Talk:Darius the Mede

SOURCE NOTICE: The source of this page came from the Book of Daniel#Darius the Mede. It was moved on 00:09, 26 September 2011 and pasted onto this page on 00:20, 26 September 2011. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC) Reply

I flagged the section on historicity as possibly containing original research. My concern centers around the statement, "These references show that in antiquity there was a remembrance of a ruler of Persia or Media named Darius who preceded Darius the Great, and this remembrance was outside of and independent of the book of Daniel. However, almost all recent commentators on the book of Daniel either choose to ignore these ancient sources that name a king Darius before Darius I Hystaspes, or they are not aware of them, incorrectly saying instead that Daniel’s Darius the Mede is not found in any ancient source except the book of Daniel or writings derived from it." My experience has been that professional historians rarely "choose to ignore" ancient sources, and the whole of the first three paragraphs, though interesting, doesn't seem to track well with my understanding of how historians work. This is my first edit, and I hope I have followed proper protocol. Please let me know if I screwed up! Frederick Jacob Kohn (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Reply

You were quite right. I've drastically rewritten the article to make it more representative of the mainstream opinion.PiCo (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

This has all the appearance of censorship, not proper historical reporting. Were Keil, Zockler, and the other authorities cited for the references to Darius in Berossus and Harpocration not proper scholars? Are Donald Wiseman and William Shea not proper scholars? Wiseman was one of the most respected Assyriologists of recent times. Are not the references to a Darius, contemporary of Cyrus the Great, truly independent of any mention in the Book of Daniel? If not, it is the duty of historians to show that these references are dependent somehow on the book of Daniel, not just delete in this arbitrary way these ancient sources.

It is also not a sign of sound scholarship to ignore as irrelevant the thousands of scholars who do not agree with the late-date origin of Daniel that PiCo tries to represent as the position of 'all scholarship'. The Evangelical Theological Society has over 4,000 members. Almost all of them have advanced degrees in some field relaged to Biblical study, and I would say that most of them have some teaching position. Virtually none of them hold to the view that the book of Daniel is a fraud. To do so, they would have to deny the statement of faith necessary to join the society. Yet I repeatedly find on Wikipedia statements that ignore the sound scholarship that is published by these scholars, and which is found abundantly in journals and scholarly books.

The censorship that does not want any contrary opinion to be called scholarship should be recognized for what it is. The references to a Darius who was a king and who was contemporaneous with Cyrus the Great (and who was not Darius Hystaspes) should be restored. Sound scholarship that differs with what PiCo thinks should not be censored because it cannot be explained by Collins or Newsom or similar writers. Chronic2 (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

One of the problems I saw with the article as it was was that it was simply too long - we have to bear in mind that we're writing for readers, not for ourselves. Nevertheless, another problem was that it ignored mainstream scholarship and gave overwhelming support to a tiny minority position, namely that Daniel was a real person and that the Book of Daniel is a historical record is history, and likewise Darius the Mede is historical. The opinions of Wiseman and Shea on this subject are minority opinions, whatever their reputation overall; see, for example, Collins' survey of the modern consensus in his 1984 book (first few pages). Nor can we use Classical authors like Harpocration as reliable sources - that would be RS. Still, I thank you for your courteous post here, and look forward to a dialogue. PiCo (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

By the way, the charge is not that the Book of Daniel is a fraud (your words above), but that it was never intended as history. It was written to encourage Jewsc suffering oppression at a certain time in their history, with a promise that their God would stand by them. The stories in chapters 1-6 are each about God standing by Daniel and his companions in situations of oppression. Please don't accuse me of hating the bible - I don't. PiCo (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

"Fraud: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting" Webster’s 9th. This is exactly what an alleged 2nd century pseudo-Daniel would be doing. Particularly condemned in the Bible are those who pretended they were speaking the word of God when God had not sent them.

You write that there is no historical mention of Daniel’s Darius the Mede—I presume you mean outside the book of Daniel and in works derived from it. Collins makes this statement, as do many others. But I have not seen anywhere in Collins that he comes to grips with the references to a Darius who preceded Darius I Hystaspes in Harpocration and, separately, in Berossus. I read once in Collins where he mentioned Harpocration but he merely used dismissive language without any explanation of why Harpocration made this reference. There is no doubt that these references to an earlier Darius present a real problem to Collin’s viewpoint, but they are in harmony with the viewpoint of conservative scholarship that Collins tries to marginalize.

Can you cite any reference in Collins or any other writer (among those who think Daniel is a pious fraud) who explains the references to Darius in Berossus and Harpocration? "The Mede", of course, was never a part of his name, any more than "the Persian" was a part of Cyrus’s name. Even Daniel only refers to him in this way twice out of eight namings, in order to stress his nationality. Citing such an explanation of these ancient references to a Darius who was contemporaneous with Cyrus the Great would be the kind of information that a general reader who looks up "Darius the Mede" would want to know. Omitting altogether the references because Collins and others cannot explain them is not a straightforward approach.

So my question is: where in the so-called mainstream writing on the book of Daniel is there an adequate explanation of the Harpocration and Berossus references? Awaiting your reply, Chronic2 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

The definitive book is said to be H.H. Rowley's "Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel", published in 1935. It's not available online and I haven't read it so don't know if he mentions Harpocration and Berossus. But I think the fastest way to find out the answer to your question is to ask an academic specialist - simply email someone and ask. Otherwise you'll be spending hours in a library. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

On pp. 45-46, Rowley notes Hengstenberg’s citation of Harpocration. He refers to the "late origin" of Harpocration, but this misses the point. As an official at the Library of Alexandria, he had access to the greatest depository of learning in the ancient world, including texts from centuries before his own time. Why would he just invent a Darius before Hystaspes if he did not have a valid source?

Rowley’s treatment of the reference to Daniel in Berossus is no better. He says, "It might just as well have been Darius Hystaspes." This does no justice to the quote from Berossus. The mention of Darius is in a paragraph that deals with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus in 539 BC. Further, Nabonidus was between 65 and 70 when he usurped the throne in 556 BC (Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus 231), so if still alive (very unlikely) he would be between 99 and 104 years old when Darius Hystaspes came to the throne. Rowley does not deal with these substantive issues, nor, as far as I have read, do any of the writers who have followed in his steps. These would be valid items to present on the article page if there will be a fair playing field.Chronic2 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

I've added on the historical background of the fall of Babylon and the relevant passages in Daniel. Tomorrow I'll add a new section on attempts to find a real-life original for Darius the Mede.PiCo (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

In the article, you have replaced well-documented references to ancient sources that mention a king Darius before the time of Darius Hystaspes with the statement "He is not known to history." You apparently thought that what I supplied in this regard was not worthy of being preserved, but I can’t believe I’m such a bad writer that you failed to understand the whole issue. You say that you’re going to rewrite what was already there by other editors regarding attempts to identify Daniel’s Darius. They apparently are in the same boat with me regarding the worthiness of what we wrote. Are you also going to replace your "not known" statement with your own version of the Harpocration and Berossus evidence? You’ll have to do a better job that Rowley or Collins to be credible to a critical historian such as myself.Chronic2 (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

What you're doing is original research. Wikipedia isn't a learned journal, it's a popular encyclopedia where people come to find the current scholarly consensus if one exists, or otherwise the major opinions. I have no idea what modern scholars make of Harpocration and Berossus, but I don't need to; all I need is to find the current weight of opinion and report it. For what it's worth, I might point out that Harpocration doesn't say there was a king named Darius before Darius the Great; what he says is that the daric was named not after Darius but "an earlier king." I've seen a comment in a scholarly source to the effect that the word daric is of unknown origin and need not come from a personal name Darius at all, since dara was a Persian word meaning "king" - hence, "royal money", the earlier king being Cyrus, who coined the first royal gold coins. But this is beside the point: if you want to argue your idea, you should write an article for a learned journal, but Wiki isn't the place. Anyway, see what I write about the various proposals for explaining Darius the Mede - I think a section on that is needed.121.127.209.241 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm the one who doesn't understand your sentences. You say "Harpocration doesn't say there was a king named Darius before Darius the Great" and then in the same sentence you say that "the daric was not named after Darius [Hystaspes] but after "an earlier king'". ????? Do you realize what you wrote? Also, yes there are other things said about the daric, but that does not somehow invalidate what Harpocration says.

But I see what you're trying to do. By saying that what I have brought up is 'original research' you will feel justified in deleting all evidence from Harpocration and Berossus. But it is not original research; it is, in the first place, in the writings of Hengstenberg, Keil, Zockler and others. It is ignored by the scholars whose opinion you want to establish as the only authorities for only one reason: these data from Harpocration and Berossus are incompatible with their basic theory of the second century origin of the book of Daniel. Why don't they offer an explanation of where Harpocration and Berossus got their information, and then show why those two ancient authors were wrong? That would be a proper historical approach. But they (Rowley and Collins) have no proper historical treatment. I know that if I were to say "Scholars in the tradition of Rowley and Collins were aware that there are ancient references to a king Darius before Darius and Hystaspes. Yet they have not offered any explanation of why these ancient authors were misled into believing there was such a king." -- If I said such a thing it would not be opinion, it would be fact. But I know you would delete it.

The other ploy is to marginalize every opinion that is not consistent with the one you hold as saying they are not "mainstream". What does "mainstream" mean? I mentioned above that there are more than 4,000 degreed scholars in the Evangelical Theological Society who do not hold the opinion you regard as mainstream. Most of these have advanced degrees; many if not most of them are published authors. If by 'mainstream' you mean the position on the authorship of the Bible held by 'mainstream' Christian denominations, then I agree; the 'mainstream' denominations agree with your position. The 'mainstream' denominations are also the dying denominations. There are thousands of Christian teachers, and hundreds of Christian colleges and seminaries around the world who are not your 'mainstream'. It is the viewpoint of these people, (for example, the millions of evangelical Christians in China) whose views you are trying to marginalize.

You may say that bringing these things up has no purpose here, but it does. Your continue appeal is to what is 'mainstream' or to what 'the majority of modern scholarship' believes, and everything else is marginalized. If you look at Christian beliefs around the world, your position is that of the dying churches of a dying Christianity. The other 'mainstream', that of growing churches and growing Christianity, has thousands of able scholars who hold to a 6th century BC origin of the Book of Daniel. When you only quote people like Rowley or Collins, you are not presenting a fair picture to the people who come to Wikipedia not to find just what a certain group of scholars say, but what all qualified scholars say.

Original research? If I say "there was an eclipse of the moon on September 27 2015", that is not original research. It is a fact. If I say "Berossus wrote of a king Darius, contemporary of Cyrus the Great" that is not not original research, it is a fact. Granted, it needs explanation: where is this quote found? What is its context? Has it been noticed anywhere in the literature? Cannot the answer to those questions be stated -- factual answers -- without being involved in original research? But even as I said, the discussion of them is not original with me. It seems you will use any method you can to eliminate any discussion of these historical facts. I do not find that in the best interest of Wikipedia readers. Of course, if these historical facts about Harpocration and Berossus were put in, you would be free to explain why they are not to be trusted, but do so by quoting someone who gives a good reason for their rejection. Rowley and Collins haven't been able to do this. . . . . You will probably prevail, event though I think to most fair-minded observers your 'original research' plea is just a ploy to censor the presentation of well-documented ancient evidence against a view that is definitely popular in the authors you read and whom you want to present as the only legitimate authorities in this area. I see that you are carrying on this campaign of marginalizing all beliefs but the ones you hold on other pages of Wikipedia also.Chronic2 (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

If you want to know why Collins and others don't mention Harpocration and Berossus, look them up in Rowley, but don't ask me because I don't know. But as the OP says, serious scholars and historians don't deliberately ignore significant information.

Original research is always a difficult one, but to me what you wrote reads like OR. You might like to take it up with whoever on Wiki handles these things, just to settle both our minds. (Nothing hostile there on my part, I think you're very courteous and remarkably self-controlled). But the re-write I've done is based on extensive reading of mainstream sources, and I think it does what Wiki articles are meant to do - give the reader an overview of the balance of scholarly opinion. (Where do your 4,000 conservative scholars fit in? Well, do they outweigh people like Collins, Seow, and the other sources I use?) Anyway, I'm now working on a section on the conservative view.PiCo (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

Rather odd that this thread is titled after Frederick Kohn, who has really taken no part in it. That aside ... I've now finished editing. Chronic2, I've tried to be even-handed, especially in the last section. I'll stand aside now and let you do some editing of your own. You've been very patient and very courteous.PiCo (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

I am coming late to this discussion, but I would not assume Harpocration and his Alexandrian sources were necessarily independent of the Book of Daniel. Compare Manetho (3rd century BC), one of our primary sources on Ancient Egyptian history. If the surviving summaries of his work are factual, Manetho thought that Moses was a historical figure and apparently identified him with Osarseph. Suggesting that Alexandrian scholars had access to Jewish sources even before the Septuagint was written. And the Septuagint does include the Book of Daniel, allowing anyone with access to it to write about Darius the Mede.

As for Berossus, unfortunately his work is lost. What we have are second-hand accounts by Jewish and Christian writers such as Josephus, Eusebius, Hesychius of Alexandria, and Agathias. Any error in textual transmission could have attributed to Berossus works by other writers. Dimadick (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Reply

The reference to Moses in Manetho is not original - or so most scholars believe. PiCo (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Reply

If I write, "Josephus speaks of a King Croesus who was contemporaneous with Cyrus the Great", is it original research?

If I write "Berossus speaks of a King Darius who was contemporaneous with Cyrus the Great", is it original research?

The wikipedia guidelines on original research are here. The "nutshell" says: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Therefore if you said those things the statements would need: to be attributable (they are, of course - so no actual attribution is needed unless requested); to avoid new analysis or synthesis (they do); and avoid conclusions not clearly stated in the sources (depends what the sources say, but I imagine these statements would pass). So, apparently not OR. BUT, as they stand, they're unsourced, unless you're proposing Josephus and Berossus as your sources. That's something I'd object to - Wikipedia avoids primary sources, and relies on modern secondary sources. PiCo (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

The cautions against Original Research in Wikipedia are well taken. However I take issue with what you then added as if it is Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia avoids primary sources, and relies on modern secondary sources." In contrast to what you say, Wikipedia everywhere refers to primary sources. It would not be a credible encyclopedic resource if it did not.

I am a graduate of Reed College, which is also the alma mater of Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia. About the first thing we were taught regarding research was go to original sources, not secondary sources, and whenever possible in the original language. That is a fundamental rule not just for historians. I see you do this yourself. As an example, in the section "The Medes and the fall of Babylon" of the current article, you write, "The Babylonians were swiftly overrun. On 10 October 539 Cyrus won a battle at Opis, a little north of Babylon, the city of Sippar fell without opposition, and on 12 October Ugbaru, governor of the district of Gutium and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without a battle" (Babylonian Chronicle)".

These statements are taken from primary sources, and they are very properly stated because anyone who cares to can look up the primary sources and verify them. They do not need to be filtered through a secondary source. I don’t think any of the moderators will put in a "citation needed". I contrast this favorable treatment you will receive with what I got when I entered several statements in the Cyaxares II article that are clearly present in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, but which Jeffro77 went through and liberally sprinkled "citation needed" as if the user couldn’t read Xenophon. At least one of Jeffro’s "citation needed" flags was put in the middle of a sentence that had the reference at the end.

I know that your belief is that the only legitimate interpretation of the Darius the Mede question, and the whole book of Daniel, is that given by Rowley and Collins, while the views of conservative scholars should be marginalized. If all a person reads is what agrees with his/her viewpoint, then such a conclusion will follow. I regard Steinmann’s recent commentary on the book of Daniel in the Concordia series as much better than anything written by Collins or Newsom. Steinmann has authored Hebrew and Aramaic grammars, which neither Collins nor Newsom have done. You are trying to present Collins as the accepted view of modern scholarship. Which of the many conservative writers on Daniel, or on issues related to Daniel, have you read before today? Chronic2 (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

What you say regarding primary sources is true for scholarly articles, but not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does discourage the use of primary sources. The policy page Identifying Reliable Sources says this: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." In the next paragraph it says this: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." So that note I made about the Babylonian Chronicle isn't sourced from the BC itself, but from the secondary source noted at the end of the sentence (Briand I think).

I think, as a genuine scholar, you'd be better off writing for scholarly publication. Wikipedia is writ in water, nothing lasts, and nothing is to be trusted. Nothing at all. PiCo (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC) Reply

I see that I've been mentioned here. It is entirely reasonable to request citations for something that is only vaguely attributed to a primary source. Readers are not expected to read the entire collective works of an ancient historian to confirm the statement made, so of course the examples given at the start of this section would not be suitable on their own without a more specific reference. Further, while it is suitable to provide what is stated in a primary source, interpretation of primary sources must be based on secondary sources. As such, my requests for citations at Cyaxares II were entirely valid.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Reply

Evert Wandelaar, I don't see what point you're trying to make with this edit - the article mentions Darius I, and you want to put in something about Darius II. What's the relevance?PiCo (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

PiCo,

I guess I note the Darius in the book of Ezra is according to the Elephantine papiry, considering the same two names and positions mentioned there, Darius II.

The Darius of the book of Ezra uses the king's title which was only introduced by Xerxes as well (after he had melted down the golden Bel statue Xerxes stopped using the title 'king of the Babylonians').

So the statement in the article: Darius in the book of Ezra = Darius I does not seem to be in line with existing original research.

Evert Wandelaar (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

@Evert Wandelaar: Where does the article mention Ezra? Doug Weller talk 17:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

@Doug Weller:

"his role in the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem" does suggest it. If it means something else perhaps it should be explained? Evert Wandelaar (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

The Darius who had a role in the rebuilding of the Temple was Darius I.PiCo (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

For what it's worth, apparently it has been argued that this is incorrect and the rebuilding was done under Darius II This is still not relevant to our article, which is about the sources the aurgot of Daniel used to construct his fictional Darius the Mede. PiCo (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

@PiCo:

So we disagree about this, however your opinion is already mentioned in the article. I think for balance I should be allowed to mention a bit of the contra research as well?Evert Wandelaar (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

Only a few sources argue that Darius II built the Second Temple, but it's troublesome just trying to prove the reliability of the Hebrew Bible. PiCo is right though, the content you're trying to add isn't really relevant. Perhaps adding this to the article Darius II and the Second Temple, makes more sense. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Reply

It seems slightly biased to posit the notion of identifying 'Darius the Mede' with any real person in history as a view of 'conservatives'. With the exception that 'Darius the Mede' is referred to in Daniel as 'king', Gubaru (the General who conquered Babylon) fits as a ruler in Babylon between Belshazzar and Cyrus. He is rejected on the basis that he wasn't actually king, but Belshazzar is also called a 'king' in Daniel though he wasn't actually king either. It therefore seems inconsistent to say that 'Darius the Mede' must be 'entirely fictional' on the basis that he couldn't actually be a king. It is entirely plausible that the author of Daniel referred to the governor in Babylon as 'king' (either in error or intentionally in a generic sense of ruler similar to Belshazzar) and called him Darius either as a result of confusion or as a deliberate analogy about later Persian rulers with that name. Of course, it remains the fact that the events attributed to 'Darius the Mede' in the book of Daniel are fictionalised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Reply

Can you prove that statement? Is there any evidence that they're wrong? There's evidence that they're right, you know. 108.179.129.36 (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC) Reply

Yeah, this article is far too dismissive of identification of DtM with other historical figures. Darius could also be an alternate name of Gubaru. ~2026-54124-7 (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

That is speculation. It cannot be proven to be true or false, just that it did not get much traction in the mainstream academia.

So: while it's not altogether impossible, it isn't the mainstream academic view, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is it not possible that Daniel was talking about Darius I instead of Darius the Mede? I suggest that an alternative translation of the original languages could readily be stated as: "Daniel 11:1 United, Darius and the Medes siezed the fortified city of Babylon..." I state this because there are only seven original words but the english rendition is twelve words longer with no clarification on their source nor context. Whilst this could be considered original research does it not constitute reasonable doubt that the rtanslators may actually have got the context incorrect after more than 1000 years after the events? You see, Darius I fits the precise timeline that is required to prove the text true but we cannot rely solely upon the english value but entirely upon the original text with a margin of error allowance for language translation incompatability. Natural language does not say Queen Elizabeth the second when we refer to the oly known living queen of england whom contemporary conversations would recognise. Maybe you see my point or maybe you don't. Either way, this argument casts doubt that there was a Darius who was a mede but if you read the earlier prophecy from the forgotten dream of nebuchadnezzar you discover that the Mededs and the persians formed an allinace to take Babylon together which means Darius I could very well have been at the victory of Babylonian capture. What are your thoughts?Ashattock (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

Scholars are not bound to use English translations, you know? Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

And of course we need reliable sources making this argument. We can't make it. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Reply

Well that's a cop out on both counts in my opinion. I asked for your opinion so as to formulate an argument worth mentioning so that anyone apssing through the page might be able to make an academic note and possibly find an answer that both you and I have definitely missed. We cannot rely upon our authority or lack thereof because consensus is not truth, just an agreement of equally minded people.Ashattock (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Reply

Daniel 11:1 reads, va-ani bishnat ahat le-daryavesh hammadi amdi le-mahaziq u-le-maoz lo, meaning, "And I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood to strengthen and encourage him." Something like that. There's absolutely no way to read that verse as "United, Darius and the Medes seized the fortified city of Babylon." Among other things, we're missing "original language" words for United, fortified city, and Babylon.

But all this is beside the point. If we want the Wikipedia article to reflect "reasonable doubt" that Daniel may have been talking about Darius I, then we'd need reliable sources saying that maybe Daniel was talking about Darius the first. Otherwise, anybody who squints at Daniel 11:1 and imagines that the verse contains the terms "fortified city" and "Babylon" could just go ahead and insert their views into the article. Alephb (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Reply

Copy of Tgeorgescu's comment on my talk page, transferred to this one for simplicity.

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Darius the Mede, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

The original Hebrew text mentions Koresh Daniel 10:1, not Cyrus therefore.

When identifying him as Cyrus the Great this should be proven first before stating it as fact. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

We're not a research institute, we're not in the business of proving anything, we simply cite reliable sources written by mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

G. Byrns Coleman (1990). Watson E. Mills; Roger Aubrey Bullard (eds.). Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Mercer University Press. p.198. ISBN 978-0-86554-373-7. Source is adamant: Cyrus, not Koresh. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

How about mentioning: "Koresh, often identified as Cyrus the Great <with the above reference>", this would make it clear that Cyrus the Great is not what the original text says, thus obeying the neutrality principle. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Show me your WP:SOURCES. The Bible is no WP:RS and your own analysis of it is WP:OR. Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi, eds. (2004). "Daniel". The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195297515. In the third year of King Cyrus of Persia, an oracle was revealed to Daniel, who was called Belteshazzar. That oracle was true, <·but it was a great task to understand the prophecy; understanding came to him through the vision:<{{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) This source simply translates as Cyrus (p. 1641, 1655). The word "Koresh" does not appear in the book. We don't do WP:GEVAL. So, if you get past WP:OR, you're likely to get stuck at WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. See WP:NOTNEUTRAL: we don't treat all opinions equally. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

Koresh is what the Hebrew text says, that is why literally translations of the Bible like the King James Version and the Complete Jewish Bible tranlate Koresh.

Anything more then this is an opinion, especially when one extra step is done when not only the name is changed, but also the identification is done, mentioning he is Cyrus the Great.

This is far from what the Bible text says. Therefore it should be noted in the article as I suggested earlier.

Without this the article simply is slanted, meaning it is not neutral anymore. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

KJV also translates as Cyrus. Anyway, WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call, not me or you. As far as I know, Cyrus is verifiable. I think you should WP:CITE WP:SCHOLARSHIP which explicitly says that Koresh isn't Cyrus. The Jewish Study Bible doesn't even consider this possibility. Susanne C Monahan; William Mirola; Michael Emerson (16 September 2015). Sociology of Religion: A Reader. Routledge. p.314. ISBN 978-1-317-34400-1. "Koresh," the name that David had legally adopted for himself, is Hebrew for Cyrus, the name of the ancient Persian king who destroyed the Babylonian empire in 539 B.C.E. With this quote I think the matter is settled: Koresh is the Hebrew name for Cyrus. The idea that Koresh isn't Cyrus is a non-view, i.e. it is WP:CB for the academia, see WP:CHOPSY. Wikipedia isn't a repository for such crackpot ideas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

The KJV wasn't a good example, the Luther translation is.

Calling Luther and the Jewish translators of the Complete Jewish Bible crackpots is quite bizarre. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

I do not call them crackpots for the mere reason that they have not denied that Koresh means Cyrus. That's the difference. Either find a WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SECONDARY WP:SOURCE which says that Koresh does not mean Cyrus, or leave this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

I understand you now accept the Hebrew text actually mentions Koresh, not Cyrus therefore.

Cyrus is an interpretation, especially when you insist this Cyrus actually is Cyrus the Great.

Why not mention this in the article. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

No, Cyrus is not an "interpretation", it is a translation. Simply put, Koresh in Hebrew means Cyrus in English. As for mentioning it in the article, you have shown no WP:RS which says that Koresh does not mean Cyrus. Either WP:CITE a WP:SOURCE that Koresh means something else than Cyrus, or be gone from this talk page. Your behavior is typical failure or refusal to "get the point". We don't give a rat's arse for the opinion "Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Koresh is." All we care is about citing verifiable information from reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia is about, it isn't about your views or mine. It's about WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

Hello Tgeorgescu,

These are the Hebrew consonants mentioned in the Bible: K R SH, with sonants added: Koresh.

The article mentiones Cyrus -> the Great <-, which is not the same at all.

It should be mentioned this is an interpretation 94.210.116.247 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

As I have stated: that's WP:OR, find a WP:SOURCE or be gone from here. We don't give a rat's arse about your opinion (or about mine, for that matter). We only care about WP:SOURCES. You are engaging in tendentious editing, since you fail to get the point that it is inane to claim "Cyrus isn't mentioned in the book of Daniel, Cyrus is." See also WP:RGW. Do you consider yourself greater than Byrns Coleman, Mills, Bullard, Berlin, Brettler, Wills, Monahan, Mirola, and Emerson? Well, then Wikipedia is not the place for propagating your views, see WP:NOT#OR and WP:SOAP. To rephrase it: we're not interested in whether what you say is true or false, we're interested if it has been published in WP:RS, that's what WP:OR is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

This entire conversation is bizarre and should never have taken place. All the sources cited for our article use Cyrus the Great and/or Cyrus. If the OP has a problem he should take it up with them.PiCo (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Reply

The source is here. Seow does say there was a Daniel in Canaanite lore, one who worshipped El, chief of the Canaanite pantheon. He carefully doesn't say he was historical. He goes into detail about the historical discrepancies, but says that "the value of the book of Daniel as scripture does not depend on the historical accuracy of the props on its literary stage, but on the power of its theological message. The authority of the book as scripture lies in its power to inspire and shape the community of faith. The book of Daniel functions as scripture inasmuch as it instructs the community as to the ways of God and the w'ays that community members should conduct themselves before the sovereign God. The presence of historical discrepancies by no means suggests that the work is totally devoid of historical information. Indeed, in contrast to the discrepancies in details from the period of its historical setting in the sixth and fifth centuries, the book is remarkably precise in its allusions to certain events in the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods down to the time just before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, at the end of 164 B.C.E."

We should always attribute quotes, and we should avoid taking them out of context. We need full citations with the name of the book, author, and page number/s. Not Worldcat links. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Reply

Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, a highly dubious organization, has accredited Piedmont International University, which conferred a doctorate to George Law. I cannot find anything about his publishing house, so I assume it is WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Reply

Dear Editors,

would somebody please delete that lie from the section 'The Book of Daniel' according to which "there is no Darius known to history..." (quoted from Coleman)? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius, will you? The problem is with someone thinking that he is writing science and claiming such a thing (Coleman). (What a shame on scientists, contradictions within the same article... I am going to show you why I am sure Wikipedia deserves better "science.")

Every scientist today knows that the person in question received power in 539 BC, but this does not necessarily make him a Persian by any logic. By just 3 more clicks here on Wikipedia, I am able to show who this 'Darius' was:

1> Belshazzar -- written: "Ugbaru, governor of the district of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus entered Babylon..." (Babylonian Chronicle)—this is... the same individual as Gobryas, a Babylonian provincial governor who switched to the Persian side, mentioned by the Greek historian Xenophon.
2> Gutium -- please read: Assyrian royal annals use the term Gutians in relation to populations known to have been Medes or Mannaeans. -- So, the name "Gobrias" is 'Darius' in Daniel; no question.
Also, please consult 3> Astyages (found as the father of this 'Darius' linked in the article "Ahuasuerus"), and you will ascertain that it could be the form of several names, 'Xerxes' in Esther, and Ishtuvegu according to Josephus (neither SEEMS very similar), and--no wonder--he was a Mede, in that same perfect time when (and exactly in the way) he could be the father of Gobrias.

This was really a cca. 20-minute research by the help of Wikipedia; the time to put it in writing was longer. Kindly consider it, take action, and believe that Wikipedia does not need references that quote lies. Yes, I am stricken to witness that authors of pseudo-scientific content would us swallow that history cannot be proven. Wikipedia must be free from these. Respectfully,

K. Gergely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.119.200 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Reply  

No, you are simply unable to show here who he was, because WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP is unable to securely link Darius the Mede to any known historical person, and the same scholarship considers him mythical. WP:RS/AC trumps WP:OR many, many times over. About the recent deletion: the authenticity of the Book of Daniel is from Ivy Plus to US state universities not "being discredited", but outright dead in the water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Reply

Does Encyclopedia Britannica seek to pass Darius the Mede for a genuine historical person? Does Encyclopedia Iranica? Does Encyclopedia Judaica? So neither should we. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Reply

Why are you reviving the discussion thread? Dimadick (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Reply

It was a late conclusion. Anyway, the question is moot, both in academia and in Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Reply

@Dimadick: Well, well, well, speaking of the wolf was I. You never know when a WP:FIXBIAS editor pops up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Reply

Thank you heartily, Dutch editor, that the people in charge can see my sentences in their right place! (Forgive me if my edits are not professional, please.) I am interested in facts, not opinions. So I assume with strong reason that people using Wikipedia are looking for facts ordered so that it makes sense to be called (some) information. If this is the aim of Wikipedia, why are you dwelling on side-issues? A reader wants Wikipedia to be presenting facts, as I showed you all it does many times. I do not believe that Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia can have exactly the same purpose as you imagine it. Opinions only arise on the basis of facts. So why would an WP:Editor not show facts for what they are? Quoting such 'fundamentalists' as Coleman, as you called some statement-centred radicals (your wording might illustrate their error), works for reducing the gravity of facts. If Wikipedia must change in order to better highlight facts, it is going to. You may be part of it, and I. In this hope, K. Gergely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.122.121 (talk • contribs)

As I told before: the idea of a real-historical DtM is dead in the water in every bona fide history faculty. If it is not dead in the water in a certain faculty, that faculty confers Mickey Mouse degrees. Your understanding of what I wrote is subpar. Also, "free" from "free encyclopedia" does not mean you're welcome to write whatever you please, see WP:NOR and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Reply

Someone undid my very short edit and then berated me on my talk page. I was not trolling, I just made a small correction in wording — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimboBuckets99 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Reply