Talk:Commagene

message: The page falsely claims that the Persian language was used among the ruling elites. The claim that the ruling family used Persian is based on the Achaemenid origin of the founder of the kingdom of Commagene, but these rulers had long been Hellenized before their kingdom in Commagene was founded. The sole language attested in Commagene is Greek. No use of any other languages have ever been attested: not on coins, not in literature, not in inscriptions. It is assumed that Aramaic was spoken and used to a significant degree, but this is speculation. Aramaic is supposed to have been spoken in Commagene because the language was widespread in its eastern and southern neighbors. Lucian of Samasota, a native of Commagene, claimed to have been an Assyrian, and to have spoken a non-Greek tongue, but historians don't agree on how to interpret that. The one fact is that Greek was the dominant language there. Likewise, the use of Armenian is sometimes 'assumed'.
I suggest that the page is changed to where it's made clear that Greek was the sole dominant language, and that the use of Aramaic, Armenian and an Iranian language is speculative.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:A147:50C3:2B8A:717C (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: :The following discussion is of a move from Kommagene
Support: English usage is clear and almost invariable. (Nominator vote) Septentrionalis 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Most of the stuff in this article was a mess/unverifiable so I cleaned up and removed irrelevan content.Hetoum I 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 

message: Why not to merge this small article into the larger article of Kingdom of Commagene (or vice versa)? Ellipi (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: although the origin of Kingdom was not clear but it is believed to Greek or Persian.193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring some sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.55.213 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called Armenian origin 

message: Surely this article is about the "Kingdom of Commagene", not Armenia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.202.82 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to believe that its ruling elite had Iranian roots but today I saw myself that at least one serious source (Cambridge Ancient History, see respective citation) insists on the Armenian identity.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see that the anonymous nationalist ip does not care about references. Perhaps some kind of semi-protection is needed due to this constant edit warring.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very misleading map and too many links to Armenia 

message: This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: You wrote some history books but you didn't understand and did not ask "is it true?" or "what is historical chronology".
Did you see Commagene ancient ruins or Mt. Nemrut - Kahta or any statue of Commagene? I can say a lot of about Commagene because I'm a tourist guide in Turkey.
1- Kahta Mt. Nemrut's  up side, that is a masonry stone tomb (tumulus) build in BC 80-60, you can see god-goddess statues in east terrace. That statue's back side have a inscription with two language: Parsian and Greek... Not letter or word in Commagene statue with Armenian, alphabet or word..
2- BC 160-60 period, a lot of Armenian family make small feudal lord in west & south Caucasia. A lot of lord's name Mithridates, Tigran, Orontes / Oronthes, Vagran, Pharnes, etc... Those are not Armenian names. Many of the names of Armenian origin comes from Part languages. So, if the kings name Mithridates (in Parthian mean "light, sun" like Armenian) you cant say Armenia or Parthia. You must check control "what is the royality and citizens language?" Part Pontos Kingdom (BC 201-60 free, BC 60 AD 60 Roman Vassal) royal writing language is Greek, citizens use a lot of (may be 12-13 different) language.
3- If Mithridates mean is same in Parthia and Armenia, you must check control linguistic rules. In Akhemenid - Persian period, BC550, Armenian vassal kingdom build in this period (look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire). Word ethymological time, come before Urartu Kingdom period BC 858, King Arame. This kingdoms origin is Assyrian kingdoms - period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu). So Mithridates is not a Armenian word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.145.120 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commagene Kingdom is not part of Armenia Kingdom 

message: This whole talk page is testament to how controversial it is to consider Commagene only or even primarily as part of the Armenian cultural sphere. Bear in mind, the scope of the article is the Kingdom of Commagene, i.e. second century BCE to first century CE. To be sure, Armenians settled in large numbers in this area afterwards. It's also true that the Kingdom of Armenia briefly exercised political hegemony here, and that the Commagenian royal house had dynastic links with that kingdom (which the article already states). But I can't find a shred of (reliable, independent) evidence that the Kingdom of Commagene defined itself as Armenian, or even ascribed much importance to its Armenian connections. To the contrary, Antiochos Theos clearly foregrounded the Persian and Hellenistic roots of his ancestors. The language most spoken during this period is not known for certain, but Syriac is a fair guess. Given how relatively marginal Commagene was to Armenia and vice versa, I really think this article has put undue weight on the Armenian connection. The  template, which an anonymous user has been repeatedly reinserting, completely crowds out the right side of the article, creating unnecessary and misleading clutter, while displacing image files that are relevant to the subject matter. I'd love to find a compromise here, and I'm open to suggestions. I note that the article already displays the template  at the bottom.
For the record (and I shouldn't have to say this), I have no axe to grind either for or against Armenia or Armenians. I'm not Armenian (or Turkish or Kurdish). On the other hand, I spent a great deal of effort during my four years in Istanbul trying to convince Turks that the Armenian genocide was both real and bad. However, this article is not about that, or about possible Armenian territorial claims in reparation for the genocide. It's about the history of a small kingdom in Antiquity that was at the crossroads of Hellenistic, Persian, Armenian, Syrian, and Roman cultures. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see I've been reverted again. Now, look how nice and compact  looks on the article Seleucid Empire and tell me I don't have a point. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having come up with a more compact way of displaying the template that doesn't get in the way but is expandable, I've been reverted by the anonymous user with the message: "Your reason is weak, you just want to remove the Armenian history of commagene which includes historic site in modern turkey". No. That's not my reason. See above. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had any luck getting the anonymous contributor to engage with me on this talk page. Still, in an effort to avoid edit warring, I've asked for a third opinion. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

text: @Robert McClenon: Okay, so it looks like semi-protection is now in force. Should I change the template back to the way I had it the last time (which I actually think would be an admirable compromise) in order to, as you say, "force the unregistered editor to discuss"? I'm checking first to be sure that this wouldn't be seen as aggressive/unhelpful. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no edits in two days, so that putting the template back would not be edit-warring.  Putting the template back, since the unregistered editor cannot revert, would force the unregistered editor to discuss.  (Well, they could go to WP:ANI, but should look out for the boomerang.)  Go ahead.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; thank you! For the record, I've been arguing against having the template on the grounds of undue weight (and clutter); however, making it small and collapsible seems like a sensible via media. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Another reversion, this time with the message "no, you are specifically targeting this page template removal for your false history agenda". Since the anonymous user evidently knows more about my motivations than I do, I won't comment beyond saying that s/he has not produced any reason why the current arrangement is in any way unsatisfactory. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at least happy to see that the latest round of pro- and anti-Armenian mutual reversion hasn't done any excessive violence to the layout of the page, since there is now enough text (thanks to my expansion of it while the page was semi-protected) to accommodate a number of floats. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Armenia template

message: A third opinion has been requested.  A third opinion is a reply to discussion by two editors on a talk page.  Since only the registered editor and not the unregistered editor has discussed, a third opinion is not applicable.  It appears that both editors are over 3RR, but, rather than reporting edit-warring, I have requested semi-protection to force the unregistered editor to discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Robert McClenon: Okay, so it looks like semi-protection is now in force. Should I change the template back to the way I had it the last time (which I actually think would be an admirable compromise) in order to, as you say, "force the unregistered editor to discuss"? I'm checking first to be sure that this wouldn't be seen as aggressive/unhelpful. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no edits in two days, so that putting the template back would not be edit-warring.  Putting the template back, since the unregistered editor cannot revert, would force the unregistered editor to discuss.  (Well, they could go to WP:ANI, but should look out for the boomerang.)  Go ahead.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; thank you! For the record, I've been arguing against having the template on the grounds of undue weight (and clutter); however, making it small and collapsible seems like a sensible via media. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Well, I guess semi-protection must have expired, because my latest edit (with its compromise proposal) has been anonymously reverted again. This time the message is: "this article is the one you are removing the template when the link is in the menu , that is not the reason you said about cluttered". I find this message puzzling for more reasons than its grammar. I'll attempt to reply, however: Yes, it's the same  template, but this time in a conveniently collapsible box so that by default it doesn't dominate so much of the right side of the article. Does that make sense? Readers interested in Armenian history can open it and follow whatever links they want. Other readers can still look at the rest of the material without clutter or inconvenience. I think this sort of compromise should satisfy everybody, but please let me know if you have a constructive alternative. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reversion, this time with the message "no, you are specifically targeting this page template removal for your false history agenda". Since the anonymous user evidently knows more about my motivations than I do, I won't comment beyond saying that s/he has not produced any reason why the current arrangement is in any way unsatisfactory. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at least happy to see that the latest round of pro- and anti-Armenian mutual reversion hasn't done any excessive violence to the layout of the page, since there is now enough text (thanks to my expansion of it while the page was semi-protected) to accommodate a number of floats. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reverting 

message: I'm starting to feel like we ought to have a section in the article about Commagene's cultural identity, where we can talk about its Armenian connections, Hellenistic high culture, Syrian affinities, relationship with Persia and Parthia, neo-Hittite background, etc. (with all of the qualifications, disclaimers, and nuances that the subject requires). I'm getting to think that trying to sum this up in a quick categorical phrase in the lede has helped contribute to some of the disquietude felt in various quarters on this subject. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural identity?

message: Do the  and  templates really contribute much to this article? On the one hand, there is at least enough space for these now (thanks to my expanding the article somewhat), so I can't complain too much about clutter. However, in both cases, the templates themselves advertise a series of articles to which the kingdom of Commagene is at best peripheral. I think I'll substitute  as being more directly relevant than , but even this hardly seems ideal. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 'History of' templates

message: Could anyone provide references regarding the languages in the infobox section? Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages? 

message: I just wanted to justify my remark in an edit summary that "substituting 'Asia Minor' for Turkey complicates things a bit". Turkey's quite a bit bigger than classical Asia Minor: not only does Turkey include eastern Thrace, but by the terms of ancient geography, Asia Minor might not include Mesopotamia, Armenia, or Syria, whereas Commagene is precisely in the zone where ancient Syria meets ancient Armenia. We could always drop the reference to Turkey, but it does provide some basic geographic orientation. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey not quite the same as Asia Minor 

message: WisDom-UK (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation needed 

message: Commagene (Armenian: Կոմմագենե, Greek: Κομμαγηνή) was an ancient Armenian kingdom of the Hellenistic period ruled by the Armenian Orontid dynasty. The kingdom was located in and around the ancient city of Samosata, which served as its capital. The Iron Age name of Samosata, Kummuh, probably gives its name to Commagene. Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022