Talk:Xerxes I - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 09:57, 17 October 2015 (Signing comment by Mneshat - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:57, 17 October 2015 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by Mneshat - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xerxes I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iran High‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Zoroastrianism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Egypt Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Misplaced Pages, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Misplaced Pages than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Near East High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

European history High‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The empire on which the sun never sets

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

Please add the above to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Esther

Curious as to why there is no discussion in the main article regarding the traditional identification of Xerxes I as the Persian King named Ahasuerus in the biblical book of Esther. There are countless books and websites that reference this traditional connection, so why not at least mention it? A few references found within a few minutes of googling: Princeton grad student wiki, Identification of Darius the Mede by George R. Law p 95, Encyclopedia Britannica Vol I 1890 p 422, Encyclopaedia perthensis, or, Universal dictionary of the arts, sciences, literature, etc, Volume 9 page 82 2nd Ed 1816, and of course The Jewish Encyclopedia Regardless whether these sites embody full academic merit, or whether this identification is historically factual at all, the longstanding traditional association and present-day debate, in and of themselves, deserve mention. 70.66.148.34 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Xerxes is also retarded and idiotic to be weird the king in the biblical Book of Esther" There's no evidence to suggest this is him. It's just pointless speculation. As a matter of fact.. there's little evidence to suggest a lot of things in the biblical book of whoever, but... anyway :P This is probably one of the Artaxerxes's who are often confused with Xerxes, such as the king called "that wicked man" by Egyptian priests, was not Xerxes as the cartouche would suggest but most likely Artaxerxes III. But I'm just a fucking High School student, so what would I know.

While I'm all for punishing ignorance, perhaps a more civil discussion is in order. For example, we could trim the above post right at, "There's no evidence to suggest this is him." I'd rather see evidence from both sides instead of useless remarks. 71.118.143.244 09:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the connection of Ahasuerus to Xerxes, I think it would be useful to consult the Septuagint (Greek)translation of Esther, where Ahauerus is called Artaxerxes (Septuagint; Esther 1:1,2,9...etc.; 2003 Hendrickson Publishers, ed. by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton). If Ahasuerus had been Xerxes himself, you'd think his name would have translated as such into Greek. Historydude1978

For the two comments above I would council the authors that nameing in the ancient world can be difficult. Josephus complaining that the Greeks renamed everyone to suit their own tongue, which makes a hard job even harder: he himself noting this. Not to mention the Alexandrian Library going up in flames repeatedly, doesn't make it any easier. Please see my additions to the section (~ in the Bible) and you will find that it is linguistically possible to trace Ahasuerus. It is even logical as you progress in a westerly direction from Persia across linguistic groups: hence Persian is transliterated into Babylonian, which is altered to suit it's sister Hebrew language which was then immortalised in Latin by the Romans and appears in Jerome's Latin Vulgate version of the Bible; which in turn was probably maintained in this form for consistency in the King James Version, even though the then commonly available Septuagint’s clearly renders 'Αρτάξερξου (Artaxerxes).

As regarding Historydude1978's comment regarding the LXX version's Artaxerxes rendering, please note that the academic community considers this to be nothing other than a simple scribal mistake; probably similar to it's rendering that Haman was of ό Μακεδων (Macedonian) descent without a single precedent (LXX Esther 9:24).

But here is the clincher: Taking an atheists point of view so as to assume that the book of Ester was nothing other than fiction for the audience of the day, then the story would be implausible and would even be rejected as 'historical fiction'; furthermore it would be unworthy of the effort required to maintain ancient handwritten documents. Why? Because key characters would be too old for historical consistency. The key being "a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, ... a Benjamite; Who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity..." of "Jeconiah", also known as Jehoiachin. Esther 2:5-6

Using the Archaeological Babylonian Chronicle, we find that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the defending Egyptians in the late spring or early summer of 605 BC opening Syria and Palastine to the Babylonian arms. Eventually in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year of his reign by Hebrew reckoning (2 Kings 24:12), he carried away the captivity of 'Jehoiachin'; which the author of Ester claimed Mordecai had been part of. This means that if Mordecai had been a new born infant in his mother's arms, he would have survived the entire Babylonian period and reached to the very height of the Persian Empire during the reign of Xerxes 'the Great'. Yet if Ahasuerus were Artaxerxes I, Mordacai would be even older. If the story is set in the reign of Xerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 115 years old! But if we argue for Artaxerxes, Mordecai would be no less than 136/7 years old!

Hence this would explain why he Mordecai is found sitting at the king's palace gateway, as he was just too old for anything else! Neither are these old ages unknown in the ancient world, for Herodotus speaks of the Ethiopians (Cushites) regularly reaching 120 years of age. While these considerations are by no means conclusive, that does make a Xerxes rendering to be the more plausible.

Secondly the feast of Purim exerts the strongest evidence for the validity of the Book of Esther, as it is a living memorial to the things contained in the manuscript. To start this festivity at a much later date one would have to deceive an entire nation simultaneously to enact an historical memorial festivity of genocidal proportions. It would be like trying to tell our American friends that they never had a war with Great Britain, or that their Independence Day was not actually on the 4th of July! --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another possible discrepancy I've found is that the article on Haman from the Book of Esther mentions that he is generally thought to be Xerxes I. The story of Haman and the timeline don't seem to support this. Thoughts? Saturn 5 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As regarding your comment on Haman being Xerxes, well, people always love the fanciful... the article gives no credible reference other than a questionable public opinion confinded to limited circles. Neither will you even find a hint of such ideas in the academic literature. --Avanduyn 05:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you belive the Book's events happeend or not the Author's intent was clearly to Identify Xerxes, the Septuigant was the orign of the mistakeing him for Artexerxes, but his 1 refrence in Ezra shows he reigne dbetween Darius and Artxerxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Persian in Arabic script

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

idk - its not arabic script

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

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

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

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

Pronunciation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the persian wikipedia it's written:

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

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

The 2007 film 300

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on Birth Year of Xerxes I

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

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

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

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

Xerxes king in Babylon before Darius died?

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

Pronounciation

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

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

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

The name Xerxes (/'zɝksiːz/) comes, via Latin, from Template:Lang-grc, which in turn derives from Template:Lang-peo (Xšayāršā).

Note that the IPA link does explain pronunciation.

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

Salamis

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

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

Ethiopians?

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

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

Artaynte

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

Clarify Actual Ramification of Thermopylae

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

Is the phrase "Born in the Purple" appropriate?

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

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

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

Problem in "Youth and rise to power" section

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

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

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

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

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

Name "Xerxes I" or "Xerxes the Great"

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

Orphaned references in Xerxes I

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

Reference named "books.google.nl":

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

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

bad data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: