Talk:Medes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article has been tagged since January 2007.
WikiProject Iran Medes is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This page is a academic anachronism lifted from a source almost one hundred years old. The idea of Median and Old Persian being spoken languages of the respective people is not long discredited. The monumental "old Persian" as found in Darius' inscription according to Frye and Cambridge History of Iran was not a vernacular but a ceremonial archaic language whose alphabet was newly created and its structure probably survived in the conservative courts of the Middle East. The Medes and the Persian did not make ethnic distinction between one another and simply referred to the collective as Arya or Aryanam as the quote in the article from Strabo in the article as well as Darius' inscription attests. They probably spoke a language closer to the Parthian Pahlavi and the words Parshuash and Mada are of mesopotamian origin and were never intended as an ethnic recognition.

There is also some controversy regarding whether any such thing as Median Empire ever existed. Any how I think this article needs to be removed as it is highly inaccurate and needs to be replaced by something a bit more current.


The major contributor to the article [1] has done very biased and factually incorrect edits (not always listed with the same IP address). There should be many incorrect or hideously pointed claims in the article. Roozbeh 04:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you illustrate the points that concern you here on the discussion page please Roozbeh? Lets see if we can get to the bottom of this.Zestauferov 09:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed this article in detail, but claims that Turkic speakers were in the Greater Armenia area in 600-450 B.C., or that the Scyths were Turkic speakers, are far out of the accepted scholarly mainstream, as I understand it. -- AnonMoos

Quite right. There are many problems:
  • The 1911 Encycloaedia Britannica gets no credit for its text used here.
  • "an Iranian people of Aryan origin" Aryan denotes a language group does it not?
  • "in the 8th century BC they were dominated by the nomadic group of the Scythians" There is no authentic record of the Medes before the 7th c. BCE.
  • "Aran" An anachronistic Ottoman villayet name.
  • Herodotus. No reference? Whose interpretation of Herodotus is being followed?
  • "König" is quoted without being identified. Mystification.
--However, rewriting this entry will involve an editor in some unpleasant personality clashes, I predict. Wetman 06:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Aryan is name of a language group (Indo-Iranian and a race. People of Iran are of the Aryan race as well as many people in Afghanistan, Tajikistan and northern India.

See also [bartleby on Aryan --Mani1 21:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Clarification needed

The first part of the sentence "[Herodotus] dates their independence frQm c. itoi.e. from the time when the Assyrian supremacy was at its height." makes no sense to meFornadan 06:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is the article still disputed? john k 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidently, the 1911 Britannica article was scanned from a text recognition device, notoriously sloppy. This accounts for the occaisionally garbled readings that remain in the text. Additionally, ethnic views have come full circle since 1911, with vastly greater standards of scholarship and archaeological evidence available today, making the old text appear opinionated, grossly inaccurate and sometimes even humorous reading. I think this was the reason for the 'disputed' templates. I have now added 1911 and cleanup templates to flag the article to those who may be interested in helping with the cleanup effort I am now undertaking. - Codex Sinaiticus 00:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disposal of 'Dispute' Templates

Disposal of 'Dispute' Templates

The following points of 'dispute' have been previously raised on this page, nearly all of them arising from usage of 95 year old material full of outdated, quaint views. Many ideologies have come and gone since the heyday of colonialism and Imperialism.

Any outstanding points will be moved to the end of this list, and once they are all resolved, I propose to remove the 'Disputed' Template (unless more significant disputes are added to this list)

FIXED ITEMS: 1.Claims that Turkic speakers were in the Greater Armenia area in 600-450 B.C., or that the Scyths were Turkic speakers, are far out of the accepted scholarly mainstream, as I understand it. -- AnonMoos

  • What little of this stuff I found left in the article (attempting to link the Medes to Huns and Hungarians) has now been removed. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wetman's objections: 2.The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica gets no credit for its text used here.

  • Fixed during cleanup with a template. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3."an Iranian people of Aryan origin" Aryan denotes a language group does it not?

  • No. This point was already addressed by Mani1 above, and should not be a controversy.

4."in the 8th century BC they were dominated by the nomadic group of the Scythians" There is no authentic record of the Medes before the 7th c. BCE.

  • Recent additions suggest that Assyrian records do indeed attest the Medes from the 8th C.. The Scythians / Sakas were likely the 'dominant' tribe in a close association with the Medes, but not necessarily, as the above ambiguous language had suggested, 'dominated' by them oppressively, so this has been reworded and may be explained further. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5.Herodotus. No reference? Whose interpretation of Herodotus is being followed?

  • The disparate references to Herodotus have now been consolidated and amalgamated, with less extraneous interpretation added. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6. "König" is quoted without being identified. Mystification.

  • Cleaned up, along with much similar severely outdated material. Codex Sinaiticus 00:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

7. "Aran" An anachronistic Ottoman villayet name.

  • I am about to research this point, and will hopefully have accurate info added very shortly. I then should be able to dispose of the 'Disputed' label; but in the meantime, feel free to list any further reasons not to do so just yet!
  • UPDATE: I have followed the link to the Arran article, wow that is another mess! The prevailing view there seems to be that the name Aran (Arran) is an ancient name used by Iranians from ancient times for the Aras Valley. Thus the term Aran is the appropriate one, and clearly neither anachronistic, nor Turkish. Without objection, the "Disputed" Template will now be removed...!

Incidentally, one view in the article Arran states that it is properly considered as distinct from Azerbaijan (Atropene), an entity immediately south of the Aras. Given that this river valley, not far from Ararat, is alluded to in the Avestas as the 'oldest (sacred) homeland', I intend to update the article soon with a look at the Arran-Aryan connection... Codex Sinaiticus 01:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates used in this article

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on 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.

The primary authors of an article may use either dating system. In this article, which is about a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE makes the most sense. Wikipedians should respect and be sensitive to people of other cultures. Sunray 15:49, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

  • The "primary authors" were the 1911 Britannica, until I and others revised it. Who are you claiming is a "primary author" that wants to use BCE?

It seems the majority of people do not agree that BCE "makes the most sense", and you are only stirring up a tempest in a teapot and raising blood pressures with this campaign. Do not oppose arbitrary changes while fraudulently claiming a "consensus", until that consensus really exists. Yes, this is an article about a non-Christian region, but when you are talking about BC times, obviously there were no Christian countries anywhere in the world yet, because it stands for "Before Christ"... I can think of few articles where BCE looks more inappropriate and incongruous than this one, and it seems you are only bent on making a stink here.

Come on, this is the realm of Classical history. If we say for example, "Solon was born in 638 BC" it does not imply anything to any sane person about Solon being a Christian, nor does it connote any disrespect for Solon's own non-Christian beliefs or traditions. But, if you say "Solon was born in 638 BCE" it just looks like a ridiculous invasion from someone in the field of archeology trying to talk about Classical History. We're talking about Solon and Media, not some dinosaur bones carbon-dated to "60,000 BCE" or something. Codex Sinaiticus 16:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Codex Sinaiticus, you seem to have a strong point of view on this. The Wikipedia policy stated above has been around for quite some time. There have been many debates on this (see Talk: Common Era and its archives). Still the policy stands. The policy is directed to Wikipedia authors, not sources, unless they are being quoted.
Your comment that "... the majortity of people do not agree that BCE 'makes the most sense" is inaccurate." If you read their comments, many of those who voted simply opted to keep the current policy. The policy is what we have for guidance, lets find a way to make our work support it. Sunray 16:18, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus seems to be right on this. BC/AD is the worldwide standard. It has no real connotations anymore other than as a date convention, and should be preferred over far less common and less understood conventions, jguk 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The rationale used by Codex Sinaiticus has nothing to do with the Wikipedia policy quoted above. It also has little to do with other Wikipedia policies such as NPOV and common standards of courtesy and civility. Sunray 18:26, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
It's everything to do with being courteous and civil to our readers by preferring terms they use normally and terms they understand rather than imposing notation used in US academia. Kind regards, jguk 07:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It is fundamentally discourteous to stuff one's religion and values down other peoples' throats. Sunray 16:45, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that is your POV, but it smacks of paranoia. You can follow whatever religion suits you best (at least in most countries). It seems from the article [Common Era] that the usage replaced earlier "Vulgar Era" meaning the same thing, apparently originated on Jewish gravestones, by Jews who couldn't bring themselves to write AD. You are imposing a "norm" that is quite abnormal, and since the "primary" two architects of all the IRAN articles would have to be Zereshk and Fisal, I propose we let them decide if BC (Before Christ) is so offensive to them that they too want favor the usage of the Jewish State (BCE). If both Zereshk and Fisal agree one way or the other, let us abide by their decision. If they disagree, let us go to some kind of outside mediation. Codex Sinaiticus 23:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
We all have our own POV, but nope, not paranoia on my part. Just applying the Style Guide. BTW, despite your differing POV from mine, I appreciate the constructive way you are approaching this. Zereshk has strongly indicated a preference for BCE/CE see Talk: List of kings of Persia. Sunray 07:14, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

While Codex Sinaiticus seems to have a grasp of the Style Guide reference quoted above, Jguk does not. He has reverted to BC/AD again. There is apparently no reasoning with him on this. However, some of us can count and realize that authors Southern Comfort and Zereshk have both indicated a preference for BCE/CE. author Codex Sinaiticus has indicated a preference for BC/AD. Thus, until other authors weigh in on this subject, the balance is to BCE/CE, which IMHO, only makes sense given the subject matter. Sunray 15:33, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Note that I've recently gotten involved in some of the Iranian articles and that I find myself in continuous conflict with Southern Comfort and Zereshk. I'm not speaking up because I'm their good bud <g>. Nevertheless, they're right in wanting to use BCE/CE. It just makes sense in light of the subject matter and the prevailing usage in the relevant academic sources. When there's consensus among those who are on otherwise hostile terms, I think that should count for something. Zora 19:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] medes exicutions

[edit] This is my contribution to the page

Medes and Iranians are the same race, as for median language it is an Iranic langauge. here are sites that are current on medes and not ones from a old britannica.

Bistons inscription http://www.iranchamber.com/history/darius/darius_inscription_biston.php

Achimedian Army http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/achaemenid_army.php

Smerdis / Gaumâta (Old Persian Bardiya: Persian prince, second son of king Cyrus the Great). http://www.iranchamber.com/history/smerdis/smerdis.php

Artaxerxes (Artâkhshatra) Ardashir-e Derâz-Dast (By: Plutarch died 359 BCE,Translated by: John Dryden) http://www.iranchamber.com/history/artaxerxes/artaxerxes.php

Achaemenid Society and Culture http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/achaemenid_society_culture.php

Territorial Challenges and Iranian Identity in the Course of History By: Dr. Davood Hermidas Bavand, 2002 http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/history/020820_territorial_challenges_iranian_identity.php

History of Persian or Parsi Language By: Fariborz Rahnamoon http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/articles/persian_parsi_language_history.php

Zoroaster and Zoroastrians in Iran By: Massoume Price, December 2001 http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/zoroaster_zoroastrians_in_iran.php

Mithraism: Mithrâ Khšathrapati and his brother Ahurâ By: Professor Mary Boyce http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/mithra_khsathrapati_ahura.php

Median Iran (with a map) http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/Median.html

These are various sources but I found Iran Chamber a unbais and academic source of the highest quality, their work is by Iranologicsts and Orientalists both of Iranian, and Non-Iranian background and source. --Aryan Khadem 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How far back does Iran go?

What IS Iran is not clear. Is it Persian culture? That leaves out the half of Iranians who aren't Persian. Is it just living in the territory controlled by the current Iranian government? That's well and good, but you can't apply that to history. You end up with prehistoric hunter-gathers and Neolithic farmers being considered "Iranian" because they lived in the current territory, even if they didn't speak an Indo-European language or consider themselves to belong to anything much but their band or their village.

Did Medes consider themselves Iranians? They couldn't have done so, since Iran didn't exist then. Various editors say that language makes them Iranians -- but looking at the CAIS link, I see that "Iranian (Aryan) languages are spoken in Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Arran (republic of Azerbaijan), Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, China, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Russia and other scattered areas of the Caucasus Mountains." Does that mean that all those areas are rightfully part of Iran?

So far as I can see, claims that historic peoples or states belong to a contemporary state are just an excuse for boasting (they did wonderful things, and they are us, so that means WE did wonderful things, hooray for us) or territorial claims (the Mongols conquered China, therefore the Mongols were a Chinese dynasty, therefore every territory that they conquered rightfully belongs to China). That's why it doesn't make sense to describe the Medes as Iranians. They may have been Aryans, however. Zora 13:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, i'd say that whats under question is not what is Iran, because clearly that is just the current Islamic Republic. But "Iranian peoples" certainly has a connotation that goes beyond the current meaning of Iran.
So its definitely not linked to territory. FOr example, Turkic peoples originally come from Mongolia (i believe), but they are now spread all over the place. I know that those people consider themsleves to be related to each other, more or less as an extended family. What binds them is lineage. Whether or not political claims are made based on lineage is a different point altogether (and one i am glad we can avoid!)
Now, Im no anthropologist, but i'd say that lineage is a tricky thing to follow, but that language is a decent way to do it. Related languages usually indicate a common ancestor, as for example the case of Hungarian with Finnish. The languages are related, the peoples are too. Gene studie have verified this.
As for the Medes, I cant say i know for a fact whether they are ancestors of modern Iranians. But on the list of Iranian peoples they are listed as speaking a precursor to Iranian. As I understand it, The tree lineage goes something like this:
                         Aryan
                             |
                   +---------+-------+
                   |                 |
           Indo-Iranian     Vedic civilization
                   |
                   |
        +----------+---------+
        |                    |
   Iranian          Indo-Aryans
Given that their language is similar, the Medes are either Iranian, Indo-Iranian, or Aryan. Which they are, i certainly dont claim to know, but apparently some editor before me did, so i'm inlined to leave it on unless there is a compelling reason not to. But even then, i'd rather change the nametag than remove it. The Minister of War (Peace) 15:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tree is wrong, I think. The Vedic civilization (and its language, Sanskrit) is the ancestor of the Indo-Aryan languages. The tree should just be


                        Indo-Iranian
                              |
                 +------------+--------------+
                 |                           |
               Iranian                Indo-Aryan

At any rate, I don't see anything wrong with calling the Medes an Iranian people. john k 15:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

But is Iranian (citizen of the state of Iran) the same thing as a speaker of an "Iranian" language? That's the crucial point, and the problem that the state of Iran has to face in dealing with the "ethnic minorities" who in fact make up half the population. If the state feels that speaking an "Iranian" language and adopting "Persian" culture is necessary to full citizenship in the state, then minorites are being discriminated against. If the state feels that speaking an Iranian language means that the speaker belongs to Iran, then the state is set for irridentism. It's being applied to the past here, but it could just as easily be applied to the present. By advancing BOTH claims at once:

1) all the territory we currently control is OURS, regardless of the language and culture of the residents 2) anyone who speaks an Iranian language, past or present, is an Iranian

the state maximizes its claim to power and territory.

This kind of claim also sets the stage for ethnic cleansing. If the land belongs to US and they aren't US, then we should regularize things by kicking them out. Not that I'm accusing the Iranian state of ethnic cleansing. Just of holding beliefs that could be used to justify it.

It's OK to say that the Medes spoke an Iranian language, or even that they thought of themselves as Aryans, but claiming them as Iranians is projecting nationalism onto the past. Zora 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "Iranian" obviously has several meanings. On the one hand, it means "citizen of the modern state of Iran." This obviously is not what is meant by calling the Medes "Iranian." A second meaning is the Iranian languages, from which we can derive the meaning "a speaker of an Iranian language" or "a people that speaks an Iranian language." This is obviously what is meant by calling the Medes an Iranian people, and is completely accurate. Since, obviously, in ancient times there was no country called "Iran," and thus "Iranian" cannot mean a citizen of a country which does not yet exist, I don't see how there's any real confusion. Calling the Elamites Iranian would, of course, be completely wrong. But the Medes were an Iranian people, and I don't see how worries about the current day Iranian government engaging in ethnic cleansing change that. john k 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Using the word in two different senses is extremely confusing, and contributes to the sort of historical thinking that leads to squabbles over which current polity "owns" a past civilization. Frex, Pakistan and India both claim the Indus valley civilization. Anchaeologists are running into nationalist passions in many countries and are writing books about their travails, thus Historical Archaeology and Archaeology under Fire. It would be much better to specify that by Iranian is meant speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. Zora 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to specify more clearly what is meant, just saying that there's no need to get so worried over it, especially pre-emptively. As to words appearing in two different senses, this is hardly avoidable in the English language. And it comes up with pretty much every single nation-state. Is a Greek someone who speaks Greek, or someone who lives in the Greek state? What about an Italian? Or a Romanian? Or a German? We basically have to use these words in two different senses, especially in historical context. I don't see why the word Iranian is any different. And it's not an "Indo-Iranian language", it's an Iranian language. john k 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] [No Title]

There should not be any controversy regarding the use of the name "Iranian." Iranian denotes more than someone simply speaking an Iranian language, it also recognizes religious beliefs, traditions and customs. The Medes are labeled as an "Iranian" ethnic group because the langauge was of the Iranian family of languages, and there tradtions and customs were Iranian. This is attested by Herodotous who states the Medes and Persians could understand each other when speaking, meaning their languages were mutually intelligble, and they also had the same customs and tradtions.

As far as I know no serious scholar contests that the Medes were an Iranian people.--Eupator 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Median words"

It's unclear in what sense the following are "Median words":

The following Iranian words are similarly thought to be of Mede origin:

To the best of my knowledge, all these words are generally Iranian, not specifically Median; most are given in Old Persian forms, which are (insofar as they were distinguishable at all) not Medic. What's the basis for this claim? If it is without foundation, I suggest removing this passage. RandomCritic 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct as far as I know --K a s h Talk | email 17:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
See I.M. Diakonoff, the medes. Indeed these words with slight pronounciation are common to other Iranic languages. --Ali doostzadeh 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
How precisely does Igor Diakonoff phrase the context (in which he notes that the words are of Mede origin)? Is he actually saying the words - as they appear other Iranian languages - are derived from a Mede word? (which is what is implied in the WP article).
Who/What is he citing as the basis for this observation? Is he saying they are first attested in Medea before appearing anywhere else?
These questions (and their answers) are particularly important because Diakonoff is a principal proponent of Darmesteter's theory that the Medes were Indo-Europeans (and not Indo-Iranians).
-- Fullstop 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authenticity

With no disrespect but I have read the user pages of most of those who have contributed to this discussion but I cannot see any expertise in linguistic or history of Iran among those I checked so far! How do you know what you are saying is correct? (Not that I want to put you off, I am asking just as a matter of interest).

PS: If you have expertise and qualifications on any subject please add that to your user-page so that others can asses your comments. You may ask what about yourself? Well, I only ask questions! Kiumars 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Median tribes

___

___

No scholar has ever claimed Medes are related to Hungarians. Or the Magians (Moghaan) are related to Magyars! So folk etymology here is at work again. Unless you have sources from reliable scholars that Magians are related to Hungarians or have any reliable etymology on the other Median tribes, it should be deleted. Indeed I have an article from a German scholars on the etymology of Median tribes, and I do not see any connection to Hungarian Magyars! Either prove from reliable sources that Magyars are related to Magians are get rid of that folk etymology section. I have studied Iranian lexicon related to Medes. Please do not make Wikipedia into a place for nationalistic ideas and the article should reflect what current scholars think about Medes. So if you do not have sources and references (and I must add relating Magians to Magyars is baseless), then please stop your support for wrong information. You can easily do an RFC and you will see I will be right on this account also. I have read several books and articles on Medes.

The current Encyclopedia Britannica says: one of an Indo-European people, related to the Persians, who entered northeastern Iran probably as early as the 17th century BC and settled in the plateau land that came to be known as Media --Ali doostzadeh 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Again our friend has a good point, but I am giving my reason for blanking out that part, because it is absolutely false. Relating the Medes (the three wise men) (Magians) to Hungarian Magyar is on the border of real insanity and then relating Sumerian and Dravidian is worst. And by the way the information goes against Wikipedia's policy of NOR. That actual part of the article which I deleted is just cut & pasted from a hungarian nationalist site: [2]. As you can see the article has no references and is written by a non-specialist (do a search on Fred Hamori and he will claim every ancient language to be related somehow to Hungarian). I am just making sure the scholarly opinion on Medes is reflected in the article and not nationalistic opinions. Check the Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 and there is nothing about some bogus Hungarian connection or even the weired etymologies given Mr. Hamori. --Ali doostzadeh 19:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking out entire paragraps because you disagree with one point is vandalism. The blanked out version leaves a big hole in the text, like "The following are the six tribes according to herodotus" followed by nothing. Please take greater care with this article. If you object to Hungarians being mentioned, the procedure would be to blank out only the mention of Hungarians and to paste the sentence you object to here on the talk page so that editors may discuss it. Don't just throw the entire paragraph out on this one pretext. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole folk etymology is taken from the above web-site I mentioned. It is bogus and has no source. So I just mentioned the six tribes without any non-scientific etymology. I can find the actual etymology through digging scholarly material, but this does not mean that invalid information should be there. Now what part of this do you dispute? Do you think it is valid to have wrong etymology based on bogus theories by some nationalist person with no Phd in the field who claims that every language is related to Hungarian?? Don't you think Wikipedia should adhere to a higher standard that reflects Academic scholarly works? If you want to get an arbitrator, I have no problem, since I have a decent knowledge of the Medes and know a good deal of academic materials with this regards. Please see: [3] for example which is based on scholarly articles. --Ali doostzadeh 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


You may well have a point about the Hungarian conenction, but it is not for you or for a cadre of invading editors to decide unilaterally on something that has been here for two years. It MUST be pasted on this page for discussion, because blanking out the entire section from the 1911 EB using the fact that "Hungarians" is included as a pretext, is vandalism. Like I say, you may or may not have a point about Hungarians. But your methodology here of invading articles and deciding on everyone else's behalf what may or may not be presented, is just WAY to heavy handed for what we are used to here. If you have nothing to fear, bring up the blanked out section for a full discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is Hungarian used in 1911 Encyclopedia?[4]. I do not see Magyar nor do I see the bogus etymology given. I brought the blanked section for discussion as you can see I am discussing it now. It is from a hungarian nationalist webpage and it constitutes NOR and it has no source! The article needs to be factual. --Ali doostzadeh 21:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean the word Hungarian is or isn't in the 1911 article. I mean you are using the pretext that Hungarian is mentioned in the wikipedia paragraph, to wholesale strike the entire paragtraph. You are deleting many other things beside the Hungarian thing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Even though the 1911 EB is dated, it has no Hungarian as you can see. For example see the more recent material by I.M. Diakonoff [5] and even more recent articles here:[6] [7]. For now I am deleting the bogus etymology part which has no source and mentions Hungarian on the six tribe.. They all come from the mentioned Hungarian nationalist site and not an academic reference. If you want to seek arbitration on the factual evidence, I have no problem. But for now, I do not see any moral support to put material that is faulty and mislead readers. Please read the link I gave from Fred Hamori.. In it Hungarian, Sumerian, Dravidian, Median and etc.. are claimed to be Hungarian related. Do you think misleading readers is right? --Ali doostzadeh 21:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For example assume you are a high school student that has to do research on the medes.. What kind of grade would you get when someone mentions Magyars are related to Maghians! ... Or that the source of the bogus etymology is from a website that claims Hungarian is the mother language of all languages. Lets be factual. --Ali doostzadeh 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the blanked out section formatted properly for the discussion page, don't see why that is too much to ask ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The six Mede tribes in Herodotus

Herodotus, i. 101, lists the names of six Mede tribes or castes. Some of these are similar to tribal names of the Scythians, suggesting a definitive link between these two groups.

  • The Busae group is thought to derive from the Persian term buza meaning indigenous (i.e. not Iranian). Whether this was based on an originally Iranian term, or their own name, is unknown.
  • The second group is called the Paraetaceni, or Parae-tak-(eni) in Persian, and denotes nomadic inhabitants of the mountains of Paraetacene. This name recalls the Scythian Para-la-ti, the people of Kolaxis, believed to represent the common people in general, but whom Herodotus calls the "Royal Scythians".
  • The third group is called Stru­khat.
  • The fourth group is the Arizanti, whose name is derived from the words Arya (noble), and Zantu (tribe, clan).
  • The fifth group were the Budii, found also among the Black Sea Scythians as Budi-ni.
  • The sixth tribe were the Magi. They were a hereditary caste of priests of the Zurvanism religion that evolved out of Zoroastrianism. Hungarian tradition also traces pre-European Magyar (Hungarian) ancestry back to the Magi.[citation needed] In time, the Mesopotamian-influenced religion of the Magi was suppressed in favour of a more purely Iranian form of Zoroastrianism, itself evolved from its somewhat dualist beginnings into the monotheistic faith that it is today (also known as Parsi-ism).


I did put this already on the above discussion.. but I guess forgot the html formatting. Now as you can see none of these has any sources.. Indeed I read a scholarly article a while back where reasonable etymology was given for all the tribes. I already made my points against this section as well, as can be seen from the comments above. The whole text is ripped out of some hungarian nationalist polemic article. Thats it. --Ali doostzadeh 22:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
So you consider the entire above text to be the work of Hungarian nationalists? Not just the one sentence about the Magyars? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I now see you are mostly right about that, here is the original source, and you are right that it is Hamori http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/medescyth.html My apologies. But in the two years since it was added, it has made some improvements! If you can get the correct etymologies, it would be an asset. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And silly me, I see you already gave me that same link... I had no idea you had identified the whole text as a copyvio, I thought you were objecting to one word and striking the whole thing... Again, I apologize... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem.. that is why I was saying. The whole thing was cut & pasted from Hamori's polemic which is non-scholarly. There is a lot of wild theories on the internet. For example white nationalists claim the ancient Egyptians had nordic features and black nationalists claim that the ancient Egyptians were black.. They have their own webpages and weired reasons as well etc. For example do a google search for Fred Hamori and every single non-IE and sometimes IE and non-Semitic language is considered to be related to Hungarian. From Dravidian , to Elamite to Sumerian to Hurrian to even the Iranian Medes/Scythians. Now imagine if they were to cut & paste such materials in an article. That is why I did not hesistate to remove them, because they were false. As per the etymology of the six tribes, I will look into it. Two of them I know off hand because it is Avestaic. Thanks for your help. --Ali doostzadeh 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boundaries of Media

Is the first map used in the article accurate? Does it show the original Media which was inhabited by Medes or it shows the Median satrapies of the centrues that followed? Asoyrun 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It says boundaries of Media as per: Achaemenid and Alexanders empires. It is not clear why northern and eastern borders of the first map of Media used in the article are so long. Asoyrun 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranica says some scholars define eastern borders of Medes with Alvand, not Damavand as highlighted in the map. Asoyrun 18:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Kurds are NOT the only Medes

First and foremost scholars do not consider Modern Kurds to have fully Mede ancestry, but mostly Hurrians mixed with Mede. The closest populations of Medes you can find today are around the Caspian Sea (Gilaks, Mazandaranis and Azerbaijanis) and not only Kurds. Certainly, many famous Median Kings and Queens might have lived in modern Kurdistan but that doesn’t make modern Kurds more Medians than other Iranian Ethnicities. In fact, I find the statement “Scholars and historians believe that the Medes are the ancestors of modern Kurds “ totally false unless you can show some valid proofs. (unsigned)

Lots of people nowadays seem to naively think people fall into neat little pockets that never change, so that a population living 4000 years ago exactly corresponds to the ancestors of a population living today. It just doesn't work that way in real life. Anyone who knows anything about genealogy knows that everyone has two parents, four grandparents, by the time you get that far back, everyone alive today is probably descended from everyone alive then who had surviving issue. For example, every single genealogy I have ever seen for a modern North American person, sooner or later, ties in to King Charlemagne. On this basis, it is quite possible that 90% of the entire population of North America are Charlemagne descendants, so it's nothing special to brag about. People don't just morph spontaneously into something else, rather, they get half their genes from their father, and half from their mother (it's called the birds and the bees, folks)... Sure the Kurds are descended from the Medes, and also from the Hurrians... So are the Iranians, and all the other peoples of the entire area, all the way to India. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, we showed you evidence on talk page of Kurdish people and said we will provide more when page is unprotected. Gilakis, Mazandaranis and most of northwestern Iranian people groups exept Kurds seem to have a Parthian/Scythian (both Iranian) origin. Azarbaijanis themselves are an amalgam of Talyshi+Kurds+ turks. also Kurds historically were known as Medes at least by Armenians, (if not mention their name for themselves). Asoyrun 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Talk%7EMedes_6374.html"