# Talk:Heraclius the Elder

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heraclius the Elder/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I will be taking on the GA review for this article, expect a full review to be up by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Theban Halberd I have completed my initial review and my comments are available in the above table, I can see that quite a bit of effort has been put into improving the article, as such, I am willing to put this article on hold for the time being (I also note that you have been away for two weeks) to await your fixes. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


### Comments
Non-reviewer comment: There is a Charles, Robert Henry; John, Bishop of Nikiu (2007) in Sources but no reference to it in Citations. If it isn't used, it should be moved under Further reading, or removed. If it is used, there should be incoming inline citation(s) to it (or it should be moved under General references per WP:GENREF). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Concur with above comment, I'll make a note of it in my review under criterion 2a and b. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done; see inline citation #32. Theban Halberd (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an undue edit. There are several third party sources calling him Armenian for one historian to make a difference. If there are no valid objections, I'll reinstate the previous edit. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC) 
Saw this thread only now, but anyway. We can't state this as a fact when the article's own section Heraclius_the_Elder#Origin citing several scholars says it's uncertain. The entire article should be consistent in that regard. Brandmeistertalk   14:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A wording of a section isn't a source, and it is subject to change. Sources, however, we can't change. If most of the reliable secondary sources state Armenian origin, then it's by definition the significant viewpoint and should be presented as such, per WP:WEIGHT. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that Walter Kaegi, whom cite as the supporter of Armenian origin hypothesis,  admits that we have no evidence on what Armenian consciousness, if any, Heraclius possessed. And because, as argued in the article by another cited scholar, "there is not a single primary source that says that Heraclius was an Armenian", I think it would be safer to write "possibly" or "considered by some scholars to be of Armenian origin" in the lead. Brandmeistertalk   15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look at all the sources and your argument later, busy IRL currently. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay I have looked at the sentence. Before going into it, I would say this doesn't change anything. Firstly, the link you provided isn't Walter Kaegi's book but Anthony Kaldellis (the another scholar) quoting Kaegi and quite frankly cherry-picking a single sentence from his book. If we actually look at the book, it's pretty clear what Kaegi himself thinks and we don't need others to speak for Kaegi:
The preponderance of evidence points out to Armenian origin (Kaegi's book)
Secondly, and this is just for the sake of the argument, even if we assumed that a cherry-picked sentence of one historian by another historian changes anything here (which it doesn't btw, we have original sources for that and his viewpoint in his book is pretty clear), 'consciousness' hasn't got anything to do with origin. You may be of one origin, but grew up in another country and have a different 'consciousness' to your ethic background, as a simple example (not saying it is the case here or not, haven't read much yet on Heraclius, just an example for argument's sake). Hope this is clear even if we entertain the idea. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Upon further look I see more doubt. Britannica in reference to him writes "probably of Armenian descent". This source, citing John M. Douglas, The Armenians (1992), says "a possible Armenian origin for the emperor’s [Heraclius'] family". And Cyril Mango cited in our article says "he was a namesake descendant of Heraclius of Edessa, a 5th-century Roman general". So, as long as his origin is mentioned in the lead, it seems that "generally believed to be of Armenian origin" or something along those lines rather than simply "of Armenian origin" would be a safer option and consistent with the "possibly of Armenian origin", as written in the Origin section. Brandmeistertalk   09:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)