Talk:Achaemenid Empire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The issue of slavery

While on the website "http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/sla-anc.html", I found the following segment about the issue of slavery within the Persian Empire:

The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great (576/590–529 BC). Slavery was an important institution in ancient Persia and there are substantial records which provide a better idea of the institution than in earlier states of the ancient Middle East. There are still, however, many questions. The famous Cyrus Cylinder speaks of abolishing slavery, yet we know that slavery was an important institution in ancient Persia. Persia as founded by Cyrus was an agressvely expansionary military empire. War thus was the primary source of slaves. [Falcelière et al, p. 433.] This provided many opportunities for war captives and to enslave conquered peoples. Historians note numerous instances in with large numbers of peoples were enslaved, such as Persian victories over the Greeks in the Aegean islands of Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos. Slaves taken in military campaigns were known as "the booty of the bow". [Dandamaev and Lukonin, p. 156.] The Persians are also known to have breed slaves to supplement war booty. This perhaps reflects the peace that Persian victories brought, thus reducing the supply of war captives. Rebels and crinals were alsp sources of slavey even after the Empire had been well established. Slaves were distributed to both Persian nobels and military commanders. Persian law made slavery hereditary. The legal status of slaves in Persia was that of livestock and other moveable property. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, p. 153.] This varied somewhat because in some provinces added to the Empire, local law and custom was allowed to remain in force. Slaves were held by the Persin monarchy itself as state slaves. They were used in different ways. The Great King or monarchy maintained a very large retinue of mostly slaves to both serve him and work his estates. Most performed agricultural labor on the monarch's estates. Others perormed a wide range of other tasks (bakers, cooks, millers, personal servants, winemakers and beer brewers, wine waiters. Boys were made into eunuchs for a range of functions in the toyal households. [Dandamaev and Lukonin, pp. 158, 170.] State slaves were used to work mines as mineral resource were owned by the state. [Olmstead, pp. 74 ff] Working in mines was a virtual death sentence for Roman slaves. One source suggests that Persian slaves working in mines were well paid. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, pp. 161-62.] Children made up a substantial portion of Persian slaves. Te Fortification Tablets at Persepolis, the Persian capital, reveal that 13 percent of the slaves were boys and 10 percent girls. I'm unsure at to the reason for this statistical disparity. The domestic arrangements are not fully understood. One source suggests that at least some slaves lived together in family units and were moved as required for work assignments in thesze units. There are documented instances of slaves being moved in groups of 100-1,500 people. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, pp. 160–61.]

For its information, the website cites the following books: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin and "History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead. These both seem to be scholarly, academic sources (checked on Amazon).

Now, this seems to at least partially contradict what this article says about the presence of slavery in the ancient Persian Empire. The article seems to downplay the existence of slavery, but the website suggests that slavery was more prevalent (not as prevalent as in, say, Greece or Rome, but still more prevalent that the article suggests).

I am NOT an expert on either the history of slavery or the history of the Persian Empire, and I do NOT have access to the two books that the website cites as its resources. But, maybe someone else is an expert and/or has access to these two books. If so, then I think it would be very useful to compare our article with the website that I have mentioned, cross-reference and verify the information with the two books cited, and figure out which of the two views on slavery in the Persian Empire is more accurate. IonNerd (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the expansion of this debate can be done on talk page of Slavery in Iran . It has a more detailed talk page . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above user and besides, the source you cited is a website not a literary source and you can find my response on the Iran slavery talk page. Besides just reading the quoted text you can see it is making an express POV view statement really hardly supproted by facts since most of the other authors clearly state statements contrary to its claims. Anyhow this is too irrelevant for this topic as well as an extraordinary, unencyclopedic claim. Dr. Persi (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

arabian text

the name of the empire is also shown in arabic script. Why is this? the arabic script wasn't in use yet back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.189.148 (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Largest Empire in Ancient World

There is a quote in this article:

Eventually by 480 B.C.E. the Achaemenids went on to hold the greatest percentage of world population for an empire,[28][29] and became the largest empire in ancient history.

It is not clear what is meant by "largest", in population or geographic area or what? The Wikipedia page on the Roman Empire under the section Demographics indicates larger figures for estimated range of population and most accepted figure. Historyfiend2000 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too keen myself on this type of superlative claim, but to be fair it does say "by 480 BCE" and of course the Roman Empire is much later. I think the largest empire in the ancient world claim that follows it is more dodgy. It's probably best to change all these to "one of the greatest", etc. The percentage claim for example might well be challenged by the Mauryan Empire, but it will never be known for sure - there were no censuses, ancient writers often exaggerated and estimates of ancient populations that appear in the most scholarly books are either informed guesswork or uninformed guesswork. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This claim doesn't make sense either as Alexander the Great managed to expand his own Macedon empire to engulf the existent Persian empire, which would defacto mean that the Persian empire could no longer be the largest in ancient history, whichever way you look at it. The comment is thus ambigious and could not be claimed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioannis S C (talk • contribs) 07:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexander's empire did not engulf the entire existent Persian Empire, Caucasus and Central Asia were not conquered by Alexander, and became autonomous, alexander only managed to move in the eastward direction, the empire that he had created was smaller than that of Darius. The Persian Empire was the largest land empire in the Antiquity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xshayathia (talk • contribs) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Portrait of Cyrus the Great.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

BCE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion link given by JimWae for the October 2009 consensus for BCE was an old revision (note the oldid number in the url) and did not include more recent comments from July 2010 calling the decision in question. The most recent comments in the Discussion of Archive section following the closed discussion can be found here. For those who don't click the link, here's a quote of a relevant comment: "From my inspection of similar discussions on the subject of era settings, this one comes across as defective. In order to change the era setting, there must be a substantive reason, for instance; a) to keep in line with other closely related articles; b) to conform to the requirements of the sources/references (rather weak reasoning); c) to prevent implied bias in the quality of the article (ie religious ones). Each one of these is rather subjective, but none applies in this case. The reasons offered are specious (neutrality is not satisfactory) but even then would be possible were there no objections (so as to avoid any controversy). However, this was also not achieved so other editors may now set it right in terms of WP:ERA." Erianna (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

hugely exaggerated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Largest empire and all that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I meant by consensus, was a evolving consensus as stated that means they are from other two or other or all books that I can currently find that talk about the population of the world in 500 BC. Of course all that we could find is not the law here, three sources claiming 100 million is not enough. Since if there was probably ten different sources or more from reliable authors, then maybe we could call it consensus of sort. If you find someone that says there was only 80 million or more or less millions, then let me know or add. The expertise on ancient populations for the 100 million only applies to one author who is mostly a historian, I don't know about the other two. What User:1812ahill suggested was to add statistical probabilities for the estimates that we currently have. So again, anyone is welcomed to add more sources that are different or not, plus that their authors are experts in population estimates/history. So we have to see.--Eirione (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

General Problems with this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recent edits ands the size of the empire

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

File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

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

Why the title?

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

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

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

It is already linked from the title "Medo-Persian Empire", which is the colloquial description for which the term "Achaemenid Empire" is the scholar's title. I think that "Persian Empire" would include the timescale until the overthrow of the last Shah of Persia in the late 20th century. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The advantage of "Achaemenid Empire" is that it is unambiguous, however, "Persian Empire" is better known. "First Persian Empire" is a good alternative, but frankly, I think the commonly understood meaning of "Persian Empire" is in fact the "Achaemenid Empire". The term is also used in scholarly sources, see e.g. "The Persian Empire" by Lindsay Allen: [3]. It seems to me the Achaemenid Empire was the only empire that can be classified simply as Persian. -- Lindert (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I have changed the caption under the picture to reflect its true nature. It is not a map of the empire near the time of Alexander. The territories it holds in Greece and the coast of the Black Sea in addition to the areas in Central Asia suggest that it is set in the time of Darius the Great or Xerxes. During the Wars of Alexander the Empire had lost significant territories in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.Kaveh94 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery

There is a note on the additional pictures, which bears the slightly unfortunate title Gallery, about Wikipedia policy on such images. The comment is that such an arrangement of images is discouraged in the standard style of Wikipedia articles.

Having come to this article to do some research, I find these images are a useful source of additional information, and it is helpful to my studies of this subject that these images are here.

Would the Moderators kindly suggest what alternative structure there is within Wikipedia to make such a valuable selection of images easily available and linked to the main article? I accept that there is a Wikipedia policy against articles becoming an art-gallery. However, in this case, these images are as informative as the text, and I suggest that they form a vital part of the whole article.

Perhaps the solution is to change the format, from the "gallery" format, to a paragraph within the main article in which the images are all included alongside their explanatory text. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in many articles there is usually a box at "External links" section which is linked to a gallery page in Wikimedia Commons, or, if there is no gallery, a category over there. (see commons:Category:Achaemenid Empire) --Z 09:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Map in the infobox?

The map in the infobox? Is it correct (should be removed) ?

(Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)).

Phonetics

The pronunciation given at the beginning of the article should possibly be corrected: Orthographical "Achaemanid" would be spelt in IPA as [əˈkiːmənɪd], wouldn't it? "Achaemenidae" would be the orthographical equivalent to the IPA transcription given in the article.

All the best, Michael Job (Göttingen, Germany: mjob@gwdg.de) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.32.107 (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

New to this section, but I got to address this.

Before anyone says anything YES! IT IS ABOUT THE MAP! I was just thinking that rather than a map that shows territorial acquisitions over time, shouldn't we simply have a map in the infobox that shows the Achaemenid Empire at it's greatest extent? I have one, but it is no where near done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png

I am remaking the map and planning on making it a bit more like this: http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/persia-map1.jpg

what do you all think? (most of you probably won't agree with me, but it is worth a shot...) Keeby101 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories

This empire has included parts some 35-40 modern countries and inserting all of them is extreme WP:OVERCAT. It would be much better if such categories are used for provinces (satrapies). --HistorNE (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I made a better map, what do you all think?

It's not the map that I posted before, it's a much better and more accurate version of the Godly Achaemenid Empire! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_ca_400_B.C.jpg

What do you think? Keeby101 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither was the empire godly nor is your map an improvement. In particular with regard to the date on it the map is actually grossly off (the Persians didn't have any provinces in Europe in 400 BC).--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Slavery

This needs revision: it currently states slavery was 'banned', which isn't actually true, but then in the remainder of the paragraph describes its practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

New Map made by me! What do you all think?

I have recently created a new and more high quality map of the Godly Achaemenid Persian Empire that I would like to put into the infobox of the article!

• 

It's not finished yet obviously, I still need to add the rest of the cities and provinces, but you have to admit that it is far better than the current map in the infobox. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Red is not a good color for that. Green or another variant of green is better. --Zyma (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you saying? So you all will accept the map as the infobox map if I paint it a different color? Kirby (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I just commented about the color, not the factual and historical accuracy. --Zyma (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirected from Medo-Persian Empire. Why isn't "Medo" in the article?

If this article is appropriately redirected when searching Wikipedia for Medo-Persian Empire, why isn't "Medo" in the article anywhere? (Please message me? Thanks.) Misty MH (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

44% claim the lead

That figure is a violation of WP:SYNTH as it combines data total empire population estimations from one set of sources to the word population total from another source. In another words none of the sources actually claims that 44% figure. This is particularly problematic since population estimates vary greatly and are not particularly reliable, so by combining figures from different sources into a derived percentage value, you can essentially make up any percentage value and the 44% are simply the best guess by the WP editor (rather thabn ab external source). On top of that a rather weak source is used for global population total (some UN/government statistic rather than some academic/scholarly publication).--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If we remember that 50 million of inhabitants means huge cities and nearby villages like in today's world, we conclude that the number is out of proportions! Were are the huge cities? Archeology reveals that they were not so big.....Rome was the first city in the world to have one million inhabitants, and this happened only under Augustus... and the Roman empire had only 25 million inhabitants, some centuries later! The 50 million and the 44% claim are clearly 2 huge mistakes!!!! Tim K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.208.127.8 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the Roman Empire in 117 AD had a population of 88 million. Just correcting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.225.33 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

recent sourcing

There have been a bunch of sources added for the area of the empire which imho is a bit problematic. First of all one or two sources at the end of the paragraph might be more sensible (and improve the readability of the source text dramatically) then adding inline references to each single country. There is also cherry picking/WP:SYNTH problem by picking and combining these countries names from different sources, instead of sticking to the description in one or two reputable sources. Also the use of India in the sources cannot necessarily be equated with modern India, but also with historic India which includes Pakistan, in that sense northwestern India is essentially Pakistan.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For such a loosely organised entity with very vague borders, and bearing in mind the sources being mainly Greek and Roman, the inclusion of for instance Sudan and Eritrea seems a bit daft to me.1812ahill (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Spelling

Base on what i've read, The spelling of 'Persepolis' is not really persepolis, it was 'Persopolis'. However, if i am wrong i will accept just sayin' what my opinion is about the spelling of 'Persepolis'

Navy section: overambitious statement.

Stating that a 'Persian maritime presence was maintained in the Persian Gulf until the arrival of the Royal Navy in the 19th century' in the context of this article is silly. Why not say the same thing about the Italian navy wrt. Rome or compare Saxon pirates in the North Sea in the 4th century to the Royal Navy. I will remove the statement. Feel free to revert if you can justify. :) 1812ahill (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Native name

@LouisAragon: (diff) The native name of the empire was an Old Persian (and Median) word. The Modern Persian name is almost as irrelevant as the German name. Even the Ancient Greek name is more relevant. --Z 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, let's use at least one of the translations then? In my opinion that's surely a good addition to the article. Perhaps the Old Persian one with an Ancient Greek translation under it, and a modern Persian one? Let me know what you think about it. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Orthographic projection map in INFOBOX is more helpful

This orthographic projection can be more helpuful and better than using this map in Infobox. By indicating the area of Achaemenid Empire on this type of map, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. Also this map is in vector format. If there is any problem with this map, we can helping it to improve by upadating it. Ali Zifan 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue with using this map is overlaying with modern borders, which makes no sense unless the purpose is to show that overlap, in which case the map also isn't useful, since the borders are barely visible and there is no indication of country names. Finally, the map trades a lot of detail on the borders for a global view, which is mostly irrelevant in the historical context. UCaetano (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

•  Fixed. I updated that map by hidding (cleaning) the borders of all current countries. Also, if you see any problem with empire's borders or even its color, you can update it if you want. The main thing I am saying is using the orthographic map, which is in SVG format, in the Infobox of the article. Ali Zifan 03:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I also talked with Ali Zifan recently about the map. I told him as well, that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @LouisAragon:: and I also typed on your talk page about the reasons that why it is better to use orthographic map than using a flat map and I type it here:

Please take a look to at the Infoboxes of these two version of Iran's article on wikipedia : Current version and old version. As you can see, the flat maps were used to indicate the country's location "for a long time" but the orthographic projection has been replaced those flat maps. This fact is true for many countries that have an article on wikipedia. Orthographic projection are considered the most exact and preciese maps that can indicate any point or area on the earth. Please read these links: rice.edu and progonos.com . Actually, we can easily get that this type of maps are definitely the best choice to indicating the empires' area.

The other reason is that by looking at the area (such as iran's area) on this type of maps, pretty much, anyone can immediately recognize the exact location respects to other regions, continents, countries and places on the earth. These reason are not made up by myself. These are the reasons that have been proved and Wikipeidia is currently using it (as i said for every country's (from islands to peninsulas, from small countries to large countries) articles). I sent you some links about the area of other empires that were used orthographic projection like Aztec. I want you to open those links again. You will find out that there is no discussion about using this type of maps.

In addition, what I am talking about is, we don't have to replace these maps with current maps. All I am saying is these orthographic are for Infoboxes of the empire's article. You told me about Sassanian map's image. Yes it has details and it is good but it will be much and much better if we place this on the other part of the article which has the details about sassanids (History part of the article can be the great position for putting that image) instead of putting it in Infobox part of the article. "What should an infobox not contain? In general, data in infobox templates should not be: Lengthy. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." This obviuosly can be true about images that have much details.

Besides that, if you see any problems with the area or border of the empire's map, you can update it on these files. Actually you can tell me and I will do that. I've already put much time for making these orthographic maps as making them more precise as I could and i will put more time on them to make them more precise if you want. It will be certainly my proud to working with you to updating these maps.

And also I really can't understand that why you say: '"that the map is simply no improvement of article/content quality or whatsoever, and thus should not be added"'. This map is in vector format (Which is considered an improvement on wikipedia) and used orthographic projection which also is considered the best map for showing any coordinate or area on the earth. Finally I hope you revise you opinion about this type of maps. Ali Zifan 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Ali. The map you propose is very good, and does a good job of showing the relative positioning of the empire within the world, but it does a poor job of showing detail. In other words, it sacrifices relevant detail (the borders, which areas and islands were controlled or not) for things which aren't relevant to the context (why Greenland needs to be in the map? Or Japan?).

It would be better to have a more detailed map, showing the maximum reach of the empire in a way that readers can actually discern the features. For example, the empire's most disputed border, on the Greek side, is barely visible in the map. That style of map makes sense for Iran, since the purpose is to show where the country is currently located, but that isn't as relevant for an ancient empire, that had frequent border changes.

Amongst all options, I find this to still be the best one, not only it is authoritative, from a reliable source, but it also avoids OR. Also, it is very detailed, showing the borders and domains very well. UCaetano (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @UCaetano: Hello. UCaetano, I am totally agree with you about this map. This map is very detailed and absolutely it is the best map to use but not in the infobox. As I copied before (above) from article:infobox, infoboxes do not contain very detailed statistics or even images. As I said many times before, I am asking to replacing orthographic projection, which is in vector, with this map in the infobox. I explained the reasons and advantages of using orthographic map over current map above for user LouisAragon . Please read those again. In your opinion, the suggested map did a poor job in detail. You are right, but I want you to compare these two maps: the current one and the suggested one. Honestly, what details this current map has over the suggested one?

"why Greenland needs to be in the map? Or Japan?"

Because this is the job that this map tries to do! "showing the maximum reach of the empire in a way that readers can actually discern the features," as you said; because it is supposed to be in the infobox! At most, If you don't like it, we can cropped the image, if you want.

"It would be better to have a more detailed map, showing the maximum reach of the empire in a way that readers can actually discern the features"

Definitely! But not in the infobox. Detailed information are used beside detailed images. I gave the example about this for Sassanid empire's article above. Please read it.

"the empire's most disputed border, on the Greek side, is barely visible in the map."

As I said, this map is in the vector format. Please read these articles about vector images and their importances to be used in Wikipedia articles:Vector graphics and Scalable Vector Graphics. One of the advantages of Vector images over other types of images is that by zooming on images that are vector, they won't loose their quality. It means that you can zoom on them pretty much as you want. Please see this image. It explains the whole thing that I am saying. So, if you zoom on this orthographic map, you can see those islands with much more quality than this current map. For example, please zoom on Qeshm island on these both maps. Which one does indicate it better? Which map is showing this island and other islands (especially on the Greek side) more clear and obvious if you zoom on them?? Totally I hope you revise. Thank you. Ali Zifan 02:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ali Zifan:, I understand the advantages of vector maps very well, having made a few myself. The issue is that those advantages should never come at the cost of less detail. Your map looks great, but the zoom level and projection used make it less relevant than the current one. Take a look at the First French Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire. They all have images that are exactly like the current one for this article. Please don't try to push for something significantly different on the sake of being a vector image. UCaetano (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano:Ok, but can you explain me that how the suggested map "is less relevant than the current one"?? Actually can you tell me the exact details that the current map has over the suggested one? And also take a look at the Aztec Empire, the Empire of Japan, the Confederate States of America, the Empire of Brazil, the Federal Republic of Central America and even the New Spain. They all have (used) orthographic projection map without any discussion. Also if you really have a problem with this kind of projection, I can crop the image to focus more on details.Ali Zifan 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ali Zifan:, cropping would indeed be great, but then there would be no reason to use the orthographic projection, but a planar projection (although I'm happy to concede on that). Honestly, I still find this to be the best option so far, better than the current one and the proposed one. If you want to create a vector version of it, with similar detail, that would be great. In sum, I believe that in the case of this article, the details around the borders, specially with Greece, are more important than the relative position in the world.

Also, can you please provide sources for you map? It is significantly different from this, which probably qualifies it as WP:OR. UCaetano (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok; I will make the vector format of the map that you said is the best as soon as I can. So, please put the link of a blank map that you think would be the best, so I can crop it and overlay the area of Achaemenids on it.

Also if I put the exact source of the suggested map, would you be agree to replace it with this, untill I finish the vector format of detailed map (which you considered it as the best map)?

Here is what I am talking about:

• 
  replacing it with middle map (temporarily) untill the vector version of third map will be done. (Also the transparent background of this map will be disappeared when we put it in infobox.)
• 
  be replaced as soon as we can
• 
  making its vector and replacing it with both other maps

Thank you Ali Zifan 19:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to put a temporary map. If you want to change the map, replace it with this, since it is accurate, sourced and authoritative. There's no reason to put a temporary map which is worse than the current one. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: So please put the link of the blank map that you think would be the best, so I can crop it and overlay the area of Achaemenids on it. Ali Zifan 00:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I completely concur with UCaetano regarding his suggestion of the map. We have to get rid of all these self-made maps based on self-made interpretations, which is the case with the current Achaemenid map, and a bunch of others. Furthermore there are too many, and have been too many, individuals who absolutely don't have any historical knowledge about this topic and just make pseudo-historical maps (they have in the past) who then linger forth in Wikimedia. I completely and totally support a map that's 100% based off of this map, or simply the very addition of it itself everywhere, as well. Its sourced, documented, and very reliable. If we could just do that, that would be perfect indeed. Simply from Macedon in the west, to the lower Indus River in the east, no nonsense, as how it really was back then.

PS: regarding the Black Sea territories of nowadays Ukraine, Russia, etc; those can be kept even though they're not included on the 1923 map, if people agree for a newly made map based off of the 1923 map. There is plenty of sourcing that suggests that they might have had subjugated the area. Thus, thats the only region where we will then deviate from the 1923 map, if everyone agrees with me. The subjugation of the region is mentioned on the Behistun inscription too, apart from numerous books that I am able to cite (such as in the "The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 10 - IV Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean", Cambridge University Press, 1982 ISBN 978-0521228046 pp 66-67.") - LouisAragon (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I'd be happier with a vector map that's EXACTLY like the 1923 map, but can concede on that (Black Sea territories). In addition, while such map isn't available, I propose we change the infobox map to the 1923 one. What do you think? UCaetano (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano: and @LouisAragon: can you please tell me for making the vector version of this map, which blank map should be used? Robinson or Mercator?? Ali Zifan 15:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Either is fine, as long as the detail on the shapes is good. I'd avoid the second one, since it has a focus on classifying all the countries (take a look at the little bubbles representing the tiny countries). UCaetano (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)