Talk:Corduene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linguistic and cultural continuity with modern Kurds?[edit]

Is there any serious scholarly reason to doubt this? It does strike me as the default hypothesis when dealing with a people called Karduchoi and similar, a land called Corduene and similar, in or very close to the areas now inhabited by modern Kurds.Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of non-partisan sources which doubt it, and which say that the Kurds are (in historical terms) recent migrants to this region, and that they killed, drove out, or assimilated the original population. Meowy 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridicolous. There is not a single credible geneticist who would doubt the aboriginal and nativity of Kurds to the region.
Their genome is bonafide native to their region. This is just classical POV pushing which is always found in all discussions pertaining to Kurds.
It is beyond me how claims like these can be considered even remotely credible.
You are free to show me where these kurds "recently" immigrated from. 84.216.192.142 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Keatinge - Are you kidding? This so called hypothesis is by no means mainstream. The vast majority of mainstream scholars refute it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.109.36 (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite above (mostly ideological) controversies, the modern impartial and abundant biochemic-genomical comparisons in last years on Kurdish populations in S.E. Turkey, West Iran and North Iraq prove quite inverse results from above 'historical' prejudices (despite so-called "mainstream" indicated above). Briefly: Turkish Kurds are almost bio-physically the hoary local aborigines descending directly at least 5,000 years ago from the local people named Kardu in Sumerian and Kardariki in Akkadian, but Iranian Kurds are only partly of regional proto-historic descendance, while the Iraquian Kurds are mostly a newer immigrant mixture with few local genomic ancestors. These newer data are real an objective (I am independent European scientist without any interests nor links to Kurds or their neighbors). Therefore evidently, this deviant article must be modernized, i.e. radically transformed or otherwise moved. External Controller, 11:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe ideas[edit]

The article is full of revisionist and fringe theories presented as mainstream scholarly views, it needs to to be throughly checked for POV and inaccuracies by an expert. --Mardavich 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Roman/Greek sources Fringe? :). Please explain in detail your concerns.Heja Helweda 02:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove the tag, I have nominated the article to be checked by a neutral expert. Lumping corduene with Kurds and Kurdistan is not mainstream scholarly view. --Mardavich 02:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please calm down. Have you checked the sources? Read the discussion by Rawlinson [1] The word(carduene) is no doubt the ancient representative of the modern Kurdistan, and means a country in which Kurds dwelt..Heja Helweda 02:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one?[edit]

This article is on history of Roman Corduene or the earlier independent land inhabited by Corduchi? To my understating even Iranians had this land as their Satrapy before Romans did. Maybe we remove text from this page and create new articles? Confusing anyways. HeviyaJiyan

The current article is focused on Roman Corduene from 66BC to early 5th century. Persians wanted to take over these lands during Achamenides, but the indigenous population (Carduchis) mainly resisted Persian attempts of conquest. For more on this see History of the Kurds.Heja Helweda 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internally inconsistent[edit]

Article states that the name is from Armenian and that it was an Armenian kingdom and then says that the name is a corruption of Kurd and has always been Kurdish. Can't be both, guys.

Please try to stick to facts and avoid ideological/nationalist blinders! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.85.51 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophon's account[edit]

The part referring to Xenophon doesn't quite agree with the sources (Anabasis, Book IV). What Xenophon says (and seems quite reasonable) is that the Greeks decided to cross the Zagros mountains into modern-day Turkey, but they had no food, guides or interpreters. So they proceeded as they could and looted the local villages for food, but they did not harm the villagers or steal their chattels in case the Karduchi agreed to let them pass without a fight. That did not happen, however, and the Greek army had to fight all the way to the plains (where the Karduchi retreated back into their own mountains and the Greek army continued its march north towards the Greek city of Trabzon). Xenophon also states that the casualties of the Greek army while crossing the Zagros mountains were higher than their entire losses by their Persian enemies. 212.107.31.35 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Meowy's deletions[edit]

You deleted the following paragraph:

The three principalities of Corduene, Moxoene and Zabdicene are referred to as Carduchian dynasties (Ref: C. Toumanoff, Introduction to Christian Caucasian History II: Status and Dynasties of the Formative Period, Traditio, Vol. XVII, pp.1-107, 1961, Frodham University Press, New York. (see pp.31-32).

This source is published in 1961, so your argument about 19th century sources is not valid, because not all the sources are that old and more recent ones have also been included.Heja Helweda (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the paragraph because it was in the wrong place, it has nothing to do with "Carduchoi in Xenophon". I've moved it into the lead section. Stop inserting 19th-century pseudo-history into the article as if it were fact and stop erasing modern sources. Modern scholars agree that Corduene has no connection, linguistic or ethnic, with "Kurdistan". Meowy 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manisarus.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Manisarus.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to original format[edit]

Claims that portray the region as part of Armenian Kingdom are not supported by other strong evidence specially Roman writers, who have clearly stated that during the period from 66 BC to 600 AD, this region was conquered by the Romans many times and there was even a Roman military unit named after Corduene.Vekoler (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kurdikî family[edit]

İt can be a connection between Corduchi and Kurdikî family or it is just a similarity pronounce? i mean Kurdikî(kurdikan) from Sharafnama. sharafkhan wrote about this family in page 280. it is a map in the book of Izady name of Kürtler. where they come this kardakan(kurdikî family) "http://www.institutkurde.org/images/cartes_and_maps/native_kurdish_provincial.jpg" --Azad4707 (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Carduchian dynasties" - thread copied from my talk page[edit]

I noticed your edit to Corduene. I'd agree that not everything verifiable should be included and we should avoid giving certain points of view WP:UNDUE emphasis. Perhaps Cyril Toumanoff's opinion on Carduchian dynasties should be lower in the article and not in the lede. But I'm surprised you felt it appropriate to completely delete this information, which appears to accurately summarize Toumanoff's opinion. Our article on him says his works have significantly influenced the Western scholarship of the medieval Caucasus. I have no particular axe to grind about east Anatolian history, but it seems better to include this view (and others that disagree or concur) than to cut them out. Frankly, there's little scholarship at all on Corduene, so the more we can do to separate solid history from nationalist myth, the better. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this longer, I want to acknowledge that I may be overlooking some tendentious aspect of Toumanoff's claim that the principality of Corduene was a Carduchian dynasty. I realize that some people are very anxious to see the Carduchians as proof of Kurdish presence in the area; others seem equally anxious to refute this. If so, perhaps we can reference other views to provide perspective. Or maybe it's just that the Carduchian link is of minor importance in the thousand-plus-year history of this territorial unit under various names. In which case, we move it lower. Other suggestions welcome. Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing a response here, can I assume that you're OK for me to restore the Toumanoff info at some point in that article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Rupert Clayton, between the Arbitration Committee, trying to do some editing, and real life I've forgotten about this. My concern is that it doesn't seem to be significant enough to meet WP:UNDUE. Have you searched for other reliable sources making the same claim? Doug Weller (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries: I can see you're a busy person, and it's a busy time of year. Like I said, scholarship on Corduene is thin at best. It seems you edit a lot on Persian topics, so you may have read a lot more on the subject than me. If there's a reason you feel the Toumanoff claim is particularly POV, I'd like to make sure the context of alternative views is given due prominence. If it's just that there's little other info on "Carduchian dynasties" then I'd rather leave in Toumanoff's claim, but move it to somewhere less prominent than the lede.
I understand the merit of WP:UNDUE, but it's one thing to repeat a wild claim that Donald Trump is a chimera with ginger cat genes (for example), and another to accurately summarize a statement from a reliable WP:SOURCE that's really neither corroborated nor disputed simply due to the paucity of coverage. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also[2] 2 years earlier, User:Rupert Clyaton. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. That looks like the same Toumanoff reference from Traditio, 1961 (INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN CAUCASIAN HISTORY: II: States and Dynasties of the Formative Period). Part I of that article, published 1959, has a couple of references to Corduene, but those don't seem to help us much. Did you mean a different link? Rupert Clayton (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert Clayton No, I just confused myself. I still feel that if this was something commonly accepted we'd find more evidence of it, including writers in the last 60 or so years mentioning Toumanoff's claim. Our inability to find this is why I don't think it belongs. We could asked for a third opinion - Wikipedia:Third opinion or an WP:RFC but we'd need to copy this thread to the talk page, which I think we should do anyway - are you happy with copying it there? Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for this thread to move to Talk:Corduene. Not sure this is worth the effort of an RFC. Maybe I should just put Toumanoff's claim lower down the article, and note that it appears not to have been echoed by more recent scholars? Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert Clayton: The problem with that is that the statement about not being echoed is original research. I often wish I could use it! Doug Weller (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corduene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corduene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Corduene. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corduene&oldid=1212185340"