Talk:Kingdom of Sophene

Untitled

Armenians are also liar and fascists like Turks. Kingdom of Sophene is Zaza. It was a Zazaan Kingdom.Armenians steal our history. They are thieves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.128.104 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Armenian? (ethnic)

I have never seen anything saying that the kingdom's inhabitants before it was conquered by Armenia were Armenians. The only thing I have seen is some Georgian scholar claiming they were a Nakh people (like their contemporary Ers, etc... related somewhat to Urartians and Hurrians...). But as far as I know nobody really knows for sure because the Supani are mysterious and little is known of them or their language... if there is discussion on this by scholars, please enlighten me of it...--Yalens (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've gotten it...

So, according to the various sources on the Nakh Peoples page,

According to Georgian scholars I.A. Djavashvili and Giorgi Melikishvili Urartuan state of Supani was occupied by ancient Vainakh tribe Tzov, state of which is called Tsobena in ancient Georgian historiography. Sophene was part of the kingdom of Urartu in the 8th-7th centuries BC. After unifying the region with his kingdom in the early 8th century BC, king Argishtis I of Urartu resettled many of its inhabitants to his newly built city of Erebuni.

...so its possible it was both I guess. Before it was conquered by Urartu it was Nakh... or was Tsov as opposed to Urartian , if you are one of the people who consider Urartian Nakh, because of similarities (Urartian house - biani (-> Armenian city Van?); Ersh- buni, Chechen- bun; etc.). Then the Tsov were moved to what is now the Republic of Armenia ("Around Eribuni"; where other notable Nakh peoples were noted later to live, like the Ers and the Dzurdzuks to their south before they migrated north), so the region was left less populated when the Armenians took over Urartu (or otherwise overthrew their foreign lords as Armenians claim?) and was one of the first places to complete Armenianization. What do you people think? --Yalens (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Tsov

Okay, first of all, I have a real problem with Aram-van deleting sources that refute his/her views [[1]]. Second of all, that Sophene was even Armenian AT ALL originally is disputable. At the very least there should be some discussion about this before he goes on a deleting spree, as I am the only person who has ever used this talk page. I'm pretty sure we could come to an understanding...--Yalens (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Sophene was Armenian and it isn't disputable. Second, how could they have spoken Tsov, if it is a North-Central Caucasian language. Only Georgian scholars say, that the Tsov language was spoken in Sophene. It isn't disputable, that Sophene is Armenia, no historian wrote, that Sophene wasn't Armenian, by Romans it was called Fourth Armenia. The historians mention, that Tigranes the Great reunited the region. Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed it entirely. Firstly, the article is about the Kingdom of Sophene. Whatever the origins of the kingdom's population, it is laughable to suggest there was an Urartian-period language in use in this much later time period - so mentioning "Tsov" in the infobox is invalid. However, I question that Armenian was the majority language. The removed text "According to Georgian scholars I.A Djavashvili and Giorgi Melikishvili Urartuan state of Supani was occupied by ancient Vainakh tribe Tzov, state of which is called Tsobena in ancient Georgian historiography. Sophene was part of the kingdom of Urartu in the 8th-7th centuries BC. After unifying the region with his kingdom in the early 8th century BC, king Argishtis I of Urartu resettled many of its inhabitants to his newly built city of Erebuni" was downright bizarre. The titles of the cited "sources" indicate books about Javakheti, about Chechnia and Ingushetia in the modern period, and about the populations between Aztrakhan and the Kura river. These are ALL books dealing with regions and time periods that are completely different from the subject of this article! The text is full of dubious content and non-standard spelling, for example "Vainakh" is presumably "Vannic" - and I see no mention of "Tsov" under that entry! Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kay, there's a lot to explain, so this will be a little on the long side. Please read it though.

Okay, to Aram: Dealing with Sophene's ethnicity, that it was mainly or even exclusively Armenian in the time of the Romans is not disputable. North-Central Caucasian language is an obselete term to refer to Nakh languages, mainly because it has been proven they are part of the "Northeast Caucasian" language family. But Northeast Caucasian is also now a misnomer, because the term has been expanded (for quite awhile now, many decades) to include Hurro-Urartian as a branch. It is widely held among many circles that virtually all of Armenia was originally inhabited by Caucasian language speaking peoples (just as Azerbaijan was before its Turkification)- Kartvelian speakers in some areas, "Alarodian" (i.e. Urartian-Nakh-Dagestani-Hurrian) in others. Of course, this is highly unpopular among Armenians themselves, who tend to prefer the version that the Armenian language was spoken in its modern homeland since the beginning of time (and thus support the theory of Armenian origins of ALL Indo-European languages, going against the mainstream belief that the Urheimat is in Eastern Ukraine). According to the Caucasian-origin theory of Armenia, the native languages of the region are Urartian and its relatives, which during ancient times included a handful of Nakh languages (which still contribute somewhat to placenames in Armenia). The speakers of Armenian mingled with these Urartians and Nakh to produce the modern Armenians- and as a result Armenian has a notable substratum (which you can even read about by visiting its page on wiki!), including even Van (from Urartian biani or otherwise Nakh buni). Armenian genetics also shows that Indo-European peoples are not the only source of Armenian ancestry. For example, you can see here [[2]] how in the study it turned out that Armenians had genetics highly irregular for their language family; and R1a and R1b, the two proposed Indo-European markers, is only at 6% and 19% respectively...). But now I am off-topic. I don't dispute that Sophene was Armenian: it wasn't any less Armenian than Yerevan is (and no less Armenian than London is English). It's just that there is the theory that the Tsov was spoken there before Armenian (and Tsov possibly replaced something before it...). --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(to scribble): Okay, maybe you're right that Tsov was probably extinct there by 300 BCE... On those grounds it is justified to remove it. On book topics, I have never heard of a single book that deals SOLELY with Sophene. If Caucasian peoples inhabited Sophene originally, then it is still related with their history as a whole. Also, you are incorrect in your spelling assertions. Vainakh is indeed incorrect, but it is being confused with "Nakh" (Vainakh, or Dzurdzuk, is simply a subgroup of Nakh, and the only major living branch, so they are used interchangeably often), not "Vannic".

(to both) First, I'd concede scribbles' point that it was definitely extinct by 300 BCE, so referencing it here... I think that the controversy between Armenian scholars on one hand and Georgian and other Caucasians on the other should be mentioned, presenting the two sides equally, the Armenian view (saying that the Armenian language is the oldest language in the region, and that Urartians and others were merely ruling over them, if I am missing something from the Armenian viewpoint add it) and the Caucasian view (saying that Indo-Europeans as a whole are not native to the South Caucasus, and migrated there, both assimilating and replacing various Caucasian and other indigenous groups- various "Alarodian" in Sophene groups as well as Kartvelians, Caucasian Albanians, Caspians and Hattic in ). Maybe we should put it on Sophene instead? --Yalens (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think (hope) that the field of Urartian studies has progressed beyond "controversy between Armenian scholars on one hand and Georgian and other Caucasians on the other". And even the most extremist Armenian source would never claim the Urartians spoke Armenian! The off-topic titles of those sources did suggest to me propaganda produced by Georgia to "big itself up" by making ethnic or cultural claims to lands that it never had (since it has an inferiority complex about its historically bigger, older, and more culturally important neighbour Armenia). Even if those sources did contain genuine research, if the only people who have made these non-mainstream claims about the ethnic origin and language of Sophene are some minor Georgian historians writing in books that seem to be about completely different subjects, then I still don't see a place for their claims. But it is off-topic material for a Kingdom of Sophene article anyway. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgia isn't trying to claim anything against Armenia (or Kurdistan) with regards to Sophene. Nobody has said that there were Kartvelians in Sophene (Kartvelians in and around Ardahan and Kars, yes, but not SOPHENE). Only Hurrians and Nakh (with the two categories overlapping either). And this isn't Chechenia or Ingushetia making claims either, no Chechen or Ingush even dreams of taking Sophene. The info is not propaganda of any sort. And, no I don't think it has- I have met plenty of Armenians (some of them on Wikipedia) who still claim that Urartu's populace spoke Armenian and that the Urartians were only rulers- despite that the linguistic analysis says that the Hurro-Urartian and Nakh words in Armenian form the substratum, not the superstratum. The claim, anyhow, is that there was the Nakh people- the Tsov- inhabiting Sophene and giving it its name before the Armenians conquered them (and the rest of Urartu...)... It's that simple, no geopolitical motives at all. We could at least put this on Sophene's page, as part of Sophene's history as a whole, don't you think? And it belongs on this page too, because it is integral to the section titled "Origins".--Yalens (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Armenians on Wikipedia aren't "Armenian sources"! :) If these claims aren't irredentist (cultural irredentisim rather than territorial), why are their sources books with titles that seem to have nothing to do with Sophene but everything to do with the current international concerns of Georgia? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, irridentist is not a reason to exclude information. Second of all, you are doing some heavy speculation- for example, they could be in there simply because Georgians and others like to learn about surrounding regions in general, as histories of neighboring regions are often intertwined? Not to mention that books about modern Nakh peoples often mention the historical Nakh peoples and their legacy? It's not so unrelated. In any case, I hold to my point that on THIS page, discussion of Sophene's origins is quite on-topic with regards to the fact that there is a such-titled section (and I did not make the section originally, at least I don't think I did).--Yalens (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As well as still standing by my earlier objections. I say it is not on-topic. Origins of a kingdom content does not generally contain minority-viewpoint claims about population ethnicity from a period many hundreds (over a thousand, since it is pre-Urartu?) of years before that kingdom's existence, especially where it has no relevance to that kingdon's existence. Origins is really meant to contain information about the entity's immediate political. military, dynastic origins, etc. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, before the Tsov info was added, the origins included info on Urartu's hold on the area- going at least 4 centuries back. Thus the argument that origins are "immediate" political and so on origins is empty. And labeling so-and-so a "minority" viewpoint in a not-so-well studied topic matter on a lesser-known part of the world is highly subjective. I'd also like to note that I have never seen any sources explicitly refuting the work done by Melikishvilli and the rest. And finally, no, if you read the text in question, the thing dates back to the 700s or 800s BCE, so that is not thousands of years before the Kingdom... I see no just reason for excluding the info (it does not have to go HERE, we could put it on Sophene in general, but then again there is the section here...).--Yalens (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe nobody has refuted it because the claim seems so suspicious that, as well as dealing with something very obscure, historians either don't know about it or don't feel a need to bother refuting it. If it smells of you-know-what, its my experince that it generally is you-know-what. On what archaeological basis is this unusually precise and confident Nakh origin theory built upon? There is no 2800-year-old "ancient Georgian historiography" (or even a 1800-year-old one). Where does this "Supani" name come from? What source is claiming that it is Sophene? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribblescribblescribble (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody ever said the theory was god-given or unfallible. However, it is a theory about the matter and deserves mention. The Georgian chronicles, like many historical chronicles, reference events long before their compilation, occasionally using sources no longer available. And yes, they are referring to Sophene. Once again, not a single one of your arguments is passable as a reason for excluding the info. --Yalens (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IP and "Ararat"

If Ararat and Urartu are to be considered identical, that there was a state (not just a mountain) named Ararat and that it was synonymous with Urartu, we must have citation of this.--Yalens (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify: a source about Urartu, from a perspective of Urartian studies, rather than Bible studies by Westerners who probably know little about Urartu...--Yalens (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see why you added it in reference to the source; however, Ararat refers only to the mountain in the ENGLISH language, not in Hebrew. Adding the name for Urartu in various other languages, be they Hebrew, Persian or whatever, unless the name is somehow significant for some other reason besides existing, is only going to make the article confusing. For now, I have left it, with some edit.--Yalens (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If I may chime in, in Armenian, the Kingdom of Ararat is often used when speaking about what English speakers call Urartu.--Moosh88 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's actually quite interesting, Moosh. Nonetheless, I still think that we should only refer to Urartu by Urartu as that is its English name, and this is English wikipedia, mainly to avoid confusion... I also don't really understand why the IP makes such a big issue over it, there's plenty of articles they could constructively contribute to.....--Yalens (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the IP is apparently unable to understand the need to use the talk page, I am obliged to post here: Bible Encyclopediae are not the sources we use for wiki. Period. (not to mention that, once again, this name shenanigans will cause serious confusion to readers, who are only familiar with Ararat as a name of a mountain, and Urartu as the English name for the kingdom...)--Yalens (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing

I have read the book in which HistoryofIran is editing. It is a great source of knowledge in regards to the Kingdom of Sophene. While I appreciate his/her input, it seems that he/she is omitting Armenian/Roman/Greek influence from his/her editing. When I look up each page that is referenced, only information about Iranian influence is being included. Clearly the kingdom has a wide range of cultural influences. It does the reader a diservice to have someone who has a cultural bias in editing.

Example 1: Page 111 by Michał Marciak reads "The inquiry into Sophene's cultural landscape reveals a number of characteristics which can be labeled as different cultural elements; local Anotolian, Iranian, Armenian, Greek-Hellenistic, Roman, Syrian-Mesopotamian and Christian."

The Wikipedia page only refers to Iranian/Greek influences.

Michal Marciak goes on to state examples of strong Iranian (Which historyofiran mentioned)and cited Armenian influence (which historyofiran ignored). "Furthermore much data suggests the Armenian influence in the region and the preception of Sophene as an integral part of the Armenian world has a had a long record in scholarship. Indeed, to some Greek/Roman geographers Sophene appearted to be a distinctive part of Greater Armenia (e.g.Geog.11.12.304;Georgr.5.13.13;Pinly the Elder HN 6.22)"

In Regards to Religion: HistoryofIran just mentions "Iranian Cults," which simplifies the understanding of religion in the region along with it's basis. By cults, what we should be refering to is paganism with a variety of cross-cultural influences. Page 112 of the book he/she cited states: "In this context, one may perhaps argue that the well-attested presence of Iranian culture should be interpreted as "the Irnaian derivation characteristic for Arsacid Armenian," ie. apparently as coming to the regiion directly from Greater Armenian and only indirectly from Iran. At the same time, one might speculate to the contrary that such a strong presence of Iranian culture influenced the Greek/Romans writing about the region and made them preceive the region of Sophene as Armenian in general terms."

The author goes on to mention cultural influences by region.

HistoryofIran only mentions Iranian cults observed by some elitists. This does not do the reader justice. Wikipedia readers should be prithee to overall unbias information rather than just a random fact.

Sweetcotton101 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)sweetcotton101

So much for your intellectual discussion. Right from the get go you are acting like a manchild, accusing me of bias and whatnot. Yes, there were obviously other influences in the area, but the most important ones were clearly Greek and Iranian, as can been seen in 111-112. You're more than welcome to mention other cultures, the difference here is that you removed sourced information for no reason. The sourced religion section literally mentions that not only the elite, but also the lower classes worshipped Iranian cults. I guess you missed that part too? I'm done here, used too much of my time this week dealing with the likes of you. Keep causing disruption and I won't hestiate to report you, my patience is running rather low. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

How am I causing disruption if I am quoting the book itself and have a difference of opinion in regards to which facts you are choosing to quote? I am not doing anything that is causing disruption but asking why certain facts are being omitted. Like I said, I joined Wikipedia yesterday and I'm not sure what you have been dealing with. It wasn't my intention to remove sourced information but rather provide a more overall picture. I have PhD in Middle Eastern Studies and would like to contribute. I prefer working together than working against eachother, as we seem to have similar interests. Is it ok with you that I make some contributions that come directly from the sourced book? Sweetcotton101 (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You basically copy pasted information from the book, that's called copyvio, which is against the rules. I frankly couldn't care less about your so called PHD. Mentioning it everytime won't make your edits more valid. Also, if you want to work with editors, you might want to be more polite to them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware I couldn't directly quote. Thank you for letting me know. Is it ok if I summarize what was quoted? I am being polite and would appreciate it if you were polite to me as well. I look forward to working with you. Sweetcotton101

I would like to know, specifically, what culture of Sophene was Armenian, that is mentioned in that particular book. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure! The book in it’s entirety is an overall analysis of a variety cultural influence across the region, which includes Greek, Armenian, Iranian & Syrian influences (as mentioned above). The author draws upon an array of resources in Armenian, Latin and Syriac. In regards to Armenian culture, one example is when Marciak refers to Byzantine adminstrative scholars who observed the region with distinctive Armenian traits/culture throughout Sophene. This was thought to be as a result of neighboring Greater Armenia. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Religion

Would it be fair to describe the religion mainly practiced in Sophene as Zoroastrianism rather than just Iranian Cults? These cults were sectors that were practicing Zoroastrianism and Marciak mentions these cults under the broad understanding of Zoroastrianism as well. Anahita, the Iranian godess that was revered was a Zorastrianism godess.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

She's not strictly a Zoroastrian deity though, and we follow what the source says, not the opinion of users. Please be more careful and thoughtful with your edits, I'm getting rather tired of clicking the revert button. --HistoryofIran (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can please stop with the condescending comments regarding your exhaustion in dealing with me since I have just joined a few days ago, I would appreciate it, as I am trying to be thorough like you are. You too were once a new editor. In regards to the topic at hand, it wasn't my opinion, it was mentioned throughout the book, along with other references.If that is not satisfactory how about this source? A History of Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule By Mary Boyce, F. Grenet, page 320 "..such assumptions would seem improbable, given the declared pride of the Orontids in their Persian heritage, and the known Zoroastrianism of their cousins and contemporaries, the Orontids of Sophene" In regards to repetitive information, stating that Sophene was ruled by 'Iranian Orontids', I believe is rather repetitive, esp since it is known that the Orontids have Iranian lineage. It would be similar to saying the Turkish Seljuk Turks. It is also misleading, b/ a special "Iranian" section of the Orontids didn't rule Sophene. It was just simply the Orontid dynasty, and its lineage speaks for itself. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a resume of the whole article, so it's not repetitive at all. There is nothing wrong with having the origin of a certain dynasty stated in the body of the article, in fact it's only an improvement. Sure it could be more detailed, but I cba expanding the Sophene article rn. I highly doubt the average reader even knows what Sophene or the Orontid dynasty is. Same even goes for Seljuks. Also, please do show where in the text it is stated that they specifically were Zoroastrians in the book of Marciak? I would assume they were Zoroastrians as well by the looks of it, but if it's not mentioned in the book then we can't add it. And add the Boyce reference next time then, otherwise it just looks like you're adding your own opinion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will be happy to cite/reference the Boyce book when I make my next edit. It seems that the Marciak book is really the only one referenced here, and there are plenty of published books that I would like to reference in regards to The Kingdom of Sophene. I will respectfully disagree with you in regards to the 'origin' of the dynasty being in the paragraph. I find it to be repetitive, and also misleading given that the Orontids were technically an Armenian dynasty with Iranian lineage. It seems partial. Would it be more prudent to say Iranian Armenian Orontids? That doesn't make sense either. In cases such as this where there is an impasse, how does this get resolved? Also, if there is anything I can assist you with in regards to research, citations for other articles please let me know. I tend to really zone in one thing till I'm 'done', and then on to the next. Cheers! Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That's because Marciak's book is seemingly the only comprehensive work about Sophene. There isn't much else to take from as far as I know. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the link! It is quite helpful. I don't have any qualms about Orontids being including in the Lead section and didn't mean to imply that, and I can see what you mean when you say it should reiterated in the paragraph below. However, it's partial to call it the 'Iranian Orontid' for the reasons I stated above. Technically, it is an Armenian dynasty with Iranian lineage and to summarize it as Iranian, misinforms the reader in regards to the historical integrity of the dynasty itself. It should not say Armenian Orontid or Iranian Orontid, but just read as Ortonid dynasty, with its available link to the article itself. In regards to other resources for the Kingdom of Sophene, there a few other resources than I plan to cite and bring forth, along with books in other languages as well. Let me know your thoughts. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Quick note, as I noticed in the revision history that it was changed from Armenian Orontids to Iranian Orontids. I believe this to be partial. It should read as neither. The Orontid Dynasty is an Armenian Dynasty, that is not up for debate. It's a historical fact, just as the fact that they had Iranian lineage. However, the lineage doesn't make the dynasty Iranian. The Ottoman Dynasty had other lineage as well, and they weren't purely Turkish. Sultan Selim II isn't referred to as Polish, for example b/ his mother was from Poland, nor do we refer to the Ottoman Dynasty as the Polish Ottoman Dynasty all of a sudden, after Hurrem Sultan. This is very misleading. I ask this to be changed. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your comparison, no one is pure obviously. The Orontids are of Iranian stock, just like the Ottomans are of Turkish. It is however a good idea to mention that the Orontids were based in Armenia if that's what you mean. Also when you add a citation please add its book in the Sources section below so it links to that, I've done it for you with the Boyce citation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with the Boyce citation. I'll do that from now on and also just talk here per your preference. My main point is, it's misleading to push to the forefront the partial ethnicity of a dynasty. The Ortonids were an Armenian hereditary dynasty, not an Iranian Dynasty. Saying "Iranian" Ortonids misleads the reader. We do not say the Mongolian Timruids, the Kurdish Safavids, nor do we don't say the Turkish Ottomans. We simply say, the Timurid Dynasty, Safavid Dynasty or the Ottomans. Generally, dynasties are not referenced with their ethnic heritage in the forefront. They are phrased with their geographical association. For this reason, I find it to be misleading, and respectfully ask that we change it to just "Orontids." Sweetcotton101 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The forefront is the lead. It's not mentioned in the lede. I find these comparisons rather meaningless. But I've removed it since I cba, I honestly don't care, the article is a mess anyways. In return I hope not to waste more time on this talk page and that you have grasped how Wikipedia and sources somewhat work. And that you write what the source(s) actually say (with your own words obviously) [3] --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Culture Deriving from Geography

HistoryofIran-You reverted my edit, and I do think it's misleading b/ you are depending on the analysis of one historian, rather than the several historians he's quoting. But alright. I do not want to get into an editing war, and understand that you have clout. The page you quoted is actually a great one page 61--insofar it describes the vast elements culturally in the region. The pages before goes on to talk about Armenian/Syrian cultural elements. It actually presses on how these two cultures had such vast importance in the area due to their cultural/geographic proximity with their neighbors. There are chapters, in regards to this that I would like to bring to light the strong Syrian/Armenian affiliations in the region. Within the same page that it mentions that Iranian/Greek influence is strong, (but doesn't mention that it is 'stronger') and the author goes on to state that there is a long record of scholarship of Sophene as an integral part of the Armenian world. Therefore if we are to mention the "strongest" elements in the lede, I believe it's fair to also mention what has held a long record of scholarship. In the page itself I believe it is deep deeper into the cultural affiliations with Persian, Armenian, Syrian and Roman culture in the area. Tbh I fear making changes even when I have textual backing in fear you will just revert it, as I do not want to get into an editing war with you. I also don't want to ask for permission every time I make a change. For that reason, if you could respond to my question above regarding the Orontids on this page, I would appreciate it, as I do not want you to get tired of reverting as you mentioned before, nor do I want to get disheartened from making my contribution. Cheers! Sweetcotton101 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You could have just to written this in the previous section. No need to make so many, it's quite discouraging. Sophene is also mentioned as a part of Syria though, so you need to put that in as well, which is barely any lines. Maybe the history section would be a better place for that? There's nothing to fear, no need to be dramatic.. I haven't reverted every single edit of yours. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed Resources

I have a few questions in regards to the revisions of this page. While I agree the page needed to be updated, I question why certain resources were completely removed and information that was properly cited was taken out, and replaced with other information. On my first day here, I was rebuked for removing a cited text (albeit it was done in error on my part). I see in the revision history that cited text, reputable sources such as Paul Bedoukian's book on Sophene has been removed and Cyril Toumanoff's Studies in Christian Caucasian History, Georgetown University Press has been removed..these are all great and reputable texts and I question why the information they provided would not be available on this page, and was removed?Sweetcotton101 (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

First citation by Toumanoff had no page, second source is seemingly By Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, there are definitely better sources than that, and newer for that matter. No to mention it has no pages cited. Generally it doesn't seem properly cited, as I can't find it on the internet. There's no page 30 in the Coinage of the Armenia Kingdoms of Sophene and Commagene to my knowledge, it has the pages 71-88. TLDR: Article was a mess, I attempted to somewhat fix it by using a recent and comprehensive source about Sophene. Some users seem to have a hard time distinguishing between Armenian as a ethnic and geographic term. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions about lead/Cultural Landscape

I wanted to first talk here before making changes as I do not want to get into a editing war. I find the lead of this article to be incorrect. In following the lead of HistoryofIran to avoid these wars, I have used Michal Marcak’s book. While Marciak states Iranian/Greek influences were strong in Sophene when summarizing the chapter on Cultural Influences, Marciak doesn’t not state they were the strongest. Marciak actually mentions how there is such a long record of academic scholarship about Armenian and Syrian influence, and consistently mentions various cultures, and consistent in emphasizing the Armenian/Syrian influence given the location of Sophene. We can see this from an historical aspect given that the region's population spoke Armenian, observed Armenian dieties etc, and was widely influenced by Syriac Christianity much later on. For that reason, I believe the lead should reflect this and state that Sophene had a wide array of cultural influences which included Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Syrian, Roman, and Anatolian (even that was mentioned!) influences. Additionally, from a historical standpoint, I don’t think its correct to rely just a single source. I’m not quite sure as to why Sophene deemed just as a political entity when historically it's refered as an Armenian monarchy (makes sense b/ its a kingdom, not a provence or a state etc). Page 61 of the Marciak book is referenced in this article in the lead, but no where does it state this. Am I missing something? For that reason I’m really confused as to why all this is left out, especially since it is important from an historical standpoint. I am happy to cite/reference from several other resources/historians in the above mentioned subject as well.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

։@Sweetcotton101: I think if you have good sources you should definitively add them. I am wary of over-reliance on a single source and Marciak's works are relatively new and his claims, while quite interesting, are still not widely accepted in the scientific community. I'm also interested in Armenian and Middle Eastern histories and can read English, Armenian, Russian, and a bit of German, so I would be happy on collaborating on some of this articles.--Aram-van (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

։։Looking forward to it. Cheers!Sweetcotton101 (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

History of Armenia Template

Kingdom of Sophene regarded as part of Greater Armenia in most of the reliable sources, Kingdom of Sophene was included under the title of Armenia on Encyclopædia Iranica, and Encyclopædia Britannica states that it's part of Armenia's history.

• Encyclopædia Britannica: Sophene

• Encyclopædia Iranica: ARMENIA AND IRAN

Template was removed without consensus on the article's talk page.

"Kingdom of Sophene not only belongs to the history of Armenia, but also belongs to Greek, Iranian, Turkish and Syrian histories, respectively."

@Sweetcotton101: No, it's not. Kingdom of Sophene is not part of history of Iran or Greece, and do I have to mention that Turkey and Syria are relatively modern states, Kingdom of Sophene was province of historical Armenia, History of Armenia Template should be shown on this page.

TOUMANOFF, CYRIL (1959). INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN CAUCASIAN HISTORY The Formative Centuries (IVth-VIIIth). Fordham University. p. 29. Having overthrown Orontes, Artaxias possessed himself of most of Greater Armenia, but not of the entire kingdom, because a scion of the old dynasty, named Zariadris, established himself in the south western Armenian province of Sophene (ancient Ishuwa). That land, situated between the Tigris and the Euphrates, south of the Arsanias and extending southwards beyond the Anti-Taurus, and so beyond the south-western bastion of the Armenian Plateau, had been the Hittite frontier of the Vannic Monarchy and now was the most Hellenized of the Armenian provinces. Խալդի (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)