Talk:Cyrus the Great/Archive 1

message: The transliteration of Cyrus's name as given at the top of the article would be "Koroush Kabir."  But "kabir" is an Arabic word.  Wouldn't they have called him something else in pre-Arab times? Like "Koroush Bozorg?" Or did they use some form of "Kabir" via Aramaic.  --Jpbrenna 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another thing... 

message: Just a question: who was Cyrus married to? I can't find anything about it! I know some of his daughters and his mother, but I cannot find ANYTHING about his wife! Please answer in the space below.
Wife's name:
How old she was when married Cyrus:
Wife's native country:
Wife's birth and death date:
I removed the above from the top of the page.  See the Article History for more info.
--Jpbrenna 17:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure if this was an HW assignment or a suggestion for making the article better... 

message: Jguk has reverted again, with the edit summary "rv - restore consistency (per policy) and use original authors style (as recommended as a last resort by policy."  I request that he specify what policy he is refering to.  Please direct me to it in case I have overlooked something. Sunray 19:57, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
:Jguk is clearly not respecting the views of Jpbrenna who is a major contributor to this article and refuses to discuss this on the talk page appropriately, instead choosing to revert to what he prefers (and he is not a contributor). SouthernComfort 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing discussion on dates and numbers

message: User:Jpbrenna/Achaemenid - Comments?
--Jpbrenna 21:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achaemenid To Do/Policy 

message: I object to this sentence in the opening paragraph:
:He is perhaps best known for having declared the first ever charter of human rights (the Cyrus Cylinder)
For the following reasons:
#The Cyrus Cylinder is not a "charter".
#The Cyrus Cylinder has nothing to do with human rights.
#In no way is Cyrus the Great "best known" for issuing it.
--JW1805 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you saying? Slavery in Persian Empire? As Cyrus the Great said in his cylinder, he mentioned that i payed all those who worked for me. That was what separated Persians and Greeks. And Cyrus cylinder was the first inscription of human rights. 2500 years ago someone wrote an inscription like this. It's not supposed to be like the human rights of these days. (The One We Call God 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As it is mentioned here: I prevent unpaid, forced labor. READ please. (The One We Call God 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrus Cylinder 

message: I think it's very important to add Persian spelling of Cyrus the Great, since he's is Persian. Thank You. (The One We Call God 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did you guys erase the Persian writing of Cyrus' name? 

message: Dumb question....
Is his tomb now empty? When was it emptied out? And what happened to his body? PatrickJ83 09:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His tomb.... 

message: Your censorship and anti-shepherdic behavior is embarassing. Just see google for evidence that he was a shepherd. Togrol 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Google does seem to suggest that there is a legend describing Cyrus raised as a shepherd, similar to the story of Oedipus. This seems to be present in the article, under the King of Persia section. It just never explicitly explains that he was raised as a shepherd. But him being raised as a shepherd and his name meaning shepherd are two different things entirely. On my google search, i did find a number of sites, such as baby name sites, that stated that Cyrus means shepherd in Hebrew, of all languages. They offered no etymology, and i checked my Hebrew dictionary to be sure - the Hebrew word for Cyrus is Koresh, and it wasn't in the dictionary, nor did any related words mean shepherd. If anyone can shed any light... СПУТНИКССС Р 12:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He both raised as a shepherd and his name means shepherd. http://www.greatcommission.com/Daniel.pdf Nothing is said about shepherd in the article. Togrol 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No rersistance please! It is sourced. Togrol 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What source exactly? The source you have provided says the root of the word Cyrus means shepherd, and compares it to Jesus. Although it does mention something about it being an elamite word, but it doesn't provide any reliable sources to say this. See WP:V, in a dispute source has to be of STRONG reliablity and verifiable. In this case the document is not about Cyrus but a Jewish prophet, and has nothing to do with linguistic roots of the word Cyrus. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In its 89th page it explains the cyrus means shepherd. It is enough and verifiable. In adition to that here is another evidence. Togrol 13:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not a strong linguistic source to claim what it means. The second source is contradictory!:
"The name Cyrus means shepherd, in Hebrew the name is koresh (from which David Koresh of Branch Davidian fame coined his name)."
It says it in Hebrew it is Koresh and claims its the hebrew it is talking about not the Elamite. -- -  K a s h  Talk | email 13:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute on censoring Cyrus, The Great Shepherd

message: It's ok to cite the cylinder here, but the full-text version belongs at Wikisource. --Jpbrenna 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cylinder transcript 

message: Alrighty. That took a while, but I managed to clean up the article, add a lot of information, add in footnotes and actual references, the Template:Infobox Military Person box à la Alexander the Great, got rid of the now-useless "see also" section, etc. Don't get me wrong, this isn't even CLOSE to being a Good article yet. So, my fellow Wikipedians, I ask of you to join me in my crusade (*ahem*), in improving this article all the way to Featured Article status. So, let's get cracking! ♠ SG →Talk 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just did a huge cleanup. 

message: I have filed a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The details for which are as follows, copied from the RfC page:
:Cyrus the Great is in an edit war between myself, User:SG, and User:Spahbod. We have reached the three-revert-rule, and so the article is in a state of limbo for the next little while. Here is my revert: , the reasons for which are the fact that the additions made are poorly written and that the images are NOT free (licensed as GPL, when they clearly are not). The images in question are :Image:2500 sal4.jpg and :Image:Cyrus3.jpg. I have tagged them as improperly licensed, but Spahbod continues to revert my tagging. The discussions for this can be found on our user talk pages at: User_talk:SG#Cyrus_the_great and User_talk:Spahbod#Recent_image_uploads.
♠ SG →Talk 05:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An update from me, it is highly likely that I used the wrong template to tag the above images. Nevertheless, they are incorrectly tagged as GPL. ♠ SG →Talk 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe SG is correct. These images are clearly not GFDL. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria before uploading any additional images from other websites. The sites in question do in fact have copyright statements which allow for limited non-commercial use. Wikipedia does not allow images under that rationale. (see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Non-commercial licenses.) It is possible that the images might be used under fair use, if they conform to Wikipedia's policy on that, but there are conditions for that which you will find at the previous links. KWH 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses, which might be clearer. KWH 06:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read all of the above links on Wikipedia copyright policy. Also, let me know the other images from those sites with the same summaries. Thank you. KWH 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment filed 

message: sg i am glad you chosen to be cooperative with other editors. Good choice, --Spahbod ☼ 22:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem being cooperative with others. I'm sorry that you interpreted my actions as hostile, but rules are rules, and images need to be tagged properly. I don't appreciate your constant telling me that I will be blocked, but I would appreciate it if you would explain why you reverted the images in the article. ♠ SG →Talk 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You've threatened me many times about being blocked, and I've yet to see anything emerge. I suggest you read the page history and look at the reason for my edit. And we don't "say Achaemenid empire is a subcat" – it IS a subcat, therefore ONLY the subcat needs to be added, that's how MediaWiki works.♠ SG →Talk 02:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines, #3 in particular. By the way, you made me realize that :Category:Achaemenid dynasty is in fact a subcategory of :Category:Persian history, so I've removed the latter and replaced it with the only category you rightfully added, :Category:History of Iran. Finally, do you have a reason for using :Category:Figures in Zoroastrian history? It has not been in use since its creation, and doesn't seem to be supported by WikiProject Zoroastrianism. ♠ SG →Talk 02:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization and images 

message: The implication that Alexander was called the Great because he was King of Persia requires citation. If this is not true, he doesn't belong here at all. Septentrionalis 16:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded about this on the FAC. The section has been removed, so all should be well. ♠ SG →Talk 04:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexander the Great

message: WP:DATE says: When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. 
This article has used BC since 2004; any effort to import the date wars here will be reverted, exactly as Anglo-American usage wars would be. Septentrionalis 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Wars

message: This is the current critic at Assessement for the A-class:
The last paragraphs of the conquest of Lydia should be reveised to correct the Pactyes/Pactyas mix up, wich is hte real one or are they two different people. Also in the prior paragraph the pointform of Cyrus' conquest of Croesus should be worked over. As well, why is it mentionned "including Syria and Palestine", their modern names, while the rest of the article speaks of the states and territories' names as known then? Lastly the map should be moved higher in the article, due to all the movements and cities mentioned (If possible indicating these cities would be appeaciated) Could anyone here look to implementing the changes? --Dryzen 15:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Cyrus the Great]] 

message: There used to be a period, somewhere at the mid-twentieth century, in which it was believed that monotheism was preached by Zarathustra, and that these teachings became popular in Iran during the age of Darius. There may be an element of truth in this, but there are several reconsiderations.
* There is no direct evidence - we simply have no texts in Persian from the age of Cyrus because the script was invented by Darius;
* The only Babylonian text (the Cyrus Cylinder) is polytheistic;
* No serious scholar maintains that Zoroastrianism was the sole religion of Iran. There is strong evidence for religious pluriformity (e.g., the Zoroastrian burial practice -exposure- was not used by the Achaemenid kings) and the idea that one nation must have one religion is, of course, nice for a tyranny, which Cyrus did not establish. (Cf. the Christian religions, which have the same God, scripture, etc, but are completely different. Likewise, the fact that Darius mentions Ahuramazda does not make him a Zoroastrian.)
Finally, it must be noted that the idea that Zarathustra was important, was created in Germany to show that not the Jews, but an Aryan nation had invented monotheism. This of course does not mean that it was not an Iranian invention, but must make us skeptical
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jona Lendering (talk • contribs) 09:54, November 21, 2006.
*That sounds fine to me. By the way, glad to have you working on this article. Your website was the main resource I used when I began rewriting this article. Oh, and don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. ♠ SG →Talk 21:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrus and Zoroastrianism 

message: Have you read this? --Striver 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool

message: Your argument is utterly nonesensical. The suffix 'the Great' is derived from Great King. 
Alexander got this title from the Achaemenids. If you can't understand the link between Great King and "the Great", you must have Downs syndrome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mehrshad123 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fact, as far as I know, the sufix "the Great" is not related with the Persian title "Great King". All the Persian kings used this title (see Kent, Old Persian, quoted online here ), but only three (Cyrus II, Darius I, and occasionally Xerxes I) are know in monern times as "the Great". Please, don't revert Jona Lendering's contributins anymore. --Amizzoni 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mershad123: Arguments are better than insults. All Mesopotamian kings were called "great king".
You and Jona are both leaving yourself wide open for insults.
(a)  Cyrus the Great is not a "Mesopotamian King" - If you dont know that, then you have no business editing these       articles!
(b)  Which Mesopotamian king was ever called "the great"??  Again please stop this stupid game and Read a book.
You have no idea what you are talking about and are essentially vandals.--Mehrshad123 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no need to insult me. Nor is there need to discuss that Cyrus Cylinder, which calls the supreme god Marduk and is written in Akkadian by a Babylonian scribe for a Babylonian audience, is part of Mesopotamian tradition; likewise, every king since Sargon is called "the Great". Either you prove that the link that I removed is to a better translation than the one here, or you back off.Jona Lendering 18:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jona please stop vandalizing. 

message: A link to a site about "Cyrus As A Potential Messiah" has been readded to this article. It was originally inserted by , whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been to add links to the aletheiacollege website. Generally an external link is not used when an internal link already covers the topic (Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition). Unless the experienced editors here think it is important, I don't see a purpose here other than as part of a linkspam campaign. I will remove it again but look for responses from anyone who asserts its importance to this article. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I don't see the purpose of having that external link while we still have the internal article for Cyrus in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which discusses the topic in a more encyclopedic manner rather than strictly religious. ♠ SG →Talk 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrus As A Potential Messiah link 

message: Surena recently removed and changed some of the images in the article. Though the changes were good, the removals I'm having a harder time agreeing with.
I can understand the removal of the homa griffin, though I have argued this before, and the image was kept. But Croesus, why would that be deleted?
Now, as for the tomb image, I'm not sure. I like the fact that it is a more whole photo of the tomb, but the one we had previously had two greater aspects to it: a much higher resolution and the people in the photograph served as a measurement; looking at the current image, I can't really see how massive the tomb is.
The relief photo is a bit better, since it allows us to actually see it in more detail due to the shadows. I think it needs a crop and color balance adjustment, but I'll get to that later. ♠ SG →Talk 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SG, I don't see the relevancy of the griffin-capital image here, which is allegedly being called Homā. Homā (i.e. Av. Sen-Mūrv, NPer: Simorgh), is a mythical bird, and no archaeologist or historian has ever connected the Persepolitan-capital with the mythical bird! With regard to Croesus image, this is an artist impression, which has no historical value or relevancy to be used in this article as example -- Anyhow, I'm not going to delete them since you like them. Surena 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I have added another image to the article with people in the photograph served as a measurement. Surena 06:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, very nice. I just rewrote the caption as prose to go along with the other image descriptions in the article, but I really like the addition. Great work. ♠ SG →Talk 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The article was vandalized by SG again after much time was taken in undoing the damages from the previous edits.   
I will forward a request to Wikipedia admin to have his IP address banned in response to several months of continuouss large-scale vandalism on this article and the usage of profane language.
Regards.Mehrshad123 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy shit is a common expression. I guess Wikipedia needs to ban itself for containing articles about "profane language". ♠ SG →Talk 01:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies to anyone who made edits after Feb.7 

message: This is a quote from the page, "Cyrus also had several daughters, of which two would marry Darius the Great, Artystone[9] and Atossa. The latter is significant, as she gave birth to Xerxes I, Darius' successor.[10]" 
What doesnt make sense is that, it says two of the daughters married 3 of the men. Maybe its just worded incorrectly, but it needs fixing. Peoplez1k 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is not clear. What it tries to mean is that two of Cyrus' daughters (Atossa and Artystone) married the future king Darius I. I'll write it in another way, but feel free to change it if you find a better one.--Amizzoni 22:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake about his daughters 

message: Now, here is the problem. You are correct; generally, if it is sourced, it is fine. But there is a guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, while not a mandatory rule, it is excellent at avoiding conflict between editors. I myself do not consider Cyrus Kar a reliable source, because, per the official policy of using questionable sources:
I find Cyrus Kar's view on the Battle of Thermopylae to be rather extreme, comparing Leonidas and the Spartans to bin Laden. He has provided no sources for his arguments, as if pulling them straight out of thin air.
I WILL support your addition of Thomas Jefferson having read Cyropaedia, IF, and only if you can find proper sources regarding it. ♠ SG →Talk 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not quote Cyrus Kar. The references I made to are Ted Koppel and a scholar from West Point Military Academy. Their direct quotes only appear on the Kar video clip. That's why I'm asking you to restore the section. If you wish, we can leave out the Kar link. The entire paragraph still stands untouched and adequately sourced.--Zereshk 18:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Jefferson Cyropaedia claims 

message: As it now reads, the article can easily be read to say that Cyrus is an Achaemenidian.  How-ever, see Rollinger 2007 (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-02-46.html#n3): "Cyrus and Cambyses I are Teispids and should not be confused with the Achaemenids of Darius' line. See Robert Rollinger, Der Stammbaum des achaimenidischen Königshauses oder die Frage der Legitimität der Herrschaft des Dareios. In: Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30 [1998 (99)], 155-209, and most recently D. T. Potts, Cyrus the Great and the Kingdom of Anshan. In: Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis and Sarah Stewart (eds), Birth of the Persian Empire (The Idea of Iran, Vol. 1), London 2005, 7-28."
:Achaemenid or Achaemenian, but not Achaemenidian! :P Yes, and see also M. Waters, "Cyrus and the Achaemenids", Iran 42 (2004), in http://www.achemenet.com/ (> ressources > sous presse); he gives more references in note 6. Of course it is not a fact, but a references to this discussion would be great in the "Dynastic history" section. Amizzoni 17:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achaemenidian? 

message: The end of the first paragraph claims that "The empire expanded under his rule, eventually conquering most of Southwest Asia, much of Central Asia, and up to the Indus River, to create the largest nation the world had yet seen" and a source is cited. http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/cyrus.html . However, this statement has two issues:
1. The cited source makes no such claim. A broad claim like this needs a strong citation, as this kind of superlative language ("the biggest", "one of the most..." etc) is used flippantly around here and ultimately makes these articles devoid of meaning. I'm not saying the Persian empire wasn't the largest the world had yet seen, but that there has to be a valid source for this claim. The source does back up the statement about the regions that were conquered, but it makes no comment about the overall size of the resulting empire.
2. It is a stretch to call the ancient Persia empire a "nation." The nation itself would've been where Cyrus came from, but I think most people would agree that conquered territories aren't instantly assimilated into the "nation." Nation has more to do with cultural and linguistic regions than political boundaries.
Just some thoughts- I'm not going to change anything because I've never edited this page before and don't want to just jump in... --Canjecricketer 11:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why, but someone moved that source there. A while back it was sourcing something else in the lead. Regardless, I've changed "nation" to "state" and I've attributed a proper source. 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The largest nation the world had yet seen" is potentially misleading. 

message: : I disagree, this is certainly relevant. Amizzoni 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles about rulers usually deal not only with them in a strict sense, but with their rule as well. Specially in the case of ancient rulers, it is difficult to separate what he do "as a person" and what he do as a ruler. I mean that where to place a capital city is a matter of government, that is, a kind of thing we can expect to find in an article about a ruler. Even more if Cyrus was the one who built it. And doing a quick web search, I see that people are not much reluctant to call it Cyrus' capital or Cyrus' residence    . Amizzoni 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are comparing chapter 20 of a book to the lead of an encyclopedia entry. It absolutely deserves mention that he commissioned Pasargadae (and possibly Persepolis) to be built during his lifetime, and that Pasargadae, while under construction, became the capital of his new empire some time after his reign began. However, not in the lead. It seems to me that we're just trying to pack too much information into the introduction, whereas details like this could be used to expand the rest of the article. ♠ SG →Talk 06:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provisionally added the Pasargadae allusion to the Dynastic History section. A better place would be a section regarding Cyrus building activities or something like that, but I think it's ok where it is for now. I also made some corrections and additions in the same section. Amizzoni 20:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually a good idea. He should have built or at least commissioned much of the structures from the beginning of the empire, like Pasargadae and the Second Temple. We should make a list here on the talk page with various things Cyrus is reputed to have built from all the sources we can find, then we can turn the list into prose and add it to the article. ♠ SG →Talk 21:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Didn't have the time to read the entire article, but the term Bozorg or Bozurg actually refers to an elderly person of acclaim, not necessarily translates to 'great' as in english connotation.  But then I am not an expert, so leave this here for further research.  Unslung 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in actual Farsi, and Iran, we call him Kabir, same for Alexander, so that's how Great is translated.Pejmany (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pasargadae]]

message: "Vengeance" was not a referenced motive by historians for Cyrus' attack against the Massagetae.  It was expansionism typical of his career.  Vengeance was, however, a major motive for Tomyris' retaliation against Cyrus.
The site popularly known as the tomb of Cyrus is not definitively accepted as the actual site where he was interred, and indication of that is now given.
The term "regnal years" regarding cuneiform needs somekind of explanation, reference, or wikilink on the subject.  As it stood, it was a term with no context and made little apparent sense by itself.
The death section uses numbers 26 and 27 as citations.  I have removed statements which are not supported by those citations or the Tomyris article, with the exception of 26 and its statement about Croesius' advice.  The source doesn't illustrate the claim that Croesius advised Cyrus to advance into the territory of the Massagetae.  It states the opposite--that Cyrus was advised by Croesius against entering their territory and did so anyway, and I have re-written that statement to accurately reflect what the source does mention of it, instead of removing it.
I added a bit more detail about the battles with the Massagetae.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.152.55 (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death edits 

message: The use of the term Classical period is a bit confusing.  Presumably, this refers to the Classical period of Greek history, which from the outset is a somewhat chauvinist framework within which to discuss Persian history.  Moreover, it is incorrect to say that Cyrus was active in the Classical period, since the sixth century is traditionally regarded by Greek historians as a part of the Archaic period (ending with the invasion of Greece conducted by Xerxes in 480/479). 71.62.13.176 05:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. I believe I've already pointed out this. Amizzoni (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical period