Talk:Cyaxares II

message: A significant amount of material was recently added to this article, much of it being unsourced, and apparently based largely on speculation and editor opinion, in additions to problems with tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have begun a copyedit, but I do not have time to review the remaining sections at the moment. If no one else is able to do so, I will continuing the copyedit later.
If the contributing editor disagrees with various changes that have been made, that editor must provide valid citations for the various conclusions made that appear to be conclusions drawn by the editor which constitute original research.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have correctly identified just why it is a straw man argument. Specifically, Berossus does not identify Darius the Mede and nor does Harpocration, so the claim about whether Harpocration relied on Berossus' statement being a 'two-edged sword' is not a valid argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: It is appropriate to indicate that a specific source has a specific view regardless of whether or not that view is supernatural (though such statements must be within the bounds of Wikipedia principles regarding matters such as undue weight and pseudoscience), but it is not appropriate for an article to use 'Wikipedia's voice' to assert that "critical" views are supposedly 'anti-supernatural' or to suggest that such views should be dismissed on those grounds.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Various  templates have already been added in the sections where a copyedit has already been performed. The number of citations that you have provided is not the issue. The problem is that you have provided sources for some material, but then drawn your own conclusions that are either not supported by those sources, or not properly attributed to any source. When I have sufficient time to address the remainder, similar tags will be added to the rest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I would welcome anyone who could present the mainstream view better. What is not presented in this matter is the considerable body of evidence in favor of the minority view. What should be important is not what is 'majority' or 'minority', but what the evidence is. If there is some evidence that is omitted or distorted, that should be corrected. Of course it is always in order to mention what the consensus is, and I have tried to do that. Where would we be if only mainstream evidence is presented for any topic? Chronic2 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing evidence from sources is fine. But much of what you have added appears to be your conclusions, which is original research. Even where you have mentioned the mainstream view, it is predominantly in a dismissive tone. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to 'defend' minority views. I have added an  tag to elicit review by other editors who are experts in the field.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Still working through the second part of the copyedit, and there are serious POV problems. The article is using 'Wikipedia's voice' to argue against what actually seems to be the mainstream view. This seriously calls into question whether the recent addition of information—much of which appears to be original research—adequately presents the arguments against his existence, particularly since even the 'against' section is dominated with apologetics in favour of what does not seem to be the mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome anyone who could present the mainstream view better. What is not presented in this matter is the considerable body of evidence in favor of the minority view. What should be important is not what is 'majority' or 'minority', but what the evidence is. If there is some evidence that is omitted or distorted, that should be corrected. Of course it is always in order to mention what the consensus is, and I have tried to do that. Where would we be if only mainstream evidence is presented for any topic? Chronic2 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing evidence from sources is fine. But much of what you have added appears to be your conclusions, which is original research. Even where you have mentioned the mainstream view, it is predominantly in a dismissive tone. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to 'defend' minority views. I have added an  tag to elicit review by other editors who are experts in the field.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2

message: The date of 559 BC for the overthrow of Astyages is used consistently in this article, but it seems mistaken.  Cyrus became co-rex with his father in 560 BC, and only two years later did he become sole-rex, just of Anshan. Most chroniclers date the fall of Astyages to 550 BC, nine years later than the date given in this article. Cadwallader (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  559 Date for overthrow of Astyages