing, to compare it to other things that may also be popular is different. Even statements like the ones in the section on "Phinuit" are a bit too far. There are statements that refer to "Phinuit" as a doctor and that his French wasn't very good... That's intimating that "Phinuit" is a real person who could be a doctor and know French. Since there's never been any evidence proving this all we can do is refer to it as "the entity Mrs. Piper referred to as Phinuit". These are some of the restrictions placed on us by Wikipedia, they make it so the stuff we add to an article is concrete and cited to other sources so Wikipedia doesn't get in trouble for "making up stuff". I understand your indignation, I have an article about my father on this site and I can't add several things to it because they are not written down anywhere. I lived with the man for 15 years... was raised by him... ate his cooking... but I can't say "he had one brown eye and one green eye" because it's not written somewhere else. Please don't loose heart, try and stick around and if you need help presenting an argument, please leave a message on mytalk page and we'll work it out together. Padillah (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In short: the word of a fundamentalist Bible professor is not enough for such WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. That there were older sources behind the Book of Daniel is no secret to the mainstream; however it was essentially compiled in the 2nd century BCE. "There were older sources" is much more compliant with Occam's razor than "he saw the future". So make an educated guess about which explanation would be by default preferred by historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

— Bart Ehrman, ehrmanblog.org

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Cyropaedia

Nowhere Cyropedia says that the name of the king is Belshazzar, therefore claiming that it does is original research. At least speaking of the translation at [3]. Besides, Seow is crystal-clear that Belshazzar did not function as king. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Belshazzar given title of King?

Hello I hope we can discuss and understand why my edits are rolled back here. Also apologies but I am not expert in using the wikipedia coding but I try to copy other examples. :)

First I changed this sentence: "Belshazzar never became king, although the Book of Daniel gives him that title." to this: "Belshazzar never became king, although the Book of Daniel and Cyropaedia (Book VII; C.5; lines 28, 32, 33) give him that title". Then I also included a citation to one already in the article, the Dakyns translation of Cyropedia. The lines from the citatoin (Book VII; C.5; lines 28,32,33) say this from gutenberg.org:

line 28: "As the din grew louder and louder, those within became aware of the tumult, till, the king bidding them see what it meant, some of them opened the gates and ran out." line 32: "While they carried out these orders, Gobryas and Gadatas returned, and first they gave thanks to the gods and did obeisance because they had been suffered to take vengeance on their unrighteous king, and then they fell to kissing the hands and feet of Cyrus, shedding tears of joy and gratitude." line 33: "And when it was day and those who held the heights knew that the city was taken and the king slain, they were persuaded to surrender the citadel themselves." Also line 29 I saw just now: "Gadatas and his men, seeing the gates swing wide, darted in, hard on the heels of the others who fled back again, and they chased them at the sword's point into the presence of the king."

In all three lines, the context is referring to Belshazzar. And I wrote the sentence to be similar to these two sentences in the same wikipedia page, which simply mention the word used to translate an ancient document: "The inscriptions of the Edict of Balshazzar (YBT 6 103) gives Belshazzar the title "crown prince".[9] The Aramaic Qumran scroll 4Q243 fragment 2; Lines 1–2 names Belshazzar as vice-regent in Babylon during the absence of Nabonidus.(Dan. 5:1–30).[10]"

---

Second, I updated this sentence: "(Belshazzar was never king)." to say the following: "(Belshazzar is not identified as king in extant Babylonian literature)."

The former sentence is not what the cited source says. The original source material from c.l.Seow says this: "Bleshazzar governed the kingdom in his father's absence, although he is never called 'king' in any of the documents from Babylon." The author does not state Belshazzar was not a king, it states we have no documents using that title. The existing phrase is promoting a point of view not in the source material, my new edit accurately paraphrases the cited author.

---

Can User:tgeorgescu or anyone else help explain me why these are rolled back? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.33.190 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You have certainly missed my above message with Seow being crystal-clear that Belshazzar did not function as king. Do you need a full quotation or are able to read that for yourself and acknowledge it? Also, Cyropaedia never says (AFAIK) something like "and the name of this king was Belshazzar". So citing Cyropaedia does not verify the claim that that king was Belshazzar, that is just your own analysis of the WP:PRIMARY historical source, which is prohibited by WP:OR. So, Cyropaedia does not call Belshazzar "king", and even if it did, it would be a fallacy of relevance since the book is a mix of historical events with fantasy. "All these factors have led classical scholars of the Cyropaedia to judge it as a work of fiction, with scarcely any historical content." Quote from [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious that Belshazzar is the king present when Babylon is captured by Cyrus, and that the Cyropaedia therefore calls Belshazzar king, though this does indeed need a citation from a secondary source. I'm not sure how Cyropaedia being partially fictitious makes it less suitable to mention than Daniel though. The existing statement about Daniel isn't used to say that Belshazzar was a king, but that that source refers to him that way, and the proposed change regarding the Cyropaedia (provided a suitable secondary source is provided for the remaining but fairly trivial ambiguity) isn't any different.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Tgeorgescu, it took me a long time to type my post here and you posted your very short one before me so I did not see it. I am not trying to be hostile, I don't understand why you would be so negative about my reading ability. I am sorry for whatever I said to make you insult me Tgeorgescu.

On the Cyropedia source already given, in the footnote of VII.C.5.15, the translator Dakyns says this is in reference to the Feast of Belshazzar from the book of Daniel. That is why my note says the context establishes who is the "king" mentioned there, and this is the translator's opinion not mine so I didn't think it is original research. As User talk:Jeffro77 mentions, this makes it clear in the citation. Again apologies for however I have offended you so vigorously. I found other citations from academics who believe Cyropedia does refer to Belshazzar as king, for example William Shea at Andrews University on page 140-143 discusses how Belshazzar had become king by the time of this event (PDF located here: https://www.andrews.edu/library/car/cardigital/Periodicals/AUSS/1982-2/1982-2-05.pdf). If it is a better citation then I can link it in this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.33.190 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Shea is that Adventists are pretty WP:FRINGE. If a mainstream WP:SECONDARY source can be cited, please do. Imho, Xenophon does not say that the king would be Belshazzar, although this could be inferred by scholars who second guess him. So, the scene of the feast (whether legendary or historical) is there, the name Belshazzar isn't. So you cannot say that Xenophon called Belshazzar a king, but you may say that this or that scholar stated that by that king Xenophon meant Belshazzar. Of course, this has to pass WP:DUE. My comment about full quotation is that you WP:CHERRYPICKed quotes from Seow, making him to say something else than he meant: he meant that Belshazzar is not called "king" in any Babylonian source and that Belshazzar did not perform the ritual religious duties expected and required of a king. But I agree with Jeffro77 that if Belshazzar was called king in one or in two works of fiction, it is not an essential difference — and it isn't a really happened historical fact. To draw the line: you may state that Belshazzar was called a king in the Book of Daniel and maybe implicitly in Cyropaedia, but you are not allowed to state that he was really a king, unless providing WP:EXTRAORDINARY evidence. Or else we would have something like "The real existence of Baron Munchausen is corroborated by Harry Potter." Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP editor didn't actually make any explicit edit asserting that Belshazzar was a king. They only added that Cyropaedia also calls him a king, and that he isn't called a king in extant documents. I don't like the implication made by the second of those changes, but some of your responses seem reflexive, probably influenced by previous editors trying to make a more solid case for the Cyropaedia as factual.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"So you cannot say that Xenophon called Belshazzar a king, but you may say that this or that scholar stated that by that king Xenophon meant Belshazzar."

Even better. Xenophon does not speak of warfare between Cyrus and a king of Babylon. He is speaking about a king of Assyria. Check again the link you provided: "in books 4­-6 the wars against Assyria. These accounts of military matters are enlivened by stories apparently borrowed from eastern narrative traditions, for example, the story of Gobryas and his feud with the Assyrian king (4.6.2-7) and the famous romance of Panthea and Abradatas (4.6.11, 5.1.1-18, 6.1.31-50, 6.4.2-11, 7.3.2-­15). In book 7 the final battle against “Assyria” (7.1), the capture of Sardis (7.2-4.14), and the conquest of Babylon through a diversion of the Euphrates (7.5.7­--17) are related."

Apparently Xenophon makes other historical errors in his narrative. He attributes to Cyrus the conquest of Egypt, which other ancient sources attribute to Cambyses II. There is also a number of contradictions between Herodotus and Xenophon. Herodotus reports that Cyrus was killed in battle, while Xenophon claims that Cyrus died of old age and natural causes. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't use the Cyropedia and other ancient sources, use modern histories, like Seow and Briant. Briant is probably best.PiCo (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There are prominent Assyriologists who understand the 'king' killed in Xenophon's Cyropaedia as a reference to Belshazzar. Nabinidus was routed at Opis, and fled with a small retinue to Sippar. When Sippar was taken without battle he fled to Borsippa, and was there when Babylon fell. Belshazzar, however, was at Babylon when it was taken and so was the queen mother. They were holed up with a trove of cultic statues gathered from various cities of Sumer and Akkad in preceding months (until the end of Elul), and celebrating the Harran Akitu (religious) Festival when armies led by Gubarru, at Cyrus'orders,snuck in through a waterway and took the city without battle. Belshazzar was killed. Nabonidus returned to surrender at Babylon days later. So goes the scenario. For these historic considerations, Xenophon's'king' as Belshazzar, see P.-A Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C. Yale University Press, pp. 230, 231; Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Yale/Wipf & Stock reprint, pp. 174, 175, 182-185. For the ordering to Babylon of the cultic statues, see Beaulieu, "An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, pp. 241-261 (updates and supersedes Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, pp. 223-227). Also, general history, Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (2000), pp. 21, 32; 109-111. Beaulieu and Dougherty are the standard specialized references for the reign of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, and consistently cited sources in modern publications. Ancient historians make mistakes. Herodotus is certainly no exception, either. I could easily compose a list of comparable in length to that posted above, because Xenophon vs. Herodotus is an old historic flame war. What seems much ado here about Xenophon is standard fare. We look at the bones of the history; dialogue that may or may not have happened and some events out of place just happen in ancient histories. Does not invalidate the whole work. It's laborious work. Some accounts are based on truth, but garbled with time. So modern historians look for the underlying truth. That had been done with Xenophon in this particular. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Dougherty? Told you that's too old for a WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

And I still disagree. The germane policy is WP:RS AGE, "Be sure to check older sources have not been superseded". Otherwise, every editor will have their own arbitrary expiry date on sources, which can tend toward recentism. So again if you yourself have superseding information, please kindly share it and I will listen. As it stands, Beaulieu's the best source for Nabonidus and Belshazzar, is current, and his work strengthens Dougherty's (still standard reading) so yes, Dougherty still qualifies as WP:RS. But we can just disagree. Your point of contention was that it was WP:OR to identify the king of Cyropaedia with Belshazzar, so I was providing the best sources to the extent of showing it's not OR. Let's please leave it at that. Cheers! Proveallthings (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We have to render the WP:RS/AC from 2018 AD, not from 1929 AD. That's 89 years difference. That isn't recentism. Recentism is preferring minority sources from 2018 to reputable sources from 2010-2015. Also the rub is: Belshazzar was never king, despite whatever Cyropedia may imply. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Since the topic was satisfactorally addressed (I have said Beaulieu, a prominent Assyriologist, is current, and you will find him associating the 'king' of Cyropaedia with Belshazzar, and particularly laying out the scenario above as a matter of history, sans waterway reference, which is generally recognized history), there is not much more in this present topic that needs to be said: It is not WP:OR, contra your assertion, to associate the 'king' in Cyropaedia with Belshazzar, since it is an inference of mainstream scholars. I don't alter talk comments, so citations are still above as originally provided. Please take the time to read and verify. "Nabonidus formally entrusted Belshazzar with kingship (sarrutu) upon his departure for the west and Arabia" and there was a division of royal prerogatives between himself and his father, and he performed kingly functions. See Bealieu, Reign of Nabonidus, pp. 185-203. The latter years of his reign, oaths, always sworn by gods and kings, are sworn "by the majesty of Nabonidus and Belshazzar" (p. 190). See Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, pp. 74, 75. Belshazzar "enjoyed the powers" of king, and "his father had in practice 'entrusted the kingship into his hand.'" Proveallthings (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: "Kingship" means "the position, office, or dignity of a king" (Merriam Webster) Proveallthings (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)