Talk:Mushki

message: This is hacked together from a websearch, we need references. Kurkjian seems to favour an origin in the Caucasus, and his text is all over the internet on Armenian nationalist sites, but I find it impossible to decide whether this is uncontroversial or rather a nationalist pov. Kurkjian refers to Hecataeus placing them in Colchis, which would be interesting, so maybe a proper Hecataeus reference would help here. dab (ᛏ) 15:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, this is much appreciated. By all means work this stuff into the article. So do we conclude that the claim that the Mushki came from the Caucasus is popular among Armenians in particular, but not really current? dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well just from what I can tell, it seems the confusion arises from the fact that they likely ended up in the Caucasus, since both Georgians and Armenians claims Mushki as among their ancestors... It doesn't seem 100% clear what direction they came from, so I suppose there is some room for doubt, and they could well have moved back and forth a number of times.  One interesting thing about the Mushki / Phrygians though, is that all their kings were alternately named either Midas or Gordius for practically their entire history, which fact also easily lends itself to confusion...  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Armenians don't really claim descent from these elusive Mushki. Western historians connect the Mushki to the Armenians on the basis that the Mushki=Phrygians, which in itself is a far fetched hypothesis. --Eupator 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Why is it a far fetched hypothesis?  I still haven't seen any source whatsoever contradicting that Mushki = Phrygians, and I've seen numerous sources that do equate the two.  Without even one source (so far anyway) to the contrary, your assertion doesn't seem supported.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was actually referring to Armenians=Phrygians. In the case of Mushki, etymologically it makes no sense to me.--Eupator 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  I'm not really sure what the underlying basis for the Armenians=Phrygians hypothesis is, so I can't vouch for that one... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A couple of cognantes and other linguistic similarities (which are also shared with Ancient Greek) in addition to the claims made by Herodotus that the Armenians were Phrygian colonists and that when both Phrygians and Armenians served in the army of Xerxes (invasion of Greece) they were both dressed in the same manner.--Eupator 04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We have Herodotus' word for Armenians=Phrygians, that's at least something (see also Graeco-Armenian, which builds on the hypothesis). But what is the basis of the Phrygians=Muski hypothesis? From what I've seen, the historical Muski were Cappadocians, not Phrygians, who entered a political alliance with the neighboring Phrygians, far from an identity hypothesis, this actually presupposes non-identity, since you can hardly ally yourself with yourself. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: The Greek sources are the ones that identify the Moschoi with the Phrygians.  I don't believe the term "Phrygian" even appears in  any Assyrian sources. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's the point. The Assyrians call everyone "Mushki", while the Greeks distinguish "Moschoi" and "Phryges". dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as it stands now, this article reads: Assyrian sources identify the Western Mushki with the Phrygians, while Greek sources clearly distinguish between Phrygians and Moschoi.  That can't be the case, because no Assyrian sources use the term Phrygians.  And the article Phrygia states correctly, According to Greek mythographers [2], the first Phrygian Midas had been king of the Moschi (Mushki), also known as Bryges (Brigi) in the western part of archaic Thrace...   So this article's into seems a little backwards, it should probably read instead, Greek sources identify the Moschoi with the Phrygians, while Assyrian sources refer only to the Mushku". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex, read it again. The point is not that the Assyrians are saying "The Phrygians are really the Mushki", they just use a single term for both, thereby identifying them, whereas the Greeks have two terms, thus making a distinction. To the Greeks, they are two groups, I haven't seen reference to any Greek saying "the Phryges are really the Moschoi", the Phrygians are in Phrygia, and the Moschoi are in Cappadocia. dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be clarified for accuracy, because as it reads now, it could easily be misinterpreted as meaning that the Assyrians called one people by both names, when they never even used one of those names...  By the way, I looked them up in two compendiums of World History I have from somewhat earlier in the 20th C. than MacQueen, and they both treat the Mushki and the Phrygians as one people, and both also state that Midas = Mita (they don't say "maybe", they say he was...) so it's hardly a theory that MacQueen came up with himself...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  whoops! 

message: Please, Codex, I appreciate your scrutiny, but try to read and understand the text more closely. Biblical Meshech is a person, an individual, the grandson of Noah. The Moschoi are a tribe. Josephus cannot have said that the Moschoi are really the grandson of Noah. What I imagine you mean is that he said they are the descendants of the grandson of Noah, which is what we had in the article before your change. Genesis may not mention Gog and Magog, but Ezekiel, when he speaks of the same descendants of Meshech, makes them part of Gog and Magog. dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This too should be clarified for accuracy, because if you are quoting Josephus, you can't put words in his mouth he didn't say...  I don't believe he mentions that Gog and Magog are connected with Meshech in his listing of the nations; he treats Magog as ancestor of the Scythians, and he treats his brother Meshech as ancestor of the "Cappadocians", and he treats his brother Gomer (via Thrugramma)as ancestor of the Phrygians; and he treats his brother Tobal as ancestor of the THobelites... four distinct brothers... Care should be taken when quoting Josephus to ensure he isn't misquoted; the "Gog and Magog" stuff comes out of Ezekiel but not Josephus... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meshech

message: I have now found a 2002 dissertation devoted entirely to the "Mushki and Phrygians" question. The author explicitly denies an identity of Mushki and Phrygians. The Mushki of "New Mushku" (p.177) just happened to settle next to the Phrygians. dab (ᛏ) 18:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote 2002 here, but 2004 on the ref. section...  Either way it's pretty recent, and seems to contradict all the older books, but I'd still be interested to see is she turned up any solid facts about the Mushki, since they are one the subjects I am most keenly interested in... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the dissertation was handed in in 2002, and it appeared as a printed book in 2004. That's an usual delay. I haven't seen a claim identifying the Mushki and the Phrygians so far. I'll have a closer look at Wittkers stuff soon. In a nutshell, she concludes more or less what I surmised above, the Mushki immigrated  to central Anatolia from the North-East in the 9th-8th c. dab (ᛏ) 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wittker

message: Out of courtesy, we should always place a copy of disputed material that someone wants removed, here on the talk page for further discussion.  The assertion of DBachmann is apparently that this reference is irrelevant to the "Mushki" article:
The Armenians according to Diakonoff, are then an amalgam of the Hurrian (and Urartians), Luvians and the Proto-Armenian Mushki who carried their IE language eastwards across Anatolia. After arriving in its historical territory, Proto-Armenian would appear to have undergone massive influence on part the languages it eventually replaced. Armenian phonology, for instance, appears to have been greatly affected by Urartian, which may suggest a long period of bilingualism. “Armenians” in Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture or EIEC, edited by J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, published in 1997 by Fitzroy Dearborn. 
Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I trimmed the quote to make it more relevant and fit it into the context better. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed relevance of following quote 

message: Please stop making the same edit repeatedly. a) much of the information is out of place b) much of the information is already stated and c) poorly written/grammatically incorrect. This is not the article to discuss the Armenian language or Proto-Indo European.--Preservedmoose (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad edits 

message: You have reverted my edits with the summary "If Mushki were Phrygians (as this article discusses), and Armenian is not connected to Phrygian (as this source discusses), Armenians=/=Mushki". This a classic case of WP:synthesis: one source says A, other sources say B, therefore C. We need sources that specifically disucss both connections; a source which rejects the Armenian-Phrygian connection, but does not discuss the the proposed Mushki-Phrygian connection, cannot be cited as a source which refutes the Armenian-Mushki connection. Assuming good faith, I had retained the actual statement and the Czech source which is not available for me. If the Czech source also turns out only to refute the Armenian-Phrygian connection, the complete statement will have to be removed as WP:OR. –Austronesier (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's stupid, but okay. According to Wikipedia 2+x=/=4.Preservedmoose (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's not. If that's the way how feel about it, are you sure you're here? –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The disbelief in algebra is actually exactly what the situation is. If Phrygians are not Armenians, but Mushki are Phrygians, as the Wikipedia article discusses, then Armenians cannot be Mushki. Simple syllogism. There was also information that countered this in the article, too. Anyway, I have rephrased to make the sources fit appropriately to your guidelines. Take care.Preservedmoose (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are your guidelines as well, because you cannot claim the priviledge of being exempted from the basic rules of our common project called Wikipedia:  –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I understood it the first time. Hence why I said "according to Wikipedia" and not "according to Austronesier." I have a right to say that it is stupid though. Not much is known about the Mushki. There are many peoples that may or may have been connected to them. Perhaps you should just delete 90% of the article? Or the whole thing? Preservedmoose (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If 90% of the article is composed of unsourced claims, unrelated trivia and OR falsely based on a source that doesn't say what's claimed here, sure, it's tag, fix or delete. You might go ahead as well. –Austronesier (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have more free time than me and a hunger to power trip, so I'll leave it to you, my friend.Preservedmoose (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: this wikipedia, not reddit. 99.27.106.23 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding [[WP:synthesis]] concerning Phrygians