Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) |
Iadrian yu (talk | contribs) m →Szekely land (inclusion of it`s maps and mentioning it in the lead or as some form of present location): new subsection for better navigation |
||
Line 391: | Line 391: | ||
Analyzing the vote, we have a consensus(except Rokarudi) about this (no map inclusion, we mention in the lead the ethno-cultural region). This thread is considered closed. I hope we all respect the consensus. Greetings to everyone. [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
Analyzing the vote, we have a consensus(except Rokarudi) about this (no map inclusion, we mention in the lead the ethno-cultural region). This thread is considered closed. I hope we all respect the consensus. Greetings to everyone. [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
=== After vote status === |
|||
I do not remember that Iadrian yu was elected chairman here. If you want to close this thread then the mediation you initiated yourself will continue. The Székely Land map unless represent advocacy or similar can be inserted in any relevant article. The judet map is one side of the picture, the Székely Land map is the other side. What is Samaria for one person, is the West Bank for another, life is so complicated. Representing all relevant view, this is neutral POV, inclusion of only dominant ethnie POV of a certain country, is a one sided representation. I am ready to change the map, delete what you regard as borders etc, but I do not accept your view that such kind of map is against Wikipedia rules. I offered a compromise, and a fair one.[[User: Rokarudi|Rokarudi]]--Rokarudi 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
I do not remember that Iadrian yu was elected chairman here. If you want to close this thread then the mediation you initiated yourself will continue. The Székely Land map unless represent advocacy or similar can be inserted in any relevant article. The judet map is one side of the picture, the Székely Land map is the other side. What is Samaria for one person, is the West Bank for another, life is so complicated. Representing all relevant view, this is neutral POV, inclusion of only dominant ethnie POV of a certain country, is a one sided representation. I am ready to change the map, delete what you regard as borders etc, but I do not accept your view that such kind of map is against Wikipedia rules. I offered a compromise, and a fair one.[[User: Rokarudi|Rokarudi]]--Rokarudi 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
: Sorry, for stating the obvious (that the matter is closed). You are comparing Israel`s problems with Romania? In Romania we have clear borders and nothing controversial. And that is NPOV? You can change the map if you want, but it is against this consensus we have here, that you already want to brake, and against wiki policy. I guess we need the mediation then to continue, just for you, and maybe another edit war because of your [[WP:BATTLE| battlefield mentality]]. For you there can`t be a consensus until we reach what you want. I guess all we talked here is for nothing. PS: If this consensus is not respected and not reported I guess the whole problem we talked here doesn`t stand anymore.[[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
: Sorry, for stating the obvious (that the matter is closed). You are comparing Israel`s problems with Romania? In Romania we have clear borders and nothing controversial. And that is NPOV? You can change the map if you want, but it is against this consensus we have here, that you already want to brake, and against wiki policy. I guess we need the mediation then to continue, just for you, and maybe another edit war because of your [[WP:BATTLE| battlefield mentality]]. For you there can`t be a consensus until we reach what you want. I guess all we talked here is for nothing. PS: If this consensus is not respected and not reported I guess the whole problem we talked here doesn`t stand anymore.[[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Let's not throw up our hands just yet - we've come to a good consensus on this page on most of the important issues. I also think we all agree on maps (sorry to mention names but I have to - [[User:Rokarudi|Rokarudi]] obviously wants them, while [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] and I aren't opposed to them as long as they're the right kind (Adrian: "Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation." Adrian, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you). I think this discussion is about done since we've reached consensus, and we really don't need to drag the overworked mediators back into it since we've solved most of these problems ourselves. What is unquestionable, however, is that we've already reached consensus and should respect it until we reach a new one, whenever that might be. [[User:Hubacelgrand|Hubacelgrand]] ([[User talk:Hubacelgrand|talk]]) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
::Let's not throw up our hands just yet - we've come to a good consensus on this page on most of the important issues. I also think we all agree on maps (sorry to mention names but I have to - [[User:Rokarudi|Rokarudi]] obviously wants them, while [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] and I aren't opposed to them as long as they're the right kind (Adrian: "Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation." Adrian, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you). I think this discussion is about done since we've reached consensus, and we really don't need to drag the overworked mediators back into it since we've solved most of these problems ourselves. What is unquestionable, however, is that we've already reached consensus and should respect it until we reach a new one, whenever that might be. [[User:Hubacelgrand|Hubacelgrand]] ([[User talk:Hubacelgrand|talk]]) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::: I was ready to cancel the mediation since we have a consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Lunca_de_Jos]. The other |
:::: I was ready to cancel the mediation since we have a consensus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Lunca_de_Jos]. The other user wants to continue. [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 16:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: There are many ways to represent these villages on maps, official administrative maps. Maybe in the future(not right now) we could introduce these special maps, (Mures,Harghita and Covasna municipalities) and shade the area with the Szekely majority and say that this area is the cultural region, make a special article about that also that has no political connotation, only cultural representation, that is after all we are concerned here. As it can be seen there is a way for a compromise if our intentions are not others than to promote some inexistent separatist entity. This is not a matter of cultural representation anymore, this is about openly promoting the "Szekely land" as a "real" political entity. [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
::: There are many ways to represent these villages on maps, official administrative maps. Maybe in the future(not right now) we could introduce these special maps, (Mures,Harghita and Covasna municipalities) and shade the area with the Szekely majority and say that this area is the cultural region, make a special article about that also that has no political connotation, only cultural representation, that is after all we are concerned here. As it can be seen there is a way for a compromise if our intentions are not others than to promote some inexistent separatist entity. This is not a matter of cultural representation anymore, this is about openly promoting the "Szekely land" as a "real" political entity. [[User:Iadrian yu|Adrian]] ([[User talk:Iadrian yu|talk]]) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:41, 9 June 2010
Welcome to the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search this noticeboard & archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
"I was suggested by Wiki Admins to post this problem here, so I will just copy from the discussion:
" I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. Here are e.g. of articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcinj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica
Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it."
So can you please answer and help me here? So for 2 years it was ok, but suddenly the ISO is the problem, which by the way will be done in couple months. Can Admins please help us with this?"
Here are some of answers concerning the topic only:
":::ISO? That would be more or less meaningless. This sounds like but another edit war over an eastern European topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"
"I know, but Serbs use it a lot as the argument. Language is offical of the state, government files are written in Montenegrin, All the web sites in Montenegro put in Language selection Montenegrin as language of choose beside Eglish (if there is multiple choice), in school, books and all is written in Montenegrin... only here, there is "Serbian". None one says that those languages are much different but we must respect the most important set of rule in the country, and that is Constitution of Montenegro. It's not the Eastern Europe though :-). Rave92(talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)"
Sorry for copying but when we already started discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Language and just wanted to continue here the discussion.
Rave92(talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Gwen is right - this is "but another edit war over an eastern European topic" but we need to find a solution as there have been a large number of reverts on a large number of articles around this issue, leading to a fair number of blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The article "Montenegrin language" needs to be rewritten per WP:NPOV to include all current interpretations and classifications of Montenegrin (dialect, variety, language) with their respective pros and cons, something along the lines of the corresponding article at the German wikipedia. If then "Montenegrin" is linked, everyone can conclude for himself which scholars he trusts to best judge the subject. There is a similar issue with Slovincian, the status of which as a language on its own is disputed, though in case of Montenegrin the "language" status might be given more weight by scholars as is the case with Slovincian. As long as the scholary POVs are not properly worked out in the Montenegrin language article, admins will have no way to put an end to the edit war of which POV should be promoted more than others. In my view, "Montenegrin" should continue to serve as the default, with a note added that it is a Serbo-(Croatian) dialekt only if that would be backed by the prevalent scholary oppinion. Which needs to be figured out by some linguists in the article first to enable admins to judge whether a POV is given to much weight or to less so. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't dialect, as it is the same like Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. They are all accepted as languages even though they have the same root like Montenegrin (like you said, Serbo/Croatian). Rave92(talk) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watching this discussion, I do have a question about this issue. As I make footballers biographies, I tend to writte in the text the original way of name writting for nationalities that use different alphabet. Exemple: Serbian, Macedonian, Montenegrin or Bulgarian names are written in Cyrillic alphabet. For the Montenegrins case, I used to writte Serbian Cyrillic since the montenegrins use the Cyrillic alphabet that was originally inveneted by Vuk Karadžić and is worldwide regarded as Serbian Cyrillic. In many cases the word Serbian Cyrillic was replaced by Montenegrin Cyrillic or Montenegrin Language used as Montenegrin. I didn´t reverted those edits, what shall I do, since I have the autoreview right for some of the articles? FkpCascais (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Both are Montenegrin alphabet and in official use. My suggestion is to add like in case of Pedja Mijatovic, where it is written Montenegrin and written in both, Latin and Cyrillic script.
- The latin is not a problem since the title of the article (players name) is already writen in "Montenegrin" latin. Thanx. My question goes more about the existence, or not, of so called, "Montenegrin Cyrillic" ? FkpCascais (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well we never called it Serbian or Montenegrin Cyrillic, but Cyrillic only, like Latin :-). Rave92(talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is an excellent solution. People used to writte it that way, I supose, because there are differences between the Serbian, Greek, Russian or other Cyrillics, but for Montenegrin cases that is the best solution. Thanx again. FkpCascais (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Considering that I got tangled up in this, I figured that I should say something. I first saw the large scale edit war when one page on my watchlist was changed. The argument seems to be that there is no ISO code for Montenegrin, which makes no sense, how can you cite that something isn't there? On the other hand, the CIA factbook and other sources state that it is the official language (of a sovereign nation), which is pretty strong reasoning for allowing it. See my talkpage for longer discussions.--Terrillja talk 02:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have nothing to do with edit wars, but as an editor, and I did some amount of Montenegrin biographies, I am quite interested in the subject with the purpose of making them in right way to avoid any polemics or edit warring in the future. However, as a Serb of Montenegrin herence (my grandparents from my mom side are Montenegrin) I do feel confortable dicussing the mather. The issue with Serbian is very much similar to English in this way: it is a language wich is spoken by a number of different countries, beside the language home-countries (U.K. for English and Serbia for Serbian). The main difference is that in English case, all countries accepted the naming as "English" for the main language spoken in those countries (Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, etc.), while for Serbian, as historical events made the nationalistic tendency in the region, is begining to be named by the name of the region (country, republic, province, any geographical unit). The difference between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin is the same as the difference between English spoken in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. It´s the same language with slight regional variations and dialects. Speaking Serbian I can perfectly speak and understand any person from any of this countries. The problem is that the recent political independencies of those countries are being followed by the tendency of separating everything else, the language as well. But, honestly, those languages, sorry, not languages, but their names, are completely "fabricated". The political independence of those countries shouldn´t interfere with the language. The fact that the language spoken in Montenegro is called "Montenegrin" or "Serbian" doesn´t mean that they are more or less independent, but there seems to be some missunderstanding about that (same is happening with the church, and in other areas). People in Montenegro has allways spoken Serbian, and still speaks the same language, only that now they want to make it called "Montenegrin". So if I, as Serb, speak the language, it´s called Serbian, but if a Montenegrin speak it, it´s called Montenegrin! Ridiculous! The language is the same, and during the Socialist Yugoslavia, Tito finded the solution to calm the Croatian nationalists back then, and it was accepted by the rest (Bosnians and Montenegrins), wich was to call the language "Serbo-Croatian". Exemple: What if tomorow the rest of Serbian splits by municipalities, being all sudently independent? Shall we have Belgradenian, Novisadian, Subotian, Nislian... basically all the same. Or what if all latin-american countries that speak Spanish start demanding that their Spanish should be named after the name of the country? Venezuelan, Mexican, Costarican, Argentinian... Or in English case: Canadian, Australian? We know what a language is, and the different countries that speak the same language shouldn´t have the right to call the same language with different names, not at least officially. The English spoken in United States is English, whatever you call it, but for Serbian that is sudently allowed. Hmmmm... FkpCascais (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I know that they are all similar. I lived in the region this fall for 3 months. I know the differences between the federation and republica srpska in BiH and the strong regional feelings. I'm not just some random editor who stumbled across the article with no clue to the history and national ties. Having said that, if Canada declares that their national language is Canadian and ratifies a constitution which states it is the official language, then it's their official language, regardless. If Kosovo declares that they have their own language as a sovereign nation, I would support that. And there is a difference between a city and a recognized sovereign nation, so avoid what if arguments. We are talking about past precedence and current law. Either way, there is already precedence here as Croatian is recognized as its own language and is the same spoken language.--Terrillja talk 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I never said you have no clue, just the oposite. And my argument wasn´t directed to you, but to everyone participating here (don´t get personal, I wasn´t). The question here is not if the parliament declares it, or if you agree or not, the question is if it is internationally recognised. By the way, the language is not similar, but the same. FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are a few words here and there that are different. Not a lot different from regional variation though, if you learned northern US english and went to the deep south you would probably have similar differences and Zagreb Croatian is different from Dubrovnik Croatian.--Terrillja talk 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, I never said you have no clue, just the oposite. And my argument wasn´t directed to you, but to everyone participating here (don´t get personal, I wasn´t). The question here is not if the parliament declares it, or if you agree or not, the question is if it is internationally recognised. By the way, the language is not similar, but the same. FkpCascais (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, and that doesn´t give the right to name it another language. You gave a good exemple of Kosovo. They are not willing to engage in that sort of "fabrication", and they simply named Albanian and Serbian the official languages, without trying to rename any of them to "Kosovar" or some other name. Speaking of Croatia, I saw there too a recent movement among linguists to stop this further breaking of the same language, by advocating that there are only two languages in the area: Serbian and Croatian, being the others just dialects of any of this two. FkpCascais (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right or wrong, they did it, they made it official, the rest of the world seems to recognize that they did it, so it makes sense that wikipedia would as well. --Terrillja talk 07:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- It´s status is far from being as clear as you say. It lacks standardization board, and in the ISO codes, all that says is that is an alternative name to Serbian (and that does mather, it is the official languages body, way much important that some CIA factbook, mentioning him was quite funny). We really need somebody expert in linguistics to see if there has been some updates in the issue, because by the already known facts, in my view Montenegrin is quite far from being considered a language. Not even a finished debate within themselfs, in Montenegro. FkpCascais (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- But, if it does get recognised, I´ll receve it gladly, as would be able to say that I learned a new language overnight (quite a record!)! FkpCascais (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure where the humor is, The World Factbook aka the CIA Factbook is the go-to guide for the US government and is prepared for the government as a world resource with a classified and public version. It's a pretty serious resource, not just some slapped together PDF.--Terrillja talk 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I´m sorry, did I heard US Government? Why I´m missing the word "X World Organisation" here? What they got to do with the subject here? Are they some kind of linguistical authority? FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I provided a source, explained why I felt that it was valid and you decided to mock me. Very mature. I can see that any further discussion with you will be useless, anyone else who wishes to contact me about this issue, please do so on my talkpage as I will no longer be monitoring this page.--Terrillja talk 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I´m sorry, did I heard US Government? Why I´m missing the word "X World Organisation" here? What they got to do with the subject here? Are they some kind of linguistical authority? FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure where the humor is, The World Factbook aka the CIA Factbook is the go-to guide for the US government and is prepared for the government as a world resource with a classified and public version. It's a pretty serious resource, not just some slapped together PDF.--Terrillja talk 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not your personal issue, you really think so? Your point is clear, lets move on. We need some INTERNATIONAL organisation to decide those issues, and the CIA factbook can´t really provide that by just mentioning Montenegrin as language in Montenegro. Sorry, but far from enough. FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: @FkpCascais
Your arguments are no valid. First, you can't compare Balkan nations and language question with colonial nations like Canada, New Zeleand, Australia, they were all the colonies and the fact that they were settled by British (English) and language that is spoken is indeed English. Now you say like you Serbs colonized us and gave us the language, then it would be valid, but they didn't (I think it is more vice versa since there are over 2 million people which came from Montenegro to Serbia :-)). That language was always here, and you should know from where Vuk is, from where he got his standardization and for who was that language. We have rights to call it Montenegrin than others to call their nation name. Montenegrins spoke the language which was offical, and that was Serbo-Croatian, not Serbian. In census 1991 in Serbia most of people spoke Serbo-Croatian, not the Serbian, and not to mention it was offical untill 1997! Montenegrins and Bosnian agreed like they had some right to say NO. If you would know more about Montenegrin language, in 60's and 70' there were a chances to call it Montenegrin since in Croatia there were a movements to call it Croatian only. There are archives in Montenegrins State Archive for that. Also it was supossed to have Montenegrin in language name as I will quote Novosadski Agreement : "Narodni jezik Srba, Hrvata i Crnogoraca jedan je jezik". Also, none one from Montenegro signed the Vienna Literary Agreement. Now let's get to other stuff:
1) Montenegrin is stated as only offical language in the Constitution of Montenegro.
2) All web sites in Montenegro are written in Montenegrin.
3) Montenegrin has 2 extra letters than other languages even I don't think this should be more imprtoing then the first point I just wrote.
4) Montenegrin gots a standard and ISO code will be done soon, as you all know it is a big birocracy and that's why we have to wait this long.
5) All articles that mention Montenegro should have Montenegrin, like every article that mentions Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia haves their language.
Soultion:
1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.
Rave92(talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- As response to the Rave92 comment, I must say that I never stated that Serbs colonised, Montenegro, or that anyone forced somebody else to speak the language. Right the oposite, as the language (call it Serbo-Croatian or Serbian or Montenegrin, in this case) is common to both people. Serbs and Montenegrins had BOTH contributed to the SAME language, that is what I´m standing for. Montenegrin literature had enormous influence in it´s evolution, and, by my point of view, if you find "unpleasant" to speak a language today called "Serbian", should stand to rename the language to "Serbo-Montenegrin" or "Montenergin-Serbian". But anyway, I have nothing against Montenegrin, I´m just being the "lawyer" of Serbian point of view, since I understand it, and since nobody here is doing it. Personally, I do beleve in everything I´m saying, and I can´t really understand the point of naming the same language in many different names. As I am also a Spanish native speaker, I do compare the situation of Serbian (within Yugoslavia) to the Spanish , Castillian, in Spain. What we call Spanish is in fact Castillian language, and is common to many other Spanish regions beside Castille itself. The Castillian spoken in Andaluzia isn´t called "Andaluzian" just because they have a different dialect or some words. The case is very much the same.
- Anyway, in all this discussion, I still don´t have nobody giving any INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION recognising "Montenegrin". I´m just asking, is there any? And for the 3 different letters (you say 2, but in article I see 3, that would be an only "usable" argument among the points Rave92 made) I only see that they are PROPOSED, unless the article is not updated. And that move does sound as a way to make it different from Serbian, nothing else. About the Montenegrin Parliament recognising it, that doesn´t necessarily mean it must be that way. Even within Montenegro there is still a debate going on. About the number of websites, that just isn´t an argument. FkpCascais (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Are embassies for you international organizations?:
Crnogorski means Montenegrin
Poland:
http://www.podgorica.polemb.net/
USA:
http://podgorica.usembassy.gov/
Germany:
http://www.podgorica.diplo.de/Vertretung/podgorica/de/Startseite.html
CEFTA 2006:
http://www.cefta2006.com/en-index.php
etc...
It looks like US, Polish and other embassies didn't know that experts from Internet say that Montenegrin doesn't exist and that they should replace it with Serbian :-). You compared Montenegrins and Montenegro with colonial countries and nations, don't deny it. You said that Canadians, Americans etc.. speak English and not named their language after country, but they are colonized nation. Also you mention municipalities would get independent and proclaim their own language? This is even more offensive the the first comparing. I don't have anything against you defending Serbian but if you want to enter discussion you should know these things before even getting into discussion. 2 letters (not 3) are adopted, and Montenegrin language has the standard, here is the proclamation of standard:
http://www.gov.me/files/1248442673.pdf
So it has all, but I guess you should maybe search a bit before denying Montenegrin language on Wiki :(. You are right at one point, we have contributed to that language and that's why we have right to call it as we like, and no offense but don't tell us how to call language. We will call ti Montenegrin-Serbian when Serbs proclaim their language Serbian-Montenegrin :-). If it's the same, then I don't see why we would have Serbian instead Montenegrin, when Montenegrin is official.
So once again, I will repeat the solution:
1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.
Rave92(talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
And since you claim that Serbian and Montenegrin are the same, how come you have userboxe's:
Овом кориснику српски језик је матерњи. and Ovaj saradnik ne razumije ni riječi crnogorskog jezika'. Овај сарадник не разумије ни ријечи црногорског језика
To translate to someone who doesn't understand it says "Serbian language is this user mother tongue" and next one "This user doesn't understand a word of Montenegrin". Interesting...
Rave92(talk) 18:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Starting from the end, I do have that userbox as an irony, of course. You may not know, but if you digg into the history of the page, I did had a userbox that said "Montenegrin native speaker", but after finding this userbox in another Serbian user page, I did find it funny, and because I do beleve in the cause, decided to adopt it. It is somehow humourous, you must recognise it. Other reason was, as I already have many language userboxes, with Serbian, Spanish and Portuguese (as native) and English and some others, plus all ex-Yugoslav languages, it makes me a candidate for one of the most poliglote editors here (when I really speak only 4 languages).
- About ambassies, sorry, but Ambassies can´t be cosidered international since they represent the relation between only 2 countries... Come on, you know what I´m talking about, United Nations, (or FIFA if we were talking football). At least some European organisation...
- I´m not an Montenegrin oponent in any other issue. I made exclusivelly, and edited mostly, football related articles, trying by any means to avoid any political or other controversies. But, I did break my role by participating here. But, take in acount that I (as footy editor) did contributed gladly to Montenegrin football related articles as well by making some Montenegrin footballers biographies, ex-Montenegrin clubs foreign players, also creating some club categories (before my, there were only categorised Budućnost players, as if other clubs were "small" doesn´t deserving a category, and I breaked that) and expanding some Montenegrin club articles. I even insist in Serbian club articles to consider all Montenegrin footballers Montenegrin, and not some Serbian, just because they may have "double nationallity", making some edit wars with Serbian editors taking the Montenegrin side! Plese, have in mind that by any means I am not "blind" nationalist. I just find this particular subject interesting as, in my teenage past, I did worked as a translator, by that having a close contact with languages. Could you translate Montenegrin to Serbian? How many book pages should we treanslate to find even 1 word or expression different? I´m sure we could translate entire books without finding any single difference. Just paste/copy and change language name. That is my point. And applies to Bosnian too.
- We do need some other opinions here, preferably neutral ones, meaning, from people with no interess in the region,and with linguistical knolledges if possible. FkpCascais (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I found myself here, in the discussion about if Montenegrin Language is recognised or not, by the evidence (or lack of it) I came to a conclusion that the Montenegrin Language is NOT internationally regognised. Maybe (and only MAYBE) I could add a "yet" to the final of the sentence I just wrote. FkpCascais (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Well yeah, some add vice versa as joke too (to speak Montenegrin, and not Serbian), but still. Ok, Embassy is not considered international? Sorry, but if embassy respects that, I don't see why Wikipedia wouldn't. You can't have on some international web site (I guess you mean UN) as there are couple official languages and that's it, and I don't see why requesting that when all web sites in Montenegro, school, government, embassies etc... accept it as normal thing, but some members on Wiki don't. Well I can only say thanks for expand articles about Montenegrin football, but don't see why you would go against Montenegrin language, especially as it is not considering you, and even having user box of native speaker. Like I said, Serbian wouldn't be total deleted from Montenegrin articles in my "suggestion/solution". Rave92(talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with Embassies is that it represents the policy of one country. Exemple: Nazy Germany Embassies issued documents in witch the Jewish or Gypsy people were not considered humans! Does that, because an "Embassy" said it, make it throut? See? Embassies represent the Governament of one nation, and an encyclopedia must have in consideration way more than just one side view. Serbian Embassies certainly don´t recognise Montenegrin Language, and that also doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. When Montenegrin Language is going finally to be recognised (if...), it will certainly be a news that you and me (as relative followers of the actuality news) will know. Anyway, if something new comes up make it known to everybody. And I, as a compromise, will follow your proposition, and write only "Cyrillic" when in need. About the articles where Montenegrin Language or Montenegrin Cyrillic is written, I think it should be substituted until this issue is solved. (I also can´t understand what are you loosing in having "Serbian Language" written, but anyway...) FkpCascais (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Mate, you can't compare those things. Embassies don't need to have language of countries host, for e.g. French embassy doesn't have it on their web site (at least I didn't find it) so beside French, that's it. They all add Montenegrin because it's official language. Serbian embassies have nothing to do with it, as I am giving you the links of embassies IN Montenegro, I couldn't really care more what Serbia thinks about anything Montenegrin, especially this thing as we didn't get independent after 100 years to have someone else to think for us. This question is complex, emotional and you go in defend of deleting Montenegrin language, even though you don't have anything against it :-/. Montenegrin language recognized everyone, and that proof is embassies, as if USA doesn't recognize it, why would they write in Montenegrin on their web site? I am giving examples of embassies as they are representatives of country. About your question on what I am loosing, I am loosing my dignity, my language, and most of all, breaking the highest rank of law, and that's constitution of one country. Rave92(talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is hot, and needs to cool down!! I made this passive edit earlier today[1] as I realise there is a need to reflect two languages for Montenegro, even if they are currently identical. The Montenegrin language is in its infancy as regards coming to light and people noticing it. There is no Montenegrin Wikipedia yet and the preference is clearly for Ekavian which does disenfranchise westerners (western Balkan that is). Is it all right to use two forms for the time being?? Evlekis (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I made the suggestion of using language. I will copy/paste it again here:
1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.
Rave92(talk) 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- The trouble is, Rave92, that just about every settlement in MNE which qualifies as a town has a skeleton Serb population; I doubt there is one in which no citizen declares Serb. On the articles pertaining to Serbian towns and subjects, there is a generous attitude towards outsiders with entire paragraphs devoted to the naming of the subject in all relevant languages, even those which are loosely connected. I fully support a Montenegrin mention for every subject remotely connected with Montenegro and Montenegrin culture but it might be a little insensitive to reject Serbian from Montenegrin subjects at this early stage of development. I think it needs some more consideration. We need to remember that however we treat this issue, it will set a precedent for identical scenarios. Evlekis (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
So what? If the language is the same like everyone here says, then we can divided it that majority has their language. Majority cities of Montenegrins to have Montenegrin language, Serb majority to have Serbian Cyrillic (it's not the problem just to have that). All mentioning Montenegro or Montenegrins, to have Montenegrin like till now (until some recently changed that) and to have only Montenegrin. There is no point of having both languages, and official language is Montenegrin. I don't see what's the problem. It wasn't till now when someone changed it to Serbian (I say it wasn't problem as Admins in the end agreed with us). Rave92(talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Many thanx Evlekis for trying to help us solving this issue here. I´m not sure if you know exactly what my point has been here. I´m not trying to include "Serbian" in Montenegro pages, right the oposite. What I´m saying is that until now, I have been asking if there was a official recognition of Montenegrin as a official language, or is it still regarded as a dialect of Serbian. If it is recognised, I defend that Montenegrin language should be used, and I´ll see the changes in the language, and see if I qualify for having the Montenegrin language speaker userbox. I don´t defended the inclusion of Serbian in Montenegro related pages. That´s absurd! If the Montenegrin language is NOT officially recognised, than the use of Montenegrin should be replaced by Serbian, not using both. I even defend that both should never be used, since are quite the same, so there is no reason for having both.
- My points may sound radical but they are:
- If Montenegrin is recognised, finish this debate and start using Montenegrin INSTEAD of Serbian in Montenegro related pages.
- If Montenegrin isn´t recognised, stop using Montenegrin at all, and replace it by the last official standard of the language, that is Serbian.
- The point that I´m also trying to proove to Rave92 is that the documents that come from the National Asembly are "law" only in that country. Many National Assemblies may have many issues discussed and some documents are officialised, but this doesn´t mean all the world must accept it. There are usually some international organisations that must have a say on the issues (I´m just not sure in linguistics, althou Montenegrin lacks the IFO code). FkpCascais (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It lacks the code for the time being, that is all. The point you made about Montenegrin either being official or still a dialect of Serbian is complex. It can be both, either one, or neither. A good external example to investigate is Portuguese/Galician. Galician has official status and is recognised as a national language in Spain, but is linguistically closer to Portuguese than standard Spanish (I believe you know very well about this FkpCascais). It is often considered to be a dialect of Portuguese but Galicians can consider this an offence in quite the way that proponents of the Montenegrin language can also. If one is to be scientific and not political, then we address the issue as stating that the two forms are common dialects of a single language (not one owning the other). In any case, Montenegrin does not have to change anything about itself to be recognised as a separate language. You can have a realistic scenrario in which the register used in Montenegro is identical to Standard Serbian and still be allowed to call itself Montenegrin. I know it sounds absurd but that is the way of the world. Personally, I even think that Croatian is a form of the same language - no longing for Serbo-Croat but purely in the linguistic sense. If Montenegrin gains currency, then it will follow that elements of the language are gradually modified rather like American and British English. It does not have to be a radical shift from this pure Serbian to the local Centinje dialect. But if it helps you Cascais, yes I believe that Montenegrin is the official name for the national language, just like Bosnian in BiH. As Montenegrin will also outrank Serbian, it will need to be used everywhere; as Serbian is identical, it will only be used alongside Montenegrin by name: eg. Pljevlja (Montenegrin and Serbian Cyrillic: Пљевља. If the subject is different from its Latinic form name, then we remove mention of Cyrillic and give the two varieties. I say, use Montenegrin everywhere, and Serbian where applicable (as an addition in name only). Evlekis (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm...yes I know very well the Galician issue... Iberic issues in general, and they have many precedents to Balkans issues as well. But, there is a difference, it is officialy recognised language, and nobody oposes that. Here are some things that are wrong in what you said: I allways defended that both are dialects of same language, thus, of course, not considering one to be the "owner" of another one. Montenegrin language was regarded as Serbian Language dialect, I´m not making this up, neither nobody forced others to be this way, come on Evlekis, don´t change my words. And the fact that lacks the code "for time being" is somehow speculation, wich is not used here in WP. When receves the code, it will be fact, until then, is speculation that will "certainly" receve. I know that Montenegrin doesn´t need to change anything to be language, that was more often donne in recent past by politicians, and not linguists, because they didn´t know that, and they touth it does need to be changed :). But, where I mostly disagree is that if a group of people calles the language in another way, that doesn´t mean the language is what they call, and has to be adopted by an encyclopedia. People calling things in another way, is one thing, an encyclopedia adopting it, is another. It can, or not addopt it. Anyway, Evlekis and Rave92, all we are doing is talking, and I get into answering to you both, wich I didn´t wanted. I´m just asking if the language is or isn´t officially recognised. Give me some international organisation, at least European. Your arguments (Rave92:National Parliament and Ambassies ; Evlekis: "...people have the right to call it whatever they want...") is just not enough. If this is all you have (sorry :) , I can conclude that the language shouldn´t be used "encyclopedically". And I could only add an "still" (shouldn´t be used still) in my last sentence. FkpCascais (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It lacks the code for the time being, that is all. The point you made about Montenegrin either being official or still a dialect of Serbian is complex. It can be both, either one, or neither. A good external example to investigate is Portuguese/Galician. Galician has official status and is recognised as a national language in Spain, but is linguistically closer to Portuguese than standard Spanish (I believe you know very well about this FkpCascais). It is often considered to be a dialect of Portuguese but Galicians can consider this an offence in quite the way that proponents of the Montenegrin language can also. If one is to be scientific and not political, then we address the issue as stating that the two forms are common dialects of a single language (not one owning the other). In any case, Montenegrin does not have to change anything about itself to be recognised as a separate language. You can have a realistic scenrario in which the register used in Montenegro is identical to Standard Serbian and still be allowed to call itself Montenegrin. I know it sounds absurd but that is the way of the world. Personally, I even think that Croatian is a form of the same language - no longing for Serbo-Croat but purely in the linguistic sense. If Montenegrin gains currency, then it will follow that elements of the language are gradually modified rather like American and British English. It does not have to be a radical shift from this pure Serbian to the local Centinje dialect. But if it helps you Cascais, yes I believe that Montenegrin is the official name for the national language, just like Bosnian in BiH. As Montenegrin will also outrank Serbian, it will need to be used everywhere; as Serbian is identical, it will only be used alongside Montenegrin by name: eg. Pljevlja (Montenegrin and Serbian Cyrillic: Пљевља. If the subject is different from its Latinic form name, then we remove mention of Cyrillic and give the two varieties. I say, use Montenegrin everywhere, and Serbian where applicable (as an addition in name only). Evlekis (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
ISO code is irrelevant, it doesn't say if language exists or no, it's just bureaucracy. A lot of people will say you that, and already did. Standard of language exists and I gave you a link. How it can be considered as dialect of Serbian? Serbian doesn't have the dialect called Montenegrin, notice the "language" thing in the name. It's Montenegrin language, not dialect. Beside ISO, I am not sure from whom you asks recognition. None one can "recognize" your language, it isn't the country. Others just need to respect it (like embassy web sites). Anyway, it looks like a lot of people from Serbia "recognized" it:
http://www.bestjobs.rs/poslovi-prevodilac-sa-engleskog-na-crnogorski-jezik/51414/3
:-)
Rave92(talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Rave92, many thanx. I really could use some extra cash. Just don´t tell those people from "bestjobs" I have that Montenegrin Language userbox ("ne govori ni riječi Crnogorskoga jezika."). It would be better time spent doing that, than discussing this here. All we were talking here, we could have gathered and had a drink meanwhile discussing this, or something else...
- I am disapointed with all this. I think that has been a very honorable attitude that we (Evlekis, you, me,... not including the sensitive CIA Croat one) defended and stood to what we beleve. And discussed it all the way. Where I am very disapointed is that I touth that here, in this "Geoðnic&religious conflicts" wiki page, the debate goes on, and after all sides exposed their cases (like we did), someone from wikipedia intervenes and makes a "solution" having in mind the world rules and the precedent cases. Nothing of this happend, we lost time here, so we could have better have gone for a drink. Wanna go? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.:I agree you talk Montenegrin and I´ll respond you in Serbian. Can Evlekis join us? FkpCascais (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Drink goes after the solution :-). We just need to wait Admins to read all this and give their conclusion on this. After the decision is made, we will use it on Montenegrin related articles. So far, there is just one who is against adding Montenegrin language. Rave92(talk) 12:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It´s not really about numbers (I could pay a bunch of guys and say to them to participate here on my side...), or, there could be nobody here oposing, that also wouldn´t give you the right, just because of it. Beside, people doesn´t know this discussion is taking place here. And, as you said "it´s just bureaucracy", but that "bureaucracy" is many times exactly what is needed to be considered equal by others and officially accepted. The embassies using "Montenegrin" it could just have been the programer that put it that way (some Montenegrin PC maniak), or, more probable and less speculative, they use it so no unnecessary polemics would appear between that country and Montenegro (that´s called diplomacy). And I was talking about Serbian Embassy in Montenegro, and you said you don´t even wanna know (as if it was inferior to the others you mentioned...). And I was not refering only to cities breaking from Serbia (so you get offended, dahhh), you know very well there are more separatist groups in Serbia, some in Vojvodina or Sandzak regions, so it does have some logic mentioning it, so we stop further criation of possible Vojvodinian or Sandzaklinian, or something... You even said that Montenegrins are colonising Serbia. Colonization, currently, has more to do with power and capital, not populational flow. Spanish and English took control over land, quite different from going somewhere in search for more education, or better life. I even gave you a better exemple of Castillian inside Spain. And, it does affect me, as same as all other Serbs. My native language will get poorer, we will lose half milion speakers, and it´s cultural heritage will get divided. If you consider that culture is not part of a person, and a personal issue, well, I could in same way add that you are also not loosing anything, because the word "Serbian" doesn´t take you anything, just add.
- Wikipedia not allowing Montenegrin wikipedia, is also interesting. And we should know the reasons.
- Anyway, while waiting for the "arbitrary comision" I am applying all we agreed before, so don´t warry. FkpCascais (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Montenegrin PC maniac? Mate, it's official GOVERNMENTS web site of that country. What is added on web sites doesn't control MONTENEGRIN government, but the government/embassy of the country. There is no polemic, they just add official language, that is called recognizing and respect. They don't have to add Montenegrin, but they did, and did it with purpose. I don't wanna know as SERBIAN embassy doesn't have to do anything with this, gee.. they are not less importing but don't see what embassy and what it has to do with this discussion? Give me the web site of that embassy since you mention it so much. It looks like you are just posting here so you can just write, not like you have some arguments. Colonizing was the joke, as you compared Montenegro with colonized nations, and a lot of Montenegrins moved to Serbia in 19th century. That's not the topic now, the more offending is that you compare Montenegro with Sandzak and Vojvodina. This just proves you know nothing about Montenegro. Montenegro was independent country before (and not just once if we have in mind Duklja), and Montenegro didn't separate FROM Serbia, but separate from STATE UNION OF SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, and it renewed it's independency. Of course you don't know this, but you want to take in discussion if Montenegrin language should be on Wiki or not. This is just silly.
You loose cultural heritage if we remove Serbian, but we loose nothing if we keep Serbian. Interesting theory... /sarcasm
Montenegrin wiki was requested even when Montenegrin wasn't official, or just got official. It didn't have new standard and full use like it has today. Don't see how that be a point argument as Serbo-Croatian has a Wiki, considering that language isn't mention anywhere in the countries where it used to be official, and practically doesn't have ISO code either now. Rave92(talk) 11:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please, you just want to explore each other complexes. And don´t talk about what other people know or don´t about history. (Speculation). I never attacked you personally. Are you sure I don´t know Montenegrin history? Or you just want to hurt me? I told you, I´m a Serb with Montenegrin herence, so don´t give me some Montenegrin blind nationalistic pseudo-lessons. You say "Colonising was a joke", well I´m not joking, and I´m giving a very real exemple of Castillian (Spanish) within Spain. Or English or Spanish in other countries where its spoken (not colonisation, but linguistics "mate", linguistics...don´t get complexed with everything). And forget ambassies, they are not linguistics experts, nor international organisations... (even if it meant recognition, they are what? 5? 10? of more then 200 world countries!, but it doesnt clearly mean that). You say I don´t have arguments, but your arguments (and you insisted, when I was calling for a peace-deal while waiting) about numbers, like how many are oposing (just me...) or how many websites use it, are you serious? Those are arguments?
- I was just here asking if there was a "official" recognition of the Montenegrin language, and gave some arguments why I find that it shouldn´t. We have not reached a consensus and we shouldn´t continue in the direction this was taking. We don´t decide anything, so it´s better to wait. And you should be pleased that nobody is engaging in edit wars, because it´s after all your POV that is all around WP. Montenegrin here, Montenegrin there, and we don´t know if it is valid, yet. So please, stay calm and don´t attack me in the meantime. And, we don´t need historical questions to be brouth here, this issue is about a yes or no answer, simple. FkpCascais (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S.:Linguistically, you are separating from Serbia (Serbian Language) and not from some "Union language" or SCG language or something... You are the ones mixing up political with linguistical independence. Those are two separate things. FkpCascais (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not the complex, believe me, just the tired of reading none sense. You are not showing knowledge, so what if you are Serb from Montenegro? By default you know everything about Montenegro or what? I don't claime I know everything, but comparing language like this is just weird. I judge by your writing here, and I didn't doubt you are a Serb, especially after the phrase that you will loose cultural heritage, but we won't if we remove Montenegrin. Yes, colonizing was the joke (as Montenegrins didn't colonize Serbia) but when you compared MNE with colonized nations, I told you that Serbs didn't colonize MNE and leave their language, like British/French did. Language was always here and we keep the right to call it as we want. They are not linguistic experts, and you ask someone to recognize your language. Please tell me, who need to recognize it if you don't think embassies represent countries opinion on that question? CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is? You say 20 embassies? Well sorry to disappoint you, countries can't recognize your language, they can just respect it, and that's what I am talking about, if they tough Montenegrin is Serbian, they would put Serbian, right? It's not like Montenegro will declare war to USA ;-). Even Serbia doesn't oppose it, because none can't oppose it, so you need to be more specific on what recognition you mean. And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin.
P.S. We are not separating it from Serbian, there is no such thing as separating language from other, you are comparing countries with language, and that is politics. At least I never heard someone separated language from other and asks countries of UN to recognize it. I mean, how silly this sounds...
Anyway I notified Toddst1, so he will say what he thinks about this during the weekend, I guess we both presented our arguments. Rave92(talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- "...reading none sense...", "...You are not showing knowledge..." please, again, I didn´t attacked you ever. Who are you to tell me this? I asked you specificaly not to do so.
- Stop insisting in colonization, I gave you a perfectly valid exemple, Spanish within Spain, but you seem to be trying to escape each time with your "colonozation" talk.
- "...and you ask someone to recognize your language...", it´s not my fault that I don´t have to. (???)
- "...CIA Fact Book states official language is Montenegrin, I guess that is not international recognizing, then what is?...", you´re joking, right? It can maximaly mean that the USA recognise it, so what? Its only one country. CIA=International, you really think so?
- "...And we can find web site of any international organization which residence in Montenegro to have Montenegrin...", OK, so why you didn´t?
- "...how silly this sounds...", why don´t you let others decide, will you?
- You avoid answering directly to any of my points, you are not being serious, and you are taking this too personal and in an uncientific approach. I´m not discussing this with you no more. Please, lets wait in peace, can you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe to tell me WHICH organization? There is no such thing as international organization which will "recognize your language". Language doesn't equal country. Do you think Montenegro needs to recognize some language? No, because that's not of Montenegrin business. I didn't insist on colonization, I said I was joking (and you would probably understand if you were from Balkans), and you started mention Spain and some other things, not sure why, because there was never a colonization on Balkans (at least not between each others). When you tell me WHO NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE IT, I will tell you. I think Admins will see who here talks sense, because asking for some organization to recognize your language is funny. You can't recognize language. Who recognized Portuguese? UNESCO xD? Please...
P.S. Not a problem, it's you who started again when I said I notified Toddst that he will give his opinion about this. Rave92(talk) 11:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could we get some conclusion from the admins on this topic? It has been a while. Sideshow Bob 12:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, hopefully it would be done soon. Rave92(talk) 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Soon? This century? FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not up to me, believe me. Rave92(talk) 10:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe 3027? or 28? Oh! 3028 not, it´s the year of the Olympics... FkpCascais (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Caucasian Albania was an ancient state, the territory of which generally corresponded to the territory of the modern state of Azerbaijan. Recently there has been an attempt to remove the template "History of Azerbaijan" from this article. The reason given for that was that the ancient Albanians were not the same people as modern day Azerbaijanis. In my opinion, this is not a good reason for removal of the template, because the general practice in Wikipedia is to include such templates on the territorial, and not ethnic basis. For instance, we can see that the template of "History of France" is included in the article about Gaul, while Gauls were not French. In the article about Urartu we can see the "Armenian topics" template, while Urartians were not Armenian and spoke a completely different, non Indo-European language. Likewise, one can see "Iraqian topics" template in the articles about Sumer, Assyria and Akkad, even though those ancient nations did not speak Arabic, and "Peru topics" template in the article about Inca Empire. I can cite many more examples of similar usage of such templates, which shows that there's a general criterion for inclusion. The history of every country and territory includes all the states and nations that ever existed there, and thus, I see no justification for repeated removal of the template "History of Azerbaijan". Grandmaster 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsensical arguments! Armenia emreged just atfer fall of Urartu, barrowingg several of gods, culture, social construcshion etc. There is no gap as case with turkish Aberbaishan. Iraqian is a less restructiv term and equated with Mesopotamiah long before Arabs populated it; Arabs no equal Iraq. Azerbaijani or Azeri in modern vocapulari means Turgiz speaking peeple of what currently Azerbabijan and the Iranian province of Azarbaijan. Adding History of Azerbaijan in article about Caucasian Albania interpreted by historian as History of Iranian Azerbaijan prior to the Tzurko-Mongol invasion. Unless add a disabishguashion ecsplaining both diferent concept of Azerbaijan, it will remain misleeding. -- 00:56, 4 May 2010 User:Ionidasz
- Please sign your comments in future. How does borrowing of gods and social culture justify inclusion of a template? You can see that the general practice is to include templates on the territorial basis, not on the basis of the language, culture, etc. I cited many examples above. See for instance Gaul, which is not related to France by language, etc. Yet we can see History of France template there. Such templates serve to inform the reader about the history of the territory, not history of the people. If you look at the History of Azerbaijan article, it has a section about Albania. Grandmaster 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Theres continuiti between Urartu and Armenia. There is no two Armenia, neither Gaul... with two different definition Azerbaijan refers to ancient non-Turkic Azerbaijan and modern Turkic Azerbaijan, two different entity with same name and two different place. Real Azerbaijan South of Arax as Iranian Province. Also, I don't see History of Armenia on Urartu article. Ionidasz (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments in future. How does borrowing of gods and social culture justify inclusion of a template? You can see that the general practice is to include templates on the territorial basis, not on the basis of the language, culture, etc. I cited many examples above. See for instance Gaul, which is not related to France by language, etc. Yet we can see History of France template there. Such templates serve to inform the reader about the history of the territory, not history of the people. If you look at the History of Azerbaijan article, it has a section about Albania. Grandmaster 06:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly there were sometimes two Armenias -- at some periods, Roman Armenia vs. Parthian or Seleucid Armenia, and at other times the original Armenia vs. "lesser Armenia" in the Taurus. We have articles on Persarmenia and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Plus, I don't understand what continuity Ionidasz is talking about, and what it has to do with the history template. It is a fact that there's a country called Azerbaijan, and there's another fact that in ancient times a country called Caucasian Albania was located at the same place. So situation is no different from Gaul/France and other similar situations. Another example is Al-Andalus, Arabic state on the territory of Spain, not related to Spanish people by language. Yet you can find History of Spain template at the bottom of the article. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- There never were two culturally distinct Armenia. Ancient Azerbaijan was an Iranian civilization, currently Azerbaijan is a Turkic civilization and Azeri or Azerbaijan refers to a Turkic people. Both Azerbaijans are different, not only different location, they do not mean the same thing. That's the difference, when we say Armenia or France, we know what we're refering to. But the historical Azerbaijan was an Iranian province, which is still preserved currently as a province in Iran, but now is Turkic. Grandmaster main argument is to compare to other articles, two wrong don't make it right. Azerbaijan North of Arax was created in 1918, prior to that most of the time it was to refer to what we know of as Iranian Azerbaijan. For a historian, adding History of Azerbaijan in an article about Caucasian Albania, it means Iranian Azerbaijan which had a role in the history of Caucasian Albania (even then, not the other way around) not the modern entity. Again, we can't compare this to Armenia or Iraq, the Iraqian civilization in a historical point of view is the Mesopotamian civilization. Some Iraqian nationalists are pushing their position through it, but it should be renamed as History of Mesopotamia and/or a clarification on what Iraqian in a historical point of view means. To the reader, History of Azerbaijan, can mean many things, most of it wrong insinuations. Besides, I don't see History of Armenia in the article on Urartu, as implied by Grandmaster. When there is no time gap between both, the fall of one immediatly resulted with the creation of the other. If we're really going to use Grandmasters logic..., we should also add History of Azerbaijan in the article on Armenia on the same basis. A large part of Caucasian Albania was also part of Armenia, and Azerbaijan is significantly sitting on territories which were once Armenian provinces. -Ionidasz (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- What does Iranian Azerbaijan have to do with this? There's a modern country called Azerbaijan. I hope you do not deny this fact. There also was an ancient country called Albania and located at the same place. Obviously, the history of the territory includes all the states and nations that existed there. Grandmaster 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- There never were two culturally distinct Armenia. Ancient Azerbaijan was an Iranian civilization, currently Azerbaijan is a Turkic civilization and Azeri or Azerbaijan refers to a Turkic people. Both Azerbaijans are different, not only different location, they do not mean the same thing. That's the difference, when we say Armenia or France, we know what we're refering to. But the historical Azerbaijan was an Iranian province, which is still preserved currently as a province in Iran, but now is Turkic. Grandmaster main argument is to compare to other articles, two wrong don't make it right. Azerbaijan North of Arax was created in 1918, prior to that most of the time it was to refer to what we know of as Iranian Azerbaijan. For a historian, adding History of Azerbaijan in an article about Caucasian Albania, it means Iranian Azerbaijan which had a role in the history of Caucasian Albania (even then, not the other way around) not the modern entity. Again, we can't compare this to Armenia or Iraq, the Iraqian civilization in a historical point of view is the Mesopotamian civilization. Some Iraqian nationalists are pushing their position through it, but it should be renamed as History of Mesopotamia and/or a clarification on what Iraqian in a historical point of view means. To the reader, History of Azerbaijan, can mean many things, most of it wrong insinuations. Besides, I don't see History of Armenia in the article on Urartu, as implied by Grandmaster. When there is no time gap between both, the fall of one immediatly resulted with the creation of the other. If we're really going to use Grandmasters logic..., we should also add History of Azerbaijan in the article on Armenia on the same basis. A large part of Caucasian Albania was also part of Armenia, and Azerbaijan is significantly sitting on territories which were once Armenian provinces. -Ionidasz (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. Plus, I don't understand what continuity Ionidasz is talking about, and what it has to do with the history template. It is a fact that there's a country called Azerbaijan, and there's another fact that in ancient times a country called Caucasian Albania was located at the same place. So situation is no different from Gaul/France and other similar situations. Another example is Al-Andalus, Arabic state on the territory of Spain, not related to Spanish people by language. Yet you can find History of Spain template at the bottom of the article. Grandmaster 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Armenians certainly sometimes inhabited the lake Van area, but the ancient Urartian language written in cuneiform inscriptions seems to be closely related to Hurrian, and was certainly not linguistically Indo-European or Armenian... AnonMoos (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly there were sometimes two Armenias -- at some periods, Roman Armenia vs. Parthian or Seleucid Armenia, and at other times the original Armenia vs. "lesser Armenia" in the Taurus. We have articles on Persarmenia and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia... AnonMoos (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not sometimes, always. If we're to accept the scientific theory that Armenians migrated to Armenian Plateau ca. 1200 B.C., even then they settled in the area around Lake Van. They're presence continued there, from the ancient to medieval ages, right on 'till about 1915, when the Ottoman Turks decided to slaughter its Armenian population and push out the remaining survivors. In any case, there was continuity shared between Urartu and Armenia - the latter was the cultural heir of the former (Urartian forms of pottery and other forms of art were imitated and used by the Armenians), and there certainly was ethnic ties between the two peoples at the time Urartu was still extant. That partly explains the immediate manner in which Urartu was replaced by Armenia as the chief political and ethnic entity in the region after Urartu fell in the early sixth century B.C. It's ironic and somewhat amusing how Grandmaster is pushing the geographical side of this argument at this moment; why, just last year, he was having fun removing the History of Armenia template from the Urartu article, on the basis that the two had nothing in common, geographic, cultural, ethnic, or otherwise. But there clearly is a connection between the two, which is far more than what I can say about Caucasian Albania, which extinguished in about the seventh to eighth centuries, and the modern Republic of Azerbaijan.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I am simply giving basic examples. Of course it's much more than simple artwork similarities. If the only criterion is geography, and no one seems to have implied or stated that yet, then answer Ionidasz's question: why did you and other editors feel so compelled to repeatedly remove the History of Armenia template from the Urartu article?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- And according to whom that is? We're not talking about a historical relic, a building, we're talking about a state Caucasian Albania. Under the same logic, all the current countries in Europe should share each histories template under the basis that one covered the other. And you have yet to answer the last bit, that is that prior to Caucasian Albania, there was an Armenia there. Would you be adding a template History of Azerbaijan in the article about Armenia. Ionidasz (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
lol, could not resist answering to this. If so, then a History of Azerbaijan template should be added into Armenia..., since many of the provinces of Armenia are now in Azerbaijan. Why excluding Armenia then! And if what Marshal Bagramyan report about you having removed History of Armenian template from Urartu article is true, you sure lack consistency. Ionidasz (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- We are talking about templates in the articles about currently non-existent ancient states. I showed you the general practice here. I would like to see some logical arguments why it should not be the same in case with Caucasian Albania. Taking it to a personal level is not a good response, especially from a brand new user whose only contribution are postings at this board. Grandmaster 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
What personal level? And what new user? Please read my explaination here, second phrase. I hope you will stop bringing this off-topic attempt at fishing. On topic now, what general practice? You should be using arguments other than others do it to justify inclusion. The point here is that if what Marshal Bagramyan report is true, I don't see what we're arguing about. If it's true you removed History of Armenia from the Urartu page, then your view is even more restrictive than mine. So why it should be different for Caucasian Albania, please explain. Also, why should it be different for currently non-existent states? Please explain. Ionidasz (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have already explained many times. It is a general practice here. See Gaul/France, Al-Andalus/Spain, etc. Grandmaster 05:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Continuing this discussion assumes that I am respecting a user who continues fishing at the point of harassment. I don't have anything to add, expect no replies from me. Ionidasz (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- All I know is that File:Map of Colchis, Iberia, Albania, and the neighbouring countries ca 1770.jpg sure seems to show Albania in the Azerbaijan area. Anyway, some "history of X" articles seem to start in remote geological epochs... AnonMoos (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Caucasian Albania was located on the territory of Azerbaijan and the state is now non-existent. Leaving Caucasian Albania out is like chopping off a few centuries out of the history of Azerbaijan. The examples given above (Gaul, Al-Andalus) by Grandmaster are sufficient enough. History of Azerbaijan template should remain in the artile Tuscumbia (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
jewish slur by en.wt admin!!
http://en.wiktionary.org/?diff=8417293---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where to begin... First of all, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, and we have no authority there. You may want to bring this up on Meta. However, it happened over three months ago, and was reverted within two minutes. Finally, it was a joke. It contains various references to things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Borat. Offensive? Perhaps. But not maliciously so. To wrap up: It was a joke, maybe bad, but it was fixed three months ago and we couldn't do anything about it if we wanted to. --Golbez (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
etnikjoks=nono,esp.ADMIN'dnodis>ilpost@meta+futhe ofenses[2],ta---Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
98.204.183.125 (talk · contribs · logs)
On March 15th, I blocked this long-term problem IP (Block Log) for one month for racist editing, BLP-violations and disruption. Upon return, the IP has continued editing in the same articles and although most additions are referenced, I have concerns that they may be on sensitive BLPs and may be adding undue weight and/or pov problems because the IP appears to have a specific agenda when it comes to Arabism, Pan Arabism and Anti-Arabism.
His contributions to Anti-Arabism, Nidal Malik Hasan Andrew Warren and James Zogby (and, before my block, Patrick Syring) might need scrutiny. The reason I bring this here is I have little knowledge on the subject an might not pick up the undue weight and pov issues as well as someone more informed.
I'll provide some diffs below:
- James Zogby, 04:55, 15 March 2010 "anti-Semitic"
- Nidal Malik Hasan 02:39, 27 April 2010 "An American Iman" - Not in itself an issue AFAIK, but illustrates the IPs preoccupation with the nationality or ethnic/religious background of everyone. See [3] also.
- James Zogby 04:20, 13 May 2010 "targets" -> "identifies" changing ADL belief to presumed fact.
- James Zogby 04:24, 13 May 2010 "Zogby alleges that his office in Washington, D.C. was fire-bombed"
Most or all of the IP edits have been reverted, but I hoped for clarification and views. Regards, SGGH ping! 10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- notified User:George (who brought issue to my renewed attention) and the IP. SGGH ping! 10:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The editor continues to make the same racist edits, to the same articles, over an over again, and has been doing it for months when not blocked. More alarmingly, and why I think action needs to be taken now to stop this editor in their tracks, the IP address has been linked to someone who was sentenced to a year in jail for threatening the life of the very same people whose Wikipedia articles he has been editing. [4][5] ← George talk 08:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- User:Materialscientist blocked him for three months. Look out for socks from other IPs. SGGH ping! 13:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina has had a "preferred" version of the article placed multiple times by User:Nemanjic starting May 6. This editor has also tried to create alternate articles for the same town as Skender Vakuf City, and Skender-Vakuf. Engagement at Talk:Kneževo, Bosnia and Herzegovina hasn't panned out. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- Update - I guess this can be closed. The editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry and topic banned. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases
There seem to be a lot of reversions and bad faith edits going on, is it possible for some third parties to take a look? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Szekely land (inclusion of it`s maps and mentioning it in the lead or as some form of present location)
I started this thread with good faith for everybody to participate, centralize discussion and to try to reach a consensus. I would like to ask for every participant to refrain from personal attacks or any kind of comments that are not related to the subject we are discussing, that includes me too.
Parts of the discussion happened here:
I will also copy last comment made by User:DerGelbeMann (with his permission) on this subject as a point from which this discussion could start:
Szekely Land (Székelyföld) was for more than 500 years an autonomous territory of the K. of Hun. Like for instance Bukovina, it is a historical region, not a geographical region.
The lead of the Suceava article specifies the belongness to Bukovina (region created only in 1775), so why wouldn't we include the part about Sz. Land where it is the case?
We must take into consideration the current realities, not possible vadimist scenarios about a virtual en-masse Szekely emigration. Szekely Land is an ethnographical and historical region, it was and still is a special area of Transylvania.
Many persons who visit these pages are probably ethnic Hungarians, so I think it is OK to include also the reference about the historical Sz. Land.
On the other hand I am not against inserting, in History section, maps showing the localization of the settlements in medieval Szekely Land
P.S. This is only my personal POV, maybe it could be good to post a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania to consult other editors. In this moment the score is 2-2, so we need additional opinions. Another idea would be to take this to WP:ECCN (DerGelbeMann (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
All right - I'd like to ask everyone to take a deep breath and realize that, in the end, we probably agree on more of this than we disagree on. In that spirit, let's try to avoid making inflammatory statements accusing editors of irredentism and questioning the Székely's prospects for survival. It only makes people angry and it doesn't help. I am going to make a few points that may seem long-winded, but I am only trying to be absolutely clear.
First of all: the Székelyföld is a historical region; that much we agree on. There are, indeed, territories in present-day Romania (Harghita, most of Covasna, some of Mureş, a slice of Bacǎu, a tiny little bit of Alba) that benefited from a limited degree of autonomy under Hungarian rule. In that sense the Székelyföld is a historical region that once existed and that was set apart from other territories in Transylvania. We also seem to agree that it is a cultural region - that is to say that its historical experiences have imparted to it a certain degree of cultural difference from the areas that surround it. Now, where we seem to disagree is 1) calling it a "geographic region" and 2) mentioning it in the leads of articles. I contend that we should do both, and that this does not constitute any violation of wikipedia policies or any statement of irredentism.
The "geographic region" problem may be a result of people understanding this English term differently or incorrectly. (I do not mean to sound condescending, but I happen to be a native English speaker.) In English when we speak of a "geographic region" we do not generally mean anything political. The Székelyföld historically had borders (those of the historical region) and those borders delineated a certain geographic territory. That territory is, with a few minor exceptions, the extent of today's cultural region. The fact that it occupies a territory - not politically, of course, but the fact that the people who consider themselves Székelys are concentrated in a specific region with more-or-less clear borders - makes it a geographic region. The important thing to remember here is that calling it a geographic region does not make any political claim whatsoever, especially not for autonomy. Just as Transylvania, Crişana and the Banat can all be described as "geographic regions" without anyone raising the spectre of some revolt of irredentist Bihoreni - and despite the fact that according to many people's definitions, Crişana and the Banat are also parts of Transylvania - we can comfortably say that the Székelyföld is a present geographic region, without making any political statement at all. Whether it should be autonomous, whether its geographical extent should correspond with a political unit, is an entirely different debate. I would remind our Romanian colleagues, then, that referring to Székelyföld as a geographic region in no way reflects a lack of respect for the unity of Romania as a political entity.
The arguments against including the Székelyföld in the lead are difficult for me to understand, but they seem to hinge a very dubious point. Some editors seem to deny that the Székelyföld, despite being a historical entity, has any general relevance today, while tacitly accepting that to the Hungarian "minority" (in fact a sizeable majority in the Székelyföld), it is indeed important. This fallacious reasoning stems from a twofold mistake: first, that because ethnic Hungarians (including the Székely) are a minority in Romania, their opinions and views are somehow universally unimportant (clearly a biased position), and/or second, that because the Székelyföld is not currently an official political region, it somehow does not matter (clearly an oversimplified view of identity). The Székely are a majority in the geographic/cultural area called the Székelyföld; as someone who has lived there, I can vouch for its continued importance for the majority of its population. Even today, long after its political status has been revoked, the Székelyföld is a reality, a geographic area with a population that still has unique songs, dances, dialects, values, and ways of looking at the world. Saying it is important today is only saying that (to take an example) a Székely from Gheorgheni/Gyergyószentmiklós can feel that in certain ways, he has more in common with another Székely from Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy than he does with an ethnic-Hungarian from Cluj/Kolozsvár --- and that the songs, dances, embroidery, cuisine, etc. in Ditrǎu/Gyergyóditró have points of commonality with those from Csíkszentdomokos that they do not have with those from Salonta/Szalonta. These facts are still true today. They are conditioned by the historical autonomy of the Székelyföld, but the Székelyföld's current "unofficial" status does not change them. Furthermore, if you ask someone from, say, Ciumani/Csomafalva where they are from, they may say "I'm from Gyergyó," or "I'm from Hargita," or "I'm from the Székelyföld" - with just as much reason, and just as much innocence, as someone from Piatra Neamţ might say "I'm from Neamţ" or "I'm from Moldova." Its importance to people is unquestionable, and this importance does not translate into irredentism.
Now, the important thing to remember here is once again: just because the Székelyföld is a current reality (which it is to its inhabitants, who seem to be the most important people to ask about it) DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN that it should be a political entity too. The majority of Székelys are loyal, law-abiding citizens of Romania. Calling the Székelyföld a geographic region is a simple statement of fact in English - even if it is not (and, according to many people, should not be) a politically-recognized entity. Recognizing its continued importance to people's identity and self-identification is crucial if we are to give unbiased information about the world through wikipedia. I understand and sympathize with any Romanian editors who are afraid that mentioning the Székelyföld's current relevance might somehow compromise the integrity of the Romanian state. However, I assure them that this fear is unfounded. The Székelyföld is real, even now, to those who live there, and is an integral part of a unified Romania. Mentioning it as a current political region is an affront to the Romanian state. Failing to mention it as a current cultural and geographic region is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of Székely who consider it a non-political reality. Wikipedia's take on this must avoid both irredentist insults to Romania and, by ignoring their identity, insults to Romania's Székely citizens.
In sum: I propose we return the mention of the Székelyföld (or Székely Land) to the lead of articles dealing with Székely settlements, and that we mention it not just as a historical region, but as a "cultural region" (perhaps the best compromise) or a "geographic region." I am curious to hear any more objections to naming the Székelyföld in the lead of articles dealing with it, or to mentioning it not just as a historical, but as a current cultural and geographic region. Hubacelgrand (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- This appears to be a serious discussion so I will assume good faith regarding several statements (/provocations) made above (the paranoia part, preconceived ideas and automatic right-wing labeling of the "Romanian" editors involved in this discussion). I will try to be concise and address the issues in descending order of their importance without ignoring the fact that the most pressing concern was overlooked.
- map inclusion: Including the map of what today is only an ethno-cultural region of a certain ethnic (sub)group in a settlement article, where only currently valid territorial-administrative entities and historical maps of internationally recognized political entities are present. Analyzing hundreds of articles about settlements on Wikipedia I have failed thus far in finding another example of such an inclusion. For example (the most important city in the historical/geographical region was considered):
- no Bucovina map on the Suceava article;
- no Moldavia (the geographic and historical region) map on the Iasi article;
- no Oltenia map on the Craiova article;
- no Muntenia map on the Bucharest article;
- no Dobrogea map on the Constanta article;
- no Basarabia map (not even mentioned) on the Chisinau article;
- no Transylvania (historical region) map on the Cluj-Napoca article;
- no Banat map on the Timisoara article;
- no Crisana map on the Oradea article;
- no Maramures map on the Baia Mare article;
no Galicia map on the Lvov article and so on; further examples can be found at any settlement article were Rokarudi (who started all this controversy) has not been a contributor. To make it more clear: Rokarudi, by his inclusion of the Székelyföld autonomy initiative map (he also used another map, made by himself, which is a hybrid between the past self-governed entity and the current initiative for autonomy) on certain settlement articles has tried to create the illusion that such an area is a reality. I have called this act a blatant and shameless form of irredentism and I have tried to discuss the issue with him but only managed to get further accused and mislabeled.
- mentioning Székelyföld in the lead of articles. Székelyföld is a ethno-cultural area holding a great deal of significance for the Szekely sub(group). But it is just that, a ethno-cultural area in the historical region of Transylvania. The medieval self governed administrative entity was almost always lumped together with the rest of Transylvania. More precisely, an example:
- the inhabitants of the Banat region can be safely called Banatians (Romanian: Bănățeni) regardless of ethnic affiliation. However an inhabitant of the Székelyföld cultural area is always a Szekler because the cultural area itself is defined by the particularities of that ethnic sub(group). Self identification follows the same lines, Romanians in Bălan, for example, consider themselves Transylvanians(Romanian: Transilvăneni/Ardeleni) and not Székely, Székelyföld-ers or Székely-Land-ers.
Another example special tailored for the understanding of DerGelbeMann who previously misinterpreted the example made on his talk page:
- Suppose all the inhabitants of the same Banat region would be temporarily displaced to another planet. The Banat region would still persist regardless of the new ethnicities that might arrive in their place. The unique culture of the Székelyföld area, however, would vanish if the Székely were to be displaced because their very presence is the only factor in maintaining the existence of this ethno-cultural region. The geographical extent of the Székelyföld cultural area is limited only by the spread of the Székeler (sub)group and not by geophysical particularities.
In a nutshell, Székelyföld is only a ethno-cultural area nowadays. The simplest way it can be something more, is the one pursued by the UDMR political party - the creation of an autonomous region.
Taking into consideration all the above, the fact that Many persons who visit these pages are probably ethnic Hungarians (citation from DerGelbeMann's previous comment) and the history of Wikipedia, I find it really strange that no one bothered to make such an inclusion until Rokarudi. This is an Encyclopaedia, we should not discuss about loyalty, fear or other irrelevant topics. Amon Koth (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
In case I wasn't very clear, the Székelyföld area (past Székely seats) is exactly in the same category as the Universitas Saxonum the former seats of the Transylvanian Saxons. Amon Koth (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Many people would disagree with the idea that the Banat, magically divested of all its inhabitants, would persist as anything more than a memory; the Banat's particularities are shaped by the historical experience of its inhabitants, and in the absence of such inhabitants, of any ethnic group, the Banat, like any other region, would cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Furthermore, even if the Székelyföld is "only" an ethno-cultural region, that ethno-cultural region 'is a present reality' for its inhabitants. Calling the Székelyföld somehow "unreal" because it is not politically recognized only feeds the desires of certain irredentists who contend that the region will never be acknowledged under any other conditions. However, if if I'm understanding Amon Koth's points correctly, there might be room for a compromise here. For example: no maps of the Székelyföld in articles on individual settlements (the list of examples is convincing, at least to me), and mention of the Székelyföld (which we all admit is important to some people) in the lead only of majority-Hungarian settlements (Sândominic and Izvorul Mureşului, but not Bălan or Voşlăbeni), where it will be specified as an "ethno-cultural region" rather than anything more controversial (neither a "geographic region," which to some people might suggest political motivation, nor a "historical region," which to some other people might suggest it is no longer a reality.) Would anyone be averse to such a policy? Hubacelgrand (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I beg to differ (regarding the Banat example). Banat, as a historical and geographical region would still persist and there are already examples which prove my point, see Lombardia, Thrace or even Macedonia (the ancient Macedonians were neither Slavs nor Greeks - the latter considering them barbarians).
- Although I have some reservations because this would represent a precedent (mentioning cultural regions in the lead), I will support this compromise proposed by User:Hubacelgrand - to be clear - using Székelyföld in the lead as an ethno-cultural region. Because it is an cultural area of the Szekely people we should use its Hungarian name (Székelyföld).Adrian (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- The parallelism with the administrative unit of the Transylvanian Saxons (which I think it was named Königsboden / Királyföld (Szászföld) / Pământul crăiesc) is perfect. I support the formula "ethno-cultural region" too.
- The lead of Székely Land article itself defines it in this way: Székely Land refers to the territories inhabited mainly by the Székely, a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group (and not Székely Land is a geographical / historical region) (DerGelbeMann (talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC))
- We should use English in English Wikipedia as Iadrian yu always puts it when argues for the deletion of Hungarian alternate names. Székelyföld is in Hungarian and the place is called in English Székely Land or Szeklerland. As the article title is Székely Land, this is what should be used. (The Hungarian name is available through redirect). Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of the topic:Don`t want to argue about your previous actions but it was obvious that you were forcing Hungarian names, giving them special status...anyway, I thought that we could use the Hungarian name for it since it is an cultural area of the Szekely subgroup an it is important only for the Hungarian speaking population. If you want to use the official English name(or any other language version) i have nothing against it.Adrian (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It seems like we're getting somewhere here. (I have been using "Székelyföld" here because that is how I think of it, but it makes sense in the articles to call it "Székely Land.") I will edit the lead of the article for Sândominic/Csíkszentdomokos to try to make a kind of "template" for how we might do this - see how you like the new "model intro." Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- It should be present in the lead only of majority-Hungarian settlements (as Hubacelgrand specified).
- I would prefer using the term Székely Land rather than Székelyföld; those not speaking the Hungarian language have enough trouble pronouncing Székely, we shouldn't force the föld term too. :-)
- As Adrian already mentioned this is however a precedent because such an inclusion even in the present (i.e. ethno-cultural) form is not practiced. I support this regardless, for the sake of the spirit of Wikipedia. Amon Koth (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since there it appears to be a problem [6], can we all have a clear vote here about the issue please to confirm the consensus above, the subject was: 1) The inclusion of the "Szekely land" map in articles 2) The inclusion of the Szekely land in the lead.
The consensus was; 1) No map inclusions of the "Szekely land" and 2) We mention in the lead it lies in the ethno-cultural Székely Land region
- Support Support the consensus already discussed. Adrian (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Support the formulation discussed, tested and currently used (x lies in the Székely Land, an ethno-cultural region in eastern Transylvania). Would be amenable to reopening the map issue in the future if a different map (i.e. without reference to the autonomy movement) were provided. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support the consensus, I am not against including in the history section maps with the location in the historical Sz Land (without reference to the autonomy movement).
P.S. There is a problem at Târgu Mureş article, where it is written that the city is considered the informal capital of the historical province of Székely Land.. Isn't Miercurea Ciuc the capital? [7] (DerGelbeMann (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- Are there any sources for Targu Mures ? Any sources for Miercurea Ciuc ?Adrian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a work about tourism in Romania written by English authors that presents M.Ciuc as capital of Sz.Land [8](DerGelbeMann (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- I guess you can insert citation needed template at Targu Mures and if nobody comes with a reference in a couple of days you can delete it and write this at Miercurea Ciuc providing this reference. Adrian (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is kind of a tricky one, since not everyone (not even all the Hungarians) in Târgu Mureş/Vásárhely considers it part of the (current cultural) Székely Land anymore. In my experience there is no real unofficial capital of the region; it's just another excuse for Odorheiu Secuiesc/Udvarhely (the oldest and the big town with the biggest Hungarian majority), Miercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda (capital of the county with the biggest Hungarian majority) and Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy (the biggest town with a Hungarian majority) to snipe at each other as they've been doing for fifty years or more. Offices of organizations and NGOs tend to be in Sepsiszentgyörgy but Csíkszereda is catching up, and you can find touristic pamphlets from all of those places that claim them as the "capital" of the Székely Land. It's probably best not to put anything on this anywhere, since there's no clear consensus on it even within the region. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Hubacelgrand that this sentence must be thought over. On the one hand, historically, it is Targu Mures/Marosvásárhely that is the most important town of the Székely Land, but definitely not a capital as the Székely Land was never conceived as kind of independent or semi-independent county like 'Scot Land'. On the other hand, the Rumanization was strong here, and a lot more ethnic rights were granted / tolerated for the Hungarians in Harghita and Covasna counties than in Mures and especially in the county seat. While in Odeorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely everything was bilingual even in the darkest period of Ceausescu era, in Targu Mures/ Marosvásárhely the issue of Hungarian commercial signs is still a delicate issue. So, the Hungarian-styled life enjoyed a greater freedom in Harghita and Covasna counties. However, Targu Mures is real town while the other Székely towns are only "field towns" as we call them. The Hungarian political and cultural elite is comncentrated there, too. So, I would change the expression 'informal capital' to the 'most important town of the Székely Land' or similar.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Little correction , it is Romanization(from Roman, Romania) not "Rumanization", and compared to the previous Magyarization policy it pales in comparison. Second, please use official names, I saw that now they are even changed by alternative names. We are talking about Romania-related issue and please use official Romanian names. About the "Szekely land" capital, I will put cittation needed at Targu Mures, and if no reference provided, I will deleted in a couple of weeks. The capital can be only one. It is a cultural region, and just because you are a Hungarian we are focusing on this matter so much. Szekely land isn`t worth mentioning that much as any other cultural region on Wiki. Adrian (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Hubacelgrand that this sentence must be thought over. On the one hand, historically, it is Targu Mures/Marosvásárhely that is the most important town of the Székely Land, but definitely not a capital as the Székely Land was never conceived as kind of independent or semi-independent county like 'Scot Land'. On the other hand, the Rumanization was strong here, and a lot more ethnic rights were granted / tolerated for the Hungarians in Harghita and Covasna counties than in Mures and especially in the county seat. While in Odeorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely everything was bilingual even in the darkest period of Ceausescu era, in Targu Mures/ Marosvásárhely the issue of Hungarian commercial signs is still a delicate issue. So, the Hungarian-styled life enjoyed a greater freedom in Harghita and Covasna counties. However, Targu Mures is real town while the other Székely towns are only "field towns" as we call them. The Hungarian political and cultural elite is comncentrated there, too. So, I would change the expression 'informal capital' to the 'most important town of the Székely Land' or similar.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is kind of a tricky one, since not everyone (not even all the Hungarians) in Târgu Mureş/Vásárhely considers it part of the (current cultural) Székely Land anymore. In my experience there is no real unofficial capital of the region; it's just another excuse for Odorheiu Secuiesc/Udvarhely (the oldest and the big town with the biggest Hungarian majority), Miercurea-Ciuc/Csíkszereda (capital of the county with the biggest Hungarian majority) and Sfântu Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy (the biggest town with a Hungarian majority) to snipe at each other as they've been doing for fifty years or more. Offices of organizations and NGOs tend to be in Sepsiszentgyörgy but Csíkszereda is catching up, and you can find touristic pamphlets from all of those places that claim them as the "capital" of the Székely Land. It's probably best not to put anything on this anywhere, since there's no clear consensus on it even within the region. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I guess you can insert citation needed template at Targu Mures and if nobody comes with a reference in a couple of days you can delete it and write this at Miercurea Ciuc providing this reference. Adrian (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is a work about tourism in Romania written by English authors that presents M.Ciuc as capital of Sz.Land [8](DerGelbeMann (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
- Support the consensus as to lead. However, I also support including in the history section a map with the location in the historical Sz Land (without reference to the autonomy movement or advocacy of any kind) . Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment The inclusion of any sort of map of the Szekely land would be inappropriate, there are many examples already given and I could give some too where some location in not represented on a regional map, autonomous province map, or in this case on the cultural region map. It is usually presented on the municipality map, there is no need here to make a precedent also since the representation of the Szekely minority is solved (mentioned in the lead). Everything else would be inappropriate. If someone insists on map inclusion we can discuss it too, but taken into consideration that this consensus already generated one precedent, I don`t think that it would be good to generate another, without solid arguments from the user who wants to include it. Just a reminder, we din`t saw any argument for such an inclusion. If the cultural representation is needed after this consensus we can make an article about the cultural region and divert the Szekely land link to this article where it would contain special maps representing this cultural region. If someone really needs to see maps with "Szekely land" - they are a click away (click from the lead where this is mentioned). Including maps would be redundant and innapropriate folowing other examples on Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Counter-Comment I think a map is not in principle a bad idea simply because the way things are structured now, it's a bit difficult to get your bearings with regard to where exactly settlements are. In most of the Harghita articles, for example, the only map given is an outline map of Harghita with commune boundaries shaded, which is very nice if you know Harghita well already but which will not help you if you don't. (It won't show you, for example, where Sândominic is in relation to Miercurea-Ciuc or Gheorgheni.) I think every article should have, first of all, a map showing the settlement's location on a map of Romania (like most of the majority-Romanian articles have already) - after that, it might be nice to include a map with a bit more detail, zoomed in on the general region, without having (necessarily) any mention of the "Székely Land" in the map itself. In this case I think the lack of a clear precedent is less important than making the articles more useful. But this is probably a discussion for another time. For now, consensus is against the maps. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Of course, that is the standard "policy" , but we use the municipality map for a "close up" , or even 2 or more municipalities represented on a map so we can see one settlement in comparison with the other. That is the practice on Wikipedia. With a map showing any settlement on a municipality map I have nothing against and I would support such an inclusion.Adrian (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation. Anyway maps with "Szekely map" are just a click away from the lead. Adrian (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I made only 3 such maps (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok. Lunca de Jos/Gyimesközéplok, Dariju/Székelyderzs. The maps we use for Romania settlements probably are not best on Wikipedia, I would be happy to improve them. My personal opinion is that if a map contains information on a settlement other than its location in a county with which no one is familiar (current administrative borders, past administrative borders, rivers, mountains, main neighboring city or even ethnicity, if relevant), can do no harm. The File:Szekely Land issues.svg (if we strip it from the political emphasis) could be used to create a nice map. It was, by the way, created by a Romanian editor, who did a very good job.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don`t get me wrong, maps of the Szekely land MUST exist because this needs to be represented in some way, but this map, created by a Romanian or any other editor has no relevance since this user included this map in appropriate context, on the article about Szekely land. If in the future we discuss this issue there maybe some room for compromise, like representing this cultural area on a map of these three municipalities in some color where the Szekely people represent the majority, not borders. But again, this would be a second precendent on this matter so I don`t know if that is all right. After all we should respect the representation of the regions/cultural area in standard form and not making this a special case just because it is a Romania-related subject. Adrian (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Moderate Support . I condone the consensus - as per my previous comment (on this page); moderate because it established a precedent as such an inclusion (of cultural areas) is extremely rare on Wikipedia, if at all. The map inclusion was already discussed. Amon Koth (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
* Comment Why do not we agree like this: (1) Out the 3 maps I created (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok, Lunca de Jos/Gyimesközéplok, Dariju/Székelyderzs) we keep 2 (Lunca de Sus/Gyimesfelsőlok and Dariju/Székelyderzs) but not as a precedent or consensus supported item but just to exhibit it in the article as a sample for further discussion. On the other hand, we stop creating new maps unil consensus is reached in the future and (3) those interested may continue the map discussion on the Székely Land discussion page or elsewhere on possible regional maps. I think that nicer or more informative maps than the existing ones can be created, but working with maps is difficult anyway, and we surely need assistance from experts in this area even if we agree on the principals.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The maps you created represent borders of the inexistent political entity and cannot be used on Wikipedia on various villages. There is no need for further discussion or "exhibit". There are no maps with geographical nor cultural regions anywhere on Wikipedia and not a single argument why should we even consider such an inclusion. We should follow other examples and one precedent about this matter is a fair compromise for everybody. Map representation of this cultural region is not relevant, except for the people who are trying to promote something else, that have no place on Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- As it can be easily seen , at these places you mention, we have the location on Romania map and on county(judet) map, but we "need" the inexistent "Szekely land" map also? It has no sense nor arguments for such an inclusion. Respect the consensus and your vote here, no map inclusion. I believe we all agreed here because it is a compromise, a "win-win" situation, what you are doing now is "pushing it". It is funny that you still pursue this matter without any arguments to back it up. This compromise established this and you are already talking about breaking it. Matter closed. Adrian (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Analyzing the vote, we have a consensus(except Rokarudi) about this (no map inclusion, we mention in the lead the ethno-cultural region). This thread is considered closed. I hope we all respect the consensus. Greetings to everyone. Adrian (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
After vote status
I do not remember that Iadrian yu was elected chairman here. If you want to close this thread then the mediation you initiated yourself will continue. The Székely Land map unless represent advocacy or similar can be inserted in any relevant article. The judet map is one side of the picture, the Székely Land map is the other side. What is Samaria for one person, is the West Bank for another, life is so complicated. Representing all relevant view, this is neutral POV, inclusion of only dominant ethnie POV of a certain country, is a one sided representation. I am ready to change the map, delete what you regard as borders etc, but I do not accept your view that such kind of map is against Wikipedia rules. I offered a compromise, and a fair one.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, for stating the obvious (that the matter is closed). You are comparing Israel`s problems with Romania? In Romania we have clear borders and nothing controversial. And that is NPOV? You can change the map if you want, but it is against this consensus we have here, that you already want to brake, and against wiki policy. I guess we need the mediation then to continue, just for you, and maybe another edit war because of your battlefield mentality. For you there can`t be a consensus until we reach what you want. I guess all we talked here is for nothing. PS: If this consensus is not respected and not reported I guess the whole problem we talked here doesn`t stand anymore.Adrian (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not throw up our hands just yet - we've come to a good consensus on this page on most of the important issues. I also think we all agree on maps (sorry to mention names but I have to - Rokarudi obviously wants them, while Adrian and I aren't opposed to them as long as they're the right kind (Adrian: "Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation." Adrian, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you). I think this discussion is about done since we've reached consensus, and we really don't need to drag the overworked mediators back into it since we've solved most of these problems ourselves. What is unquestionable, however, is that we've already reached consensus and should respect it until we reach a new one, whenever that might be. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- There are many ways to represent these villages on maps, official administrative maps. Maybe in the future(not right now) we could introduce these special maps, (Mures,Harghita and Covasna municipalities) and shade the area with the Szekely majority and say that this area is the cultural region, make a special article about that also that has no political connotation, only cultural representation, that is after all we are concerned here. As it can be seen there is a way for a compromise if our intentions are not others than to promote some inexistent separatist entity. This is not a matter of cultural representation anymore, this is about openly promoting the "Szekely land" as a "real" political entity. Adrian (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not throw up our hands just yet - we've come to a good consensus on this page on most of the important issues. I also think we all agree on maps (sorry to mention names but I have to - Rokarudi obviously wants them, while Adrian and I aren't opposed to them as long as they're the right kind (Adrian: "Or even making a map representing municipalities Harghita, Covasna and Mures and represent any place there. As it can be seen, there are many possibilities to represent maps that don`t have any separatist connotation." Adrian, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you). I think this discussion is about done since we've reached consensus, and we really don't need to drag the overworked mediators back into it since we've solved most of these problems ourselves. What is unquestionable, however, is that we've already reached consensus and should respect it until we reach a new one, whenever that might be. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)