Talk:Darius the Great

One Relief, Two Kings

The articles on Xerxes and Darius each have pictures of the very sam 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 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found it!, here. It was originally placed in the eastern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Darius, so it's agreed that the depicted king is him. A twin relief (we have it here and here too; see also this page) was originally placed in the northern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Xerxes, so some think the depicted king is him, but it is disputed (in fact, Xerxes only finished the Apadana what his father had begun). In any case, there is no doubt about our relief: the king is Darius. Both reliefs were later removed from the Apadana and placed in the Treasury. Our relief is now in the Teheran Museum, but its twin remains in Persepolis. So I'll replace the "Xerxes" image with this one, making it clear that it is not agreed whether the king is Xerxes or Darius. Amizzoni 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Edits

I'm not sure how the article got so thoroughly vandalized, but I just spent a good twenty minutes removing snippets from all over the article. That vandalism persisted through numerous legitimate edits, so I'm asking everyone to please take a minute to read over the entire section you're editing before you leave the page. Some of the vandalism was almost a month old. Thanks! Spectheintro 14:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

I almost spent one hour just to make everything right, and to make my report about Darius. But, there are many errors that I saw in the whole article! This makes the article very "disgusting" to read, but what important is that everything about Darius is corrected. ("Maybe, Darius will be very happy to make everything right about him and everything will be corrected through the cooperation of everybody!") Bubbles16 22 15:39 15 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles16 22 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move to Darius the Great

I think it is a good idea to move the article to Darius the Great, as that is in fact the common name he is known by in the English language. After all, we also have Cyrus the Great and Alexander the Great, not Cyrus II or Alexander III. Shervink 16:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response in three weeks to the proposed move, I understand that nobody opposes the idea. So I will proceed with moving the article. Shervink 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have two books on my shelf one says Darius I and the other just Darius. Are you sure that the Great means anything other than his tittle was "Great King"? But tho I disagree with the move let it stay as it is for now.Dejvid 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessarily "Great King" , but he had claimed he is the "King of Kings" (from a tablet he had ordered to be inscripted or carved). It is right that not all kings who ruled Persia were not called as "the Great" (examples were Cyrus and Darius). It is given to a ruler who had done a big, or in some cases, the greatest role in his kingdom, in spite of the negative things he had done when he ascended to the throne. A few are only considering Darius as a great king, or being referred to as "Darius the Great". Bubbles16 22 15:32 15 August 2009

It has been four years since this discussion ended, I believe it is time for a new edit. I second the original proposal from shervink to change to 'Darius the Great'. Darius I is certainly commonly known as 'Darius the Great', this is undoubted. This distinguishes him from the successive Darius', but also it objectively recognises his contribution to world history. You only have to read Hegel to understand the role of the Achaeminid Persians, however there is more supporting literature to confirm this including the Encyclopedia Britannica and the book by J. Poolos published by Chelsea House titled 'Darius the Great' to name a few. This proves that in the English-speaking world, Darius I is most widely recognised as 'Darius the Great'. This is the incontrovertible truth, not historical bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.97.36 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 August 2013‎

Scroll further down - this single thread ended years ago - the established consensus (below) is much more recent, and the most recent discussion on it was just a couple months ago. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How Many Provinces?

The present edit says that Darius organized the Persian Empire into twenty provinces called satrapies. Most sources say that he really had that 20 satrapies, which refer to the major provinces (example is Babylon, who has been conquered by Cyrus the Great a generation ago.) but the 120, which has been expanded to 127 by Darius on the near end of his reign, were only minor ones. Yeah, Persia really reached its "golden age" under Darius. But, his successor, Xerxes, had lost some of these provinces due to revolts against him.

He had 20 great satrapies. These were ruled by satraps, but being guarded by the inspectors he had established to act as Darius' "eyes and ears", to maintain the order in ruling these satrapies. You're right: they are called satrapies: but other books gave the name of "minor satrapies", which refer to the minor provinces Darius had established earlier in his reign, when he started his conquest for a bigger empire. --bubbles16_22 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2009

Requested move (expired)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The current title is out of line with other Persian monarchs (Xerxes I of Persia, who was Xerxes the Great, and Cyrus the Great, who is not titled "Cyrus the Great of Persia"). Remove the redundancy. Srnec (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The 'of Persia' seems pretty redundant here to me (unless there are some other Darius the Greats I'm not aware of?). Terraxos (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling him simply Darius would be defensible; but if not, we should use Darius I, like the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the Book of Daniel's Darius the Mede is famous enough to preclude simply "Darius", but if we go with ordinals, shouldn't it be Darius I of Persia for consistency, or would you move all the others to simply "Name Ordinal"? Anyways, I think the nickname is more informative, since I doubt many people who are not well-informed of him already know what his numeral is, but perhaps his nickname. Besides, we already have Cyrus the Great. Srnec (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason for including country in European monarchs is the likelihood of their being ambiguous with monarchs of other countries. The chance here is much smaller (Armenia? Atropatene?) so we don't need to do that, any more than we use Akihito of Japan.

I don't think that this nickname (or indeed Cyrus the Great) actually distinguishes him for anybody. Neither is actually common in English; they're modern Iranian nationalism at work. If Cyrus needs disambiguation from his distant descendant Cyrus the Younger, he should be Cyrus the Elder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't think the nicknames distinguish these figures? I do. I've always known them as such. Since I was a kid. They are more common in English than either ordinals or "elder/younger". Can I ask why you believe this is Iranian nationalism? I have never heard that before. Srnec (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Which them have you always known as such? The two Cyri, or Cyrus and Darius?

I believe that Cyrus the Great was titled by Iranian nationalists, because it was written (at least the text that I reviewed when it was presented to FAC some time ago) by Iranian nationalists. I am open to persuasion that this is common usage; but the OCD is a standard source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant both Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the figures were nicknamed by Iranian nationalists, not that their articles were only titled by them. Google searches for Cyrus seem pretty definitively in favour of Cyrus the Great. Darius I seems to have a slight margin, however the searches were difficult to perform for Darius without getting "false positives" either way. I will let you perform any Google searches yourself, if you care. Outside of that I don't know how to demonstrate that the cognomen is to be preferred, but either way I want this page renamed. Srnec (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The current title is out of line with other Persian monarchs and is redundant (there is no other Darius who is the Great except one of the ones who is also of Persia). I prefer Darius the Great, but seeing as it failed as "no consensus"... Srnec (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support as an improvement. But what's wrong with Darius, as primary usage against Darius II Ochus and so on? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's also Darius III Codomannus. Notice this search and how the first hit is "Darius the Great". The only other Persian king to make the first page is also "Darius the Great". All other "Darius" mentions are to companies or modern figures. Srnec (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Like Spetentrionalis, I'd prefer Darius. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Darius I of Persia. Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support The current title is awful. Darius I or Darius the Great would both be fine. I don't like Darius, which is ambiguous - Alexander doesn't go to Alexander the Great, does it? john k (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice that the move from Darius I of Persia to Darius the Great of Persia was carried through with essentially no discussion? The mover said he wanted to move to "Darius the Great," got no response, and then moved it to Darius the Great of Persia. There was never any consensus for the current title. john k (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Darius I, Darius I of Persia, Darius the Great: all of them are alright for me. Amizzoni (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Seems to have been moved - there are still redirects to fix. Dekimasuよ! 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ethymology

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.173.120 (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

78.151.173.120 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)The name Darius is of Lithuanian origin and still is very popular name in Lithuania. It originates from the verb 'daryti'=to make/to act/to be doing smth and consequently Darius means both and being making/being acting/being doing and the man who is doing/acting/making...Zeus Bottiaeus in Lithuanian language 'Dzevs Botiaus' means God of our ancestors (Aleksandre dedicated altar to Zeus Bottiaeus)...Aleksandras in Lithuanian language 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras' means born second and Macedon 'Manke Duona' means knead bread...Hun in Lith. 'Gunas/ganytojas' means pastor/shep-herd and Atila 'Eitila' means going/runing the office...Ainiai is the name of ancient Greece tribe and in Lithuanian language that means posterity/antecedents78.151.173.120 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ascension

There is no section on Darius' ascension to power by the asassaination of the "Magian", who was impersonating Smerdis, the murdered brother of Cambyses. Darius and the "7" who killed the Magian then sought out the best form of government, with the decision being based on whoever's horse neighed first in the morning, would become King. Darius, through deception, won the contest, as told by Herodotus, book 3. anyone mind if i add the section? Nathraq (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a serious academic theory that Gaumata never existed. So it should be explained as such. See also Smerdis and I have another go. BTW, Herodotus was describing the events 100 hundred years later from persian sources and Darius left only inscription on his tomb, not a reliable account of how Gaumata usurped the power StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is that "serious academic". "Persian fire" is that academic? I am using P. Briant and Dandamaev. So please consider reading WP:POV. Your source does not seem respected in this area. Also please stop introducing deliberate error. According to sources by Dandamaev an others (from cambridge history series) that theory is hypothetical and the only debate is whether the person in question is Cambyses's brother that your "academic source" mention as cambyses himself (or you made the error). According to WP:POV: the article should mention what the scholars of the subjects say and not "anybody". Also please read a bit of the sources I provided: all (I repeat all) ancient Iranian, Greek and Roman sources mention the theory as stated. It is interesting that you question all ancient sources on an ancient subject. You even do not know where the inscription is and you come and question what you even do not know its place? Darius the Great Herodetous Justin The Cambridge history series (Ancient and Iran) should be enough to leave the things as stated because of WP:UNDUE.Xashaiar (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What you say above makes no sense. (1) It was not Cambuses: it was my error and the last version is correct. (2) Your opinion aboout Persian Fire is irrelevant: stop pushing your POV. (3) I can give more references but you are not giving references. For some reason you are just saying according to Darius himself. Are you aware that he did not write anything and this is just an inscription on his tomb? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why it is irrelevant? "Persian fire" is not academic. I am not pushing "my" pov. I am pushing Encyclopaedia Iranica, The Cambridge History of Iran, and The Cambridge Ancient History POV. And the reason is WP:POV: " The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue". Now yourself tell me, Dandamaev, Schmitt, are relevant or "the author of Persian fire"? 2. "inscription on his tomb" please read a bit about the inscription you are talking about. It was not on his tomb. All ancient sources confirm what is written and you can not challenge Herodotus, Justin and all others just because you read something different. Please bring view of specialists of Iranian studies. Xashaiar (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Xashaiar, you do not know what you are talking about. I have just looked up P.Briant. He says that the ancient sources contain major contradictions. While he does not support alternative theory, he states clearly that the situation is complicated. Why are you trying to misrepresent major sources? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And you know waht yo are talking about because

1. You put Darius tomb in Behistun.
2. Your alternative theory is from "Persian fire". The cambridge history series/Iranica call that "hypothetical".
3. Briant writes in English and he makes it clear that he is talking about the one who is called Bardia in Babylonian tables. Thats why there are many Bardia's. Why do you falsify?
4. Your language looks like highschool or something: "it is worth mentioning", "alternative theory" "To cover the crime"...

If this is your edit which makes you know what you are talking about, then go on. Xashaiar (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you please find rewording for "it is worth mentioning", "alternative theory" "To cover the crime"... because they are no encyclopaedic: I propose "There is also", "the view..", "to legitimize his seizure of roral power". You agree? Xashaiar (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Behiston inscription and ancient Greek texts, Gaumata was an imposter! and these are the only evidence/sources we have about the way Darius took the power. There is no reason not to believe them, unless someone wants to represent a false face of Darius! It is necessary to be honest about the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.112.44 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran

Hi User Xashaiar

Please ref to your removal of category Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran
In this edit of yours
darius does not belong to that category (according to description of the category

The reason you sited for removal does not seem valid because the very first criteria listed in the description of this category it clearly states

“People from Iran or their descendants of ethnic Zoroastrian/Aryan descent”

Please do not delete this category .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Darius the Great was a person, so although I think Achaemenid empire should go in that category, but "people of Achaemenid Iran" seem to me belong to subcategories. If that category should stay there I think there should be subcategories. And why the category "History of Iran" is not enough?--Xashaiar (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi User Xashaiar

I havent been able to understand the meaning of your post please specificaly explain ....and do not delete before discussing your reasons ,
Intothefire (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please explain what is the point of your Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran? Because we have the category Category:History of Iran and Category:Achaemenid_people. Have a look at them please. Please delete your category.--Xashaiar (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I rewrote the article and was reverted. Could anyone care to explain why. warrior4321 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Substantial changes to a well-established article like this should not be taken without discussion on the talk page. What was so terrible about the previous version? You also deleted all links to Wikipedias in other languages. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PatGallacher, first off see WP:BOLD. An article does not have to be bad to be improved. As for the interwiki links, I have restored those. NW (Talk) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh :

1. Most of it was unsourced.
2. There was a whole load of hyperbole.
3. I added more subsections for easier retrieval of specific information
4. Are you saying that the proposed article is worse off than the current article?
5. An article does not have to be in terrible condition to be improved.

warrior4321 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(at warrior) Look, your change at certain points were OK, but you removed a lot of well-sourced stuff without discussions. For example you removed "Name section". why? Do not forget Iranian Names play an important role. Another example you had added "Darius did not receive general recognition.. " who told you that? I think you can add your stuff step by step, so that we see what POV is represented. Xashaiar (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever I had rewritten has a source at the end of the paragraph. If one paragraph was removed, could you not add that? Why would you remove everything I wrote? warrior4321

That's why you are asked to do things step by step. I did not remove everything you wrote, I undid your removal of everything written by others including myself. The article is in bad shape, but there are very good parts as well, you removed all. Actually most of your edit is POV for example why you removed the material

• "Darius was a Zoroastrian. In fact the rejection of falsehood (i.e. drauga) is itself viewed as an acknowledgement of Zoroastrian teachings which Darius very often mentions. And beside there is a number of other important monuments and inscriptions as evidence and guides to Darius' Zoroastrian beliefs. Indeed Darius is very often portrayed with his right hand raised, apparently at prayer according to Zoroastrian prescriptions. Ahuramazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster as God, is mentioned and celebrated as Creator in most speeches of Darius. Darius' Naqsh-e Rostam inscription reads "A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness". This reference to Ahuramazda as Creator only of what is good is in accordance with Zoroastrian doctrine and as such significant. In the Elamite version of Darius' trilingual inscription at Behistun, "Ahuramazda" is called "god of Aryans (i.e. Iranians)"."

and replaced with this

• "Darius was a strong believer in Zoroastrianism, and believed that Ahura Mazda had appointed him to be the Shahenshah of the Persian Empire. In the Behistun Inscription, he mentions the fact that Ahura Mazda has bestowed this privilege and these blessings upon him. He states that he is the friend of the good and those who follow the path of asha, and the enemy of druj. "

are you serious? Xashaiar (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Darius was a Zoroastrian. In fact the rejection of falsehood (i.e. drauga) is itself viewed as an acknowledgement of Zoroastrian teachings
   1. He states that he is the friend of the good and those who follow the path of asha, and the enemy of druj.
   2. Darius was a strong believer in Zoroastrianism

1. which Darius very often mentions.
   1. In the Behistun Inscription, he mentions the fact that Ahura Mazda has bestowed this privilege and these blessings upon him. He states that he is the friend of the good and those who follow the path of asha, and the enemy of druj.

1. Indeed Darius is very often portrayed with his right hand raised, apparently at prayer according to Zoroastrian prescriptions.
   1. That is not mentioned.

1. And beside there is a number of other important monuments and inscriptions as evidence and guides to Darius' Zoroastrian beliefs.
   1. In the Behistun Inscription, [...]

1. Ahuramazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster as God, is mentioned and celebrated as Creator in most speeches of Darius.
   1. In the Behistun Inscription, he mentions the fact that Ahura Mazda has bestowed this privilege and these blessings upon him.

Most of the facts that you given in the above paragraph, are all written in the paragraph I wrote, there is just a shorter number of words. warrior4321 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is why did you replace that paragraph with yours? Why yours is better? For example: For what reason you changed the Old Persian references to Avestan? (in 1,2). "Strong" in what sense? Please before rewording tell me what is wrong with previous wording. Your sentence "He states that he is the friend of the good and those who follow the path of asha, and the enemy of druj" does not help as Darius did not speak middle persian (or Avestan) he wrote in Old Persian and that must be preserved. ... To start with please tell me what is wrong with previous wording.Xashaiar (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The actual question is why is the -current state- better. The statement that Darius never said he was the enemy of druj is wrong, as it is found in Encyclopedia Iranica, and in Zoroastrians:Their Beliefs and Practices, by Mary Boyce. warrior4321 22:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take the matter seriously: the point is "Darius never spoke Avestan" he used the Old Persian word and that's what I meant. I do not need to say why the old version was better. Usually when you reword something, you should say what the problem was. But, I will think about the matter and will propose a version that may help us reach a WP:CONS. Xashaiar (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Since you can't tell me why the original one is better, I shall tell you why the reworded one is a better candidate. For one, there are references for every paragraph, which this current state of the article does not have. Secondly, it is more organized, there are proper sections with subsections and has the information (that is currently in the lead and not in the body) in the body. As well, there are no one or two lines paragraphs, but thick solid ones for the most part.
2. Of course Darius did not speak Avestan as a language, Avestan was an extinct language by that time. However, he did use Avestan terms and phrases, and he also created a written version of the Avesta. Why am I not taking the matter seriously? I gave you two reliable and academic sources which are authorities on the topic. Saying that Darius did not speak Avestan as a language means he did not use words such as asha and druj are incorrect, as those are still used today in the Avestan scriptures of the Zoroastrian faith, the Avesta. warrior4321 05:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

your first point: The old version (i.e. current) paragraph on "Zoroastrian religion of Darius.." is probably the best sourced paragraph of the entire wikipedia. So please do not tell me that sense your version is sourced at all points so you can delete the entire article and replace by yours. This is not what one should do. Right now, you can delete any sentence unsourced and write your sourced replacement. But do not delete/replace sourced one. Second point: Not all sources you give are the best for ancient Iran. Finally: you say "However, he did use Avestan terms and phrases,". This is wrong.Xashaiar (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the paragraphs are not sourced. If only these few lines are sourced, then it makes sense to add that paragraph in my version of the article. Why is it wrong, show me some reliable and academic sources which say he never spoke Avestan. warrior4321 11:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Request for comment

I have re-written an article version of Darius the Great. The article is more organized, referenced and follows many Wikipedian policies and guidelines. The article can be found here. I am proposing that the proposed version replace the current version. However, if no response is given in around five day's time, I will implement the proposed version. warrior4321 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this is an improvement over the previous article. The "horse trick" is unexplained (I do know what you mean, but others might not) and this business about mules foaling could be later legend. Doing a complete rewrite is probably not the best way of treating an article like this, if it needs significant improvement do so step by step. PatGallacher (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We are here to improve the encyclopedia. Completing a self-rewrite is fine if there are no issues with the article. However, the issue has been addressed to, while the mules foaling issue is written by Herodutus and has a reliable source provided. Any other issues? warrior4321 12:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with article

There are these problems with the article:-

1. The section on Smerdis/Bardiya/Gaumata has an anti-Bardiya bias, it should be a condensation of the Bardiya article, some issues e.g. his religous policy should be moved there.

2. The article relies rather heavily on one source, the Encyclopedia Iranica article, I am not convinced this is a particularly good source. Darius is one of the most important rulers in ancient history, there must be a fairly large amount of material on him.

3. Most educated people with some knowledge of ancient history will have heard of the Persian Empire, by comparison the term Achmaenied is rather obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The section on Smerdis/Bardiya/Gaumata has an anti-Bardiya bias, it should be a condensation of the Bardiya article, some issues e.g. his religous policy should be moved there.

Where is the anti-Bardiya bias? WP:NPOV states all sources and all viewpoints should be added with their reliable sources. Whose viewpoint has not been inserted?

2. The article relies rather heavily on one source, the Encyclopedia Iranica article, I am not convinced this is a particularly good source. Darius is one of the most important rulers in ancient history, there must be a fairly large amount of material on him.

Encyclopedia Iranica is an authority on Zoroastrian/Iranian studies. Why don't you think it is a "good source" (I'm assuming that means reliable source) ? As well, why don't you help by looking for some sources?

Most educated people with some knowledge of ancient history will have heard of the Persian Empire, by comparison the term Achmaenied is rather obscure.

The Persian Empire page redirects to Achaemenid Empire. Consensus says Achaemenid is the better term to use. warrior4321 02:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry - there are so many problems with the article that I don't know where to begin. How about this: - stop arguing about whose third-rate secondary source is best and find out what a primary source is. For example, "Nonetheless, Darius killed Intaphernes' entire family, excluding his wife's brother and son. She was asked to choose between her brother and son. She chose her brother to live. Her reasoning for doing so was that she could have another husband and another son, but she would always have but one brother. Darius was impressed by her response and spared both her brother's and her son's life." Wrong! Darius was going to kill her husband, her brother and all her kids, but she was so distraught that he said to her that one of her family could survive and she could choose which (why do this - she could have chosen Intaphernes, then where would Darius be? I suppose he was gambling that she'd choose her first-born son). She chose her brother on the grounds that she could remarry and have more kids but her parents were dead so she could never get a new brother. Darius was so impressed he spared the brother and her eldest son. But Darius killed all the others (nice guy!). So either your secondary source has got it all wrong, or you (what could be sadder?) have misquoted a secondary source, when you could have gone to the primary source. Also, you can't leave this story without pointing out that it also features in Sophocles' Antigone 905-12 (another primary source), so it's pretty much only a folk-tale (as we could have guessed anyway). You don't seem to have discovered (probably because you haven't read Herodotus) that not only was Gaumata supposedly Bardiya's DOUBLE, but, by sheer coincidence, his real name was actually supposedly Bardiya! OK, Herodotus's sources were Persian, therefore he was forced to take on everything Darius wrote in the Behistun inscription. Darius not only invented the story that Bardiya was a fake to justify his usurpation of power, but he invented the Achaemenid descent of both himself and Cyrus, also in order to make it seem that he was the legitimate heir of Cyrus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.237.77 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please state what is "disputed" as just placing tags is unhelpful. warrior4321 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What is disputed is that all mention of revisionist views of Bardiya, that he was not an impostor, has been deleted by Warrior4321's edits. They have also deleted all mention of the suggestion that Darius killed Cambyses II. I will probably change this myself given time, but its getting late tonight. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The source that mentioned that Darius may have killed Cambyses was deleted because there was no page number. Page numbers for sources are a necessity for GA criteria, which is what I am thriving to achieve with this article. As far as all mention of revisionist views of Bardiya, that he was not an impostor, has been deleted by Warrior4321's edits goes, please provide some diffs. warrior4321 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed something. I removed the book because no page numbers were given from that same book. Could you please provide a page number for the book? warrior4321 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do a diff between the last version before your recent edits and the version after the first 2 of these edits (before somebody else chipped in). This could be a misuse of the GA criteria, since if applied consistently it could mean deleting all sorts of legitimate material from articles which aren't in too bad shape. I cannot provide a page number just like that, but if that's the problem then there is a relevant flag which can be added to the article. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, page numbers are a method of checking said information. It's understandable that you may not be able to provide a page number right now, but will you ever be able to? I am open to the fact that you may not have the book right in front of you right now, or it is late at night and you'd rather do it in the morning etc. but will you be able to give the page number anytime soon? If you are using that source to back up your claims and to use it as evidence then you should (now or later) provide a page number. warrior4321 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darius I of Persia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues needed to be addressed before final review

References are of the 8 March 2010 version

1. Ref 2 is a broken link, this must be fixed, or a new source found
2. I am skeptical of ref 4, which refers to the book " Classic Biblical Baby Names: Timeless Names for Modern Parents". I find that such a book is not suitable for the standards of an encyclopedia. I am also doubtful that it supports the text "The generous funding of the temple gave Darius and his successors the support of the Jewish priesthood." Is there not a more appropriate source to support that sentence?

I will place this review "On hold" until the first issue is resolved and the second issue is either resolved or explained here. --Tea with toast (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood, worked on the issues. Are they fixed? Thanks for providing me with the extra time I requested. warrior4321 05:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of these details. Since you found two other refs to support the statement made in #2, I think the "Baby names" book referenced should be removed entirely. Additionally, the list of book references should be alphabetized by author. --Tea with toast (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Article assessment

I find that this article meets the good article criteria:

1. The article is well written.
2. The article is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. The article addresses the main topics in an appropriate level of detail.
4. The article is not biased and is written in a neutral.
5. The article is stable and is not undergoing an edit war.
6. The article contains suitable images with appropriate captions.

--Tea with toast (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I am glad that this has passed GA. I will work towards making it FA, thanks again! warrior4321 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

More on review

In my view, this article does not yet meet GA criteria, and is being artificially pushed for GA status before it is ready. It is not stable as it is the subject of a significant content disupute about whether there should be mention of revisionist or critical accounts of Darius' seizure of power. In my view, without mention of such accounts, it fails NPOV. I have a few lesser criticisms. PatGallacher (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

MOS:APPENDIX

The sequenced list below, is copied directly from MOS:APPENDIX. Items marked in bold, are ones of particular interest, which pertain specifically to this article.

1. Works or Publications or Bibliography
2. See also
3. Notes and/or References
4. Further reading
5. External links (It is especially important that this section appears last)
6. Succession boxes
7. Navigational templates (footer navboxes)
8. Categories
9. Stub templates
10. Interlanguage links

Why is the WP:MoS being challenged in this case, and reverted whenever I attempt to adjust it accordingly? Why the insistence to erroneously place the "References" section before the "Bibliography" section? I don't get the problem here, and hardly see my adjustments as a matter for dispute. -- WikHead (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you even click the link for the works or publications section? It says "Contents: A bulleted list, usually ordered chronologically, of the works created by the subject of the article." The "bibliography" section is for the works created by the article subject. Those books were not written by Darius, and hence do not need to be above or below anything. It can stay as it is. warrior4321 12:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Which leads to my second point... that the "Bibliography" section is incorrectly named, and should be renamed to "Further reading"... at which point, it can remain where it is. The succession boxes however, should appear below that, but they aren't necessarily of any major concern to me. -- WikHead (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not "further reading". It is part of the references. Please read MOS:APPENDIX first, before starting discussions and having me continuously copy paste part of the article to you.

"Further Reading" : Contents: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content. warrior4321 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent lifespan dates?

Resolved

Is there an inconsistency here? Darius' life is listed as 550–486 at the top, and 519-465 at the bottom. Lee merrill (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. WarriorForThreeToOne 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Darius the Great per common usage. Based on the discussion below as well as on Talk:Darius, I see good primary topic reasons for moving it to Darius, but don't see enough consensus at this time.--rgpk (comment) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Darius I of Persia → Darius I — We have Darius II Ochus and Darius III Codomannus. If the reader needs reminding that any of these guys was Persian, it's not Darius I. I would also think Darius the Great and improvement, but I think the proposed title is more consistent with our guidelines, our other articles and (perhaps) the reliable sources. — Srnec (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

The current names of these other two Dariuses is controversial and there is a move request in progress in relation to Darius III. Darius I would be ok if there was not the need to disambiguate him from Darius of Pontus. See WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCROY is, by its wording, limited to "European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." Neither the reason, nor the rule, apply here; the ancient Kings have been disambiguated by nicknames and numbers (when necessary, as it is not here) for centuries. The present title is unnecessary, and it is opposed to scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This guideline can still be extended to other cultures where different kingdoms share a stock of names. We need to disambiguate this person from Darius of Pontus. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't. For one thing, they're already disambiguated; much more importantly, Darius of Pontus is mentioned in 7 books; Darius (or rather Darius' involvement with a single battle - to make sure it is this Darius) is mentioned in 49,000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support support for Darius the Great. The names of all Achaemenid rulers, including Darius I, in both ancient and modern literature has been suffixed with "the Great"...a suffix inherited by Darius' Achaemenid successors, including Xerxes, as well as by Alexander who overthrew this dynasty. Also in my opinion, no "of Persia" suffix is needed as this is the first use of the name Darius in history.Ordibehesht22 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support but prefer Darius, as primary usage of the name (over even his successors on the throne of Persia, much less transient Roman puppet princes). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Having looked into this further I have had second thoughts, I now support this move. Darius of Pontus is a fairly obscure figure who should not obstruct putting the Persian rulers at the simplest title, although we may still need a hatnote to him or Darius. I am not strongly opposed to moving this article to "Darius the Great", but I would oppose moving it to plain "Darius", for reasons I could go into. PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So what reasons do you oppose to WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? Inquiring minds want to know.;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Because he isn't that much better known than Darius III, although admittedly the others apart from these 2 are rather obscure. I recognise that Darius I was undoubtedly the more successful ruler, and some ancient historians may regard him as more important for his role in stabilising the Persian empire. However, our view of the Persians comes mainly through Greek eyes, and some people may regard Darius III as the better-known because he was the main opponent of Alexander the Great, a very important historical figure. PatGallacher (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The question is, I think, whether Marathon is much better known than Arbela. That seems to me clear. Add that the first Darius (the only one to be known as simple "Darius" at first reference) refounded the Persian state, wrote the Behistun inscription (which is also the first sure evidence of Zoroastrianism as a state religion), is mentioned in the Bible (which Codomannus is not), and we have primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support but should be "Darius the Great". He is, with modest regards, the most important figure of ancient world. Not because of having from macedonia and egypt to indus river under his rule (which British had more of that), but because he changed the world: 1. administration of empire, 2. tolerance (he even rejected being called "god of egypt" as kambiz before him would have accepted) 3. the art of impressive speech 4. economical reforms and law and order... and 100s more. these changes were not like "change of taste and colour" it was change of the sort "0 to 1".. in short: his work remained in one way or another forever. Also wp:name allows change from "Darius I" to "Darius the Great".Xashaiar (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is something I strongly oppose. No; we do not use POV titles unless, as with Charlemagne, they are clearly what the subject is most commonly known; but Darius the Great is much less common than Darius I and either is vastly less common than simple Darius. (Since there are only three Darii, and the other two are less well known than their ancestor, the false positives do not account for this.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No Septentrionalis. Your link does not say what you wrote "Darius the Great is much less common than Darius I". The reason: In any text the author usually writes "one or two times" the complete "Darius the Great"/or "Darius I the Great" and then for natural reasons write "Darius I"/or "Darius". That's the way "the cambridge histories" (of Iran, ancient, ...) use the term. So we must be a bit careful when we refer to google searches ... Xashaiar (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Ngram counts books, not individual hits. If they did not, by your own argument, Darius would be hundreds of times more common, not merely a few dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep It Simple Stupid. These 3 Persian monarchs should be described as Darius I, Darius II and Darius III. PatGallacher (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, esp. a move to either Darius the Great or to Darius. Almost half the hits for "Darius" relate to Persia and the other two Persian Dariuses are far less notable. So one must conclude that just plain Darius is by far the most common name for this monarch. Calling him Darius the Great is therefore POV. If you take the name Darius and process it according to WP:NCROY, you get Darius I of Persia. NCROY might not apply officially, but the issues here are analogous since there are various people named Darius from various countries (and the majority of Darius hits are not even Persian related). A book about Marathon doesn't have to distinguish among Dariuses, but an encyclopedia does. The names of the three Persian Dariuses should given in the same format, which is not possible if this article is titled as just "Darius." Britannica uses "Darius I". With the "of Persia" issue, I can go either way. Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Agree that this is the primary topic for Darius; Not quite sure where to go from here. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have started a discussion of the primary topic issue here. Kauffner (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sorry, but it's far from clear to me that the consensus of the last discussion was to move to Darius the Great. PatGallacher (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain further. I see Kauffner and pmanderson in opposition and you in mild opposition. Other than that it seems to me that there is agreement that NCROY does not apply and that Darius is often referred to as Darius the Great. Darius should be the title per primary topic but I see only mixed support for that. --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my assessment. Smec, as nom, prefers "Darius I" but would accept "Darius the Great". Ordibehesht22 supports "Darius the Great". Pmanderson prefers "Darius" but would accept "Darius I", and opposes "Darius the Great". PatGallacher supports "Darius I", mildly opposes "Darius the Great", and opposes "Darius". Xashaiar prefers "Darius the Great" but would accept "Darius I". Kauffner would accept either "Darius I" or "Darius I of Persia", and opposes "Darius the Great" and "Darius".

All told, "Darius I" had 2 1/2 first-preference !votes, 2 1/2 second-preference !votes (splitting Kauffner's !votes into two halves each), and no opposes. "Darius the Great" had 2 first-preference !votes, one second-preference !vote, and 2 1/2 opposes (with Pat Gallacher's mild oppose as a half !vote). "Darius" had one first-preference !vote and two opposes. "Darius I of Persia" had Kauffner's split support, with everyone else opposed. Does that seem correct? Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a fair summary. My reasoning was that Darius I was unacceptable because common usage tends toward Darius or Darius the Great. Darius I of Persia is unacceptable because there are no Darii of note outside Persia. Darius would seem to be the obvious choice but not everyone agrees that it is the primary topic. That leaves Darius the Great, the other commonly used term. Have I made an incorrect assumption or drawn an incorrect conclusion? --rgpk (comment) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would have thought that "Darius I" was as common or more so than "Darius the Great", just looking at ngrams and Google Books results: 14,200 "Darius the Great"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius the Great" vs. 45,900 "Darius I"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius I". (I agree that plain "Darius" is likely the most common name by far.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Darius I or Darius. Never heard of Darius the Great and a quick survey of the other Wiki versions shows that this name is uncommon there, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the move, not because it offers the epithet of "great" but because it allows for distinction of Darius from other subsequent Dariuses. I prefer both Darius I or Darius the Great, but Darius the Great is perfectly fine with me. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of date formats

I propose that the date format be reverted from BCE/CE to BC/AD as the BCE/CE edits have violated WP:ERA by not being discussed and reaching a consensus on this article's talk page. If you are going to change the date formats please propose it on the talk page and not suddenly implement it, that violates the policy that was created to stop such actions. Please voice objections and reasons against the reversion of date formats now. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Darius_I_of_Persia/Archive_1#Dates_and_numbers_in_this_article for previous unopposed discussion re using CE/BCE. I support keeping CE/BCE.--JimWae (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a small clique of editors who think that they can just reinterpret WP rules by going steadily through the ancient Middle Eastern articles and change them all to the CE system usually on spurious grounds. (Well there are hardly any valid grounds-especially not the red herring about neutrality.)--81.106.119.187 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

While I do agree that the red herring of "religious neutrality" (i.e. political correctness) is often brought up as a defense for changing any article with subject matter unrelated directly to Christianity to the CE system, in the case of this article it was brought up on the talk page and no one opposed it. So the initial change from AD to CE was warranted here. I do, however, support changing it back to AD/BC if we could gain consensus to do so. I've made my arguments for AD/BC elsewhere previously. But for PC reasons, it's much easier to gain a consensus to change from AD to CE than from CE to AD. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I support this. "Changing with consensus" is supposed to imply an actual reason, which attracts widespread agreement (preferably based on academic usage). Using CE for Rabbi Akiva would probably qualify on both grounds; this doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic for "Darius"

I created an RM to make Darius a redirect to this article. See here. Kauffner (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Darius the Great → Darius I

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Darius I. Favonian (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Darius the Great → Darius I – In the WP:RS, just plain "Darius" is the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject by an overwhelmingly margin. Out of 8,650 post-1990 English-language Google Book results for Persia Darius Behistun OR Marathon, only 716 (8 percent) are for "Darius the Great", while 1960 (23 percent) are for "Darius I." So the "the Great" adds a spin that the majority of relevant authors do not share. A move to "Darius I" establishes consistency with the articles about his successors, namely Darius II and Darius III. Britannica calls him "Darius I". Finally, this ngram shows that "Darius I" is more than twice as common as "Darius the Great". Kauffner (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support This cognomen is not much better known than the name which is more consistent with WP:NCROY and the other Persian rulers called Darius, which we should follow in the absence of a good reason to the contrary. It also reduces the chances of confusion with Darius III, who it is possible that a few people with a sketchy knowledge of the period might regard as the better-known Darius. The previous discussion about the best name for this person was far from conclusive. PatGallacher (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I would add that "the Great" could be a bit pov, and so should be avoided unless that really is what everybody calls him e.g. Alfred the Great, Alexander the Great. PatGallacher (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily sketchy knowledge. Narrowly focused (on the campaigns of Alexander or the mythical version of Persian history) will suffice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Kauffner and Pat have convinced me that "Darius I" would be in line with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY. Jenks24 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer simple Darius, as usage, but this is a step in that direction. See my comments above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus was title Darius the Great

To user Kauffner: Please stop reverting the title of this article. Consensus on title of article, going back months ago, was the proper historical title "Darius the Great" (Darayavau xshâyathiya vazraka), the suffix for Achaemenid rulers including Darius, covered by centuries historical Western and Persian literature going back to the Achaemenid era, the time of Darius.Janus945 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion just above yours. You can't ignore that and make a change in the title simply because you disagree. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note I've move-protected this for a week to avoid any edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to make crude threats. The user Kauffner has been engaged in bringing in people in support of his efforts to rename the article in his favor, on a topic that he and his friends have no knowledge of. They friends have ignored facts. At some point this silly survey has to be closed and the user input based on people that know the facts, not just a silly and childish popularity contest.Janus945 (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not a 'crude threat', it was a warning about calling other editors vandals. And the request was closed by an Administrator if you read it. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Darius the Great → Darius I - Let's base this on historical facts on documents and historical literature; Both Western and Persian. The title of this ruler has always been Darius the Great in literature. This is nothing but an attempt to re-write history; by people who have very little to no knowledge on this subject.

• Oppose This is not a popularity contest. Darius the Great, and all other Achaemenid rulers have been referred to as "the Great"...that is where Alexander named himself! Please read a book people!

Here is one of thousands of historical scriptures, from 6th century BC and onward. Can we please have Historians and experts on this topic to vote. As I see here the majority of the voters have absolutely no expertise on this topic, or history for that matter.Janus945 (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I second that. The editors that have been campaigning to change Classical history here are (a) Not familiar with the facts, and (b) Not presenting facts to support their POV and therefore their votes should not count. Why are we voting, shouldn't we be using facts and sources as usual?PenningtonClassical (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Pointy hats?

Found this at the end of the Babylonian revolt section: "... found no known enemies but an enigmatic Scythian tribe distinguished by their large pointy hats." It seems out of place. It seems like it should be cleaned up or removed. Not the same one (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Darius I = Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan

I've located information that indicates that Darius I may also have been Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan. The details are located in the following sources: . Has anyone else stumbled upon this information? Also, the sources indicate that he was in fact the ruler of this area during the birth of Zoroaster. Any assistance on this would be most helpful. Apologies, Page 173 is a mention of Darius I being Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan.

Twillisjr (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to think the two of them are connected in any way. none of these sources provide any rationale for identifying the two, except that both are meant to be alive at the time of Zoroaster - but no one has the slightest clue when Zoroaster lived (It ought really be earlier than Darius). Isaac Newton's forays into chronology are occultist rather than historical. I've taken the references out of the article. Furius (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Moving article back to "Darius the Great"

As the individual who "voted" to have the name of the article changed to "Darius I" months ago, never bothered presenting any facts/sources, Darius' title is from (Old Persian transliteration) Dârayavaush : xshâyathiya : vazraka, "Darius the Great (King)" which is copied to dozens of translations carved in stone from Persia to Greece as well as Egypt, dating from circa 500 BC including translations from Old Persian to Babylonian, Aramaic, Elamite, Ancient Egyptian, Greek etc. Not to mention that it was inherited by all the Achaemenid dynasty heirs as well as copied by Alexander. I belive this closes the discussion and all we need is an admin to move the article as I tried moving the article with editor access and it reports a conflict with another page which contains the Redirect tag.Janus945 (talk)

The most recent consensus discussion, which was closed by an admin, appears to support the current title. If you disagree with that result, you should follow the process outlined at WP:Requested moves to establish if a new consensus exists to support the move you want to have implemented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what admin and what discussion you are referring to. There has long been consensus on restoring the name of the article as no one had any argument against the facts that were presented in discussion. The article name should not have been changed in the first place without valid reasons; They have had over 1 year to counter the hundreds of available sources which makes this restoration much overdue.Janus945 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? The one above with the section heading "Requested move: Darius the Great → Darius I". If you continue to edit war on this you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

move request

• Darius I → Darius I, the Great, without brackets – The proper title for this article was Darius the Great as that is the historical name for the subject; this has been proven repeatedly in the past. The editor that originated the removal of "the great" from the article name has no knowledge of this topic - he simply started a vote and had his friends to vote in favor of the name change. My understanding here is that Wikipedia is not a democracy; it works on sources - and sources there are many! Klax44 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - move requests are for non-controversial name changes for after consensus for the change has been reached. At this time, consensus appears to be opposed to this move. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you examined the discussion before passing a decision on it. There was no "consensus". There was a "vote" by a bunch of people that didn't know what is really being discussed. Wikipedia article contents are based on SOURCES not votes!! Requesting some attention to detail hereKlax44 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

move request II

• Darius I → Darius I, the Great – The proper title for this article was Darius the Great as that is the historical name for the subject; this has been proven repeatedly in the past. The editor Kaufner that originated the removal of "the great" from the article name has no knowledge of this topic or history in general - he simply started a vote and had his friends vote in favor of the name change. My understanding here is that Wikipedia is not a democracy; it works on sources - and sources there are many!Klax44 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on consensus, based on the community interpretation of sources. Your personal opinion about that established consensus is irrelevant, the consensus clearly exists. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

World at the time of Darius I

I am correctly and authentically expressing what the world was like during the time of Darius I. YinJiao10 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC).

Since your only other edits are at Hongwu Emperor I have no idea what you mean. You haven't said anything about Darius I. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Darius I versus the person in Daniel

The introduction ends with this sentence: "Darius is mentioned in the Biblical books of Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah."

This is incorrect. The Darius in Daniel is NOT Darius I (Darius the Great). There's considerable dispute as to who exactly the Darius mentioned there actually is. I don't have a lot of academic sources (a few years ago I was just trying to trace Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings, but I've lost my notes). It is very very clear the Darius in the book of Daniel is not mentioned anywhere else. http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/belshazzar_darius_mede.htm http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter6/

It looks like the Book of Daniel page needs to be fixed too. I'm sorry that I can't do this right now. I'm too busy and would need to do a lot of research, but I'm happy to bring this error to the attention of my gifted fellow editors so that you can fix it. Lehasa (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lehasa:I've added a template to the top of the article making this clear and linking to Darius the Mede, the Darius in Daniel. Thanks for pointing this out. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks so much for doing that! Lehasa (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Darius I stele found in southern Russia may become world sensation

KRASNODAR, August 4. /TASS/. Archeologists doing excavations in the area of antique town of Phanagoria in the Temryuk district of Russia’s southern Krasnodar territory have discovered fragments of a marble stele carrying an inscription of the ancient Persian King Darius I, the press service of the Volnoye Delo foundation said in a press release on Thursday.[1] --Wario-Man (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Titles

It is written in text "...was the third king of the Persian Achaemenid Empire" Well that is kinda confusing. "King of Empire". Shouldn't it be "Emperor of the Empire"? Does English language even has the term for that which is above Kingdom, but not "Roman Empire", rather some other Empire....? Aryanprince (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

None of the Achaemenid monarchs had an imperial title. Their main title was "Shahanshah", which translates to the King of Kings. In this case, several of the Empire's satraps and other vassals had royal titles or were kings in their own right, so the Achaemenid monarch was the overlord of several kings. The Greek translation of the the title is "Basileus ton Basileon". Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Problem is "King" title. He was not King. He was Shar, or Sar... About imperial title. Well they had. What is Emperor on the West is Shar on the east. So he can not be King, he is above kings. He must be Shar or Sar. I repeat, problem is English language which does not have the title of the ruler who rules above several lands ruled by some other rulers, which is not (roman) emperor. Greek Basileus can not be translated as King. Basileus is ruler of the East Roman Empire. So the greeks have their own word that describes title same as emperor, but in their own language. English does not have that. They have only emperor. So, here we should ether use Emperor Darius or Shar Darius. King does not rule above other kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.85 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't care about language problems I'm afraid, we only care about what most English language reliable sources call him. But I think you mean Shah, not Shar.Doug Weller talk 16:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, not Shah. Shah is from medieval Persia. Sure, it is legacy from ancient persian Shar/Sharu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.55.85 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

44%?

"Based on historical demographic estimates, Darius I ruled over approximately 50 million people, or at least 44% of the world's population."

The source for this claim is an unimpressive blog and it needs better verification or to be removed. Does anyone seriously think 44% of the world's population lived in the greater Middle East sans Arabia, while the rest of Africa, Europe, Russia, India, China, southeast Asia, the Pacific Island and the entire Western Hemisphere contained only 56% of the world's population? --The Vital One (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That figure was added August 2016. Sure, it needs a better source, eg The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History 1 Mar 2012.[2] Or this which says "Darius thus ruled an empire stretching from Libya to the Crimea, from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf, and from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River, with a population estimated at 50 million people." Doug Weller talk 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

50 million people is believable, but 44% of everyone on Earth lived in the greater Middle East alone? --The Vital One (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

---

I would delete the following claim as too speculative and nearly certainly exaggerated :

“Based on historical demographic estimates, Darius I ruled over approximately 50 million people, or at least 44% of the world's population.[8] [8] "Five Empires That Were Close to World Domination". Joseph KAMINSKY. March 20, 2016. Retrieved August 16, 2016.”

The cited source for this overarching & improbable statistical statement is referenced as the web blog of one Joseph KAMINSKY, a self-declared “history student”.

Here the relevant text at the end of his March 20, 2016 article: in <Five Empires That Were Close to World Domination (March 20, 2016)> ; under <The Achaemenid Empire: Population Control.> :

"Realize that this is the ancient world, so population and demographics were incredibly different. But, at the time <not specified here : could be anytime between 550 – 330 BCE = duration of the Empire; Guinness specifies 480 BCE> , at least 44% of the world’s population <percentage copied from Guinness Book?> belonged to this Persian leadership! 50,000,000 people <rounded from the 49;.4 mio in the Guinness book> found themselves under the Achaemenid flag. http://josephkaminski.org/2016/03/20/five-empires-that-were-close-to-world-domination/

  The figures given make one suspect that KAMINSKI copied his information from the GUINNESS Record Book site, which can hardly count as a reliable source for his so-called “historical demographic estimates” :

"By share of population, the largest empire was the Achaemenid Empire, better known as the Persian Empire, which accounted for approximately 49.4 million of the world’s 112.4 million people in around 480 BC – an astonishing 44%. " http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/largest-empire-by-percentage-of-world-population

I have no idea where GUINNESS(a very opaque, commercial site) got its (suspiciously precise) figures, when most historians warn that the uncertainty marges for estimates of ancient population numbers are forbidding :

"The upshot of all this is that a number of questions pertinent to those interested in the comparative study of empires cannot be readily answered with any assurance. Take demography, for example. Ancient Near Eastern historians have been reticent to offer even guesses at the population of western Asia for any pre-Hellenistic period. "

in MORRIS, Ian; SCHEIDEL, Walter (2009). The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byzantium. Oxford University Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-19-975834-0.

On page 77 of the same book (not available to me) the same authors (MORRIS & SCHEIDEL) would have risked nevertheless to cite two existing academic estimates for Achaemenid population c. 500 BCE: from 17 million ** to 35 mio <i.e. much less than the above-claimed 49.4 mio>, on a World population of 100 to 150 mio. Resulting in a still very speculative 17% à 23,3 % of World population … <much less than the above-claimed 44%>

(the lower estimates 17mio vs 100 mio would come from : Colin McEVEDY and Richard JONES , 1978, Atlas of World Population History, Facts on File, New York, ISBN 0-7139-1031-3 and ties in nicely with the graph I found on page 127 of the Penguin edition of their work (Fig. 2.5 "Top Ranking empires" : Persian BCE 400 : 17 mio ; Macedonian BCE 300 : 19 mio ; Mauryan BCE 250 25 mio)

I found no way to check where MORRIS & SCHEIDEL's second cited estimate (of 35 mio / 150 mio = 23,3% ) came from.

Now Doug Weller {talk 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)} found a "better" source for the very high figure of 50 mio people, i.e. 'The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History' , 1 Mar 2012.[2] .

It says on page 134 "Darius thus ruled an empire stretching from Libya to the Crimea, from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf, and from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River, with a population estimated at 50 million people."

https://books.google.co.uk/books...

I checked and found that this figure of 50 mio was dropped very casually (as if in an aside) with no source given. And the author of Chapter 4 of this vulgarizing, introductory text, Alireza Shapour SHAHBAZI, was no doubt an expert in Achaemenid archaeology, but not on ancient demography…

CONCLUSION:

Given the large subsisting error margins, I propose not to “correct” but to delete the above “44%-50mio” factoid altogether from this Wikipedia article, as was already done recently in two related Wiki-articles  :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires — 

80.200.136.88 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've asked User:TompaDompa to comment. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what makes me especially qualified to weigh in on this, but I agree with 80.200.136.88 that it should be removed; Guinness is clearly not a WP:Reliable source in this instance. I'd also like to point out that we cannot use one source for the population of the Achaemenid Empire and another source for the world population at the time, as doing so is textbook WP:Synthesis. TompaDompa (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of using Guiness for anything that should have an academic source. I really don't care. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Almost three years later while looking for something completely different, I happened to find a WP:Reliable source—The Oxford World History of Empire—which estimates the Achaemenid Empire to have had a maximum share of 12% of the world's population, in 450 BCE (i.e. a few decades after Darius' death). The same source estimates that the greatest share any empire has ever had is 37% (Qing dynasty China in 1800). Clearly, 44% is way off. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

A Darius

Darius the Mede has nothing to do with Darius I, it is like claiming that Master Yoda is a peer of Barrack Obama. Therefore mentioning the Book of Daniel is completely off-topic. Besides, mentioning "a Darius" is a violation of WP:LEDE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just had a discussion with you on the "Darius the Mede" article where you insisted to keep the actual Bible text outside the article, thus changing the original Koresh into Cyrus the Great, denying this is an interpretation, not a fact. This way your edits become selffulfilling.

The article however should give room for other ideas then your own to avoid certain slants.

94.210.116.247 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the WP:RULES are clear: WP:OR is prohibited, and this includes performing your own analysis upon the Bible. Besides, the WP:LEDE only abstracts information which is already sourced and exists inside the body of the article. Wikipedians should leave their personal opinions at the entrance, we are only a service which abstracts WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. No WP:RS means no edits allowed. There are three reasons for rejecting your edit: it is off-topic (a fictive character like Darius the Mede and the real historical person of Darius I are simply not in the same league), it is a violation of WP:LEDE (the body of the article does not state that Darius the Mede would be Darius I), and it is WP:OR (there is no source WP:CITEd which claims that Darius the Mede would have been Darius I). This means that Darius, who could be either Darius I or another is bunk, utter bunk, WP:CB. Darius the Mede could be no one, since he did not exist in the first place.

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists.

— User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV#About science and scientists

So, yeah, we're biased for real historical scholarship and against cheap apologetics, especially apologetics based upon WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tgeorgescu,

You seem to stress citing the Bible actually is original research, do I understand this right? 94.210.116.247 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, citing the Bible in order to draw your own conclusions/analysis is prohibited. We even have a template for such stuff: {{Religious text primary}}. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is no balance science slips through your fingers, ending up with nothing. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We're not dealing in Taoism, around here we do not "balance" WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP with WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). WP:CITE a WP:MAINSTREAM WP:RS that Darius the Mede is Darius I or get lost. Oh, I guess finding such source is like Catch-22.

The author of Daniel, mindful of certain prophecies that the Medes would destroy Babylon (Jeremiah 51:11,28 and Isaiah 13:17), and needing a Median king to complete his four-kingdom schema (see the story of Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2), appears to have taken the historic Darius and projected him into a fictional past.

— Darius the Mede

On Google Books: Carol Ann Newsom; Brennan W. Breed (2014). Daniel: A Commentary. Presbyterian Publishing Corp. p. 192. ISBN 978-0-664-22080-8. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If with Koresh Cyrus the Great is meant than the Newsom & Breed comment is true.

Did you notice not one of the later great kings was named after the founder of the empire, not even his own grandson Xerxes? 94.210.116.247 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

What has this piece of WP:OR to do with Wikipedia? You definitely want to push a POV for which there are no WP:SOURCES (or at least you could not find any). That's not done. Don't you get it? Wikipedia does not *** care about your original investigations. Find a WP:RS or shove it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Biblical books as sources

I've removed references to the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah as historical sources. Daniel, of course, is not a history book and is unusable as a source for facts about the era of Darius. The status of the Aramaic letters in Ezra and Nehemiah is heavily disputed among biblical scholars, who would never use them without serious qualification.PiCo (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

While not disagreeing that they are pretty bad sources, I don't think this approach is justified. Greek sources are not to be used without serious qualification either and Hebrew sources are included in A. Kuhrt's The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period (2007) and cited frequently in Briant's From Cyrus to Alexander (2002) - probably the two biggest names in Achaemenid studies. At least the fact that these sources mention Darius should appear in the article (I would prefer to see them and the serious qualifications included). I'd also be open to a section that dealt with literary responses to Darius (which might include Daniel alongside Aeschylus etc.). Furius (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Our approach is using WP:SECONDARY WP:RS which talk about the primary religious sources, instead of using the primary religious sources themselves. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, but that's not what I'm saying. The article should mention the primary material and give an account of it. Previously, the article had an inadequate account of the Biblical source material, now it has no account. That is not an improvement. Furius (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article really needs a discussion of sources, but if it has one it should come from modern secondary sources - from Briant or someone like that.PiCo (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

?? The material removed was indeed (mostly) referenced to modern secondary sources. I agree with Furius that just removing all reference to biblical mentiuons is not the way. Some caveating should be done though. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the deleted material about Daniel (book of): In the book of Daniel the king's name changes from 'king of the Chaldeans = Babylonians' to 'king of the Persians' which also occurred between the kingships of Darius I and Xerxes.[15] Additionally the 120 satraps mentioned in Daniel 6:1 can be translated as 20 tribute owing satraps.[16] Neither of those sentences discusses the use/usefulness of the Book of Daniel as a primary source. Indeed, I find the fist sentence quite incomprehensible - so far as I know the Book of Daniel never mentions Darius I at all, but talks about a fictional Darius the Mede. The second sentence is also strange - Daniel 6 which it references is the story of Daniel in the Lions' Den, which is a work of fiction based on an independent source (I think the article on Daniel in the lions' den might mention this, and it's certainly mentioned in one of the sources for that article, possibly one of Collins's books or perhaps Seow's). Anyway, these two sentences have nothing to say about using Daniel as a source and seem unaware of fictional nature and the sources of the tales.

The next deleted paragraph is this: The Book of Ezra (chapter 6, verses 1 to 11) describes the decree to continue reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, specifying financial support and supplies for the temple services. This decree is dated approximately 519 BCE.[17] Between Cyrus and Darius, an exchange of letters with King Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes is described (chapter 4, verse 7), the grandson of Darius I, during whose reign Ezra and Nehemiah came to Jerusalem. The generous funding of the temple gave Darius and his successors the support of the Jewish priesthood.[18][19] The Elephantine papyri however mention the high priest Johanan of Ezra 10:6 as a contemporary of Darius II. Again there's nothing here about the usefulness of Ezra-Nehemiah (a single book, not two as printed in modern bibles) for history, or the huge problems they present, or the extraordinarily wide range of opinions on the Aramaic letters (which ones are genuine, who wrote them, when, why).

The paragraph about the prophets Haggai and Zechariah shows no awareness of the composite authorship of these books, and has no discussion of how they can be used to write history.

So to sum up, I don't think these paragraphs are of use as they stand, or even conform to the title of the section. Something from Briant or someone like that on sources could be useful, though.PiCo (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree Daniel probably has almost no place in the article. But your personal beliefs about the other sources just makes you sound like a crusader and deprives people from ancient sources. Let others make up their mind about the disputed, subjective theories of the compositions of Haggai, Zechariah, decrees in Ezra-Nehemiah (good that you know it was 'collated' as one book, it has two different authors and are two different sources), and let people make an edit where these sources are acknowledged, because plenty of scholars can point to the rebuilding of the Temple under Darius with Haggai as support, and I don't believe anyone considers Haggai to not be a unity written in the 6th century BC. The second paragraph definitely needs work, the first sentence is the only thing I like about it honestly, but just deleting it is not the way to do this.Cornelius (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

PiCo is an extremely-no-nonsense-academic-POV editor. I think he is right most of the time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I see a bit of nonsense here though.Cornelius (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Darius I → Darius the Great – This article used to be named "Darius the Great", before it was controversially changed to "Darius I" in 2011 through a RM requested by "Kauffner", a sockmaster whos been indeffed since 2013 (community ban).[3]-[4]. Honestly, I do not see the numbers, when I click on the links, that sockmaster Kauffner mentions. "Darius the Great Persia" gives me 27.800 solid results in Google.Scholar, most of whom are directly related to this figure, whereas "Darius I Persia" provides 21.900 results, including many unrelated entries (for example, entries related to "Darius III"). Likewise, solely using "Darius I" shows many results that are not related to this figure (i.e. false positives). Other than Google.Scholar, the majority high-quality WP:RS, including Encyclopedia Iranica, refer to this figure as "the Great" in their chapters/titles. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Fine by me. Like Cyrus II, Darius I is definitely well recognized as "the Great" almost as much as Alexander III is. Not sure if the same could be applied at Xerxes I, but one thing at a time. Khruner (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I repeat the arguments I used last time this came up. This cognomen is not much better known than the name which is more consistent with WP:NCROY and the other Persian rulers called Darius, which we should follow in the absence of a good reason to the contrary. It also reduces the chances of confusion with Darius III, who a few people with a sketchy knowledge of the period might regard as the better-known Darius. "The Great" could be a bit pov, and so should be avoided unless that really is what everybody calls him e.g. Alfred the Great, Alexander the Great. PatGallacher (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Darius the Great was one of the greatest king in Iranian/Persian history, "Darius the great" is really what everybody calls him (in Persian "Darioush Kabir") in almost all reliable sources.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I don't really care who's a sock as long as they're not pulling the wool over our eyes. If the two styles have similar frequency, then there's a strong argument for the more descriptive one being the title of the article. This is particularly true when one is "the Great", since that's particularly helpful in distinguishing amongst persons with the same name. Epithets aren't always that widely used in formal contexts: with the exception of William the Conqueror, I think all the post-conquest English monarchs are listed under their regnal numbers, even though some of their nicknames are well-known. But "Darius the Great" seems to be widely used in academic contexts as well as generally, and I don't see any good counter-argument in favour of "Darius I". You can still call him that when context allows, but an article can only have one title, and the proposed title seems to be the best one in this case. P Aculeius (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per P Aculeius and others. "Darius the Great" is more helpful for those of us with a sketchy knowledge of the other Dariuses. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per LouisAragon and P Aculeius. Jstor search: "Darius I Persia" gets 734 hits, "Darius Great Persia" gets 3,359. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. The name change should also apply to Tomb of Darius I. T8612 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support Much better known with this cognomen. Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom and P Aculeius. Constantine ✍ 10:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per comments by above supporters, reasonable rationales. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support - more common name, use by RS --DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The religion of Darius

Believing in Ahura Mazda doesn't necessarily make you Zoroastrian, he was a god in ancient (Indo-)Iranian paganism/polytheism as well. Encyclopædia Iranica [5] has a pretty good say on this;

"There is no consensus among scholars over the question whether the early great kings (Cyrus II The Great, Darius I The Great, Xerxes) were influenced by some form of Zarathuštrianism. They certainly believed in the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazdā (OPers. Auramazdāh-) and in the dichotomy of ahura- and daiva-. Beyond that, however, all is speculation. Neither the Achaemenids themselves nor Herodotus mention Zarathustra, and Gathic quotations, which some see in the inscriptions (Skjærvø, 1999) may merely reflect phrases common to the shared (Indo-)Iranian poetic diction."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct in your first assertion and I think the relevant texts should read Zoroastrian or Mazdaic. However I encourage you to read more on this topic before making edits because Zoroastrianism and Mazdaism are not "polytheism" as you suggested either, but of course the concepts are considered pagan by Abrahamic religions. regards Xoltron (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Stop speaking to others in a patronizing way - do your own research instead. Zoroastrian was clearly polytheistic in nature back then. And no, 'Mazdaic' is far from WP:COMMON NAME, not to mention that it is disputed if he was even Zoroastrian per the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Too many images

Yes, too many images - I'm removing some of them, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Alteration of lead and edit warring

@Xoltron: The current addition you're making is unsourced, and irrelevant. The lead is supposed to be simple and concise. Also, he is referred to 'Darius the Great' here because he is referred so in modern sources, not in ancient ones (if he even was that) - see [6]. Per the rules you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS, since you're the one making the changes. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

داریوش و بخارست

بخارست (باخاراسیتوس) یکی از مستعمرات یونانیان بود که در دوران داریوش به مرز هخامنشیان افزوده شد. 2.185.142.109 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Check the Dates!!

I'm no Darius expert, but I can count. Multiple places in the article state Born 550 BCE, Died 486 BCE. That suggests 136 years old at death. But the article ALSO states age 64 years at death. In my opinion, the latter is the more reasonable number, unless Darius really was one of the Biblical prophets. But my real point here is that the dates of birth, death, and everything in between are suspect if whoever did them can't count up or down using the conventional BCE timescale. The dates need to be reworked. Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"Born 550 BCE, Died 486 BCE. That suggests 136 years old at death." Apparently, you can't count. 550-486=64. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What is Darius' Cause of Death?

When I was looking up Darius for a History assignment, I could only find a very vague "illness" as his cause of death listed on [7] . Obviously I was quite frustrated but added "illness" as his death on to the wiki page but still I believe it would benefit us, students, and the people who ctrl c ctrl v wikipedia if we know the cause of his death.

I'm begging for answers!

~Arot Arotparaarms (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Book of Daniel

Darius the Great isn't mentioned in the Book of Daniel, Darius the Mede is. The problem with Darius the Mede is that he did not exist. So stop adding the Book of Daniel to this article.

Bottom line: there is no Darius the Great in the Book of Daniel, and Wikipedia won't pretend there is. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there is a lot of uncited text, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@History of Iran: FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, TrangaBellam. @Z1720: I'm up to the task. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)