Talk:Mesrop Mashtots

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
Wikipedia 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. -- Ե րևանցի talk  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.



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". -- Ե րևանցի talk  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)
 * ✅ 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)

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)
 * You need to stop making up Wikipedia rules and just start presenting your case for content changes to this article on this articles talk page. Of course content on one article can differ from content on another - even facts and figures. Nothing is ever fixed. Indeed there are some non-English Wikipedias whose articles are composed of mostly nationalistic fantasies that bare no relation to their English-language equivalents. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Noone here is claiming to have two different claims in two different articles. I also suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Making an argument based on what another article says should be disregarded. It's about placing information catered to what the consensus states. And as far as I can see, there's been no consensus on the talk page of Georgian scripts to have that information inserted. It just appears to be an argument without a formal conclusion. And here, the consensus is overwhelmingly to what Tiptoethrutheminefield, Yerevantsi, myself, and others have argued. So, instead of constant edit-warring and diverting all attention away from this article to that of Georgian scripts, I highly suggest we send this to DR or to another forum. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus on Georgian scripts and after that the article more or less became stable from all involved parties. Same goes for this article. We should do everything possible not to undermine its stability and follow the pattern. Jaqeli 10:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No, there was no "consensus" and apparently, there are many here that beg to differ at any rate. I shall open an RfC to get this resolved as soon as possible. If the RfC doesn't deliver results, we shall go to WP:DR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there was if you read more closely all the archives of the Georgian scripts talk page. Jaqeli 09:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet
Should the lede contain the following phrase:

As briefly discussed above, the wording shall change from "In contemporary Armenian sources he is also credited with creating" to the proposed version above. If approved, the wording in the lede of Georgian scripts shall change as well since it is currently the same.

For reference, the sources used for this sentence can be any one of the following:

Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm identifying a problem that isn't there, but I worry the "contemporary Armenian sources" might be open to misunderstanding. Of course what it means is "sources written by persons who were alive at the time Mashtots was alive" - but do you think readers will know that is what it means? Is there another, clearer, way of saying it, but more concise than my explanation of what contemporary means. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point! Contemporaneous may be a more accurate term. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Again, please stop cherry picking. We've been there, seen all those and discussed all of them at Georgian scripts talk page. No one rejects the Armenian tradition. It can be presented but Mesrop's connection to it should be described without controversial statements. It is a very complex issue and one cannot describe his connection with one sentence again per Georgian scripts. And all these "also credited", "is generally attributed" and "It has been believed" statements are and should be rejected as those authors who have no knowledge in Georgian linguistics or its history and just some blatant statements cherry-picked from those sources are cannot be taken as a pattern. Jaqeli 10:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The content of the lead (lede?) is required to summarise the content of the article it is intended to lead readers into. So it is best to concentrate on writing the main content of the article, getting that as right and fully sourced as possible, then use its content in summarised form as a new lead. This is also a further argument, btw, against Jaqeli's recent edits to the lead, because those edits were not based on the content of this article, but on the content of another article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tiptoethrutheminefield, I agree. However, the contested issue was the lead at this point. If we are to reposition the claim, I'm fine with that as well. As for accusations of cherry-picking, that just doesn't make sense. There's a strong academic consensus out there that attests to the very notion of Mashdots inventing the Georgian alphabet. There's more than enough sources to help prove that for us. Hence, it should be respected here in Wikipedia as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're literally going on circles and repeating the same thing over and over again. Please see the archives of the Georgian scripts article. Jaqeli 23:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You've pointed to the Georgian scripts article as your mainline of argument over a dozen times in this talk page and in the edit-summaries of your continuous edit-wars . This is typical WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior. As for this RfC, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. You can't base the wording of this article due to the wording of another. Especially when it has been contested by everyone in this talk-page (except yourself). The consensus you talk about isn't even a consensus after-all. And even if there was a consensus, that can always change. So, let us see what the community says on this RfC and we will go from there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And see "Each page in every namespace has an attached talk page where discussions are held on how to best write and maintain that page. These discussions are particularly necessary when two or more editors cannot agree on how the page should be displayed. Each situation from a discussion is determined on a case-by-case basis. That is their purpose. Their outcomes do not dictate what goes on elsewhere." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I am not a scholar and I am not going to go too deep into your big debate here. I will just bring 2 facts to note: Bir el Qutt inscriptions - the oldest Goergian (Asomtavruli) manuscript dating 430 found near Jerusalem and Iakob Tsurtaveli's "Martyrdom of the Holy Queen Shushanik" written some time between 476 and 483 which is a full-fledged literary work, with its established style and forms, etc. Now imagine Mesrop who invented Armenian alphabet in 405 also invented a Georgian one simultaneously. Can you imagine people not having an alphabet in 405 would adopt, absorb and spread that alphabet so quickly beyond its borders (near Jerusalem) in just 2 decades? And have a full literary novel (Shuhanik's story) in just several decades? Even a child can figure that out that Georgians would have had more primitive forms of scripture far earlier than Mesrop was even born. The only early source attributing invention to Mesrop is Koryun. All other later sources are based on him. And, even a dilettante scholar knows that one source is not a strong statement. So, you can keep believing in that myth, but c'mon...)) Secondly, and in this one doesn't concern scriptures but just the sole fact Georgian languages don't belong to Indo-European language group means that proto-Georgian group at least is as old as proto-Indo-European group (or older). Which in turn means Georgian culture predates Armenian culture far beyond centuries (possibly by millennia), which is the offspring of proto-Indo-European culture (Armenian language is simply in Indo-European language group). Georgians are the only autochthonic people in this region. You don't need to compete all the time with Georgian culture. Armenian culture is great and a treasure of humanity, as well. You can compete with Greeks, for instance, which are also Indo-Europeans. Thank you! Peace! Ottoshmidt (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)