Talk:Mount Nemrut

Comments

Nemrut vs Nemrout

As far as I know, proper transliteration of the name to English is Nemrout, because both Armenian "ու" and Turkish "u" sounds must be written "ou" in English in order to be pronounced right. Because Nemrut could be pronounced like [nemrat] which is wrong. That's why Armenian names Անուշ[Anush] or Լուսինե[Lusine] translated to English like Anoush and Lousine. Sincerely, --Norayr (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why Doesn't the Article Mention Anything About Armenia

After doing research on Mount Nemrut from reliable sources, I came to the conclusion that Mount Nemrut was built by an Orontid king of Armenian descent who embraced Greek culture. That does not make Mount Nemrut Greek, and I am starting to get tired of Greeks hijacking the history of other civilizations. So back to the topic, It would be nice if somebody rewrote this article, and make it Armenian. If you want to have any evidence or anything to support the claim that Mount Nemrut is Armenian, buy a copy of the book Armenia: Cradle of Civilization, by David Marshall Lang, an English professor thats done extensive research on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.81.10.66 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Exactly!! I find it quite disturbing that in the whole article there is no mentioning of even ONE word of "Armenia", while there is mention of Macedonia . Ironically enough if you click on the name Antiochus I Theos of Commagene (the builder of the stone Gods) you'll find out he was a descendant of the Armenian Dynasty and was actually half Armenian (as it is often with Royalties they are mixed blood). But the fact that he is of the Armenian dynasty suggests his people were Armenian, so the Gods created in stone would represent their peoples believes!!! It's a shame this political propaganda has blinded people from historical truth. Armenian gods described without mentioning of Armenia!!! A SHAME !!!

monoliths

were these colossal statues originaly carved out of single stones? or were they made out of multiple stones?

thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tower of Babel, Nimrod, Nemrud-Nemrut

This article should incorporate a discussion of King Nimrod, and the possiblity of an etymological connection between Nimrod and Nemrut. cs (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

East-West-Conflict and Date

According to the german Version of this article, the Lionhoroscope is situated on the eastern terrace and it shows the date 14 July 109 BC, exactly 19:35 o'clock and this should be the date of the coronation of Mithridates I Callinicus - I'm now wondering which date this lion really shows -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What was the ancient name of it?

(Was it "Ankara"???) Böri (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Who did the beheading?

There is no mention of evidence pointing to those responsible for the vandalism of the figures (including the "beheading"), or at least a theory of who did it and when. If there is such a theory, can it be inserted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku (talk • contribs) 23:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a clear theory documented, but might point out that the statues are not made out of one solid piece of rock, but rather are built out of half a dozen roughly cut stones each. The heads are one single piece, and of course had been sitting on top of the rest. The heads might have been brought down by human vandalism, but any earthquake or maybe even the influence of snow and freezing water could possible have done the job.Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

I see that my edit, adding the "Name" section, has been reverted. It's not that I care too much, but I guess I might have made some mistake and would be happy to learn what it was. User Bgwhite says: "Do not use illegal copies of Copright material as reference. Also, this is not an HTML page, use wikicode." I'm sorry if I mixed up codes. As for the copyright question, I can't really understand that: the only sentence I copied literally is this: "every natural and artistic work that exceeded normal sizes were attributed to him", clearly marked as a quote. The source as such is hardly illegal, being a scholarly contribution to an UNESCO newsletter. What exactly is the copyright violation? Thanks for any clarification. (Below the text I inserted and which was reverted). Ilyacadiz (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not known why the mountain is called Nemrut and what is the connection, if any, with king Nimrod. There is no evidence that the name goes back to the Commagene kingdom . According to Turkish scholars, the figure of Nimrod as an evil king fond of idolatry is widespread in Islamic mythology, so "every natural and artistic work that exceeded normal sizes were attributed to him" and there are many other places in Anatolia and Syria named after Nimrod. The word "nemrut" has come to mean simply "grim, cruel" in Turkish.

Revert

@LouisAragon: Please actually read the sources before you revert, maybe take a look at WP:ONLYREVERT, if you have a concern about a well sourced good faith edit, it’s best to take it to the talk page before being quick to revert, that is not productive and can cause edit wars. The source is clear that it is talking about Armenian religous traditions: “The most spectacular arising from the Anatolian-Armenian religious milieu appear in the late hellenistic Commagene….” and “The Pantheon shows a specifically middle Iranian footprint, with the Iranian names of the gods corresponding most closely to the Parthian-Armenian pantheon” it also mentions the Armenian cult of Vahagn which is specifically Armenian. It’s also well established that the statues followed Greco-Iranian architectural traditions so I don’t know where you got that he was talking about architectural traditions when he literally said “in order to reinvigorate his ancestral religion.” TagaworShah (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: How about checking the talk page before reverting, you too could benefit from checking out WP:ONLYREVERT. You are clearly mistaken, how about you actually read the source and the quotes provided above. Canepa was unambiguous about the Pantheon including Armenian religious traditions, so how about instead of using your own assumptions you actually read the source, restore my edit per WP:RMV (it’s wikipedia policy), stop reverting disruptively, and actually discuss on the talk page, it exits for a reason.TagaworShah (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I already read the talk page, didn't make any difference. You still added information that was not mentioned in the source and ignored what the rest of the source said. No need to be hostile. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Another editor bring attention to your mistake and how you went against a wikipedia policy is not “hostile.” If anything it’s helping you be a better editor. Accusing other editors of hostility off the bat isn’t nice, especially when we’ve interacted positively before. If you read the source it literally says that the Pantheon includes Armenian gods such as Vahagn, the Armenians at that time period followed a syncretic version of Zoroastrianism but the Armenian versions of the gods had different associations. As explained by Canepa, the Persians never associated Verethragna with Heracles, that was done by the Armenians in the form of Vahagn which again as explained by Canepa, the gods in that pantheon most closely resembled the gods in the Parthian-Armenian pantheon. Please read the source from page 202-204, all of this is clearly explained there. Also, Wikipedia policy is unambiguous in how you should revert, if you already saw the talk page, you should’ve gave your reasoning there not by reverting, the edit summary is not the correct place for discussion. TagaworShah (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

So.. accusing me of being disruptive, mistaken, using my own assumptions, not paying attention, is not hostile? Gotcha. You keep mentioning 'Vahagn' as an Armenian god, but this what the very source says; "Of these Aramazd, Anahit, Vahagn, Mihr, and Tir are Iranian in origin," and "Tork’ did not enjoy the same importance as the other deities and appears to have been overshadowed by the Iranian gods Vahagn and Sandarmet (Mid. Pers. Spanda¯rmad)." Also, please quote the info included in the sources instead of simply writing it as how you perceive it, makes the conversation and researching the source much easier. At last but not least; "Antiochus I instituted a dynastic cult centering on a newly introduced pantheon of Greco-Iranian tutelary deities" no mention of "Armenian" or whatsoever. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Yeah, facts aren’t hostile because that’s what you’re doing, if you wanted a nicer response maybe don’t revert another editors contribution without good reason. All those gods were the Armenian version of the Zoroastrian gods, Canepa clearly states that the Persians never associated Vahagn with Heracles and that was a result of Armenian religious traditions. Cherry-picking a single sentence when literally the entire section is about Armenian influence on the Pantheon is not right. Here’s another quote “Although short lived, his monuments provide monumental proof of the power and importance of a resurgent, post-Seleucid Iranian kinship and Armenian religion’s role in its formation.” Canepa explicitly states that Armenian religious traditions had an important role in the Pantheon.TagaworShah (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a fact, just your own opinion, which I rather have you keep to yourself (WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA). So now showing a citation that you dont like is "cherry-picking"? It says "Greco-Iranian tutelary deities", not "Greco-Iranian-Armenian tutelary deities", which you are trying to add. Not to mention you are still at it with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You are yet to show any proof that actually supports your insertions, and are completely ignoring the citations that contradicted your claims, whilst yet still bashing me. Please ping me when you have something relevant to show, hopefully in a constructive manner. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Accusing other editors of battleground behavior for simply disagreeing with you and pointing out your mistakes is uncivil, as is reverting without discussion. None of the citations you provided disprove my claim, your WP:OR interpretations of the citations is in fact cherry-picking as the entire section disagrees with your claims. I have provided numerous quotes that explicitly disprove what you are claiming. Also Vahagn was an Armenian god, that is not disputed, whether he derived from the Iranian artagnes or simply associated with him however is disputed, according to this source[1] “ Some scholars have tried to derive the name Vahagn from the Persian deity Veretrana or Veretranga . It has become increasingly clear , however , that he was a native deity , whose origins are in remote antiquity.”TagaworShah (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

So all your accusations are fact, your claims undisputed, etc etc, but when I say something its either uncivil, disruptive, mistaken, or cherry-picking? Lol. This is prime WP:GAMING. I'm outta here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: So you’re just going to ignore all my points and instead accuse me of trying to game the system?? I’d rather not take this to ANI and resolve this on the talk page here, so i’d advise you to not refuse discussion and actually consider my points instead of accusing me of bad faith in order to ignore everything i’m saying.TagaworShah (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What points? You're yet to show proof from the source that the pantheon was an Armenian one as well, completely ignoring the fact that Canepa solely refers it to as 'Greco-Iranian'. What discussion? You insulting me for 2 hours straight is not a discussion. All this time we have been talking about what is mentioned in one specific source; however, when said source clearly contradicted your claims, you went to talk about a source (whose statement is WP:UNDUE anyways) that was actually in favour of half your claims. You can't combine two sources to make one certain statement, that is WP:OR. Canepa calls Vahagn an Iranian god, and the pantheon a Greco-Iranian one, and that's an actual fact. Anyways, I can play this game too, as the vast majority of sources call this pantheon Greek/Iranian. Ready, set, go;

"It is Antiochos I who was mainly responsible for the establishment of an intriguing form of Greco-lranian religious idiosyncrasy." - p 13, Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene"

"The rulers of Commagene, despite their Greek names, practised an Iranian dynastic cult that incorporated Ahuramazda, Mithras and Verethragna, equated with Zeus, Apollo-Helios-Hermes, and Heracles, respectively." p 436, Ball, Warwick (2002). Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire

"The most obvious example of this development is of course the iconographical and ideological program at Nemrut Dağı (first century BCE), where Avestan deities were explicitly syncretized with Greek ones to create a dynastic identity for a Macedonian-Iranian local ruler: Antiochos I of Commagene, who rather pretentiously claimed both the Seleucid and Achaemenid heritage, including the imperial title of Great King that was used by both dynasties..." p 214, Strootman, Rolf (2020). "Hellenism and Persianism in Iran"

"The richest materials for equations between Iranian and Greek divinites are the inscriptions from the royal cult at Commagene. Here we find three idenfications of Iranian divinities; Ahura Mazda and Zeus; Mithra and Apollo, Helios and Hermes; Verethraghna and Heracles and Ares." p 32, Traditions of the Magi: Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature

"The religious syncretism associated with the Commagenian dynasty, combining Greek and Iranian elements, is a phenomenon linked exclusively to king Antiochus I (c. 69–36 BCE)." - p 1, Commagenian, Greco-Iranian Religious Syncretism

"The consequences of these differences become obvious in the three Iranian gods— Oromasdes, Mithras, and Artagnes—who merged with the Greek gods in the theocrasies described above. - NEMRUD DAĞI

"As an instrumental part of this, Antiochus I instituted a dynastic cult centering on a newly introduced pantheon of Greco-Iranian tutelary deities, which were worshipped at specially designed sanctuaries constructed across his kingdom" p 202, The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity Through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE

"The doctrinal and ethical elements in the cult, which gave it this depth, appear, as we have seen, to be essentially Zoroastrian; and this points to the Orontids of Commagene having remained loyal to their ancestral faith (in its Zurvanite form) down to the time of Antiochus' father, Mithradates Kallinikos." ".....It was, presumably, through her that Antiochus learnt from boyhood to worship Greek gods as well as Iranian yazatas" - p 348, A History of Zoroastrianism, Zoroastrianism under Macedonian and Roman Rule

Also, ANI is a place for reporting users and such, not disputes. Even if it was, taking the issue there is not gonna make any difference when two veterans users already have disagreed and reverted your edits. Feel free to take the discussion over there though. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: LOL insulting you?? I never said anything about you personally just about your edits and editing behavior. It’s important to learn not to take those things personally. ANI is where you go when editors refuse discussion and continue reverting, which i’m sure you’d do had I reverted back as per WP:RMV. Also, two “veteran editors?” having edited on Wikipedia for a longer time does not make you right in a discussion, let’s get that straight. I didn’t synthesize anything, Canepa was the one who said the association with Vahagn to Heracles was an Armenian tradition, I simply gave an additional source backing that up. In addition, just because other sources do not bring something up doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be included, I can find a multitude of sources which include Armenian gods as well if you wish, but I think we can agree Canepa is a reliable enough source as it is. If you have concerns about due weight, just say that and i’ll provide additional sources but you saying that my citation doesn’t back up my claim is simply wrong. Again he literally says “ “Although short lived, his monuments provide monumental proof of the power and importance of a resurgent, post-Seleucid Iranian kinship and Armenian religion’s role in its formation.”TagaworShah (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If you think you are so right, then do please keep it up so I can report you to WP:ANI, then we can let an admin be the judge of that. I never said that being a veteran user makes me right in a discussion, please don't put words in my mouth. There is nothing wrong with refusing to discuss further when one of the participants is unable to follow core policies such as WP:CIVIL, I'm sure the people at ANI will tell you the same. Still doesn't say that the pantheon was also Armenian, as Canepa already called it Greco-Iranian, what do you think he meant by the latter word? And what do you think of those sources I posted? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: As per Wikipedia policy, “To call constructive criticism uncivil is potentially disruptive.” Even if you found my criticism of your edits, and simply your edits since I never commented anything personal, uncivil, you’re instructed to ignore them or give a gentle nudge that said editor is being disruptive, not center the entire discussion around that. Is reverting without discussion, refusing to continue discussion, or encouraging another user to edit war just so you can get them blocked civil? How about we move on from the accusations because they are simply unproductive and not advancing the discussion at all. The source literally says that the statues at mount nemrut are representations of the “Anatolian-Armenian religous milieu” and that the associations and names of the gods are closest to the Armenian traditions. I already commented on your sources, that none of them say there weren’t any Armenian gods, if due weight is what you’re concerned about I can find a multitude of other sources, just be clear that that’s what you want. As for Antiochus having Armenian ancestry I don’t know why you reverted as both the sources literally say he does, Canepa says he was proud of his “Armenian royal lineage” and the de gryuter source says he is descended from the “Armenian Orontids.” The sources says he has Armenian ancestry, point blank. He is literally descended from a King of Armenia. The Orontids being Iranian in origin doesn’t mean they weren’t Armenian, just like they mixed with the Persians, it is well know that they were heavily mixed with the native Armenian royal houses. But don’t take my word for it, the sources say he had Armenian ancestors, and they’re much more reliable than tertiary sources such as Iranica. Also your “veteran editors” comment was extremely unnecessary, what was the the purpose of that comment exactly? TagaworShah (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That policy would have been valid if it was actually constructive criticism. Those supposed 'Armenian' ancestors are referring to the Orontids, who ruled Armenia, but were of Iranian stock, which Canepa also says. The Orontids being Iranian in origin doesn’t mean they weren’t Armenian, just like they mixed with the Persians, it is well know that they were heavily mixed with the native Armenian royal houses. More WP:OR and WP:JDLI. My “veteran editors” comment (which was not even meant to take a dig at you or anything) was 'unnecessary', but your attacks are fine? More WP:GAMING. Can we end this discussion? This is getting more and more off-topic. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: We are not ending this conversation till we reach a consensus. What we can do is stop this “uncivil” accusations mess and actually get into the meat of the issue. I implemented a compromise to the Armenian gods issue and you haven’t reverted it so I can assume we are good on that front. However, the sources literally say “ARMENIAN royal lineage” Canepa, “Armenian Orontids” Brijder and here’s another source by Oxford University that describes Antiochus’ ancestry “ [2] “He was a man of Orontid Armenian descent, a family that traced their line back to the fifthcentury BC emperor Darius I, thus claiming both Armenian and Persian Achaemenid origins.” If the sources say Armenian, then we write Armenian, your conclusion that since the Orontids were Iranian in origin they cannot possibly be Armenian is a clear case of WP:OR and WP:IJustDontLikeIt.TagaworShah (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not a comprise, that's what the source actually says. You're taking the Canepa text out of context, he is referring to the fact that the rulers of Commagene are Orontid, whom he literally calls Persian. Also, Brijder is clearly using Armenian in a regional sense, as this is what he also says; “Admittedly the parallelism between the Greco-Iranian gods and the θεός Antiochus with his Greco-Iranian descent could be understood more directly, but this connotation was not really mediated by the texts, but primarily by the sculptural decoration“ We have already been through this Orontid origin chaos fiesta, the consensus was that they were Iranian as supported by the vast majority of sources, see [3] and [4]. You might want to look at the 8 citations in Orontid dynasty and 10 in Kingdom of Commagene as well. So thus neither a 'clear case' of WP:OR nor WP:JDLI, but hey those are pretty neat policies right? --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Neither of those conversations ended in a consensus so I don’t know why you’re bringing them up. I’m well aware that the Orontids were Iranian in origin, that doesn’t mean they aren’t Armenian as well. If the sources say he has Armenian ancestry SPECIFICALLY, then we say Armenian, they don’t just say Orontid, they specify Armenian. The Orontid dynasty origins and Commagene origins discussions clearly need an uninvolved administrator to solve, but this one is pretty easy as the sources literally say Armenian, nothing to contest, they say Armenian, we write Armenian. TagaworShah (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I highly suggest u read those two threads, so we dont get a part 3 here. They specify ‘Armenian’ because no general reader is gonna know what a Orontid is and because thats the country they ruled. Literally over 10 sources contradict you while you only have a single source that supports you, if thats not enough then we are never gonna reach consensus. Read WP:UNDUE. HistoryofIran (talk)

@HistoryofIran: I did read those conversations and came to the conclusion that they needed an uninvolved administrator to resolve. “They specify ‘Armenian’ because no general reader is gonna know what a Orontid is and because thats the country they ruled.” Says who? that sounds like a WP:OR interpretation of the source, if they say Armenian that means that they were Armenian, and not just one source, all 3 sources which we can all agree are reliable literally say Armenian, again Iranian in origin doesn’t mean that they weren’t Armenian, that interpretation lacks a lot of insight on how ethnicity works. If the sources say they were Armenian than thats means they were, end of story, this isn’t about due weight, if you want me to find 10 more reliable sources that say the same exact thing I will, it’s not like i’d have to go searching far for them.TagaworShah (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: @LouisAragon: Alright I have organized 11 undoubtably reliable sources that literally say Antiochus had Armenian ancestry, not just Orontid, but literally Armenian. They are organized here user:TagaworShah/sandbox, this disproves any argument about undue weight as clearly this fact has a multitude of extremely reliable sources backing it up as you can see in my sandbox. And please don’t start with any OR interpretations or synthesis of other sources, not a single source says that the Orontids cannot be Armenian if they are Iranian in origin, if the source says Armenian, we write Armenian. Not to mention some very reliable sources such as my first one literally called him an “Armenian King.”TagaworShah (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Many of the those sources use the term 'Armenian' in a geographical/regional sense. Why do you still cite Canepa and Brijder, who literally calls Antiochus an Iranian in the very source and clearly uses Armenian in a regional sense? Same goes for Strootman, and sources like Quinn say it even more obvious. Armenian royal house is not supposed to mean royal Armenian descent, but descent from the Kings of Armenia. Not to mention non-WP:RS sources such as World Monuments and one from 1938. This is clear a misuse of many sources, and thus WP:TENDENTIOUS. EDIT; I have analysed the sources here; [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I don’t know why you keep repeating the same unconvincing arguments, WP:REHASH. Just because a source says they were Persian doesn’t mean they weren’t also Armenian, we know for a fact they weren’t solely Persian, Persian and Iranian is not the same thing. They literally clearly used Armenian in an ethnicity/national identity way, and there is no evidence saying that Armenian would ever be used in a geographical or regional sense especially since we are literally talking about Commagene, that’s a WP:OR assertion. If the sources say Armenian then we also say Armenian, them saying Persian does not mean that they weren’t also Armenian. None of the sources say they were only Persian, and Persian is used in the same way Armenian is used so were they also using Persia in a regional/geographical sense? The first source clearly calls him an Armenian king, that source is a written by a specialist in the history of Iran and edited by a distinguished historian, and publisher by Oxford University Press. They would not allow a huge discrepancy like that to pass, that source is undoubtedly reliable. Not to mention in the other sources, they literally say he stylized himself as an Armenian king and wore an Armenian tiara, I wonder why. As for Encyclopedia Iranica, that is a tertiary source, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, and again not a single source says he wasn’t Armenian.TagaworShah (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should a single source say that he 'wasn't Armenian' or that he was 'only' Persian? Who is making up these rules, you? The sources doesn't say say that he 'wasn't Armenian' due to the same reason they are not calling it Swedish or Italian. Ultimately you are once again making more WP:OR personal conjectures. You accusing me of WP:REHASH is pretty rich as well. Encyclopedia Iranica is one of the best sources we have out there for Iran-related stuff, dismissing it just like that because you don't agree with it is not constructive. As for your other sources which you clearly cherry-picked and misused, I believe I clearly disbanded virtually all your 'points'. Ultimately majority of sources don't agree with your claims (WP:UNDUE). I believe we are nearing the end our protracted discussion here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: We have not reached the end of anything except me assuming any good faith in you. This clearly needs an opinion from an uninvolved since it is clear that you cannot objectively look at sources, which btw were not cherry picked, I can give you plenty of other quotes from those same books that uphold the same idea. You still stick to WP:OR assertions that one cannot be Persian and Armenian at the same time as a “debunking” of my sources, that is not a proper argument and will never be. You keep repeating the same unconvincing stuff over and over again. Armenian is clearly not being used in a “geographical” sense, that’s like the bulk of your argument. And Wikipedia explicitly says Secondary sources are preferred over Tertiary sources, take it up with them.TagaworShah (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Lol, you didn't assume any good faith from anyone from the get-go, hence your attacks. I never said that one cannot be Persian and Armenian at the same time, I'm simply saying majority of sources don't agree with your theories, which you are refusing to accept, hence your cherry-picking of sources, outright ignoring any information that contradicts you. A clear case of WP:POV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: You know I actually did assume good faith, believe it or not from our past interactions I had a lot of respect for you as an editor, that went out the window when you tried to use your veteran status on wikipedia as a way to intimidate me. It is glaringly obvious that you are not coming at these sources from a Neutral point of view yet you accuse me of POV editing? How are the majority of sources not agreeing with Antiochus being at least partially Armenian when i’ve showed over 10 that do? The only person cherry picking is you, looking at sources and saying that any mention of “Persian” means that my whole argument falls into shambles when they literally say Armenian in the next line. Also, the vast majority of sources call the Orontids an Armenian royal dyansty, the lede of the Orontid dynasty article should be change to an Armenian dynasty of Iranian origin, it was not simply an Iranian dynasty and you can best believe that when I’m done here and I will go straight to that article and start a discussion there. TagaworShah (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no need for fighting like in the Orontids page, everyone should focus more on the content being discussed rather than accusations. After all, that's what talk pages are for. I looked at the sources TagaworShah presented, they seem to be convincing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni and TagaworShah: As a reminder, please keep in mind our policies about due weight, WP:BURDEN and WP:NPOV. That few sources support tour POV is not really relevant, on the other side, what the mainstream of sources say is.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Due weight is not the issue, if you check my sandbox I have over 12 reliable sources that say that Antiochus had Armenian descent. If you want I can find 12 more about the Orontid Dynasty, Commagene, and Antiochus himself, why? Because the majority of sources say he has Armenian ancestry in one form or the other. Tertiary sources like Iranica oversimplify his ancestry and this oversimplification is a known issue among tertiary sources.TagaworShah (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Re-examining the sources, I see even clearer quotes of Antiochus’ Armenian ancestry. The Brijder source literally says he had a “ the mixed lineage of Persian-Achaemenid/Armenian, on the one hand, and Macedonian/Seleucid ancestors, on the other.” While the Wiley source also LITERALLY says “ Antiochus was the son of a Greek mother and a Zoroastrian father of Armenian descent.” And the Andrade source synthesizes the information about Antiochus roots as “Greek, Persian, and Armenian ancestry,” so please tell me who was cherry picking the sources? Btw I also added a source from Princeton university that says Antiochus’ dyansty was an “Iranian-Armenian” one. All of these new changes can be easily seen in my sandbox where I now have over a dozen reliable sources confirming his Armenian descent. TagaworShah (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't require having much experience in order to confirm that TagaworShah is on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission to shove mention of "Armenia" and/or "Armenians" into this article, in violation of WP:VER and WP:RS. When one takes a careful look at his sources, it becomes apparent that he/she carefully skimmed passing mentions of a geographic notion of "Armenia" and/or other minor connections, in order to push a partial Armenian origin and pantheon for the ruling dynasty of said region which has been comfortably described as being Iranian/Persian by the overwhelming number of WP:RS. The same way numerous sources mention a "Persian Ilkhanids/Persian Ilkhanate",[6]-[7]-[8]-[9] the academic consensus is that they are of Mongolian origin. It appears said user has been cherry-picking and omitting sentences from books that mention the Commagenenian rulers being of Iranian origin and their kingdom Greco-Iranian (i.e. Canepa), in order to push a POV. Not even the UNESCO inscription for Nemrut Dağ[10] mentions a single word about Armenia/Armenians. How come, I wonder? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Glad you could finally join the conversation. Nice one throwing out accusations without actually reading the sources. I’m sure when Richard Foltz called Antiochus an Armenian king he wasn’t talking about geography or when the Wiley companion to Zoroastrianism said his farther was “of Armenian descent” either or when Jaś Elsner’s Oxford Source says “ He was a man of Orontid Armenian descent, a family that traced their line back to the fifthcentury BC emperor Darius I, thus claiming both Armenian and Persian Achaemenid origins” or when Andrade in his Cambridge university book said “Greek, Persian, and Armenian ancestry” or Brijder saying “ the mixed lineage of Persian-Achaemenid/Armenian, on the one hand, and Macedonian/Seleucid ancestors, on the other.” Yeah these sources are explicit in that they are talking about him being of Armenian descent and there is no denying that. All of these verifiably reliable sources and more can be found in my sandbox. It is so disheartening that editors that have edited for such a long time as y’all cannot let go of your own ethnic convictions to subjectively look at the sources. TagaworShah (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It is so disheartening that editors that have edited for such a long time as y’all cannot let go of your own ethnic convictions to subjectively look at the sources."

Well, since my last name is also the name of a Scottish village, I will not say what flags I fly at my house in Kansas. LOL

@Kansas Bear: See now why did you take that statement as directed towards you when this was the first time you even commented in this conversation or interacted with me? Highly suspicious. TagaworShah (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Antiochus an Armenian king"

Hmmmm........

Yeah? that’s what the source says. I think a specialist scholar in the history of greater Iran, edited by a distinguished historian, wouldn’t make a statement that bold unless there is some serious scholarship to back it up. TagaworShah (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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

So using said logic I should say the Orontids were Commagenian? This is where context is tricky. How about we stick with sources that state "X-origin" or "X-descent"? That way we avoid any possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If you look in my Sandbox there are over 5 sources that explicitly say Armenian descent in some capacity. TagaworShah (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And you did not answer my question. Toumanoff, a specialist scholar, stated "Commagenian Orontid". There's my "hmmmm".

@Kansas Bear: yeah? he was clearly talking about their nationality as they were the rulers of Commagene and to separate them from the Orontids that ruled Armenia just like Richard Foltz says an Armenian king of the Commagenian dynasty. However, if they are referring to the Orontids in Commagene but still saying Armenian, than maybe they’re talking about something else? TagaworShah (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "See now why did you take that statement as directed towards you when this was the first time you even commented in this conversation or interacted with me? Highly suspicious."

I did not take it as directed towards me. Just, as another editor once stated, I am having "so much fun editing". Also, I watch 21K articles, most have to deal with Late Antiquity and Persia/Iran. But feel free to run an SPI, if you think I am running sockpuppets. FYI, if you have not guessed yet, I live in Kansas. :)

Say what??! You live in Kansas? I would’ve never guessed. I’m not gonna run an SPI on a user I just met, im not oblivious to how these things work. Only time will tell. :)TagaworShah (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "If you look in my Sandbox there are over 5 sources that explicitly say Armenian descent in some capacity."

No! Really? Never would have guessed it. I have been reading this entire conversation since its inception. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So then you should have no objection with that information being put in the article then? TagaworShah (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• " he was clearly talking about their nationality as they were the rulers of Commagene and to separate them from the Orontids that ruled Armenia just like Richard Foltz says an Armenian king of the Commagenian dynasty."

Context is everything, hence why we should stick to X-origin or X-descent.

• "I’m not gonna run an SPI on a user I just met, im not oblivious to how these things work."

• Yawn* Yeah, 15 yrs, 39K edits, compared to editors that are here literally here mere days/months that seem to know a lot about Wikipedia rules, Wiki-speak, and know how to write complex references? Should I tell you now that I have admins that watch my edits? LOL. Ooops.

Suspicious doesn’t necessarily mean sock puppetry, more intimidation method from “veteran” editors flexing their experience I see? TagaworShah (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Only time will tell."

Safavid article filibuster time now, or claim of MOS:Ethnicity? You should probably focus on getting consensus here, instead of trying to make a point.

What are you even on about? How about you actually read the stuff before casting aspersions, WP:POINT has nothing to do with what i’m doing. TagaworShah (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Say what??! You live in Kansas? I would’ve never guessed."

Really? If you are so adamant about getting a consensus you think continued off topic nonsense helps your case? You want to make veiled accusations, comment on other editor's ethnicity, that is on you. Not quick enough to figure I edit articles from England to India in a time period up to the Renaissance with the exact same tenacity and view towards sources and neutrality. Can not take a joke about your battleground comment regarding other editor's ethnicity, not my problem. Take some advice, you should drop this part.

This is clear trolling behavior at this point and I’m simply not gonna respond back to. And don’t go creating false narratives, I never commented on another user’s ethnicity, I said that the above users should not let whatever ethnic affiliations they belong to stop them from objectivity looking at sources. Not like I accused anyone off the bat, there are clear patterns. TagaworShah (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• "So then you should have no objection with that information being put in the article then?"

I have seen no examples of what you are proposing. Post an example, please. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: This is what i’m proposing in the first subsection instead of “ These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who Greeks and Persians.” It should be “These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians. TagaworShah (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

None of the citations which you cherry-picked actually say anything about these slabs and whatnot. You basically added your own personal commentary veiled with citations. More misuse of sources and more WP:TENDENTIOUS. Not to mention WP:UNDUE is still against you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: How about you stop with the personal attacks, yes saying an editor is tendentiously editing without proper evidence is considered a personal attacks and the way you keep accusing me of that is borderline harassment. The sources are cherry picked because they don’t agree with your perspective?? And no it’s not undue weight since i’ve provided a multitude of reliable sources that support my claim. The statement is clearly talking about Antiochus’ ancestors not the slabs themselves. He had Armenian ancestors as well and that is easily verifiable by the sources. Not to mention the sources i’ve narrowed down EXPLICITLY say Armenian descent, so any accusations of Tendentious editing is just a straight up personal attack. TagaworShah (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You literally just commented on other editor's ethnicity, and now you are playing the victim? More WP:GAMING I see: “Playing victim: Violating a rule and at the same time claiming that others are in violation of the same or a closely related rule. Also known as hypocrisy.“ Repeating yourself does not make your argument stronger, the sources are literally there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Wow, twisting my words to create a false narrative, so civil. I didn’t comment on anyone’s ethnicity, I simply said to not let your own ethnic convictions get in the way of you subjectively looking at sources, which is literally what the WIKIPEDIA POLICY says. Let’s not talk about how you tried to intimidate me with that little “veteran editors” line or accuse me of pushing an “Armenian narrative”, none of my sources are Armenian so who’s narrative were you talking about? I find it so fascinating that you keep throwing out these random wikipedia guidelines then go and do exactly what they tell you NOT to do. You have centered the whole conversation along the lines of accusing me of hostility instead of actually talking about the sources even after I offered to just let it go and focus on the meat of the issue. So please tell me who is actually trying to game the system using various guidelines that don’t even pertain to my edits. You’re right, the sources are there and they EXPLICITLY say he had Armenian ancestors, I don’t need to repeat myself against, seems like a clear case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. TagaworShah (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Literally two users are saying that you have commented on someones ethnicity. Also, it's quite rich that you accuse me of creating a “false narrative“ whilst you are falsely saying that I tried to “intimidate“ you, i.e. more WP:GAMING. As for the rest of your comment, please read WP:REHASH. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: How did I comment on someone ethnicity when I never stated their ethnicity or said anything about their ethnicity just that they should let their “ethnic convictions” prevent them from looking at sources objectively, that’s literally what the Wikipedia Policy says too, more gaming the system to try and frame me as hostile just so you can avoid conversation. So what was the purpose of the “veteran editors” comment?? It’s so glaringly obvious what you meant so don’t backtrack, this whole conversation has been an intimidation method to try and steer away from actually looking at the sources. The only one rehashing their arguments is you, that’s why I told you to check out [[WP:REHASH] like 30 comments ago, the sources say what they say and your WP:OR assertions don’t change that. This clearly needs to be taken to the DRN immediately. TagaworShah (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states the slabs on Mount Nemrut indicate Antiochus I's Armenian ancestry? Establishing his ancestry is not the same as proving what the slabs show. I am sure you know what WP:SYNTHESIS is. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: We aren’t talking about the slabs, we are simply saying what ancestors he had, the sentence is already broken up in that way, if you want we can break it up even further, but in that context it is clear we are just generally talking about his ancestry not soley the slabs.TagaworShah (talk) 02:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not need to be pinged.

• "We aren’t talking about the slabs, we are simply saying what ancestors he had, the sentence is already broken up in that way..."

This is what you wrote, "These slabs display the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians". Looks like we are talking about slabs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I ping everyone when I reply to them, it’s just my preferred style. The sentence is clearly split up into two statements, the slabs reflect the ancestors of Antiochus and the ancestors of Antiochus were… therefore the second part of the statement should include who the ancestors of Antiochus were, it’s that simple. Btw, I would highly appreciate it if you could go to the DRN, link is on your talk page, and contribute over there as i’d prefer a more structured conversation. Thanks. TagaworShah (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No. The sentence you wrote,

• "These slabs display' the ancestors of Antiochus, who were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians."

Ergo, you have to have a source stating what the slabs display, not who Antiochus' ancestors were. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Not how the english language works, this sentence is actually a conjunction of two statements. That means that it is two distinct statements combined into one sentence for the sake of conciseness. Think of it like “These slabs display the Ancestors of Antiochus. The ancestors of Antiochus were Greeks, Persians, and Armenians.” To be concise and avoid the redundancy above we combine those two statements into one sentence while retaining two distinct but related ideas. Therefore in that context, the sentence would simply be referring to who his ancestors were not the slabs themselves. Got it? TagaworShah (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Not how Wikipedia works. You have to have a citation that actually supports the statement you're adding, otherwise what you're doing is called WP:OR. Got it? This is what Antiochus word for word says in this 'slab'; "The Persians and the Greeks: the most fortunate roots of my ancestry" - Iranian Expanse, page 95. Where do you see any mention of Armenians? --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Actually Canepa summarizes what he said in the slabs and it’s “ …he [Antiochus] emphasized his fortunate roots among the Achaemenids and Seleucids as well his claims to the Armenian royal legacy” so no it’s not OR, but please, a volunteer has agreed to help us resolve the dispute in a more civil manner on the DRN, so i’m asking you nicely to shift the discussion over there please. TagaworShah (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Claims to Armenian royal legacy literally does not mean he claimed Armenian descent, please read Wikipedia:COMPENTENCE. Antiochus in his own inscription word for word literally says Persian and Greek, yet you deny that as well? And you accuse others of being influenced by their own ethnic convictions? And no, the discussion is still ongoing here as far as I can see, in which so far at least 3-4 users don't agree with you. If any of them move the discussion there, I'll do the same. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Wow so because I interpreted the source differently from you now i’m “incompetent.” Also I love how you spent 3 comments accusing me of personal attacks for saying not to let your ethnic convictions get in the way of NPOV just to literally say the same thing to me? Kansas Bear has joined the DRN and he was the only other active participant in this discussion, no good progress is being made here. TagaworShah (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as i can see, you failed to achieve consensus here, what about droping the stick and moving forward ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: The debate is far from over and is currently active on the DRN in a more organized format. TagaworShah (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)