Talk:Xerxes I/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Xerxes I. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Questions

Is this the same King Xerxes who is mentioned in the book of Esther??

Yes, please see Esther for her article.

- JCarriker 10:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

what would be the best spot to start looking for infomation on Xerxes, with reference to his millitary career

I'd recommend reading text books. Not a lot of information on the internet, but plenty in certain textbooks that analyse historical individuals.

Missing later years

I deleted afew sentences that did not have any reference or citation. Lordpezhman 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes and Ahasueros

How would Khshayarsha or Khsha-yar-shan correspond phonologically with the Hebrew אחשורש Aḥashverosh ? Thanks! Meursault2004 13:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Handsommest of all times

An spoild, foolish, idle King of a huge empire world never seen before. unlike his father Dareios the great he was unwise and inexperianced kid. he was described as handsomest man of all times. Generious and kind but short-lasting-temper, regreting his anger immidiately by adressing him self as a kind King and "I am kind , I shall be kind". Interesting complexion: imagine being born in a court where almost whole known world is united under one King. Xerxes was brought up under such sircomstance, a prince and son to worlds mightiest man history ever seen! What ever he wished in the firm was ready and prepared. surrounded by 1000s of staff only observing him grow up to take over the empire. Strange, Dareios the great would be so wise in every feild but failed to prevent weaknesses that his crown prince might face as a future king of empire? Dareios him self have survived lots of intrigues and plots.(UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.121.177 (talk) 19:04, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Being famous as the handsomest man of all times Xerxes had to deal with constant intrigues as well as mysterious incidances through out the empire.(UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.121.177 (talk) 18:22, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

"King of Babel?" Is this history or is this My Big Bible Coloring Book? I changed the references to Babylon of course. Let's raise the standard a little here. --Wetman 21:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Babel was the real name for Babylon, though... Brutannica 05:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Real"! I'm reading that Akkadian bab-iluš means "Gate of God", translating Sumerian Kadingirra. But all I know is what I read. --Wetman 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on how we are tought and what language is our mother toung. I was taught in highschool that Babel is correct. -Mohseng 14:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

NEED SOMEONE WITH MAD LAYOUT SKILLS!

can someone who knows what they're doing clean up the top - cheers Danlibbo 09:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

  Why are we f* arguing about dis things when der are more cool things 2 talk about like stars

SORRY TO INSERT THIS SO CRUDELY!

but Shahanshah translates to "King of Kings", not Persian emporer as stated. The word is identical (though do not quote me on this part) in Farci, Peshto and Urdu.

Considering that emperor, in its most basic form, means a king of kings, I believe it is fine.

One Relief, Two Kings

The articles on Xerxes and Darius each have pictures of the very same relief from Persepolis, (note the damage) and each article attributes the portrait to its eponymous king. Is it a relief of Xerxes? Of Darius? Is this question disputed? In any case, the image from the article on Darius is of much better quality, so it should be used once we've established a reasonable caption. 75.71.66.105 21:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you're right. this is not the picture of Xerxes, but it's HIS FATHER'S(Darius') picture. he is standing behind his father's throne and this is their full picture.

and this is his picture http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/images/xerxes_darius_pharnaces.jpg http://www.livius.org/a/iran/persepolis/apadana-northstairs-relief/proskynesis07-prince_s.JPG sorry, I don't know how to put pics in wikipedia, can somebody help me? thanx in advanceLordpezhman 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See discussion here. Amizzoni 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Political Career Section

I was just reading the article and noticed some missing information under the Political Career section, but I can't imagine what information is missing so hopefully someone else can figure it out and fix it. It's at the end of the secion and shows this:

[[Medes|Medi

pancho

Eljaccjldc 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Phi3927 0:39(Pacific), 29 March 2007 Is it meant to say 'disfigured lesbian?' The rest of the paragraph suggests something more like leper. The article on the battle of Thermopylae states that Xerxes was known for his anger, so the last sentence of this section should probably be struck.

Xerxes in Popular Culture

In this section, it reads -- regarding the film "300", "In the film, Xerxes makes a point of displaying his generosity, with a large part of his discourse emphasizing that he is "kind." This is rather inaccurate. Xerxes doesn't actually display generosity, he merely claims to be generous. Big difference. I've slightly modified the text to use this more circumspect position. Bricology 03:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Xerxes

In the movie 300, they also portray Xerxes as a "god-king". I think this is inaccurate, drawing more from Egyptian culture than Persian. As I understand it, Xerxes' father Darius I had as much as declared himself to be a Zoroastrian by referring to himself as a servant of Ahura Mazda (but showing tolerance toward other religions); Xerxes was almost certainly also a Zoroastrian as well. Perhaps it would be a good idea to dispel that inaccuracy that Xerxes saw himself as a "god-king".

a looser in fight may make a giant or devil from a winner of war they did so.they must have rationalized their weakness.and they have to do it now. when persians lived in civilized world they lived in their caves or on top of the trees so they must create some thing to be proud of it .if iwas them i would do so. they have to make a history. they are so hopless thet they heve to cheat.they wish they could change the reality. poor people!!

":i wonder who could be so ignorant to believe anything that happends in the movie 300 to begin with..."- The film 300 has been watched by many historians and this is said on 300 (film) so I believe that you are indeed the "ignorant" one --Krummy2 11:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"many historians" mean historians that need to pay their bills so they agree to appear in an inteview for the special 5 dic edition dvd saying "yeah, maybe it happend that way you know...". I encourage you to look for information yourself to see how little did the film makers researched on the matter.

Pronunciation

How is the name Xerxes pronounced in English? --Cotoco 05:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

in English (I'm Aussie so non-rhotic): IPA /'zəːcsiːz/ (how you'd say 'zerk-sees') (note: Americans would probably put an 'r' at the end of the first syllable)
but how is it pronounced in persian? Danlibbo 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Americans say "zerk-sees" too, but I've heard it said "zur-sees". 71.0.240.88 05:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd, Ive ONLY ever heard americans pronounce it Zur-sees. odd...--71.97.138.104 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Persians don't call him Xerxes, they call him as it's written in the article's Lead (Khashayar-shah)Lordpezhman 21:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone (I live in the US) I have ever heard say this pronounced it zerk-sees. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold text==Xerxes = "King of Heroes" (?)== Actually, it doesn't, and it's nonsense to say it does. Xerxes' name in Old Persian (Khshayārshā, not Khashâyârshâ like the article says) almost certainly means "ruling man". The "shāh" stated as maning "king" is Persian, not Old Persian. Shāh is short for Old Persian khshāyathiya. Thus, Xerxes' real name would be Khshayār-khshāyathiya, which we know is not the case (and it would sound ridiculous, anyhow). Scholars believe Khshayārshā is made from the Old Persian prefix khshaya-, which means "king" or "ruling", and arshan-, which means "man".

In the persian wikipedia it's written:

نام خشایارشا از دو جزء خشای (شاه) و آرشا (مرد) تشکیل شده و به معنی «شاه مردان» است

Translated it means, that the name khashayarshah is composed of two words, khashay (king) og arshah (man), combined it means something like king of men. Is the persian wikipedia wrong? Is it "Ruler of heroes" as the english wikipedia states? And the is Xšayāršā pronounced khashayarshah? Anyone knows? Mr Mo 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes king in Babylon before Darius died?

Jean-Louis Huot wrote an Encyclopedia Britannica article in which he states that in 486 BC, "Xerxes was about 35 years old and had already governed Babylonia for a dozen years." I haven't been able to find any reference to this piece of trivia in other encyclopedias, any idea where Huot got it from? If so, is it worth mentioning here? jdbartlett (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great?

As an ancient historian, I dispute this epithet being given to Xerxes and cannot recall it ever being used about him in the ancient or modern works relating to the Persian Empire. It is certainly applicable to his grandfather Cyrus, who founded the Persian Empire, but not to this man. I would therefore propose removing all references to him as "the Great". Simply being known as the "Great King", which the early Persian Kings were called, does not make him "great". bigpad 11:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a search for the phrase "Xerxes the great" but excluding "the Great King" phrase in Google Books returns about 700 results. It may not be common usage, but it is not unknown. Hornplease 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make it correct though. If you want to say sth like "sometimes known as 'Xerxes the Great'," that's probably ok bigpad 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Friends, reading over this dispute I see validity to the original argument but find some narrowness in it at the same time. While intermediately trained in the ancient Greek language, I can not say I have read every work nor speak with absolute authority as I still prefer to read English, but it may be so that Xerxes' contempories failed to title him "the Great"; yet that does not make him unworthy. The title "του μεγάλου βασιλέως" (the great king) carries the obvious and simple overtones of: "the king of kings," "Ruler of the World" as used for "Artaxerxes the great king" in the LLX version of the book of Ester (which I believe to be a scribal mistake for Xerxes I - see the latter part of the article '~ in the Bible'). But note that this is vastly different from the salutation Cyrus takes for himself as in Ezra 1:2; "Κύρου του βασιλέως Περσων," (i.e. Lord / Master of the kingdom of the Persians). Considering that this is after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus, who we would not hesitate to call 'great' did not call himself great; even after this victory! Nor was Cyrus called 'great' by Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes I Longimanus: even though he was certainly worthy. We also have those such as Antiochus 'The Great' who may have been addressed and known by that title by his contempories and those following him, but he was anything but worthy: for he was adversely involved in the increase of Roman dominion over Macedonia. So, it seems to me that superfluous salutations mean very little, what matters is the benefit of hindsight.

Thus History is the great judge of us all and we have come to call him "The Great" in memory if his ambitious designs, the vastness of his arms, his successful submission of the rebellions, the wealth of his reign situated at the hight of the Persian Empire - even though it may have been ill fortuned and perhaps unsuccessful. This title also contrasts him from others which happened to bear his name: for his attempts and deeds were far greater than any other Xerxes that appeared in the theatre of history. Hence, while I acknowledge the original point, I must state my vote for leaving the title of Xexres 'the Great' unmolested. Regards to you all. --Avanduyn 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow I was just about to start a section on this but bigpad beat me to it. No matter what ancient Persians, Greeks and Germans called him, what matters here is what modern English-speakers call him. "Xerxes the Great" apparently exists on the internet but it has significantly limited use and shouldn't be preferred over plain Xerxes I. Yet some editors insist on using the former when linking to this article. Miskin 13:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

well we might as well start arguing about Alexander the "great", and how "great" he and his army were. The "greatness" of a person comes from speaker. I find it very offensive as Persian to hear people calling Alexander or Chingiz khan great, but never the less I go with it.I'm gonna put the neame Xerxes the great back up. Ddd0dd (talk)Ddd0dd —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Pronounciation

It is requested that one or more audio files demonstrating correct pronunciation of this article's title be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

Can somebody provide an .ogg file with the pronunciation. Even though, I know that the pronunciation of Xerxes comes to zurk-sees, all other Wikipedians who read this article may not understand the pronunciation. A pronunciation would be greatly appreciated. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is already a phoenetic pronunciation given in the 'Names and etymology section;

The name Xerxes (/'zɝksiːz/) comes, via Latin, from Ancient Greek: Ξέρξης, which in turn derives from Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠 (Xšayāršā).

Note that the IPA link does explain pronunciation.

I've added the {{|Reqaudio-pr}} template here, to make the request. Chzz ► 08:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Salamis

I'm confused why this sentence is in the article. Not only does it adopt an argumentative point of view towards unnamed historians, but it directly contradicts the article that it links to, which espouses the commonly held view that Salamis was one of the most pivotal battles in world history. Xerxes withdrew personally with much of his army after this defeat and left the conquest of Greece to his subordinate. The defeat at Plataea could not have occurred without this victory.

(The Battle of Salamis (September 29, 480 BC) was won by the Greek fleet. Although the loss was a setback, it was not a disaster as some Greek historians have claimed, and Xerxes set up a winter camp in Thessaly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadgar1337 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopians?

Under "Invasion of the Greek mainland" it is suggested that Xerxes wishes to punish amongst others the Ethiopians. I think someone has confused Eretria and Eritrea here, the people involved were the Eretrians. See Herodotus' Histories, Book 6, chapter 43. Regards, Teun, 82.169.201.114 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arab writing was not used in Old Persian period. It is awfully inappropriate in the name of Xerxes. --217.140.233.210 (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Artaynte

does this stub make any sense, is it even true?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarify Actual Ramification of Thermopylae

"After Thermopylae, Athens was captured and the Athenians and Spartans were driven back to their last line of defense at the Isthmus of Corinth and in the Saronic Gulf. The delay caused by the Spartans allowed Athens to be evacuated."
At best this statement is highly debatable; I'd say it was flat out incorrect. Heroic and inspiring as it was, the Spartan's delay at Thermopylae is not generally considered to have been strategically important (see the page on Thermopylae for the full analysis). The Persians were still some distance away from Athens and were not going terribly fast, so 3 days did not make the difference that allowed the evacuation of the city. If someone has sources that say otherwise, please cite for this particular section. The Cap'n (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the phrase "Born in the Purple" appropriate?

This phrase in the first sentence feels awkward and pretentious. It also feels wrong in that it may not be culturally appropriate. My sense is that the color purple was symbolic of royalty in Europe, but I have doubts as to whether this was true to the Persians at this time period (if ever). Seems like the article is using European/Western culture to describe Persian culture as if there is some kind of common bond between them. In any case, the phrase creates distance between the reader and the article and serves no constructive purpose.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the sources for the discussion of the Athens fire?

In section 2.2 Thermopylae and Athens, the claim is made that it was equally likely the Athenians burned athens than it was the persians. The source is "persian scholars" but no citation is given. Can someone clarify where this information came from? I think it is reasonable, but I would love a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke643 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem in "Youth and rise to power" section

The second paragraph of the Youth and rise to power section, beginning "Artabazanes claimed the crown as the eldest of all the children," directly contradicts the third paragraph, which states "Xerxes was crowned and succeeded his father in October–December 486 BC[7] when he was about 36 years old.[3] The transition of power to Xerxes was smooth...."

The Artabazanes linked to in the second paragraph ruled in 221 BCE, according to his Wikipedia article, while Xerxes I's reign began in 486 BCE, according to this article.

The first source in the second paragraph, [5] What Do I Know About Iran No. 75, by Reza Shabani does exist but I can't find an English copy I am able to access after a cursory search (I don't have a strong interest in this article, this was just an obvious error). The second source, [6] Olmstead: the history of Persian empire, is not listed in the Bibliography and when I click on the hyperlink simply brings me back to this article.

I'm pointing all this out so that someone with more time/motivation/access/expertise than I can check up on these sources, remove the second paragraph if they don't pan out, or re-word the second and/or third paragraphs if they do.

65.33.41.171 (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As at October 2016 this article still appears internally inconsistent. Compare also (A) "Xerxes was crowned... when he was about 36 years old"; and (B) "Born 518 BC" and reigning from 486 BC, which would mean he was crowned at the age of very late 32 or early 33 years old.

The 2007 film 300

Note: discussion of 300 (film) belongs at Talk:300 (film). Former discussion here has been moved to that talkpage, where it may be relevant. I removed the pop image. Rant about the apparently monumentally forgettable movie does not belong in this article. --Wetman 03:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"...your moving of the contents of the Xxs talkpage to talk:300 was very ill-advised. In case somebody tries to re-add a similar image later, a record of the previous arguments made on the subject would be useful." This sensible suggestion was made at User talk:Wetman by Hornplease 04:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Copied here by Wetman 04:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

I think a movie version picture of Xerxes has a very good place in this article. If someone wants to use the single image next to the popular culture section, then I say good on them. JayKeaton 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding an image of a 7-foot androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes from a work of fiction seems like the worst possible candidate for an image to be placed in a factual, historical article.--Charibdis 23:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"A 7-foot androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes from a work of fiction" best comment ever. But I must disagree with your point; the popular culture section is not historical and the picture would work well. 069952497a (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

a looser in fight may make a giant or devil from a winner of war they did so.they must have rationalized their weakness.and they have to do it now. when persians lived in civilized world they lived in their caves or on top of the trees so they must create some thing to be proud of it .if iwas them i would do so. they have to make a history. they are so hopless thet they heve to cheat.they wish they could change the reality. poor people!!

It's not about what he looks like, it's the fact that it is a representation of Xerxes in modern mass media JayKeaton 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not of the historical Xxs, it isn't. Hornplease 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. So should we now discriminate against including mentions of other historical figures in popular culture sections of Wikis if we don't like the way they're visually depicted?! If so, we're going to have to re-do just about every WP entry on pre-modern historical figures. The fact is that neither you nor I know if the real Xerxes was or wasn't "a 7-foot tall androgynous man with obscene amounts of piercings and jewelry and hardly any clothes". The photographs from that era are all rather blurry. The ONLY depictions we have of him are the schematical images of him that only differentiate him from all other depictions of other men in his milieu by adding kingly accouterments. For all we know (and it's very likely), he had an immense hook nose, was missing a few front teeth, had a bald patch, was 5-foot 2, and spoke with a lisp. The only salient fact for this WP entry is that Xerxes is depicted in "300" doing what Xerxes is historically recorded as having done at Thermopylae. In that sense, it is the "historical Xerxes". That's the point of including the citation of the movie here. Bricology 03:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Errr, what other kind of "XXs" page is there, exactly? The Lzbth 2 page has a cartoon image of her and a photo of her being played in a movie, and Lzbth onest has actress's playing her. TELrnc has film poster images of himself. If your worrying about historical slander, then I would hate to break it to you but there is no such thing. Besides, slander is something you say or do, something in print or on a webpage is actually libel. But he's dead and been dead for quite some time. The fact is, this is the defining image of Xerxes 1 for the modern age and is probably the only image of him in a motion picture for the past 2500 years. JayKeaton 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When there's a page on "Ten doot tall androgynous Xerxes", you can put it there. Unless you're claiming that Helen Mirren looks as much like L2 as Rodrigo Whatever did our best guess of XtG? Oh you're not? OK, then. Hornplease 07:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

elizabeth II has no comic image on her page not does it has a photo of her being played in a movie, and by the way even if she did, theres still around 10 other pictures of her here, about elizabeth I, there is not one image of an actress playing her, but about 5 of them and TE lawrence displays the poster for the critically acclaimed and most famous movie by david lean (which is one of historys most important movies btw). Regarding Xerxes I, there is 2 pictures of old representations of him (in one of them you can see his back) and one for the highly criticized by historians flick 300, in which xerxes was so completely redone one has to wonder if its fictional one instead of being the historical xerxes I.

As per the consensus here, the re-added image has been removed. Hornplease 19:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Xerxes wasn't androgynous he was eccentric in the film but he was still obviously a man! 69.209.222.187 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another film featuring Xerxes, "One Night with the King." I prefer that image to the one of "300." Here he is sensitive, sensual, attractive but not yet the warrior King that he would become later. It all balances out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEACE BE UNTO YOU (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

" This is a scientific discussion page, not a ring were we would fight our flavour of Hollywood costumes. The Hollywood film "300" is a perfect example of Orientalist. Any scholar can prove to you with a thousand sources why the film has nothing to do with Iran or Persia. During the time of the Film, Islam did not yet exist, nor had Arabs any presence in that region, the film features a lot of Islamic elements. Khashayar Shah/ King Xerxes did not resemble the character of the film at all, no source, visual, oral or written tradition refers to such an image as that of the film. The film is part of a campaign on portraying the Middle East and Central Asia as negative, this has been done for years. " Not without my daughter" "The Wrestler" "Midnight Express" and of course the classical movies of the past. P.S: Let's keep it friendly and professional, God bless." —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on Birth Year of Xerxes I

this is a very false and icorrect article do not use in any form this will get you a very bad grade if u use this in a report and to prove it scroll to the bottom of the page you will notice it says he was born in 465 B.C. The correct birth date of xerxes was in 520 B.C big difference right? this article is very faulty and misprinted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.54.145 (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that there is no contradiction at all my friend. The article never claimed that he was born in 465, but rather that he died in that year. --Avanduyn (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking for a historical reference that Xerxes was about 35 when his dad died. Can anyone help? Dandamayev and the Britannica claim it without giving the reference. Andrejanna (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, I found. According to Herodotus (7.2.2) Xerxes was born in the early part of the reign of Darius, his father.Andrejanna (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Persian in Arabic script

Why should the modern Persian form of the name be given in Arabic script at the beginning of the article? Persian wasn't written in Arabic script until a thousand years after he was dead... AnonMoos 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

idk - its not arabic script

that's the script the present persians can read. it uses arabic letters but it is persian/farsi. I bet you know that. -Mohseng 14:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Don't worry coz In Linguistics, scripts are the least worthy elements of a language, you can write the same language in almost any scripts without any changes in the language itself.

" I added the name in Persian using the current Persian alphabet which is a revised version of the Arabic alphabet with a different grammar and a handful of added symbols created to fit the sounds that come with the Persian language. Many people whether native speakers or not, who study Persian and would like to search for sources written in Persian, can this way know how the name is written in Persian. Many Iranians and other Persian speakers have written about this matter and these sources have not all been translated. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by خرمدین۸۹ (talk • contribs) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this article on Wikipedia reads as though it was written by a 10 year-old. Secondly, I find it interesting that you "scholars" are so wise as to know in advance which historical documents are legitimate and which are not. You discount the book of Esther out of hand while accepting conflicting stories found in various Greek and Roman histories. Your prejudices are both obvious and irrational. Weak sauce, to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.20.110 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Name "Xerxes I" or "Xerxes the Great"

A new user was edit warring over the naming here. Per discussions at talk:Darius I, both that article and this one should use the naming "Xerxes I" and not "Xerxes the Great". I'm not seeing anywhere that indicates that consensus has changed, so I believe that this edit needs to be undone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Xerxes I

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Xerxes I's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.nl":

From Achaemenid Empire: Joseph Roisman,Ian Worthington A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. pp. 342-345. John Wiley & Sons, 7 jul. 2011 ISBN 144435163X
From Iran: The Sword of Persia: Nader Shah, from Tribal Warrior to Conquering Tyrant. Retrieved 27 May 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

bad data

The data box at the top should list the official queen Amestris, not Esther, unless there's hard evidence that he had a queen other than Amestris. The Esther identification is not supported within the article by current archaeological data, only by "yestercentury" material which may be speculative or overturned by modern research. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in the content

Hi; I was interested in learning more about Xerxes, but upon reading the first paragraph I noticed the following error: He ruled from 486 BC until his assassination in 465 BC....indicating that he had died 20 years before he ruled. I don't want to correct, since I don't know the true dates.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.250.121.138 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No, BC(E) dates count down to 1, then the counting starts again with 1 CE. It's right. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR in the Cultural depictions section

These parts seem like OR to me, and I´m thinking of cutting them, unless they can be reliably sourced. I´m not saying they aren´t to some extent correct, but IMO they can´t be stated in WP:s voice like this.

Later generations' fascination with ancient Sparta, and particularly the Battle of Thermopylae, has led to Xerxes' portrayal in works of popular culture, although more often than not in a negative light, often portraying him as ranging from unsympathetic to megalomaniacal. This can be blamed largely on the fact that most sources from the period are of Greek origin. The authors of these sources generally demonize Xerxes in a manner that is reflected in more modern works.
(a blatant historical inaccuracy as regards Zoroastrianism).

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think they are uncited rather than OR. They might be npov. The source which would be useful for improving this section would be Bridges, Emma, Imagining Xerxes : ancient perspectives on a Persian king (2015, London : Bloomsbury) Furius (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps someone with access to that source could help. I´m removing the second point for now, it´s not like '300' is a documentary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Name in Farsi (Modern Persian) is omitted at the top ?!

It is very strange and irregular to not have the name of this Iranian King in Farsi (Modern Persian) at the top of this article. M. Neshat 08:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

I don't see anything irregular in that, this is en.wiki not fa.wiki, and Xerxes was an Achaemenid Persian, not Iranian. To the same extent, people like for example Augustus or Caesar were ancient Romans, not Italians, thus there is obviously no need of their modern Italian names in their articles. Khruner (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully and strongly disagree. Your argument is flawed, and derogatory. According to User:Khruner, and in reference to the page as is, mentioning and spelling the name of this Persian King in Greek language and alphabet (in addition to English) is acceptable, while it should be forbidden in Persian. Why does he have no objection to those references to his name at the top?! That is clearly a double standard. I personally think that it is appropriate to see the Greek name and corresponding spelling in regard to the historical context; but according to his logic, then this page should belong to the Greek version of Wikipedia! Editor of this page should seriously note that his deletion is in contrast to the norm applied in comparable pages for other kings of the same period in the "English version" of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I find his deletion of the "Persian name of this Iranian King" in this manner and on this basis a violation of Wikipedia norms of civility and Ethics. M. Neshat.Ph.D. M. Neshat 00:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

"Editor of this page should seriously note that his deletion is in contrast to the norm applied in comparable pages for other kings of the same period in the "English version" of Wikipedia." I don't see any similar thing in other Achaemenid rulers, just check the several Darius and Artaxerxes. If there is one who is changing the norm applied, this is you, not me.

"I personally think that it is appropriate to see the Greek name and corresponding spelling in regard to the historical context." So what are we talking about? The same could not be applied with Farsi, is quite obvious. Xerxes it the name the anglophone world use for him, and is clearly about the same name/derived by the old Greek one. Like I said before, I never dream to put/see the Italian name Ottaviano Augusto just next to Augustus' English and Latin names in his article. Your are accusing me of being derogatory and using double standard, but in light of what I said, I do not see any of the two things. Khruner (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You are out of line! You have deliberately stated that centuries of history of a Nation should be wiped out and strictly renamed according to you (Quote from User:Khruner : “Xerxes was an Achaemenid Persian, not Iranian”) This is similar to saying Hanoverians or Stuarts were not British. I am stunned as to how you can contradict yourself on the record in black and white as such (in reference to other spellings that you don't mind on that page i.e. Greek, Hebrew, other). You state that the norm that I am referring to in other pages does not exist and bring forth the example of Artaxerxes I. I exactly stated it because of those pages. You should refer to those pages and see that the Persian spelling of the name is stated, as it should be. If selectively deleted in some pages, it will be reinstated. This is not a complicated matter! It is apparent that you do not have an objective opinion on the matter and should not have the authority to selectively delete accurate and informative information that is normally included in such biographies in comparable pages (I can provide you with a ridiculously long list if necessary). Again, your statement and actions are biased and against the code of Ethics of Wikipedia (not to mention others). M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 08:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

MneshatI don't think that personal attacks will resolve anything here, nobody is biased in anyway against anybody here: in general disagreements do not stem from deeper rejections between the interlocutors. I would like to recenter the discussion around the problem at hand, namely the presence of the name of Xerxes in Farsi on the article. For the sake of simplicity, we should be able to decide this here without refering to other articles. First, I believe the Greek name is given because it is how a number of ancient sources name Xerxes and it may be useful to be able to identify Xerxes when reading these historical sources. Second, the name of Xerxes in his ancient language has to be given (if possible). In particular I think that this "real" name (i.e. the one he would have recognized), if known, would be more appropriate/exact as the name of the article than Xerxes. Practically speaking however, modern English speakers recognize "Xerxes" and would certainly not recognize the Ancient name, explaining why this was chosen as article name. In constrast, I do not see the necessity for his name to be given in modern Farsi since it cannot be found in historical documents referring to the king nor does it correspond to the real name of Xerxes. I don't see how this is biased: Xerxes was certainly a mighty Emperor whose legacy lives on in modern day Iran, just as Caesar is remembered in Italy. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you could find statements such as “I respectfully disagree,…” as personal attacks. On the contrary, User:Khruner statements such as "what are you talking about?" or “Xerxes was an Achaemenid Persian, not Iranian” is false, biased, derogatory and out of line. I have no hesitation to reinstate it. As I mentioned earlier, the name of this king is cited in this page in numerous languages, but claimed prohibited to appear in Persian by the above user. This should be a very simple, small and straight forward matter. If not, then those who do not see it as such must have some other issues that should be resolved elsewhere. As to your comments, you have stated that “for the sake of simplicity” we should not compare this page with other comparable pages in English Wikipedia. I do not want to be nor am that simplistic. The question is already answered and applied in many comparable pages of the English version of Wikipedia for many years . Users in question should not have the authority to delete an accurate, historically relevant, informative, and routinely permitted addition to the page based on ad hoc arguments or bias. M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 12:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Sure. And with "You are out of line!" you surely meant "I'll buy you a beer", not to be confused with a personal attack. And with "You should refer to those pages" you intended something more than Cyrus II, Cambyses II and Artaxerxes I who are the only Achaemenids that I checked with the Parsi name? "I can provide you with a ridiculously long list if necessary". Amusing. Longer that the hundreds of pharaohs without modern Egyptian names, all the Roman emperors without Italian names, nearly all the Assyrian and Babylonian kings "lacking" their modern corresponding? "the name of this king is cited in this page in numerous languages". Yes, English because we are on en.wiki, Old Persian because it was his original name, Greek because his modern name is known thanks to the Greek translitteration, and Hebrew - but below, and that is the weakest one maybe - because he appears in the Bible. Anyway the only way here is to ask an admin what should be done. Khruner (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins really have little role in a dispute like this. As an experienced editor I can't see a reason for the Farsi translation to be in the English language version of Wikipedia. Iry-Hor is correct in saying that we should settle this here without referring to other articles. However the title of this article is correct for the English Wikipedia because it's the most commonly used name in English reliable sources. As an experienced editor I can also say that where something isn't covered by guideline or policy, decisions are generally made by agreement on the talk page. Now, with my Admin hat on, I will say that Mneshat needs to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA and stop discussing other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, Editor of this page and other supervising editors should clarify why: "an accurate, historically relevant, informative, and routinely permitted addition in comparable pages" should be selectively denied to me and prohibited to the public to benefit by. I am very glad to see all forms of the name, but why such insistence in prohibiting the language of the country that the king belongs to, while many others are permitted. Why in fact insist to inaccurately and actively dissociate him from that language. That is just plain wrong information and inconsistent with Wikipedia AGF and NPA. Again the comment of User:Khruner was incorrect and offensive. He blatantly states that the King in question was not a historical king of Iran. Is the editor defending this view? That should be answered! Please note that all arguments of his have been answered, have been refuted, and proven ad hoc. Also, I don't understand the statement that Admins have little say in matters like this. This issue is simple and minor. Why the name of a Persian King not allowed in the language of his country with such severity? That is not consistent with rules of Wikipedia as practiced. Respectfully, M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Mneshat there are obsviously two issues here: one about Xerxes name, the other about what Khruner said.

Regarding the first issue, user Khruner has detailed the reasons motivating the presence of Xerxes' name in English, ancient Greek, Old Persian and ancient Hebrew on the article. Note how this is a rather restricted list, far from "all forms of the name": after all Xerxes was reigning over a vast empire and one could argue that Xerxes' name should be given in all the ancient languages spoken in his realm. In particular, before one includes modern Persian, these languages should take precedence and there are also more possible candidates, e.g. Avestan for obvious reasons. Seeing that few versions of the name are given, and that only the English one is modern, it appears reasonable that the only modern version given to English readers is in English.
Regarding the second issue, it is best to always assume good intent, I honestly don't think Khruner comments were meant to be derogatory and I cannot imagine how not having Xerxes' name in modern Persian would be a targeted attempt at dissociating Xerxes from modern Iran. By the way, in my opinion the best way to strenghtened the relation Xerxes / Iran is not his name in modern Persian but you could write a small section on Xerxes' legacy (which is obviously lacking in the current article) in modern Iran and beyond. Now this would definitely be detailed, reliable, encyclopedic way of relating Xerxes and Iran! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. In the current page, the name is spelled from Egyptian to Hebrew to Greek to English and other; but was not allowed as in other pages (as other Iranian, Chinese, Turk, or ... Emperors) to be spelled in the language of the land. That cannot be right, according to innumerable examples in Wikipedia. M. Neshat, Ph. D. 71.103.146.125 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

And all we respectfully disagree with your point of view. So I was offensive by saying that Xerxes was an Achaemenid Persian king rather than Iranian, thus belonging to a nation that was created centuries after his life and death, cool. Again, it's pretty the same of calling Montezuma I a Mexican or Vespasianus an Italian: you can do that with your friends, but is basically incorrect to write that on an encyclopedia. About the name, we already explained to you why English, Old Persian, Greek (and Hebrew) forms suits well here, and common sense clearly suggests that Farsi name only suits on fa.wiki instead. Every issue that you've raised has been treated (quite easy, these are always the same), so honestly I don't get why you insist in that. (On a separate note, if you check better, before I didn't said "what are you talking about?" but rather "what are we talking about?". Quite different.) Khruner (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Not Correct! As in Wrong! There are very few Iranians and especially even fewer non-Iranians that agree with you. You deliberately have stated as the basis of your argument that "this King is not a historical King of Iran". Again, that is derogatory and highly incorrect. (As a side note, this exchange is a great historical reflection of realities of OUR times in History! Name of a Persian King is prohibited to appear in Persian in Wikipedia?!) Much of what "All=2" have stated above is justification for presence of the name in multiple languages. I couldn't agree more! That is my argument! The issue is not in what languages the name appears as is in the page(Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, English, Other). The issue is in what language it was prohibited to appear(8 characters in the language of its Nation) and the manner that it was deleted. This prohibition is not acceptable based on argument and precedence (not to mention Humanity). Your arguments are ad hoc, in the true Scientific and Philosophical sense of the word. Briefly, it justifies what it wants by selectively omitting or including information. (Wikipedia: ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to save it from being falsified. (as in: lets not compare this page with hundreds of other pages that have no problem with this issue in Wikipedia) Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form. ( As in: justification for its name to appear in any language, prominently in Egyptian, but not allowed in Persian because Xerxes was not a historical king of Iran?!) Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them.) In your argument, you justify spelling his name in multiple languages (I support that), but you find it so absolutely not permissible for it to be even mentioned in 8 Persian characters (I resent and will not allow since clearly permitted elsewhere as it obviously should be) As a scientist, it is in that sense that I object. As a Human, I believe there should be no objection for the name of a historic king to appear in the language of his land for reference, as is very routinely practiced in Wikipedia. M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Let me try to explain it one more time, in a possibly even simplier form. You are accusing me of not accepting the name of Xerxes - may he forgive us for all that bothering - written in the language of his nation. This is clearly wrong, I could not agree more in putting this name, but someone before me and you already did that, and there it is: Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠. Check any Roman emperor, king, or consul or whatever, I challenge you in find one of them on en.wiki bearing his Italian name besides the English and Latin ones. And this is just ok because we are on en.wiki, not it.wiki. But you're pretending that THE SAME thing should be done with Achaemenid kings. Claiming that Xerxes was "an historical king of Iran" is exactly the same that calling Vespasianus "an historical emperor of Italy" which is simply meaningless (not sure is someone ever claimed such a title, maybe in Early Middle Ages) as Italy and Roman empire clearly are different entities, just like Iran and Achaemenid empire. So, to your "hundreds of other pages that have no problem with this issue in Wikipedia", I have already opposed with the hundred of pharaohs (English + Ancient Egyptian), Roman emperors (English + Latin), kings of Babylonia (English + Akkadian) and Assyria (English + Akkadian/Aramaic)... And I find natural that the same thing should be followed for the Achaemenid kings (English + Achaemenian, also called Old Persian + Greek for the aforementioned reason). Another thing; considering read Wikipedia:Signatures, and please stop putting the name again without having reached a consensus here in the talk page. Khruner (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

PS. I just noticed that the Farsi name is already present since before you put it the first time (de facto duplicating it), just check the note 1. I am inclined to take it as an acceptable compromise. Khruner (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I share Khruner's conclusions, furthermore I insist that if you or anyone whishes to stress the connection between Xerxes and Iran, the best way to do so is to write a seciton on Xerxes' legacy in the modern world, which would nicely present ans justify a discussion of the perception of Xerxes in modern Iran as well as give its Farsi name. I cannot see how this is not acceptable to Mneshat other than Mneshat may not be willing to do so given the amount of efforts this involves. Yet it seems a far better way to talk about Xerxes and Iran than putting Xerxes' Farsi name all over the place. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iry-Hor. Just a clarification Mneshat, please don't take my point of view as a form of hostility towards Persia and/or Iran, because it is not. I feel a sincere esteem towards ancient Persia, almost equal to that I feel for ancient Egypt. It may not interest you at all, but one of the nicknames used by me is Dareios, in honor of the ruler of this former empire who I admire most. Khruner (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, let me strongly reinstate my position to “All=2” in this forum. You can call yourself whatever you want, but the basis of your argument is false and derogatory. You have deliberately and repeatedly stated that the king in question is not a historical king of Iran thereby his name should not appear in the language of his land as is routinely permitted elsewhere in Wikipedia for Persian and non-Persian personalities. Everybody knows that this is incorrect and plain rubbish. To say he is not a historical king of Iran is similar to saying David is not a king of Isreal, or Stuarts were not British. “Xerxes is not a historical king of Iran” is the justification of these two users to censor through persistence 8 Persian characters to appear next to the name of a Persian King. Not allowed! The template for documenting king David’s name in Wikipedia is appropriately: David (/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דוד, Modern David, Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Arabic: داوُود‎ Dāwūd; Syriac: ܕܘܝܕ Dawid; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ; Strong's: Daveed). Note in this and hundreds of other examples that the old and modern language are referenced together for the information of the reader. Why then here 8 characters in Persian should stimulate such overt reaction. All that I insist, and I will insist, is that the Persian name next to the cuneiform to not be deleted! That is the norm practiced in Wikipedia! Wikipedia should clarity its position in this regard for the record and for posterity. A user blatantly states as the basis of his argument that Xerxes I is not a historic king of Iran. On that basis an alphabet that he thinks threatening is thereby banned for appearing next to his name, while the Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, English and other are prominantly permissible. That is plain non-sense bias (for a lack of a better term), and against the code ethics of this entity! One should not be allowed to censor accurate, informative, otherwise allowed information in comparable pages based on a fallacy! That is the same as saying I cannot state the circumference of the earth because someone believes earth is flat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 03:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Above statement was autosigned, but for clarity it was from Mehran Neshat, Ph. D. M. Neshat 04:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

You know pal, I'm getting tired of this sterile, unidiretional conversation. So do the hell you want with that, put the name in Ostrogothic, Adunaic and Pinguese too, I really care no more, anything but not to hear hear that whining again and always the same playing-victim script. Again, read Wikipedia:Signatures. And don't remove reliable sources as you did before. When you're done, since you're so loyal to this guideline - which, as Doug Weller said above, does not (yet) exist - you can start putting Italian names on the Roman kings, consuls and finally emperors; a kick-off as a present, Romulus is Romolo. Happy editing. Khruner (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! But, I didn't understand what you meant by "don't remove reliable sources"? I thought the whole issue was you removing the Persian spelling of his name. Also, because of your previous statements, please refrain to refer to me in terms such as the ones you started the paragraph and then throughout. Thank You, again. M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 09:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

The Iranica (reference 1). You removed it before, now it is recovered. Please learn how to sign, four of this ~ in a row. Ph.D. and other degree abbreviations are quite unnecessary here, we are not signing academic or institutional documents: on wiki we are just a bunch of good fellas behind a nickname, eager to contribute in something we know (or think to know). Khruner (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I did put 4 of ~ in reference to your suggestion, and I did not delete ref. 1! M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 11:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

There's clearly no consensus for this, just steamrollering by a single, and apparently single-purpose, account. William Avery (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It was not possible to reach a consensus, so the wisest thing to do seemed to me to give up and play Huniepop. I give you the baton. Khruner (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Avery, I don't understand. Not clear or intelligently stated. M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 11:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

To William Avery, Khruner is right: Mneshat is playing deaf, he hasn't replied to any of our arguments and keep stating his over and over again (peppered with personal attacks, mostly against Khruner). For example, Mneshat keeps stating that our opinion is a deliberately biased one or that the name is allowed in many languages, when we have proven that the list only included English, Ancient Persian, Ancient Greek and Hebrew and for each we have given good reasons. I can understand that our arguments haven't convinced Mneshat (although it is clear he never wanted to discuss the issue), however Mneshat has also refused two middle ground solutions proposed by Khruner and I. Thus, I am not ready to let Mneshat have his way only because we are speaking to a wall. We should simply vote on this issue and the majority will decide whether the name in modern Farsi should be included or not. I vote against. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Iry-Hor, I have to admire your ability to stand up to this discussion. I don't have such diplomatic and English abilities and in the long term my sarcasm can lead me to a block maybe, so I gave up. Now Mneshat is blocked until this afternoon indeed, but I am sure as hell that he will resume his edits once unblocked even more stubborn and with more conspiracy-victimism than before, thus making any discussion here perfectly pointless. Khruner (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My only reason for becoming involved here is that I thought Khruner provided a very thorough reasoning that agreed with my initial intuitive reaction: that this addition is not needed. The "playing deaf" by Mneshat was compounded by that editor proceeding as though pushing another editor into a state of exasperation, whereby they thought that their best option was to retire, was equivalent to forming an editorial consensus. With regard to the substantive question of adding the name in Farsi I take it as a given that, as part of the lead, the parenthesis in question must be kept strictly within bounds and free of unjustifiable matter. I feel that to the overwhelming majority of readers of the English Wikipedia the Farsi script will be nothing more than a meaningless 'squiggle', even less justifiable than the illuminating hypothetical additions of modern Italian to Roman emperors that Khruner raised. This doesn't rule out some relevant addition to the body of the article describing the Farsi, if it can be sourced. I am in no position to write or source it, but it might give information about whether the original meaning is still apparent, whether it sounds similar to the original, and so on. William Avery (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

William Avery Look I agree with your last observation: I have proposed to Mneshat that a section on Xerxes' legacy could be written, which would include a discussion on the perception of Xerxes in modern Iran as well as something about his Farsi name (and its pronunciation etc.). Although I understand that Mneshat may be reluctant to write such a section given the effort it requires, I don't understand why he doesn't seem to have even considered the option (as seems to be the case since he hasn't even mentioned this proposition in his responses). Let's hope Mneshat will respond this time (in particular I would really like the article to be improved!) Iry-Hor (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. William Avery and other users above should please seriously note that addition of 8 characters in Persian as the name of this Persian king is not a "Squiggle" as RUDELY stated above. Such reference is routinely presented in multiple relevant languages in Wikipedia biographies for the information of readers and to allow cross referencing (see above arguments and many examples including King David:(/ˈdeɪvɪd/; Hebrew: דוד, Modern David, Tiberian Dāwîḏ; ISO 259-3 Dawid; Arabic: داوُود‎ Dāwūd; Syriac: ܕܘܝܕ Dawid; Ancient Greek: Δαυίδ; Strong's: Daveed)). Modern Persian in the case of this Persian king is a very appropriate reference to appear next to Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, English and other. Much is written academically in this language in reference to this king, and this language has been the language of his land for centuries. This is a very neutral format and in practice in Wikipedia without issue by millions and millions; but found not permissible and repeatedly censored by above 3 users. To reply again: 1) Above user has stated as the basis of his argument that "Xerxes I is not a historical king of Iran". This statement is not only offensive, but importantly: False! If one is or pretends to be that ill-informed, then Wikipedia - History of Iran is a good starting point to educate themselves. 2) Other arguments above expand on justification for all languages, but then go on to exclude Persian. In this regard, I find his argument ad hoc. I couldn't agree more that all languages present are informative and their reference justified. But, the issue is not what languages it appears in, but what languages it is prohibited to appear. Such selective exclusion is ad hoc. I have previously explained this matter (see above) for those familiar with the Scientific sense of the term! 3) The other argument has been that this is English Wikipedia, so why write in Persian there. I don't think this requires explanation for many, but for the sake of completeness: Text and Sentences are not written in Persian in this page. They are in English. That is why it is called English Wikipedia. Here, the name has appeared in multiple languages for reference as this is an encyclopedia. That is the norm practiced for Biographies of ancient personalities of any background. Above user is confused about this distinction. However, I find it most peculiar that he does not mind any other language (Egyptian, multiple forms of Hebrew, multiple forms of Greek, English, other) other than Modern Persian. To reiterate, the arguments that the above users have presented are at the level of: his name should not appear in Modern Persian because "Xerxes I is not a historical king of Iran", or his name is nothing more to us three than a "Squiggle"?! I have no hesitation to state that these type of statements are false, unnecessary and insulting to many. I have so far very patiently explained why it is incorrect to censor this very neutral, small, appropriate, informative, and routine addition in the manner above. I think your insistence over such minor and neutral issue is quite telling by itself. What above users are requesting boils down to selective censor of an addition that is permitted, factual, and relevant. I and many believe they should not be allowed. Mehran Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Mneshat Ok the word "squiggle" was a bad choice, although William Avery probably did not have any ill intent when using it (I guess it was written in the sense that latin script would also be a squiggle to Farsi speakers). Coming back to your arguments, let me address your three points above:

1) Nobody denies that Xerxes' kingdom was centered on a region located in modern Iran, however you have to admit that Iran did not exist back then, as well as some of the defining aspects of its modern culture (such as Islam). That modern Iranians perceive Xerxes as one of their past kings is perfectly fine (its their right!) and justifies a discussion of Xerxes' legacy in the article (especially since you seem to know some literature on the subject). As I have stated three times before, this section should include Xerxes' name in Farsi as well as his perception in modern Iranian society. I believe this subject to be highly interesting and would make a great addition to the article. The fact that you have avoided to even respond to this proposition three times already makes be doubt your true intents.
2) and 3) To clarify things once more, note that there are no other languages beyond English, Ancient Greek, Ancient Persian and Hebrew in the article, i.e. none of the other (thousands) of languages existing on Earth appear in the article. This indicates that there are reasons motivating specifically the use of these English, Greek, Old Persian and Hebrew, which have been detailed before, and that Farsi is not particularly targeted. By your reasoning excluding any or all of the other languages existing on Earth would be just as ad-hoc.

I hope we can discuss constructively on this issue, in particular I am, once more, waiting for your response on point 1) above. Iry-Hor (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a purely editorial decision, and, not surprisingly, I don't see any new substantive arguments here. Perhaps we should file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. William Avery (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, the norm in English Wikipedia and elsewhere is to state the name of historical personalities in their biographies in relevant ancient and modern languages for its information and to allow cross referencing. That is in addition to English which is the language where content throughout the text is explained in English sentences. I don’t think anybody disagrees with that (except user: Khruner and Mr. Avery with their comments at the top: This is en.wiki not farsi wiki, name in farsi is no more than a wiggle ?!) In that context, no objection is made to presence of Egyptian, multiple forms of Greek, multiple forms of Hebrew and other forms of the name in any other language. Above 3 users should be informed that all of these information are historically relevant and furthermore all allow cross referencing to academic and non-academic literature in thousands of libraries across the world. To this norm however, above 3 users insist to exclude and only exclude Modern Persian. I have previously stated but will address this ad hoc logic again briefly: above 3 users state as the basis of their argument (among derogatory statements) that “Xerxes is not a historical king of Iran” to which I have referred them to any academic source to further educate themselves if really that ill-informed in regard to the topic. This includes Wikipedia history of Iran, Britanica, and countless many…. If still not convinced, I suggest to them to scroll up to the top of this page and see that this page is labeled as part of WIKI.PROJECT.IRAN. Above critics not only dissect the history of this nation solely to their preference, but segregate the culture away from the historical continuum. Here similarly, they should refer to hundreds of thousands of Western academic research of this culture as one throughout centuries. Importantly, one user states that Xerxes is not a historical king of Iran, because now “Islam” is a component of its culture. This statement stands for itself for being irrelevant and to lack any merit (for lack of a better term). How can this justify the name of this Persian king not being allowed to appear in Persian next to other languages? Furthermore, this properly reflects the underlying extreme religious basis for this oblique objection to such neutral academic addition to this page. Appearance of 8 Persian characters as his name is written in Modern Persian is a permitted, informative and a relevant addition. It is absolutely neutral and does not reflect anything beyond how the name is written for cross referencing and its information. Its inclusion should not be allowed to be censored based on poor non factual arguments centered on extreme an incorrect views. Mehran Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 18:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Mneshat you deliberately ignored my point 1) above for the fourth time and you continue to grossly misrepresent my (and others) arguments. In addition, not only do you insult me and others by consistently accusing us of racism/bias/religious bias but this also constitute your sole argument in this discussion. Consequently I must conclude that discussing with you is absolutely pointless and so we will resort to wikipedia's rule concerning the matter at hand. We shall simply vote on the issue. For the sake of peace, I will also ignore your attacks and will continue to wonder why you have never considered writing something on Xerxes' legacy in modern Iran. But then again, everything indicates that you only want to make a fuss and accuse everyone of racism. Iry-Hor (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That point is answered many times and every time. The answer is Xerxes is a historic king of Iran, Achaemenids are an ancient dynasty of Iran. In contrast to what you state, Wkipedia, Webster, common knowledge and other sources reflect that. Accordingly and because of that, this page is recognized as part of Project.Wiki.Iran for obvious reasons that every one agrees with. Thereby it is relevant to state his name in Modern Persian as is the norm for all historical biographies for information and cross referencing to literature in thousands of libraries across the world. M. Neshat Ph.D. M. Neshat 23:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

I have not insulted anybody and my respectful statements in contrast to some are above. As to the issue, arguments are clearly and intelligently stated and your points refuted. As for the history and culture of Iran, your statements are in contrast to academic sources and common knowledge. Many find those comments unnecessary and derogatory. Mehran Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 22:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

It took more than I thought, but welcome to the club, Iry-Hor. "Many find those comments unnecessary and derogatory." where "many" actually means you, but at the same time when I said that "all we respectfully disagree with your point of view", "we" only means 2. Interesting. And finally seeing the aforementioned "norm" of wikipedia which permits to put an foreign, unnecessary name in a biography should be interesting too. Of course Xerxes' article is in "wikiproject:Iran": lacking a "wikiproject:Achaemenid Empire", Xerxes should be relocated in some other project. Just like our friend Nebuchadnezzar II: lacking a "wikiproject:Babylon" he was relocate to "wikiproject:Iraq". Should this be enough to call Nebuchadnezzar II "an historical king of Iraq"? Of course not. Or should we call Basil II Bulgaroktonos (for those not familiar, probably the greatest Bizantine emperor), "an historical Emperor of Greece"? Likewise not. And there is nothing "derogatory" in that. I don't get it: if I am reading Xerxes' article on en.wiki, and suddendly ask to myself "Oh, I would love to know how Xerxes is called in, let's see... Japanese. What could I do? Oh yes, I can scroll the left column where the interlinks to the others wiki are, and if I am lucky enough some good pal from Japan have written the corresponding article. So check check... Here we are! "Xerxes" in Japanese is 日本語. Wow..." Now replace Japanese with Farsi and Japan with Iran and the result will be فارسی: smooth as soap on a frictionless surface. At this point one could say "no no, I want to know Xerxes' original Persian name, the one of the country he belonged!" "Oh, no need to check elsewhere, it's in the lead! Here: Old Persian: 𐎧𐏁𐎹𐎠𐎼𐏁𐎠!" But beside all that discussion, the Farsi name is ALREADY in the article (see note 1) so your previous edits only put an unnecessary duplicate in the article. Yes I know this is futile, but I tried again. Khruner (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Khruner Mneshat I couldn't have put it better than Khruner did! I entirely agree with this line of thoughts. I just want to contrast Mneshat's statement "I have not insulted anybody with my respectful statements" with his own words, quoted verbatim: "Your argument is flawed, and derogatory", "clearly a double standard", "I find his deletion [...] a violation of Wikipedia norms of civility and Ethics", "You are out of line!", "your statement and actions are biased and against the code of Ethics", "User:Khruner statements [...] is false, biased, derogatory and out of line.", " then those who do not see it as such must have some other issues that should be resolved elsewhere", "Users [...] should not have the authority to [delete something] based on ad hoc arguments or bias", "the comment of User:Khruner was incorrect and offensive", "No, Not Correct! As in Wrong!", "that is derogatory and highly incorrect", "your argument is false and derogatory", "this is incorrect and plain rubbish", "that is plain non-sense bias", "not clear or intelligently stated", "RUDELY", "statement is not only offensive, but importantly: False!","these type of statements are false, unnecessary and insulting to many", "statement stands for itself for being irrelevant and to lack any merit", "properly reflects the underlying extreme religious basis for this oblique objection", "based on poor non factual arguments centered on extreme an incorrect views". Iry-Hor (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

日本語 is Japanese for "Japanese", not for "Xerxes". فارسی is Farsi for "Farsi", not for "Xerxes" ... Furius (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I so thank the above user as to so reflect my objections to un-factual and false points above in the manner he did. I and many more stand to those statements in context. But strangely enough you missed: “I respectfully and strongly disagree”, “I respectfully disagree”. ”incorrect, very strange and irregular”,” I do not want to be nor am that simplistic”, “my respectful statements in contrast to some”. Why exclude those in your list? It appears that selective exclusion is favored by you. That is ad hoc! All languages are permissible in this page but somehow the neutral and informative addition of 8 characters in Persian proves enough to stimulate such strong response for you! Why? I suggest a more inclusive approach. Why don’t you propose, in the scope of your interests, to extend this page to other projects in Wikipedia? M. Neshat , Ph.D M. Neshat 08:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mneshat You seem to misunderstand the purpose of my last post: I am not claiming that every single thing you said was disrepectful, rather I am pointing out that, contrary to your statement, you did say some things that are not as respecteful as you claim. I did not "strangely" omit the things you said that are respectful, rather I listed those that are not.

Coming back to Xerxes, being accused of systematic bias (and what kind of bias could that be?) is insulting to me. It is clear that for some reasons, you absolutely want to present our opposition to your opinion under a purely biased light, that is, that me and Khruner would stand against Farsi in particular because we are racists (again what kind of bias are you talking about if not racism?). But guess what, this time you are wrong, I am not racist, and not standing against Farsi, in fact I even used to be able to read some Avestan (I taught myself for a few years using http://www.avesta.org/language/Combined_Avesta_Grammar.pdf), precisely because I got interested in Ancient Persia.

Finally, I guess it is useless to point out again that contrary to what you just said once more, not all languages are permitted in the article, only 4 are. Also, I am not sure to understand your last proposition "Why don’t you propose, in the scope of your interests, to extend this page to other projects in Wikipedia?". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Dr., points in reference to the question at hand have been answered before. Re-writing of a nation's history and segregation of its culture from the continuum is neither justifiable nor allowed! In reference to your other question, and to address any doubt, in regard to Queen Esther (Dear, Noble [and more] to me as a Persian) she is represented in Wikipedia as part of WikiProject Bible, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Christianity / Saints, WikiProject Women's History. That full reference is not represented in Xerxes I page, similar to the name of the king in question in 8 characters in Modern Persian (i.e. the language of his land for information and cross referencing to literature). That can be extended as part of your efforts. That is what I meant as to answer most directory to your question. I am anything but a Xerxes fanatic, but not allowing his name to appear in Persian when 4 other languages are allowed is too much ?! (in plain language for common understanding!! As my first Personal note presented so far: I understand that French is your native language. I can explain this in French for your attention, since I have had my first 12 years of education in that language, but again I have lived in the States for the last third of a century, and since we both understand plain English, why bother?) In English, Let me state that I strongly believe that above historical crossings should be highlighted as opposed to censored. M. Neshat, Ph.D. M. Neshat 05:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mneshat (talk • contribs)

Names in the lead

Hate to revive discussion on this topic, since I was very happy with the conclusions reached last time it was discussed, but User:Prinsgezinde has removed the Hebrew name and I'd be pretty keen to see it restored. Prinsgezinde's justification was that the first sentance was getting too long, which is fair. My counter-argument would be that the prominence of the name in the Bible justifies its presence in the lead. Furius (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Furius: Hmm, my mistake for not reading the talk page. I had no idea it had been discussed before and hadn't considered his place in the Bible. Thanks for opening a discussion over it though (and notifying me). I have no problem with you reinstating it if you feel it deserves to be there. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hieroglyphs

Is there a source for the name in hieroglyphs? Furius (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Furius: Jürgen von Beckerath (1999), Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. ISBN 3-8053-2310-7, pp. 220–21. Khruner (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction: Artaxerxes I of Persia uses a different photograph of the same rock relief

In this article, there is a photo of a rock relief supposedly of Xerxes I (i.e. who reigned 486–465 BC). However, the article Artaxerxes I of Persia has a different photograph, but clearly of the same rock relief, and claims that it is Artaxerxes I (i.e. who reigned 465–424 BC). Anyone know which one is correct? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The image File:Xerxes Image.png has a link to here with supporting evidence that it is attributed to Xerxes I, whereas the image File:Xerxes I of Persia (2).jpg does not give any explanation. However, the English Wikipedia article on Xerxes I is the only one to use the image, whereas most of the Artaxerxes I articles in other Wikipedia's use the image for him, but not for Xerxes. The French Wiki claims the tomb with the image belongs to Artaxerxes I. I'm going to do more digging and I'll let you know what I find. I think it basically boils down to who the tomb belongs to, and it might just not be known who it is. Psychotic Spartan 123 20:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@PsychoticSpartan123: Have you found anything? If it is not known who the tomb belongs to, then we should probably not use this image on either page. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikitiki89 With this picture of Naqsh-e Rustam and the notion from the Naqsh-e Rustam article that the order of the four tombs from left to right is: Darius II, Artaxerxes I, Darius I and Xerxes I, by comparing the rock pattern I believe that both pictures represent Xerxes I. Sadly, it appears that this shabby picture is all we have about Artaxerxes I. Furthermore, of the four tombs in Naqsh-e Rustam, only the one of Darius I is securely attributable to him. Khruner (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Khruner: Thanks! That's definitely progress. It would be nice to verify this with a reliable source. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 20:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikitiki89 How about the Iranica, here? Search for "On Tomb II, which is ascribed to Xerxes" with link to figure 5. Khruner (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Khruner: That works for me. Shall we say this is resolved? --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 21:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess so. Khruner (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)==

Another possible duplicate picture

The picture of the carving of Xerxes in this article looks virtually identical to the carving of Artaxerxes III. Both images are cropped from a larger picture of a tomb carving, both of which also look identical: Artaxerxes I vs. Xerxes I. Note that I've also raised this issue on the Artaxerxes III talk page. Spirit of Eagle (talk)

No, these two images are different - look at the pattern of smashing on the two fire altars and on the coils of the left leg of the throne. Furius (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dupelicate images

I can't figure out why the Hyroglyphs image is duplicated, or, more to the point, why no one has noticed. I can't delete the dupe because I'm not an admin, but can someone please do something about it? I checked and dupe images meet the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. TheAppleAuthority (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is the Real Fourth?

Both this article and Darius I list their respective kings as the 4th in the Achaemenid Empire. I suspect this has to do with conflict on Wikipedia over whether or not Bardiya should be counted, but I thought I'd bring it up in case it could be resolved. Given that Bardiya's wikipedia page indicates that someone by that name ruled the Achaemenid Empire for seven months, I'd suggest that we change this article to say 5th King of Kings, under the logic that whether it was Bardiya or Gaumata claiming to be Bardiya, there was still another Achaemenid ruler between Cambyses II and Darius I. --2601:85:4500:2F22:1923:222F:F538:5F8F (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Herodotus

I added sourced information about Herodotus's statements about Xerxes I to the "children" section. The source I used is Ancient.eu. An editor suggested that the source may not be reliable, but it obviously is. Please see this. Plus, the source totally fits WP:HISTRS. Ancient.eu has been recommended by institutions like Oxford University and the University of Minnesota. It also collaborates with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization or UNESCO. The concerns about Herodotus not being a reliable historian (although absurd to me) don't really matter. First of all, Herodotus has been used on many articles related to Achaemenid kings on WP. Second, his words are already used in this article. Third, it is not our job to determine which ancient historians are reliable and which are not, that is OR. Our job is to state what reliable sources say. I specifically put "According to Herodotus" in the article, because that is what the source said.

Modern historians have used Herodotus's writings as evidence for many things. Also, Plutarch is widely considered to be an unreliable historian but his words are plastered all over WP. Again, it is not our job to determine which historians are reliable. We are supposed to defer to historians and reliable sources. Finally, the text that I added totally fits the scope of the section.

I apologize if I came off as antagonistic in the edit summaries. I would like to have a calm, civil, and short discussion. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I've barely done much research on Achaemenid-related stuff, and yet I've already seen three sources who have questioned Herodotus' (or Greek) work.

"The conclusion seems undeniable: Herodotus recorded spurious information" (From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, by Pierre Bryant, p. 57).

Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran (from the Medes section of the source, cant be bothered to download and find the precise page atm):

"Yet so far, contemporary evidence for a unified Median state in the eighth and seventh centuries has proven to be elusive. Excavations in sites such as Nush-e Jan, Baba Jan, and Godin Tepe support the idea of small independent states centered on fortresses controlling the region and passage through it, which emerges so clearly from the Assyrian sources. On the other hand, archaeological evidence for a unified Median state stretching from Iran to Inner Anatolia is conspicuously lacking while (p. 454) the Assyrian sources fail to back up any part of Herodotus’ account on the genesis of such a state. Recent scholarship therefore prefers to see Herodotus’ Medikos Logos as largely fictitious and cautions against its use as a historical source for the history of the Medes".

Last but not least, here's a statement regarding Greek/Roman sources regarding Iranian marriage habits which once again goes to show that Greek sources should be used very carefully (Queen Mousa, Mother and Wife(?) of King Phraatakes of Parthia: A Re-evaluation of the Evidence, p. 44):

"Greek and Roman authors from the fifth century B.C. onwards, it is true, repeatedly assert that it was allowable for Persians, and later on for Parthians, to marry mother. daughter or sister, and many scholars take these claims at face value, a number of them believing that the reference is to Zoroastrian next-of-kin marriage" -> (a few lines later) "As for the Greek and Roman statements, we can surely dismiss them, for there is good reason to believe that they are based on little other than a love of sensationalism and outright bias towards anything non-Greek or non-Roman."

There is also "Xerxes: A Persian Life" by Richard Stoneman, which goes in depth regarding the reliability of Greek sources about the Achaemenids, especially Xerxes. I'm reading it atm, since I plan to overhaul Xerxes in the near future.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, Herodotus is the same person who famously stated that 2 million Persians or so participated in the Battle of Theromamplye (yes I know it is mentioned in the article, I will take that up soon), so how come the statement of Herodotus being unreliable appears as "absurd" to you? Generally a rule of thumb is to use modern academic scholarship above ancient historians, since they often recorded spurious or biased information. Regarding https://www.ancient.eu/, I think it would be a good idea to take it to the reliable source noticeboard (or whatever its called). It doesn't look one bit reliable to me, or at least of very low quality. We have better sources than that.

EDIT: Here's what it says about Joshua J. Mark in the same page, the person who wrote the article: "A freelance writer and former part-time Professor of Philosophy at Marist College, New York, Joshua J. Mark has lived in Greece and Germany and traveled through Egypt. He has taught history, writing, literature, and philosophy at the college level." Yeah no, we deffo have much better opinions than him. Also, a source (whether its Plutarch or Herodotus) being used in various articles does not justify it being used further. We should instead try to fix the issue, instead of making it worse. I'm not saying Herodotus is completely unreliable, however it can't be ignored that there are large amounts of his works is questionable, which is what we have academic modern sources for. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Just found this in Pierre Bryants book as well, regarding the bit you tried to add (didn't copy it all, was too much, it's on page 515-516 [1]; "Injected into the story of Greek victories in Asia Minor, these tales fostered the image of a king subject to the nefarious influences of the women of the place and more interested in slaking his guilty passions than in defending the territorial inheritance of Darius. In reality, placing such an emphasis on the story of Xerxes and his sister-in-law results from a highly questionable methodology. On the hand, the story is a romance, characterized by a whole series of repetitive motifs on which it is extremely imprudent to base any historical extrapolation. On the other hand, Herodotus's tale contains many other informative elements that are much more convincing about the policy and strategy followed by Xerxes after his return from Salamis-at least if the historian chooses to free himself from the overwhelming weight of stereotypes." --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This can serve as a placeholder while I work on my full response. I hope you'll forgive me if I take a little while to finally write the whole thing up. But from what I can gather from a skim of your response is that you have a problem with the source I used because it seems unreliable. I do think that it fits WP:HISTRS quite well for all the reasons I listed above, but either way if I were to use a more reliable source that also supports the text, would you be ok with that? Or do you have a problem with Herodotus's work being used at all? What if there was a disclaimer after the text that talked about the potential unreliability of some of Herodotus's statements? Also, much of what know about the Achaemenid Empire comes from Herodotus, and sometimes Herodotus is the only source. So considering him unreliable when it comes to the Achaemenid Empire would cut out many things from this article and others like it. Of course we should use modern historians as our sources, but modern historians have to base their findings off of something...and they often get that from ancient historians that were alive during the same time.

Thanks for reminding me of that book by Pierre Briant. Just ordered it! -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

As I've already said, I don't consider Herodotus fully unreliable. Well, I've already given you a source (that isnt of low quality) that is Briant. Or if you can wait then I do plan to overhaul the Xerxes article myself, where I'll ofc add everything, including the reliablity of the sources regarding him [2]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you've added Herodotus's possible unreliability near the beginning of this article. I have re-added info about Herodotus's writings to the "Children" section. The supposed unreliability of Herodotus is already established in the beginning of the article so the reader can make up their own mind about the writings. His work is prominently featured in this article already along with a note of his possible unreliability. So that works. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@TrynaMakeADollar: Sigh, the source is still bad though. Are you going to find another? I'm sure you'll find it in Herodotus' book if it's what he said. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually wait, I've completely forgot what I've said several times, seems you have as well. We should use academic sources instead of Herodotus, since he is clearly not reliable in many instaces. There's a lot of antagonistic/biased work in his book. His actual believable/factual/whatever u wanna call it statements are no doubt mentioned by scholars. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well either way, it does seem like the work related to the text that I added to the section is mentioned by scholars. I will add a cite for it soon. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@TrynaMakeADollar: Well? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The empire on which the sun never sets

Georg Büchmann traces the idea to a speech in Herodotus' Histories made by Xerxes I of Persia before invading Greece:[1] γῆν τὴν Περσίδα ἀποδέξομεν τῷ Διὸς αἰθέρι ὁμουρέουσαν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ χώρην γε οὐδεμίαν κατόψεται ἥλιος ὅμουρον ἐοῦσαν τῇ ἡμετέρῃ[2] ("we shall extend the Persian territory as far as God's heaven reaches. The sun will then shine on no land beyond our borders")[3] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_empire_on_which_the_sun_never_sets

Please add the above to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC) ≠ It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Wikipedia is neutral and should not take stances, especially on something as controversial as religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.175.26.21 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021

This edit request to Xerxes I has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In this article, it is mentioned that the story of Esther is widely considered fictitious. This story is a vital part of the Jewish religion and calling it fiction is the same as calling the bible or the Quran fiction. IEditedYourPage (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it was the constant alteration of this (sourced) information that made the article get protected in the first place. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Bible and Quran are largely fictitious and statement you contest is well sourced. Melmann 20:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Death

If there's a cuneiform saying Xerxes was killed by his son, this seems to me to confirm Ctesias' version over Aristotle's, which is later and seems less likely (Artabanus just whacks a bunch of the royal family, but leaves other sons of Xerxes alive)? Cornelius (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)