Talk:Orontid dynasty

message: apperently its origin is Greek or Persian ot Armenian.193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the origin of the dynasty 

message: In response to User:Fornadan's defense of an "academic source", it should be made aware the Richard Hovannisian is not a reliable academic. He has been condemned by the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia and Yerevan State University for falsifying Armenian history. His book consistently has the goal of attributing Armenian history to other nationalities and referring to the Armenians as outsiders in their own homeland, which is why he has been accused of having political motives such as in the video I linked. Other statements by him are just plain wrong, such as the book stating (Volume II, page 432) that the first Armenian book was printed in 1660, in Holland, when in fact it was published by Hakob Meghapart in 1512, in Venice. I am removing his false claim unless you have any objections. --Steverci (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to WP:RSN then. I've restored it, attributing the statement to him. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See also  If there are sources stating differently then we can use them as well perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Ultimately any claiming Iranian ancestry are probably based off, and thus misinformed, by Hovannisian. Sources that refer to Armenians as "colonists" and "invaders" when they are indigenous to the Armenian Highland are clearly politically motivated and not credible. --Steverci (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems we have an Ayvazyan fanboy on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

text: What? --Steverci (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You know who I'm talking about. I find it amusing that that pseudo-historian's rabble-rousing against western academia fails to see any irony in supporting the main failing of western scholarship: the failure to properly consider historical Armenia's close connections with Iranian culture and traditions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orontids were Armenian, not Iranian 

message: There were numerous sources listed here that show that they were of Iranian origin, yet this article still claims them as ethnically Armenian and of "probable" Iranian descent? I have no objections in the fact that they had an independent entity as compared to their neighboring Iranian blood brothers, but you can't claim the Orontids possibly as ethnically Armenian, as in the ethnicity, which is laughable at best. Combined with the sources I'll post in some time on this talk page, we would have about 10 sources here which describe an Iranian origin. Overkill and not needed, I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The University source says they're officially of uncertain origin, that's the due weight viewpoint. The most accepted view is they're of at least partial Armenian descent and Iranian likely through marriage. Iranica, which you previously tried to cite, isn't a reliable source; it's an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Only the sources they give can be used, not the claims of the nationalist youth writing it, which makes up a considerable portion. Because it's about Iranian subjects, it and likely your 10 other source lack Wikipedia:Significant coverage for Armenian topics. Someone with expertise in Armenian fields comes first, the rest is WP:UNDUE. So kindly keep your nationalist sources to yourself. Every single Armenian article you've edited has been in worse condition afterward and it's likely you'll be given a topic ban if you keep it up. I don't believe you have bad intents but the fact is you ruin every Armenian article you edit, and this will get you banned malicious intent or not. This is because you shamelessly mess up many article's structure to link "Qajar Iran" or "Russo-Persian War", WP:POVPUSH Armenians as Asians and Armenian things as Iranian, protray Urartu and Armenia as separate things, so on. The entire Shushi article is a mess because you filled 75% of the history section with Persian war info having nothing to do with the city. History of Armenia doesn't even run in chronological order so you could revision the article based of Wikipedia:Trivial mentions from a Dutch source. The History of Armenia template was spammed full of non-Armenian topics by your pov pushing. This is just naming a few off the top of my head, and I know there are editors in the double digits likewise tired of your nonsense. I suggest you stay away from Armenian subject before you get yourself in trouble. I'm sure you know you're editing them with no intention to benefit the articles. --Steverci (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still improvements to be made 

message: "The name Orontes is the Hellenized form of a masculine name of Iranian origin; Երուանդ Eruand in Old Armenian."
In this cited reference, where does it exactly say that Eruand is the Old Armenian form?.. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schmitt (2002) 

message: I noticed a revision war in regards to the subject above and wanted to comment. Personally, I think of the lead as an introductory thesis paragraph Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. With that said, most current languages and their respective alphabets were established after their oral tradition. The Orontids being the first hereditary Armenian monarchy, have an association with the Armenian language, and their name in Armenian is referenced throughout ancient and modern text. From an orthographic standpoint, this is standard. We see the same thing in many Indo-European languages such as Turkish, Azeri etc. Turkish and Azeri for example, have a new latin alphabet that was more recently established and yet when we refer to them in a historical context, in their native language we use their modern latin alphabet. Therefore I’m confused as to why this would be removed.  If the onus is that anachronistic spellings shouldn't be referenced in the lead, should all anachronistic spellings across Wikipedia not be in the lead, since consistency is one of the pillars of Wikipedia? That would be a great disservice to our readers, as I believe seeing the referenced article in their respective native text (anachronistic or not) is a great informative perk of Wikipedia! Sweetcotton101 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Wondering if my thoughts above will be addressed since an editorial consenus has to be reached in order to make such changes. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic Spelling 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In response to the additions by an IP.
*
Does not state the Orontids were of Armenian origin. Therefore   that edit is WP:OR and the Bournoutian one is just plain and simple disruptive editing. This has been posted as a point of reference for when an Admin needs evidence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions by IP