Talk:Kingdom of Sophene

message: Armenians are also liar and fascists like Turks.  Kingdom of Sophene is Zaza. It was a Zazaan Kingdom.Armenians steal our history. They are thieves!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.128.104 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have never seen anything saying that the kingdom's inhabitants before it was conquered by Armenia were Armenians. The only thing I have seen is some Georgian scholar claiming they were a Nakh people (like their contemporary Ers, etc... related somewhat to Urartians and Hurrians...). But as far as I know nobody really knows for sure because the Supani are mysterious and little is known of them or their language... if there is discussion on this by scholars, please enlighten me of it...--Yalens (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenian? (ethnic)

message: So, according to the various sources on the Nakh Peoples page, 
According to Georgian scholars I.A. Djavashvili and Giorgi Melikishvili Urartuan state of Supani was occupied by ancient Vainakh tribe Tzov, state of which is called Tsobena in ancient Georgian historiography.Джавахишвили И. А. Введение в историю грузинского народа. кн.1, Тбилиси, 1950, page.47-49Чечня и Ингушетия В ХVIII- начале XIX века. Page 52 Гаджиева В. Г. Сочинение И. Гербера Описание стран и народов между Астраханью и рекою Курой находящихся, М, 1979, page.55. Sophene was part of the kingdom of Urartu in the 8th-7th centuries BC. After unifying the region with his kingdom in the early 8th century BC, king Argishtis I of Urartu resettled many of its inhabitants to his newly built city of Erebuni.
...so its possible it was both I guess. Before it was conquered by Urartu it was Nakh... or was Tsov as opposed to Urartian , if you are one of the people who consider Urartian Nakh, because of similarities (Urartian house - biani (-> Armenian city Van?); Ersh- buni, Chechen- bun; etc.). Then the Tsov were moved to what is now the Republic of Armenia ("Around Eribuni"; where other notable Nakh peoples were noted later to live, like the Ers and the Dzurdzuks to their south before they migrated north), so the region was left less populated when the Armenians took over Urartu (or otherwise overthrew their foreign lords as Armenians claim?) and was one of the first places to complete Armenianization. What do you people think?  --Yalens (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, I think I've gotten it...

message: If Ararat and Urartu are to be considered identical, that there was a state (not just a mountain) named Ararat and that it was synonymous with Urartu, we must have citation of this.--Yalens (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify: a source about Urartu, from a perspective of Urartian studies, rather than Bible studies by Westerners who probably know little about Urartu...--Yalens (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see why you added it in reference to the source; however, Ararat refers only to the mountain in the ENGLISH language, not in Hebrew. Adding the name for Urartu in various other languages, be they Hebrew, Persian or whatever, unless the name is somehow significant for some other reason besides existing, is only going to make the article confusing. For now, I have left it, with some edit.--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: If I may chime in, in Armenian, the Kingdom of Ararat is often used when speaking about what English speakers call Urartu.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually quite interesting, Moosh. Nonetheless, I still think that we should only refer to Urartu by Urartu as that is its English name, and this is English wikipedia, mainly to avoid confusion... I also don't really understand why the IP makes such a big issue over it, there's plenty of articles they could constructively contribute to.....--Yalens (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the IP is apparently unable to understand the need to use the talk page, I am obliged to post here: Bible Encyclopediae are not the sources we use for wiki. Period. (not to mention that, once again, this name shenanigans will cause serious confusion to readers, who are only familiar with Ararat as a name of a mountain, and Urartu as the English name for the kingdom...)--Yalens (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: IP and "Ararat"

message: Would it be fair to describe the religion mainly practiced in Sophene as Zoroastrianism rather than just Iranian Cults?  These cults were sectors that were practicing Zoroastrianism and Marciak mentions these cults under the broad understanding of Zoroastrianism as well. Anahita, the Iranian godess that was revered was a Zorastrianism godess.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: She's not strictly a Zoroastrian deity though, and we follow what the source says, not the opinion of users. Please be more careful and thoughtful with your edits, I'm getting rather tired of clicking the revert button. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can please stop with the condescending comments regarding your exhaustion in dealing with me since I have just joined a few days ago,  I would appreciate it, as I am trying to be thorough like you are. You too were once a new editor. In regards to the topic at hand, it wasn't my opinion, it was mentioned throughout the book, along with other references.If that is not satisfactory how about this source? A History of Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule By Mary Boyce, F. Grenet, page 320 "..such assumptions would seem improbable, given the declared pride of the Orontids in their Persian heritage, and the known Zoroastrianism of their cousins and contemporaries, the Orontids of Sophene" In regards to repetitive information, stating that Sophene was ruled by 'Iranian Orontids', I believe is rather repetitive, esp since it is known that the Orontids have Iranian lineage. It would be similar to saying the Turkish Seljuk Turks. It is also misleading, b/ a special "Iranian" section of the Orontids didn't rule Sophene. It was just simply the Orontid dynasty, and its lineage speaks for itself. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede is supposed to be a resume of the whole article, so it's not repetitive at all. There is nothing wrong with having the origin of a certain dynasty stated in the body of the article, in fact it's only an improvement. Sure it could be more detailed, but I cba expanding the Sophene article rn. I highly doubt the average reader even knows what Sophene or the Orontid dynasty is. Same even goes for Seljuks. Also, please do show where in the text it is stated that they specifically were Zoroastrians in the book of Marciak? I would assume they were Zoroastrians as well by the looks of it, but if it's not mentioned in the book then we can't add it. And add the Boyce reference next time then, otherwise it just looks like you're adding your own opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will be happy to cite/reference the Boyce book when I make my next edit. It seems that the Marciak book is really the only one referenced here, and there are plenty of published books that I would like to reference in regards to The Kingdom of Sophene. I will respectfully disagree with you in regards to the 'origin' of the dynasty being in the paragraph. I find it to be repetitive, and also misleading given that the Orontids were technically an Armenian dynasty with Iranian lineage. It seems partial. Would it be more prudent to say Iranian Armenian Orontids? That doesn't make sense either. In cases such as this where there is an impasse, how does this get resolved? Also, if there is anything I can assist you with in regards to research, citations for other articles please let me know. I tend to really zone in one thing till I'm 'done', and then on to the next. Cheers! Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because Marciak's book is seemingly the only comprehensive work about Sophene. There isn't much else to take from as far as I know. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for the link! It is quite helpful. I don't have any qualms about Orontids  being including in the Lead section and didn't mean to imply that, and I can see what you mean when you say it should reiterated in the paragraph below. However, it's partial to call it the 'Iranian Orontid' for the reasons I stated above. Technically, it is an Armenian dynasty with Iranian lineage and to summarize it as Iranian, misinforms the reader in regards to the historical integrity of the dynasty itself.  It should not say Armenian Orontid or Iranian Orontid, but just read as Ortonid dynasty, with its available link to the article itself. In regards to other resources for the Kingdom of Sophene, there a few other resources than I plan to cite and bring forth, along with books in other languages as well. Let me know your thoughts. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note, as I noticed in the revision history that it was changed from Armenian Orontids to Iranian Orontids. I believe this to be partial. It should read as neither.  The Orontid Dynasty is an Armenian Dynasty, that is not up for debate. It's a historical fact, just as the fact that they had Iranian lineage. However, the lineage doesn't make the dynasty Iranian. The Ottoman Dynasty had other lineage as well, and they weren't purely Turkish. Sultan Selim II isn't referred to as Polish, for example b/ his mother was from Poland, nor do we refer to the Ottoman Dynasty as the Polish Ottoman Dynasty all of a sudden, after Hurrem Sultan. This is very misleading. I ask this to be changed. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your comparison, no one is pure obviously. The Orontids are of Iranian stock, just like the Ottomans are of Turkish. It is however a good idea to mention that the Orontids were based in Armenia if that's what you mean. Also when you add a citation please add its book in the Sources section below so it links to that, I've done it for you with the Boyce citation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for helping me with the Boyce citation. I'll do that from now on and also just talk here per your preference. My main point is, it's misleading to push to the forefront the partial ethnicity of a dynasty. The Ortonids were an Armenian hereditary dynasty, not an Iranian Dynasty. Saying "Iranian" Ortonids misleads the reader. We do not say the Mongolian Timruids, the Kurdish Safavids, nor do we don't say the Turkish Ottomans. We simply say, the Timurid Dynasty, Safavid Dynasty or the Ottomans. Generally, dynasties are not referenced with their ethnic heritage in the forefront. They are phrased with their geographical association. For this reason, I find it to be misleading, and respectfully ask that we change it to just "Orontids." Sweetcotton101 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The forefront is the lead. It's not mentioned in the lede. I find these comparisons rather meaningless. But I've removed it since I cba, I honestly don't care, the article is a mess anyways. In return I hope not to waste more time on this talk page and that you have grasped how Wikipedia and sources somewhat work. And that you write what the source(s) actually say (with your own words obviously)  --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: HistoryofIran-You reverted my edit, and I do think it's misleading b/ you are depending on the analysis of one historian, rather than the several historians he's quoting. But alright. I do not want to get into an editing war, and understand that you have clout.  The page you quoted is actually a great one page 61--insofar it describes the vast elements culturally in the region. The pages before goes on to talk about Armenian/Syrian cultural elements. It actually presses on how these two cultures had such vast importance in the area due to their cultural/geographic proximity with their neighbors. There are  chapters, in regards to this that I would like to bring to light the strong Syrian/Armenian affiliations in the region. Within the same page that it mentions that Iranian/Greek influence is strong, (but doesn't mention that it is 'stronger') and the author goes on to state that there is a long record of scholarship of Sophene as an integral part of the Armenian world. Therefore if we are to mention the "strongest" elements in the lede, I believe it's fair to also mention what has held a long record of scholarship. In the page itself I believe it is deep deeper into the cultural affiliations with Persian, Armenian, Syrian and Roman culture in the area.  Tbh I fear making changes even when I have textual backing in fear you will just revert it, as I do not want to get into an editing war with you. I also don't want to ask for permission every time I make a change. For that reason, if you could respond to my question above regarding the Orontids on this page, I would appreciate it, as I do not want you to get tired of reverting as you mentioned before, nor do I want to get disheartened from making my contribution. Cheers! Sweetcotton101 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have just to written this in the previous section. No need to make so many, it's quite discouraging. Sophene is also mentioned as a part of Syria though, so you need to put that in as well, which is barely any lines. Maybe the history section would be a better place for that? There's nothing to fear, no need to be dramatic.. I haven't reverted every single edit of yours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture Deriving from Geography

message: I have a few questions in regards to the revisions of this page. While I agree the page needed to be updated, I question why certain resources were completely removed and information that was properly cited was taken out, and replaced with other information. On my first day here, I was rebuked for removing a cited text (albeit it was done in error on my part). I see in the revision history that cited text, reputable sources such as Paul Bedoukian's book on Sophene has been removed and  Cyril Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Georgetown University Press has been removed..these are all great and reputable texts and I question why the information they provided would not be available on this page, and was removed?Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First citation by Toumanoff had no page, second source is seemingly By Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, there are definitely better sources than that, and newer for that matter. No to mention it has no pages cited. Generally it doesn't seem properly cited, as I can't find it on the internet. There's no page 30 in the Coinage of the Armenia Kingdoms of Sophene and Commagene to my knowledge, it has the pages 71-88. TLDR: Article was a mess, I attempted to somewhat fix it by using a recent and comprehensive source about Sophene. Some users seem to have a hard time distinguishing between Armenian as a ethnic and geographic term. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Resources 

message: I wanted to first talk here before making changes as I do not want to get into a editing war. I find the lead of this article to be incorrect. In following the lead of HistoryofIran to avoid these wars, I have used Michal Marcak’s book. While Marciak states Iranian/Greek influences were strong in Sophene when summarizing the chapter on Cultural Influences, Marciak doesn’t not state they were the strongest. Marciak actually mentions how there is such a long record of academic scholarship about Armenian and Syrian influence, and consistently mentions various cultures, and consistent in emphasizing the Armenian/Syrian influence given the location of Sophene. We can see this from an historical aspect given that the region's population spoke Armenian, observed Armenian dieties etc, and was widely influenced by Syriac Christianity much later on. For that reason, I believe the lead should reflect this and state that Sophene had a wide array of cultural influences which included Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Syrian, Roman, and Anatolian (even that was mentioned!) influences. Additionally,  from a historical standpoint, I don’t think its correct to rely just a single source. I’m not quite sure as to why Sophene deemed just as a political entity when historically it's refered as an Armenian monarchy (makes sense b/ its a kingdom, not a provence or a state etc). Page 61 of the Marciak book is referenced in this article in the lead, but no where does it state this. Am I missing something? For that reason I’m really confused as to why all this is left out, especially since it is important from an historical standpoint. I am happy to cite/reference from several other resources/historians in the above mentioned subject as well.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about lead/Cultural Landscape 

message: Kingdom of Sophene regarded as part of Greater Armenia in most of the reliable sources, Kingdom of Sophene was included under the title of Armenia on Encyclopædia Iranica, and Encyclopædia Britannica states that it's part of Armenia's history. 
*Encyclopædia Britannica: Sophene
*Encyclopædia Iranica: ARMENIA AND IRAN
Template was removed without consensus on the article's talk page.
"Kingdom of Sophene not only belongs to the history of Armenia, but also belongs to Greek, Iranian, Turkish and Syrian histories, respectively."
 No, it's not. Kingdom of Sophene is not part of history of Iran or Greece, and do I have to mention that Turkey and Syria are relatively modern states, Kingdom of Sophene was province of historical Armenia, History of Armenia Template
should be shown on this page.
 Խալդի (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Armenia Template