Talk:Commagene

Language

The page falsely claims that the Persian language was used among the ruling elites. The claim that the ruling family used Persian is based on the Achaemenid origin of the founder of the kingdom of Commagene, but these rulers had long been Hellenized before their kingdom in Commagene was founded. The sole language attested in Commagene is Greek. No use of any other languages have ever been attested: not on coins, not in literature, not in inscriptions. It is assumed that Aramaic was spoken and used to a significant degree, but this is speculation. Aramaic is supposed to have been spoken in Commagene because the language was widespread in its eastern and southern neighbors. Lucian of Samasota, a native of Commagene, claimed to have been an Assyrian, and to have spoken a non-Greek tongue, but historians don't agree on how to interpret that. The one fact is that Greek was the dominant language there. Likewise, the use of Armenian is sometimes 'assumed'.

I suggest that the page is changed to where it's made clear that Greek was the sole dominant language, and that the use of Aramaic, Armenian and an Iranian language is speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A458:447B:1:A147:50C3:2B8A:717C (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo

The eagle on the pillar is NOT a part of the grave sanctuary of Antiochos on Mount Nemrud; it is situated in Karakus. So either change the photo, or change the accompanying text... The are some errors in the text on the Nemrud monument as well, I might correct them if I can find the time.

Move

The following discussion is of a move from Kommagene

Support: English usage is clear and almost invariable. (Nominator vote) Septentrionalis 18:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support — the spelling with C is in general use and standard; a spelling in K is used with the mistaken idea that it is more 'authentic'. Gareth Hughes 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support — Commagene is also even the Latin name. Also, no reason not to keep this as a redirect. Satyadasa 09:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I expect to keep the redirect, which would be automagically created by the move; getting rid of it would be a separate process at WP:RfD, and I'm not going to make that nomination. Septentrionalis 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit

Most of the stuff in this article was a mess/unverifiable so I cleaned up and removed irrelevan content.Hetoum I 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Why not to merge this small article into the larger article of Kingdom of Commagene (or vice versa)? Ellipi (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So-called Armenian origin

although the origin of Kingdom was not clear but it is believed to Greek or Persian.193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Bring some sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.70.55.213 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You wrote some history books but you didn't understand and did not ask "is it true?" or "what is historical chronology". Did you see Commagene ancient ruins or Mt. Nemrut - Kahta or any statue of Commagene? I can say a lot of about Commagene because I'm a tourist guide in Turkey. 1- Kahta Mt. Nemrut's up side, that is a masonry stone tomb (tumulus) build in BC 80-60, you can see god-goddess statues in east terrace. That statue's back side have a inscription with two language: Parsian and Greek... Not letter or word in Commagene statue with Armenian, alphabet or word.. 2- BC 160-60 period, a lot of Armenian family make small feudal lord in west & south Caucasia. A lot of lord's name Mithridates, Tigran, Orontes / Oronthes, Vagran, Pharnes, etc... Those are not Armenian names. Many of the names of Armenian origin comes from Part languages. So, if the kings name Mithridates (in Parthian mean "light, sun" like Armenian) you cant say Armenia or Parthia. You must check control "what is the royality and citizens language?" Part Pontos Kingdom (BC 201-60 free, BC 60 AD 60 Roman Vassal) royal writing language is Greek, citizens use a lot of (may be 12-13 different) language. 3- If Mithridates mean is same in Parthia and Armenia, you must check control linguistic rules. In Akhemenid - Persian period, BC550, Armenian vassal kingdom build in this period (look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire). Word ethymological time, come before Urartu Kingdom period BC 858, King Arame. This kingdoms origin is Assyrian kingdoms - period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu). So Mithridates is not a Armenian word. Anatolia heritage (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Very misleading map and too many links to Armenia

Surely this article is about the "Kingdom of Commagene", not Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.202.82 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Article hijacked by Armeno-centrists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.78.54 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I used to believe that its ruling elite had Iranian roots but today I saw myself that at least one serious source (Cambridge Ancient History, see respective citation) insists on the Armenian identity.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see that the anonymous nationalist ip does not care about references. Perhaps some kind of semi-protection is needed due to this constant edit warring.--Dipa1965 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Trying to resolve the dispute on the Armenian identity of the Commagene kingdom

Following the suggestion given by the admin in the section above, and although I am very new to this article, I will try to explain what is happening now and suggest some means to stop this useless edit war:

• At least one reliable (see WP:Reliable Sources) source (The Cambridge History of Iran, The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge University Press, 1983, ISBN 052120092X, see article's Notes where a link to Google Books is provided) states that the kingdom was an Armenian one
• Some anonymous ip editors revert any Armenian element in the article, including names, categories and the reliable source mentioned above. These editors so far have not brought any reliable source that supports a non-Armenian origin. These edits are speedily reverted
• There was at least one opinion (see discussion above) that the origin of Commagene identity was Iranian or Greek. This claim was not accompanied by reliable sources

Deniers of the Armenian origin of Commagene are perfectly justified to add any kind of properly referenced "non-armenian" view. Keep in mind that "properly referenced" means that, among else, these views must not be marginal ones. Additionally, since the contrasting view (i.e. the Armenian origin theory) is properly referenced, no one is justified to remove it. Two or more contrasting views can perfectly co-exist in an article. In the end, it's only a matter of sources.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I can find sources that talk about Commagene's Hellenistic and Persian heritage, its more remote Neo-Hittite roots, and above all its Syrian connections. I haven't found anything that says "PS: Commagene was not Armenian". Yarshater (1983), one of the sources claimed to show that Commagene was Armenian, also talks about its culture being commonly termed "Parthian" but in any case Iranian (p. 841). Yarshater goes on to talk about the Achaemenid origins of the royal family, Antiochos Theos' sanctuary to syncretic Greek-Persian deities at Nemrut Dagh, etc. Nothing particularly Armenian that I see so far. Now, Commagene was tributary to Tigranes I for about twenty years, but this wouldn't make the kingdom itself Armenian, any more than we would describe the principality of Wallachia as Turkish even though it was under Ottoman suzerainty. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I don't think we should read more into secondary sources than they actually say. Here's the source that's supposed to substantiate the characterization of the Commagene as an Armenian kingdom:

“ The most striking example of the syncretism of gods in ancient Parthia actually occurs in a former Armenian satellite kingdom, namely Commagene, the modern Malatya district. Here a scion of the Armenian Orontid house, King Antiochus I (69–34 B.C.) built himself a funeral hill at Nimrūd Dāgh (pls 37, 38). The sanctuary is grandiose, being surrounded on three sides by terraces and dominated by an artificial mound nearly five hundred feet high. On the east and west terraces stood a row of five colossal seated figures, many times life-size, which represented four deities and King Antiochus himself. The chief statue represents the compound deity Zeus–Oromasdes, or Ahuramazda. A second depicts Apollo–Mithra–Helios–Hermes. And a third presents to us Verethragna–Heracles–Ares. Into the terrace walls were sunk some ninety stone reliefs, depicting in most cases a pair of figures, one of whom is usually Antiochus. We see the king's paternal ancestors, traced back to the Achaemenian monarch Darius, son of Hystaspes, while Greek inscriptions record the dead ruler's connections with the Armenian dynasty of the Orontids. ”

Now, what does this amount to? The ruling family of Commagene was partly of Armenian descent, though it also made much of its descent from the Achaemenids (and from Alexander, which Lang doesn't mention in this quote). And Commagene was formerly an Armenian satellite kingdom. Nobody disputes that, but it was only in the Armenian orbit for a few decades; at other times, it was also a Roman satellite kingdom, a Roman province, a Syro-Hittite state (Kummuh), a Persian possession, etc. Elsewhere Lang describes Commagene, along with Sophene, as "buffer states between Parthia and Armenia on the one hand, Syria and Rome on the other" (p. 510), which seems balanced and apt. Lang also juxtaposes the ruling family's "strong dynastic links with the Armenian Orontid house" with the kingdom's character as "great centres of Hellenistic and then of Roman art and civilization" (p. 510). Seeing Commagene from a primarily Armenian prism seems really misleading to me. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Having heard no objection, I've incorporated the above information into the article, along with additional gleanings from Commagene by Blömer and Winter, while cutting some of the more unbalanced items that so many editors have objected to down the years. Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Commagene Kingdom is not part of Armenia Kingdom

You wrote some history books but you didn't understand and did not ask "is it true?" or "what is historical chronology". Did you see Commagene ancient ruins or Mt. Nemrut - Kahta or any statue of Commagene? I can say a lot of about Commagene because I'm a tourist guide in Turkey. 1- Kahta Mt. Nemrut's up side, that is a masonry stone tomb (tumulus) build in BC 80-60, you can see god-goddess statues in east terrace. That statue's back side have a inscription with two language: Parsian and Greek... Not letter or word in Commagene statue with Armenian, alphabet or word.. 2- BC 160-60 period, a lot of Armenian family make small feudal lord in west & south Caucasia. A lot of lord's name Mithridates, Tigran, Orontes / Oronthes, Vagran, Pharnes, etc... Those are not Armenian names. Many of the names of Armenian origin comes from Part languages. So, if the kings name Mithridates (in Parthian mean "light, sun" like Armenian) you cant say Armenia or Parthia. You must check control "what is the royality and citizens language?" Part Pontos Kingdom (BC 201-60 free, BC 60 AD 60 Roman Vassal) royal writing language is Greek, citizens use a lot of (may be 12-13 different) language. 3- If Mithridates mean is same in Parthia and Armenia, you must check control linguistic rules. In Akhemenid - Persian period, BC550, Armenian vassal kingdom build in this period (look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire). Word ethymological time, come before Urartu Kingdom period BC 858, King Arame. This kingdoms origin is Assyrian kingdoms - period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu). So Mithridates is not a Armenian word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.145.120 (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

History of Armenia template

This whole talk page is testament to how controversial it is to consider Commagene only or even primarily as part of the Armenian cultural sphere. Bear in mind, the scope of the article is the Kingdom of Commagene, i.e. second century BCE to first century CE. To be sure, Armenians settled in large numbers in this area afterwards. It's also true that the Kingdom of Armenia briefly exercised political hegemony here, and that the Commagenian royal house had dynastic links with that kingdom (which the article already states). But I can't find a shred of (reliable, independent) evidence that the Kingdom of Commagene defined itself as Armenian, or even ascribed much importance to its Armenian connections. To the contrary, Antiochos Theos clearly foregrounded the Persian and Hellenistic roots of his ancestors. The language most spoken during this period is not known for certain, but Syriac is a fair guess. Given how relatively marginal Commagene was to Armenia and vice versa, I really think this article has put undue weight on the Armenian connection. The {{History of Armenia}} template, which an anonymous user has been repeatedly reinserting, completely crowds out the right side of the article, creating unnecessary and misleading clutter, while displacing image files that are relevant to the subject matter. I'd love to find a compromise here, and I'm open to suggestions. I note that the article already displays the template {{Historical regions of Armenia}} at the bottom.

For the record (and I shouldn't have to say this), I have no axe to grind either for or against Armenia or Armenians. I'm not Armenian (or Turkish or Kurdish). On the other hand, I spent a great deal of effort during my four years in Istanbul trying to convince Turks that the Armenian genocide was both real and bad. However, this article is not about that, or about possible Armenian territorial claims in reparation for the genocide. It's about the history of a small kingdom in Antiquity that was at the crossroads of Hellenistic, Persian, Armenian, Syrian, and Roman cultures. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I see I've been reverted again. Now, look how nice and compact {{History of Greater Iran}} looks on the article Seleucid Empire and tell me I don't have a point. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Having come up with a more compact way of displaying the template that doesn't get in the way but is expandable, I've been reverted by the anonymous user with the message: "Your reason is weak, you just want to remove the Armenian history of commagene which includes historic site in modern turkey". No. That's not my reason. See above. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't had any luck getting the anonymous contributor to engage with me on this talk page. Still, in an effort to avoid edit warring, I've asked for a third opinion. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. A third opinion is a reply to discussion by two editors on a talk page. Since only the registered editor and not the unregistered editor has discussed, a third opinion is not applicable. It appears that both editors are over 3RR, but, rather than reporting edit-warring, I have requested semi-protection to force the unregistered editor to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Okay, so it looks like semi-protection is now in force. Should I change the template back to the way I had it the last time (which I actually think would be an admirable compromise) in order to, as you say, "force the unregistered editor to discuss"? I'm checking first to be sure that this wouldn't be seen as aggressive/unhelpful. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been no edits in two days, so that putting the template back would not be edit-warring. Putting the template back, since the unregistered editor cannot revert, would force the unregistered editor to discuss. (Well, they could go to WP:ANI, but should look out for the boomerang.) Go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Great; thank you! For the record, I've been arguing against having the template on the grounds of undue weight (and clutter); however, making it small and collapsible seems like a sensible via media. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

More reverting

Well, I guess semi-protection must have expired, because my latest edit (with its compromise proposal) has been anonymously reverted again. This time the message is: "this article is the one you are removing the template when the link is in the menu , that is not the reason you said about cluttered". I find this message puzzling for more reasons than its grammar. I'll attempt to reply, however: Yes, it's the same {{History of Armenia}} template, but this time in a conveniently collapsible box so that by default it doesn't dominate so much of the right side of the article. Does that make sense? Readers interested in Armenian history can open it and follow whatever links they want. Other readers can still look at the rest of the material without clutter or inconvenience. I think this sort of compromise should satisfy everybody, but please let me know if you have a constructive alternative. Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reversion, this time with the message "no, you are specifically targeting this page template removal for your false history agenda". Since the anonymous user evidently knows more about my motivations than I do, I won't comment beyond saying that s/he has not produced any reason why the current arrangement is in any way unsatisfactory. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm at least happy to see that the latest round of pro- and anti-Armenian mutual reversion hasn't done any excessive violence to the layout of the page, since there is now enough text (thanks to my expansion of it while the page was semi-protected) to accommodate a number of floats. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Cultural identity?

I'm starting to feel like we ought to have a section in the article about Commagene's cultural identity, where we can talk about its Armenian connections, Hellenistic high culture, Syrian affinities, relationship with Persia and Parthia, neo-Hittite background, etc. (with all of the qualifications, disclaimers, and nuances that the subject requires). I'm getting to think that trying to sum this up in a quick categorical phrase in the lede has helped contribute to some of the disquietude felt in various quarters on this subject. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

'History of' templates

Do the {{History of Iran}} and {{History of Armenia}} templates really contribute much to this article? On the one hand, there is at least enough space for these now (thanks to my expanding the article somewhat), so I can't complain too much about clutter. However, in both cases, the templates themselves advertise a series of articles to which the kingdom of Commagene is at best peripheral. I think I'll substitute {{History of Greater Iran}} as being more directly relevant than {{History of Iran}}, but even this hardly seems ideal. Q·L·1968 ☿ 22:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Languages?

Could anyone provide references regarding the languages in the infobox section? Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey not quite the same as Asia Minor

I just wanted to justify my remark in an edit summary that "substituting 'Asia Minor' for Turkey complicates things a bit". Turkey's quite a bit bigger than classical Asia Minor: not only does Turkey include eastern Thrace, but by the terms of ancient geography, Asia Minor might not include Mesopotamia, Armenia, or Syria, whereas Commagene is precisely in the zone where ancient Syria meets ancient Armenia. We could always drop the reference to Turkey, but it does provide some basic geographic orientation. Q·L·1968 ☿ 04:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation needed

WisDom-UK (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Constant disruption

For those random ips and fresh accounts who keep disrupting this article and still aren't convinced by the countless of sources that agree that the Kingdom of Commagene was of Greco-Iranian descent, here are the words from its most well-known ruler (Antiochus of Commagene) himself: "The Persians and the Greeks: the most fortunate roots of my ancestry" Nomos 2.24-34. I can't find a text of the whole inscription unfortunately, I just found this bit here; The Iranian Expanse: Transforming Royal Identity through Architecture, Landscape, and the Built Environment, 550 BCE–642 CE, page 95. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: This site has a full translation of the inscription you mentioned, as well as reproductions and photos. Q·L·1968 ☿ 00:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

HistoryofIran Though a great quote, this needs to be further verified. The lede of this article reads like a recipe of cultures/labels thrown into a bowl without even identifying the geographic association of the dynasty that ruled the kingdom. I looked up every source that was cited when labeling Commagene as "Greco-Iranian." All the sources reference the Orontids having Iranian lineage (which is discussed on the Orontids page) and how Commagene was a Hellenistic kingdom, so the lede is not properly cited. Academically there is great debate as to how to precisely label the kingdom, which is discussed in the cultural identity section of this page. From an accuracy standpoint, the lede should state that Commagene was a Hellenistic kingdom ruled by the Orontids. This is a fact that all historians agree on. Let me know your thoughts Sweetcotton101 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you might have to look again, I don't remember everything in all those sources, but I did immediately recall this; "In the first century BC, Antiochos I, son of Mithradates Kallinikos and the Seleucid princess Laodike, ruled over the Iranian and Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene." - Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene", p. 13. Not sure why the Iranian origin bit should omitted, considering, as yourself said, every source emphasise their Iranian stock. The fact that it is (barely) mentioned in the Orontid article is irrelevant, this is about Commagene. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, every source cited does mention that Orontids had Iranian lineage, and that is a known fact. Not arguing that. But the sources have to reflect what is stated, and the sources cited do not refer to Commagene as "Greco-Iranian." Other academics such as Lang, McLynn, and even Marciak refer to the kingdom differently than Shayegan. These are all respected academics. I don't see why one should outweigh the other, and since there isn't an academic consenus/jurisdiction on this, I don't think its accurate to state as such in the lede . Sweetcotton101 (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources usually emphasise a Greek and/or Iranian connection to their kingdom (the latter being more emphasised), and a Iranian origin to the family. Again, please look at the sources again - another quick glampse at just one of the sources (the last cited one) led to this: "Unlike the Arsacids and Fratarakā, several western Iranian dynasties (Pontus, Cappadocia, Commagene)", Strootman, Rolf (2020). "Hellenism and Persianism in Iran": p 205 and "where Avestan deities were explicitly syncretized with Greek ones to create a dynastic identity for a Macedonian-Iranian local ruler: Antiochos I of Commagene", same source, p. 214 --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The dynasty should definitely be mentioned, but in this case it's confusing when the ethnicity of the dynasty is emphasized over its geographic association. The Orontids were an Armenian dynasty with Iranian lineage. In regards to your citation above, again, it refers to the Orontids--not the entirety of Commagene. Regarding the kingdom itself, Joshua J Mark, from the Ancient History Encyclopedia refers to Commagene as "a Hellenistic political entity, heavily influenced by Armenian and ancient Persian culture and traditions." Frank McLyn refers to Commagene as "small hellenized Armenian Kingdom," while David Lang states its an Armenian kingdom. My point is, there are competing accounts, and I'm asking why Commagene is emphasized as "Greco-Iranian" over the other in the lede, when 1. there isn't academic consensus 2. the sources cited as you pointed out refer to the dynasty's lineage.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that fits pretty well with the fact that the ethnicity is indeed emphasized constantly, as per the sources. There were different branches of the Orontids, not all were the same (which is again mentioned in the sources). Yes, but it refers to Commagene as well. Sorry but atm I don't have the time to sit and cite all the sources; You claimed that there's not a single mention of Commagene being Iranian, which I just showed by simply citing two of the citations, I think that's enough for now. Heck, I'll cite another one; "Commagene was the only one of these neo-Persian kingdoms," Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, page 435. That's because we have the WP:UNDUE rule (and it's not exactly like I've omitted mention of Greeks/Hellenization). The 11 citations in the article point out to a Greek and Persian kingdom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not claim that, please look over my comments. I said the sources talk about the Orontids lineage- which they do. I’ve yet to see Commagene labeled as a “Greco-Iranian kingdom” (which was my first comment). That would imply that Kingdom was officially Iranian/Greek, which it was not. No one is arguing Iranian influence in Commagene, but to label the kingdom as Greco-Iranian and completely avoid its geographic and cultural association with Armenia via the Orontids (as they were an Armenian dynasty), when the reader is looking at the first few sentences of the page is misleading at best. Regarding WP:UNDUE in this matter, its muddled b/ the 11 sources cited do not label as Commagene Greco-Iranian. This is what I've gathered from the sources/page numbers cited:

1. (Canepa) “Commagene became heavily Hellenized.”

2. (Gargoasian) Only mention of Commagene is the capture of Antioch

3. (Erskine) “Another self-designated descendant from a member of one of the seven great house, Hydarnes, was the Orontid Dynasty of Armenia”

4. (Canepa) Mentions the Orontids roots

5. (Sartre) “In fact, until the beginning of the 2nd century the history of Hellenistic Commagene is totally unknown and it ::::::is useless to speculate about the accuracy of these ancient claims….”

6. (Widengren) An article about Antioch (one of the kings of Commagene) Does not attest to the historical entirety of Commagene being Greco-Iranian

7. (Marciak) Mentions Commagene belonging to Orontid dynasty. Does not categorize kingdom as Greco-Iranian

8. (Ball) “Throughout the book it mentions Commagene as having pockets of Iranian culture..”

Only the last source which you pointed out calls it "neo-persian," which again does not equal "Greco-Iranian." The sources cited label Commagene as a Hellenized Kingdom. Some other sources then discuss its Iranian, Armenian & Greek influences, which also make sense since 1. Orontids were an Armenian Dynasty, 2. Some kings (like Antioch of Theos) favored Iranian cultural aspects and 2. The kingdom was heavily hellenized. So, I’m wondering why there is such an effort to avoid its association with Armenia in an official capacity in the lede, when the dynasty that ruled it, was an Armenian hereditary dynasty. Rather, like I said before the lede should read what the consensus is academically and state that "Commagene was a hellenized kingdom ruled by the Orontids." The cultural aspects of the kingdom should be discussed in the next section. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no effort to avoid anything, none of these cited citations associate with Armenia, but with something Greek and/or Iranian, thus I thought making it say Greco-Iranian (as mentioned in Shayegan) would be the most neutral. Saying that they were a Greek or Iranian kingdom would feel out of place, considering they certainly associated themselves with both elements. Yes, many of the sources simply mention their origin, which is indeed needed, considering we still have people who dispute it (WP:JDLI). Out of what the sources actually say, what do you propose? Please at least cite them properly;

(1) "Like the Pontic kings, the royal dynasty of the kingdom of Commagene (162 BCE to 17 CE) had its roots in a Persian dynasty, that of the Orontids, however, as a Seleucid province, Commagene became heavily Hellenized... Ruler of one of the last Persian-Macedonian courts of this region to survive the coming of the Romans, Antiochus I (69 to 34 BCE), the kingdom's main innovator in cult and artistic activity, engaged with the forms of the Iranian dynastic sanctuary much like he did with other aspects of Iranian royal expression: within the larger context of his deliberately >hybrid< Macedonian and Iranian court." - "Achaemenid and Seleukid Royal Funerary Practices and Middle Iranian Kingship":

(2) "..which has now been identified as a branch of the earlier Eruandid dynasty of Iranian origin" - TIGRAN II

(3) "This attitude was also valid for the royal house, as the Seleucids regularly contracted marriages with Iranian noble houses, implying the regular reinforcement of the Iranian element at the Seleucid court. Interestingly, most of these families traced their ancestry back to one of the Persians' seven great aristocratic houses... Another self-designated descendant fom a member of one of the seven great houses, Hydarnes, was the Orontid Dynasty of Armenia, and here too, we know of marriage ties, as king Xerxes of Sophene received through Antiochos III his sister Antiochis.." - The Hellenistic Court: Monarchic Power and Elite Society from Alexander to Cleopatra, p. 75

(4) Don't have access to the source anymore, could you please link where you read it?

(5) "The Commagene kings claimed to be descended from the Orontids, a powerful Iranian family that had ruled the area during the Achaemenid period."

(6) "His Iranian descent made him gravitate toward Parthia"

(7) That's my bad, dunno why I put it, removed it.

(8) "Commagene was the only one of these neo-Persian kingdoms" / "...Although all of the rulers became increasingly Hellenised after the first few generations, it is unlikely any of them spoke Persian in the end - they retained considerable Iranian sentiment and character..." - Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire

More:

"In the first century BC, Antiochos I, son of Mithradates Kallinikos and the Seleucid princess Laodike, ruled over the Iranian and Hellenistic kingdom of Commagene. It is Antiochos I who was mainly responsible for the establishment of an intriguing form of Greco-Iranian religious idiosyncrasy" - Shayegan, M. Rahim (2016). "The Arsacids and Commagene"

"and of a local king of Iranian origin, Mithradates Kallinikos." - The Letter of Mara bar Sarapion in Context: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at Utrecht University, 10-12 December 2009, p. 68

"Unlike the Arsacids and Fratarakā, several western Iranian dynasties (Pontus, Cappadocia, Commagene)" / "where Avestan deities were explicitly syncretized with Greek ones to create a dynastic identity for a Macedonian-Iranian local ruler: Antiochos I of Commagene" / "But from the latter part of that century, Iranian rulers began to issue local coinages – the Arsacids of Parthia, the Fratarakā of Persis, the Mithradatids of Pontus, the Ariaratids of Cappadocia, the Artaxiads of Armenia, the Orontids of Commagene" / "The chief cultural effect of these political changes was the development of self-conscious Persianistic identities among the Iranian dynasties of the later Hellenistic period. We see this on the coins of the Arsacid rulers of Parthia and those of the Fratarakā of Persis. We see it too in the royal houses of Pontus and Commagene." - Strootman, Rolf (2020). "Hellenism and Persianism in Iran"

"Alexander’s rapid advance through Anatolia into the core of the Achaemenid Empire spared many Persian satraps, leaving them in place. Some regions, including Cappadocia, Pontus, and Armenia, he bypassed entirely. Despite the Successors’ episodic attempts during the wars of the Successors to extirpate and replace them, these dynasts and their descendants took advantage of the fluid situation following Alexander’s death to reestablish power and even claim new territories. The most important of these postsatrapal dynasties were the Orontid dynasty of Armenia and Sophene (ca. fourth century–ca. second century BCE), whose purported descendants later ruled the kingdom of Commagene"

--HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you said you didn’t have time, I wanted to accommodate and summarize the citations. Thank you for precisely quoting the citations, but you’re not saying anything different than I am in regards to the meat of the text. In fact, some of the texts quote to say the “Orontid Dynasty of Armenia.” The Orontids were not the Orontid Dynasty of Iran and the lede is misleading, as is the characterization of the kingdom as wholly Greco-Iranian, when several sources state that Commagene was very culturally mixed and in fact had strong Armenian elements. This is the point of our disagreement-as all reference to the kingdom’s Armenian nature is not cited/avoided in lede. Please see my citations below:

1. "…to restore the Kingdom of Commagene (a small Hellenized Armenian kingdom in southern Anatolia near Antioch, which had a monarchy from 163 BC to AD 72 until annexed by Rome)…" McLynn, Frank (2009) "Marcus Aurelius: A Life"

2. "[The Commagene Kings] did not perceive themselves as simply Greek, Armenian, Persian or ‘Commagenian.’" Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

3. "new religion promoted by Antiochus was syncretic connecting the elements from Greek, Armenian and Persian cults…At the same time, both Persian and Armenian influences can be observed in their clothes and headgear while their faces displayed Greek traditions….While the Commagene rulers worked hard to demonstrated their glorious origins from Armenia, Greece and Persia, they ignored the rising power of Rome." Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

4. "In speaking of his ancestry "as "Persian and Greek", Antiochus I regards the Armenian Orontids and their Achaemenid relatives alike as of the same stock." Sullivan, Richard (2016) "The Dynasty of Commagene"

5. "Ancient Commagenian identity has therefore been characterised as showing a large degree of syncretism, in which various influences have to be taken into account." Blomer, Michael (2012) "Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period"

6. "The Kingdom of Commagene was a Hellenistic political entity, heavily influenced by Armenian and ancient Persian culture and traditions." Mark, Joshua (2020) World History Encyclopedia

I only have a physical copy of Canepa's "Dynastic Sanctuaries and the Transformation of Iranian Kingship between Alexander and Islam" but I'd be happy to scan it and share if there is a way to do that here.

I'm happy to keep citing more sources if necessary. Assuming that more than just those 11 selected sources are allowed to be referenced in this article, my proposal to change the lede still stands. If you'd like to incorporate the strong Iranian, Greek and Armenian influences that's fine, but labeling the kingdom as Greco-Iranian with no association to Armenia, which the Orontids are inheritely connected to, is misleading and eradicates a great component of history regarding Commagene. I propose the lede reads something like, "The Kingdom of Commagene was an ancient hellenistic kingdom, ruled by the Orontids. The kingdom was culturally influenced by the ruling empire with strong Iranian, Armenian & Greek elements." Let me know your thoughts. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As for Miszczak and Mark:

• "Izabela Miszczak is the publisher and editor of TurcjaWSandalach.pl portal for independent travelers. She holds a master diploma in social sciences from the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland, with the specialization in the sociology of culture. She has authored several publications in the area of political studies and social science. She also authored several travel guides in Polish. More recently she has launched a new website devoted to the cultural heritage of Asia Minor, TurkishArchaeoNews.net."[1]
• "Joshua J. Mark is a freelance writer and scholar who has lived in Greece and Germany, traveled through Egypt, and presently lives in upstate New York with his family. He is co-founder, editor, and a director of Ancient History Encyclopedia. He has published short fiction through various literary journals/magazines (Writes for All, Five Stop Story, Pagan Friends, etc) and non-fiction through Celtic Guide, History Ireland, Litro USA and Litro UK, and Timeless Travels Magazine, among others. Mark was a part-time philosophy professor and writing instructor at Marist College and recipient of the Faculty of the Year Award and the Special Services Award of Merit."[2]

I don't see any reason to put these particular "sources" on par with academics who have actual degrees in history, Iranian studies, Armenian studies and/or Middle Eastern studies, and have their works published by high-quality publishers. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't know why sources are in quotations in your comment. First, both hold Master's degrees. The hobbies of researchers should in no way nullify their degrees in higher eductation, and if someone wants to write fiction on the side, that does not in any way dilute their crediblity. Second, we must look if they have properly cited their work, which they have. Before nullifying Mark's work, look at the sources he used to write his article, which happen to be some of the very sources you yourself deem a reputable "source," as you seem to allow their work to stand on Wikipedia. See below:

Bryce, T. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford University Press (1998-06-04), 2010.

Cassius Dio & Mallan, C. T. Cassius Dio Histories. Oxford University Press, 2010.

COMMAGENE – Encyclopaedia Iranica - by Michael WeiskopfAccessed 25 Aug 2020.

Hoff, M. C. & Townsend, R. F. Rough Cilicia: New Historical and Archaeological Approaches. Oxbow Books, 2013.

Massive Mosaic Uncovered in Roman Cilicia by Noah WienerAccessed 25 Aug 2020.

Mellor, R. The Historians of Ancient Rome. Routledge, 2012.

Nemrut Dağ - UNESCO World Heritage SiteAccessed 25 Aug 2020.

Stiebing Jr., W. H. Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture. Pearson Higher Education, 2008.

Strabo & Roller, D. W. The Geography of Strabo. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Van De Mieroop, M. A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC, 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

These are reputable sources. The authors have cited their work through established researchers. Your opinion about these sources is a matter of preference and not a matter of not having "high-quality" publishers. I can also provide the sources cited by Miszczak's work, but didn't here in an effort to save time. I'm assuming all the other sources I've cited meet your criteria since you didn't mention them. With that said, I'm happy to keep on providing more published work, b/ the lede does not reflect an accurate account of the cultural inclusivity of Commagene.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to wait a few days to see if I could get a response as to why some sources have varying degrees of "high quality," (where the same sources are deemed high quality and other times they are dismissed). The standards of "high quality" sources must be firm and should not yeild according to editor preference. Here is another "high quality source," which states Commagene indeed had a strong Armenian cultural backround via the ruling monarchy:

"The most striking example of the syncretism of gods in ancient Parthia actually occurs in a former Armenian satellite kingdom, namely Commagene, the modern Malatya district. Here a scion of the Armenian Orontid house, King Antiochus I (69–34 B.C.) built himself a funeral hill at Nimrūd Dāgh…" Yarshate, Ehsan (1983) The Cambridge History of Iran 

"Kommagene lay north of Syria proper, west of the Euphrates and on the slopes of the Tauros. It was an area of contention between the major powers of the Bronze Age and Iron Age, and eventually came under Seleukid control, until a member of the Armenian royal family, Ptolemy declared himself an independent king about 163 bc." Roller, Duane (2018)A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo

So again, I ask, why is there a conserted effort to ignore these sources? How many sources does one have to cite in order to make an edit? This page needs to maintain a neutral point of view, and not be engendered by sources based on preference. We must look the sources as a whole. I again propose to change the lede to accurately reflect what all academics can agree upon, which is that Commagene was a hellensitic kingdom ruled by the Orontids, where strong Iranian, Armenian & Greek elements influenced both its monarchy and citizens.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Just because those sources are citing reliable stuff doesn't make them so. LouisAragon did already explain why they weren't reliable. Also, your proposal is WP:UNDUE and certainly not more neutral. You removed mention of the family being ethnically Iranian and Hellenized, and somehow put Armenian influences on par with Iranian and Greek when that certainly wasn't the case per the sources? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I did no such thing. LouisAragon explained why 2 sources were unreliable and his/her reasoning doesn't even stand b/ the article cited its sources and some of those sources are some the same sources that you and LouisAragon let stand previously. Regardless, you have yet to address the several other sources I've cited, and why the sources you've chosen are given more weight, when mine also include high quality sources. For example, how is the Cambridge History of Irannot a quality of source? Ehsan Yarshater was an Iranian historian and linguist who specialized in Iranology. He was the founder and director of The Center for Iranian Studies, and yet his book is not an important source? My point is that several sources confirm/affirm the Armenian history of Commagene, and the need to completely eradicate the Armenian culture of Commagene is WP:UNDUE b/ I've cited sources that are high quality. Additionally I am in no way emphasizing one culture while dismissing another. The only reason I'm emphasizing Armenian influences in this discussion alone is b/ it's being completely dismissed and sources are being selected to verify this dismissal. Several sources state Commagene is an Armenian Kingdom. Nonetheless my proposal states that all the cultures should be mentioned, while the current lede dismisses this historical fact.Sweetcotton101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case why not mention something like that in the body of the article? --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Because if that's the case, that makes the lede inaccurate and lean towards only one point of view rather, which violates WP:UNDUE. Rather I propose an agreed upon, historical, all encompassing/neutral point of view supported by high quality sources. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But this is not leaning towards one point of view, but multiple. As shown up above, most sources agree that Greek/Iranian elements were dominant in the kingdom and explained in great detail how so. Thus I feel to see how this violates WP:UNDUE; it is WP:UNDUE to put Armenian elements on par with Greek and Iranian. I feel like we're both repeating the same stuff at this rate. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It is leaning towards one point of view when you only choose to cite sources with one narrative.It does the readers a diservice. And it's not most sources, its the sources you chose to cite. I've cited several sources as well and Ehsan Yarshate is one of the most well respected academics in this field. It is WP:UNDUE to disregard high quality sources that regard the Kingdom as Armenian or speak to it’s Armenian influences and chose to label Commagene as Greco-Iranian anyway. We should let the sources speak for themselves and be presented in an accurate way. The sources you've chosen aren't the only sources on the subject matter. See all the sources I've cited above. It is our responsiblity to bring fourth quality sources and write in a neutral point of view. There are high quality sources, written by experts in the field, that conflict with your sources. Why should the preference of one editor trump another? It shouldn't. Do you have a proposal on how to change the ledge?Sweetcotton101 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Many of the sources you posted were not WP:RS as explained by LouisAragon. The vast majority of sources still favour a Greek/Iranian connection, and thus I fail to see any reason to continue this discussion. Please ping me if that changes.

Also, not that it matters much, but the Cambridge History of Iran, which you just cited, also says this;

"Antiochus I, king of fertile Commagene (about 69-34 B.C.) spoke of combining the Persian, Macedonian gods, and the local gods, and the Persian and Greek and local traditions.1 At the same time he called himself friendly to the Romans; instead of alternating between the Greek and the Iranian world, he tried to treat them as if they could be translated into each other. In this sanctuary, built to hold his "blessed" body after it had sent forth his god-favoured spirit into the surrounding skies of Ahuramazda, Antiochus displayed his paternal Iranian ancestors descended from the Achaemenians and his maternal ancestors who came down from Alexander. By his piety and devotion he sought to turn his inherited kingdom into the abode of all the gods and he worshipped their statues in the time-honoured fashion of the Greeks and the Persians, as well as with the sacrifices and festivals which were the custom of all men from time immemorial. He spoke in Greek, but he and his ancestors wore Iranian dress, and he specified that the priests of his sanctuary should dress in the Persian fashion. He worshipped Ahuramazda but called him also Zeus and Mithra, whom he identified with Apollo, the ancestral god of the Seleucids."

--HistoryofIran (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Not many, just two. The rest of the sources were not commented on as unreliable so why are there being dismissed? They are high quality sources that stand on several other pages on Wikipedia, so please explain how "Marcus Aurelius: A Life" by Frank McLynn, "The Dynasty of Commagene" by Richard Sullivan, "Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period" by Michel Blomer, "The Cambridge History of Iran" by Ehsan Yarshate, "A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo" by Duane Roller are not WP:RS. I will continue to site even more sources, b/ at this point I do not think a neutral point is being taken and I'm afraid of making a change.

And yes, it does matter. Thank you for proving my point, and quoting the book I cited. You cannot only take what fits one narrative from a book and cite it, while ignoring the rest of the book. "The Cambridge History of Iran" calls Commagene an Armenian Kingdom, while speaking to its Armenian, Iranian and Greek roots. "The most striking example of the syncretism of gods in ancient Parthia actually occurs in a former Armenian satellite kingdom, namely Commagene, the modern Malatya district. Here a scion of the Armenian Orontid house, King Antiochus I (69–34 B.C.) built himself a funeral hill at Nimrūd Dāgh…" My suggestion for the lede speaks to this as well, an all ecompassing neutral introduction, while the current one alienates historical depictions. If all else fails I'd like to escalate this further per WP:DR as I don't think a neutral point of view is being taken and I do not think its fair to be ignored while ignoring sources. Sweetcotton101 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

3 out of 6; that's half, which is many - neither Miszczak nor Mark are qualified historians. In the fifth source you bolded "large degree of syncretism" which I'm not sure what to make out of. The fourth source could very use Armenian in a geographical sense. Even so, I fail to how see that puts Armenian influences on par with Greek and Iranian. That leaves just one source, which says "Hellenized Armenian kingdom". And versus, what - 12 sources? I'm not sure what you mean, besides calling Commagene an Armenian satellite kingdom, the Cambridge History of Iran, only discusses Greek and Iranian elements when talking about Commagene, which again proves my point. And you allege that I'm the one not being neutral here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You try to put every passing mention of Armenia, found in a few sources, on par with the very large number of RS sources which virtually solely elaborate about Iran[ian] and Greek. That just doesn't cut it. Also, other sources which you posted turned out to be of weak quality. One of them very weak even (a freelance writer/philosophy professor). Its becoming clear that your arguments are not in line with WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRAL, and this entire discussion is therefore nearing the tresholds of WP:TENDENTIOUS.

More (Bruno Jacobs, 2011, "NEMRUD DAĞI" [3]):

• "Antiochus’s inscriptions refer repeatedly to those who are contemplating the sculptures. Since these viewers are by necessity visitors to the sanctuary, it seems logical to assume that the sculptures were designed to be meaningful to those who were raised in the Greek or Iranian tradition and recognized the sculptures’ Greek or Iranian elements. On the one hand, the envisioned visitors were probably the members of the Iranian noble families who after the Persian conquest had settled in the region. On the other hand, the Macedonian conquest must have lead to the establishment of Greek noble families. Both groups were likely to have enjoyed distinction within their shared societal order, though the relationship between the Greek and Iranian elites might not have been without tension"
• "The combination of Greek and Iranian elements nonetheless reveals that the concept’s starting point was Greek and that the image of royal power was strongly influenced by the traditions of the Hellenistic monarchies. Yet the Iranian elements are more than “very superficial” additions, as suggested by K. Humann and O. Puchstein (1890, p. 340). On the contrary, their balance is the result of a remarkable sensitivity. "
• "For example, the priests spoke Greek, but dressed in Persian garments (Krüger, 1937, pp 27, 30); the faces’ iconography is Greek, though most of the male deities wear Oriental costumes; and the site of a tomb sanctuary, which was dominated by the veneration of Zeus-Oromasdes (Figure 1 and Figure 2), is a mountain top, which Greeks may have experienced as a kind of Commagenian Mount Olympus and Iranians associated with the Persian tradition of Ahura Mazdā worship (Herodotus 1.131; Strabo 15.3.13; cf. Jacobs, 2002b, pp. 35-42). In the Nemrud Dağı cult inscription [N] some words and phrases recall the Persian historical tradition, while others echo the classical sources of the Achaemenid Empire. The gods are described as “royal” and “paternal” (N 116, 224-25), and Herodotus (1.65, 5.106), Plutarch (Alex. 30.12, Mor. 338 F), and Curtius Rufus (4.10.34, 4.14.24, 5.12.3, 7.4.1) use the same attributes. The idea that after death the soul will stand before the heavenly thrones of Zeus-Oromasdes (N 41-43) is found in the Avesta (Vidēvdād 19.32), as well as in Achaemenid (Xerxes I at Persepolis, XPf 32-34) and Sasanian (Kirdīr on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt) inscriptions, and seems to be a shared Iranian concept (Schmeja, 1982; Jacobs, 2002b, pp. 38-41)."
• "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."
• "Although the sources do not provide any information about the materials from which the Armenian ancestral portraits had been created, this evidence supports the conclusion that in a relatively late period in Armenia, as well as on the Nemrud Daǧı, a dynastic concept particular to the Orontid family whose roots were ultimately in Iran"

- LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

First, I am not arguing your point-you can keep quoting about the Iranian/Greek influence ad nauseam if you’d like. But if you'd like to refer to that article, I'd like to note the NEMRUD DAĞI article uses the very same sources which you yourself dismissed as poor quality, when I cited them. The Dynasty of Commagene by Richard Sullivan is cited in the article you quoted, for example. So why is that these sources are high quality enough when your sources choose to quote them, but not high quality enough when they address another aspect, and you dismiss them as "low quality?" I don't agree with the selective tactics used to dismiss the mention of Armenian influence in the lede of this article, straight and simple. Respectfully, your selectivity in disqualifying sources written by historians/archeologists at whim is unfair, and is treading towards WP:POV railroad.

If we go back to the basics, we can agree that the Orontids were a dynasty associated with Armenia. Regardless of their ethnicity, dynasties have allegiances to their geographical association-the Orontids, were not a dynasty that had allegiances to Ancient Greece or Persia. The wording of the lede makes it seem as such.

I just want to confirm that you are referring to these sources/authors as “poor quality”:

1. Ehsan Yarshater (The Cambridge History of Iran) Ehsan Yarshater was an Iranian historian and linguist who specialized in Iranology. He was the founder and director of The Center for Iranian Studies, and was the first Persian full-time professor at a U.S. university since World War II. **Please note that Yarashater is also one of the authors of Encyclopædia Iranica, a website you quoted from.

2. Duane W. Roller (A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo) is an American archaeologist, author, and professor emeritus of Classics, Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University.

3. Michael Blomer (Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period) is an archaeologist specialised in Asia Minor and the Roman Near East. His main research focus is on urbanism, sculpture, and religious iconography of this area. Beyond that he has worked extensively on trans-local cults in the Roman Empire and the cult of Iuppiter Dolichenus in particular. Michael also has a long record of experience in field archaeology. Most notable is his commitment to the excavation of the Iuppiter Dolichenus sanctuary near Doliche in South East Turkey. This is also reflected in large number of publications on various issues related to the sanctuary and the surrounding region. **Please note that you have allowed Blomer’s work to stand in the lede of this article, but when I point to something that disagrees with this narrative from the same author, you deem the source not quality

4. Richard D. Sullivan (The Dynasty of Commagene) was Professor of Classics and History at the University of Saskatchewan and Adjunct Professor of History at Simon Fraser University

5. David Marshall Lang, was a Professor of Caucasian Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He was one of the most productive British scholars who specialized in Georgian, Armenian and ancient Bulgarian history. 

Third, as an editor I come here in good faith, in an effort to share my academic knowledge without partisan. What is suppose to make Wikipedia a great source of knowledge is the community of editors who come together with their areas of expertise to bring forth a neutral out-take on an article. I can’t help but feel that there is a sense of bullying, as I personally feel scared to make a good faith edit without being blocked, reverted-especially when I use the sources/authors above (who are published academics), which also happen to be some of the same sources/authors used by yourself on other pages. My intention is to change the lede to an all encompassing introduction, one that accurately reflects what academics can agree upon.Sweetcotton101 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Numerous sources citing Armenian presence/influence deleted. Why?

Why are numerous quality sources that support an Armenian presence/influence deleted from this article?Preservedmoose (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Because (as I said in the edit summary) it violates WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

How so? Explain how these are unreliable sources? How are there questions of perspectives? Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative. Yes--a journalist from Daily Sabah is supporting a nationalist Armenian perspective. None of the sources that I provided are from Armenians. One is Turkish,one is from the UK government. One is from the EU. You are not the king of Wikipedia.Preservedmoose (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to have plenty of time on your hands to cast WP:ASPERSIONS towards me, I suggest you click the guidelines and read them yourself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what "aspersion" I cast, but okay...you have plenty of time to sit in front of your computer and edit any mention of Armenians. Explain how a) these are unreliable sources and b) these push a perspective. I would appreciate an explanation so I don't offend you again, this is what is far more important and what I asked of you initially, but you ignored.Preservedmoose (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative."'
• "You are not the king of Wikipedia."

What do you call this then? This is certainly not helping your case, I am being completely friendly to you. Sorry, but I'm not forced to teach you about the guidelines, especially with this behaviour. You've been here for +10 years - you should arguably know these by know (WP:COMPETENCE). --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. Your name is HistoryOfIran, your main interest is ancient Iranian history, and you edit articles to minimize certain other cultures at the expense of a Pro-Iranian narrative (such as this one). Additionally, you have a) accused me of removing reliable sources without explanation, when you yourself have done this with the sources that I provided and b) you are gatekeeping what sources are reliable and what are not, but not explaining WHAT your rational is, despite repeated requests for explanation. I don't know how else to view this besides a perception that the rules do not apply to you. I'll ask you again, how are a) my sources unreliable (one is a British government site!) and b) how do they (from neutral third parties) support an agenda? I'm looking forward to your explanation.Preservedmoose (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not accused you of anything - if so where's the proof? My name and interests are of no matter to you, and if you attack me once more, I will report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, no, they are. You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. I'm using that as an example of you being selective and loose with your criticisms--as I can make an argument that you're doing precisely what you are accusing me of doing. And again, I ask you, how are my sources unreliable or indicative of pushing an agenda (which is the actual topic of this disagreement)? Can you please explain how they are unreliable or bad sources? If not, I'll add them back into the article and we can both go on our merry ways and any reversion you do will be grounds for an investigation/report. Thanks!Preservedmoose (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So you have no proof (i.e. a diff) of me accusing you of pushing an agenda, and are still going on about me. And now you are threatening to continue edit warring because of the fact that I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia? Go on - do it, it will make my WP:ANI report easier. This discussion is over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You initially accused me, with no explanation, of pushing an agenda for providing reliable, non-Armenian sources that suggest an Armenian presence/influence in Commagene. You claimed I removed reliable sources and then you removed my sources, claiming they are unreliable, but upon repeated request, you failed to provide a rational or explanation for how these are problematic sources. You're repeatedly pushing a pro-Iranian narrative here and on other articles (for example, the Orontid dynasty) at the expense of sources mentioning Armenians and other groups and then you repeatedly accuse and threaten people who add these sources. Again, I ask, how are the sources that I provided on this page problematic? If you are unable to provide a criticism or explanation for how these articles are problematic, I'll assume there is no disagreement about their veracity or validity and they can be added again without issue.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Lets see what "sources" you tried to add into the article:

• "Postcard of the royal tombs at Nimrud Dagh in Commagene (modern south-central Turkey)." Three sentences of text ("His colossal statue stood alongside figures of lions, Veragna birds, claimed ancestors from both ancient Persian kings and from Alexander the Great, as well as gods fused together from Armenian, Iranian and Greek pantheons"). The material is linked to the British Museum.[4]
• Daily Sabah. A Turkish news website. Non-WP:RS.
• Ancient.eu website, entry written by Carole Radatto. She has no degree in history or whatsoever. "Carole Raddato's favourite hobby is travelling and for the last 8 years she has taken a huge interest in the history of the ancient world. She has dedicated all her free time to this passion. She loves to share with other history fans all the incredible facts and stories that she discovers throughout her journeys. She is neither a professional photographer nor an ancient history scholar, but she hopes that everybody can enjoy her photos."[5][6]

There's not a chance we're going to put this material on par with actual scholars who had their works published by high quality publishers, per WP:DUE and WP:RS. Strong claims will require strong sources. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

Dear @HistoryofIran, could you please explain why you felt the need to revert me 1? The Orontids are described as a a hereditary Armenian dynasty, and I really don't see a valid reason for your revert. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I simply restored the information described by the multiple sources - not sure why they were removed in the first place. Just because an article says one thing, doesn't mean another article should say the same, I'm pretty sure there's a guideline regarding that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran, I think the current wording violates neutral point of view:

was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty (current version)

was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty (my version)

Orontids are described as an Armenian dynasty by sources in this article too, not only in Orontids page: Erskine, Andrew; Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd; Wallace, Shane (2017) "Another self-designated descendant from a member of one of the seven great house, Hydarnes, was the Orontid Dynasty of Armenia"

I think my version doesn't violate NPOV and doesn't give undue weight to any of the mentioned countries (mentioning both, as both statements of "Greco-Iranian kingdom" and "Armenian dynasty" are sourced and described as such by multiple sources).

I'll restore my edit if you don't have objections. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

They ruled Armenia indeed, but they were not of Armenian origin per the multiple sources. I have no objection adding that the Orontids ruled Armenia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran I'm sorry, but I didn't add anything about the origin, I just added Armenian dynasty which is true. They were an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots (I think this is contested among historians, still doesn't matter in this case) that ruled over Armenia. What exactly in my addition disputes that?

Kind regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you did [7]. You removed mention of them being Hellenized and of Iranian origin. Compared to the rest of the Orontid branches, the ones in Commagene were notably much more Hellenized. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is my edit was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty. Info in more details as I said in my edit is in the article itelf (about the roots/etc). Right now, most important part that it was an Armenian dynasty isn't mentioned in the lede (which violated NPOV) Just because they had Iranian roots doesn't mean it becomes an Iranian dynasty (which is again, contested among historians). I think my edit is fine, I can ask for third opinion if we can't come to an agreement. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How is this contested? There are like 10 sources cited. Also, the Iranian and Greek elements of Commagene are the more or less always the ones mentioned and emphasised in sources, thus I don't see how this violates WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

My changes are in regard to Orontids not Commagene kingdom. As I said, it should be mentioned that they are an Armenian dynasty. Just as an example with Rurikids , them having Scandinavian roots doesn't mean they become a Scandinavian dynasty. Orontids are an Armenian dynasty, and the fact that it's excluded from the lede and instead replaced with "Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty" violates NPOV. I'll ask for a third opinion shortly. Feel free to ask for more third opinions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, it's more meant as 'of Iranian origin' rather than dynasty. I can see why that would be seen as the other way. Perhaps a rewriting is needed then? Still, imo the fact that the Orontids of Commagene were Hellenized and of Iranian stock should still be mentioned somehow per the vast majority of sources which put an emphasis on it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see that we have an agreement on the issue. As I said in my edit description and regarding to your concerns 1, the roots are already mentioned and explained in detail in the Orontids article itself. Still, I'll wait to hear from the 3rd opinion. Maybe it's also needed to be mentioned in this article, maybe it's not (I'm not well versed with MOS:LEAD). Kind regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the third opinion isn't interested in the topic, I'll restore my edit per talk here. If you still want to include the origin of Orontids in the lede, maybe WP:THIRD would be a better way to ask. I still think that per MOS:LEAD, it shouldn't be included here in the lede, and it's explained in detail in the Orontids article's etymology section. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's up to you to ask that, not me. I've restored the edit per WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran you have yet to tell me what exactly do you disagree in my edit? Please be specific. I explained my rationale to you here, and you seem to have at least partially agreed that "perhaps rewriting is needed". Right now, your twice restored version violates NPOV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you didn't even read my replies. You restored the NPOV version again [3] with added commentary. I asked what exactly did you disagree with in my edit, you repeated same arguments we discussed here. Having Iranian roots doesn't mean it's an "Iranian family" or "Iranian dynasty". I see that you had same discussion with another user, and they also informed you that regardless of their ethnicity, dynasties have allegiances to their geographical association-the Orontids, were not a dynasty that had allegiances to Ancient Greece or Persia, but to Armenia. They are stated as an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots in multiple sources, that however, doesn't make them an "Iranian dynasty". To your other point, their roots are discussed thoroughly in the Orontids article, and it isn't a place for the lede, especially of a kingdom article. You probably know that I'm right here, but for some reason you extend this conversation for longer and longer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just repeating myself at this rate; Sorry but how is your version the neutral one? You're removing information supported by about 10 citations. I hear you very well, but removing something so important and emphasised upon is not an improvement (and certaintly not neutral). Instead of attempting to do the same again and again, why don't you propose another, actual neutral version? As in add that they ruled Armenia but still keep the details regarding their Greek and Iranian background? And please don't make assumptions of me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran please hear me out. I already explained multiple times that I'm not denying that Orontids had Persian origins, but the lede of a kingdom article isn't a place for such information. Your only argument right now is that "it's mentioned in multiple sources". Fine, that doesn't mean it should be included in the lede, especially of a kingdom article. It is already explained in the etymology section of Orontids where is the most appropriate place. I feel like with you having such experience, I shouldn't be the one explaining manual style of writing here. And right now, your restored edit doesn't even explain what you want it to explain. It wrongly states Orontids as an "Iranian dynasty" [3], and not "a dynasty with Iranian origins". Even by your logic, the current version is incorrect and NPOV. But as I already explained, origins/roots aren't suppose to be in the lede to begin with. They are already wikilinked and explained in the appropriate section of Orontids article itself. I think the ANI would agree with me too if I'll have to take this to there, please don't make this hard for both of us. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• "a hereditary Armenian dynasty."
  

Is quite meaningless and incorrect in this regard, since the Kingdom of Commagene had Greek and Iranian cultural and dynastic roots. The only Armenian connection is made by Frank McLynn who is far and away out of his depth and I have no idea why he is used here! David Lang's comment asserts that Commagene was an "Armenian satellite kingdom", which does not mean it was Armenian. No more than a "Roman satellite kingdom" is Roman! Simply because someone has edit warred their "Armenian dynasty" into the Orontid dynasty does not change that they originated from the Parthian Arsacids.

• • "... Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty."
    

This is factually correct and reflects the cultural and dynastic background of this kingdom.

• • "In Commagene, which had emerged as an independent kingdom during the breakup of Alexander's empire, there were still reminiscences of the mix Persian and Aramaic past.[..]. The inhabitants of Commagene worshipped divinities with a Semitic past, but they did so in Greek..."
    

And now for the threat...

• "I think the ANI would agree with me too if I'll have to take this to there, please don't make this hard for both of us."
  

Let's go! I would love to see what Admins think of a "new user" so conversant in Wikipedia speech, editing, and arrives to continue a dispute proxied by a block user! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is quite meaningless and incorrect in this regard, since the Kingdom of Commagene had Greek and Iranian cultural and dynastic roots

@Kansas Bear Hi, please read my proposal again. I'm not talking about Kingdom of Commagene. In fact, my only change is in regard to Orontids, which I already clarified in my comments multiple times (and you can actually see in the diff itself [1]).

And now for the threat... Let's go! I would love to see what Admins think of a "new user" so conversant in Wikipedia speech, editing, and arrives to continue a dispute proxied by a block user!

I don't know what user you're talking about, and ANI wasn't a threat, but more like a solution to this prolonged discussion, as I can't come to an agreement with HistoryofIran. I would much rather prefer to resolve issues on talk. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to talk, and I want to resolve our issues by talking. I'll bring an example similar to one here that I think @HistoryofIran would agree:

Safavid dynasty had Kurdish or Turkic roots to my knowledge, would it be right to call it a "Kurdish" or "Turkic" dynasty? I think not, and I presume that both of you would agree with me. They were still an Iranian dynasty, with their historical and geographical association to Iran. Regardless of their origins, this fact doesn't change. Right now, with the edit HistoryofIran restored, it is stated "Iranian Orontid dynasty". This is the text I disagree with, and I gave my reasons already multiple times. When it comes to their origin, I don't disagree that they had Iranian roots, but that's already explained in the Orontids article itself. If you can show why origins of a dynasty should also be included in the lede of a kingdom article, and show me the guideline, I absolutely will have no objections to that inclusion. So far, I saw the "many sources say so" argument. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean that it's ought to be included everywhere.

Dear experienced editors, please don't shrug off my concerns just because I'm a "new user" or that somehow I'm related to a proxy blocked user that @Kansas Bear suggests. With respect, please don't make assumptions about me. I assure you that I'm not familiar with the user you talk about. If you're still unsure, I guess you can request an SPI, but trust me nothing will come out of it. I really hope we arrive to an agreement, I think my concerns are legitimate. With best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me.

• "Safavid dynasty had Kurdish or Turkic roots to my knowledge, would it be right to call it a "Kurdish" or "Turkic" dynasty?"

Actually, their ancestry was even more varied and the Safavids asserted Iranian nationalism. Therefore, your comparison is flawed.

• "I don't disagree that they had Iranian roots, but that's already explained in the Orontids article itself."

Actually the lead of Orontid dynasty suggests they were of Armenian heredity. It should state;

• • "a hereditary Iranian dynasty that ruled over Armenia..."

I do not have a problem with the above lead change to the Orontid dynasty article. But I am sure that will not happen. I wonder why?

Actually, the lead sentence of this article should be:

• • "an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty that ruled over Armenia."

The reason why it states, "...an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty", is because this information is related to and repeated throughout the article, with the only mention of "Armenian" being a satellite kingdom and a silly mention from a non-specialized writer McLynn.@User:HistoryofIran, your thoughts on my proposal? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought pinging notifies the editor, I won't ping if you want to. To your points:

1) Regarding Safavids: with HisotryofIran, we were talking about the origins and that whether it determines a dynasty to be Armenian or Iranian. I am of an opinion that origins doesn't determine that so long that the kingdom is historically or geographically assosiated with certain region, that should be the determining factor. By that logic, Rurikids also are Scandinavian not Russian dynasty.

2) They were an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots, and as I said, their roots are already explained in the Orontid dynasty#Historical background section.

3) I see your argument of repetition throughout the article, that's a way better argument than saying "a lot of sources say so". I think I agree with you in that regard and origins should be mentioned because of the repetition. My proposal would be the following:

"was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty with Iranian origins"

I'd like to hear both of your thoughts. With best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, Orontids are mentioned only 3 times on this article one of them being in the lead, so now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the 'repetitive throughout the article' argument applies here. Sources connecting Orontids/Commagene to Armenia (it isn't just one source):

1. "…to restore the Kingdom of Commagene (a small Hellenized Armenian kingdom in southern Anatolia near Antioch, which had a monarchy from 163 BC to AD 72 until annexed by Rome)…" McLynn, Frank (2009) "Marcus Aurelius: A Life"

2. "[The Commagene Kings] did not perceive themselves as simply Greek, Armenian, Persian or ‘Commagenian.’" Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

3. "new religion promoted by Antiochus was syncretic connecting the elements from Greek, Armenian and Persian cults…At the same time, both Persian and Armenian influences can be observed in their clothes and headgear while their faces displayed Greek traditions….While the Commagene rulers worked hard to demonstrated their glorious origins from Armenia, Greece and Persia, they ignored the rising power of Rome." Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

4. "In speaking of his ancestry "as "Persian and Greek", Antiochus I regards the Armenian Orontids and their Achaemenid relatives alike as of the same stock." Sullivan, Richard (2016) "The Dynasty of Commagene"

5. "Ancient Commagenian identity has therefore been characterised as showing a large degree of syncretism, in which various influences have to be taken into account." Blomer, Michael (2012) "Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period"

6. "The Kingdom of Commagene was a Hellenistic political entity, heavily influenced by Armenian and ancient Persian culture and traditions." Mark, Joshua (2020) World History Encyclopedia

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Aren't those the exact same sources that another user posted some time ago up above where he tried to prove the exact same point as you? Please read the full section, Mark and Miszczack are not even WP:RS (and I believe KansasBear replied to you regarding McLynn). And no, I don't agree with your proposal, as the Hellenization of the family is still omitted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear HistoryofIran, yes those are from above mentioned sources. The last message I see is from the user explaining why their mentioned sources are reliable, and as they went unanswered, I assumed that you agreed with them. I don't know about Mark and Miszczack, but the rest seem reliable, quote:

"1. Ehsan Yarshater (The Cambridge History of Iran) Ehsan Yarshater was an Iranian historian and linguist who specialized in Iranology. He was the founder and director of The Center for Iranian Studies, and was the first Persian full-time professor at a U.S. university since World War II. **Please note that Yarashater is also one of the authors of Encyclopædia Iranica, a website you quoted from.

2. Duane W. Roller (A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo) is an American archaeologist, author, and professor emeritus of Classics, Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University.

3. Michael Blomer (Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period) is an archaeologist specialised in Asia Minor and the Roman Near East. His main research focus is on urbanism, sculpture, and religious iconography of this area. Beyond that he has worked extensively on trans-local cults in the Roman Empire and the cult of Iuppiter Dolichenus in particular. Michael also has a long record of experience in field archaeology. Most notable is his commitment to the excavation of the Iuppiter Dolichenus sanctuary near Doliche in South East Turkey. This is also reflected in large number of publications on various issues related to the sanctuary and the surrounding region. **Please note that you have allowed Blomer’s work to stand in the lede of this article, but when I point to something that disagrees with this narrative from the same author, you deem the source not quality

4. Richard D. Sullivan (The Dynasty of Commagene) was Professor of Classics and History at the University of Saskatchewan and Adjunct Professor of History at Simon Fraser University

5. David Marshall Lang, was a Professor of Caucasian Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He was one of the most productive British scholars who specialized in Georgian, Armenian and ancient Bulgarian history". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer my version:

• • "an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty that had ruled over Armenia."

That is more representative of the article and its contents. The McLynn source is garbage written by a non-specialized author. Why ignore what the sources say to simply write Armenian in front of everything, like that will prove the Orontids were Armenians. LOL.

• • "A combination of different cultural traditions is certainly expressed in the monuments and inscriptions of one local dynasty which emerged in northern Syria in the second century, the royal house of Commagene. But if what we are interested in is a local "mixed" culture, Commagene is not a true exception, for everything that we can observe there is, firstly, a royal invention; and secondly, though the kings consciously draw on two traditions, they do so in relation to Greek and Persian elements...."

If Armenian culture had such an impact on Commagene why is it not presented in their architecture/sculpture, language, religion? Because the Orontids, who were Iranian, not Armenian, followed the Iranian religion, in corporated Iranian loanwords into their language, and used Achaemenid architecture. So what exactly was Armenian about Commagene? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

@HistoryofIran Since the discussion we had, other RS were added in the parent Orontids article. Your edit description for some reason doesn't seem to include that part, and you just removed two reliable sources with no valid explanation. Moreover, please assume good faith before irresponsibly throwing WP:TEND accusations on fellow editors. Kindly revert yourself as minority views should also be represented per WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are attempting to add a Armenian origin despite +20 sources not supporting that (and I have not even added them all). That has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT, and in fact violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I'm sure you are well aware of the recent discussions as well. Moreover, I can see that you never replied to Kansas Bear arguments in both the Orontid and Commagene talk pages, how come? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are attempting to add a Armenian origin despite +20 sources not supporting that – Saying Iranian origin doesn't mean "not supporting" Armenian origin. And I added Armenian viewpoint sources, why minority viewpoint shouldn't be represented per WP:WEIGHT? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A source that doesn't have to explicitly deny a origin, that is not how sources are written. +20 sources agree on the Iranian origin and Hellenization/Greekification of Commagene, no mention of anything Armenian whatsoever. Even their ruler himself only claimed those two ancestries. As for the rest of the comment, I advise you to read WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.

Moreover, this is what the Bridjer source you used actually says about the Commagenean origin and culture; "And the present author has presumed similar intentions, as far as the inscriptions lay stress on the Greco-Persian descent of the ruler presenting a parallelism with the syncretistic deities, whose names combine one or more Greek components with one Iranian. Antiochus who this way became the fourth Greco-Iranian god within the divine assembly may have been presented to the populace, which probably was largely of Iranian or Greek parentage, as an ideal exponent of this alliance. / 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. / The Antiochian visual language is about the complexities of replication. To understand it, therefore, it is necessary to study the way that the meaning of the elements used changed over time, or, in other words, to look at their ‘cultural history’. What is it, then, that we call ‘Greek’ and ‘Persian’ (or ‘Iranian’) in describing the Antiochian’ visual language? A long argument on the meaning of Hellenism and Persianism could be summarised in two (general) conclusions. Hellenisation in the first century BCE Eastern Mediterranean was often actually Hellenism: a source of social power that should be understood as a choice to associate with civilisation and modernity. In the same time period Persianism was used to claim dynastic legitimacy." - p. 517 and 518 and 604 - Brijder, Herman A.G. (ed.) (2014), Nemrud Dağı

As you can see, it's once again a question of whether they were more Greek or Persian. Armenian is not even part of the discussion. Also, pls answer my question. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll look at your arguments closely and reply, most likely tomorrow because I'm busy IRL currently. When it comes to previous discussion, I already said new sources have been added since then. What else do you ask me to reply lol? If I was aware of those sources back then, I would logically present them in talk or add in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe this violates WP:DUE. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have two sources that speak of the Armenian origin of Commagene (I apologize in advance for my English, I have to use a translator). The preamble should be changed

Robert H. Hewsen. Armenia: A Historical Atlas. — Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. — p. 42.

“The significance of Kommagene for us lies in the fact that its royal dynasty appears to have been of Armenian origin, an offshoot of the Orontids, who also ruled both Armenia and Sophene and perhaps once even Lesser Armenia as well, had we had more information on the founding of that elusive Armenian state. That Kommagene belonged to the Armenian kingdom in the Orontid period is demonstrated first by the fact that two of its cities (Samosata and Arsameia) appear to have been named after Orontid kings, and second by the fact that it was ruled by a branch of the Orontid dynasty itself”.

Albert De Jong. Armenia and Georgia: Geography and History // The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism / Michael Stausberg; Yuhan Sohrab-Dinshaw Vevaina. — John Wiley & Sons, 2015. — P. 120, 696. — ISBN 9781118785508.

“The best known of these were the Orontids, who emerged as kings of Greater Armenia in the time of Alexander and the Seleucids, and whose family also produced the kings of several of the smaller Armenian kingdoms (Sophene, Commagene)”. Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but these sources and its content have already been discussed a zillion times. There are currently around 27 sources which support a Greco-Iranian origin. This discussion is long over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not find a discussion of either the first or the second source on this page. I also did not find “27 sources which support a Greco-Iranian origin”.

Robert Hewsen is the undisputed authority and we have no right to ignore his opinion. The "Greek-Iranian" state is a controversial preamble, it is contradicted by many authoritative sources. Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not, this has already been discussed. You can see it on the talk pages of Commagene, Mount Nemrut, Antiochus I of Commagene and even some noticeboards. I highly doubt something supported by 27 sources (which are quite clear in the lede) is controversial. I'm not gonna waste any further time on this, I advise you to drop the stick. I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I doubt very much that the current wording of the preamble “Commagene was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty…” is in any way adequate. There is an attempt to erase the Armenian trace, despite many authoritative sources. Yarshater, Lang, Hewsen, De Jong and others called Commagene "Armenian kingdom", and the Orontides "Armenian dynasty". Even if you are not satisfied with this option, in any case, the current option is not adequate. We must come to a consensus Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

After all, the “Greek-Iranian kingdom” is an original research, just like the “Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty”, when both the “Armenian dynasty” and the “Armenian kingdom” are formulations from authoritative sources.

I have every right to change the preamble, but I will not rush and wait for consensus Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

> Brand new account checks in[8]

> Brand new account has made 4 edits in total, all of them aimed at continuing an ended discussion.[9]

> Brand new account is aware of editing Wikipedia straight away and even writes his first edit summary as "Reply"[10]

It'd be better disclosing who's sock/meatpuppet you are. If it gets revealed later, it usually ends up being worse. You can trust me on that. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be better if you said something on the topic. I have a new account, but I have been reading Wikipedia discussions for many years and I understand how this happens. The fact that the discussion allegedly ended does not bother me, since its outcome does not suit me. Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Commagene (Armenian: Կոմմագենե, Greek: Κομμαγηνή) was an ancient Armenian kingdom of the Hellenistic period ruled by the Orontid dynasty. The kingdom was located in and around the ancient city of Samosata, which served as its capital. The Iron Age name of Samosata, Kummuh, probably gives its name to Commagene.

I did not mention that the Orontid dynasty was Armenian in order to come to a consensus Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment : @ZaniGiovanni: This has been already discussed, i believe you really need to drop the stick and move forward, as your behaviour is starting to be disruptive.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Commagene (Armenian: Կոմմագենե, Greek: Κομμαγηνή) was an ancient Armenian kingdom of the Hellenistic period ruled by the Armenian Orontid dynasty. The kingdom was located in and around the ancient city of Samosata, which served as its capital. The Iron Age name of Samosata, Kummuh, probably gives its name to Commagene. Reptilian of Kumayri (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

References