Talk:Xerxes

RFD result

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Xerxes

Two Persian and one Armenian kings.

Should the first two carry a biblical label?

Yes, becuase the average Engish speaker is unlikely to encounter the name outside of that context or an historical context (for which there might need to also be a tag). Its context of use is therefore restricted. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Historical labels a term or sense that is obsolete, but still used for its historical referent, or perhaps to add historical flavour. But it's not as if we have developed a new term replacing the name Xerxes, or as if Xerxes the Second had become obsolete in favour of the modern Zerxo 2000. The sense line doesn't define the name Xerxes, but indicates a particular person. Our diachronic labels like historical can't be applied the same way. —Michael Z. 2010-04-08 20:30 z

I didn't say an (historical) context label; I said an historical context label. I didn't specify the particular context. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Then what particular context could resolve this? —Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:09 z

If you think the CFI allows us to include Xerxes of Armenia, then doesn't it also require “definitions” for w: Xerxes of Commagene, w: Xerxes (Klaus Lunde) the electropop musician, w: XerxesDZB soccer team, w: Xerxes (Dune) from Brian Herbert's Legends of Dune, XERXES the computer from the game w: System Shock 2, Xerxes from w: Little Zizou, Xerxes Break from w: Pandora Hearts, and anything else listed in w: Xerxes? —Michael Z. 2010-04-08 19:54 z

A biblical label is silly. There is nothing specifically biblical about the Xerxes'. As I see it, we should only have one definition. Whereas Wikipedia is defining the people, we're defining the name. We should have one definition which might read, "a given name of Persian origin, notably held by two Persian kings." We should also have a link to w:Xerxes, so readers can find out about the people, if they want. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The combined definition for both Biblical kings works for me so long as they're actually spelled the same in the Hebrew/Greek sources. That isn't always the case. Different spellings in different sources means different etymologies. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I fail to see how that's relevant. They're spelled the same in English. If we were going to single out any language and ask about similar spelling, it would be Old Persian, not Hebrew or Greek. However, English speakers use the same name, with the same spelling, to refer to both kings, and that should suffice for the English entry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If they have different etymologies, then there will be two Proper noun sections under separate Ety 1 and Ety2 headers, so a unified definition line would not be physically possible. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Good point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far we do put a biblical label on names of people in the Bible, so I don't see why we wouldn't put this on the Xerxes. Or is biblical for names only used in a biblical context? Regarding separate etymology sections, that's only needed if the names are unrelated. A single etymology can include notes about exceptions or differences for particular senses. —Michael Z. 2010-04-08 23:15 z

Huh? Why would a single etymology section be used when there are two completely different etymologies? We're still talking hypothetically, but in this instance the issue concerns two definitions. If those two definitions derive from separate word origins, then there is not an exception to be discussed, there is an entirely separate etymology to be discussed. Adn when the two definitions in question are "this Persian king" or "that Persian king", it becomes ridiculuous to try to explain that clearly in the etymology section itself; you end up essentially repeating the definitions in the etymology just to get them to match up with the appropriate referent. The situation gets even worse if one of the two names has alternative forms (which is not at all unusual for Biblical names), or if the two individual names have different sets of alternative forms. Hopefully, we won't have to worry about any of that, but it is a very real possibility. --EncycloPetey 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I thought I wrote that a single etymology section could be used when there are not two completely different etymologies. Can you point out which Xerxes's name is unrelated to which? Or is this all academic? —Michael Z. 2010-04-09 16:06 z

Since no one more competent than I has done the check, I'll do it now... Yes, in fact there are two entirely separate etymologies with different Ancient Greek origins, different Greek translations, and presumably different Persian sources, but I don't have the resources to check the Persian. The king of Persia in the book of Esther is Xerxes in the NIV (Ahasuerus in the Authorised Version; gen. form Ἀρταξέρξου (Artaxérxou) in the Septuagint). But in Daniel 9:1, the "father" of Darius is a different Xerxes (NIV; the AV has Ahasuerus), and the Septuagint has gen. form Ἀσσουήρου (Assouḗrou). Note also that neither one of these is the king known as Xerxes II. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So which English Xerxes in Wiktionary comes from which etymology? —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 05:38 z

That's debated historiclly among Bible scholars. The passage in Daniel refers to "Darius son of Xerxes", although Darius was actually the father of Xerxes I and Wikipedia lists Darius' father as Hystaspes. If this is assumed to be an error of reversed relationship in the Daniel text, then the Xerxes in Daniel is Xerxes I. The Xerxes in Esther has traditionally been assumed to be Xerxes I, but this is not at all certain. The Greek spelling in the Septuagint implies that this Xerxes is the king known to archaeologists as Artaxerxes I, rather than Xerxes I or II. --EncycloPetey 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient explanation. So Xerxes I and II may be the same person, or are they known from other sources? Maybe this requires separate definitions for the biblical and archaeological Xerxes, allowing that they may or may not be the same. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 23:21 z

Xerxes II is definitely a different person and is not either of the Biblical kings known by that name. Xerxes I (the Great) is the king currently famous for his (wildly historically inaccurate) portrayal in the move 300 (based ever-so-loosely on one of the most significant military campaigns in history). By contrast, Xerxes II reigned only 45 days before being assassinated, leaving him little time to accomplish anything. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Striking as no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky 09:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This RFD was a part of a batch of requests; the discussion for the whole batch is in Talk:Xenocrates. --Dan Polansky 07:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)