Talk:Achaemenid Empire

BCE?

This whole "bce" dating system makes no sense whatsoever, because it is only used by in reality 0.1% of people. BC/AD is obviously the more understood and known dating method. What is before common era? It does not represent anything, what is a "common era"? Can we please put an end to this politically correct garbage?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacsearraigBhoy (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a general policy of accepting both conventions. A decision in favor of BCE for this page can be found here: Talk:Achaemenid_Empire/Archive_1#BCE.2FCE_or_BC.2FAD.3FDejvid (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the most recent comments in the Discussion of Archive section following the closed discussion linked above, other editors have called this discussion (and therefore its decision) into question and are advocating a return to the use of BC/AD, the style that was used in the creation of the article. Erianna (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't quite agree with the manner in which MasearraiBhoy has phrased it but I agree with him and Erianna in that BC/AD is more understood and that a return to old, familiar convention is better. So, my say is BC/AD. GoetheFromm (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Any of you is free to make a proper request. I suspect it will get a couple of votes at least. Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope people still read this. I think I am a bit late on this. As far as BCE I prefer it over BC. Purpose is not to disrespect to belittle the imprtance of Christian calender but to include a more diverse worldwide approach to dating. Before Common Era is more generalistic and better understood as well as perhaps being more neutral. I do however NOT mind BC/AD but I think it is discussed in the link above that the system has to be such that each article is dominated by one system. I personally prefer BCE. It is just more scholarly. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it to BC because it seems more popular and many more people use it. If one is to draw into question the origins of the days of the week you'll find they are all religiously based as well, and we're certainly not planing on changing monday to eeerrghhstartoftheweekday are we. In addition, the article used the normal dating system for over 7 years. There is no need to change it. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally The Persian Empire article has normal dating. Almost a sister page to this. 22:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion established a consensus for BCE on this page. A couple of people preferring BC or thinking BC is "more popular" does not establish a new consensus. Absent any further decision, BCE needs to be restored to this article--JimWae (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish a consensus of five socialists does not mean a consensus. No one wants this politically correct bull. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So the definition of a socialist is someone who uses CE/BCE, and a socialist's opinion is worthless... I think you are editing the wrong encyclopedia. Please take your logical fallacies (including both no true scotsman and ad hominem arguiments) elsewhere. Consensus here does not require your approval of the participants political stances.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh of course! art thou blind dear romeo? That aside. We don't need this moronic dating system which is as flawed logically as the imbeciles who created it. It works fine in Israel where it was invented 130 years ago but here in English speaking countries it's htpocritical and nonsensical. Prihee tell me, what is your new name for monday? Or are you just indifferent to its pagan origins? Alexandre8 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion link given by JimWae for the October 2009 consensus for BCE was an old revision (note the oldid number in the url) and did not include more recent comments from July 2010 calling the decision in question. The most recent comments in the Discussion of Archive section following the closed discussion can be found here. For those who don't click the link, here's a quote of a relevant comment: "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." Erianna (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A general consenus in 2009 was contray to the existing NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Just because one has managed to find 5 supporters of it in a day does not equal general consensus and thus have reverted. It's inflammatory still and should only be used on religious pages not linked to Christianity if users are sensitive. Alexandre8 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This article has bigger and much more important problems than this constant war about BC versus BCE, which doesn't really matter much to people outside those quarreling camps anyway.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I do not have a horse in the this race and do not care either way, as long as a consensus is deciding. But maverick arbitrary changes without discussion is exactly what WP:ERA is seeking to avoid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

well this certainly neeeds to be addressed. The use of BCE is not widespread and mainly used only by certain members of American inteligensia, and Jewish academics. Everyone else continues and will continue to use the original dating system which has worked for hundreds? of years? The whole argument behind BCE CE is flawed and therefore this system should not be furthered. After all, BCE CE - before christian era, christian era if one wants to be pedantic Alexandre8 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

hugely exaggerated

mr john hill on wikipedia will told you how the claims are hugely exaggerated, achamenid dont hold an inch of india and china , america,russia then how such a huge population was ruled by it. Before commenting have a look at mr john hill page and his contribution on mauryan empire.thnx115.240.54.30 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear friend, this is in 5th century B.C. America was not even discovered then! This is also based on the data available as best approximated to the population of the world at the time! Also if you edit please do not cut whole sections including pictures!! Please discuss here first. Thank you! Dr. Persi (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

very very thnx mr persi i would be higly obliged if you will told the same thing to mr john hill who is editing Mauryan empire page without any knowledge , he includes population of america the reality is america is never accounted for historical culture. And yes you are right but this was a demo for mr john hill who has edited mauryan empire page without any knowledge. and sorry for my edits115.241.234.29 (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Achaemenid decedance and decline? did ethnocultural diversity really cause the empire's downfall?

"The vast size of the Persian empire, and its extraordinary ethnocultural diversity across its realm,[4] would prove to be its undoing as the delegation of power to local governments eventually weakened the king's central authority, causing much energy and resources to be wasted in attempts to subdue local rebellions.[1] This was the reason why when Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) invaded Persia in 334 B.C.E. he was faced by a disunified realm under a weak monarch, ripe for destruction." This paragraph almost echoes every idea that the Classical and Hellenic historians had about the persian empire. The most authoritative books on Achaemenid history however point to a different reality

Pierre Briant's book "The Persian Empire from Cyrus to Alexander" P.196 explicitly points out to "rejecting the greek interpretation where diversity led the greeks to beat the Persians or as a cause of persian downfall" P.873 of the same book mentions the fact that "the acceptance of diversity actually strengthened the empire" if you read the same book you'll also come across the idea of decadence and weak central authority which as a myth had been the focal point of Achaemenid history in much of 18th-20th century, the idea itself had come from over reliance on greek authors.

Now if you consult the book Ancient Persia written by Josef Wiesenhofer, you'll find the same conclusions. Idea of decadence and myth of diversity causing weakness to the role of the great king has all been discussed and rejected by Achaemenid specialists.

follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Xshayathia, and thank you for bringing the issue to the talk page. Looking at your sources (although I have not read them) I see we seem to have two claims backed by adequate sources: one that the multiculturalism became the problem that led to it´s fall and the other that claims that it´s wrong. When we reach something like this, the best way to deal with it is to include both POVs, something like this:

Some scholars argue that the vast size of the Persian empire, and its extraordinary ethnocultural diversity across its realm,[4] would prove to be its undoing as the delegation of power to local governments eventually weakened the king's central authority, causing much energy and resources to be wasted in attempts to subdue local rebellions.[1] They claim this was the reason why when Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) invaded Persia in 334 B.C.E. he was faced by a disunified realm under a weak monarch, ripe for destruction. Other scholars reject what they see as a myth derived from over reliance on greek sources, claiming that "the acceptance of diversity actually strengthened the empire".

That we the can accomodate both sides, and leave the reader to take their own conclusions without removing sourced information. What do you think? If you like it, go ahead and make the change, lets see what other editors think. Thank you and good night. Uirauna (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, i would gladly accept that idea, if it was not for a general problem i have with it, which i wrote in response to kmhkmh thank you follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Without getting into specific sources I'd like to make a general knowledge/common sense argument here. One needs to distinguish between "decadence myth" and the "ethnic diversity". I don't want to comment on the former but the latter. "Ethnic diversity" has always been a problem for any large empire at some point and hence "weakened" it somewhat at times. That is basically due to the fact that many ethnics historically where thriving for their own state, so an empire is forced to quell rebellions & uprisings, station additional troops, etc and such things do of course bind forces that it will lack for fighting an new external enemy. You can see that from the concrete history of the Persian empire as well, which temporary lost regions in the fringe of its empire. The question is now how many resources of the Persian empire where bound by such things at the eve of Alexander's inavsion. That's a matter for historians to assess and on that note Briand and Wieshöfer are 2 disntinguished scholars on the persian empire so their assessment is definitely notable here and should be included.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well what your referring to as a general knowledge/common sense argument, is generally how myths are created, you might be correct about certain empires who struggled with that problem but you can't apply it as a general rule for all empires. Briant, Brossius, Lindsay Allen (The Persian Empire), Dr. Stronach (The Forgotten Empire) and Wiesehofer (P.108 of Ancient Persia) explicitly state that this was not a big problem (much less reason for its fall by alexander)for the Achaemenids. Due to the specific circumstances that the achaemenid empire arose from.

So far with respect to sources that refer to Achaemenid decline due to diversity, they all come to the conclusion because of their over reliance on the classical sources. follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You misread me somewhat I'm arguing for the inclusion of Briand, Wiesenhöfer & Co. not against it. While common sense/general suggest that ethnic diversity in empire usually goes along separatist tendencies/rebellions of local populations, it doesn't not provide a "quantification". So yes the Persian empire had to quell revolts, but that does not automatically mean that its function as empire and its military strength was influenced in a significant manner. To assess whether it actually was or not is the historian's job and WP needs to follow their assessments and if they differ WP should report the (most important) different position. Currently the article still has the problem, that it is not using authoritative scholarly sources (from the correct domain) as much as it should.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, on a second read i realized my misunderstanding, im sorry for that. I have noticed the article is very unfocused in its style and self-contradictory at places.

follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest empire and all that

The current line seems rather problematic and looks like case of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH

The Achaemenid Empire holds the record for the empire with the greatest percentage (roughly 44%) of the world's population,[12][13] and became the largest empire in ancient history by 480 B.C.E.

First of all neither of the claims seems actually sourced (the sources merely give (total) figures for the poplulation of the empire and of the world). The greatest percentage seems to be stated in none of the sources but rather concluded by combining [11] and [31], which would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Note that combining different estimates for ancient populations from different sources in to a new calculation (relative percentage) is anything but a straight forward computation, such a computation would only be acceptable if it is performed from the data given in one source. But using data from different sources for the computation creates novel knowledge and it is not at all clear whether the data from different estimates can be arbitrarily combined.

As far as the greatest empire in ancient history (areawise) is concerned though currently unsourced that can be fixed as at least to my recollection many scholars or books use that description. nevertheless some differ and use that term for Alexander's or even the Roman empire instead. Another problem with many of the sources of such claims is that they restrict themselves to geography of "classical antiquity", that is not taking South and East Asia into account.

Probably only minor thing, but the US Census is not a good source for ancient population estimate (instead academic paper/books should be cited). However the originally missing deep link of the US Census site ([1]) does at least specify the academic work from which the figures were taken.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree 44% of world population seems like too far of a stretch, keeping in mind major population centers in China, India, Europe, Africa and the Americas, that simply could not have been possible or plausible follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would gladly bow down to whoever can give me a better source than US Census but chances are that would entail even more of a synthesis. I personally did not add this piece for this same reason but going over the sources it actually kind of makes senese even though it is essentially a synthesis but not the kind that Wikipedia would dislike. Synthesis based on sources is really not the same as WP:Synthesis. WP:SYnthesis is more of an author taking an idea and extrapolating it to convey something that is not supported by it. What this edit acheives is more of a combination and evidence-based conclusion using available data. Either way I am for it to stay the way it is, because in my humble opinion it is as good as it gets but if anybody likes to suggest a source I would love to learn from it. Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misread WP:SYTH completely, it states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

And this is exactly what seems to have been done here, the 44% is computed by taking a population estimate for the Persian empire from [12] and dividing it by the global population from [13]. That the Persian empire has had the largest percentage of the global population and the 44% figure is stated in neither source. In fact the quoted figures at least don't even state that the Persian empire was the largest by total population (nevermind relative) or area at all. Though I've seen other sources at least stating the latter.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. One of the listed sources under [12] (Strauss) states explicitly that the percentage of the global population is 20%, so it is even in direction contradiction to the figure computed by combining [11] and [12].--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't changed the text in question yet (a similar formulation is also in the lead, which might need to be adjusted as well), but I cleaned the sources under [11] and fixed the format.

As far as the format goes, one shouldn't give whole google books search string as links, but just provide the google books url (including the page number).

Aside from that format fix I cleaned out old sources and some less scholarly looking books. Literature being 100 years old or older usually does not reflect current knowledger accurately, so that it should not be used as references. In the case of Persian Empire there's ample relatively recent scholarly literature available anyway. This is also for less scholarly sources or scholarly sources without a real domain expertise. That means a book on current Iran or the Iran_US conflict is not a good source for the Persian empire. At best the authors of such books copied their information on tre Persian Empire from some authoritative sources (scholars with an expertise in ancient history and the Persian empire in particular) or at worst they got it by hearsay or unreliable sources. In the former case we should those authoritative sources directly rather than using such a book as proxy and the latter case the book is unusable as a source to begin with.

Having said all that, I've noticed that aside from the sources that I've just fixed the article still needs an improvement/overhaul regarding its sources as it still references some old stuff like an 1902 encyclopedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I was just looking over this article's talk page and found this section. I'm not sure if you are reading this Kmhkmh, but I am real glad your engaged in this topic, our paths cross one more time. I would also like to thank you again for helping me improve my editing skills all those months ago. If you remember, a couple of months back we were debating the size of the Achaemenid Empire, and after a lot of research we agreed I had finally found a reliable source for the 8 million km2 figure for its size, plus I like to mention as time has gone by, I have found more reliable sources that this time exactly state that figure. So we don't have to guess anymore about them implying it or not. That is why I might even update it by adding a better source for the 8 million km2 estimate.

However, that is not the main reason I am messaging here, I am here to give an explanation for a future edit about the population of the empire. As you may well know, all those 27 estimates, which 11 (the most) have 50 million, and consider the best 10 estimates, still 50 million is the most, it was I who found all those estimates. I know you say it is SYN, but my reason for the 44.0% (49.4 million out of 112.4 million Historical Estimates of World Population U.S. Census Bureau in the 5th century BC/480 BC). Was not based on SYN, but mostly on the fact that out of the 27 estimates, the most reliable sources mention 35-50 million, I mean reliable in; author, date of publication 90s-2000's, and estimates based on current sources of academia. So even if we were to average (which we should not) the estimates you picked for this article, books that came out after the year 2000. You would still get around the 40% or more.

I was a little taken back when you said the 'Historical Estimates of World Population U.S. Census Bureau,' is not an accurate source (Wikipedia and even some agencies use this, based on what, no reason given for opinion). It does not make sense, since they use data from publications around the world, you can find on their site, plus it is more than a governmental source, but backed up by scholars. Also it is the main source for this Wikipedia articles on population, the best we can find the net (that in 500 BC the world population was 100 million [in 480 BC if you want to be statistically exact it is 112.4 million, since an decreased date in BC means the future to which the population has increased by 12.4 million]), 1, 2, 3, 4 this source is by Michael Kremer who agrees with McEvedy and Jones, the main guys, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 overall some of these source may use their estimates from other sources, which means more support for the 100 million in 500 BC.

Therefore, since many of the reliable publications shown above state that in 500 BC 100 million inhabited the planet Earth. We must then examine this line in the Achaemenid Empire article that says, "In the 5th century BCE, it is estimated that 50 million or around 20% of the world population lived in the Achaemenid Empire". Basically after reading this, I agree with half of the statement, I also agree that you agree that the AE had 50 million subjects. So is 50 million out of about 100 million in 500 BC, 20% of the world population? No, it is wrong mathematics, plus you used or should I say picked Strauss's source, to which others there where not only historians, but where scholars plus experts in population studies. So we can not have it both ways, only choosing Strauss, which I think is a good source, but he uses "perhaps," is not adequate enough. So ignoring the other sources is informational bias, and choosing one source over many more reliable ones is cherry picking. Though I believe you have good intentions, I think you may have forgotten our past discussions and or mixed up what we know and what we don not know. I willing to admit that I think we should remove my almost SYN 49.4 million, but interestingly as you know the 10-80 million estimates, plus the most saying it is 50 million is awfully close to my 49.4 million anyways.

That is why I will choose one of the most reliable and up to date sources that we have for the 50 million estimate. However, for some reason putting this 50% estimate would anger some users with strong opinions. Even though the majority and most reliable sources say it was 50 million out of 100 million in about 500 BC. So I could the use 35 million one, which is about between 20-50%, but consider the Maurya Empire, which only 100 years later had 33% of the world population, never mind at its greatest extent it was only half the size of the AE, so double that it would be 66%, but because it was 100 years ago, it would nearly be 50% for the AE regardless. So using the best of the best 50 million source that I already have I will change it to something like this, "50 million people in 480 BC would be 50/112.4 million total population is 44.5% of the world population (it was after exact calculations since in 400 BC there was 162 million people [as we know in 500 BC there was 100 million people], so for example 450 BC there would be 115.5 million people, and for 480 BC [at AE's greatest extent] there would be 112.4 million people in the world). So I will fix the sentences and sources for this article and the Largest empires article, writing to whoever is interested to refer back to this page for clarification. Thank you all for reading. You may post ones messages here.--Eirione (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm still having an eye on the article. Did you read WP:SYNTH carefully? It says right in the first line: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I had hoped my explanation above was rather clear, at least I'm not sure, whether I can explain that any better. If you are using the average of various estimates (from sources of different reliability and over a larger range of time) for additional computations (such as computing the percentage of the world population) then it is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH as explained more above. In particular you are creating a new claim regarding the percentage, that none of the individual source themselves claim, in fact at least one of them explicitly contradicts. In addition it is an area where all estimates (even those in the best sources) are somewhat uncertain and problematic, which is one more reason to stick those to the latter and not doing computations on top of them. Also the numerical error increases in computations.

As far as the US Census Bureau is concerned, that is a normally a reliable source for modern US based statistics (essentially for data collected since it was founded). Somewhat recent figures for global data can probably be considered reliable too. However their figures about renaissance, middle ages and antiquity cannot be considered that reliable, since it has no real expertise in that area (i.e. people specialized in antiquity hardly for the US Census Bureau). I'd assume it has simply copied the data from some presumably reliable source, however it doesn't provide that information and in any case WP should check and cite such a source directly (if it was used)--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Hi again Kmhkmh, and great response! I did read SYN thoroughly. I can certainly tell you that I am not combining the estimates to get an average, like 49.4 million, that would be SYN, which I understand now. To be frank, the 44.5% is not a average, so it's not combining estimates, and has nothing to do with SYN. Its merely converting the 50 million population of the AE (which we know is the best estimate), which to find the percentage, and the Largest empires article asks us to do as users, which is out of the 112.4 million, to find the percentage. Probably 90% of the percentages stated on the Largest empires article are not from sources, they are just one computation to find the percentage from one or two source(s). I do agree however, that we should still look for sources that say population out of this population is this percentage (Strauss almost does this, but he thinks 250 million people were on Earth in 500 BC [way off], because he says 50 million is 20%). I remember, and have to look into it, but I remember looking at some books that had stated the AE contained at least 40% (and they state the percentage) of the worlds population, which if I find I will cite, I encourage you to search for it too, if you want. Also, back to SYN, not all computations like you mention above are in violation of Wikipedia policy, but I agree that with larger numbers the numerical error increases, thus should only be used in rare cases, if not at all. On the US Census Bureau you are also right that on ancient terms they might not be that reliable, but they use the widely used and considered reliable McEvedy and Jones, plus Michael Kremer supports them in that both are specialists in population growth and agree that there was 100 million people on Earth in 500 BC, give or take a few million. Plus, like I stated above, I would be in support to find the sources directly stating the percentages. So I will be around if you want to discuss more later. Best of regards.--Eirione (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• The largest empire article is constant mess for years and questionable things temporarily tolterated there should definitely not spread to importat historic articles.
• As far as WP:SYNTH is concerned. If you take the population of the empire from one source and global population from another to compute a percentage, that is a violation of it. Moreover it is strictly speaking a logical fallacy as well, because you are assuming that the source with empire's population see this figure in the context of the same global population the other source gives. That however is mere speculation! You can see how dangerous this approach is, when you combine other estimates for for the empire's and the global population (other than the one you (personally) consider as "best"), then you probably can generate any percentage number from 10% to over 100% (potential high count for the empire, potential low count for the global). If you want a straight forward percentage without violating WP:SYNTH or performing otherwise questionable conclusions, you need to pick the empire's population and the global population from the same source.
• You can only combine figure from different sources, when the figures are universally accepted (say you take the current population of France and the current global population from different source). But you cannot do that with figures which are hardly agreed upon and which come with a rather high uncertainty like estimates for ancient populations). Even more so if the one of the sources (US Census Bureau) isn't even a reputable source in this context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true, the Largest empires article is a massive mess, but that is why I barely have edited it. Also, like I said before, if you want to get rid of "should come I up with a percentage or not," you must then remove or keep the percentage area in the Largest empires article, which borders on SYN. Plus, if I remember correctly using Strauss's 20% percent estimate could only be used, if you had indicated he meant out of 250 million for 500 BC, which is by itself incorrect (because we know of the 100 million for 500 BC). Then using the 20% to compare to the 100 million for 500 BC (which was done before I edited this article in these recent days would then also mean it was SYN). In terms of what I personally consider the "best," I believe this is not an accurate portrayal of my views. Since I proved that all the sources so far I have found or could be found to this point (unless you have others, which you are welcomed to present) for the population of the world in 500 BC was 100 million, plus another Michael Kremer also agreeing it was 100 million for 500 BC, that is why it should be for now considered the standard population for 500 BC. If I were to use McEvedy and Jones percentage for the AE, it would be 17%, because they say 17 million out of 100 million people were in the AE in 500 BC. Why I don't use that? Well because 11 other sources, of which 5 have a better quality and qualifying background, say 50 million was in the AE in 500 BC. So in terms of the date, they at least agree it was around 500 BC for when the AE was at its largest.

More importantly, to address your second to last sentence, you say I could calculate the percentage (but only for current estimates, which means the rules are bendable), then you assume that the "figures are hardly agreed upon," we have already established the fact, that anyone, even a historian of Persia who has an internet connection and tries to estimate the population of the AE, would then 9 out of 10 times will come accross McEvedy and Jones's estimate of 100 million for 500 BC, not to mention some fairly new sources have even estimated 70 million for the AE. I agree that it is harder and that we can see that estimates for ancient populations are hardly agreed upon. However, two facts remain here, first that the most reliable majority claim 100 million world population for 500 BC, and secondly that the most reliable majority claim 50 million AE population for 500 BC. So the only question is how do we cite the percentage in Wikipedia, we could go borderline SYN, or find it stated in a book (which I prefer the latter). So I will let your recent edit stand, since for now I agree we should leave percentages for the AE population out of this article, but since the Largest empires article demands we put a percentage, I will give it some research, time, and thought to whether we include the 44.5% there or not. Remember, the only difference between my edit and your previous edit was by 24.5%, since you preferred 20% that is 50/250, and I preferred 44.5% that is 50/112.4 (the only difference in here is that I am using the 112.4 from McEvedy and Jones, plus Michael Kremer, you are using the 250 from Strauss, who's expertise is not in population growth). The two things that we did the same was that we agree the AE had at least 50 in 500 BC, and both committed our own versions of borderline SYN. So any recommendations are welcomed.--Eirione (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The 20% figure had no WP:SYN problem since it was literal quote from source (whether it is convincing in the context f various other sources is another thing). However having no percentage figure is fine with me, in fact my preferred solution. But if you want to give a percentage, it either needs to be a literal quote from a source or if it is computed all the data used for the computation needs to come from the same source.

As far as various specific figures go, I must say I hold (almost) none of them in particularly high regard and their spread already shows how problematic this estimates are, even more so for the world population. Another problem is most of the figures from various books come with no reasoning at all and most author probably just picked them up from some other (journal) publication. But without any detailed reasoning there is really no way in assessing their quality other blindly trusting the authors and their reputation. The best way to really deal with that issue would be using the most recent in depth publications on the subject of various population sizes in antiquity providing access to detailed reasoning process as well. However this can most likely not be settled via a Google research, but you need access to various journals or monographies in which that research was published.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a great point here, I totally understand the reasoning, or the proper assessment you have arrived at. To tell you the truth, I only found these estimates for the purpose of inclusion in Wikipedia, and when doing that tried to make which are the best sources we can use, in terms of reliability and what not. This I guess is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses, in that sometimes users have to take a leap of faith, when trying to find out which is worth putting in or not. This certainly applies to me, because I had made the choice to make neutrality is applied to controversial topics, I see now what some hard working users have to go through when editing controversial thing, as you know it is a hard task, sometimes a burden. I say if we don't improve some of these articles, not many other people can. It may be for many reasons, some people may not have the time or any other reason. I am personally as I am sure you are not, experts in population or ancient figures for some things, so to me personally I feel no attachment to any one particular source, since as users we should not inject our feelings into things, but be impartial, and view all sides in a balanced matter.

In regards to the AE, I know the main reason why no in depth articles on AE subject really exist, since Achaemenid studies have been somewhat skewed for that last 50 years, in the last 20 years a few scholars have dedicated a lot of time to really answering these tough questions, what we know of this is based on them viewing the world through one viewpoint, so when they are not neutral, it creates problems for later generations of historians who try to cite stuff, and even find that the good scholars have biased tendencies, since the majority don't come from their native lands. Besides that even well known Persian historians have said and came to the conclusion that Achaemenid studies are in its infancy, that means we just have begun to scratch the surface of the Persian history of this time period. I think it's this that creates the uncertainty, we have to rely on scant sources to answer the basic questions of the AE. I mean, for me I had a lot of chances to just ignore some estimates about the population of the AE, sometimes staying up and putting in long hours of research, but since I wanted to find all the estimates that I physically can, I am glad it kinda paid off. So I think it is good that we can confirm or disband certain information when conversing with other users. That is why I felt it was necessary to make sure to check this information with you before including such edits, as others are welcomed to join the conversation. So I agree that we should focus on finding best academic sources that clearly state the percentage. So would you prefer I include the 44.5% in the Largest empires articles, since using 20% or 35% is equally justifiable, but in that they would be borderline SYN. Should I put expand by it to indicate further research must be done? Or we can not put anything for the percentage of the population for the Largest empires article (in the AE section). Preference suggestions ready to be known.--Eirione (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. This Historical Population Census data crucial to this debate (Btw this is the actual link to the table [2]) contains no upper or lower limits for 500BC/BCE. Even for year 1 estimates by the same source has world pop varying between 170 and 400 million! Stating a figure like 44.5% is utterly meaningless. In short: error bars! I think, based on the 1AD/CE data a good compromise for this obviously SYNTH figure would be something like 'AE proportion of world population at 500BC was 30%+-29%, at 2 standard deviation (95% confidence)'. I propose sticking this in the article. ;) & :P1812ahill (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. What I was suggesting above is that for the 44.5%, I wouldn't say it's totally SYNTH. That's where the debate is. I do agree that we should have some sort of statistical confidence level inserted to the article and or stated percentage, to make things clearer of course. The SYNTH would be my first estimate (that I later removed) that was coincidentally close to the 44.5% that's here because some historian said there was 50 out of the 100 something million in 500 BC. I think that a 17-35 million is equally justified (though maybe 20% of those who made estimates support that), the main reason for the more than 40% is that the majority who stated the AE figures, stated 40 or more million, and because there is a (not really changing) consensus on a 100 million total world population for 500 BC. If I or we find better updated and more reliable sources that have slightly different estimates, I think anyone is welcomed to include that. So in my view your last sentence is a highly workable with, in that it's a good idea.--Eirione (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no consensus on the 100 million figure unless I see some better resource than the US census data, which comes with no expertise at ancient populations.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

General Problems with this article

selective use of sources (especially bad sources) leading to misinformation

"The practice of slavery in Achaemenid Persia was banned", "Zoroastrianism, the defacto religoin of the empire explicitly forbids slavery"

There simply is no evidence of ban of slavery in Persia, while slavery wasn't as developed in persia as it was in mesopotamia and egypt, but there wasn't any legal ban. Zoroastrianism as the religion of the Kings is still a matter of debate and open to interpretation much less as a "defacto religion" of the empire

"This system of management would ultimately become an issue for the Persians, as with a larger empire, came the need for order and control, leading to expenditure of resources and mobilization of troops, to quell local rebellions, weakening the central power of the king. By the time of Darius III, this disorganization had almost led to a disunified realm.[2]"

ive wrote exactly on why this is not true, there was no weakening, disorganization, and dis unified realm under Darius III

"Cyrus also formed an innovative postal system throughout the empire, based on several relay stations called Chapar Khaneh.[44]"

Innovative postal system is misleading, the roads and communication system were adopted from the earlier empires and built upon by Cyrus and followers. follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually it said "it was generally banned although captives were slaved" and it is by Dandamayev. Dandamayev is a rather reputable author. Zoroastrianism as a religion also does ban it. Either statement is supported by sources. Hope this helps. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

dear Dr Persi, Dandamayev has not talked about any ban of slavery in any of his books, and Zoroastrianism was not a orthodox religion by the time of the achaemenids. If you do have link to the sources please do show and i would be open to changing my stance.follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk)

The citation is in the article, currently it is [48]. I don't have acces to it though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is a citation for the banning of slavery in Zoroastrianism and the Achaemenid Empire. Here is one on the banning of slavery by Cyrus and the Cyrus Cylinder. I'm pretty sure that the Cyrus Cylinder counts as a "legal ban". warrior4321 22:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Both sources are not acceptable by WP standards, you need reputable academic sources ((ideally) a reputable academic with domain knowledge in the concerned field and published with a reputable (academic) publisher as far as books are concerned. Even better would be positive academic reviews of the books in question or a peer reviewed journal article). In particular with regard to Cyrus Cylinder high quality sources are needed, since that topic is subject to a lot of nonsense and propaganda.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Then, you might as well remove, citation [48] and [49], as the contents from the Wikipedia article are copied word for word from the first citation I gave. Either someone has put fake references with the first citation or the first citation has copied this Wikipedia article. Something smells fishy. warrior4321 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[48] looks ok to me at first glance, but [49] indeed does not. As already mentioned further up the article still uses some problematic sources that need to be replaced in the future. Also some of the content might need to fixed as already mentioned above as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, this is an encyclopedia and has to rely on sources. We are not scholars in the field (I am not) so we use the sources avaialble. I have to show a million other articles where sources are lacking but in the end we do what we can with the source we have. It is what it is. We do the best we can. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not correct we cannot use simply any sources being available to us, but we need to to use sources with certain amount of reliability & reputability. If we don't have access to them, then we simply cannot write about the subject in question.

Yes many (other) WP artcicles have plenty of issues, but that's no excuse not to address and fix them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here

http://books.google.com/books?id=MwvM09Z-7DwC&pg=PT931&dq=zoroastrianism+bans+slavery&hl=en&ei=ZNYkTuLYDIj40gGCodD1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

I am really busy but you can guys should learn to use google books. You can find easily many sources in its support. The above source says what is stated word for word. Cheers. I be back in a week and add all textbooks. for now this will do. Dr. Persi (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The link was already discussed above and is more or less useless. As it was pointed out above already, you cannot pick up arbitrary books via Google books to source content. You need to make sure, that whatever book Google books comes up with, matches our standard for sources. Google books can be quite useful, but they contains a lot of garbage (outdated books, non scholarly books, vanity publication, even WP rip offs, etc.), so you need to check the results a Google books search comes up with whether they are acceptable sources or not and you cannot use them blindly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is obvious. I have a few books in my library that state this one of which is found here http://books.google.com/books?id=HFONAAAAMAAJ&q=Achaemenids+banned+slavery&dq=Achaemenids+banned+slavery&hl=en&ei=GvslTr3rOY6s0AGwtZC1Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK by Edgar Burk and states "...Slavery is abolished. Religious tolerance is instituted. An ancient story from Achaemenid times speaks of the enforcement of it." Also I have this other book which I also found on Google by Abrams that states "Cyrus the Great created the Cyrus Cylinder which is considered by many to be the first declaration of human rights. He banned slavery throughout the Persian empire." I am sure in a few days when I have time I can find countless other sources. Anyhow these statements are de facto. Here is also a portion on Zoroastrianism and again on Cyrus the Great "in 570 BC Zoroastrian Cyrus the Great created the world's first bill of rights, in which slavery was banned, freedom of religion guaranteed, and guilt by association with relatives abolished." found here: http://books.google.com/books?id=3mf9WHcJ8oMC&pg=PA44&dq=Zoroastrianism+bans+slavery&hl=en&ei=u_wlTsKKEILq0gG90rj3Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dr. Persi (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Persi, your approach seems to be coming from an ideological/nationalistic point of view, and your sources are handicapped academically. these statements regarding the abolishment of slavery, and world's first bill of rights are half truths, and are not supported by any academic. Dr Briant, Dr Dandamaev, the late Dr. Shahbazi, Mr. Weisenhoffer all unanimously point to the existence of slavery in the empire, and even in some levels of the administration. The PFT, and the PTT hint to transactions involving slaves in persis, not to mention countless of other slaves in Babylonia and Egypt. Freedom of religion was a cornerstone of Achaemenid policy, as a larger policy of Persian Kings to include all their subjects which was the Achaemenid royal idealogy. The freedom of religion however was only "guaranteed" as long as the people acknowledged the rule of King of Kings. Everything mentioned here you can also find in the following books, "Cyrus to Alexander" by Pierre Briant, "Ancient Persia" by Wiesenhoffer, "the Persians" by Maria Brossius, Cultural and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran by Dandamaev, and "The Persian Empire" by Lindsay Allen follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How is my view natinalist? I am citing you sources! I agree if I had a source by Briant I prefer that. But just because a source is not internationally known it doesnt mean it doesnt merit mention or is "handicaped." That is judgmental of me and the authors who contribute their work. Again the quote you are focused on does NOT deny that there WAS some form of slavery but the message I believe it is conveying is that slavery was not widespead and there are sources that support it. Also every argument has TWO sides, one pro and one against. If I am a natinoalist for supporting one view then you are anti-Iranian for opposing it? No! It is a matter of intellectual discussion and frankly if we go with this strict a "lenz" of judgment for sources and authors then we are in denial. We can not just about ignore every source out there just because it goes again our opinion. I mean even United Nations called the Cyrus Cylinder to be an ancient piece of human rights. Again note that what you are discussing does not make any such claim, it only states that though slavery was present, it was not widespread. Period. I am not a nationalist. I am a passionate about ancient Persian history as well as Eygptian history. Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A source by "MobileReference" is obviously not reliable. When I presented that source here, I was in a rush and did not see the quality of the author, but honestly that reference is horrible. By the way, just because Cyrus Cylinder says there was no slavery, that does not mean that the Achaemenid Empire as a whole did not have slavery. warrior4321 02:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the labeling you Dr. Persi, it is true that you are citing sources, and that we should be open to arguments from all sides. However it should be noted that all sources are not EQUAL. And more weight should be given to sources that are written by Academics and Specialists as opposed to those written by enthusiasts, politicians or casual readers. Popularity is not a measure of accuracy. All the sources i've mentioned are Academics and specialists. they have spent years studying and discovering aspects of Achaemenid History, so more weight should be given to them in opposed to for example a Ancient Greek Specialist, who just briefly goes over Persia. You can google all these names. follower of Arta, may you prosper (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

recent edits ands the size of the empire

While recent edits seem to have fixed some of the problems mentioned in chapters above, they seem to hae introduced a new one. The size of the empire around 500 BC (2.6 million km²) though being correctly cited seems somehwat nonsensical. First of all that figure is way off from other numbers cited in reputable sources (being in ball park of 5 to 8 million km²) and second it doesn't even hold up to simple common sense comparison (current Iran and Turkey already account for that figure, but for rough comparison you'd still need to add Iraq, Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt to that). So that should be fixed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the title?

Why is it the article entitled the "Achaemenid Empire"? I was under the impression that "Persian Empire" was the more well-known. It's also easier to remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derwos (talk • contribs) 18:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You may, if you wish, make a move-proposal towards 'Persian Empire'. I would vote in favour. Flamarande (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion regarding the title, but the term "Achaemenid Empire" should definitely be explained in the lead section, if that's indeed going to be the article's title. Right now, from reading the article it is not clear at all that "Achaemenid Empire" and "First Persian Empire" refer to the same thing. (Or do they?) AxelBoldt (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire map near the "Fall of the Empire Section"

I have changed the caption under the picture to reflect its true nature. It is not a map of the empire near the time of Alexander. The territories it holds in Greece and the coast of the Black Sea in addition to the areas in Central Asia suggest that it is set in the time of Darius the Great or Xerxes. During the Wars of Alexander the Empire had lost significant territories in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.