Talk:Nicholas (komes)

message: , are you sure about the recent article title change? The present version has the name of the person anglicized while his title is not. It kind of makes it all really confusing. Why not Count Nicholas? Or if we want to stick to the local version of the title, why not the Bulgarian one - also the one used consistently on wiki up until today. The name change seems appropriate, especially given the outcome of the discussion on how to name Samuel of Bulgaria, however, the present title is confusing and does not seem to hold ground when looking at how present-day sources name the person. Count Nicholas seems to be the most preferred option, with some adding "(komes)" as a further explanation. Stephenson for one uses this formula.--Laveol T 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laveol! I agonized a bit over the title, to be honest, and despite the WP:BOLD move I am quite open to suggestions. I admit I dislike "Count" because readers will probably assume that he was a count of the sort encountered in Western Europe, whereas this is a simple local gubernatorial title, copied by Bulgaria from the Byzantines. And per WP:NCP titles or positions should not be part of the article title, unless they are part of the clear WP:COMMONNAME, e.g. Empress Matilda. There is AFAIK no conclusive evidence on usage however; although a number of prominent English-language writers (Curta, Fine, Treadgold, Jenkins, Whittow) use "Count Nicholas", it is not predominant usage, at least from what I have seen. I've seen the transliterated Bulgarian form "Nikola" used alongside the Byzantine form "komes" by a Bulgarian author (Antoljak in Samuel and His State), for instance, and any other possible variation (the great Obolensky for instance eschews the title altogether). Stephenson's usage, which you point to above, would probably "support" the current name, i.e. a person named Nicholas, who held the office of komes. As I said, I have no strong preference, and would even accept "Count Nicholas" on the strength of the authors cited above, but somehow I feel it is too weak a basis. Unless you have a better overview of the literature, then the best thing would be to ask for a WP:RM to establish consensus among interested editors. Constantine   ✍  14:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure I have any preference either. The previous title, the current one and the one I mentioned above all sound a bit confusing to the reader. In such cases, I would automatically go for the most English-sounding one, while also providing the necessary explanation as to what the actual terms were. --Laveol T 13:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pinging some users involved either in this or in medieval Bulgarian articles in general: Avidius, TodorBozhinov, Laszlo Panaflex, Gligan. If we can have a consensus opinion, I have no objection to moving it. Constantine   ✍  13:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: User:TzCher, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The opinion that komes Nicholas, his wife and their sons may have been of Armenian origin is widely supported in historical scholarship. There are completely credible, modern academic sources that support it. Such an opinion cannot simply be removed because someone does not like it, or supports different historical view. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, YOU are the person who is pushing an agenda by misquoting sources and misrepresenting simply historical hypotheticals as facts. There is absolutely no consensus on count Nicholas' origins and using his sons' origins as evidence for his origin is extremely biased. You still haven't given even an ounce of evidence, let alone a source that supports your view. In addition, your bullying on people's personal pages to refrain from making "bad" edits is absurd, when YOU have messaged me personally MULTIPLE times with requests to "help you argue your point of view against other editors", which I can prove with my e-mail history. Instead of supporting unreliable hypothesis and threatening normal users with bullying tactics, provide reliable sources AND DO NOT MISQUOTE THEM. TzCher (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not very clear to me how I change the article, since it was the stable version. Moreover, the thesis about the Armenian origin of the surname was not added by me, but by other editors. Still, it's strange since there are so many sources cited in the article that support it, why should it be removed. Other theories about the origin of the family can be further developed instead. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The "stable version" here means "the version nobody challenged". Well, I actually went through the cited sources and nowhere does any source establish with any kind of certainty that Nicholas was of Armenian origins. However, the article itself displayed that as factual information and doesn't even consider any other theory. It's a duty of every Wikipedia editor to remove unsourced POV information represented as sourced non-POV information before any other kind of edit is even thought of, because the former is a direct lie while the latter could be an improvement, but would require a far, far more evidence-based approach. If you go by the sources one by one, there are no "so many sources" that support the claim in this article. TzCher (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What you write is not correct. That's not the way to have a discussion. The text you removed was that they were probably of Armenian origin, not that they were of Armenian origin. And that was a correct statement. Jingiby (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian origin