Talk:Behistun Inscription

	Behistun Inscription is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 3, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept December 21, 2005 Featured article review Demoted December 27, 2005 Good article nominee Listed July 6, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Former featured article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Iran (Rated B-Class) Behistun Inscription is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. WikiProject Egypt     (Rated B-Class) Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. WikiProject Archaeology Archaeology portal This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Western scholars

"In 1598 the inscription came to the attention of Western Europe when it was seen by Robert Sherley, an Englishman on a diplomatic mission to Persia in the service of Austria."

I'd like to change the above (showing my disregard for passive voice), but I don't know what to change it to. "In 1598 the inscription came to the attention of Western Europe when Robert Sherley, an Englishman on a diplomatic mission to Persia in the service of Austria, saw it" sounds odd--incomplete somehow--did he write back about it? return with news of it? Sorry to quibble; it's just that the rest of it is so well-written & interesting that this sentence sticks out like a sore thumb (to me, anyway). --Koyaanis Qatsi

How about: "Western European scholars did not become aware of the inscription until 1598, when it was observed byRobert Sherley, an Englishman on an [[:Austria}Austrian|Austria}Austrian]] diplomatic mission to Persia." Just a go - it's a tough sentence. - MMGB

Well, I had to go with the passive voice because I'm really not sure myself. I could only find one source about Sherley ("It's an cuneiform inscription...and don't call me Sherley"), and it was distressingly vague. It wasn't Sherley himself who brought it to European attention, just someone with him, and I don't know how he (or she) got the word back to Europe. That makes the form you have (ending in "saw it") -- what I had at first too -- put the verb so far away from the action that it needs to watch it on TV. Devil and the deep blue sea....-- Paul Drye

Lol. Ok then. --Koyaanis Qatsi

How about: "It was not until 1958, when the Englishman Robert Sherley saw it during a diplomatic mission to Persia, that the inscription came to the attention of western scholars."

M. Northstar

Excellent - I have changed accordingly. -- ALoan (Talk) 02:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Very nice, Paul, et al. This calls in the best kinda way for a picture - surely there's one in public domain! --MichaelTinkler

At least a couple of which I'm aware. Do we have a way to upload them? --Paul Drye

I've never tried to put up an image, but I think JHK emailed a family tree to Larry? I looked and didn't see any nice ones online, so I hope you've found a better one! --MichaelTinkler

Images for Wikipedia should be e-mailed to JasonR. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 11

[edit] Misspelling or sound drift?

The way the name of the legendary hero and Shirin's lover is spelled and pronounced in modern Persian is Farhad, with the "r" *before* the "h". Does your source spell the name differently, or is this a misspelling? (I know it must be hard to keep track of the spelling of a word in a foreign language.)

Great article otherwise, although your link to the CWR university doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful.

[edit] Mentioned by Tacitus?

The article claims that the inscription is mentioned by Tacitus, but no non-wiki source I can find mentions this. Can anyone cite me a reference? Thanks, --68.78.70.215 04:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Iustinus)

Muke Tever pointed me to this entry on perseus, which mentions a theory equating Tacitus' Sambulus with Behistun. I'm not sure I buy that, but that is certainly what the article is refering to. -Iustinus

[edit] Spelling variations

I did some online checking (yes, I know, inherently culturally biased) and the most common spellings are Behistun (1880 hits), Bisitun (119), Bisutun (70), Bisotun (16), and Bistun (13). There were zero hits for "Bisistun inscription." I've adjusted the article to include the two most common spelling variations other than Behistun. SWAdair | Talk 08:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Akkadian/Babylonian

Babylonian is the name given to the descendant of Akkadian which was used in this inscription; whether you consider it a separate language or a dialect of Akkadian is POV, but "Babylonian" is in any event correct. - Mustafaa 15:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Tribes

This material seems to have less to do with the inscription per se than with lost tribes theories, which have no historical consensus. It belongs in the Lost Tribes of Israel article. TheLateDentarthurdent 00:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the material to the Lost Tribes article. TheLateDentarthurdent 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Finds and translations of finds like this inscription can frequently change the consensus among historians, unless the general theme amongst institutions is to hide something that jolts their own theories to harshly. Consensus doesn't necessarily equate fact. For example, the consensus portrayed to modern students of history is that the Roman Empire had no real foe in her prime. But the "fact" is that Rome got her ass kicked by Parthia on several occasions... while in her prime. galut5 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I have nominated this article for GA review. Please see Wikipedia:Good article review#41ffffun Inscription. My two biggest concerns are the written style of the article and the lack of inline citations. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have closed the good article review. The result of the discussion was to delist the article. The issues raised about point of view and sources may be easy to address with a little bit of citation. Once this is done the article can be renominated. Geometry guy 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Farhad and Shirin

The legend of Farhad and Shirin obviously deserves a mention in Wikipedia, but this does not seem to be the ideal place for it. I followed the link to Farhad, which led to a disambiguation page with no onward link to the Farhad in question. The page on Shirin mentions the existence of this legend, without telling the story.

I looks to me as though there ought to be a Farhad page containing the legend, or, if this story is the only mention Farhad gets in historical texts, the legend might be incorporated into Shirin's page. In any event, the blind link to Farhad needs tidying up. --King Hildebrand 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darius' Beard

It says in the article, that Darius' beard was added later; but I had never heard of something like that & I can't find any article about "bisotun inscription" to back that claim. Can someone verify that it was indeed added later? I have put a "citatioin needed" sign there, fot the time being.Sbn1984 (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)