# Talk:Mithridates I of Parthia

(diff) (hist) . . mb Mithridates I of Parthia‎; 02:33:25 . . (-31) . . SpBot (talk | contribs) (robot Removing: ko:미트리다테스 1세) 
Is this a different Mitridates 1 or what? Kdammers (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Today we know Parthians were talking a dialect of Persian language and Mithredate is Mehrdad in Persian (means given by Mithra) 
Why nobody add the Persian name of the King to the article?--94.74.151.248 (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The article on the Parthian Empire states that his reign was from 171–132BC.  This article states that it was from 165BC to 132BC.  We have the same problem with his predecessor Phraates I.  At least the end dates are consistent.  Is there any way we can clean this up?  JHowardGibson (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.  And the dates also render it inconsistent with other articles (on Bactria, etc.). These dates seems over-reliant on a couple of very recent sources.  I understand scholarship changes, but if there are competing chronologies, the should at least both be listed. We should not state dates as facts if they depend entirely on one or two scholars' conjectures, whose dates seem to conflict with everyone else's. Walrasiad (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Some parts of the Parthian Empire article are outdated, and the Bactria article is in a horrible state. Respectfully, we can't just dismiss these sources as a 'couple of very recent sources'. The 165-132 BC reign is supported by leading sources about the Parthians, one of them being by arguably the most prominent scholar in Parthian studies, Marek Jan Olbrycht (who originally wrote '171–132 BC' in his works). My knowledge/memory is a bit rusty, but right off the bat I recall these sources using that reign period; Early Arsakid Parthia (ca. 250–165 b.c.), The Parthians: The Forgotten Empire, and Reign of Arrows: The Rise of the Parthian Empire in the Hellenistic Middle East. Though granted, I never properly finished this article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
It is still conflicting with most other sources, creating confusion in readers.  That has to be addressed.  Sure, conjectural dates are conjectural and scholars change their mind all the time.  The fact that it is narrow and recent suggests caution, meaning it is hasn't been subject to critical scrutiny by other scholars, nor achieved consensus in the field. It could be a matter of time.  Or it might remain disputed.  Walrasiad (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)