User talk:Sydbeqabarrett

March 2010

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gregory Pakourianos. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Constantine ✍ 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian Albanian script

Hey! Would you mind if I ask what the reason behind your recent edits on the "Caucasian Albanian script" were about? There has been a lot of removal of information from the page in the past, and I saw that you removed an image and its caption without explanation - any specific reason as to why you did it? AntonSamuel (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey, under the image was written that Mesrop Mashtots created the Albanian Alphabet, but as I edited in the text and gave some sources to prove it, Mesrop created only the Armenian alphabet. No scholar has ever found who exactly created the Albanian alphabet. And it's very well known among scholars that Koryun's sources were later editions after the great schism which leads everyone to think that those later editions were highly political in nature. But, as I already wrote, Mesrop's contemporary Ghazar describes the deeds of Mashtots saying he only created the Armenian one. cheers --Sydbeqabarrett (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see! To be honest, I'm not versed enough on the subject matter that you raise to be able to clear things up in-depth, but before you make more radical changes to the article, such as removing images and extensive captions with references that have been on the article a while - I would recommend you to start a discussion on the talk page regarding the matter - it may be helpful if you ping some earlier editors of the page for feedback. Pretty much any significant removal of information relating to Armenians and Caucasian Albanians will be a matter of contention to many. AntonSamuel (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry to hear that a line of the historical source cannot be given without someone's contention in a 'free encyclopedia'. This source is one of the first and trustworthy in Caucasology, more trustworthy than the later editions of Koryun which was used for political manipulations after the schism, and the whole article cites it including the text under that image --Sydbeqabarrett (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]