Talk:Darius the Great

message: The articles on Xerxes and Darius each have pictures of the very sam relief from Persepolis, (note the damage) and each article attributes the portrait to its eponymous king.  Is it a relief of Xerxes?  Of Darius?  Is this question disputed?  In any case, the image from the article on Darius is of much better quality, so it should be used once we've established a reasonable caption.  75.71.66.105 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it!, here. It was originally placed in the eastern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Darius, so it's agreed that the depicted king is him. A twin relief (we have it here and here too; see also this page) was originally placed in the northern stairs of the Apadana, which were built by Xerxes, so some think the depicted king is him, but it is disputed (in fact, Xerxes only finished the Apadana what his father had begun). In any case, there is no doubt about our relief: the king is Darius. Both reliefs were later removed from the Apadana and placed in the Treasury. Our relief is now in the Teheran Museum, but its twin remains in Persepolis. So I'll replace the "Xerxes" image with this one, making it clear that it is not agreed whether the king is Xerxes or Darius. Amizzoni 23:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One Relief, Two Kings

message: I'm not sure how the article got so thoroughly vandalized, but I just spent a good twenty minutes removing snippets from all over the article. That vandalism persisted through numerous legitimate edits, so I'm asking everyone to please take a minute to read over the entire section you're editing before you leave the page. Some of the vandalism was almost a month old. Thanks! Spectheintro 14:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost spent one hour just to make everything right, and to make my report about Darius. But, there are many errors that I saw in the whole article! This makes the article very "disgusting" to read, but what important is that everything about Darius is corrected. ("Maybe, Darius will be very happy to make everything right about him and everything will be corrected through the cooperation of everybody!") Bubbles16 22 15:39 15 August 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles16 22 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Edits

message: The current title is out of line with other Persian monarchs and is redundant (there is no other Darius who is the Great except one of the ones who is also of Persia). I prefer Darius the Great, but seeing as it failed as "no consensus"... Srnec (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also Darius III Codomannus. Notice this search and how the first hit is "Darius the Great". The only other Persian king to make the first page is also "Darius the Great". All other "Darius" mentions are to companies or modern figures. Srnec (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, did anyone notice that the move from Darius I of Persia to Darius the Great of Persia was carried through with essentially no discussion?  The mover said he wanted to move to "Darius the Great," got no response, and then moved it to Darius the Great of Persia.  There was never any consensus for the current title. john k (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

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

message: ::Hi User Xashaiar 
Please ref to your removal of category  Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Iran
In this edit  of yours 
 darius does not belong to that category (according to description of the category  
The reason you sited for removal does not seem valid because the very first  criteria listed  in the description of this category it clearly states 
“People from Iran or their descendants of ethnic Zoroastrian/Aryan descent” 
Please do not delete this category .
Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Darius the Great was a person, so although I think Achaemenid empire should go in that category, but "people of Achaemenid Iran" seem to me belong to subcategories. If that category should stay there I think there should be subcategories. And why the category "History of Iran" is not enough?--Xashaiar (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User Xashaiar 
I havent been able to understand the meaning of your post please specificaly explain ....and do not delete before discussing your reasons ,<BR>
Intothefire (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

message: I have re-written an article version of Darius the Great. The article is more organized, referenced and follows many Wikipedian policies and guidelines. The article can be found here. I am proposing that the proposed version replace the current version. However, if no response is given in around five day's time, I will implement the proposed version. warrior4321 06:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not clear to me that this is an improvement over the previous article.  The "horse trick" is unexplained (I do know what you mean, but others might not) and this business about mules foaling could be later legend.  Doing a complete rewrite is probably not the best way of treating an article like this, if it needs significant improvement do so step by step. PatGallacher (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are here to improve the encyclopedia. Completing a self-rewrite is fine if there are no issues with the article. However, the issue has been addressed to, while the mules foaling issue is written by Herodutus and has a reliable source provided. Any other issues? warrior4321 12:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: Please state what is "disputed" as just placing tags is unhelpful. warrior4321 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disputed is that all mention of revisionist views of Bardiya, that he was not an impostor, has been deleted by Warrior4321's edits.  They have also deleted all mention of the suggestion that Darius killed Cambyses II.  I will probably change this myself given time, but its getting late tonight. PatGallacher (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source that mentioned that Darius may have killed Cambyses was deleted because there was no page number. Page numbers for sources are a necessity for GA criteria, which is what I am thriving to achieve with this article. As far as all mention of revisionist views of Bardiya, that he was not an impostor, has been deleted by Warrior4321's edits goes, please provide some diffs. warrior4321 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have missed something. I removed the book because no page numbers were given from that same book. Could you please provide a page number for the book? warrior4321 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

message: Is there an inconsistency here? Darius' life is listed as 550–486 at the top, and 519-465 at the bottom. Lee merrill (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . WarriorForThreeToOne 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent lifespan dates? 

message: moved to Darius the Great per common usage. Based on the discussion below as well as on Talk:Darius, I see good primary topic reasons for moving it to Darius, but don't see enough consensus at this time.--rgpk (comment) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The current names of these other two Dariuses is controversial and there is a move request in progress in relation to Darius III. Darius I would be ok if there was not the need to disambiguate him from Darius of Pontus. See WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:NCROY is, by its wording, limited to "European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." Neither the reason, nor the rule, apply here; the ancient Kings have been disambiguated by nicknames and numbers (when necessary, as it is not here) for centuries. The present title is unnecessary, and it is opposed to scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline can still be extended to other cultures where different kingdoms share a stock of names.  We need to disambiguate this person from Darius of Pontus. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. For one thing, they're already disambiguated; much more importantly, Darius of Pontus is mentioned in 7 books; Darius (or rather Darius' involvement with a single battle - to make sure it is this Darius) is mentioned in 49,000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: No Septentrionalis. Your link does not say what you wrote "Darius the Great is much less common than Darius I". The reason: In any text the author usually writes "one or two times" the complete "Darius the Great"/or "Darius I the Great" and then for natural reasons write "Darius I"/or "Darius". That's the way "the cambridge histories" (of Iran, ancient, ...) use the term. So we must be a bit careful when we refer to google searches ... Xashaiar (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Ngram counts books, not individual hits. If they did not, by your own argument, Darius would be hundreds of times more common, not merely a few dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

text: Could you explain further. I see Kauffner and pmanderson in opposition and you in mild opposition. Other than that it seems to me that there is agreement that NCROY does not apply and that Darius is often referred to as Darius the Great. Darius should be the title per primary topic but I see only mixed support for that. --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my assessment. Smec, as nom, prefers "Darius I" but would accept "Darius the Great". Ordibehesht22 supports "Darius the Great". Pmanderson prefers "Darius" but would accept "Darius I", and opposes "Darius the Great". PatGallacher supports "Darius I", mildly opposes "Darius the Great", and opposes "Darius". Xashaiar prefers "Darius the Great" but would accept "Darius I". Kauffner would accept either "Darius I" or "Darius I of Persia", and opposes "Darius the Great" and "Darius".All told, "Darius I" had 2 1/2 first-preference !votes, 2 1/2 second-preference !votes (splitting Kauffner's !votes into two halves each), and no opposes. "Darius the Great" had 2 first-preference !votes, one second-preference !vote, and 2 1/2 opposes (with Pat Gallacher's mild oppose as a half !vote). "Darius" had one first-preference !vote and two opposes. "Darius I of Persia" had Kauffner's split support, with everyone else opposed. Does that seem correct? Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair summary. My reasoning was that Darius I was unacceptable because common usage tends toward Darius or Darius the Great. Darius I of Persia is unacceptable because there are no Darii of note outside Persia. Darius would seem to be the obvious choice but not everyone agrees that it is the primary topic. That leaves Darius the Great, the other commonly used term. Have I made an incorrect assumption or drawn an incorrect conclusion? --rgpk (comment) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would have thought that "Darius I" was as common or more so than "Darius the Great", just looking at ngrams and Google Books results: 14,200 "Darius%20the%20Great"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius the Great" vs. 45,900 "Darius%20I"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius I". (I agree that plain "Darius" is likely the most common name by far.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Darius I or Darius. Never heard of Darius the Great and a quick survey of the other Wiki versions shows that this name is uncommon there, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move, not because it offers the epithet of "great" but because it allows for distinction of Darius from other subsequent Dariuses. I prefer both Darius I or Darius the Great, but Darius the Great is perfectly fine with me. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2011

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
The current names of these other two Dariuses is controversial and there is a move request in progress in relation to Darius III. Darius I would be ok if there was not the need to disambiguate him from Darius of Pontus. See WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NCROY is, by its wording, limited to "European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names." Neither the reason, nor the rule, apply here; the ancient Kings have been disambiguated by nicknames and numbers (when necessary, as it is not here) for centuries. The present title is unnecessary, and it is opposed to scholarly usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline can still be extended to other cultures where different kingdoms share a stock of names.  We need to disambiguate this person from Darius of Pontus. PatGallacher (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. For one thing, they're already disambiguated; much more importantly, Darius of Pontus is mentioned in 7 books; Darius (or rather Darius' involvement with a single battle - to make sure it is this Darius) is mentioned in 49,000. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: No Septentrionalis. Your link does not say what you wrote "Darius the Great is much less common than Darius I". The reason: In any text the author usually writes "one or two times" the complete "Darius the Great"/or "Darius I the Great" and then for natural reasons write "Darius I"/or "Darius". That's the way "the cambridge histories" (of Iran, ancient, ...) use the term. So we must be a bit careful when we refer to google searches ... Xashaiar (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Ngram counts books, not individual hits. If they did not, by your own argument, Darius would be hundreds of times more common, not merely a few dozen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
Agree that this is the primary topic for Darius; Not quite sure where to go from here. Andrewa (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a discussion of the primary topic issue here. Kauffner (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Could you explain further. I see Kauffner and pmanderson in opposition and you in mild opposition. Other than that it seems to me that there is agreement that NCROY does not apply and that Darius is often referred to as Darius the Great. Darius should be the title per primary topic but I see only mixed support for that. --rgpk (comment) 16:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my assessment. Smec, as nom, prefers "Darius I" but would accept "Darius the Great". Ordibehesht22 supports "Darius the Great". Pmanderson prefers "Darius" but would accept "Darius I", and opposes "Darius the Great". PatGallacher supports "Darius I", mildly opposes "Darius the Great", and opposes "Darius". Xashaiar prefers "Darius the Great" but would accept "Darius I". Kauffner would accept either "Darius I" or "Darius I of Persia", and opposes "Darius the Great" and "Darius".All told, "Darius I" had 2 1/2 first-preference !votes, 2 1/2 second-preference !votes (splitting Kauffner's !votes into two halves each), and no opposes. "Darius the Great" had 2 first-preference !votes, one second-preference !vote, and 2 1/2 opposes (with Pat Gallacher's mild oppose as a half !vote). "Darius" had one first-preference !vote and two opposes. "Darius I of Persia" had Kauffner's split support, with everyone else opposed. Does that seem correct? Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a fair summary. My reasoning was that Darius I was unacceptable because common usage tends toward Darius or Darius the Great. Darius I of Persia is unacceptable because there are no Darii of note outside Persia. Darius would seem to be the obvious choice but not everyone agrees that it is the primary topic. That leaves Darius the Great, the other commonly used term. Have I made an incorrect assumption or drawn an incorrect conclusion? --rgpk (comment) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would have thought that "Darius I" was as common or more so than "Darius the Great", just looking at ngrams and Google Books results: 14,200 "Darius%20the%20Great"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius the Great" vs. 45,900 "Darius%20I"&tbs=bks:1&lr=lang_en for "Darius I". (I agree that plain "Darius" is likely the most common name by far.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Darius I or Darius. Never heard of Darius the Great and a quick survey of the other Wiki versions shows that this name is uncommon there, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the move, not because it offers the epithet of "great" but because it allows for distinction of Darius from other subsequent Dariuses. I prefer both Darius I or Darius the Great, but Darius the Great is perfectly fine with me. Dr. Persi (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I propose that the date format be reverted from BCE/CE to BC/AD as the BCE/CE edits have violated WP:ERA by not being discussed and reaching a consensus on this article's talk page. If you are going to change the date formats please propose it on the talk page and not suddenly implement it, that violates the policy that was created to stop such actions. Please voice objections and reasons against the reversion of date formats now. 78.146.132.102 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Darius_I_of_Persia/Archive_1#Dates_and_numbers_in_this_article for previous unopposed discussion re using CE/BCE. I support keeping CE/BCE.--JimWae (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a small clique of editors who think that they can just reinterpret WP rules by going steadily through the ancient Middle Eastern articles and change them all to the CE system usually on spurious grounds. (Well there are hardly any valid grounds-especially not the red herring about neutrality.)--81.106.119.187 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do agree that the red herring of "religious neutrality" (i.e. political correctness) is often brought up as a defense for changing any article with subject matter unrelated directly to Christianity to the CE system, in the case of this article it was brought up on the talk page and no one opposed it. So the initial change from AD to CE was warranted here. I do, however, support changing it back to AD/BC if we could gain consensus to do so. I've made my arguments for AD/BC elsewhere previously. But for PC reasons, it's much easier to gain a consensus to change from AD to CE than from CE to AD. — CIS (talk  | stalk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. "Changing with consensus" is supposed to imply an actual reason, which attracts widespread agreement (preferably based on academic usage). Using CE for Rabbi Akiva would probably qualify on both grounds; this doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of date formats 

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

message: To user Kauffner: Please stop reverting the title of this article.  Consensus on title of article, going back months ago, was the proper historical title "Darius the Great" (Darayavau xshâyathiya vazraka) http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm, the suffix for Achaemenid rulers including Darius, covered by centuries historical Western and Persian literature going back to the Achaemenid era, the time of Darius.Janus945 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion just above yours. You can't ignore that and make a change in the title simply because you disagree. Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I've move-protected this for a week to avoid any edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to make crude threats. The user Kauffner has been engaged in bringing in people in support of his efforts to rename the article in his favor, on a topic that he and his friends have no knowledge of. They friends have ignored facts. At some point this silly survey has to be closed and the user input based on people that know the facts, not just a silly and childish popularity contest.Janus945 (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not a 'crude threat', it was a warning about calling other editors vandals. And the request was closed by an Administrator if you read it. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus was title Darius the Great 

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

message: I've located information that indicates that Darius I may also have been Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan. The details are located in the following sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=PTTnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=king+gustasp+turkestan&source=bl&ots=WAFeQO604n&sig=2j7Mjanqf9W1pTU6G8-pkRjmqUo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RNGWUKe_JJOA0AH4moHwCQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=-QdFAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA174&dq=turkey+zoroaster&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jc6WUImLFKq00AHBgoHwCQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=turkey%20zoroaster&f=false. Has anyone else stumbled upon this information? Also, the sources indicate that he was in fact the ruler of this area during the birth of Zoroaster. Any assistance on this would be most helpful. Apologies, Page 173 is a mention of Darius I being Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan.
Twillisjr (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no reason to think the two of them are connected in any way. none of these sources provide any rationale for identifying the two, except that both are meant to be alive at the time of Zoroaster - but no one has the slightest clue when Zoroaster lived (It ought really be earlier than Darius). Isaac Newton's forays into chronology are occultist rather than historical. I've taken the references out of the article. Furius (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darius I = Emperor Gustasp of Turkistan  

message: As the individual who "voted" to have the name of the article changed to "Darius I" months ago, never bothered presenting any facts/sources, Darius' title is from (Old Persian transliteration) Dârayavaush : xshâyathiya : vazraka, "Darius the Great (King)" which is copied to dozens of translations carved in stone from Persia to Greece as well as Egypt, dating from circa 500 BC including translations from Old Persian to Babylonian, Aramaic, Elamite, Ancient Egyptian, Greek etc.  Not to mention that it was inherited by all the Achaemenid dynasty heirs as well as copied by Alexander. 
I belive this closes the discussion and all we need is an admin to move the article as I tried moving the article with editor access and it reports a conflict with another page which contains the Redirect tag.Janus945 (talk)
:The most recent consensus discussion, which was closed by an admin, appears to support the current title.  If you disagree with that result, you should follow the process outlined at WP:Requested moves to establish if a new consensus exists to support the move you want to have implemented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what admin and what discussion you are referring to. There has long been consensus on restoring the name of the article as no one had any argument against the facts that were presented in discussion. The article name should not have been changed in the first place without valid reasons; They have had over 1 year to counter the hundreds of available sources which makes this restoration much overdue.Janus945 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? The one above with the section heading "Requested move: Darius the Great → Darius I". If you continue to edit war on this you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving article back to "Darius the Great" 

message: * :Darius I →  – The proper title for this article was Darius the Great as that is the historical name for the subject; this has been proven repeatedly in the past. The editor that originated the removal of "the great" from the article name has no knowledge of this topic - he simply started a vote and had his friends to vote in favor of the name change. My understanding here is that Wikipedia is not a democracy; it works on sources - and sources there are many!  Klax44 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: - move requests are for non-controversial name changes for after consensus for the change has been reached.  At this time, consensus appears to be opposed to this move. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you examined the discussion before passing a decision on it. There was no "consensus". There was a "vote" by a bunch of people that didn't know what is really being discussed. Wikipedia article contents are based on SOURCES not votes!! Requesting some attention to detail hereKlax44 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  move request 

message: * :Darius I →  – The proper title for this article was Darius the Great as that is the historical name for the subject; this has been proven repeatedly in the past. The editor Kaufner that originated the removal of "the great" from the article name has no knowledge of this topic or history in general - he simply started a vote and had his friends vote in favor of the name change. My understanding here is that Wikipedia is not a democracy; it works on sources - and sources there are many!Klax44 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia works on consensus, based on the community interpretation of sources. Your personal opinion about that established consensus is irrelevant, the consensus clearly exists. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  move request II 

message: I am correctly and authentically expressing what the world was like during the time of Darius I. YinJiao10 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since your only other edits are at Hongwu Emperor I have no idea what you mean. You haven't said anything about Darius I. Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: World at the time of Darius I

message: The introduction ends with this sentence: "Darius is mentioned in the Biblical books of Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, and Ezra–Nehemiah."
This is incorrect. The Darius in Daniel is NOT Darius I (Darius the Great). There's considerable dispute as to who exactly the Darius mentioned there actually is. I don't have a lot of academic sources (a few years ago I was just trying to trace Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings, but I've lost my notes). It is very very clear the Darius in the book of Daniel is not mentioned anywhere else. http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/belshazzar_darius_mede.htm   http://www.truthnet.org/Daniel/Chapter6/
It looks like the Book of Daniel page needs to be fixed too. I'm sorry that I can't do this right now. I'm too busy and would need to do a lot of research, but I'm happy to bring this error to the attention of my gifted fellow editors so that you can fix it. 
Lehasa (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a template to the top of the article making this clear and linking to Darius the Mede, the Darius in Daniel. Thanks for pointing this out. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much for doing that! Lehasa (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! Doug Weller talk 13:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darius I versus the person in Daniel 

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

message: It is written in text "...was the third king of the Persian Achaemenid Empire"
Well that is kinda confusing. "King of Empire". Shouldn't it be "Emperor of the Empire"?
Does English language even has the term for that which is above Kingdom, but not "Roman Empire", rather some other Empire....? Aryanprince (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't care about language problems I'm afraid, we only care about what most English language reliable sources call him. But I think you mean Shah, not Shar.Doug Weller talk 16:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: "Based on historical demographic estimates, Darius I ruled over approximately 50 million people, or at least 44% of the world's population."
The source for this claim is an unimpressive blog and it needs better verification or to be removed. Does anyone seriously think 44% of the world's population lived in the greater Middle East sans Arabia, while the rest of Africa, Europe, Russia, India, China, southeast Asia, the Pacific Island and the entire Western Hemisphere contained only 56% of the world's population? --The Vital One (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That figure was added August 2016. Sure, it needs a better source, eg The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History 1 Mar 2012. Or this which says "Darius thus ruled an empire stretching from Libya to the Crimea, from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf, and from the Aegean Sea to the Indus River, with a population estimated at 50 million people." Doug Weller talk 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 million people is believable, but 44% of everyone on Earth lived in the greater Middle East alone? --The Vital One (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

text: I've asked User:TompaDompa to comment. Doug Weller talk 11:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what makes me especially qualified to weigh in on this, but I agree with 80.200.136.88 that it should be removed; Guinness is clearly not a WP:Reliable source in this instance. I'd also like to point out that we cannot use one source for the population of the Achaemenid Empire and another source for the world population at the time, as doing so is textbook WP:Synthesis. TompaDompa (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't dream of using Guiness for anything that should have an academic source. I really don't care. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  44%? 

message: Believing in Ahura Mazda doesn't necessarily make you Zoroastrian, he was a god in ancient (Indo-)Iranian paganism/polytheism as well. Encyclopædia Iranica  has a pretty good say on this;
"There is no consensus among scholars over the question whether the early great kings (Cyrus II The Great, Darius I The Great, Xerxes) were influenced by some form of Zarathuštrianism. They certainly believed in the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazdā (OPers. Auramazdāh-) and in the dichotomy of ahura- and daiva-. Beyond that, however, all is speculation. Neither the Achaemenids themselves nor Herodotus mention Zarathustra, and Gathic quotations, which some see in the inscriptions (Skjærvø, 1999) may merely reflect phrases common to the shared (Indo-)Iranian poetic diction."
--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct in your first assertion and I think the relevant texts should read Zoroastrian or Mazdaic. However I encourage you to read more on this topic before making edits because Zoroastrianism and Mazdaism are not "polytheism" as you suggested either, but of course the concepts are considered pagan by Abrahamic religions. regards Xoltron (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop speaking to others in a patronizing way - do your own research instead. Zoroastrian was clearly polytheistic in nature back then. And no, 'Mazdaic' is far from WP:COMMON NAME, not to mention that it is disputed if he was even Zoroastrian per the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The religion of Darius 

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

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

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

message: I'm no Darius expert, but I can count. Multiple places in the article state Born 550 BCE, Died 486 BCE. That suggests 136 years old at death. But the article ALSO states age 64 years at death. In my opinion, the latter is the more reasonable number, unless Darius really was one of the Biblical prophets. But my real point here is that the dates of birth, death, and everything in between are suspect if whoever did them can't count up or down using the conventional BCE timescale. The dates need to be reworked. Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Born 550 BCE, Died 486 BCE. That suggests 136 years old at death." Apparently, you can't count. 550-486=64. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check the Dates!! 

message: When I was looking up Darius for a History assignment, I could only find a very vague "illness" as his cause of death listed on  . Obviously I was quite frustrated but added "illness" as his death on to the wiki page but still I believe it would benefit us, students, and the people who ctrl c+ctrl v wikipedia if we know the cause of his death.
I'm begging for answers!
~Arot Arotparaarms (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Darius' Cause of Death? 

message: Darius the Great isn't mentioned in the Book of Daniel, Darius the Mede is. The problem with Darius the Mede is that he did not exist. So stop adding the Book of Daniel to this article.
Bottom line: there is no Darius the Great in the Book of Daniel, and Wikipedia won't pretend there is. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Daniel