Talk:Parthian Empire

Parthian Feudalism

The information block on the right of the article says that the Parthian Empire was a Feudal Monarchy and a citation is given.

But the Government section of the article does not (in my opinion) describe the feudal nature of the governmental system. Itinerantlife (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

lie

this is Ashkanian u want to change story 94.182.41.98 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Flag of the Parthian Empire

On 11:12, 25 August 2023, User:Abolfazl13800528 made an edit adding a version of a flag of the Parthian Empire. User:HistoryofIran reverted, with the rationale, "not an improvement, and the caption should be in English".

Although I agree the caption should be in English, I would consider adding the flag of the Parthian Empire an improvement with a valuable visual for the reader. Question is whether the reverted image is indeed the historical flag. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention in my edit summary that the "flag" (it's just a custom made Faravahar symbol) was unsourced as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the PE had any concept of a "national" flag at all. These are made up by modern enthusiasts. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Not only is it not clear that there was anything that could be called "the flag of the Parthian Empire" or that if there was, that this modern image represents it, it is questionable how such an image is a valuable visual for the reader. Indeed, the main value of retrojecting a symbol with modern significance is often political and a WP:NPOV matter. NebY (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Religion

The article directly states that there is scant archeological evidence of Buddhism's spread into the region. Why is Buddhism declared as the third religion practiced? The implication is almost that a large number or even a majority of individuals within the country practiced or were at least familiar with Buddhism, but this implication is false; Buddhist beliefs and sects were relegated to a small number of people and places. 2601:348:400:5150:7813:E40:1ED7:5E01 (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

AD

Remsense, hi. I don't see a good reason why Before Christ and anno domini, the year of our Lord, should be used in a culture almost completely detached from Christianity, rather than BCE and CE, but I know all the arguments and don't feel like taking over the second shift from Sisyphus or Don Quixote. However, I find ignoring the meaning and thus the required syntax of AD on the level of giving up the apostrophe before the s in genitive forms, 'cause kids 'n ppl in gen. have a hard time grasping & typing it. You'll always find accommodating arbiters on style pages, but that will never convince me. But I guess you'll say that's my problem, and (see above) I'll leave it at that. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

...CE vs. AD...

I'll rehash what I said a few weeks ago about this:

There is no escaping that AD is a Christian epoch; there is only ever going to be one honest answer to the question of what the epoch was chosen to represent—of course, it was always meant by Dionysius Exiguus to be "close enough", e.g. to also be pragmatically in sync with the indiction tax cycle. However, it seems a bit absurd that CE is not equivalently Christian, except we've just decided to call it "common". What's common about it, exactly? Seems equally fraught but just in a different way.

Anthony Kaldellis had this thought experiment that I think clarifies a lot of the spin here: if we decided to adopt the al-hijri calendar, but relabel it such that we're living in 1446 CE instead of 1446 AH—it's still obviously an Islamic epoch that entered use in an Islamic context. Of course, there's nothing really wrong with that, as it's more or less arbitrary for our purposes, but it's equally inane to pretend that it's not that. It works about as well as anything else we could use.

I find ignoring the meaning and thus the required syntax of AD on the level of giving up the apostrophe before the s in genitive forms,

You can tell it is actually not required syntax in English because...it is not syntax that is required in English. Different languages adapt material and conventions based on their own context. The obvious difference is the 's clitic has actual semantic value in English, where the origin Latin form of what is fully an English term does not indicate any additional meaning whatsoever in English. It's not good English to do things like Latin, that's how we got stuck with the absurd rule about splitting infinitives for centuries. Remsense ‥ 论 17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)