Talk:Chronicle of Arbela

Laughing now!

One line? That's it? What is this--that Graebergs and I might be able to add too!! ARE YOU BEING FUNNY? I am overcome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I started on narrative, but I have run out of time--can't finish right now-- I have to go but I will finish it when I get back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing's on a deadline. Every little bit counts. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not, but leaving it partly done muddied the waters a bit! It was completely unclear why they would be singled out! That is why I like to do things in sections.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Gufrashnap

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the thing in the "Narrative" section is just referring to two out of many characters in the whole work. So when I fill out the narrative section, I'm thinking that the bit about Gufrashnap and his buddy will go not at the header, but in the appropriate chronological location. Alephb (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

By all means, put them in chronological order, nothing wrong with that at all. But those two characters are key to the argument over authorship, so while they are two out of many, it seems right to me to at least mention them in this section. I will (or we will) discuss the details of their stories under authorship, so if you want to remove my special mention of them here, just move it to authorship instead. I have no problem with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, I have no desire to remove the special mention. I was just trying to figure out where they go. I've found Rakbakt -- he's a ruler of Adiabene who helps the Christians in the second century in the text. I haven't found Gufrashnap yet. Maybe I accidentally skipped over him somehow, or maybe he isn't a contemporary of Rakbakt. Maybe he comes later in the story? Anyhow, I won't have much of an opinion on what to do with the section about the two of them until I have a clear idea how they fit in the story. It's also possible my current approach to the narrative section is going to wind up way too long. I figured I'd finish it out following the current approach, and then we could go back and trim out the excess content. 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds smart. They are in different places--the goof guy is after the story of Rak. As far as I am concerned, the decision of where to put them is yours to make. I'll put in content, you arrange and remove and replace at will so it has continuity and is organized in a coherent manner. Somebody needs to do that, and after all, you are the Captain.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I was looking at all the stuff I've found and decided a good approach might be to just create its own section and discuss it in more detail there. You know how I like detail.  :-) If this seems like too much--which we all know I am prone to--it is perfectly okay to condense at will. I am thorough but I almost never begin at concise. I have to get there. Since I know this about myself, I am always grateful to anyone who helps me achieve that. I won't be offended! I have to leave again today and can't finish the section right now but if you are okay with it, I will finish it up later. In my pov this is actually the most interesting aspect of this entire discussion. This comparison does make it look like a forgery. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

So that means I told you to decide --and then decided myself... Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Decisions hurt my brain anyhow. No problem. Being Captain is a lot of responsibility for one Wikipedian, and if you had me making all the decisions it might go straight to my head.

On a more serious note, I wouldn't worry too much about conciseness. Right now this article has about 4-5 KB of readable prose. There's a fuzzy line around 50-60 KB where, roughly, it becomes time to either shorten the article or split it into multiple articles. We're not anywhere close to that line yet. That part of why I started the narrative section in the wordy way I did. I figured I'd go for something like bishop-by-bishop coverage, and then pare it down if we need to afterward. Alephb (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I like that approach. I decided I liked it enough that it would read better without the "special mention"--which makes more sense in its own category anyway. I hope you are able to persevere and make it all the way through! Yeah--we won't have a problem with this one being too long--no matter how 'wordy' I am--or anyone else is--there's just not that much out there. At least it's not as bad as when I was doing all that referencing for Graebergs--I thought I would never find enough material to reference the book of Numbers! Apparently even scholars find it boring! :-) Being Captain suits you to a T in my pov! I like it. It makes me comfortable. Decisions should hurt my brain more--I just jump in--but at least I am trying not to write past 2AM anymore! That's progress of a sort right?  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Getting enough sleep is always progress. (I think the trick with Numbers is to read it after Leviticus. Placed next to Leviticus, Numbers doesn't seem all that dull). Alephb (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

At least with Leviticus one has the benefit of some occasional outrage and confusion! :-)

I have a question about content here in the historical section. I've included what little history of the Chronicle itself there is, and I've included some history of the study of it, and I'm kind of wondering whether or not to go a little further afield and put in 'context' of the history of the area. Queen Helena converts to "Nazarene Judaism" and visits Jerusalem during the famine there in the early first century (20's?). Later in the first century, the Apostle Addai who is thought to have been either the Apostle Thaddeus or one of the seventy disciples of Jesus--mentioned by both Eusebius and Josephus-- was sent by St.Thomas to Edessa to preach the gospel there while Thomas went to India. Addai, in turn, sent Mari to Mesopotamia. "Adiabene" is first used in the first century and may refer to "the province of the sons of Addai" indicating Christianity really did come to the area early and thereby lend support to the historicity of the Chronicle.

I am also wondering whether or not to say anything about the further "context" of Roman Sassanian conflict and the timing of what led to the persecutions there. All of which might have a bearing on 'History' but also feels like it might be completely beyond the scope of this little article. I value your opinion--what say you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. If it winds up being excessive, or too far off topic, we could always trim it back a bit later. At the very least a "here's what the Sassanian Empire was, here's what was going on historically in the times mentioned in the Chronicle" should be justifiable. Of course, for claims like "Addai was thought to be Thaddeus" or anything like that we'd want good sources, and we'd want to match whatever degree of certainty or uncertainty is in the sources, but yeah. Have at it.Alephb (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Aye aye Captain!  :-) As far as I know right now "Addai might be Thaddeus" is pure tradition with no other support. We'll see, but sources of that time and location are apparently extremely scarce. I don't yet know what "Nazarene Judaism" is either! More to discover here! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha, so me wikilinking A to T was not a good idea? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what? I don't see it as a problem. There is nothing to indicate one way or the other and tradition is all there is to go on--so as long as that is clear--a link to read more about Thaddeus and decide for one's self whether not it could be true is perfectly reasonable. That's my opinion anyway and it's worth every penny you gave me for it.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

next

Now that I have done all this reading we should make use of it and do the History of Mar Qardagh next. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow.[1] Just... WOW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I note that there is an article of Mar Qardagh. Would it be a good idea to treat that subject like Pionius, meaning merging/redirecting to a "History of Mar Qardagh"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Mar Qardagh is mentioned in multiple ancient texts, we should keep both articles separate. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Like it? Aleph and I make a pretty rockin' team don't we? I agree with Judecca though, no merging. I have tons o' stuff!Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I write the first sentence, then she writes the entire rest of the article. We deserve equal credit. Alephb (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! You wrote more than the first line! I just work fast I guess--and gather lots--but research really is my thing! I hope you don't mind. I'm not stepping on your toes am I? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

BLOA FTW!! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk, I don't mind in the least. The workload is plentiful, but the editors are few. There are far more articles I'd like to see written than I'll ever have time to write.

Mr. Saeng, what does BLOA mean? I just can't keep up with all the acronyms you kids use these days. Alephb (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Boring Little Obscure Article of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay then good! I wouldn't offend you for all the tea in China--even though I don't drink tea... We will pick up the pace and put a dent in all the bloa you can think of! Thank you for sharing the credit. No one actually keeps track of this stuff here do they? Oh--and Mr. Graebergs sir--I will be the clueless one this time--I know btw but what is ftw? So I forgot! Elam next! And humor! We have to help our fellow musketeer! As soon as he sends me that link. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

For The Win. Damn, I'm being obscure today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

need info from official translation

@Alephb: I need to know if Gondishapur, or Papa the Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon are mentioned anywhere in the Chronicle. Do you know since you've been reading it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Gondishapur is not ringing a bell. A text search shows it doesn't appear, at least not under that particular spelling. Papa does show up, though. If you go to the translation found in the external links section, you can find mentions of Papa on pages 21 through 25. Alephb (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you dearheart. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, forgive me if you already know, but do you know about "Ctrl + F"? I used to think everyone did, but then I found out one of my brothers, who is extremely bright, does not, so lately I've been checking. Alephb (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay--I'm glad you prefaced that with your brother is 'extremely bright' because no--I haven't a clue what you are referring to. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All right. If you ever have a web page or PDF open, you can click anywhere on the page and hit the CTRL button, and then while holding it down, the F button. That should open a little search bar. Then you can type anything you want into the search bar, and it will show you all instances of the word or characters you type in the document. If you use a Mac, it's the Command button instead of Control, but otherwise the same thing. Word documents, PDF documents, web pages in any common browser -- pretty much everything allows you to use control F. So, for example, if you are in the PDF document for the Chronicle of Arbela, you could type something like "Gond" in and it would show you every time those four letters appear in the document -- every Gondishapur, Gondeshapur, Gondra, or whatever. It's no substitute for actually reading a document, but when searching for a keyword, it's great. Sometimes I CTRL+F " ." [space period] in Wikipedia pages to see if people are putting unnecessary spaces in front of periods. It's got a lot of uses. Alephb (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How did you learn that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you the sort of person who always reads the instruction book? That info will help me, so thanx--but you do realize this means I get to ridicule you for knowing stuff like this from now on right?  :-) Also, I did the history thing--finally--so edit away! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

jenhawk777, ok... So when I wrote "ctrl-f:ing" here [2], what did you think I meant? The mind shudders! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Graebergs--I didn't know what you were referring to but I sort of half understood the rest--so I went with that! I now have an image in my mind of your brain shuddering... I should be concerned--but instead I am laughing! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, I was once the kind of person who read the instruction manual, until I learned about CTRL + F. Now I use CTRL + F to just read the part of the instruction manual I read need at any given moment. I work in a quasi-legal field (think lawyer but way, way, way less qualified -- I shouldn't even give myself legal advice), and CTRL + F is my substitute for actually reading the whole text of the statutes I have to follow for my job. Alephb (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My husband is the kind of person who reads instruction manuals from front to back, so in my experience it means you have to be a little OCD, and since everyone knows being a little OCD is not only necessary but a virtue required for success in any field, that tells me you are not only careful and thorough at your job but no doubt successful as well--giving me full rights to make fun of you! That's just the way life works--be good at something--live with the ridicule! :-) An overwhelming amount of reading requires some kind of short-cut--it's amazing you do Wiki for relaxation for heaven's sakes!! Does your favorite sport involve math?! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

In high school, us members of the math team referred to ourselves as mathletes, so . . . sort of. And yes, Wikipedia is relaxing after work. If I screwed up at work, my boss would get fined, because I do his a bunch of local-legal paperwork for him. If I screw up on Wikipedia, the worst thing that might happen is that they . . . might not let me edit Wikipedia anymore. I'd live. Project Gutenberg is always looking for proofreaders anyhow. And I've got an economist and a Hebrew Dictionary writer that I do a little book-proofreading for when I get time. Since graduating college and finding myself a job that doesn't make me work sixty hours a week, I suddenly find all this time, and I gotta do something with it.Alephb (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Addai in Josephus?

There's a quote in the article now, "A very old tradition says the apostle Thomas sent the Apostle Addai, (mentioned by both Eusebius and Josephus and who is traditionally thought to have been either the Apostle Thaddeus or one of the seventy disciples of Jesus), to Edessa to preach the gospel there while Thomas went on into India. Tradition says Addai, in turn, sent Mari to Mesopotamia."

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the work cited, but I've got serious doubts that Josephus has anything resembling a clear reference to a Christian named Addai. User:Jenhawk777, since you've done a lot more reading for this article than I have, do you have any idea if this "Addai in Josephus" thing is real? If you, or Grabergs, have access to the original source, would it be possible to hunt down the original citation in Josephus?

My strong inclination would be to imagine that Josephus has some kind of reference (maybe to Theudas?) that someone, somewhere has interpreted as referring to an Apostle Addai. Alephb (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I will hunt that down. I think the reference used is a good one, but I will do the Josephus thing--you may be right about that.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No--I looked--you know what? I found out yesterday that one of the references I had been looking at was a self-published vanity piece. When I am making notes and writing, I keep track of author and page numbers and then go fill in the rest of the reference info at the end, so I didn't realize what I was looking at at first. Then when I discovered that, I went back and deleted what I thought was from that book, and removed him as a reference, but but I think this particular reference to Josephus and Addai might have been from there too, and I just missed it. Josephus mentions Adiabene in Antiquities in multiple places. He mentions Theudas--but it's not the right Theudas. If your control-f thing works--there is no direct mention of Addai--there is only what the lunatic guy says was Josephus round about way of referring to him. It was his interpretation and he is not a legitimate source. It's bogus. I am so so sorry. I can't believe I included that without verifying it. Genuine for Eusebius--not for Josephus. (I used "The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Historian:" by Flavius Josephus, and edited by William Whiston to check.) I'm sorry Aleph. I guess I should start checking references first. The "very old tradition" quote is from a good source, mentioned by Eusebius is from a good source, the rest is from more than one source--but no Josephus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's the source of the quote [[3]] Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Page 109 Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, please tell me the crazy person you were quoting was Ralph Ellis. Let it be so! Alephb (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It was! You've run into him before? OMG! His book is there on the page at googlebooks just like it's a real book! So as usual, I just started at the top and worked my way down the list making notes on my topic or anything connected to it. And when I went to Amazon to look at it he had multiple books! I thought he was for real! His style seemed a little over the top--but that was all I thought when I was reading him. Then when I went to fill in the reference info I thought, this is odd, I've never heard of this publisher before... I feel like such an idiot!Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Since I mention Papa in the history section, would you be willing to add a mention of him in the narrative section? And maybe put the two from thematic connections in--in chronological order of course--as well? Raq and that Guf guy whose name is just too much trouble to write...  :-) It seems like they should be located in the narrative since they are referenced later. Also, I removed one of the historical headings that I had added because it seemed repetitive after I looked at it. Two types of history is sufficent! Also, I have no sociology concerning this one--should I look harder? I have more history on this one than on Pionius--is that sufficient do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, in the narrative section at the bottom it says "Persians tolerated Christians" and that's only partially true. The Parthians tolerated them for the most part, but the Sassanids did not; they perpetrated multiple persecutions and the one under Shapur II lasted forty years without a break, so that sentence should probably be reworded. Shapur II is the time and setting--that persecution--for the Gufrasnasp guy I think. Anyway, if you go back and include some martyrs as well as Bishops in the narrative you might also include that it is set during that persecution. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take your comments in reverse order. I probably could have been clearer that "Persians tolerated Christians" was just me paraphrasing what the narrative said at that particular point. Also, I've still not expanded the narrative section out through most of the history, and once I do I think I'll definitely have to trim back a bit. I had been following the succession of bishops because that's how the narrative was structured so far.

I wouldn't worry about not having any sociology. If you're not running across sociologists writing about Pionius, I'd imagine there probably just aren't many sociologists writing about Pionius. I'll make sure to mention Papa once I get that far through the narrative -- same with Gufrashnap / Guprashnap and Rakbakt.

Not only have I run into him, I played a role in getting him kicked off (re-kicked off, actually) of Wikipedia. He likes to try to add links to his books, which run the gamut from "crazy stuff about the Exodus" to "crazy stuff about Solomon" to "crazy stuff about the apostles." I would not that if I have one ongoing concern about your editing lately, it's that it's sometimes hard to tell where you're getting quotes from. That quote you included about Addai not only wasn't sourced to Ralph Ellis, it had two other footnotes attached to it, and neither one lead to Ralph Ellis.

Even now that you've removed the mention of Josephus, it still looks like the remaining material is one long quote. Could you recheck the references and see whether some, or all, of the material there in quote marks is actually a quote. For reference, here's what I'm talking about: Alephb (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

"A very old tradition says the apostle Thomas sent the Apostle Addai, (Addai is mentioned by Eusebius and is traditionally thought to have been either the Apostle Thaddeus or one of the seventy disciples of Jesus), to Edessa to preach the gospel there while Thomas went on into India. Tradition says Addai, in turn, sent Mari to Mesopotamia."

Well if I would remember to put end quotes where they belong... Jeez! But in this case, it doesn't matter because I can't find the notes I took from Ellis, and I think it must be a quote from him since the Josephus part was right there with it. The reason you don't see him in the ref list is because I removed him as a source the day before you asked me about Josephus. I tried to remove any trace that I had been so taken in!! I was distressed. I thought I removed anything I had included from him--but I think I just missed this one--partly because the information--(minus Josephus)--is also in the other the two references listed plus one more, so I didn't catch it as his. So what happened is I quoted and referenced him, found out what he was, threw up, ran around in circles in a panic, removed the reference to him from the article and any information I remembered getting from him--missing the poor stupid quote, leaving it hanging there without its reference, probably because I knew the other references stated the same information and just frankly didn't recognize it as his. Reading multiple works on the same subject means they start to sort of blend together in my brain sometimes. I didn't catch it before you saw it--and I did try to. So you caught me with mud on my face. I am totally embarrassed.

Let me rewrite that paragraph--clean it up--sans Ellis.

Thank you for getting him banned. I wish I had never stumbled across him. I am trying to rid myself and this article of any aspect of anything he ever said.

P.S. I am sure you will do whatever needs doing in a timely manner without quoting people that should never be quoted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's an easy mistake to make. Don't be too embarassed. Google Books makes little to no effort to screen its results for quality, and Wikipedia's mark-up certainly doesn't make it easy to keep track of anything. In the future, if you have a section in quote marks, it would be better just to tag it with a footnote for that particular source. If you'd like to add another source that partially backs of the information, you could disambiguate like so:

"The problem with the internet is that anyone can write literally anything without anyone fact-checking." -- Abraham Lincoln.

Alephb (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All right. I've taken the two-sentence quote out of the article. If you figure out where it came from, you're more than welcome to put it back in (assuming that the wording you put back in matches the source). Alephb (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(assuming that the wording you put back in matches the source) Ouch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's really more of my tendency to over-spell-out what I'm saying than any attempt at a dig. My normal conversational style isn't quite that subtle. I spent the first month or two at my current job completely missing subtext in things my boss was asking me to do and having to make him re-spell out everything in detail. Now he asks me to do something, I repeat it back to him in great detail, he confirms that I understood him, and I get it done. It's been a little bit of an adjustment for both of us, but he really enjoys that everything he asks gets done in detail, without stuff being missed. It's reflex at this point to say things in more detail than is probably really necessary. For comparison, think back on all the incredibly long-winded explanations I give.

Jenhawk: Hey Aleph, here's a simple question.

Aleph: Hey Johnhawk, here's a dissertation that doubtless hits all sorts of points you already know.

It's probably a character flaw on my part, but not an attempt to be bitchy. I have had frustrated moments on Wikipedia, but when I wrote that last comment was not one of them. I was even attempting to lighten things up with the Abe Lincoln stuff, but clearly my attempt at hitting the tone right failed. In person, I really am pretty good with people. Online, well ...

Please, though, do keep on saying "ouch" though when I hit a nerve. Feedback is good, and one of the things I worry about when typing is that I'll jump on people's nerves without realizing. Not my intention here. Alephb (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The time-delay really doesn't help much either. In real life, I can generally pick up from someone's facial expression that I just mangled my phrasing a bit, and quickly course-correct. In print, I only see the equivalent, say, four hours later, and corrections at that point can be a little late. Here I am over-explaining myself again. Okay. I'll stop now before burying you in words. Alephb (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Words help. If you didn't mean it as a dig, then that's okay. I already felt so bad about it, I was probably oversensitive. Okay, that's done now--moving on. I made a mistake, now I would like to learn something from it. One, I will make it a point to check references before using anything. I started out uncomfortable with that approach because of the accusation of me picking sources that are consistent with my point of view--so I was making a point not to even look. But this was a bigger mess, so I will look from now on. I never did pick sources in the way I was accused of anyway, so all my reaction did was create a problem that wasn't there before. Plus, it helped that you explained about learning your new job. I feel like this is a skill set that I have not fully mastered yet. For instance, when you gave the Lincoln example you had two references and you wrote something in them. The very experienced irritable bad tempered dog does that a lot--he'll write whole paragraphs in the reference itself--it's all totally pov but it's not in the body so no one seems to care. How do you do that? Write something in the reference like you did? I asked at the Tea House once and no one knew what I was talking about. And yes, you're right of course, the time delay and being in print makes communication harder, but all in all, we're doing pretty well I think. We are straight with each other, not easily irritated, when we have a problem we work it out pretty quickly; you are quite patient with my very limited skill set which mostly seems to get better only when I do something colossally stupid! You are teaching me to think like a Wikipedian. I had no idea--no idea at all what I was getting into when I jumped on this wagon--but I'm addicted now I'm afraid. All my other writing is going by the wayside as I focus on developing wiki skills. I've memorized the referencing now--I can reference in my sleep! I'm getting the online research methods. I'm learning the style. If I knew more, I would know what questions to ask, but I don't know enough yet to ask intelligent questions! But I'll get there. Don't give up on me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

All right. Since this veers slightly off the Chronicle of Arbela topic, I'll continue with a referencing tutorial on your User Talk page. I might have to get to that after work today. Alephb (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

anomaly

Hi Ogress, thank you for contributing. You recently changed Persia to Iran [4] in this paragraph: The Chronicle includes the stories of two key characters: "Gufrašnasp the mohapat of Adiabene" in third-century Iran during the rule of the Sasanian emperor, but there was no such thing as Iran in the third century. You were right to change the other one to upper Mesopotamia, so I am assuming you won't mind making them consistent with each other. Thank you so much. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: - Persia redirects to Iran; would you prefer Greater Iran? It's about the REGION, not a politically-organised state. Ogress 23:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Persia redirects to Iran because Iran is the modern state--not because they are interchangeable. It is incorrect to say Gufrasnasp was a mohapt of Iran when that is not chronologically possible since there was no Iran. It is chronologically incorrect to say Iran had a Sassanian emperor since the Sassanians were gone centuries before there ever was an Iran. Both Persia and the Sassanian's were "politically organized states" and they existed in a particular time period--a time long before Iran which only came into being after WWII. It is not simply about a region and even if it were, that region is not Iran--which is, itself, a "politically organized state." The story is set in the time period when the political response of the particular state in which the character lived, kills him, and it had nothing to do with geography. You can continue to argue, and we can call for peer response, but you won't win this one. You created an anomaly. Or you can graciously cooperate and revert your edit. Eventually, someone will. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Another thing to consider here is that Adiabene is in what is now called "Iraq". Referring to it as part of "Iran" or even "third-century Iran" seems a bit of a loaded description -- since we're writing for a general audience, I'm not sure we can trust the average reader to get that a specialized regional term is meant. I'd bet the average reader wouldn't be able to distinguish Iran from Iraq on a map, let alone instinctively pick up without any coaching that there's a specialized regional meaning intended here.

But Jenhawk, would you object to Greater Iran? The Sassanians did, after all, call their empire Iran. Now, there still might be a concern that this still could have non-neutral connotations, but changing Iran to Greater Iran, with a wiki-link to 'Greater Iran', would be at least a step in the right direction. Alephb (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with whatever you think is best. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

[5]. Alephb (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha! Grabergs would love that! But it's your call. That's why we pay you the big bucks.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll be happy to double your salary! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)