Arsacid dynasty of Armenia is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
This dynasty was a branch of the eponymous Arsacid dynasty of Parthia (Iran), with the latter having two more branches in the Caucasus apart from Armenia. This is confirmed by numerous sources. I just wonder why does the infobox still state regarding ethnicity Armenian? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: This article is similar to Chosroid dynasty. It's very biased and current revision is just a POV-version. Both articles censored Parthian (Iranian) origin of those two dynasties, and used biased words to represents them as Armenian and Georgian. It's funny when you read about their Iranian roots but these article summarized them as non-Iranian. Both articles need new revisions. Also you should look for other Parthian related articles too. They have similar dubious contents and pov claims. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this tendency as well. However, I believe in WP:GF, and don't think the majority of the people who contributed on them (or still do) had an idea of pushing them as ethnically non-Iranian. However, there are always a minority of contributors who certainly try to push for this through typical e-nationalistic edits, resulting in what we see on these articles. Nevertheless, returning to the main debate; all Arsacids were scions, branches, descendants - whatever one wants to call it - of the Arsacid dynasty of Parthia, who were 100% Iranian. These branches were also all thus Iranian if you search back to the first ruler of every branch of these other Arsacid lines. How they presented themselves in their politics, that's a totally different story. The Armenian Arsacids might have been enemies of their neighbors and blood brothers the Parthian Arsacids, but it doesn't suddenly turn their ethnicity into "Armenian". Just only even thinking how one can present such obsolete reasoning, is quite laughable at best. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Only the first representatives of the dynasty were Parthian origin. "Ethnicity" section should be removed from infobox. --Rs4815 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say it's a little more complicated than that; some of the rulers considered themselves Iranian, while some others would consider themselves Armenian, but the dynasty itself was more or less of Parthian origin during its whole excistence. I found a very detailed source about it some time ago, but unfortunately I can't remember the name of the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Only some of representatives of dynasty was "more or less of Parthian origin". For almost 400 years of rule, many of members of dynasty certainly intermarried with Armenians. It is absurd to claim that the whole dynasty had "Parthian ethnicity". --Rs4815 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)