Talk:Tiridates I of Armenia

message: Don't really think it's really that good, nominated to get potential help to make it better.--Eupator 01:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly meets the criteria - well written, referenced, illustrated, stable, doesn't seem to omit any major facets etc.  You should probably go to peer review if you want to get help on improving the article - GA is for short articles that can be considered 'finished' (inasmuch as any Wikipedia article is finished - they can always be expanded to reach the sort of size required by WP:FA).  Worldtraveller 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Prior to my edit of today, the article was pushing the view that Tiridates had something to do with Roman Mithraism.
>> Modern historians also speculate that Tiridates and his entourage popularized or perhaps even imported Mithraism to Rome. (three "citations" follow).
: "Modern" historians do not speculate this, unless one considers Cumont (the first cited source) as "modern" and the present-day consensus (which refutes Cumont) as invalid. Moreover, the second quoted source was a rip-off of an entry in the Encyclopedia Iranica, which had then been "modified" to suit a particular POV. This is indeed standard-operating-procedure for the "CAIS", which attempts to present itself as a serious source (by stealing articles from elsewhere) and then sneaking bull between the sheets.
>> Being a chief priest of the Mithraic religion,Tacitus, Annals, 15.24 Tiridates traveled by land, avoiding the sea, since Mithraism and Zoroastrianism prohibits desecrating water with any refuse of the human body. 
: Tacitus, Annals 15.24 says no such thing. Neither does Annals 15.24 say Tiridates was a Mithraic priest, nor does it say that he went by land, leave alone why he might have done so. 
: Indeed, the original sentence the author used as a source reads "Trdat himself being a chief Magian of the Zoroastrian religion, avoided the sea route and traveled by land, Mazdeism prohibited spitting in the water or desecrating it with any other refuse of the human body". AND this is not from Tacitus, but from Vahan M. Kurkjian.
: The author also attributes another cut-and-paste from Kurkjian to Dio Cassius 63.5.2. This too needs checking.
>> According to Pliny the Elder, Tiridates initiated Nero into the Mithraic cult.
: Another piece of creative rephrasing. What Pliny actually said was Tiridates *introduced* Nero to magicis cenis, "magical feasts" (more properly "magian feasts").
-- Fullstop 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe crud

message: Is this the Saint King Drtad mentioned in the Calendar of Saints (Armenian Apostolic Church) for June 30? John Carter 18:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Drtad? 

message: Text deleted from first paragraph: This is about the same time that the Gospel of Matthew recorded a journey of wise men from the east to the infant Jesus in Bethlehem. This may lay behind the later Christian legend of the Three Magi.
I have removed this sentence because it is ambiguous. If "about the same time" refers to the time of the events recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, then it is factually incorrect, as the events of Christ's nativity occurred somewhere between 8-4 BC, not AD 66. Matthew may have been written aound AD 66. If this is what the sentence means, it should be clarified. I do not have access to the cited reference, so I have not rewritten. If the reference asserts the second option, then it might be nice to have additional references to Biblical studies, instead of just a history of Armenia.--Iacobus (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiridates & the Biblical Magi 

message: I think the section Tiridates in popular culture should be expanded. What kind of character is Tiridates in these operas? – Ilse@ 07:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiridates in popular culture 

message: The lead described Armenia as a Roman client kingdom, with a link to Satellite state.  However, the Satellite state article suggests the term is primarily a Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact term, and a subset of the more general Client state.  I have therefore changed the link appropriately.  (Also, as a kingdom is a type of state, presumably a client kingdom is therefore a client state by default). Wardog (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client kingdom / client state / satellite state 

message: The opening paragraph of this article states:  "was King of Armenia beginning in 53 AD"; however the infobox lists 63AD as the beginning of his reign?.  --dashiellx (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The footnote explains that 63 is the beginning of reign sans interruption.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Reign 

message: this king is " Tiridates I of Parthia " i don't know why you have created a new article for it? if you follow the king you arrive in parthian history (part of Iranian history !). ارژنگ (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiridates I of Parthia 

message: I find this passage problematic:
The visit of Tiridates I, an event that greatly impressed contemporaries, apparently was adapted by Christians to become the story of the adoration of the Christ Child by the Three Magi.[37] The Christian legend changed Rome into Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Ruler of the coming Kingdom of God, and replaced Tiridates I with that contemporary king who was already connected with Christianity through the Acts of St. Thomas: Gondophares, otherwise known as Kaspar.[38]
It implies scholarly consensus that we "know" that the story of the magi was adapted from the visit of Tiridates. It is an interpretation that has been made by some scholars, but I don't know that scholars can say with certainty that the visit of Tiridates was the basis for the story in Mathew. It presents speculation as fact.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You can reword it so that it's clear that this is merely a theory.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 06:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Much better, although ideally there would be another source that specifically discredits the above theory. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: The article presently states that "Tiridates I was a Prince of Armenian, Greek, and Iranian ancestry."  As far as I can tell by following the linked Wikipedia articles, he seems to be only 1/32 Armenian, through his Orontid Armenian great-great-great-grandfather Mithridates I Callinicus.  It's possible that he is another 1/64 Armenian, through his great-great-grandfather Ariobarzanes I of Media Atropatene, whose maternal grandfather may have been the Artaxiad Armenian king Tigranes the Great.  I don't think I've seen any other Wikipedia biographies that assign ancestry according to the 1/32 (or 3/64) fraction of descent, especially when the descent isn't straight down the paternal line (i.e., retaining patrilineal primogeniture or the patrilineal surname).  I know there is an urge to identify Tiridates I as part Armenian since he was a king of Armenia, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he was an Iranian-Greek prince of Parthia who later ruled Armenia as its king?  Ketone16 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of his grandparents, great grandparents, and so on are unknown, so we don't know what his exact ethnic background was. The Armenian, Parthian, Pontic, Seleucid, etc. noble families were very intermarried so there's no point guessing fractions. We can only state the facts, and he has three known ethnic backgrounds. --Steverci (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm just going by the genealogy stated in the Wikipedia articles, which says he has a Greek mother (so he is 1/2 Greek right there), a Parthian paternal grandmother (1/4 Parthian), and many of his paternal ancestors are known and are not Armenian.  There's no way to give him a significant Armenian ancestry without speculating things like "Oh, his mother wasn't really Greek, she was part Armenian, etc." -- which wouldn't be going by the known facts.  Yes, he has three known ethnic backgrounds (if you consolidate the Iranian groups into one background), but the Iranian and Greek backgrounds are much larger than the Armenian one, which I would characterize as insignificant.  So, I still feel it would be more accurate to say that he was an Iranian-Greek prince of Parthia who became king of Armenia.  Ketone16 (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't even know for certain who his mother is. It's speculation that his mother was Greek, assuming he had the same mother as Vologases. And either way we don't know her exact ethnic background. That's over half his ancestry unknown! Iranian-Greek would be used to describe a Greek who lived in Iran. --Steverci (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, though, not knowing his mother's ancestry is much, much different from knowing that her ancestry is in fact Armenian, so I don't understand what your point is.  The known Armenian ancestors are at the 1/32 level with an additional 1/64 contribution.  That is not significant Armenian ancestry and you have not introduced any facts (or even speculations by historians) to indicate that he had any significant Armenian ancestry.  The Arshakuni dynasty is pretty much universally described as the Armenian branch of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, so Tiridates was a prince of Parthia who is also a notable Armenian by virtue of being appointed king of Armenia -- not by being ethnically Armenian.  The sentence in the article that is in question deals with Tiridates' ethnic background, and it seems confusing (and somewhat chauvinistic) to press the Armenian ethnic descent.  I'm fine with calling him an Armenian king everywhere else in the article, but not in the sentence about his ethnic ancestry, since I think calling him Armenian there is a distortion of (known) history.  Also, I'm not sure what your background in English is, but "Iranian-Greek" doesn't have to mean "a Greek who lived in Iran".  I think you're inaptly trying to apply a particular grammatical construct that was popularized in the U.S. in the past few decades (e.g., "[Nationality]-American"), which of course does not govern the universal use of hyphens in English.  The grammatical construct is unimportant, though -- another sentence with the same semantic content could be substituted.  Ketone16 (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But we can't say for fact either she was Greek, let alone 100% Greek. And even if she was, He would've been culturally Parthian and later Armenian and never a Greek citizen, so I don't see how Iranian-Greek or Greek-Iranian would be fitting. It's as you said early, the fact he was given the title King of Armenia makes his distant confirmed Armenian ancestry something to point out. But originally I just wanted to remove this sentence as a whole because the ethnic background of royal dynasties is always very mixed and impossible to say accurately. Would you be willing to go this route? Steverci (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that royal dynasties are often mixed and confusing to disentangle.  I think the existing second sentence, "He was one of the sons born to Vonones II of Parthia from a Greek concubine" (with the footnote about his mother retained) would make a fine lead sentence.  If we remove the existing lead sentence, which refers to him as a prince, then the existing second sentence might be clearer if we pointed out that Vonones II was a king himself (of Media Atropatene and later of Parthia), just to emphasize up front that Tiridates was the son of a king. Ketone16 (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian ancestry? 

message: Section 3.19 ("Tiridates I of Armenia") of the book "The Esoteric Codex: Zoroastrianism" by Gerardo Eastburn is basically just a copy of this Wikipedia article.  The whole book seems to be a "curated collection" of open content.  Please do not cite this book as a source for facts in this article -- that is completely circular.  Right now this book is being used as a "source" for the unsourced statements that Louis XIV believed Tiridates I to be an important figure and ordered a statue of Tiridates I to be made for the Versailles gardens.  Ketone16 (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Esoteric Codex: Zoroastrianism" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tiridates I of Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903004436/http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/corbulon/corbulon.htm to http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/corbulon/corbulon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tiridates I of Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325105207/http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1109103-213211/unrestricted/Poirot_III_thesis.pdf to http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-1109103-213211/unrestricted/Poirot_III_thesis.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I removed this from the article: . It was cited to Cassius Dio without any secondary source. (A statement like this would need a secondary source identifying it as the first attested appearance). This article was promoted to FA in 2006 and has seen quite a bit of editing since then. I'm a bit busy with other things at the moment and only came across it while reading up on gladiators at the main article, but based on this I think the article would benefit from a review. Seraphim System (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unsourced content 

message: I have conducted a review of this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, and initiative to evaluate and bring featured articles back to FA standards. After taking a quick look at this article, I have some concerns which I outline below:
*The references are disorganised. Sometimes the book information is given in the citation, othertimes it is listed in the Bibliography. These should be standardised. 
*There are lots of sources in the Bibliography that are not used in the article. Are they high-quality sources? If so, they should be used in the article. 
*The Visiting Rome section is quite long with lots of details. Is all of this information necessary? Can it be summarised?
*There are some long sections with single-sentence paragraphs, which are discouraged per WP:PARAGRAPH. I think this article needs a good copyedit by a knowledgeable editor to fix this and other prose problems. 
Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I plan to fix this article in the near future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I just made a few edits to work on the language and organization. I agree that the visiting Rome section is too long and detailed, but I haven't touched that yet. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  are either of you still interested in addressing the above concerns, or is this ready to go to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at this moment unfortunately. I do think its FA status should be removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] review