Line 506: | Line 506: | ||
What personal level? And what new user? Please read my explaination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJpgordon&action=historysubmit&diff=360055772&oldid=360010729 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. [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk:Ionidasz|talk]]) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
What personal level? And what new user? Please read my explaination [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJpgordon&action=historysubmit&diff=360055772&oldid=360010729 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. [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 05:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
:I have already explained many times. It is a general practice here. See Gaul/France, Al-Andalus/Spain, etc. [[User:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#464646">'''''Grand'''''</span>]][[User talk:Grandmaster|<span style="font-family:Arial;color:#808080">'''''master'''''</span>]] 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. [[User:Ionidasz|Ionidasz]] ([[User talk: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... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 07:56, 4 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... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Tuscumbia|<font color="#0000FF"><strong>Tuscumbia</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Tuscumbia|<font color="#DC143C">''talk''</font>]]) 13:11, 5 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 [[User:Tuscumbia|<font color="#0000FF"><strong>Tuscumbia</strong></font>]] ([[User talk:Tuscumbia|<font color="#DC143C">''talk''</font>]]) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:07, 5 May 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)
User:Kostja is going around adding the following [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] to the caption of an ethnographic map from the 19th century, on the grounds that it is sourced. Yet upon reading his source, it is quite evident that it doesn't say what he claims, namely that the cartographer A. Synvet. is "pro-Greek". He is clearly misquoting the source. I have already brought this up with the user, but got (predictably) nowhere. Thus, it would be nice to get input from some uninvolved editors to gauge where community consensus lies. Athenean (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't claim that you brought it up with me, but got nowhere. I haven't even have time to respond yet.
- To Athenean's objections, I'll reply the same way I've replied at Talk:History of Kosovo. Synvet was closely connected to the Constantinople (Greek) patriarchate [18]. He has also been claimed to have "adopted a novel method of belittling the Slavic claim" and is claimed to have been a Greek schoolmaster though I understand this may be wrong [19]. I would say that this is quite convincing evidence.
- Still, if it's objectionable that the quote is not correct, then perhaps a compromise could be suggested where the caption is changed to "a pro-Greek map". Kostja (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- You did it just some minutes before when Athenean reported it. First you added a misleading caption about A.Synvet being pro-Greek while the source says nothing about him, then you brought an utterly unreliable reference saying the ridiculous that A.Synvet was a Greek schoolmaster. As I told you he was not, he was a Frenchman, and the Ottoman Imperial Lyceum of Galataserai was not a Greek, but a Turk high ranking college, which had always Turk-national and prominent nationalist governors, known in being well connected with the entire Young-Turk movement. Also the opinion that everything that "belittling the Slavic claims" in Balkans is pro-Greek, is also ridiculous. A map "favourable to the Greek cause" is not pro-Greek. Is favourable to the Greek cause. Please stop playing with the words and misusing refs. That's unacceptable. --Factuarius (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The utterly unreliable source is the same one from which you took the statement that the Vidal Lablache atlas was pro-Bulgarian. SO if you think the source is unreliable then you would agree to removing that statement?
- It's you who are playing with words. Of course a map favorable to the Greek cause can be called pro-Greek. You need to read Wikipedia:LAWYER. Kostja (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good place to discuss similar cases of captions in other ethnic maps. Another case which has raised significant arguments and edit warring is the insertion of "pro-Bulgarian" in the caption of this map [20], for example at First Balkan war#Background and Demographic History of Macedonia#Independent_point_of_view. This is based on a citation which says: "For example ... Vidal Ladlache atlas all contained pro-Bulgarian ... maps" [21]. I need to add that this this statement has been inserted by Athenean [22] and other users who have opposed my caption about Synvet ont the grounds that it was misquoted despite the fact that this is also blatant case of misquoting. Also, unlike in Synvet's case we don't have the context about the Atlas and we don't know the circumstances or inclinations of it's author. An Atlas can also contain maps with different viewpoints and there is no actual evidence that this is the map being referred to. This seems to be an obvious case of double standards so it would be a good idea if a general decision was reached on the topic of such map captions so that conflicts like this could be avoided. Kostja (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1)The reference about "Vidal Ladlache atlas" is not mine. 2)A reference saying "Other maps (not other geographers) amongst other ..(three geographers)... were "favourable to the Greek cause" is perfectly clear. Maps favourable to the Greeks doesn't make the persons themselves pro-Greek, and cannot use it to input a text that characterize the persons like "..by the pro-Greek A. Synvet". That's the issue here. And as you may know actually they were not, at least definitely the one of those three.
- 3)As for the double standards If I remember well you removed the ref about Vidal Ladlache atlas from every single article having that map because it said that the maps were pro-Bulgarian. --Factuarius (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- 1)It's not yours but you have reinserted it multiple time: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] and so on. 2)The source says "contained ... pro-Bulgarian maps. An Atlas can contain different viewpoints, also any evidence that this is the map being referred to? 3)I removed it because it was quoted incorrectly.
- From your statement above it seems that "Maps and politics: a review of the ethnographic cartography of Macedonia" is an unreliable source because it wrongly mentions Synvet as being Greek. Therefore, this source is also unreliable on the question of the Vidal Lablache atlas.
- Kostja (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that all such labels as 'pro-Greek', 'pro-Bulgarian', 'pro-Serbian', 'pro-Albanian', 'pro-Macedonian' etc. ought to be removed and their further use discouraged (at least in the case of maps) by means of some WP regulation. They put a patronizing, disproportionally heavy connotation (generally negative), and what is more important, even if properly sourced such labels are after all the opinion of someone else who may well in turn be 'pro-something' and 'anti-another'. I propose to discuss this and consider the introduction of some WP recommendations to that effect.Apcbg (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Off course I reinserted it. It's unacceptable to add a reference about a map, in particular that of Stanford's, in being pro-Greek and then to edit warring in the same article for not allowing another reference about Vidal Ladlache's maps for being pro-Bulgarian. And after finally succeeding to remove the pro-Bulgarian ref about Ladlache atlas with pure edit warring tactics, now you come again and by clearly misquoting a source, you are trying to push another characterization for another mapmaker, this time A.Synvet, in the same article while you continue denying to permit such a ref for the V.L. maps. What you really want Kostja? This is a ridiculous situation and nobody can accept it. Can't you understand that? Anyway I agree with Apcbg. It is a matter of time to find a ref characterizing pro-something every single ethnological map of the era. Not to mention what will happen when we will find for the first time two conflicting characterizations for the same map or mapmaker. One in being "pro-something" and another "neutral", which is also a matter of time. Whenever we have different points of view to present in an article about the ethnological situation two-three different maps presenting the respective points of view are by themselves enough. This fashion feeling with pro-something refs the captions Kostja already introduced in some 10 articles is leading to nowhere than continuing conflicts.--Factuarius (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- My position is we should not just remove those political characterisations from the captions, we should instead, in many of these cases, remove the maps themselves. It has unfortunately been a long-standing favourite game of various national POV-agenda editors (among them several whose names I see in this thread) to play around with these historical ethnographic maps, always misusing them as implied arguments to bolster up some POV position maximising the historical role of an editor's favoured ethnic group and marginalising the role of some other. What we need to recognise is that all historical (i.e. late 19th - early 20th cent.) maps of disputed Balkan areas (like Macedonia, Epirus, etc.) were heavily politicised, and convey the biases of their various authors. Every such map is a primary, not a secondary source, and needs to be used with great caution. They should be included in articles either in such a manner that their political background can be explicitly discussed based on good sources, or they shouldn't be included at all. In practice, this means reducing their use to some very few, centralised places (e.g. the article on Demographic history of Macedonia), where a full, detailed discussion of the politics of demographic cartography can be done not just in a short caption but in the article text itself, and where the article will explicitly discuss as many maps as possible in comparison with each other. The POV games about pushing individual maps in and out of articles elsewhere based on editors' political preferences needs to stop.
- The edit-warriors should also recognise that the whole attempt at pushing (or defeating) this or that POV through the use or non-use of maps will in most cases be utterly futile: outside readers will never read and understand the fine detail of the maps anyway. Certainly not to the extent that they would "get" the intended (or feared) messages of ethnicities "laying claim" to this or that bit of territory. Readers don't know Balkan geography, and won't learn it from these maps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Cannot understand a word of what Fut says, except that of his usual opinion that the best solution for a head on pain is to cut it. I said: Every time we have an historical situation based upon conflicting points of view between the belligerents, let say between Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbians (like the Second Balkan War) the best solution is to allow three maps presenting the respective points. This will allow the reader to fully understand the points of friction and the reasons behind that. What Fut says: "They are all POV and must remove them all or nearly all". In such situations the best solution for a NPOV presentation of the events is to clearly and in summary present the point of view of every part. Or what else? Is there any more clearer and more summarized way to do it except by a map? Showing fully graphically every part's point of view. What to understand of the Balkan events without ethnological maps? That all the nations were just conquers of the only true and original people, that of Macedonians, unfortunately nowhere in the maps under consideration (as almost in any other of the era). Well is not my fault, and certainly also not a reason for removing every Balkan ethnological map of that era from WP. --Factuarius (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Very bad idea. What you are saying amounts to accepting that we should in fact be using historical maps to bolster up the POV of our national editorial factions. That, in itself, is the mistake. As soon as you are fixated on the idea: "this map presents my POV, therefore I want it in", you are the problem. The solution then is not to give each faction its quota on how much it gets to push its POV through abuse of maps; the solution is for everybody to stop abusing maps. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- And now you understand nothing of what I said. In your aggressive way of thinking you believe that what I am doing is to defend a "POV", "my quota" from an article. Well you are wrong. In the past two months I asked by personal mails two times, two different admins, to cancel sanctions against fellow Bulgarian co-editors having disputes with me in various articles. Let me know if you want their names. I am not what you think I am. From my part what concerning me is your inclination to "give" the truth to the reader rather than to "let him decide" giving him info. Whatever you say, two or three ethnological maps are the most clear and summarized way to present a conflict of interests based upon ethnic issues. The issue in abusing maps has already a wise solution User:Abcbg gave. --Factuarius (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems most rational people agree that all so called ethnographic maps of the Balkans prepared in the eve of the Russo-Turkish and Balkan Wars by foreign authors (foreign meaning people not representing the Ottoman Government under which these territories situated, and the only able and capable body of conducting any type of meaningful census and population classification) are a simple pretext to illustrate a more favourable ethnic disposition and thus justification for grabbing Ottoman lands in favour of one or other neighbouring Balkan fraction. Having this in mind I find Kostja’s behaviour of going about in dozens of articles and marking certain maps only as pro-Greek and leaving those that are pro-Bulgarian untouched as just a pro-Bulgarian POV pushing. This kind of behaviour achieves nothing and leads only to edit-wars. I find it strange that after being recently banned from Wikipedia Kostja does not seem to have any intention of changing his editing behaviour. Quite funny that e.g., Synvet and Stanford are pro-Greek, but e.g., the maps of Thrace by the linguist Lyubomir Miletich are not POV…the man claims to have single-handedly counted the whole population of Thrace even doe during 1912 Bulgaria had no control over the area and in fact for the next 2 years the territory in question was a stage for a savage war. Since Synvet and Stanford contradict Miletich for the ethnic composition of Thrace and the legend of Bulgarian ethnic domination of the area Kostja in an orderly Bulgarian fashion for historical correction has marked them as pro-Greek lol...keep up the good work Hittit (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hittit, are you participating in this dispute to discuss policy or to share your opinion about me? None of the things you said have anything to do with POV. To declare a map pro-something a source is needed. You may not believe but I searched quite long to see whether Lejan, for example, was described pro-Bulgarian. You and anyone else are welcome to add this information map that is properly sourced. However, instead you remove sourced information with the spurious argument that I haven't added information about all maps, which is really ridiculous. If everyone behaved like you, no differing viewpoints could be listed on Wikipedia, because someone would always remove it with the argument that not all viewpoints are listed.
- I don't see what Miletich's map has to do with this. Of course it's pro-Bulgarian, that's implied by the fact that it was made by a Bulgarian. However, it has little to do with the Issue, as it's not even included in most of the maps under discussion. By the way, ethnic insults like "Bulgarian fashion" are unacceptable on Wikipedia, so stop adding them.
- And I find it almost funny that your nationalist POV is declared the position of rational people. Kostja (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- About ethic maps, I agree with Factuarius (yes, surprising :)). Ethnic maps certainly have a place in those articles (though there shouldn't be as many as there are now). They must, however, be placed in their proper context and in the correct balance. This brings us back to our discussion. About Synvet, I see now that the evidence about him being pro-Greek is inconclusive, so I don't insist on it any longer. I do insist on adding "pro-Greek map" to the caption as the evidence there is conclusive. About the Vidal Lablache Atlas, according to Factuarius, it's based on an unreliable source, so the "pro-Bulgarian" caption must be removed. Kostja (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately for you, it seems you are the only one who insists on politcial qualifications to the map legends. As far as I can see, everyone else on this discussion agrees they need to go. Going around adding "This map is pro-X" from article to article is tendentious editing. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- A small detail for Kostja: But you had removed the Vidal Lablache reference in being pro-Bulgarian long before I said a word about the reference's claim for Synvet. Why you did it? And why after that you came back using that very source in your effort to prove that Synvet was a pro-Greek mapmaker? Adding to Hittite's opinion, I found your general behaviour in the issue by definition uncharacteristic and that is what is all about here. Anyway, I co-sign every word of Hittit and I agree with the Athenean's proposition, (I have already explained the reasons why I agree with Apcbg). --Factuarius (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- @Athenean: You might not understand it but constantly accusing other editors of various offenses is certainly not the spirit for productive discussion. Of course I see that map captions might be accused of not being objective but in this case we must observe strict balance in proportion. You might have forgotten it but the first caption I added (to Stanford's map) was because you and other Greek editors insisted on it remaining in multiple articles despite that everyone could agree that it was an outlier. As a compromise it was agreed that the map would be presented in its proper context, ie with a caption. Now you want to remove all captions, so I hope you'll be more flexible on the question of which maps should remain in articles. You have demonstrated quite tendentious behavior (another reason why your accusations are misplaced here) in the past, for example insisting that Lejean's map be removed with the same arguments - that it was wrong - which you dismissed in the case of Stanford. If this issue is to be solved in a constructive manner, we should all try to be a little less hypocritical.
- I agree that there are too many maps. I propose that for a start we remove all maps, except those in articles about demographics and about ethnic groups where the objectivity at those map can be discussed at length. But the practice of adding and removing maps for tendentious reasons needs to stop.
- @Factuarius: You have mixed up the chronology. I was always against the caption because I believed it was misquoted, not because I thought the source unreliable. This is why I used the same source on Synvet. Since I understood that this source is unreliable, I have stopped defending, but I insist that if it's unreliable on the question of Synvet, it's also unreliable for the Atlas - we can't have a source that is reliable for on article, but unreliable for another.
- And what exactly do you mean by agreeing with every word by Hittit? You have added such captions yourself, so you are hardly in a position to criticize. Kostja (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- A small detail for Kostja: But you had removed the Vidal Lablache reference in being pro-Bulgarian long before I said a word about the reference's claim for Synvet. Why you did it? And why after that you came back using that very source in your effort to prove that Synvet was a pro-Greek mapmaker? Adding to Hittite's opinion, I found your general behaviour in the issue by definition uncharacteristic and that is what is all about here. Anyway, I co-sign every word of Hittit and I agree with the Athenean's proposition, (I have already explained the reasons why I agree with Apcbg). --Factuarius (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that removing the maps themselves would be too radical, depriving the articles from a valuable and informative encyclopaedic resource. What ought to be decided carefully however is the balance, keeping the proportion between existing old maps and ones presented in the articles here, reflecting the obvious fact that some maps are percieved as more favourable to one or another ethnic group (which does not mean such maps are necessarily incorrect or biased). Apcbg (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- That is a very sensible proposal. Removing all the maps from every article except Demographic History of Macedonia is a bit radical, but the current situation is also a bit excessive. There are articles where such maps are not really needed. In any case, our readers are smart enough to realize that these maps are 100+ years old primary sources, and not to take them at face value. As long as the date of the map is included in the caption and the maps properly discussed in the article text using secondary sources, there shouldn't be a problem. Trying to cram political qualifications into every single caption is OTT. The captions should contain nothing more than "Ethnographic map of the Balkans by the X cartographer Y, date." Which cause the map is favorable to should be discussed in the main text, using secondary sources. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I have noticed that too, presently some of the articles have too many maps, which are more likely to confuse rather than make it easier for the reader. This situation is probably the result of editors adding more maps in order to improve the balance — if that balance, the suitable number and choice of maps is discussed and agreed in advance, then the problem could hopefully be managed better. Apcbg (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.
The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hungarian names for Romanian localities
Hello
I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used in the lead sections of the articles about localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population
From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".
My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)
I just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule
Sorry if it wasn't a good idea to open this thread here (Umumu (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
I unfortunately do not have time to address this issue, but Jammu & Kashmir issue was the subject of a complaint e-mail sent to the vandalism OTRS address. I moved the article back to the userspace and asked the creator to read up on Wikipedia policies, especially in regards to citing sources and neutrality. The creator moved the article back to the main namespace, and told me they had no idea what could be wrong with the article. (the article with sentences like 9/11 provided a god sent opportunity for India to taint and defile uprising in Kashmir as terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.) Anyway, as I said, I don't have time to help out this editor, and the article reads now like a soapbox/rant at times. So I'm hoping someone here can step in and have the time and patience to explain things to the creator. Thanks! -Andrew c [talk] 03:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Conflict at article Joseph Smith, Jr.
Background
Joseph Smith, Jr was the founder of Mormonism (or, more precisely, the Latter Day Saint movement). He was a very controversial figure in the 1830s and 1840s, whom his followers revere as a prophet and ideal citizen, while dissenters and opponents often view him as a fraud seeking power.
Conflict
User:Routerone, on several recent occasions, has attempted to provide balance to the article, which he considers to have a negative spin. He has stated that "There is an absolute plethora of information that discusses Smith in a very positive light that is missing from the article".
As can be seen on the talk page, Routerone's attempted balancing edits have been reverted time and again. Routerone loudly protests on the talk page and resulting discussion often leads to overall lack of WP:AGF.
Most notably, in my opinion, User:Duke53 seems to have made little contribution to the article aside from providing inflammatory comments and occasional reverts that only provoke Routerone to protest. In Routerone's exaggerated though seemingly not-too-distant-from-the-truth words, "Duke53 himself's only purpose here on wikipedia is to supress mormons by the nature of his edits and he is openly making fun of them on his userpage..."
Summary
Routerone, despite Personal attacks, at least attempts to amend the article with content; Duke only seems to show signs of disruptive editing. Admins, please review the situation and help Routerone, Duke, and the rest of us to play nice. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Responses
This is actually a multifaceted problem. Certainly routerone's recent personal attack is a problem ([28]). Duke53 seems to only be around to cause trouble- but Canadiandy, who edits as IPs and a username, isn't much better- at least duke53 makes valid contributions to Wikipedia; Canadiandy only posts on a few talk pages and has made few or no actual contributions, meaning both of the users are in the WP:SPA camp as far as I can tell. tedder (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't what your beef with me is Tedder. The conflict presented to you didn't even mention me, so why the ill will?
First, I'm not sure about the problem with me editing as "IPs." I don't know if I'm the only one who finds this confusing. I am assuming you are referring to my need to create a user name and be logged in? I believe I have been doing that since learning of it with a much greater frequency of late, though I admit I had a time when I was doubly confused after being accused of double signing in (I believe the concern was I was both logged in and '4-tildeing').
- To the accusation that I make few or no actual contributions, that is, I feel, completely unfair. In the beginning I was trying to 'learn the ropes' and let the senior members edit while I simply offered insight for improvement. I don't think there's more than 3% of my postings that do not make recommendations for improvement. That I am of the opinion that the article is slanted, and that my opinions are critical of that slant do not mean I have no recommendations for improvement. In fact, on the several suggestions I have made (rewording the term 'movement', capitalizing the word 'prophet' to reflect title, adding references to 'dynastic' nature of temple marriages, exploring validity of Brodie as a reliable source, and recently editing the term 'materialist' based on redundancy) most are usually met with a wall of text against what seem to be very fair proposals. Perhaps this is the context that has Routerone so frustrated.
- And now I am accused of being worse than Duke53?
- In my defense, I have picked up an awful lot of procedural knowledge in the short few months I've been here. I have apologized readily if I have been insensitive or out of line. I have been busy and offered original insight into systemic challenges and how they might be overcome in an effort to bring real fairness to the article. To the accusation I am an SPA, I am an incredibly new contributor. In that short time I have posted here extensively, but I have also branched into the "Mark Hoffman" article, "Senator Paul Tsongas" "Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," and I even posted on the "Martin Luther" board against what I feel are unfair accusations of his Nazi influence. Tedder, you have the right to your opinion, but is this how new contributors are usually treated?
- You will notice I actually spoke up in opposition to Routerone's statements concerning COgden, though I fully understand his frustration. I believe I have been fair and cautious. I have been focused on improving the article primarily, though I do admit posting occasional responses to offenses I have felt based on the criticisms hoisted against a man I revere as a great religious leader of my faith. But then considering it was you who said, "...most mormons are leery of negative things," that should only be expected of me right? And this was done by me not as an attack but on the assumption others might not understand the impact it has on many orthodox (leery)'Mormons.'
- Your post here is, I feel, uncalled for, unwarranted, and unfair. But if you are going to continue to moderate this section, and this is going to continue to be my experience here I have better things to do. I understand hearing these kind of accusations on the discussion page. But when it comes from a senior member it is beyond frustrating. So I surrender. You and Duke53 win.
- Sorry Routerone, looks like you're the last leaf on the tree, and there's a stiff wind blowing.
Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
- I will admit I was wrong for endorsing personal attacks on various editors (this excludes those directed towards Duke53 however), but I will be sincere in this and question do they really deserve my good faith? COGDen and John Foxe are not "bad faith" editors in this aspect, but in regards to the Joseph Smith article and other LDS related topics they are being incredibly stubborn. One thing they do is preside heavily over these pages, they have an aggressive tendancy to revert anyone who attempts to make a sustained significant change to the content and the structure of the article. This has been going on before I even joined wikipedia. You cannot make a single addition, removal or adjustment to anything in that page without their objection, this is a severe problem considering that the pages in question have en masse of problems. This includes excessive synthesis (self made conclusions from cited sources added as fact), incredibly negative prose, deliberate exclusions and minimization of more positive information on the subect (Yes you try and add it and they revert that too). I just simply cannot see their editing tactics as apropriate or helping, especially when I just want to sort out the page (not vandalize it).
- As stated, they have a tactic of reverting my cited additions, but if I was to revert theirs on the basis that I disagree in the same style as they do against me, there would be an outcry. Since december, nobody has actually been able to touch the body of the article apart from those two. The only changes people have actually been able to make (and this is with pushing debate) is to the lead paragraph.
- As for Duke53, I really don't wish to give this editor an ounce of respect or good faith to be honest. He's an editor who doesn't contribute to the article (makes intentional fun of my faith on his userpage), or even have a real involvement in the subject. He simply just pops up to disrupt, doing this by reverting legitimate edits for scandalous reasons (eg; falsely accused me of vandalism last month) and generally trolls LDS editors because he has a clear prejudice against the faith, and that is the only reason behind his behaviour. The other two editors are here for a cause that they see as being "constructive", though the inability to admit their faults in the articles or let other editors actually edit them is their downfall. It has to stop, I want to be able to edit these pages freely and fix them. Routerone (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- "... fasely accused me of vandalism last month Guess what ? I'm accusing you of vandalism again for your 'edits' here. You do NOT have the right to delete items from my user page, because they are 'offensive' to you. You don't like it: tough ! A simple solution that you might never think of is to stay off my user page ... nobody asked you to visit it in the first place. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, offensive material can be deleted from userpages according to WP:UP#POLEMIC. It was bad form for for Routerone to do it without involving admins, though. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- "... fasely accused me of vandalism last month Guess what ? I'm accusing you of vandalism again for your 'edits' here. You do NOT have the right to delete items from my user page, because they are 'offensive' to you. You don't like it: tough ! A simple solution that you might never think of is to stay off my user page ... nobody asked you to visit it in the first place. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- As for Duke53, I really don't wish to give this editor an ounce of respect or good faith to be honest. He's an editor who doesn't contribute to the article (makes intentional fun of my faith on his userpage), or even have a real involvement in the subject. He simply just pops up to disrupt, doing this by reverting legitimate edits for scandalous reasons (eg; falsely accused me of vandalism last month) and generally trolls LDS editors because he has a clear prejudice against the faith, and that is the only reason behind his behaviour. The other two editors are here for a cause that they see as being "constructive", though the inability to admit their faults in the articles or let other editors actually edit them is their downfall. It has to stop, I want to be able to edit these pages freely and fix them. Routerone (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, not items that an individual (or small group) finds 'personally offensive' because they consider it 'sacred'; you might want to check out check out the Mohammed article. Duke53 | Talk 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Bad form ? Even more than that, it is against the rules. I am tickled that 'you' took this Wiki-wide ... now there may be admins who are not so 'user friendly' to Routerone taking an interest in his posting habits and his complete disregard for rules he doesn't 'like'. But, what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- p.s. Another little detail that might come in handy to neutral admins: since you self-identify on your user page that you are a byu alum, it might be safe to assume that you are / were a mormon; a detail like that might be handy in understanding your position in this dispute. But, what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me Duke53 but stop trying to hide the truth of what actually happened. It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing. But rather you reverted my legitimate edits I made to thethe actual article and in an act of bad faith branded them "vandalism" [29][30]. That is what you do, you don't turn up, you don't actually get involved, you simply just turn up and revert LDS editors for inapropriate reasons and then accuse them of being "moaning tbm's" when they complain against you. For me that is disruptive editing and trolling. Routerone (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! For a long time I thought that you were merely playing at being dumb ... you do realize that all your contributions here are visible through histories, right ?
- To refresh your memory, here are the diffs for your 'edits' to my user page on 03/22/10:
- deletion @ 14:52
- me reverting you @ 14:56
- me warning you at 15:01
- Here are the diffs when you deleted items on my user page again (but then apparently thought better of it) on 03/28/10:
- your deletion @ 17:22
- you reverting @ 17:34
- Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 20:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- p.s. Just for the nuts of it here is your response to the warning that I gave you on 03/22/10 (within a minute of me placing the warning on your talk page):
I really doubt you get the jist of things here Duke53, you're even showing up your crude and annoying nature on this very page. So what you're basically saying here is, you can revert any edit I made because I don't agree with the content on your userpage? Because technically this has nothing to do with the dispute, and aside from inapropriately reverting me neither do you really. I am offended by the content on your userpage and I won't make no mistake about it, when removing those pictures I follow WP:BOLD. Ok maybe I shouldn't, but I wont take any warnings from you because to be fair I can't take you seriously as an editor because of the way you troll me about, and why should I? Those things you have highlighted above in all respect, do not justify your attitude here on wikipedia, nor contribute to this discussion. Rather you've brought them on yourself. Routerone (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Make all the excuses you want to, rationalize things in any way you wish, but the bottom line is that I have have exposed you here as a liar ... nothing can change that. Anybody interested will always be able to see that little fact on this encyclopedia. Thank You. :) Almost too easy. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
You really have him there Duke53. Impressive. Now for the coup de grâce! That's a French term meaning you should say "stamp stamp no erasies" and then you win for all time!
You know what, Duke53? Of all the attacks here against me, the most hurtful one was when I was compared to you. Seriously. I had hoped that all along my opinions had been taken as informed and educated. In fact, after thinking it over, I figured if I was that lousy a contributor I should pack it in. So I guess, in a roundabout way, you can take credit for my leaving. I know you'll probably take that as a compliment. (-: Smiles.
Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
- When Routerone said that Duke unfairly accused him of being a vandal, he made it clear that he was talking about these edits (Mar 5) and their edit summaries. Had Duke not drawn his attention, Routerone probably wouldn't have visited his userpage and subsequently "vandalised" it (Mar 22). (Routerone removed what he saw as "offensive" on Duke's userpage.) ...comments? ~BFizz 06:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Since Routerone says (right here on this page) "It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing" [sic] your newest 'theory' about misinterpreting doesn't hold water. (see diffs I provided) Nice to see you trying more of that 'same old, same old'. But what do you think ? Duke53 | Talk 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't a theory; it was a summary of what should have been blindingly obvious. See Routerone's explanation below. I don't really see what 'same old, same old' you accuse me of. Perhaps it's assuming good faith of Routerone? In that case, guilty as charged. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- You have "proven me a liar" how exactly? I have been very honest about this, I edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor, nor can I respect you and actually think you have a point in anything you are saying. You actually read my last point wrong also, I never said you didn't accuse me of vandalizing your userpage because you did, but I was rather making the point that you falsely accused me of vandalizing the prophets page when my edits were indeed legitimate and meaningful. So please do not tar me with your sloppy "vandalism" and "liar" brush. As for a matter of fact all those diffs show is that I clearly have a problem with your userpage, and generally I can't see how actually being bold towards something I disagree with is vandalism, for to dare is to do and quite frankly I'm not scared of you. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't dream of doing that to any other editor (need I question why?). But rather I find you a WP:TROLL , and apart endorsing in inapropriate reversions in something you're not even working on for the sheer pleasement of your own backwards little prejudice, you really have no involvement at all and are proving to be a distraction. I class your edits towards me as a form of harassment, so please have a good long think before moaning about anything you feel I've done to you, not saying its all fully justified, but I can safely say its all been a matter of your own consequences. Routerone (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
From WP:AGF: "Although bad conduct may be apparently due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives (which mention would tend to exacerbate resentments all around)." This ridiculous Duke v Routerone debate is the a great example of what this statement says you shouldn't do and why. Aren't any administrators going to step in and help at all? Only Tedder has a good excuse since he has been involved already. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Following reading another statement on the talkpage of Joseph Smith Jr. I am prepared to now simply ignore Duke53 to avoid any further hassle. However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation. Now by no means whatsoever does this justify any incivility by myself or personal attacks (and I now encourage action against me if this happens), but I simply don't want to see him get away from it and restrict my freedom of editing. Because as mentioned his talkpage comments can be ignored (if inapropriate), but inapropriate reversions would require a form sanction. However stating again, he has successfully driven this topic off course from what it actually started off as. Quite frankly, he has little involvement (apart from a couple of bad faith reversions) in the problems I see with this page. Routerone (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- •"You have "proven me a liar" how exactly? I have been very honest about this, I edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor, nor can I respect you and actually think you have a point in anything you are saying. You actually read my last point wrong also, I never said you didn't accuse me of vandalizing your userpage because you did, but I was rather making the point that you falsely accused me of vandalizing the prophets page when my edits were indeed legitimate and meaningful. So please do not tar me with your sloppy "vandalism" and "liar" brush. As for a matter of fact all those diffs show is that I clearly have a problem with your userpage, and generally I can't see how actually being bold towards something I disagree with is vandalism, for to dare is to do and quite frankly I'm not scared of you. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't dream of doing that to any other editor (need I question why?). But rather I find you a WP:TROLL , and apart endorsing in inapropriate reversions in something you're not even working on for the sheer pleasement of your own backwards little prejudice, you really have no involvement at all and are proving to be a distraction. I class your edits towards me as a form of harassment, so please have a good long think before moaning about anything you feel I've done to you, not saying its all fully justified, but I can safely say its all been a matter of your own consequences. Routerone (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)"
- •I have been asking for neutral admins to get involved for a long while; the above statement condenses the reason better than I could do it. Bans given to Routerone for sockpuppetry and edit warring have not seemed to convince him that he MUST follow the rules just like the rest of us. His lying and continued personal attacks should be addressed forthwith; his implied threats ("However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation") indicate that he feels that he can still do whatever, whenever, as the mood strikes him. His vigilante attitude cannot, and should not, be tolerated any longer. But what do you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 17:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Final reply here
Dear Duke53;
1) Where have I lied? It is fully established amongst others that I clearly haven't. You taken out of context what actually I said.
2)"However if he makes anymore inapropriate reverts towards my legitimate edits on that page, then I admit I may find it difficult to keep my cool about the situation'" After I said this I followed with Now by no means whatsoever does this justify any incivility by myself or personal attacks (and I now encourage action against me if this happens)
3) "he MUST follow the rules just like the rest of "us".'" Us? I don't see you following these standards.
4) '"His vigilante attitude cannot, and should not, be tolerated any longer"'. I've agreed to cut out the personal attacks, ultimately, should your attitude be tolerated?
5) "His lying and continued personal attacks'". The ironic thing is, that statement is a personal attack within itself.
6) "But what do you think?" I think you're no better personally. I can admit I have engaged in personal attacks and incivility previously. However, you seem to think you have done no wrong.
I'm done here. Routerone (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fully established? Odds are that you are not an attorney.
- ""It was not your userpage your accused me vandalizing" You said that above, but then added: " ... edited your page removing those pictures as I found them offensive, and I then removed the warnings simply because I can't take you seriously as a legitimate editor"
- 'Taken out of context' has become a catchphrase for you ... perhaps your writing skills need some sharpening if people often misinterpret you ?
- You have been blocked for sockpuppetry ... you have been blocked for edit warring ... you continue to use personal attacks ... you have threatened to 'lose your cool' if things don't go your way in the future ... perhaps you don't have the proper skill set to be editing at Wikipedia; maybe the f.a.i.r. wiki would be more suitable for you. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Duke53, you're blowing one edit that Routerone made to your userpage (the one that he self-reverted can hardly be counted) way out of proportion. Do you really think he "lied" about it in bad faith? Do you really think he said that "lie" to hide "The Truth" and persuade people to support his argument? Notice that no one has agreed with you yet. While Routerone was talking about something else (hence the out-of-context complaint), he made an incorrect statement, and has attempted to correct himself. Routerone has both admitted to misbehavior and asserted his willingness to reform, at least partially. You, Duke53, have done neither. When an argument is raised against you, you frequently ignore it and change the topic to Routerone's flaws. You use loaded words like "liar" and "he threatens to lose his cool" to portray him in the worst light possible. You dig up the past and ignore Routerone's already-changed approach to Wikipedia. Routerone agrees to cut out personal attacks; you might try following his example. Or, if you don't wish to change your attitude, maybe a blog would be more suitable for you. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Do you really think he "lied" about it in bad faith?" Yes.
- "Do you really think he said that "lie" to hide "The Truth" and persuade people to support his argument?" Yes.
- "Notice that no one has agreed with you yet." Notice that the only other ones who have responded here are lds members? Way to 'circle the wagons'.
- "While Routerone was talking about something else (hence the out-of-context complaint), he made an incorrect statement, and has attempted to correct himself. " If he was 'talking about something else' he probably shouldn't have stated unequivocally that I didn't warn him about vandalizing my user page.
- "Routerone has both admitted to misbehavior and asserted his willingness to reform, at least partially. " Bully for him, but he hasn't proved anything of that sort yet. I wish him well.
- "You use loaded words like "liar" and "he threatens to lose his cool" to portray him in the worst light possible." Only because he lied, then threatened to 'loose his cool'.
- "You dig up the past and ignore Routerone's already-changed approach to Wikipedia. " WP is based on histories (hint: the incessant use of diffs) Care to point out all those 'changes' he's made that you are you are prattling on about ?
- "Routerone agrees to cut out personal attacks; you might try following his example. I'd love to see the list of personal attacks I have used against Routerone.
- "Or, if you don't wish to change your attitude, maybe a blog would be more suitable for you. Hmm ... just when I was thinking that maybe you'd also be much better off at the f.a.i.r. Wiki; I'd almost forgotten how adept you mormons are at playing the 'victim'( even after committing mass murder at Mountain Meadows!) But what so you think ? Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 00:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd love to see the list of personal attacks I have used against Routerone. Well, you've called him a liar, vandal, sockmaster, and generally incapable of editing at wikipedia. You've accused him of playing dumb and/or being dumb. You've insulted all Mormons by accusing them of victim playing and mass murder. And you've managed to do all that in this discussion alone. Did you notice the response at WP:WQA#User:Duke53_inflammatory_comments? Someone spoke against your accusation (maybe he wasn't even Mormon). I will seek actual administrative action for your latest insults and general incivility. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you've called him a liar He lied about me not warning him about vandalizing my user page.
- vandal (see above)
- sockmaster he was recently blocked (not by me) for sockpuppetry. He was also recently blocked (not by me) for edit warring.[31]
- ... generally incapable of editing at wikipedia. Unless he decides to follow all the rules, all the time, this might well be the best thing for him, and us.
- You've insulted all Mormons by accusing them of victim playing According to some here, the mormons have never committed any transgressions unless they were retaliatory in nature; see Sidney Rigdon, Salt sermon and "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little"
- and mass murder See Mountain Meadows Massacre
- Someone spoke against your accusation (maybe he wasn't even Mormon) And maybe he was, and, after all, it is only one guy's opinion that calling a liar a liar is 'incivil'. Factual is factual ... let's call it the way it is.
- I will seek actual administrative action for your latest insults and general incivility Be carefull what you asks for ... your recent actions ('unnecessary') will also be analyzed.
- But what do you think ?
- Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I never argued that your accusations were untrue (though some are certainly unfair). A true personal attack is still a personal attack, and it's still not WP:CIVIL. The list doesn't get any shorter just because you've "proven" that each personal attack is valid. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Duke53. Your statement, "Notice that the only other ones who have responded here are lds members?" is actually an interesting observation. One of the problems I have with COgden and John Foxe is their quickness to defend anti-Mormon researchers, and then their immediate silence when anyone speaks disrespectfully or insensitively to Mormons or their leaders. Thanks for providing evidence of this fact. And for bringing up what you point out what can only be described as bias. It only reinforces what Routerone and I have been saying all along. Thanks.
So I would ask people to lay their cards on the table. John Foxe, COgden, how comfortable are you with Duke53's postings? I'm really interested in hearing the response to this one.
I for one think Duke53 posts rantings which are inflammatory, offensive, and childish.
Canadiandy1 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
- ((sigh)) Sometimes the hardest part of being 'gone' is the actual leaving. But what do you think ? Duke53 | Talk 03:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You will notice I am not contributing at Joseph Smith. I never said I would leave these loose ends undone. Again, poor form. And your making a mockery of BFizz' motto (But what do you think) which is actually a statement of respect and good will, is the intellectual equivalent of calling you "Dukesy Pooksy." Very childish. And don't worry, this is the only context where I will use the term as I refuse to stoop to that level.
Oh, yeah. I don't see John Foxe and COgden coming to your defense here. The silence is deafening.
Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
- I see this as just a personal dispute between Duke53 and RouterOne/Canadiandy, and I refuse to be drawn into their war, because it is a waste of time. I think the situation has been handled badly on both sides. I'm more interested in specific efforts to improve the article. COGDEN 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Response from Kww
I wind up editing a lot of LDS articles, primarily to protect images and descriptions that tend to be deleted on grounds of sacredness and to remove the occasional anti-Mormon vandalism that gets inserted. In my perspective, they are fairly neutral, and I don't think that material that is specifically pro-LDS/pro-Joseph Smith has much place in Wikipedia. In terms of reverting changes to LDS articles, there have been numerous times that Duke53 and I have been reverting edits in parallel.
That said, Duke53's editing, and the apparent motivation behind it, has always concerned me. His edit summaries seem intended to inflame conflict rather than explain his edits, and his talk page contributions are worse. Every small disagreement becomes a confrontation, and every confrontation becomes a fight. His distaste for the LDS is palpable, and I don't think that serves anyone well.—Kww(talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian
I've had trouble with an editor each on two of the four articles, but expect there will be more if I continue, so it's probably best to try to get this resolves here or on wikiproject languages first.
South Slavic is a dialect continuum, like Western Romance or Scandinavian, which several varieties that have been elevated to the status of national languages: Slovenian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Serbo-Croatian (SC). Now, SC has four national standards: Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian (BCMS). They are all four based on the same subdialect, East Herzegovinian, of the same dialect, Neo-Shtokavian, of the same language, SC, of South Slavic. Thus they are not separate "languages" in the normal English sense of the word; they are only distinct because governments have declared them to be so. Macedonian and Bulgarian are also quite close, and many Bulgarians will say that they are dialects of the same language, but at least they are distinct dialects. This is not the case for BCMS.
Now, I do not wish to deny that BCMS are distinct national standards, and are distinct languages is that sense. But a speaker of any one of them is a speaker of all four, since they're all the same (sub)dialect, but if he said he's quadrilingual, we'd call him a liar. That would be like me saying I am quadrilingual because I speak Californian, Oregonian, Washingtonian, and Arizonian. Even if those states were to declare that their forms of English were distinct languages based on the speech of San Francisco, they wouldn't be so in the normal sense me being able to call myself quadrilingual if I'm from San Francisco.
Currently the Croatian and Montenegrin articles say that each "is a South Slavic language spoken by ...", which misrepresents the issue to the average English speaker. I would like to say that each is a standardized form of SC, for that is factually what they are. For example, something like,
- Croatian ([hrvatski] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a standardized form of the Shtokavian dialect [of Serbo-Croatian] used as an official language of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
(some people get really uptight about mention of the word "Serbo-Croatian", so maybe we could drop that, but there is no other name for the language in English, and it would be confusing to just describe them as "Shtokavian".)
The articles go on to say that BCMS are spoken in various places. Again, this is factually incorrect; what is actually the case is that Croats, Serbs, etc. live in those places. The Croatian language is a legal construct; it's essentially meaningless to say that Croats in Serbia speak Croatian, since they speak the same language as their Serbian neighbors. Likewise, it's meaningless to say that the Serbs in Croatian speak Serbian, since they speak the same thing as their Croatian neighbors. We see this in the lists of Croatian etc. dialects, which are really just SC dialects spoken by ethnic Croats, so that a SC dialect may be simultaneously a dialect of Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian. At least in the case of Macedonian and Bulgarian, we can say that dialects X are Macedonian, dialects Y Bulgarian, and that dialects Z are transitional.
So, can we come up with wording for these articles that does not deny their status as official and standard languages, without making the spurious claim that they are distinct languages in the common English sense of the word? kwami (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- While I certainly agree with you that these are standardized forms of the same language, not separate languages, it isn't quite true that they are all based on the exact same subdialect. There are dialectal differences between the written standards (standard written Serbian is ekavian, standard written Croatian and Bosnian are ijekavian [cf. sr:Река vs. bs:Rijeka (vodotok)/hr:Rijeka (vodotok)]; there are lexical differences as well, not to mention the different alphabets). Also, I'm not sure we want our article Croatian language (for instance) to be only about the standardized written language; it should cover all the varieties spoken within Croatia, even if these aren't linguistically monophyletic (cf. Austrian German, which is about all varieties of German spoken in Austria, whether the Austrian variety of Standard German, Austro-Bavarian dialects, or Alemannic dialects). +Angr 21:46, 7 April 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)
- 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)