Talk:Achaemenid Empire

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 2005

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:

• 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.

so, by removing the second map not only is the article kept clean, it also removes the cause of a disruptive edit war.

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 this one 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)

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)

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?