Talk:Cyrus II of Persia

Can you please tell me why the quote was bogus?

This decree was discovered "at Achmetha [R.V. marg., "Ecbatana"], in the palace that is in the province of the Medes" (Ezra 6:2).

What does that mean? Where and when was the decree discovered? What does the Bible have to do with anything? Man, this Bible dictionary really sucks. AxelBoldt 21:31 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

--

I just wanted to give props to whoever wrote this article - and, I assume, a lot of the near-east history articles - for doing stuff like digging up historical figures' real names, like Sharrukin and Koroush. Lord knows the Anglicized and Latinized versions are what people know these days, but having an idea of what these guys called *themselves* can only provide that much more of a connection to the past.

Contents

1 Yes, but... 2 Another thing... 3 Not sure if this was an HW assignment or a suggestion for making the article better... 4 Dates and numbers in this article 5 Use of language 6 Cyrus to Do List 7 Continuing discussion on dates and numbers 8 Achaemenid To Do/Policy 9 Please think of our readers

Yes, but...

I too give "props" the inclusion of English transliterations of the Persian names in addition to the Latinized Hellenized forms that have come down to us, but I think it should be noted that the ancient Persians did not use the Arabo-Persian alphabet. All these names are given in the modern rendering, and though they are pretty close to how the Persians in question would have pronounced their own names, they do not reflect how they would have spelled them. If only we could get Pahlavi fonts to work here, we could include those spellings too. Which gives me another idea: how about a chart of Persian names in their Pahlavi, Arabo-Persian, Greek and Anglo-Latin forms, for comparison? --Jpbrenna 20:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I meant Perso-Arabic, of course ;)

Another thing...

The transliteration of Cyrus's name as given at the top of the article would be "Koroush Kabir." But "kabir" is an Arabic word. Wouldn't they have called him something else in pre-Arab times? Like "Koroush Bozorg?" Or did they use some form of "Kabir" via Aramaic. --Jpbrenna 19:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this was an HW assignment or a suggestion for making the article better...

Just a question: who was Cyrus married to? I can't find anything about it! I know some of his daughters and his mother, but I cannot find ANYTHING about his wife! Please answer in the space below. Wife's name: How old she was when married Cyrus: Wife's native country: Wife's birth and death date:

I removed the above from the top of the page. See the Article History for more info. --Jpbrenna 17:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Dates and numbers in this article

Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE appears to make the most sense. Sunray 17:59, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

The authors of the article appeared quite happy with BC/AD until Slrubenstein's friends decided to implement his failed proposal - which is already quite divisive and causes enormous offence to many people worldwide. Why do you wish to perpetuate this silly offensive dispute? jguk 18:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who you mean by "Slrubenstein's friends." Perhaps we could take a poll of authors of this article and other articles on Persia and other non-Christian regions of the world to see which dating system they prefer. Sunray 18:16, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Using AD for this guy makes about as much sense as putting his name in the anachronistic Arabic alphabet and using the Arabic "kabeer." But since we're doing that, we might as well be consistently whacked and us "AD" as well. --Jpbrenna 18:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Would "two wrongs don't make a right," perhaps apply? Sunray 19:04, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Yes, it would. I guess what I mean to say is that the whole AD/CE issue is just one of the many problems with this article, which aren't being addressed. There's a lot more that needs to be changed than that.

So far we have one author of this article (User: Jpbrenna), who has indicated his preferance for BCE/CE. Anyone else who has worked on this article care to weigh in? Meanwhile, I will revert to that. Sunray 06:43, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Use of language

...these Arabo-Persian spellings aren't somehow more "authentic" than the Latinate names. Cyrus the Great didn't spell his name "Cyrus," but he didn't spell it کوروش either. Actually, he probably didn't spell anything at all -- he dictated to a bunch of scribes. At the beginning of the article, it should give Cyrus's Latinate name (which is what he is most commonly known by in English), followed by Old Persian cuneiform (when technically feasible), followed by a Latin-alphabet transliteration of the Old Persian with appropriate diacritics. Then we should give the Modern Persian and Greek spellings. The Arabo-Persian spellings of names other than Cyrus should be taken out and put in their respective articles. Yes, these people remain important to modern Iranians, and many of them were important in Greek literature as well, and we should include those spellings. But کمبوجیه etc. just clutter up this article. کمبوجیه belongs at the beginning of the Cambyses article, and nowhere else.

What you are saying makes sense to me but I'm way out of my league on Persia. You may want to get some others who regularly work on Persian topics to comment. On the other hand, it's a wiki, so you can go ahead with the approach you describe and see what others think. Be bold. If you describe what you are doing on the talk page, people who have concerns can comment. Sunray 21:25, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Cyrus to Do List

• Clean up clutter (Beautiful Arabo-Persian letters that curve like a sexy womans' body, but still clutter)
• Make the Rulers of Persia template more attractive and colorful (check out the WWII template). Done, for this article and for immediate predecessor & successor. Repeat for other articles as neccessary.
• Continue to use BCE dating and add dates of his reign in ancient dating systems where appropriate, if appropriate. Same if you think AH dates are appropriate, since he is still revered in modern Iran.
• Definitely do not mention Billy Ray Cyrus (we all love him, but he doesn't belong here). That was mostly intended as a joke - and maybe, just maybe - mention of him might belong here. How did his family come to adopt that surname? Was one of his ancestors a fan of Xenophon or Sir Thomas Browne, or perhaps an evangelical Christian who read about the King of Persia in his KJV? If anybody can dig the information up in a published source, they should feel free to put it here. --Jpbrenna 21:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, they should put it in the Billie Ray Cyrus article, and have it link here. Ok, why am I obsessing over this issue? Time to go do something productive - like mowing the lawn.

Looks like a good plan of action. I will help out with the clean-up. With respect to the reproduction of the Persian characters, I do think they look good. Take a look at I Ching for an example of the reproduction of letters of the native language pertinent to the article. Perhaps we could get other authors of articles on Persia (such as User: SouthernComfort or User: Zereshk) to comment. Sunray 16:27, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Continuing discussion on dates and numbers

Jguk has reverted again, with the edit summary "rv - restore consistency (per policy) and use original authors style (as recommended as a last resort by policy." I request that he specify what policy he is refering to. Please direct me to it in case I have overlooked something. Sunray 19:57, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Jguk is clearly not respecting the views of Jpbrenna who is a major contributor to this article and refuses to discuss this on the talk page appropriately, instead choosing to revert to what he prefers (and he is not a contributor). SouthernComfort 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Achaemenid To Do/Policy

User:Jpbrenna/Achaemenid - Comments? --Jpbrenna 21:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please think of our readers

Please think of our readers - we have a worldwide audience from lots of different backgrounds, not just a US academic one. Our readers should always come first. The article was already in the style that is preferred and most used worldwide (and by a very very large margin at that). We don't all come from a US academic background - we all want to be able to understand and like reading articles without having to submit to neologisms and changes for changes sake, jguk 06:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems you think you know best what our readers need to read. As I've mentioned to you before, but you don't get it: This is an encyclopedia. It is all about learning. Some people may actually become more conscious of things like dating conventions and how they relate to cultural imperialism. You can go on with your bloody crusade as far as I'm concerned. I wish you well. May you find peace. Sunray 07:43, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Please do not use such emotional words as "crusade". Such language is clearly inappropriate here.

I try to chose my words carefully. This one seemed apt, given the behavior. I'm sorry if the truth is upsetting to you. Sunray 07:00, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Readers come to learn an encylopaedia to learn about what they want to know. And we should provide text to them that they find easy to read (from a stylistic point of view). Writing in a style that suits US academics is just not appropriate - almost all of our readers are not US academics. We should write in a style that suits them. It is not by chance that Encarta, Britannica, www.historychannel.com, www.discoverychannel.com, and others choose BC/AD. It is because they recognise that that is the style the world uses nowadays (and by an overwhelming advantage at that). Since you and I have come to agreement that we should put our readers first, I am surprised that you continue to preach invective rather than address quite what it is that our readers expect. Kind regards, jguk 19:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Brittanica is using BCE now ;)--Jpbrenna 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And the History Channel are American. What do those Yanks know about Ye Queene's Propeur English? --His Grace John Bull, CMG, GCB &c....ok, ok, it was really --Jpbrenna 00:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)