sources[edit]

dougweller has just given you a useful hint, Ariobarza. I've created a few short articles, mainly to support larger articles by giving further info on specific topics. In these cases I aim to cite at least 2 good sources, using inline citations. This seems to work, as none has appeared on AfD. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the quality of sources is every bit as important as their quantity, Ariobarza. You've several times tried to present sources that are anything up to 120 years old as being representative of modern historical thinking. You need to look at what modern historians are saying - antique sources can be useful in showing how views have developed, but they're certainly not reliable sources for current thinking. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+[1] +[2] +[3] +[4] +[5] +[6] +[7] +[8] +[9] +[10]

And this is just the tip of the iceberge, there are perhaps 30 more books I can find from the 1900's to 1980's, and more, so more are on the way, thanks everyone.--Ariobarza (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

Ariobarza, just finding a list of book titles is not enough - you really need to read and understand WP:V and WP:RS thoroughly, from beginning to end.
Of the books you listed:
  • From Cyrus to Alexander looks excellent and appears to have the scope I mentioned in my "keep" vote. The best thing you can do in order to save Battle of Pasargadae is to summarise in Battle of Pasargadae all the important points you can find in this book about the battle's background, combat events, short-term consequences and long-term consequences. Each point you summarise must be supported by an inline citation, including a page number or a short range of pages specific to the point you're summarising.
  • The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World looks interesting, and includes a detailed account of one of the battles. However although Google Books gives its date as 2001, the author lived 1812-1902, see Project Gutenberg, and the book is over 100 years old. So if a more modern book contradicts it, you should follow the modern book's view. On the other hand a lot of our knowledge is based on ancient histories by e.g. Herodotus, and I expect Rawlinson summarises these well enough.
  • The Cambridge History of Iran looks excellent.
  • A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire looks very useful.
  • Ancient Persia is more about archeology, architecture, etc. I suspect other books will give you a larger amount of usable material for less effort.
  • Google books does not offer extracts of the other books you listed. Remember what I said about the need for page numbers. Claiming that these books support the article will just destroy your credibility if you cannot quotes text and page numbers.
Start using the best of these sources to improve the article now. Eliminate any statements that are not supported by at least one good source. Avoid emotive or over-enthusiastic language - the facts will speak for themselves.
Everyone else, there are 3-4 good sources in that list. I suggest putting this discussion on hold for a week to give Ariobarza time to improve the article. --Philcha (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unusual, but I'm happy if that can be done. dougweller (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at how insane that there was even a debate on whether the most famous battle of Cyrus's career even took place and was deleted while knowing the events are mentioned in multiple Histories including the Nabonidus Chronicle. Can anyone imagine the uproar if a newly created Battle of Gaugamela article, that was Alexander's most consequential fight was deleted due to a lack of sources? Even though, it is regularly taught in Western high school education class textbooks? Omitting entire battles from history. Oh, those were the days. Ariobarza (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More