Talk:Orontid dynasty

Persian origin

We can all collect references to the Orontid Dynasty's Persian origin here, for example: [1], [2], [3]. Also related: [4], [5] and [6]. --AdilBaguirov 03:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They may have served the Aechamenid Empire in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were ethnic Persian. -- Davo88 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil the last reference you gave [7] is that like a website for some kind of a gameing website? www.gaminggeeks.org? ROOB323 03:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ROOB323, what about the other 5 (!) URLs? And this is not even the full list -- just smth I've collected in a few minutes. More can be provided, but why, it's a fact that all knowledgeable people admit and know, including Armenian historians. Meanwhile, Davo88, you are vandalizing the page by making such reverts and irrelevant and unsupported comments (post at least one scholarly article or reference that disputes Orontids Persian origin -- just one article!) -- I will report you for that. --AdilBaguirov 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many confounding theories about the origins of the Orontid dynasty, for example, that they were of Greeks [8] or that they were related to Persian rulers... If they really did have foreign origins, nothing changes the fact that they were Armenian nationals. -- Davo88 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, your source does not claim Orontids were ethnically Greek. Secondly, that unscholarly source does not equal Encyclopedia Iranica, or any of the other scholarly sources, along with Classical sources, including Armenian sources, which make clear that Orontid Dynasty of Armenia, like Artaxiad Dynasty of Armenia, were of Iranian origin. Third, the term "Armenian nationals" does not apply, as one has to show that there was a unified and distinct Armenian nation some 2,500 years ago at the time of Orontids. Finally, my edit is very clear and states what it states, not saying anything more or less -- hence your or others' POV on Orondits et al is not applicable. You should not engage in revert war's by removing verifiable, scholarly, authoritative and fully-sourced and discussed information from the pages. Put it back the very same way you removed it. --AdilBaguirov 06:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was. It may be unconceivable for you, but the region as a whole was called Armenia by then, as stated by Greek writers and also in the Behistun inscriptions. These facts are very clear and concrete, I don't even need to discuss them. Besides, your sources don't claim that the Orontids were ethnic Persians, while they may have been loosely related to the Aechamenid royal family. -- Davo88 13:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Whether any given region was/is called Armenia is completely irrelevant, as we are discussing the ethnic origins of Orontids (and Artaxiads and Arsacids).

2) Perhaps you overlooked: "The Orontid kings of Armenia were descended from the Achaemenid line" [9]. Then there is here: [10] "The Royal Hunt in Eurasian History", by Thomas T. Allsen, Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 37: "The Orontid dynasty of Armenia (ca. 401-200), whose ruling house was of Achaemenid origin...". Also, "This Orontes was married about 401 B.C. to the Princess Rhodogune, daughter of the Persian Great King Artaxerxes II." The Cambridge History of Iran By Ehsan Yarshater, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p. 506.

Also, here [11] "Artasyras, the King’s Eye, brought the news of Prince Cyrus' death to Artaxerxes II, and Artasyras's son Orontes who had been present (and perhaps distinguished himself) at the Battle of Kounaxa and was given Rhodogunde the daughter of Artaxerxes II and made Satrap of Armenia. In the late 380s after Persia had suffered serious reverses in Egypt, Orontes was recalled from Armenia to head the Persian army while Tiribazes commanded at sea. They quarreled and their case went before a court of four Persian nobles who found for Tiribazes with Orontes being disgraced and dismissed from his position as Satrap of Armenia. In the 360s BCE several of the Persian Satraps revolted and chose Orontes as their leader. However he betrayed them to the King and made peace with General Ochus. Orontes was then reappointed as Satrap of Armenia and became the founder of the autonomous Armenian Orontid dynasty." --AdilBaguirov 10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They had strong ties to the Acheamenid Dynasty as the article clearly states several times. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, they were ethnically Persian, as is also stated numerous times. --AdilBaguirov 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No they were not, they just intermarried with them. Xenophon writes about them during the time of the Medes, so does Movses Khorenatsi. They had names of Indo-Aryan origin, none of which were Persian.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenians are NOT Indo-Aryan. --176.14.180.11 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes they were Persian, scholarly sources are clear about it -- instead of being disruptive, either accept this fact or provide a scholarly rebuttal, that would prove your POV. Until then, the reference must stay. --AdilBaguirov 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Extensive evidence has been presented -- Orontids were ethnically Persian. --adil 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been almost a year Adil! Give up already. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

a year since you supress evidence of Persian origin of the Orontids. You should not do that, accept the fact as all scholars have. --adil 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See above.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, you too, note all the facts which you cannot dispute -- Orontids were Persian. --adil 07:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User Hakob acts on behalf of his friends and aggressively reverts pages that don't suit his POV, removing sourced material. Unacceptable. --adil 07:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume what another users intentions are. Stop toying with these articles and open an RFC if you must.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

you should open an RFC if any of my sources unqualify for Wikipedia's Verifiability clause. Don't supress the info. My sources are verifiable, academic and authoritative. --adil 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have placed back the two references about the Persian origin of the dynasty, from very authoritative, verifiable and third-party sources. Meanwhile, I did preserve the Armenian langauge spelling of the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Now that Hakob taken over Eupator's duties to blindly revert and supress info, I've placed (yet again) back the verifiable and academic references about the Persian origin of the dynasty. --adil 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The context written on this page is self-explanatory your intentions are not to help articles but remove historical information on certain types of articles which should be stopped. Artaxiad 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk about your intentions instead -- you are the one who contradicts Wiki rules and removes verifiable, academic info. You should not do that. --adil 03:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Theres enough references in general your introducing new theories. Artaxiad 03:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said on the Tigranes the Great article, Adil, all of this evidence is based on your original research and personal interpretations. I'm reverting this article to its earlier version. -- Aivazovsky 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the source of this Mehan listed as ruling from 321 to 317 BC? Also from the books I've read there seems to be some dispute wether Neoptolemus was actually appointed satrap or was just the general entrusted with subjugating the area. Fornadan (t) 12:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

the origin of the dynasty

apperently its origin is Greek or Persian ot Armenian.193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Bring some sources please. So can I say, that Urartu population was extremely Armenian, but I should give sources to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.55.213 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Persian origins

• The Middle East under Rome, by Maurice Sartre, p23. Harvard University Press.
• The royal hunt in Eurasian history, by Thomas T. Allsen, p37. University of Pennsylvania Press. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Called Persian Satrap;[12]
• Called Persian;[13] --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Called son of Artasuras the Bactrian, or simply Bactrian;

• The Cambridge history of Iran, Volume 2, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yar-Shater, Peter Avery, p354.
• The Numismatic chronicle and Journal of the Royal Numismatic Society, by Royal Numismatic Society (Great Britain),p6. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Ancient Greek orientalist painters: the literary evidence, by Tomasz Polański, p212. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's good of you to have an access to so many sources. Could you please provide exact quotes for those of us who don't have those books. And for those sources which are available online, could you please also mention the page numbers? Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All of these sources do have page numbers, the ones that do not have links. And I believe I found all of them on books.google.com. I am in no way stating that they were not Armenian. Nor have I removed "Armenian" or references stating Armenian ancestry(compared to the reactionary reverts I have seen). However, when 3 different university presses are stating Persian/Bactrian, that evidence is substantial. As for the "Ancient Greek orientalist painters", it states that Rhodogoune's dowry was the satrapy of Armenia. Grazer Beiträge, Volume 24, Universität Graz. Institut für Klassische Philologie, p203, states the same thing. It is a pity that certain(Aryamahasattva,Kevorkmail,Phoenicians8) editors that are reverting this, can not be bothered to discuss this issue. Along with Phoenicians8's canvassing for revertion, sets a poor example of "cooperation" for this article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note, that I haven't said I doubt whether they have page numbers. What I said was something very different. Say one wants to see where in this source they are "called Persian", do you think he/she has to read over the whole source? Additionally I totally share Marshal's point of view presented below. And yes, I fully assume good faith per your edits (though disagree with those). -- Ashot  ^(talk) 05:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If the mass-canvassing implimented to edit-war over the sources I have posted in the article were not removed, you could read it that way. As it is, I am tired of the insults(Moosh88), edit-warring and mass-canvassing(by Phoenicians8 and his anon IPs). You can read this edit[14], which has been removed(again) without discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be useful to keep in mind that even if the original founder of this dynasty was from the Achaemenian royal family, that still would not negate the fact that it was an Armenian dynasty. The same can be said about the Arsacids of Armenia and the Georgian Bagrationis. The founder of the Armenian Arsacid family was the brother of the Parthian king but within a few centuries the line had been thoroughly Armenianized; in a similar vein, the Bagrationi line was founded by an Armenian but that dynasty was assimilated into the ethnic and cultural milieu of Georgia. I don't think then anyone would dispute calling this dynasty Armenian, although it's possible that its founder may have been Armenian.

The fact of the matter is that the primary sources are so contradictory that it's difficult to saying anything with definite certainty (especially the works by Roman-era sources). Specialized sources, like the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia, are the material which we should be looking to so I'm not sure if books with titles like Ancient Greek orientalist painters will carry much authority nor knowledge on the issue. I will see what the ASE article says about the origins of the family.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this not a repeat of what occured in '07?--Moosh88 (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this[15] your idea of assuming good faith? Calling someone an "Iranian POV pusher"? Is this how "discussions" are conducted; mass canvassing, edit-warring and insults? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No one is insulting you, so relax. Review this it may help you understand that wikipedia is not a battleground.--Moosh88 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

An authoritative source that we can all consult is Cyril Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History (Washington D.C., 1963). The entire work is available online for viewing and the author has a lengthy section just on the Orontids themselves here. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Here, 2nd para specifically Cyril Toumanoff says that the eponym's praenomen Orontes is Avestan. Any problem with this source? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That kind of goes back to what I wrote earlier. The founder of the dynasty may have been a member of the Achaemenian royal family and thus a Persian but the dynasty itself, which was to last for over two hundred years, intermarried with the Armenians and was assimilated into the Armenian social and cultural fabric.

Nina Garsoian, another specialist from the field whom we may quote, writes about the Orontids under the heading "The Native Dynasties: Eruanids (Orontids) and Artasesids (Artashesids)" in her chapter "Emergence of Armenia" in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. i (New York, 1997), p. 46. Garsoian writes, "Both the interior chronology of Movses Xorenac'i and the reading of the Armwavir inscriptions are still open to considerable disagreement, but the existence of a local Armenian dynasty, probably of Iranian origin, as indicated by Strabo and Movses Xorenac'i as well as by the Eruanid name, has now received additional corroboration..." (pp. 46-47). That tells us very much and is nuanced enough to precisely define the identity of the dynasty: an Armenian one but one of probable Iranian heritage, no different a case than the Armenian Arsacids or Georgian Bagrationis.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, Cyril Toumanoff mentioned the term "the First Armenian Monarchy", talking about Orontid Armenia. It appears that the religion of the state was Zoroastrianism. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That shouldn't really come as a surprise. Up until the adoption of Christianity, the religion of Armenia was a syncretic form of Zoroastrianism and native mythology.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not object the article lede mentioning "Armenian dynasty of probable Persian heritage". This would summarize the article content according to WP:LEAD and would be inline with provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections; I would only tweak the word "Persian" with "Iranian", which just appears to be the word used more by academia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Orontids were Armenian, not Iranian

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)

Take it to WP:RSN then. I've restored it, attributing the statement to him. Dougweller (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See also [16] If there are sources stating differently then we can use them as well perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Seems we have an Ayvazyan fanboy on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What? --Steverci (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Still improvements to be made

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)

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) <----CU blocked sockmaster

Schmitt (2002)

"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)

Uncertain origins of Orontids needs to be addressed

Greppin and others (Krause, Slocum, Payaslian, Bournoutian) have suggested that the Orontids may have been of Armenian or Urartian origins. While Greppin and some of these other scholars were primarily linguists, Greppin at least was highly influential in Armenological studies. Bournoutian (a historian and not linguist, who specializes in Iranian studies as well as Armenian) is highly regarded as well. These professors teach/taught at UCLA, NYU, Clarke University, University of Texas-Austin, etc. They are hardly "weak" sources.

Greppin, et al. "Their ethnic background is not clear. Most now believe the Urartuan and Armenian ethnicities to have been distinct, and it is not certain from which culture the Yervandunis originated."

I do not see what the issue is with suggesting that the Orontids may have been Armenian or Urartian, especially if suggestions of Iranian origins are also addressed. Any attempts by the Orontids to connect themselves to Iranian nobility could have a) been through intermarriage or b) to solidify some sort of higher noble claims (like the Bagratunis did with being of the Davidic Hebrew line). Unlike, say, the Selucids, the Orontids' early history is undocumented. We simply do not know where they came from.

Including all reasonable theories presents the article in an unbiased way, free from nationalistic and revisionistic sentiments. --Preservedmoose (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't get where G. Bournoutian supports an Armenian origin for this dynasty ? The other guys are, as you said, linguists and thus unreliable.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the source is a linguistic one, clearly not specialized in this area, considering the vast majority of sources agree on the Iranian origin of the Orontids. Bournoutian says this (snippet view) "Although some believe the Yervandunis were of Urartian origin, their background is unknown. They were probably linked, either by blood or marriage, to the Persian royal family" Also, the opinions of Wikipedia users doesn't count as a (reliable) source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"Although some believe the Yervandunis were of Urartian origin, their background is unknown. They were probably linked, either by blood or marriage, to the Persian royal family"

So he states he is uncertain what they were at least two times, and also suggests that their relationship to Iranians is uncertain. Note the usage of "unknown" and "probably"--both denote uncertainty. The article as is, however, does not denote this uncertainty. This is exactly the point that I was making and echoes the point in other works.

What Wikipedia user's opinion? Mine for saying that there is no harm in saying "Iranian, Armenian, or Urartian" as opposed to just Iranian? What is the harm? Please explain. These are quality sources, they aren't Joe Schmoe's self-published works. Nobody is suggesting that the Iranian origins theory is removed.

It seems that there is an attempt to remove any "Armenianness"--such as recent edits suggesting that the native Armenian pagan religion was Zoroastrianism (i..e Iranian), which it wasn't.

So are the sources that express uncertainty regarding the origins of the Orontids bad or is it just that they just don't fit a narrative?Preservedmoose (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what probably means [17]

No, this is the personal opinion bit I was referring to: Any attempts by the Orontids to connect themselves to Iranian nobility could have a) been through intermarriage or b) to solidify some sort of higher noble claims (like the Bagratunis did with being of the Davidic Hebrew line). Unlike, say, the Selucids, the Orontids' early history is undocumented. We simply do not know where they came from.

It seems that there is an attempt to remove any "Armenianness"--such as recent edits suggesting that the native Armenian pagan religion was Zoroastrianism (i..e Iranian), which it wasn't. More of your personal opinion. Sorry to say, but sources highly disagree with you. Sourced information which you have tried recently to change such as your edits in Commagene related articles. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So providing sourced information is problematic if it doesn't agree with what you think or want it to say? The sources that I provided state repeatedly that the Orontids' origins are uncertain (you yourself linked an excerpt that that says this in your previous comment). And in the Commagene article, those sources all suggest an Armenian connection (note that I did not delete Greek or Iranian influence...either here or in the Commagene article).

That's not an opinion, that's a theory. We have documented proof of Armenian royalty/nobility making dubious claims connecting them to other cultures (Bagratunis, Mamikonians) for various political or religious reasons. We have uncertain origins of the Orontids and an uncertain relationship between the Orontids and Iranian nobility. We also have an uncertain relationship between whoever (Orontid or otherwise) ruled Commagene and their connection to the Orontids.

An opinion would be if I stated emphatically that the native Armenian pagan religion was Zoroastrian/Iranian in origin (despite all academic sources stating otherwise) and didn't provide anything to back it up besides my own nationalistic wishful thinking.Preservedmoose (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Err, no, an opinion is an opinion [18]

What is it that you exactly want to add to the article? There are six sources that agree on a Iranian/Persian origin of the Orontids (which Bournoutian suggests a connection to as well) , what is it that you find uncertain? Again, you're saying stuff which seems to be solely from your own opinion, which is contradicted by various academic sources, and I'm frankly not interested in hearing it. I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Great. I still didn't express an opinion anywhere.

Again, you're reading what you want to read in to what Bournoutian says. He says that their origins are "unknown", but they were "probably" Iranian. He doesn't say that they were Iranian. Since their origins are uncertain, he cannot say that they were Iranian with certainty. Nobody can.

Can you state from my edits what my opinion is exactly? Did I say that they were not Iranian? Did I say that they were Armenian or that they were Urartian?

This is an opinion (because you asked for one)...I think that it should say "The Orontids, who were likely of Iranian origin, but may have been of a native Armenian or Urartian background" or "The Orontids, who many scholars suggest were of an Iranian origin, although others argue were of a Armenian or Urartian background" or "The Orontids, who were likely of Iranian origin, although their exact backgrounds are uncertain and others have suggested that they could have been Armenians or Urartians." Say that it's a minority of scholars, for all I care, I just think it needs to be addressed that their background is unknown.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We know for a fact that the Artaxiads and Arsacids were Iranian. But we don't know that for the Orontids, so that uncertainty should be addressed.Preservedmoose (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment "So providing sourced information is problematic if it doesn't agree with what you think or want it to say?" I think you should think about that one, since it's clearly how you behave. You fail to get the point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah? Example please? I provided a number of academic sources that suggested a non-Iranian origin or at least said that their origins are uncertain, yet I did not delete suggestions that they were Iranian nor the sources that stated that they were...so how am I pushing an opinion exactly? In fact, I'm doing the opposite of that, making the article less biased and more neutral.Preservedmoose (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no neutrality in misrepresenting what sources say and trying to give to one of them an undue weight against the several others that are cited in the article (like you did with Bournoutian) or in trying to push your odd POV with citing unreliable sources for this topic (like you did with those above linguists). So to answer to your question, yeah, that's what you did. We're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, excuse me but a) how did I misrepresent what the sources say? Greppin et al. said that their origins are uncertain and they could be Armenian or Urartian. Barnoutian said that some say that they are Urartian, they are probably Iranian, but their origins are uncertain. b) How is adding any of this, cited, to the article, while leaving in both the section and sources that say they are Iranian 1) "misrepresenting" what sources say and 2) "pushing an odd POV with citing unreliable sources"? I'm also uncertain how I gave them "undue weight" when all theories/origins (including Iranian ones) were mentioned. I'm not sure what topsy-turvy world you live in where mentioning other theories (from academic articles and respected scholars) while also mentioning the Iranian theory is somehow "giving undue weight" to one theory. If I had deleted any mention of Iranians, I'd get it. But your accusation is misapplied in this circumstance.

Let's imagine that this is an unsolved murder case. There is a suspect (Suspect A), but it's uncertain Suspect A committed the murder. There are also other suspects. Officially the case is unsolved. You (meaning you specifically and not in a general sense) would want the article to say that Suspect A was the murderer, even though the case is unsolved and there are other suspects as well. Then when you had somebody saying "Hey, that's fine that you mentioned Suspect A but maybe we should mention that a) the case is unsolved and b) there are these other suspects too" and you would respond by criticizing the person for saying that and tell them that they are pushing an "odd", biased agenda.Preservedmoose (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a source from Razmik Panossian (a lecturer at the London School of Economics and the University of London) "It is not known whether the Yervandunis were ethnically Armenian. They probably had marriage links to the rulers of Persia and other leading noble houses of Armenia" For some reason only the second half of this quote was included in this article.

The point that I'm making here by using this quote isn't to suggest that they were Armenian but rather that we don't know what they were and therefore cannot say with certainty that they were Iranian (or anything else). I have provided numerous sources stating that their origins are uncertain, but you have attempted to diminish this by suggesting that I'm pushing an outlandish (or in your words, "odd") bias, hoping that that substantiates your preferred Iranian origins theory unequivocally. One look through your talk page explains why. Preservedmoose (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Anachronistic Spelling

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Silver Rhyton.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Hey Kansas Bear, hope you're doing well. Can you please explain what part of the stable edit was ethnicity? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Armenian is not an ethnicity? When did this happen? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The stable edit doesn’t mention origin or ethnicity but rather the country of dynasty, Armenian dynasty. Since Orontids ruled over Armenia, it should be mentioned. Meanwhile origin of the dynasty shouldn’t be in the lead per mos:ethnicity. If you have other concerns please let me know. With best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

No, Armenian was used as an ethnicity not as a place of origin, and as you stated in your edit summary, "origin shouldn't be in lead". --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "If mentioning the country of dynasty..."

And your latest revert is negated by the second sentence which states:

• "The Orontids established their supremacy over Armenia around the time of the Scythian and Median invasion in the 6th century BC."

There is no need for ethnicity, since we are going according to MOS:Ethnicity. AND Satrapy of Armenia should NOT be easter egged into successor state, since the Orontid ruled over a Satrapy before becoming independent rulers. Since you are SO worried about mentioning said "country". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I restored the stable version with slight clarifications and with a better wikilink to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). That should suffice. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on you to achieve consensus in order to change the stable version of this artice. One more revert and we will meet at the edit warring noticeboard.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there big fella, did you try to look at the edit history of the article before planning meetings in "edit warring noticeboard"? And what WP:BURDEN has to do here lol? Are you saying that me restoring Orontids as a dynasty of Armenian kingdom needs a source? That's already cited throughout the article.

Furthermore, I'm not doing any edits, I'm restoring the stable edit of... well, more than 3 bloody years [19] (probably even more, this is just. how far I scrolled), before the recent and undiscussed edits by KansasBear of course. Next time, maybe bother looking at the page history before pre-planning meetings in noticeboards with a passive-aggressive tone. If all of us want to follow WP:ONUS, this actual stable version should be restored until the discussion is over. Take care, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Same sentence just linked to a different, though chronologically incorrect, article? This is starting to look like disruptive editing. Perhaps it is time to notify an admin.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You know Kansas Bear, even tho when interacting with you I don't get a warm feeling, I inherently respect any experienced editors like yourself just for the amount of work put on this website. If you think me restoring/compromising on a stable edit is "chronologically incorrect", you understand you always can tell me how exactly right? I'll be more than willing to correct myself. I don't wish to edit-war, when does following WP:ONUS and restoring stable edit means "disruption" or "edit-warring"? The discussion isn't even over yet, but you had no problem of reverting me multiple times and restoring your edits. As I told above, this article had a stable version of more than 3 years, and that I was trying to restore it before consensus was archived.

Weren't Orontids a dynasty of Armenia? They were. What that has to do with ethnicity/origin, that you tried to remove multiple times? Virtually all kingdom articles have the nation listed in lead, e.g. Iranian/Russian/Turkish/etc (and it's meant nation/coutnry not ethnicity/origin). Why this article would be an exception? Especially since I edited the wikilink to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity).

Lastly, I'm willing to discuss, I'm willing to cooperate, and I would kindly ask to stop with these threats of noticeboards and admins. In fact, I also discussed when restoring a slightly modified stable edit and explained my rationale (to compromise as to better reflect your concerns). I'm starting to feel bullied right now with threats by 2 editors well above my experience. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• "...even tho when interacting with you I don't get a warm feeling..."

I could honestly care less. When I interact with you, I get the feeling that this is someone who has edited Wikipedia before.

• "If you think me restoring/compromising on a stable edit is "chronologically incorrect".."

Why are you linking Kingdom of Armenia under Armenian? The Orontids were an Iranian dynasty that ruled over the Satrapy of Armenia. It was ruled as a satrapy by the Orontids long before they became independent kings.*cough*

• "Weren't Orontids a dynasty of Armenia?"

Oh please. You did not write that. This is what you wrote;

• "The Orontid dynasty, also known by their native name Eruandid or Yervanduni, was a hereditary Armenian dynasty and the rulers of the Satrapy of Armenia, successor state to the Iron Age kingdom of Urartu (Ararat)."

There was nothing Armenian about the Orontids, since even the article you linked Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) mentions three Iranian dynasties; Orontids, Artaxiad and Arsacid.

• "Lastly, I'm willing to discuss, I'm willing to cooperate, and I would kindly ask to stop with these threats of noticeboards and admins."

I call out bad faith editing when I see it. When an editor continues to add the exact same sentence to the lead of an article, while simply changing the link, that is disruptive editing. If you do not understand how English works when placing the word "Armenian" in front of dynasty then you should not be editing English Wikipedia. I could add Iranian back and simply link it to Achaemenid dynasty, and I am sure you would have a fit over that! Is this clear enough for you?

• "I'm starting to feel bullied right now with threats by 2 editors well above my experience."

Oh please.

Taking ideas from the leads other two articles previously mentioned:

• "The Orontid dynasty, also known by their native name Eruandid or Yervanduni, was a hereditary dynasty and rulers of the Satrapy of Armenia until 330BC and the Kingdom of Armenia from 321BC to 200BC."

Neither the sentence(s) about Urartu or the Scythians and Medes is referenced, and therefore should not be mentioned in the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

References