Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Osroene

King List - citations?

I would be grateful for the source of this king list, because I cannot find one.

I have looked in Moses of Chorene, Zuqnin Chronicle, Bar Hebraeus etc. etc. and I cannot find the origin of this king list.

Can you help me?

Tatelyle (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Vowel Marks

Can we add Vowel markings to the Syriac spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrio (talk • contribs) 12:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some compromise perhaps?

I have watched this little squabble go back and forth for a while. I thought I could protect the article for a bit if it all got too heated. I'm a Syriacist, so the Syriac sources interest me. However, I would agree completely that the historicity of the Teaching of Addai (Doctrina Addaei) is quite questionable. On the other hand, there are problems with the entire sentiment of 'first Christian nation'. The problems are: what exactly is a 'nation', and when exactly does such an entity become Christian? In spite of those misgivings, I think Armenia has a pretty good claim to this vague accolade. However, it would be entirely incorrect to draw to many conclusion from this. Between Jerusalem-Antioch and Armenia are other varied polities that received Christianity first. If a local king or governor became Christian, it's likely the story would have been preserved for us. I'm convinced, as are scholars who've studied Addai, that it does not represent the early conversion of a king of Osrhoene. I know that adherents of the various Syriac/Assyrian churches hold the story of Addai dear, and that it is not a complete fabrication, but academic opinion is against it.

Now, this article is only very indirectly associated with Christianity in Armenia. It is entirely probable that missionaries to Armenia came from/through Edessa. Some of us involved in this discussion clearly identify as Armenian or Assyrian, and that's well good. However, I would caution users that they should be aware of bias, real or perceived, and that imposition of a certain view for a personal end would be entirely inappropriate. It certainly is not necessary to hear the accusations of blame that usually come with these kind of things. Let's get on with writing the right article...

To that end, I propose that we mention the Teaching of Addai in this article, and the inferred importance of Osrhoene in the transmission of Christianity to Upper Mesopotamia and Armenia. We could mention that the Chronicle of Edessa gives us a sure date of a church being present in Edessa, and we could say that the Teaching of Addai is not considered a reliable historic source (I can provide some references for that, if needed). There is no need to posit that Osrhoene was the first anything. We need mention Armenia hardly at all, and we certainly should not need lots of Armenian references — after all, this article is not about Armenia. I think this approach is entirely reasonable, and I expect a reasonable response to it. Naturally, there are a number of solutions in Wikipedia to deal with anyone who doesn't want to seek a reasonable compromise. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the person who the admins decided to block the article from because I edit anonymously, and I find this solution reasonable. certainly first christian state is not a place in the intro paragraph149.68.31.146 (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garzo, I oppose removal of referenced sourced material from this page by people who do not show significant qualifications as scholars comparable to those cited. That's the only problem I have. It's completely irrelevant to the topic of this article which scholar claimed Armenia as a first Christian nation, it however IS very relevant to this page, which scholars claimed Osroene as a first Christian nation. We are not discussing here the history of Armenia, but history of Osroene/Edessa. So it's incomprehensible as to why Armenian contributors are getting so zealous over the subject very remotely related to their history, on Osroene page?

The theory of Addai convering Abgarids may be deemed similar to the story of Gregory the Illuminator converting Tiridates III of Armenia a century later. So I fail to see so far argument to explain why one of them should be called a legend and the other one, also based on a legend, perhaps even taken from Addai story, is considered a fact! There were churches in Edessa at the time of Abgars, there were churches in Armenia at the time of Gregory and Tiridates a century later. So what? How does it make Osroene/Edessa's claim to being first Christian nation any weaker than that of Armenia, when it's a fact that Osroene did so a century earlier? And frankly, it's still comic as to how Armenian contributors are fighting basic material from sources on this page, essentially portraying attempts to purge out historical information for purely modern nationalist interests. I think history of Osroene/Edessa and Addai's conversion of Abgarids is important to preserve and present without any bias on political or nationalist opinions. Atabek (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't read others comments.
"Attractive though this second approach might seem, there are serious objections to it, and the various small supportive evidence that Abgar (VIII) the Great became Christian disappears on closer examination"
The whole story about king Abgar becoming a Christian is based on the Abgar legend. That is why the Cambridge history of Christianity states:
"Modern scholars have taken basically two very different approaches to this legend (which obviously reflects the general search for apostolic origins, characteristics of the fourth century), Some would dismiss it totally, while others prefer to see it as a retrojection into the first century of the conversion of the local king at the end of the second century. In other words Abgar (V) the Black of the legend in fact represents Abgar (VIII) the Great (c. 177-212), contemporary of Badaisan. Attractive though this second approach might seem, there are serious objections to it, and the various small supportive evidence that Abgar (VIII) the Great became Christian disappears on closer examination"
Since Atabek is on a mission here, isn't reading my comments and resorts to insults and personal attack, I'm simply going to ignore him. I will work with any neutral user who is willing to work for a compromise. --VartanM (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Atabek: I think we have step back from this point of view that we have to have a first Christian nation, and weigh one founding legend against another. I don't really think this debate is necessary for this article. You are obviously concerned that Armenian nationalistic ideas are dictating the scope of this article. We do have to be honest and acknowledge that such things exist, but we need not denigrate one folk history to uphold the plausibility of another. We need not mention Armenia in this issue at all, and we need not promote the Addai legend to compete with it; the former is unnecessary, and the latter is an inappropriate promotion of a text. Also, it's worth considering that a referenced statement in an article is not necessarily right because it's referenced: the reference could be wrong, misleading or only part of the whole story/opinion.
To VartanM: I understand and agree with your repeated quotation above. However sharp the discussion has become, I do not see evidence for actual personal attack. Ignoring another user when there is a dispute about content is not helpful. Can we leave the Armenian stuff and the talk about it out of this as much as possible? After all, it isn't directly relevant. Rather than defending Armenian primacy, we should place Edessa and Osrhoene in their historical context without giving undue weight to one legend.
So, can we remove this 'first Christian nation' stuff, as it clearly isn't helpful, and isn't an accurate summary of anything. We could cobble together a referenced text that talks about Edessa's importance in the evangelization of Upper Mesopotamia and beyond (specifically beyond to Armenia and Persia). We could quote the Chronicle of Edessa that provides what looks like quite reliable an account of an early church (haiklā) in Edessa being undermined by the flooding of the Daiṣān. We could mention the Teaching of Addai, but, if we do, we have to handle it very carefully — it looks like it embroiders bits from a possible conversion of Abgar VIII (though his conversion is attested only by two awkward statements), the conversion of Arbela/Adiabene to Judaism and the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. I think this would be a fairly level telling of the situation that would keep everyone happy. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Garzo, I agree with your suggestion that one folk story should not be questioned for the sake of upholding the other and we should discuss mostly Osroene-related subjects on this relevant page. Technically, we don't need to specifically say that Osroene was a first Christian nation (although several references at Google Books say so), because that's something implied by the underlying timing of events surrounding Abgar the Great's conversion as well as Addai's teaching prior to that. But then, in line with that argument, neither should Armenia article claim that it was the first Christian state, based on similar legend. Conversely, if the Armenia article does say so based on some references, then I don't see why Osroene article should be purged out of similar references by Armenian nationalist POV.

I guess we are in agreement that in the way that VartanM claims Abgar's conversion by Addai to be unreliable legend, entire Christian, Judaic or Muslim or any other theology could be claimed to be based on folk stories, beliefs and legends, and thus unreliable. Nevertheless, we do have a consistent theory of historical events relevant to development and dissemination of any religion, which are considered as facts by many. Same goes with Addai's teaching as well as conversion of Tiridates by Gregory the Illuminator a century later.

So, let's discuss the facts and references, and I will be glad to bring more of those here. First fact which I think should be reflected regardless of "who was first", is that under Abgar VIII the Great, Osroene was predominantly Christian kingdom. Second fact to iron out is the confusion between Abgar VIII and Abgar IX being references often as the same person, while most likely Abgar VIII (the Great) was the one converted to Christianity. Atabek (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, since VartanM is knowledgeable on the subject of Christian conversion of Armenia, he could provide us with references about Armenia's conversion to Christianity, instead of dismissing that of Osroene. Here is an interesting reference [1] I found about conversion of Gregory Illuminator in Armenia:
  • There the future Apostle was baptized, and (thus runs the legend) by divine revelation received the name of Gregory
No doubt, this one was a legend too. Moreover, note that Gregory the Illuminator was born around 257AD, some 56 years after the Abgar VIII's claimed conversion and some 100-150+ years after Addai's lifetime. Atabek (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atabek I think Garzo was clear about not talking about Armenians. You should really start reading other peoples comments.

To Gareth: Atabek is claiming to be a scholar. But his sources speak otherwise: "China in World History"! , Two sources from 1905 and 1913! and An uncritical non-history book on "Hagiography of Saints" which is supported to contain legends. He then quotes a google book from 1840 about Armenia and Christianity. All of this shows that Atabek is trying very hard to find most obscure sources for the purpose of pushing his POV.

At the same time, Atabek ignores modern sources that focus critically on Christian history and on the Abgar legend. Even though these sources have been repeated here in the talkpage:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TDW0PeFSvGEC&pg=PA496&dq=There+is+therefore+no+justification+for+postulating,+on&sig=Hb2rQ10H10Czl55s7H7xpQZLUgk

http://books.google.com/books?id=aepYpUVf9OkC&pg=PA162&dq=attractive+though+this+second+approach&lr=&sig=bAWJkgR9o9tRub2OAuudKLPtG6Y

http://books.google.com/books?id=XRvHDfs1vyEC&pg=PA37&dq=Abgar+legend+christianity&lr=&sig=ij6qY7iHmcnmEIEjM6dXFDDEa0o

Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention a King Abgar converting to Christianity. Contrary to Atabek's claims, modern scholars do not share the opinion that a King Abgar converted to Christianity. The Cambridge History of Christianity makes this point fairly clear. The matter should be handled by neutral experts like user:Garzo. He is very qualified to WP:NPOV the article. VartanM (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming to be a scholar, I only presented references, and by far not only from China in World History. There are by far many other direct and relevant references. As I said, arguing about whether Armenia or Osroene was first, when both stories are based on legend, is a question between chicken and egg. And I agree with Gareth on that. Yet there is one fact, that acceptance of Christianity in Osroene is suggested to happen in 2nd century, while in case of Armenia it's a century later. Moreover, there are references, which affirm that story of Gregory the Illuminator and Tiridates the III could have been adopted from the similar case of Addai and Abgar centuries earlier. Atabek (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting wording the editors have decided to put it in in the article. In the context of the ancient world, what would constitute the difference between a king converting to Christianity and Christianity becoming an official religion of a country? What is the definition of 'official religion' in this respect? As far as I know, there was no constitution in ancient Armenia. Parishan (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal of History of Assyrian people infobox

I see no reason of removing the infobox. The City, regardless whether ruled by a Nabatean dynasty, was an important political entity that gave rise to the Syriac language which became the literal language of Aramaic speaking Syriacs/Assyrians in the following centuries. The kingdom has as well a distinctive form of Christianity that came do distinguish Syriac Christianity. So I see no reason for removing the infobox.--Rafy talk 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the change note, Assyrians are not even mentioned in the article. That, at a minimum, should be a requirement for an info box. The reason that Assyrians are not mentioned is discussed in the sections above this comment. Moreover, Syriac Christianity should not be confused with an Assyrian ethnicity. Of course, Assyrians are Syriac Christians, but this does not mean that all Syriac Christians must be Assyrians. Perhaps, the article should mention how Osroene has become part of modern Assyrianist historiography? That would certainly be suitable. But an infobox implies that Osroene's primary classification is Assyria, which is according to the weight of academic opinion, not the case. Best, Ordtoy (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed may times and has proven by archaeological finds that Assyrians=Syrians, at least this is how ancient Greeks viewed them. Furthermore the infobox serves both Assyrians and Syriacs since their history is very intertwined and connected. And since this kingdom was a centre of Syrian independence which later became the heart of "national Syrian Christendom" (not my words[2]) then this infobox is very relevant.--Rafy talk 11:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But an infobox implies that Osroene's primary classification is Assyria" - Please show us where in Wikipedia's rules says this. To me, it just means it's related to a greater subject. Your argument is inadequate, but your actions are not surprising. I don't understand this anti-Assyrian stance you take in every edit you've contributed to wiki. In Iraqi public schools, students are taught the significance of Osroene to Assyria's history. You might bring some academics that would oppose any link between the two, but I can do the same and bring other academics that support the idea. Chaldean (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: Assyrians are not mentioned in the Osroene article and Osroene is not mentioned in the History of the Assyrian People article. I am not anti-Assyrian but I am making edits based on the fact that not everything that is Syriac is automatically Assyrian. Assyrian and Syriac history is, as Rafy said, intertwined, but that just means we have to be judicious about our use of these terms since they are not interchangeable (even if they have a common origin!). Incidentally, if we have opposing academic opinions, then I believe that all the opinions should be mentioned. Best Ordtoy (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't believe in your last sentence. You want this article to be based solely on your sources and academics, as opposed to reality where there have been many of them that link Osroene and Assyria, as Rafy showed with his source. The fact of the matter is Osroene is part of Assyrian history, weather we like it or not. Chaldean (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rafy's source (Fortescue) talks of "Syrian independence" and "Syrian Christianity"... But the same author in the same source writes "They are Assyrians in no possible sense." Basically, Fortescue in this book and others rejects that "Syrian people" equals "Assyrian people". If you look at the next page, you can see Fortescue use the word "Assyrian" when he means "Assyrian". Ordtoy (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fortescue calls Assyrians in general "Syrians", read his remark on Tatianus Assyrus[3]. If you want to Change the name of Assyrian people to Syrian people then you might want to start a discussion somewhere else as this is hardly the right place for discussing the name conflict.--Rafy talk 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rafy, Fortescue doesn't call "Assyrians", "Syrians" on that page. He says that the geographic "Assyria" coincides with "East Syria", so clearly in Fortescue's mind "Syria" and "Assyria" are different. Other parts of his books are very clear on this! I don't want to change the name of Assyrian people, but I don't want every "Syrian" changed into an "Assyrian"! Best Ordtoy (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe getting a third opinion would be best. How can you say "He says that the geographic "Assyria" coincides with "East Syria", and then you state "so clearly in Fortescue's mind "Syria" and "Assyria" are different." That doesn't make any sense. If he considered Assyria to be East Syria, then obviously he's connecting Assyria with Syria. Like Rofy said, this conversation doesn't belong here, so by default your reason for the deletion of the template is flaud. Chaldean (talk) 06:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chaldean. In Fortescue's book, he rejects that Assyria=Syria. On the one page Rafy mentioned, he explains that geographically "the land of the Assyrians" overlaps with Eastern Syria (two geographic entities often overlap). If "the land of the Assyrians"=Syria then it would have to overlap with Syria entirely not partially. The point is that you can't read that one sentence and declare that Fortescue believes Assyria=Syria, when he explicitly rejects this theory in his book. Ordtoy (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Article Bias

I would just like to lay down a marker that this article seriously distorts the history of the Osrhoene region. Of course I appreciate that, in the eyes of modern Assyrians, Osrhoene and its capital Edessa are of great importance in their national myth, but the centrality of Syriac-speaking Christianity in Osrhoene is certainly overstated in this article. So little is said about Osrhoene as a province of the Roman empire, with all that implies, that the incautious reader would scarcely be aware that under Roman rule Edessa and the other cities of Osrhoene had a Greek-speaking upper class which identified with Roman values and was at least as strongly exposed to Greek Christian influence as to Syriac Christianity. The article really needs to be edited for balance by someone who is not an Assyrian Christian.

Djwilms (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although one cannot deny the influence of Greek on the culture and language of Syriac Christianity through Antioch and Edessa, the extent of this influence in the first two centuries was not that pronounced as the town came to be influenced by Parthians as well. Another interesting fact is that by the fourth century the Syriac-Greek rivalry was already building up which culminated at the Chalcedonian schism, I'm curious to know how this affected the city.--Rafy talk 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rafy,
I haven't read the book for a long time, so my memory may be defective, but I think Erich Segal's Edessa, the Blessed City (conveniently available in a Gorgias Press reprint - bless you, George Kiraz) covers the fifth-century Christological disputes in some detail. My own book, The Martyred Church: A History of the Church of the East (http://www.eastandwestpublishing.com/forthcoming/the-martyred-church/), to be published before the end of September, also deals with this aspect of Syriac-Greek confrontation. I'm not saying that Syriac Christianity is not important (I would be the last to doubt its importance), just that more should be said in this article about Osrhoene as a province of the Roman empire. When I've got time I might address this issue myself.
Djwilms (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We really need an unbiased opinion in this as the ancient kingdom is claimed not only by modern Assyrians but also Armenians, Arabs, and even Kurds. I actually have the Arabic version of the book but I only had the time to read a couple of sections. I will check the book and help you edit some sections if you need any assistance. Regards.--Rafy talk 09:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake sources

revision: "Osroene became the first Christian state in history under the rule of king Abgar IX" with sources

  • Warwick Ball. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. — Routledge, 2000 — p. 95 — ISBN 9780415113762]:"Thus, it is Abqar the Great who lays claim to being the world's first Christian monarch and Edessa first Christian state.". Full quote "More significant than Bardaisan's conversion to Christianity was the conversion -reported by Bardaisan - of Abgar the Great himself." The conversion is controversial, but whether or not he became a Christian, Abgar had the wisdom to recognise the inherent order and stability in Christianity a century before Constantino did. Ho encouraged it as essential for maintaining Edessa's precarious balance between Rome and Iran. Thus, it is Abgar the Great who lays claim to being the world's first Christian monarch and Edessa the first Christian state. More than anything else, a major precedent had been set for the conversion of Rome itself. // The stories of the conversions of both Abgar V and Abgar VIII may not be true, and have been doubted by a number of Western authorities (with more than a hint at unwillingness to relinquish Rome's and St Peter's own primogeniture?). But whether true or not. the stories did establish Edessa as one of the more important centres for early Christendom."
  • Biographical Dictionary of Christian Missions: "By the late third century, Edessa was already being called the first Christian kingdom". Full quote "He is said to have converted its first-century king (ostensibly Abgar V) and established a church in the Jewish-Christian community (which rapidly outgrew its Jewish roots) . Addai appointed a successor, Aggai. From these beginnings came the ancient church of the East (later called the Nestorian church). Although the tradition includes obviously fictitious embellishments, if the story is transposed to second-century Edessa under Abgar VIII (177-212), it gains arguable plausibility. By the late third century, Edessa was already being called the first Christian kingdom."
  • The Gospel of The Gnostics - Originally published 1958 by The Theosophical Publishing House Adyar. Madras. India. Theosophical Publishing House is not a reliable sources.

Divot (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits by Ordo de Essentia

This user (a new one but wow he is very experienced) made edits claiming the dynasty of Edessa was native Assyrian using this source from 1913 The Lesser Eastern Churches (even this source state that the name Ma'no is of Arabic root). However, this book does not mention the word Assyrian regardless of what the user will say about that it is the same meaning.

Now, what is known that the dynasty was Nabatean.

Now I know (with 99% of certainty but I could be mistaken so if I am then sorry) that Ordo de Essentia is Eddie Drood. His style is unmistakable. But I wont do a thing about sockpuppetry. However, I wont leave this Historic forgery to continue.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing

I just checked up the article and its last few edits, since they were marked r on the recent changes page. Clearly, this is no vandalism, and also most of the new content is written originally, however, when putting some of the texts into Google, a few bits showed up in Encyplopaedia Iranica, partly copied and only minimally modified. It is cited as a source in the ref brackets. I have no clue about the topic, so I'll leave this with people who are more confident in the field. Thanks -ImmernochEkelAlfred(Spam me! (or send me serious messages, whatever you like)) 16:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

I don't understand why Materialscientist reverted the addition of maps by Ingomaier. Can someone explain to me what the issue was? Thanks! Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osroene as first state to have accepted Christianity is wrong

An edit is needed in the Kingdom section, where it is stated that "Osroene was absorbed into the Roman Empire in 114 as a semiautonomous vassal state, after a period under the rule of the Parthian Empire, incorporated as a simple Roman province in 214. There is an apocryphal legend that Osroene was the first state to have accepted Christianity as state religion, but there is not enough evidence to support that point of view." First, Osroene was not an independent state, therefore ot could not adopt Christianity as state religion. Second, no substantial evidence exists to support that hypothesis. Whereas the Kingdom of Armenia was an independent state formation and there is overwheling evidence that Armenia was the first state that adopted Christianity as its state religion in 301 AD.--96.231.5.33 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is neither a strong consensus to move nor a strong consensus to keep the current title.(non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Osroene → Kingdom of Osroene – Osroene was founded as a kingdom, which ceased to exist in the 210s when the Romans abolished the monarchy and incorporated it as a province. But even after the monarchy was abolished, Osroene coninued to exist as a geo-political entity (e.g. Osroene (Roman province). It should be made clear that the scope of this article is limited to the period of monarchy, whereas information about the later history of the region should be placed under Osroene (Roman province). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: "Osroene" should be turned into a dab as the term can refer to either the kingdom or the province, depending on context. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This gives me the impression of a "main" article about the place, like "France" or "Babylon". It currently covers all periods, and could easily be expanded without overburdening the reader. It's fine to have sections headed by notes leading to articles that focus on only a single aspect of Osroene, but the proposed move would leave no "main" article, instead dividing the current one into two "side" articles, and having the plain name redirect to whichever one is deemed more important—a rather counter-intuitive result. It'd be like having "Kingdom of France" and "French Republic" but not "France". If you have a group of states that were all kingdoms—as most societies were before the twentieth century—is there any benefit to filing them all under 'K' for "Kingdom"? I don't see the fact that some of its neighbors were Roman provinces making a significant difference. Roman provinces have titles like "Rhaetia", "Noricum", "Pannonia", not "Province of Rhaetia" or "Roman Province of Pannonia". While there is a "Kingdom of Cappadocia" as distinct from "Cappadocia (Roman province)", both branch off from a main "Cappadocia" article—and if all of the information in them could be conveniently folded into that article, then there'd be a good argument that they shouldn't exist, either. This article should probably stay here, since it currently fulfills the function of a "main" article and could still be expanded further, even though that shouldn't prevent the development of side articles on individual periods or related topics. P Aculeius (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per P Aculeius. The article also covers the Roman period, so is a WP:BROADCONCEPT and certainly primary topic for the overall entity of Osroene. Adding "Kingdom of" is unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Tbf the Roman section isn't that great and it's also heavily unsourced. It should just get removed, since we already have a Osroene (Roman province). --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's guidelines do not consider views, but WP:NOTABILITY. The province is standalone notable topic, so is the Kingdom.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pageviews were mentioned only to point out that most readers are not getting the full story in one place. I see Osroene as one topic, the kingdom and province being aspects of that topic. Station1 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osroene