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)

Look, if one day i need advices about how editing this encyclopedia, i will ask to someone more experienced than me. For yout information, i took a look at the history of the article and i still don't see how your changes there were legit. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 28 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 of 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)

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

Oh really, you get that feeling. Are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet or something? Well, here's my suggestion: Since you have no problem in expressing your baseless feelings about me, I'll voluntarily choose to undergo an SPI investigation (since no Clerk would even endorse it if you felt to try). Pick any editor(s) you want, I really don't give a damn. One caveat, tho: when the SPI fails (and it will), you have to apologize to me publicly on my talk page for your baseless feeling and assumption.

This is what happens I guess when you dedicate time to learn guidelines/policies and when you actually stand your ground and participate in talks, try to cooperate/compromise. Good grief...

Secondly, out of everything you could've answered, you didn't actually answer my most important question of:

when does following WP:ONUS and restoring stable edit means "disruption" or "edit-warring"?

For the last time, I didn't introduce new content, neither did I remove any existing one. I only tried to restore stalbe version of 3 bloody years with a slight change in a wikilink later that I did with regard to your concerns. I didn't do any major change or edit the article unlike you [20]. You understand the edit history is public and visible, right?

This was the edit before your changes, which is literally the same as the 3 years old stable version (at least in the part that I restored, which is why we're having this conversation). So following up, I didn't do any edits (unless you count a minor change of the wikilink, which I'm more than happy to revert myself).

And if we truly follow wikipedia guidelines, the actual Stable version should be restored which had enjoyed consensus for over 3 years, per WP:ONUS WP:BRD, until editors agree or disagree with your changes. Is this clear enough for you? Do you enjoy when I talk with this nonchalantly negative manner? Well, I don't, and I don't enjoy when others talk to me like that. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Since you have no problem in expressing your baseless feelings about me, I'll voluntarily choose to undergo an SPI investigation (since no Clerk would even endorse it if you felt to try). Pick any editor(s) you want, I really don't give a damn. One caveat, tho: when the SPI fails (and it will), you have to apologize to me publicly on my talk page for your baseless feeling and assumption."

HA! You are the one that wanted to make this personal, not me. And SPIs can not connect to anyone beyond 3 months. Nice try though. Time will tell.

• "I didn't do any major change or edit the article unlike you.."

So? The lead did not summarize the article, instead it was a POV pushing nonsense. Why not add Armenian to Artaxiad dynasty, to the Arsacid dynasty??

• "...and I don't enjoy when others talk to me like that."

And I honestly do not care, you chose to make this personal and you got personalized comments right back. Then you decided you did not like that.

So, you want me to add Iranian while linking it to Achaemenid dynasty? I would imagine not. So the same stands for your edit, linking it to some other article is simply disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Compromise?

I'm not too familiar with MOS:ETHNICITY for non-modern subjects, but why not do what the German Wikipedia does and say Armenian dynasty of Iranian origin? That sounds sensible (factual?). El_C 01:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I suggested;

• "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."

And MOS:Ethnicity appears to apply to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography, and this is not a biography. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, that's why I was thinking of old timey people, but this is a dynasty made up of [that's it, that's the end of the sentence. I'm not gonna make a Soylent Green joke, that would be lame.] Anyway, I still like my phrasing better because I'm the one who suggested it. Oh, and flow — for the opening (your expanded description might be better afterwards, as an elaboration for it, maybe). El_C 01:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that the same issue was discussed in the past in talk page. Since I'm not very well versed in ancient Armenian/Iranian history, I would suggest to wait for other editors to get involved. I was actually trying to say this and restore the stable version that enjoyed consensus for 3 years, but to no avail. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Why does this article need "Armenian dynasty" placed in the lead when two other dynasties that ruled Kingdom of Armenia do not have "Armenian dynasty" mentioned in the lead of their articles?

• "The Artaxiad dynasty or Ardaxiad dynasty ruled the Kingdom of Armenia from 189 BC until their overthrow by the Romans in AD 12."
• "The Arsacid dynasty or Arshakuni, ruled the Kingdom of Armenia from 12 to 428."

I wonder why this article is written differently?--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok as I said I'm not that well versed in ancient history of our region, and my arguments here are mostly for following relevant guidelines, but isn't what you're doing right now considered WP:OTHERSTUFF? Also, as I said, can we have stable version restored until hopefully more (far better knowledgeable) editors join the discussion regarding your change, per WP:ONUS, please? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Question: Why shouldn't 'Iranian' be in the lead in an article about the Orontids, a culturally and ethnically Iranian family who stressed their Achaemenid connection, but 'Armenian' should? --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment : Agreed with HistoryofIran. We have 8 reliable sources supporting the Iranian origin of the dynasty, so we can leave its ethnicity out of the lead or say that it was an Iranian dynasty, either way, but Armenian dynasty sounds clearly irrelevant.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikaviani Thanks to both of you for involving in the discussion, hopefully I can hear other perspectives as well. May I ask a question tho? Since we're so focused on the ethnicity/origins of Orontids, and nobody seems to care about a stable/consensus version of more than 3 years, would any of the editors have the same attitude in regards to Safavids just as an example? or any other various kingdom articles which have origins different to the kingdom of their dynasty. Safavids have Turkic/Kurdish origins/ethnicity, isn't it right? Oh it seems so Safavid_dynasty#Genealogy—ancestors of the Safavids_and its multi-cultural identity.

Btw, this is something that many Azerbaijanis would also tell me on the internet, that's how I first knew about it. To which I usually answer: but wait a second friend, even tho their ethnicity or origin is Turkic/Kurdish, Safavids were an Iranian dynasty at the end of the day as dynasties have allegiances to their geographical association. Safavids were not a dynasty that had allegiances to Ottoman Empire or any other empire, but to Iran and its region. And surprise surprise, it also says in the lead It was an Iranian dynasty of Kurdish origin[21]. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Btw if I was you guys, I would remove the origin from Safavids lead aswell because of MOS:ETHNICITY, and I would restore the long-standing stable edit here too. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, firstly, Kurds are an Iranian group, so "Iranian dyasty of Kurdish origin" sounds legit. Secondly, on Wikipedia, we go by what the mainstream of reliable sources state, not with users' opinions, thus, the Orontid dynasty is legitimately labeled as an Iranian dynasty.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes but you conveniently ignored the part about Turkic origin.: According to historians, including Vladimir Minorsky and Roger Savory, the Safavids were of Turkicized Iranian origin | By the time of the establishment of the Safavid empire, the members of the family were Turkicized and Turkish-speaking, and some of the Shahs composed poems in their then-native Turkish language.[22].

Are Turks Iranian too? Should we modify and add this in the lead of Safavids: It was an Iranian dynasty of Kurdish-Turkic origin?

Oh I have a better suggestion: maybe we should follow the footsteps of our fellow editor here and do something similar: It was a Kurdish-Turkic dynasty and the rulers of Iran. I think most if not all of you would disagree with that correct?

But if you read my reply more carefully, I already explained that dynasties don't work that way (allegiances/geographical association). And when one says "Iranian dynasty" or "Armenian dynasty" it's not referring to ethnicity or origin at all, at least not in the examples I'm giving and not in the stable edit either. That's why I tried changing the wikilink to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), yet still got reverted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This is starting to get off-topic - sources universally acknowledge the Safavids as an Iranian entity. What about the Orontids? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought both of you were talking about ethnicities and origins, what? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Clearly it is time to move on. The same question has been asked at least twice[23],[24] and ZaniGiovanni continues on their rant of "nobody seems to care about a stable/consensus version of more than 3 years" as if that means anything on Wikipedia or their off-topic rant about the Safavids. See WP:Consensus can change and interestingly enough I see NO consensus made on this talk page for this so-called "stable" version. Also, MOS:Ethnicity deals with biographies not dynasties.

All in favor of,

• "The Orontid dynasty, also known by their native name Eruandid or Yervanduni, was an Iranian dynasty that ruled the Satrapy of Armenia until 330BC and the Kingdom of Armenia from 321BC to 200BC."
• "The Orontids ruled first as client kings or satraps of the Achaemenid Empire and after the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire established an independent kingdom. A branch of the Orontids later as ruled as kings of Sophene and Commagene."

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Both wording sound good, however, the first one is the better IMHO.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually that is the two paragraphs of the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The lead does not say that the Orontids are an Iranian dynasty, only that they are "a hereditary dynasty and rulers of the Satrapy of Armenia until 330BC and the Kingdom of Armenia from 321BC to 200BC.". Their historical background is detailed in the next section. I thought your first above proposal was about adding their ethnicity in the lead, did i got you wrong ? ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Currently it says that, but I have decided to write the lead the proper way by summarizing the article(at least the referenced parts of it). So those two paragraphs will replace what is currently in the Lead of the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me. Cheers. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, your thoughts on the new Lead proposal? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it sounds good to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: That's enough, you need to stick to what sources say, is that so hard to understand ? or, maybe, do you just refuse to understand historical facts that you don't like ? ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Reject KansasBear's suggestion, and added sources for Armenian origin. Kept lead neutral without mention of any origin. What do you think of the article now @El C? Since KansasBear couldn't verify the page and just scrapped entire paragraph, I addressed their concerns with a quote from the page (p.39). Since KansasBear told me that MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't "deal with dynasties" and other 2 editors demanded sources, I also added sources for Armenian origin and kept the lead out of any dynasty mention. And since I'm the only one showing different perspective than my fellow 3 editors who unanimously agreed with each other, I also want to hear your opinion. I'm very much enjoying my time on wikipedia *smile*. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

p.s. Kansas Bear ...and interestingly enough I see NO consensus made on this talk page for this so-called "stable" version – I like how you capitalize NO for some reason, I'll gladly follow your lead. Before you edits, there WAS consensus for more than 3yr old stable version and more or less minor changed one, at the very least loosely, per WP:SILENCE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, how sweet still pulling all those rules. Odd how someone that has only edited for 6 months knows SO much about Wikipedia. Yet, continue to ignore WP:LEAD and the entire origin section that blatantly states Iranian origin.

Also, your sources did not state Armenian origin, taken in context their usage simply means the same as "dynasty that ruled over Armenia".

• "doesn't "deal with dynasties" and other 2 editors demanded sources.."

I said why should this dynasty be called Armenian. Since NO sources state they are of Armenian origin. Ignore all the sources presented just go dig up some source that states "Armenian dynasty" does not mean they were Armenian in origin, which oddly enough NONE of your sources say that! Oh, and that is original research which I am sure you already know that! --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You would benefit from reading WP:GF and WP:NPA, as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks. Not sure why you're so hyper-focused on my "guideline knowledge" and still cast the same assumptions of sockpuppetry. You could've asked first how I know about WP:SILENCE (I even told above abt my general knowledge: This is what happens I guess when you dedicate time to learn guidelines/policies and when you actually stand your ground and participate in talks, try to cooperate/compromise. Good grief...) but who am I kidding. You've casted too many sock feelings and assumptions towards me for that without any proof whatsoever. Just your own, what you call, ah yes original research. Btw regarding WP:SILENCE specifially, you can look at @El C page for the exact answer, since I don't waste my time to reply to original research and baseless opinions with diffs. I'd rather save those diffs for more productive conversations.

Also, you've yet to explain why your removed this which I restored with exact page and quote. Kindly revert yourself as I addressed your concerns of "verifiability".

When it comes to my other edits regarding "Armenian dynasty" which was mentioned in my added sources, I'll reply later. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This is what I said;

• "See WP:Consensus can change and interestingly enough I see NO consensus made on this talk page for this so-called "stable" version."

Your links do not show a talk page nor consensus on a talk page. *good grief*

Odd how 8 sources stating Iranian origin is not good enough for you, but a comment taken out of context somehow means "Armenian origin".

• "You would benefit from reading WP:GF and WP:NPA..."

You would benefit from reading WP:TE, examples;fromthis to this. While claiming MOS:Ethnicity to place an ethnicity into the Lead, and this which makes no mention of any origin of any kind, but that did not stop you. And even ignoring this part of the quote you even posted in the article;

• "King Antiochus I (69 — 38 B.C.) built himself a funeral hill at Nimrud Dagh.(..) We see the king’s paternal ancestors, traced back to the Achaemenian monarch Darius..."

Miss that part? That right there is more than enough to prove an Achaemenian origin! So either you intentionally ignored this part or you are clearly not reading what the source states. FYI, Walker is not even close to being a reliable source for this time period and taken out of context. *good grief*

And finally, your restoration of the Izady source;

• "Another Armenian king mentioned is Eruand, who fights the Parthian king Artashes (ca. 2nd century AD)."

I am guessing you have not read the article(again) the Orontid Kings of Armenia died out around 200 BC. Feel free to self revert this information that is clearly incorrectly attributed to the 2nd century AD. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we should not use "X dynasty" to mean X = ethnicity.

• "and the Commagenian Orontids likewise syncretized .[..].. with Heracles (Studies 109 n. 168)." --Caucasia and Byzantium, "Traditio", Cyril Toumanoff, page 158.

Which would indicate the Orontids were Commagenian in ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Bobojon Ghafurov

@LouisAragon: With all due respect, Bobojon Ghafurov was a highly distinguished Tajik historian especially in the field of Greater Iran, hence why he even has an Iranica article about him[25]. He was the director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Soviet Academy of Sciences for over 20 years. His book was published by one of the top Academic publishers of the Soviet Union, Nauka (publisher). This is definitely not an obscure source but one of the highest quality sources about Greater Iran coming from the former Soviet Union, monitored but the Chief editorial office of Eastern literature. His wok is still considered highly influential today and is cited by Western Academics[26]. I asked an Administrator who is an expert on the Soviet Union about the source and the validity of eastern sources such as those published in Moscow and this is what they said:[27]

This is an academic source, from an academic published, and looks perfectly fine. If it contradicts to some other sources (which might be the case) it can be mentioned as one of the sources.If your opponents thing this is fringe they must come with some arguments better than the language of the source.

It’s just being used to support a statement already backed by another source so fringe shouldn’t be a problem, so I see no reason why this source should not be included. Also, you removed category:Armenia under the precipice that it was added by the disruptive new editor but it was actually added by Veteran editor Berek, I haven’t added it back so I would appreciate it if you would. Thank you, TagaworShah (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If Ymblanter can vet for the reliability of the Russian original, I won't object. But historiography within the Soviet Union was very much hampered by historical negationism, in the words of Rogers Brubaker: "No other state has gone so far in sponsoring, codifying, institutionalizing, even (in some cases) inventing nationhood and nationality on the sub-state level’ and establishing nationhood and nationality as fundamental social categories" (ref: Ghulyan, Husik (2021). "Conceiving homogenous state-space for the nation: the nationalist discourse on autochthony and the politics of place-naming in Armenia". Central Asian Survey (p. 276 (note 2).). See also; Human rights in the Soviet Union, Historiography in the Soviet Union and Historical_negationism#Soviet_history). The Soviet Union produced a lot of learned scholars, but due to aforementioned reasons, its better to cite their ouevre through the works of Western scholars, i.e. countries with freedom of press. The "original" works written by these scholars should be avoided IMO.

"His wok is still considered highly influential today and is cited by Western Academics"

Definitely. But what is the value, in addition to what I already told above, of adding a Soviet-era Russian language source to a statement which is already supported by a Western peer-reviewed source, which only a minority on the English wiki will be able to read?

• "I haven’t added it back so I would appreciate it if you would."

Category Category:Armenia is a major category that includes dozens of subcategories. It is not specific enough. This article is about a ruling dynasty that ruled in Armenia in antiquity. Not a ruling country/entity like Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity). All relevant categories are already included in Orontid dynasty. Adding Category:Armenia to this article tantamounts to adding Category:Russia to the House of Romanov article. Perhaps Marcocapelle could take a look at this. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: We cannot apply those criticisms to the entire history of the soviet union, even in the articles you linked they all mention 1956 as a turning point in Soviet Academia in terms of reliability, ie it got more reliable. This book was published in 1971. We must also consider the reliability of the author, I have not seen any literature about Ghafurov’s academic publications being tainted by Soviet historical negationism, in fact he is actually still considered one of the best historians for topics surrounding greater Iran and is a national hero in Tajikistan. This work is on ancient history and it’s not like it’s an extraordinary claim, it’s supported by statements by western Academics. I don’t see why we can’t include the source in the article, IMO it’s much more influential than the western source supporting it and the Iranian hypothesis has now 5 sources behind it if citation overkill is the concern. I don’t agree with the stance that we should not use any sources published in the Soviet Union, not every source has a western academic equivalent and these sources are very important in understudied areas of Asia, such as Armenia, where those equivalents may not exist. Ghafurov’s work is still applauded and studied all over the work as comprehensive studies of Greater Iran not propaganda, it’s even held in the princeton library[28]. Ymblanter did say they did not see a problem with it. As for the category, i’m sure Berek had a valid reason for adding it, I mean the Orontid dyansty is the first ruling dyansty of Armenia, but it’s not my addition so I won’t get too into it. TagaworShah (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Also most of the sources used aren’t openly accesible while this one is and the text can be easily machine translated so it’s actually more accessible than most of the other sources. TagaworShah (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• With respect to categorization, the article should not be a direct member of Orontid dynasty and Category:Armenia at the same time, per WP:SUBCAT. Besides, although Category:Armenia has not been tagged as such, all country categories and even all "history of country" categories should mainly contain subcategories rather than articles, those categories are just not specific enough for individual articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Additions by IP

In response to the additions by an IP.

• Maranci, Christina (2018). The Art of Armenia: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-19-093588-7.

Does not state the Orontids were of Armenian origin. Therefore that edit is WP:OR and the Bournoutian one is just plain and simple disruptive editing. This has been posted as a point of reference for when an Admin needs evidence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)