Talk:Artabanus I of Parthia

Requested move 1 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Per many sources such as [1]. In older scholarship this person was incorrectly called 'Artabanus II of Parthia', but that's no longer the case.

"Artabanus I (old numbering II), son of Phriapatius and younger brother of Mithridates I, came to the throne about 127 B.C. in succession to his nephew Phraates II (ca. 139/8-ca. 128) after the latter’s death in combat with nomads in the east of the empire."--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but since the "old numbering" and the presumption of a separate Artabanus I will be found in many sources, that requires a clear and thorough explanation in both this article and the article of any other person erroneously identified as such. That doesn't seem to have been done; the proposer removed all reference to Arsaces II being considered identical to Artabanus I, without providing any explanation that would have helped readers expecting some discussion of that identification in that article. I think it would be appropriate to locate some discussion of this matter in scholarly materials other than the above-linked article from Encyclopædia Iranica, since that source presumably has close ties with its subject matter and therefore might not appear the most neutral—which is not to say that it can't be cited, only that it should be supported with other materials that say or explain what it's being cited for, not merely use the "new" numbering, which is the impression one gets from the article. If this is done, and the claim is clearly supported by the scholarly community, then the move makes sense. Note, however, that some explanation would need to be included with every subsequent Artabanus who is also renumbered; although if a proper discussion is given here, a brief mention of that fact linking here would be sufficient. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• "(...) since that source presumably has close ties with its subject matter and therefore might not appear the most neutral (...)"

Are you serious? Just wondering. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Are these sources not neutral as well? [2] [3] Cmon, that argument is not gonna hold. Iranica is very well known for its reliability and rich information, written by the likes of Frye, Bosworth etc. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per the above sources. Also, claims like "Iranica might not appear the most neutral" are irrelevant, Iranica's publisher is Columbia University and it is written by many prominent historians like R. N. Frye, C. E. Bosworth, N. Sims-Williams and some 1000 others. I guess P Aculeius might be mistaken by the name "Iranica".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I see that what I said was ignored, as people chose to focus entirely on the suggestion that additional sources for the claim be brought in so that it could be explained without depending on a single specialist source. Oh, what a horrible idea: to have multiple sources when you're revising something found in countless history books and reference sources, without giving any explanation for doing so in the article, rather than in an unnamed hyperlink to an external source on the article's talk page! Unfortunately the point is still perfectly valid. Do non-specialist sources explain the difference and say that it's widely accepted, or do they simply happen to use the same numbering? As many sources as you can point to that use one version, you can also point to others that don't, and the resolution of the question isn't one of counting whichever one has the greatest number of sources. Evidence that something is said is not evidence of what it means or of how widely accepted it is. Is it really impossible to find more sources that explain the difference? The additional citations given above do exactly nothing to explain it, which is why I said that sources that do explain it are what should be looked for. If there are no other sources that directly support the assertion, then there's a serious problem with the proposal! This is basic research technique: when you're changing something long-established, find multiple, independent sources that support you, and then explain the change in the article so that people who aren't aware of the reasons will understand. Please try to understand this: I'm not challenging the assertion or the source. I'm saying you need more than one source, and simply pointing to other people who you infer agree with it because they happen to use the same numbering system does not provide a short-cut for finding those sources. And when you're done, explain it clearly in the article and in any other articles affected by the change (at least by linking them to a discussion here or in another appropriate place). P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, on the condition that the article states the different numbering (in the lede, once it is written, like "also known as Artabanus II"). T8612 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah I'm thinking about writing about the change of Artabanus' numbers in recent scholarship. That's most likely gonna be necessary. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Artabanus III of Parthia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Artabanus I of Parthia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

On my list. Give me a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Schippmann, K. (1986b) is not used as a source.
• The "Name" section needs at least one cite.
• "Determining the dates of Phripatius' reign" This is marginally poor English, and doesn't explain why he must have been old. Could you consider rephrasing?
• "refrained from using the title of "King of Kings" in his coinage" And why is this worthy of mention?
• "in order to establish friendly relations with their Greek subjects" It wasn't in order to establish friendly relations. You need a different word. Or a minor rephrasing. (Maybe something like 'as part of a policy of maintaining friendly relations with their Greek subjects'?)
• "Artabanus I's reign was a period of decline in the Parthian Empire" This may be correct, but from context I think that you mean {{'}for the Parthian Empire'.
• "Phraates II had died fighting the invading nomads" Delete "the".

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hi again and thanks for reviewing two of the articles I've nominated. Think I've fixed all the issues now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Cite 1: the page numbers don't match those in the bibliography.
• "The Modern Persian version is Ardavān (اردوان)." is uncited.

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed.
• I don't really have any source other than my own knowledge of the language (it's also spelled 'Ardavan' in the Persian Wiki, if that makes any difference), so I've removed it for now.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a pity, but if it can't be cited, then it shouldn't really be in a GA, no matter how *obvious*. Nice work on tweaking the wording in response to my comments above. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed