Talk:Tabal (state)

Removed statements referring to a different area of Anatolia

I removed the following sentences from the article, because they refer to a Pontic state, far north of the Luwian Tabal, and the development of ironwork was also far earlier than the Luwian Tabal. Categorystuff (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Some scholars associate them with the Meshechs (Meshekhs/Mosokhs, Moschoi in Greek).

The Georgian historian Ivane Javakhishvili considered Tabal, Tubal, Jabal and Jubal to be ancient Georgian tribal designations, and argued that they spoke a non-Indo-European language.

The account that blanked this info, has been showing the very familiar patterns of a certain banned user, whose well-known M.O. in the past has been simply to pluck out any information, no matter how abundantly referenced, that his own original research does not accord with. Because there are, aside from this banned editor, innumerable other voices that certainly do make a most explicit connection between Tabal and Thobeles and Tibareni (which seems to the been the true purpose of the blanking, and not the misleading purpose stated above) I am going to have to, per policy, revert to the last version before any of these sockpuppets worked on the article; since the last several editors are all clearly manifestations of the same, my reversing action should not upset any wikipedian's legitimate work. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Greek (and Georgian) terms clearly refer to a Pontic state on the Baltic coast of Anatolia, whereas the Luwian Tabal is located on the other side of Anatolia, on the Mediterranean coast. These are two different polities. Categorystuff (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging Tabal (region) into Tabal. The two pages are almost word-for-word identical. Tabal was both a kingdom and a region, but both topics can be covered within the main Tabal article - in fact, both articles currently cover both topics. @Antiquistik and StarTrekker: Furius (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose @Furius: Despite some overlap, the region of Tabal and the kingdom of Tabal were not fully identical.

And, while they understandably overlap because the kingdom of Tabal was the most influential state in the region of Tabal, the broader region included several other states (such as Atuna, Ištuanda, Šinuḫtu, and Tuwana) which were not part of the kingdom of Tabal and whose relevance to the history of the region do not fit with that of the kingdom proper.

It would be better to leave them separate. Antiquistik (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The same situation pertains with Arzawa, where we cope with both Arzawa region and Arzawa kingdom within a single article. Given that the text of Tabal (region) is nearly identical to the text of this article, it seems like any account of the region ends up revolving around an account of its main kingdom. Furius (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I should be more constructive. What would a distinct Tabal (region) article look like? Furius (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Furius: In general, I would oppose the merger of region and state pages if they are/were not identical with each other, and I would extend this to Arzawa too, although I don't presently plan to split that page.

I am reworking the pages to make their content more relevant to their specific subjects without creating excessive overlap. It will take some days, but I would ask you to have a look at the end result and then let me know if this would be acceptable to you. Antiquistik (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Everything that you write is excellent, so this is a fantastic outcome. I withdraw the merge proposal; I've added a hatnote to this article; could you add a reciprocal one to Tabal (region). Furius (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's high praise. Thanks! I have added the hatnote. Antiquistik (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)