Talk:Ahasuerus/Archive 1

Archive 1

copy-edit complete

There is much text in this article, but other than one small change it reads fine, so I have removed the copy-edit tag. JenLouise 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

"the name of a king of Persia in the Book of Ezra, considred identical to that of the book of Esther.' Can someone make better sense of this? --Wetman 08:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Other than the typo, what part are you having trouble understanding? Kuratowski's Ghost 08:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the name given in most of the cited sentences of the book of Ezra is Artaxerxes in Hebrew as well. Ahasuerus is mentioned only 1 time in Ezra 4:6 and not elsewhere. If Ezra 4:6 was translated elsewhere by some as Artaxerxes it is certainly an error. He Ahasuerus is only mentioned there as one of the kings that was complained to by non-Jews. He is clearly not Artaxerxes mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.[[Mewnews 21:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)]]

If you read everything around there, it makes it clear Ahasuerus reigned between Darius and Artaxerxes,, which for me is the real confirmation that he's Xerxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.23.208 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Considering that "Ahasuerus" is not any of the standard spellings listed at the beginning of the article (although it is sorta-kinda close to a couple of them), why is this the article title? Wouldn't it make more sense to use one of the standard ones? Perhaps the one that actually appears in the books which mention him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.161.138 (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is listed, its the very first form listed, in fact the first word of the article, the rest are phonetic spellings. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw that; what I'm suggesting is that it should actually be the title of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.161.138 (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing on the Wall

Who was it who saw the hand writing on the wall? Unfree (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He can't be Artaxerxes

Both names Ahasuerus (Ezra 4:6) and Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1) are mentioned in the book of Ezra. Why would the spelling of his name change without any explanation in the same book? It's pretty clear they're seperate kings anyway. The name Xerxes though never appears anywhere in the Bible. Also Xerxes article says not much is known about his later life. 67.40.34.117 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No one says that the name Xerxes is equivalent to Artaxerxes. You forget that Artaxerxes II also bore the name Xerxes in his inscriptions and the Artaxerxes of Ezra is Artaxerxes I not II. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And everyone looking for an identification other then Xerxes ignores that Ezra's chronology in 4:5-7 clearly places Ahasuerus between Darius and Artaxerxes. "all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Ahasuerus be merged into Xerxes I. How come nobody has tried to merge these yet? There's a link to the Xerxes page but they're still separate.. 74.96.93.174 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

Edits by Johnbod are aesthetically horrible because they leave no space between images and Wikipedia is not a gallery collection. But don't worry. The new images you added are already present in other articles. And remember per WP:ONUS burden is on YOU to gain consensus for new or disputed changes in the article, specially when it comes to images that add nothing new as far as depicted events or information.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

How they look depends entirely on the type of screen they are being viewed on. The gross misunderstanding of WP:IG is too complete to get into here. I can only suggest you actually look at the policy concerned - and WP:OWN, which seems far more relevant to me! It is obviously preferable that we have images that are of artistic significance and quality, and that we have articles on. I will re-add the two such images & remove two of the poorer images to leave the same number. You can the play around with the placement until it looks good on your screen, though please try to bear in mind it won't look like that for most readers. I'll add that your idea that there should be space around images has no backing I'm aware of in guidelines, and does not reflect normal WP practice. Most editors long ago realized that the diversity of viewing devices and user preference settings means that such fine tuning is essentially unobtainable. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a regular Windows 10 screen. I like the article has it is now. We have reached a compromise.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Deny sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Hoschander's book has been pushed by his socks farm. Besides, it is improperly cited (no page numbers). Also, citing Comestor seems like a red herring, his source is a primary religious source, too old to be considered modern historical scholarship and too late to be close to the narrated events. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Name

Explain what you mean Zhomron? It's literally the k'tiv!!!! This is the first RS I found googling: Meyer but etc. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

GordonGlottal K'tiv ≠ removing everything, including matres lectionis. The k'tiv form is אחשורוש, not אחשרש‎. It has never, in the past >2,000 years, been אחשרש‎. Mayer doesn't even support you — at no point does he mention the spelling אחשרש‎. The only time "אחשרש‎" has been used in the entire corpus of Hebrew is a variant in Esther 10:1, it's not how it was regularly spelled, either then or now. Zhomron (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)‎

That is not what "K'tiv" means. The k'tib often differs materially from the q'rei, and is by definition older (though the tradition it preserves may not always be). The q'rei isn't just a plene spelling here -- it adds a consonant! No versions of Esther older than 1000 years -ish, all of which preserve the older אחשרש even as they emend. Meyer transliterates Ăḥšawarš from the ketib in 10:1, not remotely uniquely as you'll find if you search. Your personal opinion ≠ RS. To be clear, this particular reconstruction (Ăḥšawarš) is not universally held. However, the idea that the ketib reflects a different, original pronunciation, basically is. If you favor a different reconstruction, it doesn't bother me, though others seem to add a yod, more like ܐܚܫܝܪܫ in Peshitta which should be noted. Also the Greek is wrong, while we're doing this -- no? All LXX MSS online have Artaxerxes. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC

Original research

The original research by AnthonyvanDuyn has to stop. See for more information Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Darius the Mede is a fictional character, so he did not have a real father. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE BY AnthonyvanDuyn: Tgeorgescu, You believe that that Darius the Mede is a fictional character as you were not there to verify that; granted you provided a reference as you aught which I maintained both it and your position in my edit: this is what makes wikipedia better. But if anything you actually evidenced exactly what I wrote in my edit! Furthermore I removed the existing un-referenced assertions (some of which belonged in the section "In the Book of Tobit"), which without references was "original research" which you restored! I also heavily documented the ORIGINAL sources which you have not done and rested upon a single secondary source only. For crying out loud, go read the original sources as I have extensively done. Otherwise your well meaning has become in effect astro-turfing. But thankyou for stimulating me to improve again my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: The gist is that your own analysis of WP:PRIMARY Ancient sources is not allowed. This has nothing to do with me, Wikipedia policy does not allow it. As I told you, See for more information Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. There is very clear that an editor who analyzed primary Ancient sources all by himself was banned from Wikipedia since he did not relent. If you are not a scholar, we don't listen to your own analysis. If you are a scholar, you have to publish with peer-review WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP and only then will Wikipedia will listen to you. And no, quoting your own peer-reviewed papers is extremely gauche and not allowed.

Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as "off-topic," but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by individuals, but they are "owned," in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not "force" and it's not "vandalism." It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

RESPONSE BY AnthonyvanDuyn: Tgeorgescu, LOL! "Our house, our rules"?!? As true as it is, that is also why some have called Wikipedia "an Astro-Turfer's wet dream". I do understand what you are actually saying. I just think you perfectly manifested exactly what I wrote: "Yet the individual's exact identity has been the biased debate by both those wishing to discredit[14][15] the Book of Daniel as much as those seeking to verify the validity of the same...". You ask am I a scholar, it doesn't matter if I am as I wouldn't be allowed to reference my own works as that is frowned upon with good reason: but I do have dual master degrees in the relevant fields with years of study in ancient languages, my tutors pressing me to continue with cuneiform. So now I present you with an exceptional work massively referenced to both primary (in truth secondary by nature) and commentaries by the academic world showing every position on this subject - complete with 35 references! If you undo this, you really do show that you have an agenda and want your world view to be the only one. Still find it funny that you deemed to remove my allegedly 'Original Research' and replace it with other people's unreferenced original research! What supprised me was normally things like and signs like where not put up first. My post included the previous works in respect to their authors (even you) saving where it did not belong in that section. Careful you don't put knowledge down the memory hole (illusion: 1984)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: Many of your sources are WP:FRINGE (SDA theology, not mainstream history) or dated (written before 1960). Find sources from mainstream Bible scholarship or be gone from this article. And, no, we are not interested about denominations since this isn't a theology article (it isn't an article about a theological belief or an article of faith). And you even had the balls to call us astroturfers while quoting Ellen G. White as if she were a historian. She was a preacher, not in any meaningful sense a historian, and the same applies to Kyle M. Pope from focusmagazine.org.

@Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your attempt to pass EGW and KMP for mainstream historians is beyond the pale. The outdated, fringe sources you are using have to be weeded out of Wikipedia. As any synthesis of published materials (Ancient sources) advancing your or SDA church's POV. Garbage in, garbage out, as far as all experienced Wikipedians are concerned. I mean the claim that EGW and KMP are/were historians is lying for Jesus. As it is the claim that the SDA Bible Commentary would represent mainstream history. I mean EGW showed off her historical information, copied from historians, and Adventist publishing houses are no longer covering it up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I wrote you a good reply just now but since we were both typing at the same time it seems I have lost my text.

In short, who do I appeal to? Because your behavior is that of a Publisher and not a platform. You would throw Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire down the "memory hole". But I guess you have confirmed that Wikipedia is participating in AstroTurfing by definition. PS - You need to change the title as this was never "original research", how about "Outdated Positions", "Outdated Research" or "Un-apporved Sources"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: The standard way to appeal is WP:DRN, but mind the following:

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:Then delete the article rather than maintain this charade of a platform because nothing in it is the quality of what you officially want. Get the biased Jesuit/Masonic controlled Harvard and Yale's to write your official position and drop the pretense that this is a grass roots platform, by the common men and helping the common men. You have descended into nothing more than another mainstream media publisher controlled by the same people. Astroturfers is what you are by definition making the pretense that you are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

@AnthonyvanDuyn:

A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.

... Wikipedia, as usually, prefers its narratives and its ivory tower snobbery over any serious attempt to listen to the common man ... --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

... which is of course an odd argument: Wikipedia has decided that it only listens to experts, so deviating from this rule in matters of religion would be special pleading. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:Case in point. Thankyou for making that abundantly clear.

P.S. Doesn't change my point of you need to delete the entire article as none of it is what you want... except that bit that pushes your narrative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: You have behaved as WP:RGW because you had illusions about Wikipedia which have been already debunked at WP:FREESPEECH.

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

1. I did not accuse you of Machiavelliamism (you described yourself that way)

2. I accused you of claiming to be a WIKI posing as a grass roots platform that behaved as an agendered ENCYCLOPEDIA with a narrative it wanted to tell, curated by at least mostly well meaning individuals who are now part of the main stream media.

3. You openly stated that you like any private company (e.g. Coco Cola in your own words) and therefore had the right to do so.

4. Your logo is a puzzle representing each man bringing a piece to make a WIKI, but now you won't be honest and just write it yourselves, you just delete anything you don't like through carefully designed policies that favour the agenda.

5. I boldly assert: "CHANGE YOUR NAME (as you are no longer a WIKI by your own admission) AND CHANGE YOUR LOGO!". Should be something like The 'Freepedia' or something like that.

6. During my three BA degrees and two Masters, I was never allowed to quote Wikipedia, because it was A WIKI!!! People loved Wikipedia because they knew that it wasn't the official position on everything, but because they wanted to see what other people thought and what grounds they had for that. It was kind of a limited collaborative research location. Being free certainly helped.

7. But I am glad that this little charade is over. As you said: Go ask your buddies over at Havard and Yale to write your articles so you get what you want. Go play your part so the ML Fairness engine can decide what people think and are allowed to know.

8. You said it: "Our house, our rules." Astro (nebulus, ether, space (by inference the internet) - Turf (controllable real-estate) designed to look like a grass roots movement but is actually controlled. Yes, you are AstroTurf.

Wishing you personally best wishes. I hope you find your way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

@AnthonyvanDuyn: Frankly, for me your accusations are hilarious. Here is why: at WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOR it is made crystal clear that Wikipedia isn't build upon the personal opinions of its editors, but they are always required to WP:CITE WP:Reliable sources. So, in that sense, Wikipedia never promoted WP:RANDY to the detriment of Harvard and Yale. In fact, Wikipedia has kowtowed to Harvard and Yale since it was born. Do you understand? Wikipedia does not have an option to engage in Harvard-denialism or Yale-denialism. We're not Conservapedia nor New World Encyclopedia. They deride mainstream history and mainstream science whenever it does not fit their religious prejudices. Wikipedia does not have that option. Wikipedia never was built upon the opinions of the stereotypical autochthonous American commoners. It was always based upon WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, Wikipedia never was crowdsourced epistemic anarchy. Instead it was a crowdsourced version of Britannica. In that sense, Wikipedia is Britannica 2.0, not a wiki serving as an internet forum. Our model wasn't Facebook, it was Britannica and every other hard-core scholarship-based encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: you should watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU. You might laugh at my allegation but it doesn't make it less true.

1. I have read your links WP:NOTANARCHY & WP:NOR and agree completely. But nothing I said was Original Research by both published experts and original sources complete with 35 references. Some links may be to old books, others are ancient sources. But new books on these subjects are not written every day. So until you can come up with something better, your own policies state that my references stand.

2. Nor is it fair to compare my work with WP:RANDY as an example. Nor am I disagreeing with mainstream history, but for what is an unknown in history, I represented the different opinions fairly even if they were different from my own. I repeat: nothing I said was my own or even synthisis, but published works of others. None of what I said can be classified as "lying for Jesus" as you put it.

3. The link you base your entire position on some modern scholarship is one of poorest reference I have ever seen! Have tried finding that UNNAMED 'scholarly work' so I could read it: namely "Hill, 2009, p114." Improve the link or restore my work.

4. You seem to think that just because someone is a 'preacher' that makes them unreliable? This is an article on faith to begin with and that actually makes them the relevant experts in their field.

5. But in every paper I ever had to write, a fair presentation of the opinions is academic.

6. You are the one curating what you want people to think or even have access to. My edits were fair and sufficiently academic (while openly inviting further referencing and expansion). My edits are what a reasonable person would expect to see when they came to this page looking for information.

7. Astro (nebulus, ether, space (by inference the internet) - Turf (controllable real-estate) designed to look like a grass roots movement but is actually controlled.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

You cited Ellen G. White for WP:Verifying a historical fact from the Antiquity. That is completely one of the most preposterous edits I have ever seen in a long time. And citing a mere preacher, instead of a theologian who became a Bible scholar, is completely not done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

1. Is that all you have to come back with? You are simply resting on that?!? In all that I said, that author's opinion was simply an acknowledgement that others did see things the same way; the whole case didn't not rest on it. The truth is that you find the source "questionable" because you want to and therefore want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2. Your sub article's position is predicated on an assertion from a completely unverifiable source! Namely "Hill, 2009, p114"! That is intellectual prostitution that is so bias it can't look past it's nose. The Darius the Mede page is no better and built around an author from the 1930's again saying the same thing. Your double standards can only be explained by "Our house, our rules" like a spoiled child throwing a hissy fit.

3. You still have not shown how I practiced Original Research in a single way. It just seems to be your favoured brush to paint those you wish to discredit.

4. If you want to be an encyclopidia, be one. But that includes comprehensive (not exhaustive) presentation of the subject.

5. I notice you took down the admission that the page contained original research and needed improvement.

6. I notice that you didn't actually address the points made.

7. Did you actually watch the video link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

I honestly apply the WP:RULES of this encyclopedia. This is why I lasted so long as an editor. Others were banned meanwhile due to becoming haughty (in respect to the Wikipedia community). All the information you need about WP:OR performed upon Ancient sources is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. If you read it you will see that the Wikipedia community agrees with my understanding of WP:OR. Wikipedia community kowtows to Ivy Plus. You think that Ivy Plus is a Satanic conspiracy. Here our ways part. As long as you are disdainful of Ivy Plus you are not welcome here. This is not just my personal opinion, but the opinion of the Wikipedia community. Besides, I am by far not the only editor the community has. The fact that no other editor agreed with you version should tell you something. So, whoever tells you that you are welcome here in order to bash the history taught at Ivy Plus is a fool. As for astroturfing, we have norms and values and do apply them. You values are simply incompatible with Wikipedia. You should try editing Conservapedia. E.g., one of our core values is that whatever full professors teach at Ivy Plus is highly valuable. We cannot allow you to bash our core values. The same way wherein you cannot be a member of the GOP if you promote Marxism. And the sources are, as mentioned in the article:

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Assuerus". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
• Hill, Andrew E. (2009). "Daniel-Malachi". In Longman, Tremper; Garland, David E. (eds.). The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Zondervan. ISBN 9780310590545. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

So, yeah, WP:OR is not a main concern in respect to the existing text, since it is lifted from a public domain encyclopedia. So, frankly, the accusation of intellectual prostitution is inane and bigoted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:I thankyou for your time. Similarly I thankyou for the verifiable links which I have eagerly and carefully read. Thankyou so much (I say that sincerely, but sadly with a ting of sarcasm)!

Before getting started I would first like to respond to your asertion that "You think that Ivy Plus is a Satanic conspiracy." I never said that. I more or less said that they are vastly controlled by the Jesiut/Masonic special interest groups (logically then by extension Rome). You were the one that accused them of being Satanic. Are you Protestant? But in all truth, everyone knows that the entire academic world is vastly (not exclusively) controlled by those who fund the research (as they literally own it): for the Napoleon was right: "The hand that gives is above the hand that takes."

But lets get to your references:

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia was on point for the discussion that we never had regarding In the Book of Esther. This reference did not have a bearing to the sections In the Book of Ezra or In the Book of Daniel and made no effort itself to do so. But I will have to dig out my LXX as it may actually strengthen one of my own points regarding Arguments for Xerxes I, possibly harmonizing my reference to Pulpit Commentary. Thankyou. But since this reference makes no internal claims to the subject at hand we shall dismiss it. But I would like to note that somewhat according to you, this is an outdated source and a supportive reference at best.

2. The same Catholic Encyclopedia also argues a possible case for Darius the Mede being Darius I which means I and WIKIPEDIA need a new subsection in this article entitled Arguments for Darius I (which was kind of the point of a WIKI, every man bringing their piece of the puzzle. Again thank-you for improving my edits but also for proving my point, I have added it to my backup copy of my edits. But that's right, it is an old source and out of date: execpt when you want it to say what you want. See:

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Daniel". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.

3. Meanwhile you quoted Andrew Hill out of context to say what you wanted! Hill and I were no different, infact he did exactly the same thing as I in his opening and closing lines!

a) He acknowledged that the subject of Darius the Mede was one of the historical problems of the Book of Daniel and is ultimately relegated to the yet unknown (implication awaiting another source on the subject), which does not equal FICTIONAL.

b) He acknowledges that literally "critical commentators" hold that Darius the Mede is fictitious mostly arguing (but not exclusivly) that Darius the Mede is "literary fiction appropriate to the genre". NB he did not say "most scholars" as your article references that he did, just literally critical commentators. Furthermore what is "General" is their reasoning, not their number! But I can acknowledge that there are more people who want to think that Darius the Mede is fiction as they want to discredit the bible/scripture, but their arguments are no so educated and refined as that! So we need to improve this WIKIPEDIA article statement to harmonize with his reference, so I will improve my backup edits. Genuinely thankyou!

c) Hill simply (as he did to the last group), acknowledges that the view of those attempting to harmonize with history make arguments such as, but limited to various individuals. I will improve my edits by adding him as a reference to many of my sub-section edits where he specifically gives example. Again thankyou for improving my edits and showing the wonders and purpose of the WIKI.

d) Then Andrew Hill acknowledges the category of "conservative scholars" who fall into two "two camps" identifying Darius the Mede as being the likes of Gubaru/Gobryas or Cyrus the Great. Again I need to improve my edits and add a new sub-section for Arguments for Cyrus II. Yet again showing the wonders and purpose of a WIKI and Wikipedia.

e) Finally Hill sums up my points in (c) & (d) with the statement "none of those nominated... is ever called Darius the Mede in the extant litrature from that time" (obviously thus exempting the academic discussion of Darius's other name as mentioned in Josephus' histories and thus the conversation regarding Cyaxares II). In all his published conclusion is both academic and non-commital allowing the reader on this debated subject to form their own opinions. This is a perfect example of what I tried to achieve in my edits.

4. Therefore my edits were no different from this scholarly work (from a commentary, the class of which I thought you said were "preachers" and "not historians") you claim to highly prize. Therefore I demand that you as you say "I honestly apply the WP:RULES of this encyclopedia and restore my edits. "Our house, our rules".

5. You openly twisted Andrew Hills words and referenced him to say something he did not say and refuse to acknowledge points he did make! That is not academic and is pure intellectual prostitution to service what can only be the (hopefully well meaning) bias of yourself and colleagues. But it was not justified to call me bigoted when I included and argued for everyone's position on the subject! I may have my private opinions, but what I wrote was without bias even expressing opinions that were not mine and effectively inviting the reader to form their own opinions on the subject. Furthermore I curtailed the discussion to remain on point as it related to the actual article titled Ahasuerus In the Book of Daniel and in the book of Ezra.

Therefore Wikipedia's article should cover what this recent and scholarly work covered as my edits did. Enforce your own rules, as there is no Original Research here. Since you obviously complained at the reference from White, I would remind you that her position was actually acknowledged by Hill in his admission to the position of Cyaxares II obviously drawn from the logical conclusions stemming from Xenophon and Josephus' works.

Again I state: restore my edits and I will update them as discussed.

In conclusion:

Can you please provide a reference for "Most scholars view Darius the Mede as a literary fiction"?

Restore my edits as per your own policy as you have obviously accepted Andrew Hill's work as Ivy Plus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

Won't do. Hill is used for a WP:RS/AC claim. That's all. He stated that critical historians, i.e. mainstream historians, view Darius the Mede as fictional. That's what Hill's work WP:Verifies. If you want more sources, see that article. All mainstream historians are critical historians. Uncritical means unhistorical. Anyway, the consensus view of Bible scholars is that DtM is a fiction. Of course, Biblical inerrantists will never ever agree with that, but they are WP:FRINGE by our book. So, yeah, the position that DtM was a real person is WP:FRINGE. I'm not saying that you have to agree with me. I'm saying that there are WP:RULES for writing Wikipedia articles, and I follow these rules scrupulously. Every editor has to do it. So, as long as you edit here you have to obey our rules. If you don't want to do it, you have the right to leave. For Wikipedia the idea that DtM had a real father is pseudohistory. There is no reason to peddle pseudoscholarship in this article. Top 100 US universities teach that DtM is an imaginary character, so here is where your POV-pushing ends. If 20 of them would agree that he existed, it wouldn't be a fringe idea. I don't want to hear paranoid conspiracy theories about that. That means you lost. Suck it up and be a man. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

1. Hill presented two main catagories (the "critical commentators" and the 'historical harmonizers'). You imposed "mainstream historians" on literally "critical commentators" and curated away the other views he acknowledges and discusses.

2. House sums up three positions and states that nobody can actually say:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_9J2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&dq=%22Scholars+have+offered+three+basic+explanations,+two+of+which+take+Daniel+as+a+credible+historical+witness%22+%22The+second+option+fits+most+of+the+necessary+criteria%22+%22Again,+the+records+currently+known+are+fragmentary+so+certainty+is+impossible%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia8M_64_zoAhWr7XMBHQ-6DugQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22Scholars%20have%20offered%20three%20basic%20explanations%2C%20two%20of%20which%20take%20Daniel%20as%20a%20credible%20historical%20witness%22%20%22The%20second%20option%20fits%20most%20of%20the%20necessary%20criteria%22%20%22Again%2C%20the%20records%20currently%20known%20are%20fragmentary%20so%20certainty%20is%20impossible%22&f=false

3. House does reference Collin's opinion by writing: "many experts conclude that Darius the Mede is fictional, which Collins calls the consensus of modern scholarship". If you didn't notice, he is actually rebuking Collins for overstating the subject. Many and most are not the same thing; especially in the light of his next words emphasising that no one can actually say. Congratulations on maintaining another misquote. I would have been failed in any of my academic pursuits with references like these matched to assertions like those!

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_9J2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&dq=%22many+experts+conclude+that+Darius+the+Mede+is+fictional,+which+collins+calls+the+consensus+of+modern+scholarship%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi76dfQ6PzoAhXt73MBHT7CCYYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22many%20experts%20conclude%20that%20Darius%20the%20Mede%20is%20fictional%2C%20which%20collins%20calls%20the%20consensus%20of%20modern%20scholarship%22&f=false

4. I quote:

===Academic consensus===

A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Therefore by your policies, a) since House is more recently published he outranks Collin's assertion while b) you are required to note the individual opinions which I did. Of the latter I grant that I was not complete, I shall correct that; but neither did that make what I had done as being ORIGINAL RESEARCH / SYNTHISIS.

For now, both of your referenced sources conclude in their works "the identity of Darius the Mede remains a puzzle" and "Again, the records currently known are fragmentary, so certainty remains impossible."

Conclusion:

My edits were fair to the range of opinions on the subject at hand. While you didn't like some of the sources, they were the ordered "individual opinions [which] should be identified as those of particular, named sources" (e.g. David Ike thinks that lizard men rule the world - which I personally believe is rot, but that is irrelevant; similarly it is appropriate in that circumstance to reference White, E.G. or even Pope, Kyle which I did)

You curated away the well referenced opinions you didn't want for whatever reason manifest in the highly unprofessional "That means you lost, suck it up". Again, you assert that "the top 100 US universities teach that DtM is fictional." Without a reference, that sounds like ORIGINAL RESEARCH to me. But in your own words, if 20 asserted that it was at least possible it would not be FRING. But both Hill, House and the Catholic acknowledged all of the positions I posted, therefore they were not FRING.

You twisted the references to say what you wanted. That's not what "Ivy Plus" is officially supposed to be.

I did not argue for DtM being Fictional or Factual.

I did not practice you 'synthisis' policy

I did not practice original research but referenced (perhaps older) references which positions were acknowledged in the newer references you sent me or have posted since.

I referenced each of the opinions as being of said individuals and their logic leaving the reader to form their own opinions as per your Academic consensus policy.

But you have repeatedly said that you and the other editors agree, while WIKIPEDIA POLICY says that everything "must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."

"Our house, Our rules." Enforce your own policies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyvanDuyn (talk • contribs)

My offer still stands: Find sources from mainstream Bible scholarship or be gone from this article. This is the only offer you could get for your edits. And no, Darius the Mede wasn't a real person, no amount WP:Wikilawyering is going to change that. SDA is a fundamentalist apocalyptic cult and its "scholars" are academically fringe. Oh, yes, the prophet Daniel, if he existed at all, was probably the Pagan king Danel. Certainly not a witness to the events he purportedly reported. Harmonizing Bible accounts is in itself the mark of the fringe—mainstream Bible scholars just don't do that. It cannot be taught at WP:CHOPSY that the Book of Daniel is historically accurate, so here it is where your POV-pushing ends. We're honest about it: we side with CHOPSY, not with marginal cults. We side with highbrow religious scholarship, not with lowbrow apologetics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In the end Britannica, Iranica and Judaica do not recognize that Darius the Mede was a real person. Why would recognize that Wikipedia? Wikipedia wasn't designed to be their dumber sister. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The accusation of astroturfing comes from a notorious conspiracy theorist, see https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/astroturfer-yeah/ . Wikipedia simply does not fit in the category astroturfing, since it never claimed it were based upon knowledge of the masses. And it is not an attempt (fake or otherwise) at a grassroots movement. We render information supported by elite scholars and scientists, not by the large popular masses. So, whatever we do around here, we don't kowtow to ad populum. So, Wikipedia is not astroturfing, it is elitist. That's the correct word. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

"NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions, we write about all facts and opinions neutrally."

This doesn't appear to be the case with this lemma, apparently only Bible critical content is allowed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:218:3B00:7920:ABB:B94C:9A25 (talk • contribs)

Nope, that's a misunderstanding: WP:NPOV does not reject pro-mainstream science bias. WP:NPOV has a pro-mainstream science bias and pro-mainstream scholarship bias. See WP:DUE and WP:PSCI.

In respect to the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy you want to push the POV that fundamentalism is right and modernism is wrong. And that WP:CHOPSY are wrong. It does not work that way. In fact, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalist.

The vast majority of mainstream Bible scholars are either Christian believers or Jewish (Judaism) believers. But they are certainly not fundamentalist, if you have a problem with that, you don't belong here. The Fundamentalist Wiki is called Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cater to fundamentalists and this is a fact publicly known for more than 15 years.

We're honest about it: we side with CHOPSY, not with marginal cults. We side with highbrow religious scholarship, not with lowbrow apologetics.

Let me tell you something: uncritical historian and uncritical scholar are oxymorons. So, of course Bible scholars have to be critical of the Bible. That's the job they are paid for. If they didn't want to stir doubts, they wouldn't become professors. The job of professors is to challenge students and make them think. There is simply enmity between professors and irrational prejudice. Fundamentalist colleges and universities have self-isolated from that enmity into an intellectual ghetto (intellectual reservation), wherein the theory of evolution is not valid, the human specie is at most 10 thousand years old, there was a global flood during human history, there were a historical Adam and Eve, a historical Noah, and so on. You will find a hundred fanatics for a problem in theology or metaphysics; you will find none for a theorem in geometry. Gustave Le Bon. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dictatorship

Wikipedia is the dictatorship of WP:DUE, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE. For those who claim the privilege of free speech: they don't have it here, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and WP:FREE.

Wikipedia is based upon hardcore Bible scholarship (of the WP:CHOPSY sort), it never panders to piety. That means that when fundamentalists lost the dispute at WP:CHOPSY, they also lost the dispute at Wikipedia. We're not a website for re-litigating the academic consensus, see WP:RGW. Wikipedia has no sympathy for POVs which lost the dispute in the mainstream academia. You might think this is utterly unfair, yet the Wikipedia Community has the right to decide it does not want advocacy for such POVs inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:DENY

An IP inserted that claim that Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes I. While it isn't absolutely impossible it is highly improbable. Also, if this is true, the claim that he might have wanted a Jewish wife is highly improbable. So, computing the probability of highly improbable * highly improbable = completely made up. No WP:RS has been presented for his claim and it is again highly improbable that such RS even exists.

And all this is because of a fanciful chronology the IP tries to squeeze in. In such chronology Jesus was born exactly 480 years after the consecration of the altar of the Second Temple. And since he cannot match such chronology with mainstream history, the IP plays fast and loose with historical data. The IP has to play fast and loose, since the well-established, consensually accepted historical facts throw a monkey wrench in his exactly 480 years period. His chronology is so WP:FRINGE that it does not appear on Google when searching for it in plain English. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Under biblical references, Book of Esther consider rewording 2 items: “invented” to “wrote” and “Impossible” to “ highly unlikely” or “doubtful” or “improbable”

Thank you kindly.

the narrative of Esther was “INVENTED” to provide an aetiology for Purim, and the name Ahasuerus is usually understood to refer to a fictionalized Xerxes I, who ruled the Achaemenid Empire between 486 and 465 BCE.[5][6] Persian kings did not marry outside a restricted number of Persian noble families and it is “IMPOSSIBLE” that there was a Jewish queen Esther; in any case

Reasoning: For a narrative to be invented just to provide an aetiology for a feast such as Purim would not make sense. That aside,“wrote” neither alludes to a fiction or non-fiction stance, just that it was written.

Secondly, impossible.

If the description is viewed as invented, then it is not actual happenings and as a literary work “anything is possible”. Esther being Jewish would make sense to lay foundation for the Jewish holiday.

If it is based on some actual accounts, we are talking about assimilated Jews chosen from among the well educated Jews at the time of Captivity, using Persian names, who have chosen multiple times to remain in Persia rather than return to their homeland. Foreign women have been known to be included in harems. Amenhotep III's “harem included two princesses from Babylon, two princesses from Syria, two princesses from Mitanni, and like Solomon's harem, it included a princess from each of the seven nations listed in 1 Kings 11:1.

Is it possible that no one knew she was Jewish? As in the book of Esther ch 1 she was charged not to reveal this fact.

Either way, Impossible does not seem to be the best wording.

Personally I believe, but these two requests are unbiased, and meant to improve the Grammatical structure of the type, not for me to try to prove anything.

Again, thank you. Jd 174.252.193.5 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The word "Ahaseurus" can also be a collective term for Asuras. It was rumored that Asuras were ruling in most parts of India. May be the term "Ahaseurus" was spelt wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:133A:BEF1:512D:EFFE:171C:DAA9 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Cyaxares

Ahasuerus was the father of Darius the Mede (), who was Cyrus' uncle (see ). He was also the husband of Esther who had Mordecai as a chief councillor in his court. Ezra and Nehemiah were also in his court and they referred to him as Artaxerxes or Xerxes (depending on translation). He was also known as Astyages (see ). Darius the Mede (Ussher also calls him Cyaxares in ) was only king for 2-years after conquering Babylonia with Cyrus. Cyrus was made king after the death of Ahasuerus (see ) who apparently outlived his son Darius/Cyaxares or preferred to give the kingdom to Cyrus after Cyrus married Mandane, daughter of Astyages. According to Ussher, Darius/Cyaxares was a year older than Cyrus so he would have been given the kingdom of Babylon when Belshazzar was defeated by the combined Median, Persian and Elamite armies (see ). Stephenpcooke (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Stephen Cooke.

Cyaxares II is mentioned in the article. Ussher did not write WP:RS. For the rest of your argument see WP:OR and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: your own analysis of the Bible is not allowed.

If you are here to push the POV The Bible is ENTIRELY accurate and historically correct: go away, we don't need troublemakers.

If you wonder if this is discrimination: no, it isn't. Wikipedia is simply not a venue for WP:SOAPBOXING for WP:FRINGE views. In respect to mainstream Bible scholarship, your POV is fringe.

Conclusion: Wikipedia does not publish such fringe, antiquated, and unsubstantiated views. Take such views to Conservapedia or your own blog.

And it's not just my own person, any experienced editor will tell you the same: such edits aren't allowed.

Report me to the admins or complain as long as you want, no competent Wikipedian is going to allow your edits to stand in the article.

E.g. the rock solid academic consensus is that Darius the Mede is a fictional character. So, a fictional character could not be the uncle of a really existing person.

In the end Britannica, Iranica and Judaica do not recognize that Darius the Mede was a real person. Why would recognize that Wikipedia? Wikipedia wasn't designed to be their dumber sister.

Belief in a real Darius the Mede is restricted to religious fanatics and ignoramuses. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Pseudohistorians like James Ussher are not reliable sources. He mistook the Book of Genesis for a historical narrative (!), thought that Solomon's Temple existed, and used the fictionalized accounts of the Nativity of Jesus were the driving forces for human history. What sane person would make such foolish assumptions? Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References