Talk:Achaemenid Empire/Archive 1

Top
Iranian/median Iranian/Achaemenid Empire? Is this accurate? would someone write the Italian Roman empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.46.131.249 (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this very interesting at first: "Persia/Iran has never practiced slavery in its thousands of years of history, and was founded on respect and equality for all races and religions as Cyrus the Great's human rights declaration" But then I remembered that Herodotus wrote in 154. (Volume One):

"Hearing this on his way, Cyrus said to Crœsus as follows: "Crœsus, what end shall I find of these things which are coming to pass? The Lydians will not cease as it seems, from giving trouble to me and from having it themselves. I doubt me if it were not best[157] to sell them all as slaves; " Also the sentence I've quoted from the article sounds a little suspicious to me. Someone should definetly look into this. From what I've read it sounds like the ancient Persians did not take slaves  as often as say the hellenes did, but that they have at times done so. Did any people that conquered lands in the middle east or mediterranean not take slaves?

ancient persia is quiet different from islamic period iran was occapied by arabs and their culture was quiet different furthermore as any body knows herodot was from the defeated nation and any one khows that grees where imaginative and creative in making stories and myths its in some ways good but it makes them unreliable as historians! so why europians insist on using their stories as facts is weierd! nowadays homer stories is not used as an evidence in researches about ancient greeks religion. in Cyrus Cylinder the abolishment of slavery in ancient persia is proved.

grI haven't changed anything in the article but somebody probably should.
 * That needs to be taken out; it's simply not true. Iran clearly took slaves during Islamic times, and there is considerable evidence that the Sassanids took slaves as well. It is clear that the Achaemenid policy was against slavery, but one dynasty does not 2500 years make. I'm taking that line out unless someone can source such a claim. Spectheintro 02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I took the lion image off. It suspiciously seems to be the same (digitally inverted) lion at the NY Metropolitan, which DOES NOT belong to Iran:

http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=3&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=0&item=31%2E13%2E2

Furthermore, the style of the lion does not reflect the Achaemenid Artistic style. They (the Achaemenids) were more refined.

In place of it, I'll put another picture.--Zereshk 02:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Amir85): Mr Zereshk ,as you know there is an element in every article that makes it more appealing to read and it is the element of beauty.So stop reverting my work because of wiki-format, as if see other Wikipedia articles they sometimes use this type of photo arrangement for the sake of beauty or whatever.And about copyright violations , all the photos are fair copyrights with the permission of its source as long as I mention their site which I had done in SEE ALSO.


 * Dude, your pics look pretty nice, but if you dont mention the specifics of the source of your pics, the administrators will erase them. There are people whose job is just to hunt for pics with uncertain sources for deletion. Your pics dont even have copyright tags. They wont last very long.


 * Also, the admins will soon wikify your article, even if I dont do it. The way you have the photos stacked up left and right, they actually overlap on some screens. A jumbled up page doesnt look pretty at all.


 * Be cool.--Zereshk 11:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid Dynasty is NOT an empire
Please change the title of this article to the Achaemnid Dynasty. Achaemnid were a dynasty who ruled the Persian Empire, not a Empire! Please correct this immediately, both in the title and related links.
 * You didn't sign this, which you are supposed to do. I understand what you are trying to say; however, let me say this. In English "Achaemenid Empire" can mean "the empire under the Achaemenids" as well as "the empire of the Achaemenids." You wouldn't know which one until you saw the context. My guess is that English is not your first language, or you would have known that. English is the great language of not saying anything while seeming to say something (and books have been written along those lines as a joke). For example, to say "the Roosevelt government" does not mean that President Roosevelt abolished the constitution of the United States and formed his own government. It means only that his administration was functionng in government offices under that constitution for a while. You would have to know the history to know that the expression had that meaning. If not, you would have to ask, "what do you mean, the Roosevelt government?" Then you would expect to get some such answer as "the administration under President Roosevelt, dummy. Don't you read any history?" Now, the article makes it clear that there were not a series of Persian empires in the same way that there have been a series of French governments and I think everyone knows that. So, there is no danger I believe of misinterpreting the meaning. What does everyone else think? Shall we move the article to a different name?Dave (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I took a more careful read and by golly the text may very well imply what you say. If it's any consolation, the writing ain't too good and will have to be cleaned up. Once that is done, what I just said above will be true. I still think we ought to collect opinions on this.Dave (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

remove weird text
I removed this text from the article because it's weirdly written and probably too NPOV:



This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.

Lethe | Talk 12:39, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! You're right, it is weirdly written! I'm too lazy to look up in the history and see who contributed that writing right now, but if it is to be included at all, I would suggest paring it down to a single, less POV sentence and sticking it on the last paragraph like so:


 * "The Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could even be considered more spiritual sounding than the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly 2300 years later."

--Codex Sinaiticus 15:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * But why should we want to compare the spirituality of Cyrus' declaration to that of the French Revolution? If we want to compare declarations of human rights, let's use a bunch, the American Declaration of Independence, the French Revolution's Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen  (and let's call it by it's right name), the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  And as far as comparing these declarations go, let's compare the scope of the rights, not the spirituality of the text (which strikes me as rather irrelevant to the import of the declaration).  I am not familiar with any of those declaration, so I'm not going to write a comparison.  Even if I did, I'm not sure that this article is the right place for it.


 * I see that the article human rights contains a similar statement about Cyrus: " Cyrus's charter, adopted by the first Persian Empire is thought by some to be more advanced than the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly 2300 years later in the 18th century". It seems slightly more NPOV and that article seems a more germaine place to say such a thing, but even that is probably too NPOV, and I'm inclined to remove it from that article as well.  Thoughts?  -Lethe | Talk 21:17, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems that originally User:Amir85 added this concept to the Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid dynasty articles, and from there User:Mehrshad123 added it to the human rights article -Lethe | Talk 21:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing "spiritual" about it is that it reflects the tolerant Zoroastrian religion. But nothing in the text of the cylinder is "spiritual" per se. The invocations to Ahura Mazda are more of a "Dieu et mon droit" formality. In any case these things should be put on the Cyrus Cylinder article, which I found out to be plagiarized itself. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

language
In the beginning of the page I linked Old Persian. I also want to ask if there is a good reason why Avestan is there. I can see that the Avestan prefix hu- (good) might be related here, and ka (some one) and Avestan mana (mind) which is a cognate of the Skt. might work out. But Avestan was never the language of any dynasty. It was never even written down until the Sasanian dynasty. It was a liturgical language, and would have been foreign to someone from Western Iran anyway. Also, why is there a discrepancy between Hakamanishiya and Haxāmaniš? I'm not talking about the suffix -iya, but let's choose one transliteration system or another, shall we? The latter I feel to be more desirable as this is how you see the cuneïform transliterated. The caron over the 's' is optional. The Farsi should be hakhāmanshi or -ī. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Martinmuse 11:48, 23 January 2006 (PST): It seems that Avestan is relevant to the Achaemenid dynasty. They professed to be devout followers of Ahuramazda and Avestan is associated with Zarathushtrian scripture. I agree it would not be a conversational language, but would it be foreign to Western Iran at a time when the Achaemenids' influence extended so far to the east?

It's obviously relevant, just not the main spoken language. Sure, wherever Zoroastrianism was, Avestan would be there also, of course. I cannot recall, but I was probably talking about something specific at the time. Also, why is the current link in the table Persian? Is it possible to be a little more specific? We're not exactly talking modern Farsi here. Khirad 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion
The following I find amusing because it sounds exactly like the modern Indian stereotype of the Parsis. Besides amusing me though, I'm wondering what this adds to the article:


 * "The religion of the Achaemenids was Zoroastrianism, whose adherents at the time were noted for their dedication to clear lines of right and wrong, and for their apparent honesty."

If Zoroastrianism is to be reduced to a few insubstantial stereotypes, than tolerance and industriousness would seem more relevant contributions to posterity. I think this sentence would be improved if the people who noted this were mentioned (i.e. ...were noted by the Greeks...). Otherwise I don't see this as a NPOV statement. Plus it suggests that Zoroastrianism was the state religion. Khirad 12:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid's Pronunciation
In Farsi, does the ch in Achaemenid sound like \kh\, \sh\, or \k\?

--John on 27th of October 420


 * It's "kh". In Persian (farsi) it is "Hakhāmaneshi".--Zereshk 06:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have heard this pronounced multiple ways by professors, an uploaded sound file pronunciation of this word would be a great asset to this article. --Robert Jan. 11th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.0.26 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the "Achaemenid Empire" name
A user has pointed out by e-mail:

I have been researching several sources preparing for some church work, and find in THE WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1976 edition, Volume 15 (P), page 262c, that before Darius I, CYRUS THE GREAT of the Persian Empire (quote) CALLED THIS THE ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AFTER HIS ANCESTOR, ACHAEMENES (end quote). Article by Richard Nelson Frye.

Which is correct? L.H. Olsen ...


 * Hi! To the best of my knowledge (which unfortunately isn't all that good) Cyrus in general called himself an Achaemenid on his inscriptions.
 * See e.g. halfways down this [page :http://www.livius.org/a/iran/pasargadae/pasargadae3.html#inscription Livius.org]:

Kûruš \ xšâyathiya \ vazraka \ Kabûjiya hyâ \ xšâyathiyahyâ \ puça \ Haxâmanišiya \ thâtiy \ yathâ [...] [... ...] akutâ [... ]

Cyrus the great king, son of Cambyses the king, an Achaemenid, says: When [...] made [...]


 * Hope this helps :-)
 * --FreezBee 14:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gaumata/Smerdis/Bardiya
Current trend is to consider the Behistun Inscription as covering up for a côup d'état, that is that the magus Gaumata really was Bardiya (= Smerdis in Herodotian Greek), the surviving son of Cyrus the Great. It's just the trend, and we do live in times where conspiracies are seen everywhere, so it may be false, but just for the sake of completeness....

--FreezBee 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

much of what is now India?
The previous version had "Achaemenid rulers of Persia ruled over territories ... much of what is now India". I do not think this is correct, especially with respect to central, east and south India. I have accordingly removed India from the list, please cite sources if it is put back. Jayanta Sen 19:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately "most of ... India" was reinserted by someone who did not log in. It is factually wrong as can be seen from the map of the empire at it's greatest extent on the article page. Jayanta Sen 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In almost every other large empire article page there is a stat regarding the size of the empire. I think it was important to add to the lead/intro at the top that Achaemenid Persia encompassed roughly 7.5 million squared km's and was as a result the largest empire of classical antiquity, so I included it. The stat is present in another Wiki page comparing thr historical sizes of the largest empires. --Arsenous Commodore 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange info: refernece needed
No reference is given for the following info in the text. I have never heard of these and I think proper citations are needed before we can accept them as facts (the numbered items are taken from the current text):

1. Xerxes I was followed by Artaxerxes I (465–424 BC), who moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon.

What is the basis of this statement? First, someone has to prove that Persepolis has ever been the capital of the Achaemenid dynasty to begin with. Since no documents about political affairs have been found at Persepolis so far and also the palaces show no sign of continous occupation, it is doubtful that Persepolis has ever been a 'capital'. What makes the writer think that the capital had been moved to Babylon is unclear and unstated.

2. Under Artaxerxes I, Zoroastrianism became the de-facto religion of state, and for this Artaxerxes I is today also known as the Constantine of that faith.

Has the writer found a new inscription by Artaxerses I mentioning Zoroaster or a new contemporary Greek source mentioning that religion? There is no reference in Achaemenid documents to Zoroaster or his religion or his holy book Avesta. The most we can say is that they worshiped Ahura Mazda at least since Darius I, but that is way different with saying they were Zoroastrians. I know of no evidence of a religious change around the time of Artaxerses I and would love to learn abotu such change.

3. Artaxerxes I died in Susa, and his body was brought to Persepolis for interment in the tomb of his forebearers.

The tomb of Artaxerses I is NOT in Persepolis but in Naqsh-e Rustam, 30 km to the north of Persepolis. The writer has confused Artaxerses I with Artaxerses II here. There is also no such thing as 'the tomb of his forebearers'; each Achaemenid king had his own tomb and Artaxerse I was no exception.

4. Darius II was then in Babylon, where he rallied support for himself. He marched eastwards, disposed and put to death the assassin and was crowned in his stead.

Before he had killed the so-called assasin, the prince couldn't have been called by his throne name of "Darius II", but under his personal name of Ochus.

5. Artaxerxes moved the capital back to Persepolis, which he greatly extended.

There is absolutely no evidence of ANY construction in Persepolis during the reign of Artaxerses II, who is believed to have spent most of his time in Susa. Again Artaxerses III might have been meant here.mirfakhr —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirfakhr (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Enlightened despots?
Under the "government section we have the statement "enlightened despots" describing the political mindset of this BCE empire. One click on the hyperlink brings me to a page describing these "enlightened despots" as merry fellows influenced by the period of "enlightenment" in the 18 and 19th century CE. Anachronism? Heck yeah! Can some expertly history buff please replace this term with a proper one please? Thanks! --non-member 20:12, 14 Febuary 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert, but I think "federalist" (in the sense of power-sharing between central/provincial governments) is a better term for satrapy. The Achaemenids had great accomplishments, but "enlightened" offers them far too much moral approval.

--another non-member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.104.192.58 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

a problem with time
"His immediate successors were less successful. Cyrus' son Cambyses II conquered Egypt, but died in July 522 BC as the result of either accident or suicide, during a revolt led by a sacerdotal clan that had lost its power following Cyrus' conquest of Media. These priests, whom Herodotus called Magi, usurped the throne for one of their own, Gaumata, who then pretended to be Cambyses II's younger brother Smerdis (Pers. Bardiya), who had been assassinated some three years earlier. Owing to the despotic rule of Cambyses and his long absence in Egypt, "the whole people, Perses, Medes and all the other nations," acknowledged the usurper, especially as he granted a remission of taxes for three years (Herodotus iii. 68).

It is important to note that the claim that Gaumata had impersonated Smerdis, is derived from Darius. Historians are divided over the possibility that the story of the impostor was invented by Darius as justification for his coup [1]. Darius made a similar claim when he later captured Babylon, announcing that the Babylonian king was not, in fact, Nebuchadnezzar III, but an impostor named Nidintu-bel. [2]

According to the Behistun Inscription, pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months before being overthrown in 522 BC"''

note that is says Cambyses died in july 522 bc, and then they say pseudo-Smerdis ruled for seven months, yet the year is still 522 BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.156.145 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Babylon a capital of Achaemenid Empire?
Hi, The text says that Ataxerxes I moved the capital from Persepolis to Babylon. I'm just wondering why Babylon isn't listed as one of the capitals in the info box at the top of the article? Thanks. Bjoleniacz (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What did the Achaemenids call their country?
Hi,

What did the Achaemenid Persians call their country? Because isn't it true that Persians only started to refer to their country as "Iran" until (maybe) the Sassanid dynasty. So what was the country called under the Achaemenids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anšān/Anshan
Are "Anšān" and "Anshan" the same? The text needs to make it clear one way or the other, and be consistent.  Randall Bart    Talk   00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

maps
as pointed out in my edit summary there is no need for the second map, it is merely a duplication of the one in the infobox... both show the greatest extent of the ae. @Xashaiar: you can explain the difference between the two here if you like, why (or how) one shows an empire and the other a country is beyond me. --!linus (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You and the other user see below. Two maps are different. Just look at them. Two different captions they have. Do not remove the maps,--Xashaiar (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1.i did notice the different caption yes. i also note how you kept pushing your point by reverting uirauna's edits regarding that caption.

2. uirauna never deleted the image (thus far)

3. i deleted the image because: so, by removing the second map not only is the article kept clean, it also removes the cause of a disruptive edit war.
 * your little edit war over the caption is disruptive
 * the image is unnecessary because it shows exactly the same thing (in a different format) as the image in the infobox. it isn't any different because you keep giving it a different caption.

4.simply reverting back to your last edit and ignoring my question above isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. --!linus (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I am pushing my POV so are you. You say there is no difference, that's OR and unacceptable (One is historical one is modern, and they have different captions, so what do you mean by "showing exactly the same"?). The article is clean, if one nice modern map makes an article unclean (your view-this is POV and therefore uninteresting in wikipedia), then maybe wikipedia as a whole is unclean. I suggest strongly to keep the two maps.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, they are two different maps... so what? that doesn't change the fact that they show the same thing, namely the greatest extent of the ae. the fact that you keep changing the caption of the second map so that it says iran in 500 bce doesn't mean it depicts anything other than the first map... if you really think that what the maps are named (rather than what they show) is of importance, have a look at both file names and you will note they are the same. --!linus (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is non-sense. The other user changes the caption. I am reverting to its earlier version. So be careful in your analysis of the history page! And I asked the user (User:Uirauna) in edit summary, to ask in the talk page whether such change of caption is appropriate. Now you come and do the worst: deleting the image. What are you doing? And File name, as you suggest, is no justification. Do you mean I have to re-upload the image and change its name????? What are you talking about? It is your POV that the second map is not necessary. Wait and see what other users say. It is not up to you and me to decide what is necessary or not.. I like the map, and since the article is nicer with that map I would like to have that. This is my pov and in conflict with yours, the solution is by WP:CONS and not reverting.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

fyi: uirauna corrected the map's caption, you keep reverting it to a (at best) less accurate caption. and that's the last i have to say here as you still haven't given any good reason why the second map should stay. --!linus (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Please consider adding images." This is clear policy of Wikipedia. So you need reason for having images in an article without size problem? One image does not bother an article.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

do not remove images
There are two maps of Persian Achaemenid empire in the article. Two users (User:Uirauna and User:L!nus) try to remove this (1 and 2) reference. Why? The two maps are different. One is historical and one is computer made and therefore both are necessary. This can not go on like this. The article has no size problem, so what is the point? According to what wikipedia rule you are removing this? --Xashaiar (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Xashaiar, both maps show exactly the same information to the reader, it does no matter if they are from a book or computer-made, they DO show the same information and thus you only need one of them to illustrate the article. The seccond one does not add anything that has not been shown by the fisrt one, so it is redundant, and therefore we do not need it. If the information caontained in the map was different, then we would need it. Uirauna (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

New map
Hello, to solve the two maps issue I create a new map derived from a russian one. This is the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_En.svg I suggest we replace both of them with the new one. What do you think? Uirauna (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this change. The historical map is wonderful and the computer-made map is clear and consistent with usual unnamed maps.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i had a look at maps of the ae a few days ago, i thought the russian one was the best, except that it wouldn't have been of much use in an english article... so yeah, your new english map deffo would be a good idea.

i think the one that is currently in the infobox is a tad too much outdated (its from an atlas from the early 20th century), the other one in the article is a tad too much of an anachronism (with the background of modern borders), the one you linked on my talk page earlier today is a tad too much inaccurate (i mean... what's going on with the north-eastern boundary?) which leaves the one you made... and i don't see anything wrong with that one

as an aside: i wouldn't say there's an issue really, still haven't seen a real explanation on the claimed difference between the two maps --!linus (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

clutter due to duplicate images
xashaiar, i can perfectly understand your desire to have the article illustrated. however, duplicate images do not serve any purpose ... it is just clutter.

this goes for the maps (see above) and the image of cyrus's tomb. about the latter: you say it obviously belongs with the article... well no one has said it doesn't, it is simply that it already is in the article (i.e. in the gallery section). secondly, the tomb in question is not referred to in the article, so it sort of floats around there without any real reason. and thirdly, the image interferes with the text (i.e. it covers part of the text). incidentally i remedied that earlier on, but you reverted that edit.

and as i said above: simply reverting things back isn't helping, that's not how things are done in wp. --!linus (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No matter. Delete the picture from the gallery, then keep the image of the founder within the article. I will delete it from the gallery.(update: I think the image of tomb or another image of the founder of the empire should be in the article. If there is a better image let us know. I still think the image could still be in gallery as well, and I realy do not understand why you keep removing the most important images!)--Xashaiar (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Xashaiar, the purpose of an image on wikipedia is to describe information that can't be simply described as text. I agree that if there was a picture of Darius it should be included in the article, but if there is not, a picture of a Tomb supposed to be Dariu's does not belong in the article. It does not illustrates any information that is not already in the article. The article by itself has too many images already, and most of them do not add significant information. It needs a serious clean-up. You can read more about images in the WP:Manual of Style. It doesn't matter how importat Cyrus was, this article is not about him, but about the Dynasty he belonged to and wasn't even the founder, so his tomb does not add relevant information, and therefore should be removed. Wikipedia is not a repository of images, and they should only be added if they add significant information to the reader. Even if left in the gallery it does not add enought information to justify its presence. Uirauna (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with all you said. You better read and time to time look at dictionary. 1. We are not talking about the dynasty, we are talking about the Empire (the reason: trivial!). Your biggest mistake that shows you do not know what you are editing. 2. What kind of information adds the fictional picture of alex of republic of macedonia to this article??? This shows you are not consistent in your arguments. 3. even if you consider the fake sources that are usually used in ancient history articles, you will be able to accept who the founder of the empire was (even the article explains this clearly). Overall, your edits seems to me disruptive. So if you want to edit, A. be consistent, B. use a few clicks and few hours time to learn about the articles you want to edit. --Xashaiar (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

@xashaiar: i don't see how an image of a tomb would be preferable to an image of the man, but you make a good point... so i suggest you find a good image of cyrus (if you do not find it here on the english wp or at the commons, i suggest you upload one) and replace the tomb image with that and add the tomb to the gallery.

as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text

as for having duplicate images: repetition of images serves no purpose, it clutters the article just as much as having duplicate text

@both of you: it seems you get on each other nerves a tad too much (and not only here)... so take a deep breath, take some distance and start afresh... keep in mind that the basic underlying principal is that edits should improve an article, edit warring and quibbling/throwing insults at each other is counterproductive. --!linus (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tags
I have tagged this article, do not remove the tags until there is a consensus on the topics being discussed. Thank you. Uirauna (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove your tags as you do not explain just why you put them in the first place. Your tags say the article is not neutral. Give instances for this accusation. The clear statement in the page POV-check is The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. You violated this, And one more thing, your reason to delete the picture was that there was already a copy of it in the gallery. I deleted the one in gallery. So what else remains? Do you mean addition of that picture is not neutral? If so, why addition of a fictional picture is, in your view, neutral? This is inconsistent.--Xashaiar (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Praise of the Persian empire
This recent addition:


 * In universal history the role of the Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great lies in their very successful model for centralized administration and a government working to the advantage and profit of all.

(...which is followed by a reference to a book by Schmitt) has a few issues - I somehow doubt that this last bit is true - if they had slavery or conquered by violence it's certainly false, and even any kind of class system makes it doubtful.

I changed it to the following - still bad, I expect, but less blatantly:


 * In universal history the role of the Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great lies in their very successful model for centralized administration.

--Chriswaterguy talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please no POV. Achaemenians had no slavery as much as the rest of world empires had. See the page related to this. Moreover, connecting "slavery" to "not being for the advantage of all" is OR. And the author is Schmitt, the source is not a "book" and the sentence is well-sourced. Since it is WP:RS and WP:V no need to change according to your POV. If you think that sentence is "very starange" I guess you can find a source (written by scholars of Achaemenid Iran and not any book according to WP:POV). In that case we ask for WP:CONS on this issue.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

comment:
 * @xashaiar: chris's edit is no more nor less pov than your original, you two have a different opinion on the matter but that is not what pov is about. the essential thing is that a wp article should be neutral, i.e. what is says about the topic should neither be too positive or too negative. in that respect i think chris has a point. even if something is well sourced that doesn't automatically mean it is neutral in its point of view.

secondly (as i said before) do not resort to reverting so quickly. try to improve a previous edit so that everyone can agree with the content instead of simply undoing it. especially so when a previous editor started a topic on a talk page...


 * personally i don't think the sentence in question should not be in the lead at all. with a bit of alteration however it can easily go as the opening for the government section... like this:

''the success and endurance of the empire founded by cyrus the great lay in its successful model for centralised administration and government: while the achaemenids were absolutists they nevertheless allowed a certain amount of regional autonomy in the form of the satrapy system. ...''

or something similar --!linus (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the other map better?
I replaced that image with because this one looks less text-booky, and is far more detailed. Why is the one you just placed better? -- LightSpectra (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the current one. Despite the fact that, your version is newer and "in your opinion" more detailed. The current one is historical and I really like it. That's my opinion. Also your map shows where the battles were. This is not really necessary in the data-box as the map of an empire that lasted 200+ years. I think we can have your map in sections related to the expansion of the empire where we need to know where the wars happened, ... regards.--Xashaiar (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say that since most of the portrait images show the empire at its greatest extent, and the former shows more of the Persians' advances into northern Afghanistan and Pakistan, that it is better for the page. I also think that its superior image quality is more suited for the top of the article. -- LightSpectra (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with current one however is, that it seems be false and that is doesn't seem to match any maps found reputable sources (at least for the ones I've seen). In particular the areas in Africa seem rather off.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the map to one based on or being from a reputable source. Also note that the "false" map was introduced, while leaving the description of the older map, now description and map match again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the 10.7 Mil. Km2 coming from?
First paragraph, where we talk about the largest extent of the empire, does anyone know where the 10.7 Mil. km2 is coming from? I know British Musuem: Forgotten World, http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/forgottenempire/persia/people.html states 7.5 Mil. Km2, and this 2004 paper http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf provides a lesser figure of 5.5 Mil. Km2. Any insights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided to go with the British Museum's figure. Obviously ancient empires can be hard to quantify with uncertain and fluctuating boundaries/vassas states etc. Once the order of magnitude is about right,I'd be happy enough anyway. Fribbler (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It may origin from this article List of largest empires, check the references there. It appears that it is a self computation based on questionable map and in my eyes that's not a reliable reference, the article should the figures ranging from 5-7.5 million, that you can find in reputable sources. However unfortunately this article still uses that questionable map, which should be removed as well (or at least backed up by proper references, which i suspect might not possible).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected thta figure now in both articles and added the according references.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A third Map, or an alternative second map?
Ok why are the major maps in this article not in English!? This cannot be in an English wikipedia, no matter how nice they look, we need an english map at the top. Im leaving the other one in the middle of the article, but it is still unnecessary because the article already has various maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javierfv1212 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A third Map, or an alternative second map?
I know some people here have a problem with this specific article having more than 1 map! I'm in favor of having more maps no matter what the empire in question is. Anyways, I wanted to know what users think of a map showing AE superimposed onto modern day states/countries? This is not something new, I see many articles about empires/dynasties have such a map. Something like this perhaps? --LogiPhi (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by LogiPhi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have put the maps I see often on achaemenid related articles here. My favourite is number 3 since two days ago. I propose making a small "Map gallery" at the end of article and put all these maps there. Each of them is nice in a way.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the 3rd map is, that is that it might not really come from reputable/reliable source (the reliability/expertise of the claimed source is unclear (to me at least) and the provided weblink does not work). Moreover the areas in Africa and Europe (Crete, North of the Danube) seem wrong.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys!
First & Second map - Artaxerxes II late period. Third map - Darius the Great late period. Fourth map - Cyrus the Great period. Fifth map - Darius the Great early period (he later conqured parts of Central Asia and Thrace).

The most relevant is third map, because we talk of Persia's greatest extend. Note few important things - Persian Empire held 10.7 million km2, but not in the same period of time: - Cyrus the Great conqured Asian territories, about 5.5-6.5 million km2. - Cambyses II. conqured much of North Eastern Africa, but he later lost some parts in Libya and Sudan. - Darius the Great reconquered Central Asian satrapies after 522 BC revolt, as well as northern Balkans. In his time, empire held about 9-10 million km2 - Xerxes I. reconquered main part of Egypt after his father's death, and conqured largest parts of European Greece under period of two years.--Orijentolog (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note just one more thing; maps are not very precise, and most of them dont include parts of Maka or Upper Egypt, which were very important satrapies. Why did Darius the Great built his Suez canal and lost dozens of thousands men, if Persia didn't hold much shores od Red Sea in Africa? Darius the Great's Persian empire was far more larger in Africa then you can see in 1-2 & 4-3 maps. --Orijentolog (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is true that the 5th map is old and ideally should be replaced by newer one (it also does not show the punjab as part under Darious, which became briefly a part of the Persian empire under him), any newer replacement however needs to come from a reliable academic resource (or if selfmade based on one) and that is not really true for the current one. The scholarly expertise of Iran Cultural Heritage Organization seems questionable to me and the provided weblink for the source is dysfunctional (even for the top level domain). More over the areas displayed in Africa (South of Egypt), Nort of the Danube /Crimea and Crete  do not match what can be found in authoritative (academic) literature on the Persian empire. The same holds for the 10.7 figure for its largest extend, in particular does the number not appear in any of the quoted sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Cambyses II. conqured southern Egypt (Kush), as well as parts of Lybia (Kirenaika), while Herodotus claim that Persian army reached beyond Danube river; to river Volga. Please find me just one authoritative (academic) source which tells us different story! Note: map of Iran Cultural Heritage Organization don't include Maka. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Cambyses did not conquer the empire of Kush. According to Herodot his campaign against Kush was a disaster and modern scholars evalutating all the available evidence seem to conclude that Herodot was somewhat biased against Cambyses and hence his account was overly negative. In their evaluation Kambyses goal might not have been the conquest of Kush after all but only to secure the borders of upper Egypt. They also state that due to archeological evidence the Persians occupied northern Kush up to the 3rd cateract of the Nile, they did however not conquer the Kush capital or the whole Kush empire. The mouth of the volga was certainly not a part of the Persian Empire. True is however that an expedition by Darious did cross the Danube and went further north. But similarly to Cambyses case this was not a "successful" campaign and Dareious did not annex any territory north of the Danube. Somewhat recent authoritative sources are the books by Pierre Briant and Amélie Kuhrt on Persian empire (you can read much of their content via google books btw.). Also note if you want to use a map that clearly differs from other maps of the Persian empire in reputable source, then you can only do so by providing a reputable publication confirming that map explicutly (same for 10 million figure). Moreover note as well that when you add the 10 million figure into an older sentence with footnotes containing different figures, then this is a rather unfortunate mistake, because it leads reader to believe that the 10 million figure was taken from some reliable academic source given in the footnote, which it was not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cambyses did conqured northern parts of Kush, and stories about his fail is mixed with story about king Khabash fail, according H. Schafer. Even a kid can look at ancient maps and count that Persian empire was far larger then 5.5 million2, so please stop with idiocy by reverting my edits and putting obviously wrong information on basic page. By the way, how can you explain blacks at Persepolis reliefs if parts of Kush empire weren't annexed by Persia? According Werner F. Dutz, Sylvia A. Matheson, Henri Stierlin and Pierre Briant, they were or Ethiopians or Nubians (people of Kush). --Orijentolog (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stick proper arguments, discussion ala "even a kid can tell..." you better pursue outside wikipedia. There was no "idiotic" revert either, I was merely correcting an problematic edit by you, that you unfortunately repeated again. To be very clear here: There wasn't any wrong information in the article before you started modifying it it. Now the article claims that the Tagpeera paper gives a 7.7 million figure for the size of the Persian Empire, which is false, since Tagpeera like Turchin gives a 5.5 million figure. So due to your edit once again the article partially misquotes its sources. Furthermore the referenced source (turchin), that you had originally deleted, was neither "untrue" or "doubtful" it was proper academic paper. It however did not claim that its figure describes the largest extension of the empire. Note that the article spoke of "height of power" and not "maximal area". So i suggest next time you read the comments and sources more carefully before making changes to assure that the information of the wikipedia article and the sources do match. As fas as Kush is concerned - yes i'm aware of some persian inscriptions (one in Persepolis and another in Behistun) that claim or seem to indicate that Ethiopia is a part of the empire (or more precisely paying tribute). However it is not clear whether Ethiopia refers to the whole kingdowm of Kush and not just the North and while there is archeological evidence indicating a Persian occupation up to the 3rd cateract, so far there seems to be none for the rest of Kush and its capital (at least to my knowledge). In any case like what is true for Herodot is true for Persian inscriptions as well, they cannot be taken literally but they need to be interpreted taking all known context information into account. So what matters here for wikipedia is to which conclusions the expert scholars on theP ersian empire come after considering all the evidence. And the authoritative sources by such scholars as Briant, that i've read, do not claim the Kingdom of Kush to be a part of the (regular) Persian empire, it might have been an ally or clientel state for a while though. Images of Nubian on Persian artifacts or even nubian soldiers in the Persian army do not indicate an occupation of Kush either. As far as images are comcerned, it should be rather obvious that people do create images of subjects/objects being outside their country and Nubian soldiers can simply be be from the occupied North, or provided by Kush as an ally or as a gift, or captices from Cambyses' expedition or simply hired soldiers. To provide some general (historical) perspective, Nubians were also fighting alongside the roman army and provided roman auxiliary troops, without Kush ever being a part of the Roman empire. A similar argument can be made for germanic soldiers in the Roman army.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, we know Persians annexed part of Kush or Ethiopia, but we don't know precisely. Facts about Persian satrapies and known from Herodotus work and Persian inscriptions like Daiva, Behistun and Naksh-e Rustam. However, some satrapies like "sea peoples" or "accros the sea" are not identified. If may be Greeks, it may be Ethiopians, or even Arabs... Meanwhile, Herodotus and other Greek historians don't know anything about history of Kush. Talking about Arabs, "Arabia" is also mentioned, but we don't know how much of Arabia did they annexed. As Darius inscriptions says; boats traveled from Mediterranean to Persia (through Darius canal), which is 5000 km long voyage. It's obvious Persians had to have some stop stations in Arabia, but where? No one knows... Your argument about comparing Kush to Roman times are wrong. All foreign people on Persepolis reliefs were from their satrapies - Athenians and Spartans also served in Persian armies like mercenaries, but they are not shown on reliefs, just Ionians (Yauna). It's glad to see you know Kush people fight for Vespasian in Jerusalem, but it's analog situation as Greek mercenaries in Persian armies. --Orijentolog (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go - to quote yourself "No one knows." and we do not claim things for fact here that no one knows, that pretty much sums it up. Note the issue was here was not with northern kush being occupied by Persians, there is no disagreement on that. The issue was with the additional areas in Africa (as well as crete, areas north of the Danube or on the Arabian peninsula). WP rules are quite clear if "we do not know" it stays out. If you want to include it you need to back it up by an acceptable source (the map or the 10 million figure). Also whatever content you edit make sure it matches the cited sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Page name
It's my understanding that Persian Empire is the much more common name, and therefore the one which should be used. Thoughts? Rd232 talk 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it is now unfair and ridiculous to assume that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, pretending so is fine. Which encyclopaedia gives "Persian empire" the exclusive meaning "Achaemenid empire"?Xashaiar (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you're an expert it seems ridiculous to you. From my own general knowledge and some googling it doesn't: eg British Museum . If you have some sources clarifying the meaning of "Persian Empire" beyond the Achaemenids, please produce them. WP:V. Rd232 talk 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But never mind, the discussion is ongoing on this issue at Talk:Persian Empire. Rd232 talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

um, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that "Persian Empire" first and foremost refers to the Achaemenid period. Yes, the term has also been extended to include the Sassanid period, which is why we have Persian Empire (disambiguation), but that clearly is a marginal point. The Sassanid dynasty, when referred to as "Persian" is typically referred to as "Second Persian Empire", "Later Persian Empire", "Restored Persian Empire" or similar except for cases where the context is clear.

Similarly, "Achaemenid Empire" is only used when disambiguation is necessary. If the context is clear, the common term for this entity is "Persian Empire". --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you are familiar with WP:NAMING and WP:POV. Achaemenid empire is equivalent to "First Persian Empire" and not "Persian Empire". The common name of Achaemenid empire is just "Achaemenid empire" (Check google scholar or any of authorative works Encyclopaedia Iranica, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc. All of these use as TITLE nothing but "Achaemenid empire/dynasty" for their articles on Achaemenid empire). Acting differently is against WP:NAMING and is obviously OR. I do not know why one should ignore the clear rules of naming in wikipedia. Xashaiar (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What scholarly books and articles do is less relevant than what more accessible sources do. WP:COMMONNAME has "Generally, articles should be named in accordance with what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." WP:Common name clarifies "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" I think that the average Wikipedia user has heard of "the Persian Empire" (meaning the Achaemenid empire - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) but wouldn't know what to do with "Achaemenid Empire". Rd232 talk 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Article access stats may be relevant here. In August 09, when the articles were separate, Persian Empire got 57k hits, while Achaemenid Empire got 28k (Sassanid Empire 19k ). And the British Museum has an exhibition on "The Persian Empire", not "a Persian empire" - note the definite article. No prizes which empire they're referring to. Rd232 talk 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage in moving this page to Persian Empire. But redirecting "Persian Empire" to this page (and linking to the disambiguation page) is fine. Alefbe (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See above and WP:COMMONNAME. Rd232 talk 10:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with Alefbe. Precisely because the term "Persian Empire" does have a somewhat wider range of applications, it is well to keep this article at the unambiguous title. See also Talk:Persian_Empire_(disambiguation). We should also give this a rest due to the recent monumental trolling spree at WP:ANI over this, we can resume a possible disscussion on "COMMONNAME", among bona fide editors with an interest in the topic, once the wikidrama has died down. --dab (𒁳) 10:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the current situation with Achaemenid Empire and the Persian Empire disambiguation page seems the best solution from my perspective and from any perspective it should be at least justified. Also note that in many of such cases there is no one true solution but just several reasonable/acceptable variation and we simply have to settle for one. And moving the name from one acceptable solution to another without any really pressing need to do so is imho not a good idea and wastes a lot of time of all the people involved on subject that doesn't really matter much in the end.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * also, it's just terminology: there aren't even any points of content in this, and I am really a little bit exasperated at the drama that Wikipedia can generate even over a trivial point of conventional terminology such as this. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Sometimes it makes really sense to "fight" for the sake of wikipedia and live through the drama, but it should be about issues that really matter. Getting upset about unimportant points or upsetting others over it, isn't really help the project and just a waste of energy that could have been use to fix serious problems (as correcting factual errors, keeping POV pushers and spammers out, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * well, it was more difficult than it should have been, but we have made a significant step forward by fixing the "Persian Empire" problem, which basically amounted to a text dump tagged for cleanup which just sat there for years. The situation is much improved. --dab (𒁳) 18:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"native name"
re , for "former states" of antiquity, we do not need to give an endonym if none is attested. Hakhamaneshiyan may be the Old Persian for "Achaemenid", but the Achaemenid empire was probably something like Airyanem Vaejah. Either way (cite your reference), it is a complete anachronism to spell whatever endonym they may have had in the Arabic alphabet. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I note it isn't Old Persian at all, it's just the Modern Persian term. That's about as reasonable as claiming that the endonym of the Anglo-Saxons was Anglo-Saxons. --dab (𒁳) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The original Old Persian form of the patronymic (Achaemen* as used by Cyrus, Darius,...) is Haxāmanišiya and is "indeed" Old Persian (check no. 13 on this page,...). I guess plural is "Haxāmanišiyava" (?). Having said that "they" called themselves "Achaemenians" and the notion of state appeared sometime during/before Sassanid. Though Aryānām xšaçam seems plausible as state designation for Achaemenians. The notion of people however existed as explained somewhere else.Xashaiar (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

you are right, Haxāmanišiyava is the OP term. I guess the -iyān ending can still be put down to MP. We can give Haxāmanišiya- as the "native name" of the dynasty, if you like. I stand by my point that it isn't very useful to give "reconstructed self designations" in the infobox, these things can be explained in the article body. --dab (𒁳) 18:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I guess explaining things in the article is better than puting an isolated term in the infobox. Xashaiar (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"According to Herodotus, the native leadership then debated the best form of government for the Empire."
In the Penguin edition of Herodotus, the editor points out that this "debate" is in fact based on thoroughly Greek concepts and rhetoric, and so could never have taken place in the form reported by Herodotus... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in Achaemenid Persian Empire
NOTE: This is a continuation of a long-running debate over how the issue of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire should be treated. It has been shortened to reflect the current status of the debate because it had become far too long and unwieldy. The two principle debaters are going to present their own versions on this issue.


 * You are better in english than I am. Yes "utilization of the labor of foreign workers" is not slavery (not necessarily) as explained by the author. Anyway, I will propose a version in a few days and see if you agree. Xashaiar (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I have just discovered the following book: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin. I think that this may be the very same "M. A. Dandamayev" from the Encyclopedia Iranica website. Anyway, Amazon.com allowed me to search through it, and I found that on pages 174 and 175 there is a further discussion of slavey in the Achaemenid era; this discussion has much more depth than what is on Encyclopedia Iranica. I think that most of it is a repetition or reworking of what is on Encyclopedia Iranica, but some of it went into much greater detail. It might be worthwhile to cite this book; on the other hand, most of its information is very specialized, possibly too specialized for an encyclopedia article. Search for "slavery" in this book using Amazon.com and see what you think. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are doing or and synth. Namely you cite the first book which states explicitly "In the Iranian social structure we have no evidence of a legal concept of slavery" but you write "The existence and nature of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire is a complex issue that is still debated and argued over by scholars" this is unacceptable. Moreover Persepolis workers were paid and this is the most well-known (Check EIr). Your second sentence "Firstly, the Persian social structure lacked a precise legal definition of slavery, except for that by which all subjects of the Empire were the metaphorical “slaves” of the Persian king." is wrong: who says that? you say "Slave practices such as these were common in other civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean" really? Yourself already said that "the extent and nature" of slavery in Iran was "different". Xashaiar (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I introduced with the first line to emphasize that slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire is not monolithic or static - it was more complex than that; this is clear from the sources. But, all right, we can change it up to remove the mention of it being "under debate" by scholars, if you wish.


 * The second sentence, about there being no legal definition of slavery is straight from the "Cambridge History of Iran": In the Iranian social structure we have no evidence of a legal concept of slavery other than that by which, to commence at the highest level, all men were slaves of the King; but there seem to have been imported workers, at Persepolis and elsewhere, whose condition (whether permanently or not) was effectively that of slaves. If you had bothered to read the citations that I made, you would have seen this clearly quoted and cited; I did not make it up.


 * And, yes, some of the slave practices mentioned were also practised by other civilizations; read the Slavery in ancient Greece article. I merely brought this up to provide the reader with some context. I do not say that slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire was absolutely unique (this is NOT in any source that I saw); other regions may have had similar practises, and I linked to the other article for further reading. I suppose that it is not integral to this topic here, so it could be removed. I was just trying to contextualize the various slave practices that were described (especially the practice of manumission). But, maybe this counts as "original research", since I am linking to another article that is beyond the scope of this topic here. Therefore, yes, I agree that this line could be removed. But, the rest of the article is a direct paraphrase from either the "Cambridge History of Iran" or the Encyclopedia Iranica article by M. A. Dandamayev.


 * Finally, I am aware that some of the workers at Persepolis were paid. This is why I said: Some of these foreign workers were paid wages for their labors. This was clearly stated by M. A. Dandamayev in the Encyclopedia Iranica article. [The other book that I mentioned, "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran", goes into specific detail on the workers at Persepolis and how wages were dealt with. Check it out if you wish.] But, M. A. Dandamayev is also clear in the Encyclopedia Iranica article that other workers were not paid anything - they were slaves. Also, note what the "Cambridge History of Iran" says: but there seem to have been imported workers, at Persepolis and elsewhere, whose condition (whether permanently or not) was effectively that of slaves. You cannot simply ignore this.


 * This is what I am trying to say - you cannot "cherry-pick" what you want from an article. M. A. Dandamayev illustrates cases where foreign workers were paid and cases in which they were enslaved. You cannot simply ignore the slave labor because it co-existed with paid labor in other cases. I have simply summarized the *entire* Encyclopedia Iranica article by M. A. Dandamayev, but I have not ignored or neglected certain portions of it, as you have. If you read my version closely, I have tried to simply summarize M. A. Dandamayev's article, while also bringing in the information from the "Cambridge History of Iran". Every line in what I wrote (except for the one about the similarity with slave practices in other civilizations - I have already agreed on that point) is cited with a direct quotation. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a revision of my original version, making the changes that I agreed with and introducing one new quote from M. A. Dandamayev (citation [3]):


 * The nature of slavery in the Achaemenid Persian Empire was complex and not monolithic.[1] The Iranian social structure lacked a precise legal definition of slavery, except for that by which all subjects of the Empire were understood to be the “slaves” of the Persian king.[2] As in many near eastern states, even the highest-ranking officials were technically considered to be the slaves of the king.[3] As a result of the imperial conquests of the Achaemenid dynasty, the Persians began to rely more and more on labor from subjugated foreigners and captured prisoners-of-war; however, only some of these foreign workers became actual slaves, while the others remained semi-free.[4] Some of these foreign workers were paid wages for their labors, and others could bargain about the terms of their employment.[5] On the other hand, there is evidence that some of the foreign workers did become permanent slaves of their Persian masters, performing agricultural and domestic labor.[6] Other documentary evidence suggests that the Persians became involved in the buying and selling of slaves on the Babylonian slave market.[7] Those Persian nobles that ruled directly over the conquered peoples did become large slave owners, especially in Babylonia.[8] During the Achaemenid era, debt slavery was not commonly practised.[9] Also, slaves could be manumitted by their master, thereby granting them freedom, under the condition that they continue to serve their former master as regular servants.[10] In Babylonia, some slaves were also allowed to work on their own and keep part of their earnings, with the requirement that they submit the rest to their masters as a form of quitrent.[11] Overall, slavery never became a dominant factor in the economy of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. For the Empire as a whole, the ratio of slaves to free persons was low. Free farmers and free artisans provided most of the necessary labor and remained the economic backbone of the state.[12]


 * Here follow the citations for the sources that I used:


 * [1] Here, I cite the “Cambridge History of Iran”, volume 2, page 281: In the Iranian social structure we have no evidence of a legal concept of slavery other than that by which, to commence at the highest level, all men were slaves of the King; but there seem to have been imported workers, at Persepolis and elsewhere, whose condition (whether permanently or not) was effectively that of slaves.
 * [2] Again, I cite the above from the “Cambridge History of Iran”, volume 2, page 281.
 * [3] Here, I cite the article by M. A. Dandamayev from the “Encyclopedia Iranica” website: Likewise Darius I calls Gadates, his governor in Ionia, his slave (doulos; see W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum I, Leipzig, 1915, no. 22), just as in many countries of the ancient East, all the subjects of the king, including even the highest-ranking officials, were considered slaves of the king.
 * [4] M. A. Dandamayev again: As a result of the far-flung conquests of the Achaemenids there occurred a sharp change in the royal household and in the households of the Persian nobility from primitive patriarchal slavery to intensive utilization of the labor of foreign workers in agriculture and partly in crafts. A portion of these foreigners were exploited as slaves, while the remainder were treated as semi-free people and were settled on royal land. Usually they were prisoners of war recruited from those who had rebelled against Persian rule or put up resistance to the Persian army
 * [5] Here, I return to the “Cambridge History of Iran”, volume 2, page 281: At the same time the development of a market economy in 482 - 480 in preparation for Xerxes' expedition (Herodotus vii.23) and apparently of a monetary economy after that time in the Persepolis Treasury tablets implies that corvee workers were not quite slaves. Similarly, temple craftsmen at Uruk in Cyrus' time could bargain about their terms of employment.
 * [6] Here, I cite from [3] again, as well as this also from M. A. Dandamayev: A portion of these foreigners were exploited as slaves […] A substantial number of slaves who performed domestic work for the Achaemenids and Persian nobility (bakers, cooks, cupbearers, eunuchs, etc.) were also recruited from among the representatives of vanquished peoples.
 * [7] We cite M. A. Dandamayev again: Babylonia alone was obliged to supply the Persian king for these purposes an annual tribute of 500 boys (Herodotus, 3.92). A certain number of such slaves were purchased by Persians on the slave market as well (Herodotus, 8.105). Our information on privately owned slaves in Iran is scanty and haphazard. […] These slaves apparently were prisoners of war (the “booty of the bow”). (This is a very long paragraph, so I will not quote the whole thing.)
 * [8] M. A. Dandamayev again: Under the Achaemenids in Babylonia and other conquered countries Persian nobles became large slave owners (see for references Dandamaev, op. cit., p. 111). According to some documents, Iranians sold their slaves in Babylonia (see, e.g., H. G. Stigers, “Neo- and Late Babylonian Business Documents,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28, 1976, no, 22).
 * [9] From M. A. Dandamayev again: Debt slavery was no longer common. The practice of pledging one’s person for debt, not to mention self-sale, had totally disappeared by the Persian period. In the case of nonpayment of a debt by the appointed deadline, the creditor could turn the children of the debtor into slaves. A creditor could arrest an insolvent debtor and confine him to debtor’s prison. However, the creditor could not sell a debtor into slavery to a third party. Usually the debtor paid off the loan by free work for the creditor, thereby retaining his freedom.
 * [10] From M. A. Dandamayev again: Judging from Babylonian documents and Aramaic papyri of the Achaemenid period, slaves were sometimes set free with the stipulation that they continue to serve the master or provide him with food and clothes as long as the latter was alive (see Dandamaev, op. cit., pp. 438-55).
 * [11] From M. A. Dandamayev again: In Babylonia, the slaves often worked on their own and paid a certain quitrent from the peculium they possessed. The size of the quitrent on the average when calculated in monetary terms amounted to 12 shekels of silver a year. Such a sum was also what the average annual payment of a hired adult employee amounted to, regardless of whether he was free or a slave. The slave himself cost around 60-90 shekels of silver, and for 1 shekel it was possible to purchase 180 liters of barley or dates.
 * [12] Finally, we conclude and summarize with M. A. Dandamayev: On the whole, there was only a small number of slaves in relation to the number of free persons even in the most developed countries of the Achaemenid empire, and slave labor was in no position to supplant the labor of free workers. The basis of agriculture was the labor of free farmers and tenants and in handicrafts the labor of free artisans, whose occupation was usually inherited within the family, likewise predominated.


 * Please note that every single statement now has a direct quotation from either the "Cambridge History of Iran" or the Encyclopedia Iranica article by M. A. Dandamayev. You can clearly follow the citations that I made from these sources above, where I listed every single one in order. I believe that this version is an accurate summary - not a synthesis - of the two sources. I do not introduce anything new or original. Every sentence is a direct paraphrase from the sources. Just check the citations above. Do I make any statement that is not taken straight from the two sources? 76.203.224.124 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I can see why there might still be a problem with the first sentence. I am only using it as an introduction. The way that I understood what I read from the "Cambridge History of Iran", the nature is slavery is "complex" and "not monolithic" precisely because there was no legal definition of slavery, even though some workers seem to have been essentially slaves. That is what I mean by "complex". This is, I think, further substantiated by the Encyclopedia Iranica article by M. A. Dandamayev. Anyway, I am just trying to introduce the topic here, but you might consider it as "original research" since neither of the two sources actually say that it is "complex", even though the level of detail certainly suggests it. The complicated nuance that both sources seem to describe led me to want to introduce the topic somehow. I am trying to prepare the reader for the complex details that follow. If you have a better way of introducing the topic, then please let me know.


 * Also, if you want, you can suggest the addition of something that deals specifically with the workers at Persepolis, who were (as you say) paid wages for their labors. The book "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin seems to address this directly on pages 174 and 175. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * About the workers at Persepolis, we might say something like this: A special case study can be made of the workers of the "royal economy", that is those who worked directly for the Persian king at the capital of Persepolis. For most of the reign of Darius, these workers were a diverse mixture of actual slaves (mostly prisoners-of-war), paid free workers, and individuals who were completing mandatory labor service for the king. However, under the reign of Darius' son Xerxes, none of the workers at Persepolis continued to be exploited as slaves, and all of them were granted equal economic rights; they received wages commensurate with the labor they performed, regardless of their social status. Furthermore, these wages could be several times higher than the equivalent in neighboring regions, since the workers at Persepolis were highly-skilled and had a special status within the Empire as the builders and architects of the king's royal palaces. These high wages were fueled by the vast tribute that was collected annually from the conquered peoples throughout the Empire. However, the workers were required to remain permanently at Persepolis in the king's employment, with the possible exception of those who had been freely hired originally. And, we can cite pages 174 and 175 of "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by Muhammad A. Dandamaev and Vladimir G. Lukonin for this. I have tried to paraphrase as directly as possible from those two pages, without violating copyrights of course. Read those two pages (I used Amazon.com to search for "slavery" throughout the book), and let me know if you think that the statements are accurate. This paragraph could be included right below the main text that I presented above. 76.203.224.124 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move towards 'Persian Empire'

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Achaemenid Empire → Persian Empire — Hy there, I'm proposing that we move this article towards Persian Empire. AFAIK 'Persian Empire' is its most common name in the English language and used as such to an overwhelming degree by English speakers/writers (historians, books, museums, schools, TV documentaries, etc) Flamarande (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support Flamarande (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) To best of my knowledge and conscience Persian Empire is the most common name in the English language, known and used as such to a simply overwhelmingly degree. IMHO a very clear case of Naming conventions (common names)
 * Oppose there were several Empires that are known as a Persian Empire 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose — is the subject of an ongoing content dispute.  See the page edit history.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The dab page Persian Empire (disambiguation) is on the October list of dab pages with the most incoming links. Meaning, with the most incoming links that need to be fixed.  I think the dab page should be moved to Persian Empire.  That should end arguments here over which empire "gets" the title "Persian Empire". --Una Smith (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The title "Persian Empire" does not belong to only one empire. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Quite clearly "Persian Empire" is the most common name for the subject of this article and the subject of this article is the primary topic for the term "Persian Empire". That is sufficient to warrant a move. john k (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is true, then the article needs a disambiguated page name such as Persian Empire (Achaemenid). I don't see that such a page name serves any useful purpose, when the article already has a common and unambiguous alternative name as its page name: Achaemenid Empire. --Una Smith (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So should we move Turkey to Republic of Turkey? I think the case that this article is the primary topic for "Persian Empire" is rather stronger than the case that the country is the primary topic for "Turkey". john k (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Persian Empire did not just refer to the Achamenid Empire. warrior  4321  20:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. You can use the term "Persian Empire" inside the text, but for the title, the current title ("Achaemenid Empire") is the most common name in reliable English sources (whether they are general encyclopedias like Britannica or specialized encyclopedias like Iranica or chapters of Academic books such as Cambridge's history of Iran). Indeed, to find the most common English title, you should look at the title of the most relevant reliable sources or the title of the relevant entries of reliable encyclipedias or the title of relevant chapters of books on History of Iran (instead of mixing some naive google search with one's own personal perception). Alefbe (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per John Kenney's comment in talk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose (more precisely: strongly inclined to oppose):
 * While it is true that 'Persian empire' typically refers to the Achaemenid state when it is clear that the context is the Achaemenids, 'Achaemenid/Achaemenian ' is typical when there is a need for precision . So for example in the Encyclopedia Iranica and in the Cambridge History of Iran, neither of which use the term 'Persian empire' for anything but the Achaemenid state, but use 'Achaemenid'/'Achaemenian' extensively.
 * Yes, the books of Briant et al are titled 'Persian empire', but they are specifically about the Achaemenids and nothing else. and not comparable to works that are non-specific. Unlike in an general reference work, there is no scope for misunderstanding in Briant et al (which are in any case addressed to those who already have a clue).
 * The analogy to 'Republic of Turkey'-vs-'Turkey' would only work if the issue under consideration were 'Achaemenid Empire'-vs-'Achaemenid'. But that is that not the case here.
 * the widespread misuse of the term 'Persian empire' on WP needs to be kept in mind. The vast majority of the links do not refer to the Achaemenids. Were WP not so massively riddled with uninformed usage, I would probably be inclined to 'Support'.
 * if the article were to be renamed, 'Achaemenid empire' would redirect to 'Persian empire'. Redirecting the precise term to a potentially ambiguous term is silly.
 * at the end of the day, the question is always what's right for the reader. That answer is that the reader will get what he/she wants for both rename and redirect, but there is no loss of functionality if things remain the way they are.
 * There is no point renaming it unless there were also advantages to renaming it. But from the above, it would seem that there are no advantages. Only disadvantages. The section of WP:UCN that applies here is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (common_names)#Do not overdo it. -- Fullstop (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you concede that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for this state? Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This page would contradict you. The page shows that there are more sources that call the Sassanid Empire, the "Persian Empire". warrior  4321  22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it yet again shows that "Google results tend to show what the lawyer wants to show (applies to all sides)". I will wait for Fullstop's honest reply. Flamarande (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fullstop, my point on Republic of Turkey was that Turkey is ambiguous (there's also Turkey (bird). We still call the article on the country Turkey, though, even though that is arguably less of a primary usage than "Persian Empire" for the Achaemenids.  And we redirect precise terms to potentially ambiguous terms all the time.  Once again, Republic of Turkey which is precise, accurate, and unambiguous, redirects to Turkey, which is neither precise nor unambiguous, and is arguably not even a primary usage in English. john k (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Insofar as the resulting redirect is a problem, we can write Achaemenid dynasty - which now redirects here, and should be a genealogy - and have Achaemenid Empire redirect to it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And what would be the purpose of that and its benefit? Moving the page for the sake of moving the page? Alefbe (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If, as Fullstop suggests, readers will be surprised by Achaemenid Empire redirecting to Persian Empire (even one that ends with Darius III), such readers expect information on the Achaemenids. Give them some, and a hatnote to here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Imho "much ado about nothing" essentially both names are ok, so there is no real need for this move. We create a lot of fuzz, waste a lot of people's times on an absolutely minor issue. One version for the article name and the other one as redirect or in a disambiguation page do the job just fine (and of course both names mentioned in the article text)--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In a discussion at Talk:Persian Empire, I've advocated moving this page to Persian Empire, but I think Kmhkmh is probably right--it doesn't matter too much whether this page is at Persian Empire or Achaemenid Empire, readers will find the information they're looking for, and as long as the proper hatnotes are at the top of the article and the lead sentence mentions that "Persian Empire" and "Achaemenid Empire" are both in use, they won't be excessively confused. (Of course, I'm assuming that Persian Empire will continue to redirect here, and not to a disambig page or a weird overview that combines a bunch of different Iranian states...) --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Kmhkmh and Akhilleus. It doesn't really matter. The status quo is perfectly adequate. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Data
Indeed, one should look at the usage of works of general reference, as Alefbe says.
 * Britannica. These 103 results include perhaps half a dozen meaning the Sassanian Empire, and one or two representing the POV that there is only one Persian Empire, from Cyrus to Mohammed Pahlevi; and a small number of false positives. (Achaemenid Empire has slightly fewer hits, but many more of them are false positives: "the Achaemenids ruled an empire stretching...".)
 * Encarta Article on Persia (defined as before 1935; article covers history up to 632). This and the article on Iran use "Persian Empire" for the Achaemenids only, as far as I can see.
 * Columbia. Uses Persia as the pre-Islamic name, and "Persian empire" of the Achaemenids.
 * Library of Congress. Achaemenid Empire; does not appear to use "Persian Empire" at all.


 * History of the Persian Empire ISBN 978-0226627779 - A book about the history of the Persian Empire (begun with Cyrus and ended by Alexander The Great). The point is that this book is clearly about a single state (founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III because of Alexander).
 * The Persian Empire ISBN 978-0226014470 - a book titled 'Persian Empire' about the same state.
 * Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia ISBN 978-0520247314 - I like page 12 whose title is "Persian Empire (550 BC - 330 BC)".
 * From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire ISBN 978-1575060316 - again the same name (Persian Empire), the same state (founded by Cyrus and ended by Alexander).
 * The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period ISBN 978-0415552790
 * Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, Volume I ISBN 978-1845110628 - look carefully at the 2 "page" (I don't mean page 2 - I don't how it is called, it belongs to the cover paper but it's inside in manner of side notes). Quoting: "...origins of the Persian Empire, its formation by Cyrus the Great, up to its collapse by the conquest of Alexander The Great...)


 * See also a complete google book search analysis of the usage of "Persian Empire". Xashaiar (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like to use Google but what the hell Flamarande (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

discussion of data

 * As I mentioned before, you should look at the usage in title of entries, chapters, books, etc, not the usage in text. You better also look at other categories of reliable sources as well (e.g. more specialized encyclopedias like Iranica and academic books on this subject and general books on history of Iran). Alefbe (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize that principle at all; it is not indicated in our naming conventions; it is not practice. Citation please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's common sense. Relying on what most of reliable sources use as a title (for books, chapters, entries, ...) is much more appropriate than counting the usage of terms in some limited introductory texts and then arguing about the real context of that usage and then making decision based on personal perception (WP:OR is somehow relevant here, but anyway, I prefer to refer to common sense). Alefbe (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. It's something made up in school one day: if a title does not differ from the contents of the book, this non-consensus invention makes no difference; if it does, the title is far more likely to be florid and archaic than the text is. (For example, a dozen books are titled Monstrous Regiment; does this make it common usage?)


 * The usage of schoolbooks is another question. It is likely to represent general usage fairly well; much more so than a specialized work of reference. But since I wasn't planning to cite any, I don't see that this matters much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

@Flamarande: What the point of listing this highly selective small collection of books? You have cited a few books in favor of the title that you prefer for the page and you have neglectd plenty of books, book chapters, articles and Encyclopedia entries which have "Achaemenids" or ''Achaemenid Empire" in their title title. Alefbe (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want I can keep on collecting such books. In Amazon's site there are only 1,186 results for 'Achaemenid Empire'. There are 15,027 results for 'Persian Empire'. I suspect that a substantial part of the first group bears the title 'Persian Empire' or something similar (and belongs de facto to the second). I'm certain that the majority of the second group does not bear 'Achaemenid Empire' or something similar in their titles. IMHO the clear majority of English books uses 'Persian Empire' (or something similar) in their titles and in their text. Only a minority uses 'Achaemenid Empire' (or something similar) in their titles and their text. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. In your honest opinion: how many books of the second group (books bearing the title 'Persian Empire' or something similar) do not describe the 'state founded by Cyrus and ended by Alexander'? The majority, many, or a few?
 * User:Fullstop seems to concede that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for this state (and I respect but do not agree with his reasons) while others have avoided the issue completely. Who will follow his example? Flamarande (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments: ==

Those of you who went to a English-speaking school, try your best to remember your history teacher. Did he or not teach that: "Cyrus the Great established the Persian Empire. The ancient Greeks fought several several wars against the Persian Empire. The battle of Thermopylae was an engagement in which a Greek army was defeated by a Persian army under the command of Xerxes. The naval Battle of Salamis ended in a Greek victory over the Persian fleet. Alexander the Great invaded, defeated Darius III, and conquered the Persian Empire, etc."

I wish to make clear that AFAIK the Persian Empire was succeeded by the Seleucid Empire, followed by the Parthian Empire. The Persians (as in people, language, and culture) survived and thrived (this survey and move proposal is not about the people, this is about the common English name of a historical state). After several centuries a new state appeared; its rulers loudly and officially proclaimed that it was a resurrection of the former Persian Empire. It was located in the same area, and had to a certain degree the same cultures, languages, religions. This proclamation hasn't been forgotten or ignored quite the opposite; acknowledging the proclamation the state is (sometimes) also called Neo-Persian Empire, Sassinid Persian Empire or something similar. Nevertheless AFAIK the majority of English-writing historians call it the Sassanid Empire (have named it/study/teach/write about).

(Let me be clear that the 1st paragraph is about the Persian Empire the 2nd is about the Sassinid Empire. One is different from the other and that's why historians use different names, so that we (common mortals :) don't confuse one with the other).

Those of you who didn't go to a English-speaking school (it matters little what name is used by other languages; this is the English wiki) just ask yourselves: What name do we find in English books (e.g.: Osprey)? What name do we find inside museums in the UK and USA (English-speaking museums)? What name do we see in TV documentaries (e.g.: History Channel, Discovery, BBC, National Geographics, etc)? Which name is used by the English-speaking narrators of these documentaries (ignore the translations shown in the subtitles; what name is spoken by the British/American voice)?

Did you see 300 (film) (or its trailer)? "The thousand nations of the Persian Empire descend upon you..." ? (go verify if you doubt it). I'm not claiming that this product of Hollywood is historically accurate (far from it). However in my very humble opinion it shows yet again so clearly which name was, is, and will be used for the foreseeable future by the English-speaking world and (as far as I'm able to judge this matter) that name simply isn't 'Achaemenid Empire' at all.

I guess that I could (and perhaps even should) present some stupid numbers obtained through Google, but I won't. Too many of us know (or at least should know) that Google results tend to show what the lawyer wants to show. You may certainly in good conscience look for yourself if you want (who is stopping you?). But I decline to use them. If you truly need a Google list or something similar to make up your own mind about a common name in the English language (common as in commonly known and used as such) then IMHO you're probably not qualified to judge this matter. Either you already do know what (English) name is more often used in books, taught at school, and shown in TV documentaries or you simply don't (due of having no access to such products?). You see I'm hereby using the books you have read, your own education, and the TV programs you saw already.

Just ask yourselves: "What English name is used more often? 'Achaemenid Empire' or 'Persian Empire' when someone is talking about the 'ancient state' which invaded ancient Greece and which at the bitter end was invaded conquered by Alexander? Which name should be used by the article of the English wiki? Reach your own honest answer and vote accordingly above. Thanks Flamarande (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a poll. If you bothered to read the Persian Empire talk page like you claimed, you would have seen it. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly within my right to ask for a new poll. Let me ask you the following question: Do you deny that 'Persian Empire' is the commonly used name of 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III' as far as the English language is concerned?. Isn't it used as such by the overwhelming majority of the English-speaking world (and used as such by the majority of its books, historians, schools, museums, TV documentaries, etc ? - provided that they are written and/or spoken in the English language of course). Flamarande (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll would be meaningless as 1. the page has been page protected so you can't override it and 2. there has already been one straw poll in which 10 people have said that a restoration of the Persian Empire page with all of the dynasties listed instead of just the Achaemenid Empire. The second straw poll has 6 people stating such with a 45k+ page, which would mean that a large consensus is already against you. As such, it would seem that you are forum shopping to push a POV that is no verified with any sources. Very problematic. By the way, you can claim "majority" all you want, but it is meaningless unless you find a reliable source to claim it. Regardless, "majority" is meaningless, because that is like saying that Augustus is the majority of what people say a Roman Emperor is as if it would exclude all of the others who claim the title. That is not how things work. By the way, even the Farsi Wiki contradicts you. I think that is a strong sign that you don't understand how things are. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't deny it, or agree with it, you simply avoid to give a straight issue to the question. Let me remind you that this wiki isn't the Faarsi wiki but the English one. And again: Do you deny that 'Persian Empire' is the commonly used name of 'the state founded by Cyrus and ended with Darius III' as far as the English language is concerned? Flamarande (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder: let's everyone remember to remain civil and assume good faith in this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the fact that "Persian Empire" is (mildly) ambiguous is not really an argument at all. London does not just refer to the city in England, for example. There are two questions here. 1) Is "Persian Empire" the most common name for the subject of this article; and 2) is the subject of this article the primary topic for the term "Persian Empire." I think #1 is clearly fulfilled - the subject of this article is normally referred to as the Persian Empire. The second one is perhaps more open to dispute, but over at Talk:Persian Empire there's been a considerable attempt to figure out how sources use the term "Persian Empire," and all uses beyond that for the Achaemenid Empire seem rather sporadic. The term "Persian Empire" can, occasionally, describe uses other than the Achaemenid Empire. But the evidence so far presented has more or less convinced me that this is fairly uncommon, and that the Achaemenid Empire is, in fact, the primary topic for the term "Persian Empire." Others can disagree, but finding an old encyclopedia article that calls the Ilkhanate the "Persian Empire," or an occasional book which calls the Sassanids or the Safavids a "revived Persian Empire" does not really constitute an argument. john k (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I say if your going to move Achaemenid Empire to Persian Empire, lets merge Roman Empire to an Italian Empire, Just because most historians "perfer" to call it Persia and not call it by its Original name of Achaemenid, it does not mean its Persian Empire (like the paragraph above stated that this is does not constitute an arguement anyways), the Afsharid Empire (a Persian dynasty) is not Called Persian Empire either its called Afsharid, the Persian Empire of the Achaemenid in majority was multicultural and the kings themselves called their own empire the Achaemenids! So why move the Achaemenids?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What historians call the realm of Augustus and Constantine the Italian Empire? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It was greek historians that called it Persia, because they came from Parsa, but the kings called it Achaemenid, now people call it Iranshar--24.23.160.233 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What Darius actually wrote was  I am Darius, the great king, king of kings, the king of Persia, the king of countries, the son of Hystaspes, the grandson of Arsames, the Achaemenid. His (chief) realm was Persia, his family Achaemenid. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit research would help us to understand Darius the Great: He says "Pārsā" which the Greek read as "Persis" and then the west read that as "Persia". That means, Darius the Great followed what he was supposed to do: Achaemenians before him declared themselves as "King of Anshan" and "King of Parsa". Parsa/Persis refers "roughly" to Pars province. Being Persian was coined first by the Persians themselve, that's true. But so what?Xashaiar (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To refute a piece of ethnic history.


 * For our purposes, it doesn't matter what Darius called his empire; Parsa and other countries was good enough for him, since he was unlikely to have thought of other empires. What matters is what English-speakers call it, since this Wikipedia is wrtitten for them; and that seems reasonably clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Persian Empire Flamarande (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, we all know in the history of the Italy article it has Roman Empire then all the way to Latin Empire and so forth, even the Persian history section has Afsharid which was Persian, Sassanid which was Persian, but they are called Afsharid and Sassanid Empires, not Persian and Persian Empires, so Achaemenid Empire should be an article under the a main Persian Empire(s) article, I think something like that already exists. Leave it as it is, its no big deal. And don't forget, if we change this to only Persian Empire, then we have to change all the Achaemenid Babylon Achaemenid Assyria Achaemenid Egypt and so on articles too. Some historians even call the Sassanid Empire the Second Persian Empire, they understand that Achaemenids should go under the context of Persian Empire, but the 500 BC Persian Empire was called "Achaemenid", the introduction of the article Already says there were the other usages like Medo-Persian Empire or Achaemenid Persian Empire, NOtice no one calls it the Persian Achaemenid Empire, they put Achaemenids first. They are still called Achaemenids, this is the something important to understand. Rome after Romulus, Achaemenid after Achaemenes.--153.18.28.124 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true the sassanid empire is called Persian empire as well in literature and to distinguish it from the other one people often use the term old persian and new persian empire: . In other word we would needs a disambiguation page in any case, so even if were to move this article to Persian Empire at least its header would need to offer a link to sassanid empire or a separate more extensive disambiguation page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your right, that's why I agree that even if we make this just Persian Empire, there were other empires called Persian Empire, so a disambug page is needed. And we should include Achaemenid Empire link in the Persian Empire disambug page.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Persian Empire
Please note, there is an open RfC at Talk:Persian Empire. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

BCE/CE or BC/AD?
Regarding the recent edits that have occurred on this article, it should be brought to thought about the usage of units of time. Why don't we use BCE and CE, why do we use BC and AD instead? The article has nothing to do with Christianity, and I believe the article's units of time should be changed from BC, AD to BCE, CE.

Support

 * Support. Per nom. warrior  4321  22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Neutrality Enlil Ninlil (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support The proportion of BCE/CE in newly published works is growing and this will bring Wikipedia more in line with that trend.Dejvid (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - non controversial, does not change much, tends to be the common standard, and does not have a Christian basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Ottava. Pmlineditor      ∞    14:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - per WP:NPOV, and above reasoning.  Chzz  ►  14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose Flamarande (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * Neutral because it's not that important, but leaning toward Support because it makes more sense in this page. Alefbe (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Either notation is fine, turning this into an issue is just another time waster (similarly to the naming dispute).--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Such a change would be very unwise. If we replace the BC's with BCE's in the 'Infobox Former Country' the categories will not work any more. Try to replace the BC's with BCE's and you will end up with Category:559 BCE establishments and Category:330 BCE disestablishments (see how "red" they are?). The 'History of Greater Iran' box uses BC/AD too.

Please take also a look at Cyrus the Great, Greco-Persian Wars, Darius I of Persia, Darius III of Persia, Achaemenes, Behistun Inscription, Xerxes I of Persia, etc. Consistency speaks for itself.

The statement that "The article has nothing to do with Christianity" is a red herring. A lot of 'articles about history' have nothing to do with Christianity, but that doesn't mean that because of it they should/are forced to use BCE/CE.

This article has used BC right from the start see the creation of the article. However if you truly want to reward this kind of behaviour    be my guest. Flamarande (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus can change. Just because a few articles on history do not have BCE/CE does not mean that this one cannot. The BCE/CE concept is still new for many people and is emerging through. Since the last century, BC/AD was the unit of time used in historical sources. Now, academic sources are starting to use BCE/CE for articles that do not have anything to do with Christianity. The categories you have mentioned have one or two articles including this one. They can either be moved or redirected. warrior  4321  01:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said that consensus can't change.


 * You surely could move the categories.


 * However such a step would only create a great amount of inconsistency within Category:Establishments by year and Category:Disestablishments by year (please check the sub-categories, in particular Category:States and territories by year of establishment). You would have to move all these categories towards BCE/CE (consistency and common sense).


 * I'm not challenging the fact that some academic sources are starting to use BCE/CE. However as you said: "BCE/CE concept is still new for many people" (ie: the majority). Flamarande (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh god. "BCE/CE concept is still new for many people" (ie: the majority). So what? Just because a few people do not know about it is not a valid reason not to use it. The creation of the BC/AD was created for the Gregorian Calendar, by Pope Gregory. While I have nothing against Christians and Christianity, this article is in no way related to the Christian church, and can thus be changed to BCE/CE (common era). That is the most neutral way. This article should actually state the calendar by the Iranian calendar/Zoroastrian calendar. However, that would be un-neutral. Thus, the most neutral calendar is the common calendar for all, not for any religion, not for any country.   warrior  4321  14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

@Flamarande: Your first argument is quite irrelevant, because the discussion is about the usage in text, not changing categories. About your second argument, I agree that it's not a good idea to change BCE or BC just for changing it, however, you cannot use this argument to justify your preference, because you (with support of Pmanderson) have previously edit-warred just to replace BCE/CE with BC/AD in Parthian Empire. Alefbe (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True, I restored the original dating system once . I checked the article-history carefully and the article used BC/AD right from the start . Some users kept on changing it towards BCE/CE   (if you truly want to accuse someone of edit-warring...). Let me be very clear: I never impose BC/AD upon a BCE/CE article. I only restore original systems after unilateral changes (unrequested, undebated, and not agreed upon). Flamarande (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently the proportion of BC articles to BCE is overwhelmingly in favor of BC. Every now and then I check the usage of new books.  I don't do it systematically enough to give exact proportions but it is clearly a lot more equal than wikipedia usage.  Hence the occasional change of pages where appropriate to BCE to bring Wikipedia more in line with the the balance in historical publishing seems to me justified.  The Achaemenid page goes back to 2003 and at the time there were no redirects for BCE years, hence there wasn't really much choice.  Given that the Achaemenid's had no link to Christianity it makes sense to look at the issue for this page afresh. A proposal along with a 3 to one vote seems to me a solid enough basis  to make the change. Dejvid (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Archive

 * I must say though I don't care which notation is used this way of handling the issue seems highly inappropriate to me. You close the discussion and annouce a result directly after 3 new sudden votes appear in your favour. If you want handle that properly leave the poll open for at least a few more days and possibly request feedback in a related history portal. If there's a clear vote after that, then you may archive it and annouce a result but not before. Otherwise the "result" is good for nothing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll was always in Support. There were no more comments for around 3-4 days, so I changed it in the favor of the poll. When it had been changed yesterday, Flamarande reverted it. I did not want to get in an edit war, so I went to the #wikipedia-en IRC channel and asked for help, on what my next steps should be. They told me to archive the discussion as no new activity was appearing. However, they seemed to have voted prior to me archiving it. Without those votes, the vote is still in support. The archiving was done so an edit war would not occur.
 * Amazing. He asked for support and after getting a single vote changed the dating system. I reverted the change and after getting two more votes (which he got after asking for it), he archived the discussion as swiftly as he could to prevent "any possibilty whatsover of an edit-war". Hmmm, can I ask for support too? "Perhaps I can't and truly shouldn't because after all the discussion is archived already." Flamarande (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, you should read what I wrote again. I never asked for support, I asked on what my next steps should be, instead of just reverting you, and then you would have just reverted me. I archived it because there was no discussion for several days, and was thus the most sensible suggestion told to me. If the discussion is closed, an edit war would not occur on the basis that discussion was still ongoing when it clearly wasn't. I did not close it to secure the support. warrior  4321  17:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. After getting a "decisive" third vote (making the score a mighty 3:1 - what a mighty and clear diff) you felt yourself justified to make the change you wanted. I reverted it once', pointing out that the diffrence was not enough. That's when you decided to ask for support on IRC, got it and closed the issue as swiftly as you possibly could. Flamarande (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I wrote just in the above paragraph? I never canvassed. I asked what my next steps should be. I am allowed to ask for guidance on what I should do next. The people who have voted were just users there. I did not ask them to vote. I did not want to get in an edit war, because I was sure you would have reverted me if I had reverted you. warrior  4321  20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Flamarande, many of us were involved in the RfC and at Talk:Persian Empire. Your comment is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one thing: anyone can receive three quick supports. Does that make the supports themselves worthless? If someone gets 10 supports in an RfA in its last 2 minutes in a way that it changes the consensus, then are the supports worthless? Pmlineditor      ∞    17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about 10 vote diffrence, we are dealing with 3 in favour and 1 against. He got the other ones only AFTER requesting support on IRC and then killed (archived) the issue as swiftly as he could. If you agree with this... it's your beer. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I never did ask for support. You should be able to understand that by now. warrior  4321  20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is not with receiving quick votes and quick votes are as good as any other vote. The issue is with closing the poll immediately after receiving them, that's not appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Right. Isn't 7 days a sufficient time to wait? And please... let's not cry over what has been done. I see sufficient consensus to close it anyway... Pmlineditor     ∞    17:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and if the current results are not to your liking, you only need to ask for support on IRC to get the votes/consensus you want. Then proceed to close the issue asap. Wiki-democracy at its finest hour. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really want to repeat it again, here we go. I never canvassed on IRC, I asked for direction. I am fully allowed to do that. warrior  4321  20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me reply with the following: You request a poll, and get three votes in favour (or was it two? I think it was two, and then Dejvid cast the "decisive vote" yesterday) and one against. Are you justified to close the matter and proceed acording to your own wish? Or are we supposed to wait and let someone neutral (perhaps an administrator) count the votes and reach a conclusion? Because Warrior4321 didn't wait, and there was only a single revert (but hey if we can use a single revert to justify a quick archival...). There was NO edit-war whatsoever (that's his sorry excuse: he was "only trying to prevent a possible revert-war" and asked for support). I mean, he clearly "didn't close it to secure the support". It may only seem that way. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why you would need someone to count for you, other than the situation where you can't do that yourself. The favor of the vote was always in Support. From the beginning we had 2 on Support, with 1 leaning towards support and only you on oppose. You do not want this article to be neutral, and therefore even when clear consensus is against you, you are fighting to get your own way. warrior  4321  20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The clear consensus you obtained by asking help on IRC. Oh I forgot, according to you these votes were "only an unintended side-effect". The English wiki should be written in English language, and not in the "Neutral language". Flamarande (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you even read what I wrote? I was talking about the votes before I even went to IRC for help. Anyhow, writing in neutral can be done in the English language. Please read this for more information. Anyway, I don't know what you are talking about. Words such as "common era" and "before common era" seem to be in the English language, not in any neutral language. warrior  4321  13:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You only had 2 votes in favour and 1 vote against when you made your change (the "decisive" third vote came only afterwards). That wasn't a consensus, there were simply not enough votes at all. If BCE and CE are features of the English language how come they highlighted in "red" (as in wrong spelling) by Firefox and Microsoft spelling? Care to explain that? Flamarande (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Are we also going to use the NPOV-reason in the other language wikis to change them towards BCE/CE?


 * So, we put the correct spelling according to Mozilla Firefox? Firefox produces Achaemenid as a wrong spelling, shall we change that too then? There was no more discussion for a few days. That meant discussion was done, and consensus had been established. I don't care what the other language wikis do, I am trying to bring neutralization to this page on this language Wikipedia. Now please stop crying over your loss, and get over it. warrior  4321  13:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How amazing, you (only) got two votes, but you simply decided the issue. You asked for support. You archived the discussion as swiftly as you could "solely" in order to bury the debate. You supposedly did all of this "in order to prevent any possibility of revert-war" which never happened at all in the first place. You want to "neutralize" this article thereby twisting the English language along PC lines. I didn't "lose" and you didn't "win". This article lost in quality because you cheated. Flamarande (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, because there was no discussion for quite some time. I had closed the issue then, however you reverted it, restarting the issue. This led me to ask for help, which led to more votes and the suggestion to archive it. The article never lost in "quality", it only became more neutral. However, it still amazes me that either you can't read or you can't understand this fact, after I wrote it several times already. I never canvassed, and never asked for support. You can keep bringing that blame up and accuse stupid arguments such as "cheating" to cover your loss, but I won't address it anymore. You know I didn't canvass nor ask for support, you just using that as a cover up for the article's conversion to neutrality. warrior  4321  13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That discussion was a sham and it is not supported by WP:MOS or WP:ERA anyway. It looks rigged to me. The article must be changed back to the stable state in was before, that is BC/AD--94.4.46.197 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

From my inspection of similar discussions on the subject of era settings, this one comes across as defective. In order to change the era setting, there must be a substantive reason, for instance; a) to keep in line with other closely related articles; b) to conform to the requirements of the sources/references (rather weak reasoning); c) to prevent implied bias in the quality of the article (ie religious ones). Each one of these is rather subjective, but none applies in this case. The reasons offered are specious (neutrality is not satisfactory) but even then would be possible were there no objections (so as to avoid any controversy). However, this was also not achieved so other editors may now set it right in terms of WP:ERA--AssegaiAli (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

550 Empire started 559 Cyrus became king
Cyrus became king in 559 BC, but in 550 BC he established the empire and became emperor of Persia. The empire did not start in 558 BC, 90% of the sources say 550 BC, some users may have used an outdated or incorrect source. Discuss here if interested. Its time to get things right on Wikipedia, users making mistakes all over the places and making issues out of non-issues, regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree 550 seems to be the appropriate date, since the conquest in the Median empire in 550 is usually considered as event that created the empire, i.e. its starting point. Cyrus first years were not that different from the reign of the Persian kings before him, i.e. there is no good reason to pick 559. I also agree that time is really better spend on getting content right, instead of wasting it on realy minor issues as Achaemenid Empire vs Persian Empire or BCE/CE vs BC/AD--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, you know I am really glad you agree with me on this subject, I hope we can create more agreements among other users, and I welcome that this progress has been made. Also regarding the other subject that we currently don't agree on, I have new evidence for the 8.0 issue, and some new sources for Nubia/~10.7 issue that we had discussed earlier. I'll try to post them tomorrow, either here or in the largest empires article. Please do not worry, It will not be too much and I will not try to rush or force a consensus as soon as possible, I will simply display the sources and leave it up the expert and or interested users to come up with a conclusion on whether we should add them or not. So thanks again, regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be very much appreciated- thanks in advance.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Use proper sources
Children's book and museum flyers (not to mentioned google chached pages and privates websites) are normally not reputable sources for WP. In particular it is unacceptable to prefer them over available scholarly/academic papers and books, which are available for Persian empire.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The offical website of the British Museum for Persian empire is better source than the "booklet" essentially just being a programm (what exhibition are availavle when, opening times, special events etc.) The World Tribune article focuses on the bias of Islamic education in the field Iranian history and is not the really about the old Persian empire in particular, more importantly it does not state explicitly than the old Persian empire covered 8 million square miles, but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever). Also such a newspaper article is clearly outranked by the officilal website of the British museum (not to mention scholarly papers containing other figures as well).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kmhkmh, All I can say is Wow, you now seem to be stretching the issue more than it should be. Firstly, please go read the message on your talk page, it's a new one. Secondly, you forgot that the source IS from the official website of the British Museum (http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/22828_Booklet.pdf) which I managed to find. The booklet is not the program, in the booklet it has list of things in the Museum, the program in question is just one of many activities, lectures, films, and presentations end quote, on the first page of the booklet, that would take place in the British Museum. There is no other way to find the program on the site, other than the pdf version of it, when things are published in the booklet, that is where you would find them (it makes no difference it is on the site or the pdf site of it, both go back to http://www.britishmuseum.org). That's like saying the facts stated in the article on Wikipedia.org/Toy, are not from Wikipedia, hello?! Your a little right about the World Tribune one, but it is indirectly implying that it was the Achaemenid Empire, because it says that 1300 years history prior to Islamic Invasion, 1300 before Islam is not Sassanid, Median, but Achaemenid. And the only two candidates are Sassanid and Achaemenid, but Sassanid got no bigger than 3.5 or if you believe in the original research estimate of 7.4. However, we know she is talking about the Achaemenid when she says AT ONE POINT 1300 years before, it was over 3 million square miles, today scholars are beginning to accept a larger area of the AE, such as British Museum in 2005 that had the 7.5 estimate, so the only empire that ever got close to 3 million square miles is the AE. Your statement "but it says Iran did in its history (which might refer to old persian empire or sassanid empire or whatever)" is unacceptable (and clearly shows you did not look at the sources properly), Iran and its history means refering to the Persians, because the Sassanid and Achaemenid dynasties were both Persian. And that the author of the article published 10 days ago has a Master's degree in Ancient history (emphasis Ancient Persia) and other degrees and is a teacher, journalist, businesswomen. She more than qualifies regardless of the vague British Museum estimates, I also put link for the authors of the British Museum source so you can contact them, and another link for the World Tribune lady so you can verify her credentials. BTW, she works at the Presepolis 3D group, a reliable organization that has its own book, and historians that work in trying to reconstruct Achaemenid architecture. I think the real problem is that you don't investigate the source enough in plain site, so this creates problems. I don't know what else you want me to do, I guess that my sources are good for Wikipedia, but not for you. Regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very simply, cite a proper academic source and not just those "emergency" sources, that you might use if nothing is else is available. Any official academic website, article or book outranks the sources, you keep presenting. You've been arguing this for months now and writing lengthy explanations, why we should use that sources, and you still miss the point. The bottom line is you still haven't been able to come up with a convincing source. So again if you want to replace the figure of the British Museum or some academic paper by a presumably larger number, you need to come up with somewhat equally reputable source and not just sources you might use if nothing else is available.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you think the sources I present are not acadaemic, I already proven the World Tribune lady and her article is reputable. Plus, the British Museum source is from the British Museum. So far there (a lot of 7.8 AND 8.0) are other non academic but somewhat reliable sources available, but you denied them, so that means it is because of you these are emergency sources (as I'm guessing), because nothing else suits the boss.


 * Also that you keep labeling everything as "emergency" sources, explain exactly what that means? A new estimate by the British Museum itself? An article by a reputable person that came out just 10 day's ago? How is this a emergency? You forgot why I was looking for these estimates. I even told you before, I used to think the AE was more than 10 km2, so I did some research and I found out that other than 7.7, currently the largest academic estimate is 8.0 km2, all I am doing is trying to see what is the largest estimate for the AE. If there was a reputable source with a 6.9 km2 estimate for Rome, I would add that too.


 * This isn't just about the AE, but what are the largest estimates made by reliable sources. Therefore, I am going to ask another user, or start a voting poll on whether my sources are academic. Therefore, by the way these are new sources I found just a week ago, not ones I am have kept presenting for a long time as you claim. Either know most of what I say is true, and don't wish to acknowledge it, or you truly believe what your saying;


 * "So again if you want to replace the figure of the British Museum or some academic paper by a presumably larger number, you need to come up with somewhat equally reputable source (British Museum Booklet 2008 Persia family activity program that is part of the New FORGOTTEN EMPIRE: The world of Ancient Persia exhibition sponsored by the Magic of Persia'tm' and BP'tm' [UC Berkely published the book]) and not just sources you might use if nothing else is available (there is another one [WorldTribune], plus the older ones you rejected [which I would now reject too, but would keep the WorldTribune one]).--24.23.160.233 (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories
I've replaced the use of the non-existent categories Category:States and territories established in 550 BCE and Category:330 BCE disestablishments with the existing Category:States and territories established in 550 BC and Category:330 BC disestablishments. I recognise the agreement above to change the dating format in the text of the article, but unless these category names are changed, there's no reason not to have the correct ones on the page. The non-existent ones will also still appear on the page because of the use of "BCE" in the template and the automatic application of that template, which I have noted here before. (The template is in the process of being de-automated in this regard, but it will require more time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

the map
hi, i am thinking of making a map for the achaemenid empire .... at its greatest extent. I read the above discussion related to maps but it was inconclusive. can any body suggest me which map i should recreate into wikipedia standered format, like that of the Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * also one thing, persian empire occupied different territories at different times and lost them later and captured some parts agains.... so the thing is quite messed up, how about a "single map" that incorporate all the 5 maps with different eras shown in different shades...?

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  18:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * that is only helpful, if the different areas/sizes can be clearly distinguished. Also please compile the sources on which the map is based, since the we have a history of somewhat incorrect/questionable maps.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As i am not in this subject, i.e history of achaemenid empire, nor i have any available source that could help me in finding out the boundaries of empire under different kings.... it will be helpful if you can tell me of any such source or its largest extents under its greatest emperors.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to finally have a modern map to show the Persian Empire at its height, the problem is no one know exactly what that includes and the rule is if you don't know it stays out as discussed in the talk archive here. Sections 17-20, 23 and 25-27 are about the map if anyone wants to read but 27 contains the conclusion. Couldn't we however display as accurate a map as we can and cite it as an estimation? That way we get the visual aid without claiming something that we don't know. One of the many previous maps found in the archive might well be good enough. Alternatively someone could recreate the old map; as nice as it is, a modern map would be more appropriate to a modern article and the old map could be cited as a reliable source. Gul e (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Achaemenid Religion
I did that. For the reasons in the edit summary and the fact that "the question is not whether Achaemenids were Zoroastrian, but what we mean by calling them Zoroastrian". Academic consensus does not exist on this and Achaemenid religion is named as Zoroastrianism in a broad sense. Xashaiar (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

multipule dating systems used
i have noticed that through this artical on the Achaemenid Empire that it seems to use 2 dating systems BC and BCE and i must say it is quite confusing to some people i recomend that this page be edited to correct this.209.26.247.114 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Herodotus
''Herodotus writes[15] that the native leadership debated the best form of government for the Empire. It was agreed that an oligarchy would divide them against one another, and democracy would bring about mob rule resulting in a charismatic leader resuming the monarchy. Therefore, they decided a new monarch was in order, particularly since they were in a position to choose him.''

This is universally acknowledged as made up by Herodotus by all historians. Such discussions about political systems were held in Greece, not in Persia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't doubt your word, but you will have to prove it (provide credible sources/evidence). Flamarande (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's like proving you shouldn't treat Bible literally. I could dig up ancient history textbook, but even random googling confirms this trivially. Here's a few -    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.120.104 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly unbeatable before Greco-Persian War
I've seen a another source before the war Persia's military of the dynasty lost only twice is that true--76.94.173.73 (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A quote from a very minor academic's high school textbook doesn't belong in the article
See -- Groisser wrote high school textbooks, he was only an assistant professor in a minor college in their School of General Studies, there is no way this should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I kind of get what you are saying...can you possibly elaborate on your concern a little more? GoetheFromm (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merry X-mas, btw. GoetheFromm (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and the same to you, but it seems pretty clear. Basically, who cares what some minor academic writing a high school textbook says? Fails WP:RS and it's embarrassing as it is so obviously desperately grabbing at just any source to say something matching a pov. He's not even a minor historian. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think that it is very clear at all. Philip Groisser received a doctorate and masters from two of America's most preeminent universities, one of which is Ivy League (NYU and Columbia).  He was commsioned to write a book on history.  He also was given a mandate as a superintendent to educate, among many topics, on history.  I wouldn't discount his work.  And he was a college professor.  That certainly qualifies him for WP:RS as his work HAS been peer-reviewed (textbooks are peer reviewed).  Also, he had the backing of a reputable institution such as the American Academic Association.
 * Also, what POV are you referring to and why are you saying that it is embarrasing? Very strong words...GoetheFromm (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, fixed. We still have Dr. Groisser's quote, except now it is embeded, with reference. Problem solved! Dr. Persi (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A Google scholar search indicates that Groisser’s Mastering World History (you two, Dr. Persi & GoetheFromm, don't even get the title right) hasn’t had any impact on the scientific community. A quote from a book that hasn't had any such impact doesn't belong in the article. If you still don't get it, please consult the RSN. --Konstock (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Konstock, welcome back but please mind your tone.
 * I don't remember referring to the book by it's title so I don't know what you mean when you say that I "don't even get the title right."
 * Also, as stated above: Philip Groisser received a doctorate and masters from two of America's most preeminent universities, one of which is Ivy League (NYU and Columbia). He was commsioned to write a book on history. He also was given a mandate as a superintendent to educate, among many topics, on history. I wouldn't discount his work. And he was a college professor. That certainly qualifies him for WP:RS as his work HAS been peer-reviewed (textbooks are peer reviewed). Also, he had the backing of a reputable institution such as the American Academic Association. GoetheFromm (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)