Cyrus the Great was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who strive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Should "early life" be its own section? Why is it in "background"? Most biographical articles have "Early Life" or "Family" as its own section then "Later Life" or "Military Career" etc. as later sections. Henry chianski (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
In the lede there are no links to help define "Persian" or "Persia" which seems pretty relevant. When introducing Cyrus could links be worked in for Persian_people or Iranian_peoples or to modern-day Iran? There are some links on the sidebar but maybe they could be in the text of the lede as well? Because there is a whole section on Dynastic History which discusses Persian domination but "Persian" is never defined or linked to. Henry chianski (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Henry chianski: why some people want to make a border or a great war against history and all the time they are saying "Modern" "Modern" ??? for example they said that we mustn't add Modern Persian for Cyrus the great and only Old Persian is enough!! old Persian? really? why you dont say old Jewish ?? or old Hebrew or old Arabic?????????? it such an unintentional bad act against us .. me and Cyrus both of us are Persian and Persian are Iranian this classification is for now time cuz in Cyrus era racism wasn't made and all of tribes lived peaceful together . in wiki we must classify if you wanna say old Persian is different with modern Persian i must say every thing modern is different with past cuz time isn stable and classification was just made for this kinda unstable things. but if its not for before any change please go and research and then make old Persian people (like old German people(deosnt exist), old English people(is only a section)) or make its section on Persian people if it doesn't exist. the name was Iran officially from Sassanian empire and legendary or traditionally from Achaemend Empire. Darius the great said im Persian and Persians are Aryan(Iranian) we Iranian make our Identity not you westerns , you westerns make your identity not we Iranians. please respect to what we saying what we wanna and what we are. we are saying we are Iranian and Iran means land of Aryans and Aryan(based on culture not based on race like Nazi western racism) is not made of west (ping me if you wanna resume). The Stray Dogby Sadeq Hedayat 18:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The most notable writers on the life of Cyrus were Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ctesias, all of whom have contradictory and different accounts. The references here are from modern authors, rather than translations of the works of the 3 ancient scholars i mentioned. Because of this it's hard for readers to pinpoint which statement came from which source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
The template is made for the dynasties/regimes of Iran, last time I looked, Cyrus the Great wasn't a dynasty or anything like that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see it's made for the history of Iran. Your removal of it from a number of pages was not appropriate (and the edit summary made no sense - "not a country", when of course all kinds of things which aren't countries might be pertinent to the history of Iran). For example it makes perfect sense to have it on this page, since Cyrus is a notable historical figure from the area. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My points as well. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Nice one, reverting 10 changes before I even manage to answer back, thumbs up. By using your logic, I'd assume we should add the template on every notable figure in Iranian history? Open up the Template - what do you see? Clearly not notable figures in Iranian history, but the dynasties/regimes of Iran. The template is completely irrelevant with the articles you've put them. I await an answer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Open up the template and we see periods of Iranian history. That seems like something I'd expect, an entirely logical way to divide it up, just as we might divide British history into Tudors, Plantagenets, the interregnum, etc. It's not irrelevant because the subjects of the articles were part of Iranian history. While your offer to add the template to more Iranian historical figures is unexpected, that seems like a useful endeavour, indeed.
I reverted many of your changes (not all; I left places alone because they are not only of historical interest) because they were made with a nonsensical edit summary and your talk page comment here to the effect that Cyrus isn't a dynasty also does not seem pertinent. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Every country has this kind of template, I'd assume we should just start spamming them on every article? Ooh, Ataturk doesn't have the Template:History of Turkey, maybe we should add that? Suleiman the Magnificent doesn't have that Template either, I'd say we should add it! Do you see what I am trying to say here?
And how exactly does my previous comment do not seem pertinent? I see no explanation of that - please do explain. Simply saying a comment is not pertinent isn't helpful at all, nor will it make your opinion the better choice to take. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
No. If you think those templates are appropriate on those articles, add them or discuss it on the talk page. If you don't, don't.
I didn't say your previous comment seems pertinent. I said it didn't. I find it curious that you object to (wrongly) supposing I said it was pertinent; I think you should probably take a moment to look the word up since plainly you have no idea what it means. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Spelling error mate. I know what it means. And I think you know what I meant. If not, then it's fixed now. I await an answer. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn't know what you meant. It's hard to know what people mean if they write the opposite (which is far from a spelling error). You already have an answer; all kinds of things that aren't dynasties can be part of the history of Iran, the dynasties serve as convenient subdivisions. 07:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hate to sound like that guy, but that's not really a proper answer now is it? You've completely avoided my earlier argument. At least come with some counter-argument to that instead of saying the same thing you said earlier. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned I have presented a perfectly sensible position on the subject (certainly more sensible than "Cyrus doesn't go in the history of Iran because he's not a country"). I don't really have anything to add to it. Perhaps if some other editor seems to agree with you we can revisit it. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you are completely avoiding/ignoring my point with the Suleiman the Magnificent example. You can't just leave a discussion like that, especially not after you've reverted 8 of my edits. If you don't want to continue this discussion further, then I see no reason why I should not be allowed to remove the Templates. Unless someone else has something to say of course. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are now threatening to be disruptive. Go ahead, and edit against two editors who disagree with you. Just be aware that being disruptive is likely to get you blocked. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
"History of XYZ" templates are usually not added on articles about individuals. They are, verifiably, usually limited to articles about era's, periods, dynasties, kingdoms, etc. Please feel free to check the plenthora of GA- or FA-class articles about individuals -- I don't see any "history of XYZ" template. Take Napoleon for example; without a doubt one of the most important figures in French history (GA class as well), yet I don't see a "History of France" template. We can see the same thing with Elizabeth I of England, which is a FA-class article as a matter of fact, and a pivotal figure in English history, yet no template is to be seen. Though there's no WP that says that the template should, must, or could be included (or for a matter of fact, that it should/could etc. be excluded), we want to maintain and keep consistency throughout our articles. That's just my 0.02$. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit more coherent but I think, in fairness, is also the point HistoryofIran is trying to make.
I dunno. I take your point about consistency but on the other hand it seems to me like an eminently sensible and worthwhile thing to have on _this_ article. I'm kind of reluctant to remove a template that (seems to me) makes things better here, although I'm not proposing for an instant to try and argue the principle should be applied WP-wide - the difficulty with invoking consistency is that sometimes it means you're stuck at a suboptimal point. You can't change it on one page because of consistency and you can't change it WP-wide because that would be a Herculean task (and at every step you would be met with cries of "consistency"). Pinkbeast (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I get what you mean. We can keep it I guess until the article becomes a GA or FA-class article (for example). I have absolutely no objections about it tbh, other than my opinion about keeping consistency with the rest. Especially if the majority thinks that its really a proper gain to this article, we should keep it. However, we have to bear in mind that such templates can form a ground for edit-wars as well, how ridiculous as it may sound. E.g.; "yo this dude was born and raised in what is now my country so...yeah, a "History of XYZ" template should also be added to it even though the individual has close to nothing to do with the history of my nation." Now obviously this is not the case with a clear-cut figure such as Cyrus the Great, where only one of such templates can belong, but imagine if we were to add it for way more complex figures such as Yaroslav the Wise. Just for a thought. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I still find this silly, oh well. It is what it is I guess. For now at least. And yeah, thanks Louis, that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. And your petty words don't scare me one bit, Debresser. I suggest you to take a look at the rules. I wasn't threatening anyone at all, and neither what I intended to do was disruptive. I am done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
in Latin language there is casing or ending for masculine nouns that is "us" ; there for the origin of the word could have been as "shiru" meaning lionly; I can compare it with the word dariush; that was a king in the same dynasty and it's persian spelling is "dara" means owner. amir arab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)