This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kintetsubuffalo (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 24 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:42, 24 March 2006 by Kintetsubuffalo (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Archaeology Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Iran Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
I made the current map. It's okay, I guess, but if someone could make a better one I'd be much obliged. – Quadell 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The information from the list of Parthian rulers seems to differ from other sources, such as this one. Maximus Rex 00:32, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
--
I added a sentence to the last paragraph of the body, suggesting one of the possible names for Parthia in the eyes of the Parthians. "The Parthians," by Malcolm A. R. Colledge (London, Thames and Hudson, 1968) is the source. (And if you're looking at this page, you want to read that book anyway.)
Dates and numbers in this article
Misplaced Pages policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:
- Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–AD 1 or 1 BCE–1 CE.
It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE makes the most sense. Sunray 17:49, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
We seem to have some sort of edit war going on here; the article was using both systems originally, and I changed the dates in the sections I cleaned up to BCE/CE. I agree that for this topic it's more appropriate to use these era names. siafu 18:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I have changed all the dates to the standard BC/AD notation, because there was inconsistent use of the eras in the article. I would also point out that a search on Google Scholar finds BC to be the more common usage in academic circles.
- And I've changed them back. You may wish to investigate this issue further, as it's been the subject of intense discussion. siafu 13:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I hesitated to make the change myself, it does seem silly for the article to remain inconsistent in this respect. Since this change was made by someone not previously involved in these discussions, might I suggest accepting it so that the article at least will no longer look as though it can't make its mind up? jguk 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Amazing that you would present such a view, jguk, given that I did exactly the same thing ("making its mind up") and you found that not only impossible to accept, but so onerous that you refused to make any sort of comment on this talk page whatsoever. Of course it should be consistent, and in fact it was consistent. siafu 15:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
To those engaging in reverts...
Twice now I've had unrelated changes be reverted by editors fighting over BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. While I'm not completely removed from those, PLEASE TRY TO ONLY CHANGE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE. I don't want to have to replace the stupid metallic statue image yet again because someone was trying to revert the whole article. siafu 23:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I know, and you can please check the history, I did not alter the article itself or the images. Amir85 accused me of doing this, i.e. ruining the picture, but it was not me - and I didn't appreciate his accusation when he could very easily check the history. Either User:Jguk (most likely) and/or User:RickK. Siafu, I believe a consensus as regards this article is in order to prevent Jguk and RickK from reverting again from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Jguk's constant reverts have resulted in much loss of data from articles, including those I've worked on extensively. Hopefully he will stop this nonsense. SouthernComfort 23:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Parthia and Rome
Another important fact about Parthia's involvement with Rome is the return of the standards from Parthia in 20 BC by Augustus. Although he tried to pass it off as a great military victory, in actuality it was a treaty between the two rulers. Source Roman Art Fourth edition by Nancy H. Ramage and Andrew Ramage. 149.159.43.139 07:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Melissa
Page move
This page has been moved twice from Parthia to Parthian Empire; I've left a message on the talk page of the user responsible asking for the reasoning behind this move and gotten no answer, and there is clearly no explanation here. As far as I can tell, "Parthia" is more common (google: 222,000) than "Parthian Empire" (google: 50,900). As such, and barring any actual explanation, I've moved it back again. siafu 16:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think a vote should be started to decide where to move it: personally, I preferred Parthian Empire because it removed the confusion with Parthia, the satrapy in the north-east of Modern Iran; also, Parthian Empire gives a better idea of the extension of the epire's dominions. Aldux 17:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- A discussion would be nice, however User:CJS102793 is refusing to engage in one. As for the ambiguity, we can place a dab line at the top for any other meanings. As far as I can tell, though, there is no article competing for this title. siafu 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've opened an RfC on the topic at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography, since CJS102793 still refuses to discuss and help form consensus. siafu 13:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- A discussion would be nice, however User:CJS102793 is refusing to engage in one. As for the ambiguity, we can place a dab line at the top for any other meanings. As far as I can tell, though, there is no article competing for this title. siafu 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Responding to RfC- I think that Aldux's point about the potential confusion with the Persian Satrapy is quite valid. Siafu is also certainly correct in thinking that "Parthia" is nevertheless the most commonly-used name for "Imperial" Parthia. Perhaps the best idea would be for someone to create a stub regarding the satrapy, "Parthia (Satrapy)" or some such while leaving THIS content under the title "Parthia". Have Parthian Empire redirect here, and have a disambiguation reference created on this page that will direct people to the Parthian satrapy, in the unlikely event that they're looking for that rather than this. KrazyCaley 09:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I checked the EB 1911 which used Parthia and added with the google results I think that is the most commonly used English name. So we need to keep the page at Parthia with one of the messages that this article refers to the empire of Partia for the Satrapy see here. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- One can also insert a more detailed note the way I placed that etymology note. Alexander 007 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Responding to RfC: I'm a classicist, and I've always heard it referred to as Parthia. Maybe a disambiguation page would be in order for the modern satrapy. BrianGCrawfordMA 00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- As another classicist, I agree; standard English usage here is Parthia, ruled by the Arsacid dynasty. A dab header to an article Parthia (satrapy), even if that's a stub? Septentrionalis 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Persia, Parthia, or Iran?
Copied from User talk:149.68.55.134:
Please stop rearranging the first sentence of the article. Per the manual of style, the most common name is presented first (Parthia), followed by the other options in parentheses; Ashkanian is not more common in English than Arsacid, so it should be treated the same. If you want to include it as being Iranian, it would be helpful to have the text in Iranian/Farsi script also, but either way it should be:
Parthia (Iranian: (Iranian script) (Ashkâniân Empire), also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force...
Also, the history of Iran template should be at the top, where it was. siafu 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop just changing the article. If you think there is a good reason for the article to fit your version, at the very least present that reason on the talk page. If you're not willing to discuss it, we can't really move forward, and I'll have to report this as simple vandalism. siafu 02:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The difference between your statement, ``Parthia (Iranian: (Iranian script) (Ashkâniân Empire), also called the Arsacid Empire) was the dominating force...``, and mine that says, ``Parthia, or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân`` is that my statement calrifies that Parthia was an Iranian, not a foreign dynasty, right from the start. Unless you have a biased view that makes the statement undesirable, you need to know that the statement is factual.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Misrepresenting one of the most glorious and influential times in Iranian history, the dynasty of Ashkanian, who reunited Iran and made it into an empire again, and who have had tremendous impact on the Iranian culture, should not be an aim of yours, just because it is simply more ``convenient`` for Western literature to do so.
From its birth, Iran was called Iran, not Persia, which is simply a province in Iran, yet so much inaccuracies have risen that the West thinks Persia is extinct, and the modern nation of Iran is different, which is false, in fact--from 525 BC up to 1979 AD, the country was called Kingdom of Iran; there is archeological proof of that. There are numerous articles and books that state Parthia was a country in Asia, or that the second Persian, i.e., Iranian dynasty was the Sassanid, or even more erroneously, and shockingly, that Parthian were foreign rulers of Persia. That is absurd; it is very much like saying Yankees in Boston in the north rose to power and formed Bostonia, later native Texans took back their land, and were the second American dynasty. Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Under Ashkanian, who came from the north of Iran and were from the ancient Iranian tribe of Ashkuzi (Scythians), reunited Iran, and revitalized Persian customs. Macedonia that was not even part of Greece, is under Ancient Greece, yet, people seem to have separated Persia, Parthia, and Iran. As such, because Wikepedia gives people a chance to make wrongs right, it is essential that right in the beginning of the sentence, the empire’s real name be embedded in there, so when a reader studies it for the first time, would know the origin of the empire. And, accuracy should supersede the fact that it is merely more convenient for people to call that era of Iran, Parthia. That is absolutely confusing, and above all false. DO NOT CHANGE THE ARTICLE FROM NOW ON PLEASE.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This isn't a question of factual accuracy but style. Read the comments above; take a look at the changes beind made to the article, and please read the manual of style. siafu 03:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You have no business to choose accuracy over style. The reasons I gave should supersede your sense of ``style``.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's starting to appear that you're arguing with someone else? All the information is included in both versions, except, unfortunately, for the actual name for the Parthian empire in Iranian (i.e., not transliterated), so it can't be a matter of accuracy. siafu 03:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why we are even discussing this. The difference between your version and mine is that mine states, factually, their real name in their native language, that in turn clarifies misunderstandings. Simply stating ``Iranian for Parthian is Ashkanian`` is insignificant. Clarifying Parthians are Ashkanian IS a matter of accuracy, and it corrects the transliterated blunder.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Simply stating it is fine, and that would be a good addition to the etymology footnote at the bottom. Stating it repeatedly, and overloading the introductory sentence with it, is not so fine. siafu 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That is EXACTLY the problem, for too long it has been a footnote. As far as I could read, it was stated only once in the beginning. And, as far as I am concerned our discussion is over.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not to be rude, but wikipedia is not a forum for pushing a political agenda. I've revised the opening paragraph again to indicate that Ashkanian is the Iranian word (what you seem to be pressing for), and fixed the format of the following sentences (i.e., "ancient" shouldn't be capitalized, and (Persia) is a red link whereas (Persia) is not). Since you're unwilling to discuss the matter, I'm referring this to RfC and copying this discussion to the talk page for Parthia. siafu 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved from above:
And, that is why Parthia is the first word in the sentence, and Ashkanian is stated after it.
Unfortunately, you seem to have a biased view about Persia; stating facts are encouraged in Wikepedia. The manual was followed to the letter, yet, you seem to have your own sense of style, or agenda etc.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- My views on Persia/Iran have not been mentioned, and are not relevant. Again, this is a matter of style, and you have not followed anything to the letter. I tried compromise and was rewarded with another blanket revert. I tried discussion and was regaled with an overwhelming weight of irrelevant argument, so I'm leaving to RfC. siafu 04:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Siafu, having a biased view includes having one`s own view on style, culture, title of civilizations, etc., not necessary meaning a political view; although, I am not certain what your views are. But, I do know you tried to changed ``....or known in their native Iranian language as Ashkâniân ...`` to ``(Iranian: (Iranian script) (Ashkâniân Empire)``, numerous of times now. There is a slight, yet, significant difference between the two.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I have controlled in my Britannica the full artcle link. The article does not say that their native language was Iranic or that they called themselves Ashkanian. It simply states that Firdusi, and probably the Sassanids before, called them that way: "From the Sassanian chronicles they enter Persian Epic poetry under the name Ashkanian". Aldux 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is the gist of the argument. In Western literature they are known as Parthia; however, as you mention yourself, Ferdowsi, and not ``Firdusi``, which is a blatant misspelling, even mentions it, because he was a poet and historian. Moreover, they are even older Iranian literature that shows Iranians have always called Parthians, Ashkanian, i.e., their true non-Westernized title. So you really kind of proved it yourself by even mentioning it. Parthians were part of the Scythian tribe, whom according to the Old Testiment, Assyrians called Ashkuz, whom are not only the ancestor to European settlers, but also the Ashkenazi Jews, and of course, the Iranian dynasty of Ashkanian. Parthian is a Latin word akin to the Parthava in Greek, and like so many names and titles of ancient Persians, their names have been changed in the West. According to Columbia Encyclopedia, Iran itself has always been called Iran, yet, in the West they call ancient Iran, Persia. Cyrus the Great` s real name in Persian is Koroush; Achaemenids are Hakhamaneshian in their native language, etc., etc. You cannot tell a country what to call its own people, you need to do more research, and also get-over-it. I don`t have time to give you a free history lesson here. And, if you remove the heading of this section that I started one more time, you will be reported for vandelism. This discussion is over.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Vandalism includes editting talk page comments; it does not include reverting such edits. Inserting a heading, right underneath where it says "Copied from..." is deceptive, given that the heading was NOT copied as it wasn't there in the original-- replacing it is just as deceptive. This issue is not, and has never been, one of "accuracy", given that all the names mentioned appear in both versions of the article. Also, I think you'll find that statements like "this discussion is over", while potentially (?) effective in the boardroom aren't going to accomplish anything here on wikipedia. siafu 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly for you anon., I can. The first law of wikipedia (written right under here, every time you edit) is that "content ... must be verifiable". So yes, I will always exercise my free right to edit uncorrect or misleading or unsourced pieces of text. And if you want to report me for vandalism for doing this, do it; but don't expect anybody to take you seriously. And regarding "even older Iranian literature that shows Iranians have always called Parthians, Ashkanian", that's to easy: cite the specific Parthian texts you're speaking about. Have a nice day. Aldux 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
They are cited in Persian literature, not translated into english; however, the most important thing is that, as you yourself mentioned, Parthians were refered to as Ashkanian by the Persian poet, and historian, Ferdowsi--who lived about 1000 years ago. By the way, Ferdowsi was from the same country that Parthians were from; Iran. So, good job researching genius.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since the paucity of texts in question, it is highly unlikely they haven't been all edited and pubblished by Western scholars. By the way, the Parthians lived 2000 years ago, not 1000. As even you can see, quite a distance from Ferdowsi. Aldux 23:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ferdowsi`s account of the second Iranian dynasty calling themselves Ashkanian, is much more proof that you will ever have that they called themselves Parthians. And, CAIS, The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, headed by Department of Art & Archaeology, SOAS, University of London, who are scholars, also confirm this. By the way, what proof do-YOU-have that Parthia is not a Latin name given to Ashkanian? The answer is nothing.Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, it may very well be for all I care, and wouldn't mean nothing: Hellas is called Greece in English, so the name of the article is Greece since this is an English-speaking encyclopedia. But I'm not saying that Parthia is the original name: I am more simply noting that it cannot be proved by the info. you gave that Ashkanian was the name by which the Parthians called themselves. Aldux 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Parthia has not been changed, yet, right after it, their real name is mentioned. You have an obligation to inform others of the origin and their true name. Macedonia is not seperate from ancient Greece, yet, Parthia is confused for another country, differing from Persia, which is actually Iran. I provided refrences from scholars etc. Again, where is YOUR proof that they were not called Ashkanian?Zmmz 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is all delightful, really, but not relevant. Again, we're talking about a style issue that has only become such a tremendous headache because it's being used as a soapbox to rant on unrelated naming issues. How about we stop wasting time and deal with the actual issue at hand? siafu 01:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Would all contributors to this discussion please sign their comments? Four tildes should do the trick. -Ben 18:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- All of the unsigned comments from above are User:Zmmz, who also posts under the IP 149.68.55.134. siafu 19:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Ashkanian Empire
Empire is not Middle Persian; what is the actual MP equivalent? Septentrionalis 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, Arsacids did not speak Middle Persian, rather Parthian. But not wanting to be picky, the answer to your question is "shatr" (Parthian) or "shahr" (Middle Persian; not to be confised with Modern Persian shahr "city"). However, there are no instances of the people themselves calling their domain "Parthian Empire" or the "Sasanian Empire". These are later, and sometimes contemporary Greek, designations. We really do not have any sign of Arsacids themseleves refering to the land, but the Sasanians (in many ways the idealogical heirs of the Arsacids), called their domains "Iran-shahr" (domain of the Iranians). --Khodadad 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Date
Why is the date of the beginning of the Arsacid rule given as 150 BCE? The capture of Mesopotamia from the Seleucids seems to be the reason, but most authorities date the beginning of the empire from Arsaces I himself (238 BCE, see Jozef Wolski, L'Empire des Arsacides) or at least from Mithridates I (179 BCE).--Khodadad 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Read better: "Parthia ... reunited and ruled over the Iranian plateau, .... beginning in the late 3rd century BCE, and intermittently controlled Mesopotamia between ca 150 BCE and 224 CE." The Parthian state begins "in the late 3rd century BCE" and it "intermittently controlled Mesopotamia between ca 150 BCE and 224 CE". So it is speaking of Mesopotamia, and not all the state, from 150 BCE. I hope this has been of some help to you; if not, don't have problems saying it. Cheers. Aldux 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Parthia, Persia, or Arsacid Dynasty?
Actually, Parthia, and Persia, are erroneously the names used for ancient Iran. Western historians have divided these two periods of Iran, and as such many believe that Parthians were foreign rulers of Iran, and call the country in that era, Parthia. Keep in mind this is very confusing since they call some of the eras of ancient Iran (the eras of the founding fathers of Iran; the Achaemenid dynasty, and the last dynastic power before the Arab invasion, the Sassanid dynasty), by the name of one of its provinces, Pars, which is Persia in english. So, in order to clarify this for the reader and enhance their knowledge, I simply changed, ``..led by the Arsacid dynasty...`` to ``....also known the Arsacid dynasty...``, so that readers are not further confused by these titles. Please, do not change it, unless there is a consensus, or if you have valid reasons, discussed here first.Zmmz 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Some readers falsely thing it was the Parthian dynasty, so this subtle change clarifies further confusion. If this continues, I am going to ask an admint. to look into this, while putting a stop to editing the article for now.Zmmz 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Who is thinking that the "Parthian Empire" is the "Parthian Dynasty"? The term "Parthian Dynasty" does not appear anywhere. Moreover, there appears to be a consensus in favor of "led by" in placed of "also known as", though I think "ruled by" would be best. siafu 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fine; the only reason for "led by" is not to repeat "ruled" in two slightly different contexts. Septentrionalis 03:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Parthia, Persia, Parthava, Arsacid, etc., cause confusion, because many ask, so how many dynasties did Parthia had that it was first led by the Arsacid dynasty? The answer is; there one only one dynasty. You and two of your friends does not constitute a consensus. Others, besides the usual gang of 3-4 people must get involved. When others voice their opinions in the discussion page, consensus will be reached.Zmmz 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Currently, it's 3 to 1. Unless or until that changes (you could put in an RFC?), the consensus is in favor of "led by". And, btw, this is not a gang of myself and "two of my friends"; perhaps you should respect the fact that different editors, being different people, have their own opinions. siafu 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
because many ask, so how many dynasties did Parthia had that it was first led by the Arsacid dynasty?
Who asks this? Do you have any evidence to convince us that this usage is confusing? john k 07:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not many do confuse the two; as a matter of fact I did at the beginning. But, I have to say there is still something wrong when in the West Parthians are considered separate from Iranians, and even as known foreign rulers of ancient Iran; with many authors saying things to the affect of, `Parthians occupied Syria, Cappadocia, Iran, and most of Armenia (note that the statement sounds like the Parthians were foreign occupier of their own native land; Iran), or this one; `the second native empire to Persia were the Sassanid’s`. There is something wrong with that picture, trust me: it is inaccurate. Zmmz 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Would "controlled" be better? siafu 23:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, that while the Parthians were certainly Iranian, it is arguable that they were not Persian, in the sense that it was used in the ancient world, which, iirc, was generally limited to people from Fars (or Persis, as it was then known). john k 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately I guess that is source of confusion; that is calling ancient Iran, by the name of one its early states; Persia. Although, this might seem more convenient to Western historians, and even may sound more logical to divide the history of that country into different pieces, yet, I have to tell you according to Cuneiforms recently found in that area, it is clear that the first dynasty, the Achaemenids called the country Iran, from its birth. So in effect, it is very much like saying for example, the northerners known as Yankees in Boston arose and occupied the United States, calling it Bostonia (a fictional analogy to Parthia), and after 4 centuries native Texans from the south drove them out and once again united and ruled the United States. So, bottom line, the Achaemenids who were from the Pars province united the tribes and other provinces and formed a called Iran, under Cyrus the Great. After the Greek invaders were pushed out, Parthians (Parthava was a northern dialect version of Pars) the country known as Iran, and reestablished the empire. And, I have to tell you, although we all know that southerners have their differences with the northeasterners in the US, but nevertheless they all call themselves American; same analogy applies to Persians and Parthians. The country was, and is Iran, and the dynasties were Achaemenids, Ashkanian (Parthians), etc., etc.Zmmz 00:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess led by is OK--but, I do prefer though that a paranthesis next to Parthia be inserted saying, Iran, so maybe this can clarify a lot for many.Zmmz 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Page move -- again
User:CJS102793 has been moving this page to Parthian Empire despite the RfC and subsequent clear consensus established to retain the name Parthia (this can be seen under the "Page move" heading above). What's troublesome is that, despite numerous messages left on his talk page, CJS102793 has yet to offer any explanation or justification, or, in fact, any indication at all that he is aware of other users or opinions, or comments at all. I'm posting this message here because it may be necessary, if this continues, to post a user-conduct RfC, which will require other users to certify. siafu 01:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories: