Tatul
Welcome! edit
|
August 2021 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I will indicate those parts of the article that, in my opinion, are written in a manipulative way
- First, the part where I mentioned that he spoke Armenian fluently, and he had a strong accent in Greek, was removed, moreover, this was mentioned many years ago in the same discussion section on the page. I think that language and accent can indicate and help to understand the origin.
- It is known that some of his associates were Armenian and many Medieval people were multilingual. The area where he was born was inhabited by Greeks, Slavs and Armenians, it would be odd if he spoke only one language. The educated classes of Constantinople spoke an archaic version of Greek associated with a Classical education. They were very snooty about provincial Greek accents and the accents of the common folk of Constantinople itself. Someone with a Macedonian accent would have been sneered at. Urselius (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- “The name of his mother points to a Greek origin on the maternal side”, I do not agree with this, because historical articles should be based on historians, and not on instructions and hints provided by users who are not historians. Since I think this sentence is inappropriate and is manipulative
- This assertion has citations. His mother was called Pankalo, definitely a Greek name. Basil also claimed descent from Constantine the Great and Alexander the Great, notably not Armenians. If his father was Armenian, it must have been through his Greek mother that he claimed this ancestry from a Roman and a Greek. Urselius (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- The general scholarly consensus is that Basil's father was "probably" of Armenian origin. I do not agree with this sentence, as there is manipulation and absolute nonsense in it. First, how can we say "scientific consensus" if I have provided more sources in which his Armenian origin is confirmed without any doubt, and secondly, since it is written after his mother's name, it will affect the reader.
- It is demonstrably true that the sum of relevant scholarship says that he was of probable partial Armenian ancestry. No respectable scholar (scholar does not mean scientist BTW) would make a definite statement about something that the sources are so divided upon. Any scholar who would make a definite statement on the ancestry of Basil I would not be reliable, for that reason alone. Urselius (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Norman Tobias / “Tobias, the author of the only dedicated biography of Basil I in English”. part of the origin is based on the work of Norman Tobias, in which he cannot draw a conclusion about his origin. While other historians pointing to his Armenian origin, are removed and not even considered. moreover, it contains details about Tobias ' experience, for example, he is from the University of Toronto and he is the only one who wrote a biography of Basil in English. I don't think this is correct about the exclusivity of the English language, because I don't think that historians who write or speak different languages are worse or better than Tobias, and if we talk about universities, one of the sources that I provided is connected with Oxford, and the other with the University of Chicago.
- Tatul (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sources in the English language have much greater weight within the English language Wikipedia, because any speaker of English can check their veracity, not something available if the sources are in any other language. Tobias is the only author to have published an entire biographical book in English on the life of Basil I, do an extensive literature search if you do not believe this. If you find any others I would be very interested. Urselius (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jingiby. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- hello, historical facts can't be disputed, the facts that I represented are undeniable sources Tatul (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Articles need to present a balanced picture gleaned from the whole body of relevant, quality, scholarship. The article on Basil I did this reasonably well before you started editing it. Your edits are very selective from those sources available, and you have tried to remove material supported by appropriate scholarly citation, that went against your agenda. Also you have sought to present scholarship supporting a partly Armenian ancestry for Basil I as if it claimed that 'he was Armenian'. Your edits have not complied with Wikipedia's core policies on POV pushing, and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. Urselius (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- This is what you said in your address, and you should reread it, the selective choice of the author and the manipulative presentation of the text, as well as details that do not make sense, cannot be considered impartial. Your references to the words "many scientists agreed", his mother's name, with the removal of important details, such as his strong Greek accent, as well as indirect praise for the author's work ( from such a university, the only author who wrote in English", as well as your belief that he was not Armenian, which you repeated several times, contradicts all the fundamental principles of Wikipedia Tatul (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- All respectable scholarship agrees that he was born in the Byzantine province of Macedonia, therefore he was not an Armenian by place of birth, but a Byzantine provincial. The available evidence on his ancestry is inconsistent, but points towards a partial Armenian ancestry. Even this is not certain. Therefore, the assertion that Basil I was Armenian is untenable, it is not supported by contemporary sources, nor by the body of relevant scholarship. Urselius (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is what you said in your address, and you should reread it, the selective choice of the author and the manipulative presentation of the text, as well as details that do not make sense, cannot be considered impartial. Your references to the words "many scientists agreed", his mother's name, with the removal of important details, such as his strong Greek accent, as well as indirect praise for the author's work ( from such a university, the only author who wrote in English", as well as your belief that he was not Armenian, which you repeated several times, contradicts all the fundamental principles of Wikipedia Tatul (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Articles need to present a balanced picture gleaned from the whole body of relevant, quality, scholarship. The article on Basil I did this reasonably well before you started editing it. Your edits are very selective from those sources available, and you have tried to remove material supported by appropriate scholarly citation, that went against your agenda. Also you have sought to present scholarship supporting a partly Armenian ancestry for Basil I as if it claimed that 'he was Armenian'. Your edits have not complied with Wikipedia's core policies on POV pushing, and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. Urselius (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jingiby (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)