| Revision as of 16:07, 3 August 2014 editTiptoethrutheminefield (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,169 editsm →Propagandist statements← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:10, 3 August 2014 edit undoJaqeli (talk | contribs)23,008 edits →Propagandist statementsNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :::Please see the archives and discussions at ]. It took months to come to that stable and all-views-presented version so I suggest you see it. ] 08:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | :::Please see the archives and discussions at ]. It took months to come to that stable and all-views-presented version so I suggest you see it. ] 08:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Your continual referal to ] as a way of avoinding content discussion here is not helpful. I have already pointed out to you the fundamental falsehood that existed on that article for many months (until I removed it). For those many months it was there you were editing that article, and for those same many months you have been citing that article's content as an example to follow here. So your "see archives and discussions at ]". does not convince. Also, this article is not directly related to the Georgian Scripts article - it is not a fork or a branch of it. If this article is a fork of anything, it is the ] article. ] (]) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ::::Your continual referal to ] as a way of avoinding content discussion here is not helpful. I have already pointed out to you the fundamental falsehood that existed on that article for many months (until I removed it). For those many months it was there you were editing that article, and for those same many months you have been citing that article's content as an example to follow here. So your "see archives and discussions at ]". does not convince. Also, this article is not directly related to the Georgian Scripts article - it is not a fork or a branch of it. If this article is a fork of anything, it is the ] article. ] (]) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I repeat. You cannot have that kind of statement per ]. The issue is very complex and you cannot describe Mesrop's involvement with one simple sentence thus cannot stay that way. You cannot claim A in one article and B in another. Please stop beating the air. ] 16:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:10, 3 August 2014
 | Writing systems B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Armenia B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Georgian alphabet as well?
The article on it has sources backing Mesrop's credit (although it is noted that a number of Georgian scholars think otherwise).
Propagandist statements
Misplaced Pages is not a place for a blatant statements about issues which are not an established facts. Thus removing the statement about Georgian and Albanian alphabets. None of them were created by Mesrop. It's an Armenian tradition which states so and it in no way can be thought to be strictly true as the issue is way too much controversial. Per Georgian scripts you cannot have such statement into the article. Thanks. Jaqeli 10:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Looks like the topic ban was lifted too soon? It is not a "blatant statements". It is a historical event supported by a number of Western scholars, and opposed by Georgian historians. --Երևանցի 01:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Please keep calm. We can work this out easily in a civilized and calm manner. Per Georgian scripts article we cannot have that controversial statement. My current edit is compromising enough which shows and recognizes the Armenian tradition which are based on its chronicles so I am not against including that so we can have it in this way. Jaqeli 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Surprising words coming from a user who labels a historical theory (yes, based on early Armenian sources and now supported by many non-Armenian scholars) propaganda. If you want to discuss things in "a civilized and calm manner", then I suggest you refrain from using such quite unnecessary terms. I welcome your last edit, but it still doesn't illustrate the entire picture. Here are some reliable sources by authoritative authors who agree with this view.
- Russell, James R. (1999). "Alphabets". Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Harvard University Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-674-51173-5.
Mastoc' also created the Georgian and Caucasian-Albanian alphabets, based on the Armenian model.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|editors=ignored (|editor=suggested) (help) - Grenoble, Lenore A. (2003). Language policy in the Soviet Union. Springer. p. 116. ISBN 1402012985.
The creation of the Georgian alphabet is generally attributed to Mesrop, who is also credited with the creation of the Armenian alphabet.
- Rayfield, Donald. The Literature of Georgia: A History (Caucasus World). RoutledgeCurzon. p. 19. ISBN 0700711635.
It has been believed, and not only in Armenia, that all the Caucasian alphabets — Armenian, Georgian and Caucaso-Albanian — were invented in the fourth century by the Armenian scholar Mesrop Mashtots.
{{cite book}}: no-break space character in|quote=at position 80 (help)
Note how James Russell directly supports the view. Grenoble says "the Georgian alphabet is generally attributed to Mesrop" and Rayfield states that "It has been believed, and not only in Armenia..." Conclusively, it is not just "According to an Armenian tradition". --Երևանցի 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- We've already gone a long way of that kind of cherry picking of sources. Per Georgian scripts article its summary is well explained and all claims are represented in its history section. So per that article "According to an Armenian tradition" is good enough for every side, thus we should keep it this way and we'll definitely avoid further mess or edit wars and the article will be more stable from disruptive editing for sure. I am totally for Georgian-Armenian cooperation in English Wiki so it would be much better if we by ourselves solve all these kind of problems. Jaqeli 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your high opinion of the Georgian scripts article is not born out by some of its content. I find it puzzling that you allowed a quite blatant lie to remain in an article that you made many edits to - I am referring to this , the "older and supposedly outdated" text an anonymous editor added. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Done True. Corrected the first and the second oldest inscriptions as well. That was also input by that IP user it seems. Jaqeli 10:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your high opinion of the Georgian scripts article is not born out by some of its content. I find it puzzling that you allowed a quite blatant lie to remain in an article that you made many edits to - I am referring to this , the "older and supposedly outdated" text an anonymous editor added. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There's more than enough contemporary scholars that attest to the origins of the Georgian alphabet being invented by Mesrop Mashdots. The consensus here supporting that notion is overwhelming. Merely stating that the Georgian scripts article is the one we should all abide by is not a valid argument either. Just because Georgian scripts is GA doesn't mean it's perfect. Besides, as far as I can see, you're the only user that worded the article that way quite some time ago . Therefore, the Mesrop Mashdots article and the Georgian scripts article should be aligned to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- We've gone through those "more than enough contemporary scholars" and their "sources" long ago and all those sources were in reality rejected. See the archives and the discussions. Again, per Georgian scripts you cannot have that kind of wording because this is way too much controversial and disputed issue and everything concerning the Georgian script or its origins should be based upon its main article. You cannot claim A in one article and B in another. So please, leave out this edit warring and get aware those long discussions at the Georgian scripts article. It is a very complex issue and you cannot describe it in one sentence by bombarding it with some cherry picked sources. Jaqeli 06:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Rejected? Under what basis? How are these in anyway cherry-picked? There's dozens upon dozens of contemporary sources that say the same thing. They're completely reliable and thus serves to show that contemporary scholars do agree on that notion. I believe the wording of BOTH articles should change. If the talk page is not helpful, I'll take this to WP:DR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please see the archives and discussions at Talk:Georgian scripts. It took months to come to that stable and all-views-presented version so I suggest you see it. Jaqeli 08:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your continual referal to Georgian scripts as a way of avoinding content discussion here is not helpful. I have already pointed out to you the fundamental falsehood that existed on that article for many months (until I removed it). For those many months it was there you were editing that article, and for those same many months you have been citing that article's content as an example to follow here. So your "see archives and discussions at Talk:Georgian scripts". does not convince. Also, this article is not directly related to the Georgian Scripts article - it is not a fork or a branch of it. If this article is a fork of anything, it is the Armenian alphabet article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- I repeat. You cannot have that kind of statement per Georgian scripts. The issue is very complex and you cannot describe Mesrop's involvement with one simple sentence thus cannot stay that way. You cannot claim A in one article and B in another. Please stop beating the air. Jaqeli 16:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Your continual referal to Georgian scripts as a way of avoinding content discussion here is not helpful. I have already pointed out to you the fundamental falsehood that existed on that article for many months (until I removed it). For those many months it was there you were editing that article, and for those same many months you have been citing that article's content as an example to follow here. So your "see archives and discussions at Talk:Georgian scripts". does not convince. Also, this article is not directly related to the Georgian Scripts article - it is not a fork or a branch of it. If this article is a fork of anything, it is the Armenian alphabet article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please see the archives and discussions at Talk:Georgian scripts. It took months to come to that stable and all-views-presented version so I suggest you see it. Jaqeli 08:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Rejected? Under what basis? How are these in anyway cherry-picked? There's dozens upon dozens of contemporary sources that say the same thing. They're completely reliable and thus serves to show that contemporary scholars do agree on that notion. I believe the wording of BOTH articles should change. If the talk page is not helpful, I'll take this to WP:DR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)