Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 183
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | Archive 184 | Archive 185 | → | Archive 190 |
Donji Kraji
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed. It has been difficult to get the participants to specify what they want changed in the article, other than to complain about each other and to reply back-and-forth. One editor has proposed a rewrite of the article, which is the subject of a Request for Comments. The use of RFCs is the most likely way to make progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Oscillococcinum
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk: Oscillococcinum. Discuss the edits on the article talk page, not merely via edit summaries. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a thread may be re-opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
- Volunteer Note - I suggest requesting a Third Opinion on this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Slavery in the 21st century
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The dispute resolution noticeboard is for open, ongoing disputes between editors, not for airing disagreements with article text. Please raise these issues at the talk page of the article in question, boldly make edits yourself to resolve the issue, or go to a discussion board that concerns itself more narrowly with neutrality such as WP:POVN, as that appears to be the core issue here. closed byUser:Rosguill. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
U.S. Route 2 in Washington
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. It isn't entirely clear from the discussion on the talk page what the content dispute is. If it isn't clear to a third party what the content dispute is, either the discussion hasn't been sufficient, or there isn't a content dispute, or the dispute isn't well-defined. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page if there is a content dispute. The filing editor is advised to register an account if they wish to engage in dispute resolution, but they are not required to register and are not required to engage in dispute resolution. The filing editor is cautioned not to edit-war over attempts to put warning templates on user talk pages. The other editor is advised that they may request temporary semi-protection of their talk page if they think that an unregistered editor is being disruptive. If there is a content dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Crusades
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. A report has made at WP:ANI concerning this dispute. This noticeboard does not handle a content dispute while a conduct dispute concerning the same article is pending. The discussion at WP:ANI will be allowed to run its course. If there is still a content dispute among the survivors after the conduct dispute is resolved, resume discussion on the article talk page, and if that discussion is again lengthy and inconclusive, a new thread can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Ian Smith
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor did not notify the other editors of this filing. Resume discussion on the article talk page. A Request for Comments can be used if there is disagreement about article content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
White Croatia
– This request has been placed on hold.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
In the article are entered data of academic Tibor Živković and two Polish sources. These data refer to the position of White Croatia. One of the editors deletes this information with his reasons. Everything is explained on talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We discussed it at talk page and Nicoljaus reported Mikola22 to "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring" page. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Considering that there will be edit war I suggest that we all decide together whether disputable information(books, academics) can be an integral part of White Croatia article.
(White Croatia) Summary of dispute by Nicoljaus
Mikola22 began to add information to the article and returned it 5 times(!), despite objections. The essence of the objections is as follows.
- Zhivkovich’s article[1], in essence, does not address the issue of the location of White Croatia. He was only interested in the fact that it was “behind Bavaria”, which means that the author of this message was somewhere in Venice (Živković tried to show the existence of a Latin source of information for the Byzantine treatise). On the other hand, the article White Croatia cites sources that examined this issue in detail. So, in the book of Mayorov[2], the same primary sources are discussed and it is indicated that most researchers came to different conclusions (they talk about Croats living approximately between Bohemia and Slovakia, in the upper reaches of the Elbe). Editing of Mikola22 ([5]) claimed that already under Alfred the Great (died in 899), the Hungarians bordered on Krakow. Perhaps this viewpoint is accepted in Croatia (Ceha shares it, [6]), but the mainstream of historical science is different. Therefore, I canceled the addition of this information on the basis of principles WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:BURDEN.
- Mikola also added the opinion of a 19th century folklorist, and the work of 1873. Formally, he referred to a student's thesis: [7] . I explained to him, that I see no reason to include the outdated fantasies of all 19th century authors in a row. Now some are mentioned, but they are discussed and criticized by modern authors. And if Mikola22 wants to throw out someone of them, let's discuss. In addition, the student thesis to which he refered [8] is a very weak source. In any case, the opinion of a student himself has no weight.
In the discussion Mikola ignored the core of objections and soon began trolling Whether Poland starts behind Hungary or Austria I don't know and you need see that on articles that speak about Poland
--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Summary of dispute by Čeha
As I can see, user Nicoljaus is not recognising sources (nor authors or maps) which are locating white Croatia in the area around the town of Krakow, which is causing edit war scenarios. That behaviour should stop. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
White Croatia discussion
Do not engage in back and forth discussion while moderation is in progress signed, Rosguill talk 23:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
First of all I must say this is wikipedia and if academic data(2012) cannot be an integral part of the article and the same data points to the position of White Croatia and Croats then i dont know what can be in the article at all. Everything was said on talk page so on my side everything is clear. [[9]] Mikola22 (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
(White Croatia) First statement by moderator
I'm willing to attempt to moderate this case. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from any additional edit warring on White Croatia, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior.
Could each participant please state below, in one paragraph or less, what they want changed in the article or the specific changes to the article that they oppose. @Mikola22:, @Nicoljaus:. @Ceha: has a couple more hours remaining on their block for edit warring, but once that block is completed they are invited to participate here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ceha:, do you wish to participate in this moderation process? signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, why? --Čeha (razgovor) 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ceha, if so, you should put a response in the following sections. I had assumed that you weren't going to participate because you made multiple edits (including to other sections of this page) since having been pinged. Please place your first and second statements below. I'll amend my second statement if need be. signed, Rosguill talk 00:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) First statement by editors
- I believe the article needs to be reverted to this version: 09:18, 3 December 2019. Edits like this: [10] are not needed. Outdated sources should rather be removed from the article, rather than increasing their number. If we discuss some other primary sources, such as Alfred the Great, Arab geographers, Henry IV’s charter for the bishopric of Prague, etc., then this should be done in more detail, and not by accidental mention by one author.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest that this data be an integral part of the article. Oskar Kolberg (1814-1890) in his work "Krakowskie" clame that area around Krakow was called White Croatia.Tadeusz Wojciechowski(1838–1919) in book "Chrobacya, rozbiór staroŜytności słowiańskich" clame that Croats live in area from upper course of Laba in the west to the Dniester in the east, and from the southern regions of the Krkonoša, Tatra and Carpathian Mountains in the south to the upper course of the Vistula in Lesser Poland to the north.Tibor Živković located Croats beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland claiming that it has been confirmed by the writing of the Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi therefore it is contemporary to Constantine VII source on the White Croats.[7]Mikola22 (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I essentialy agree with Mikola. That is an area where Croatian name is recorded. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Second statement by moderator
Ok, so it looks to me like there are three distinct claims at issue here: Oskar Kolberg's account, Tadeusz Wojciechowski's account, and Tibor Zivkovic's account. The first two claims are cited to [8], whereas the third claim is cited to [9]. Could each editor please succinctly state their primary argument for or against inclusion of each of these claims? signed, Rosguill talk 23:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Second statements by editors
- Considering that there is more theory and thinking where White Croatia was I think that this information also can find place in the article. This information talk about location of Croats and White Croatia in area of southern Poland.Mikola22 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Oskar Kolberg's account is a book of 1871: Lud: Krakowskie As far as I see, he simply retells some even more ancient polish authors and does not claim that the Krakow people call themselves “White-Croats” at his time. 2) Tadeusz Wojciechowski' account is a book of 1873 Chrobacya. Rozbiór starożytności słowiańskich Well, it's just hopelessly out of date. I see absolutely no reason to include both of these evidence in the article, WP:AGEMATTERS. 3) Tibor Zivkovic's account was formulated as "Tibor Živković located Croats beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland", but this is a cherry picking, because earlier Tibor said: "Bohemia or southern Poland, where it must be expected the White Serbs and the White Croats lived" (p. 111). Then he talks only about southern Poland, I don’t know why (maybe he just saves space), but he didn’t say that he prefers Poland to Bohemia. In any case, it didn’t matter to him (out of scope of his work). Zhivkovich refers to medieval writers, Alfred the Great and Masoudi. Zhivkovich in his conclusions relied on very old works on Alfred the Great of 1922 and 1930 (this also shows that the issue was not in the field of his own work). A. Mayorov mentions the same source from King Alfred. According to him, "the most convincing is identification with the Czech Croats, who lived in areas adjacent to the Upper Elbe river" (i.e. in the east part of Bohemia) [11]. A. Mayorov also mentioned the work of al-Masoudi among the sources that testify to the localization of White Croatia "in a space that coincides or directly adjoins the territory of the Ancient Bohemian state." Moreover, al-Masoudi says that the Croats lived "between Morava and Chakhin" [12] (i.e. "Czechs"). Thus, I think that Zhivkovich’s opinion is not relevant for this issue, in contrast to his opinion regarding a possible Latin source. I am opposed to adding this piece of text to the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=189104 In this framework, the first Croats were probably a small nomadic or semi-nomadic group which migrated to the area of Krakow (i.e. White Croatia). Most of the sorces locate White Croatia in Area arround Krakow. Živković's or should not be delated. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Third statement by moderator
Regarding the Kolberg and Wojciechowski claims, as written in the article, they are not cited to themselves but rather to a more modern source. In the discussion on the article talk page, Nicoljaus dismissed this source as unreliable because it was a master's thesis that does not appear to have ever been published in a peer-reviewed publication. In the second statement section above, Nicoljaus criticized these claims as if we were sourcing them to a primary source directly. I'm going to go ahead and assume that Nicoljaus still objects to the inclusion of the master's thesis source, please correct me if I am mistaken. Nicoljaus is correct to point out that WP:AGEMATTERS comes into play if we are to consider citing Kolberg and Wojciechowski directly. Mikola22 and Ceha, please comment below if you have a rebuttal establishing either that Kolberg and Wojciechowski are sufficiently cited and discussed in more recent literature on the subject to make their contributions WP:DUE for inclusion, or if you can demonstrate that the master's thesis actually is a reliable source (this could be demonstrated by providing evidence that it has been published in a reputable peer reviewed publication, or that it is extensively cited by such publications). Alternatively, if you are willing to concede this point we can consider the matter settled.
Regarding Živkovic, I see that there are two disputes with respect to this content: first is the issue of whether Živkovic's placement of White Croats in the cited source is worth including in the article, and the second is whether it is appropriate to mention the primary sources that Živkovic cites as supporting this placement. I want to address the first issue first, as this will determine how to approach the second issue. Having read through the relevant passages several times, I note that it's sometimes unclear whether Živkovic is referring to territories corresponding to modern Bohemia and Poland, or to early medieval Bohemia and Poland, and he seems to shift between one and the other. Moreover, given that these two regions border each other (see Duchy of Bohemia and Bohemia#Kladsko) it's even possible that the region in question may have at times been part of both Bohemia and Poland. Would anyone be opposed to rephrasing Živkovic's claim as proposing that the White Croats were located in Bohemia or southern Poland
? Please state your position on this in the appropriate section below.
Finally, having read through the cited section of Živkovic, as well as the preface and introduction to the book, I'm not sure that Nicoljaus's assertion that the White Croats are outside of the scope of Živkovic's work holds. The book as a whole appears to be about identifying the geographic history of Croats and Serbs in general, which presumably would include White Croats. Additionally, this specific source is cited elsewhere in the article. Finally, even if Živkovic is not focusing on the White Croats, at a glance he still seems to be a reliable authority on medieval Slavic ethnography, which would make his writings on the matter reliable even if they are peripheral to the primary purpose of his work. Nicoljaus, if you are unsatisfied with the compromise proposed in the previous paragraph and can provide further arguments or evidence to disqualify the proposed Živkovic citation, please do so as part of your reply signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Third statements: Rebuttal arguing for the inclusion of Kolberg and/or Wojciechowski
- As for these two sources, the intention was to show that in Polish historiography there are persons who write about southern Poland as the source of white Croats i.e. White Croatia. This information was put in addition to data from other sources and historians of the time. Suggestion was that we discuss these other sources and probably delete as well(I see no reason for it), but this is data that exists and it would be good that peoples who reading article know about it. Mikola22 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- I will explain a little. In the form in which these outdated sources were given in the article, the modern source (master's thesis) is not used at all. Regarding the quality of this modern source, I note such a moment. It says that "According to the document, on pages 40, 43 and 105, about 100,000 immigrants who came to the United States from the Krakow area declared themselves as White Croats (Białochorwaty)". The cited document is US Senate Reports of the Immigration Commission, Dictionary of races or Peoples, Washington DC, 1911, pages 40, 43 and 105. Now this document is in open access and anyone can be sure that nothing is said on these pages about "100,000 White Croats (Białochorwaty) from the Krakow area". page 40 page 43 page 105 I do not know who launched this fake, but to continue to duplicate it in 2012 is complete ignorance.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Third statements: Opinions on the proposed Živkovic compromise
- According to the Porphyrogenitus the Croats are behind Hungary and Bohemia (two positions). About these two positions Tibor Zivkovic talk but he locates Croats in southern Poland because it also cites additional sources that according to him confirm that. Otherwise Krakow was once under Bohemians ("towards the end of his reign, Mieszko took Kraków from the Bohemians and incorporated it into the holdings of the Piast dynasty."[10])In the data for Zachlumia page 184. there is and this data (archon of the Zachlumians, came from the unbaptized inhabitants on the Visla River, called Litziki). My opinion is that it would be good to respect this claim of Tibor Živković i.e. South Poland as a source of White Croats i.e. White Croatia. So I am not for this proposal(the White Croats were located in Bohemia or southern Poland) but you will decide and I will respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, My role here is to clarify policy and inform you of possible remedies. If you and the other parties to this discussion can't come to an agreement, remaining disputes can be handled with an RfC where broader community input is requested. It is not my role to impose a particular solution, although I may choose to vote in follow up discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 07:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree with the wording proposed by the moderator. "According to Tibor Zivkovic,
the White Croats were located in Bohemia or southern Poland
". Special thanks for the analysis of the border status of these territories. --Nicoljaus (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Fourth moderator statement
Now, for the question of how to refer to the primary sources mentioned in the Živkovic source. In Nicoljaus's second statement, they actually provided an argument for mentioning the primary sources in some capacity: if Mayorov also mentions Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi, then this would constitute additional attention to these sources from another presumably reliable source (caveat: I have not actually reviewed Mayorov's reliability in the slightest). However, if other sources mention these primary sources, then it would be inadvertently misleading to present these sources as being purely in relation to Živkovic, as it was written in Mikola22's revision. Please indicate below if you are open to including coverage of these sources, albeit rewritten in keeping with due weight. If you are in favor of such a proposal, please consider drafting a new alternative for the paragraph here. signed, Rosguill talk 06:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I see two possibilities here. 1) The first is to write such a text after discussing the difficulties with the interpretation of the DAI:
Since the DAI data are contradictory, indirect sources were used to establish the location of White Croatia, in which tribes with the names similar with the "Croats" were mentioned. These are the work of Alfred the Great, West-European and Old-Russian chronicles, king's charters and the data of some Arab geographers . In addition, toponymy data was used. However, different researchers also came to different conclusions.
- And then we’ll give the opinions of different authors on the localization of “White Croatia”, as now. Because, well, they usually interpret all these primary sources in such a way that they are consistent with their theory. 2) Make a more detailed review of the views for each source. It is difficult and today I am not ready to do this job. May be, tomorrow.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Primary source compromise
Back and forth discussion plus some arguments that are not necessary at this time
|
|---|
"12. Then to the north, from the spring of the Danube, and to the east of the Rhine are the East Franks ; and to the south of them are the Suabians, on the other side of the river Danube. To the south and to the east are the Bavarians," that part which is called Ratisbon. ' Right to the east of them are the Bohemians; and north-east are the Thuringians. To the north of them are the Old Saxons, * and to the north-west of them are the Friesians. To the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Friesland. From thence, north-west is the country called Anglen,” and Zealand" and some part of Denmark. To the north are the Afdrede," and north-east the Wylte, * who are called Haefeldan. To the east of them is the country of the Wends”, who are called Sysyle; “and south-east, at some distance, the Moravians.” These Moravians have, to the west of them, the Thuringians, and Bohemians, and part of the Bavarians. To the south of them, on the other side of the river Danube, is the country, Carinthia, "[lying] south to the mountains, called the Alps. To the same mountains extend the boundaries of the Bavarians, and of the Suabians; and then, to the east of the country Carinthia, beyond the desert, is the country of the Bulgarians; " and, to the east of them, the country of the Greeks.” To the east of the country Moravia, is the country of the" Wisle, and to the east of them are the Dacians, who were formerly Goths. To the north-east of the Moravians are the Dalamensan,” and to the east of the Dalamensan are the Horithi,” and to the east of the Dalamensan are the Surpe,” and to the west of them are the Sysele.” To the north of the Horiti is Maegtha-land,” and north of Maegtha-land are the Sermende” even to the Rhipaean mountains."
|
(White Croatia) Fifth moderator statement
Ok, I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding here. Mikola22, this is not the time to rehash the arguments for and against the placement of the White Croats in a specific location. Nicoljaus, do not initiate back and forth discussion, and do not accuse other editors of WP:NOTHERE behavior during the dispute resolution process.
Let's try again. At this time, the discussion should be purely focused on if and how to mention Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi. Please indicate below which of the following are acceptable outcomes for the article's coverage of Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi:
- a) only mention Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi in the context of Živkovic's work (as in Mikola22's original revision)
- b) do not mention Alfred the Great or Al-Masudi at all (as in the revision from before this dispute began)
- c) mentions Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi and describes their use by various cited scholars that draw on them as sources
If you find c) acceptable, please consider drafting a version of the relevant paragraph that would comply with c)'s description. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Primary source compromise take 2
- I am for option "d" - mention without details, as I suggested earlier: [13]. Perhaps later it will be possible to gradually expand to option "с", but this is clearly not a priority on Wikipedia. If the option "d" for some reason is unacceptable, then before writing the section according to option "c" we leave everything as it was before (option "b").--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I think that the edits suggested in the revision above are essentially in keeping with what I was envisioning for a c-like solution. signed, Rosguill talk 08:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry, I did not understand. Then I agree with a c-like solution.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- So, after this section:
- Oh, I'm sorry, I did not understand. Then I agree with a c-like solution.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I think that the edits suggested in the revision above are essentially in keeping with what I was envisioning for a c-like solution. signed, Rosguill talk 08:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
"The chapters in DAI also have other contradictory information, as the Croats could not live near Franks in the West and at the same time be constantly plundered by Pechenegs who lived far in the East. At the same time, it is alleged in DAI that Pechenegs lived north of the Hungarians, and the Croats bordered the Hungarians from the south. That is probably because these chapters were based on several archival sources, and that in DAI the 7th-century location and migration were mistakenly argued based on the location of contemporary Croats in Bohemia.[20][21]"
- will be this
Since the DAI data are inconsistent, historians used auxiliary sources, mentioning tribes with names similar to the Croats, to locate White Croatia. These are the King Alfred the Great's translation of Orosius' History of the World, West-European and Old-Russian chronicles, charters of Otto I and Henrich IV, and the data of some Arab geographers. In addition, toponymy data was used. However, different researchers also came to different conclusions.
- After that there will be a subsection entitled "Location", which begins with a sentence: "White Croatia was initially considered to be set on the river Elbe in Bohemia, and around Vistula and Lesser Poland..." We can add the opinion of Tibor Zhivkovich to this subsection.
According to Tibor Zivkovic, the White Croats were located in Bohemia or southern Poland
--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- After that there will be a subsection entitled "Location", which begins with a sentence: "White Croatia was initially considered to be set on the river Elbe in Bohemia, and around Vistula and Lesser Poland..." We can add the opinion of Tibor Zhivkovich to this subsection.
- I'm for option a) because that is the claim of academic(book) which we should respect. If there is a problem with Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi in Živkovic's context then you @Rosguill decide instead of me what would be the best and I'll sign it. I include this source in article as opinion of an academic and that was my intention, I didn't think that entering this information would be a problem or that we have discuss whether or not that claim of academic is true, that is his opinion which I respected. Mikola22 (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- I was in a debate about some data(Shtokavian dialect) where author in the book cites migration from eastern Herzegovina to most of Croatia, Bosnia, etc. However there are no original data, historians or historical books that talk about this migration and answer was that it must be respected author and his book and only option is I quote: And we cannot reject one reliable source because another reliable source says something different. We report what the RS says. We cannot say "Source X says so-and-so, but that is wrong". If we have other sources saying otherwise, we can say things like "Source A says this, while source B says that", provided both sources are reliable. Mikola22 (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Participants, please refrain from back and forth discussion and address your comments to me
|
|---|
- Mikola22, you are correct that we report what RS say. Could you clarify whether you think that Nicoljaus's proposed paragraph in green above fails to meet this criterion? At this point, the issue isn't so much Živkovic's use of the primary sources, but rather that other scholars also use these sources and come to different conclusions on the basis of these sources. Per the policy that you quoted, if reliable sources other than Živkovic used Albert, Al-Masoudi etc. then we should mention that as well. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
- We don't really know where Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi locate Croats, there are various thoughts and theses. In this case(2012) academic Tibor Živković analyzes "De administrando imperio" and clame that Croats at that time live in southern Poland and this proves and with Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi. This is opinion of academic in his book and this is RS. Yes we can quote Tibor Živković "Tibor Živković located Croats beyond the Hungarians, i.e. in southern Poland claiming that it has been confirmed by the writing of the Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi therefore it is contemporary to Constantine VII source on the White Croats". And below that quote some other quotes that speak differently based on same sources. That would be most correctly but I will respect your decision. Mikola22 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Sixth moderator statement: discussion assessment
Ok, having heard arguments for the various distinct issues involved in this case, here is my assessment of where things stand and how to move forward:
- Regarding the inclusion of the Kolberg and Wojciechowski claims, participants did not budge from their original positions on the issue. I think that the arguments that have been put forward in favor of including these claims are insufficient to justify inclusion given Wikipedia's policies source reliability and on the usage of primary sources. I would thus recommend that Mikola22 and Ceha drop this issue in favor of the status quo ante.
- Regarding the inclusion of Živkovic's claims, Nicoljaus has moved from wanting to exclude this entirely to supporting a proposed compromise of stating that Živkovic places the White Croats in
Bohemia or southern Poland
. Mikola22 seemed dissatisfied with this proposal, preferring to just mention "southern Poland". I think that the balance of arguments is slightly in favor of the compromise position, as Živkovic does mention Bohemia as a possible location, but it is also the case that elsewhere in the section Živkovic only mentions southern Poland. My recommendation would thus be to use the compromise phrasing, but this is a much less strong recommendation than my recommendation for the previous issue. - Regarding how to handle coverage of Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi's accounts, it seems that while there is some disagreement on the exact phrasing of claims related to Alfred and Al-Masudi, both Nicoljaus and Mikola22 seem to agree that we can include coverage of them that elaborates on their usage by Živkovic as well as other scholars. As it stands, only Nicoljaus has actually drafted an actual proposal for this paragraph; I personally see nothing wrong with their proposal, although Mikola22 does not appear to be completely satisfied. My suggestion would thus be that if Mikola22 or others wish to pursue this issue further, they should start by drafting a paragraph that covers them with what Mikola22 believes would be appropriate weight, taking into account their usage by multiple sources.
As stated earlier, my suggestions are just suggestions. Any remaining disagreements should be handled by opening an RfC. If you would like assistance setting up the RfC, I can provide that as well. For each of the above issues, please indicate in the section below whether you wish to accept my suggestion or to continue to press for another resolution. signed, Rosguill talk 22:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Editor comments on discussion assessment
- I am for Rfc for both points, we lose nothing and in the end we will have a wider opinion. I earlier edited some articles and it is said that if some book or author is RS then his clame must be in the article no matter what. When academic Živkovic mentions Bavaria he mentions it because from an Italian point of view(which he considers that exist) behind Bavaria is south Poland ("The situation where the White Croats were beyond Bavaria matches perfectly if the observer had been in Venice, or in the north-eastern Italy.") and Živković clame that from area(Italy) comes news about White Croats and in this context he mentions Bavaria and then mentions Hungaria, South Poland etc. Regarding Kolberg and Wojciechowski claims they are in article with other historians and clames from that time so all of them should stay. @Rosguill if we go to Rfc you can start this procedure. Mikola22 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, what is your opinion on the third issue? Are you willing to accept the inclusion of the paragraph proposed by Nicoljaus above? Also, I do want to point out that it's inaccurate to say that we cite other historians with claims contemporary to Kolberg and Wojchiechowski. Both of those sources are from the 1800s. The oldest source currently cited is from 1990. signed, Rosguill talk 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- From article: "Pavel Jozef Šafárik( 1795.–1861.), Lubor Niederle( 1865 – 1944) placed megali Croatia in Eastern Galicia to the Vistula in the East", N. P. Barsov (1839-1889). I put Polish sources behind these historians, Oskar Kolberg (1814 – 1890) and Wojciechowski (1838–1919) from master's thesis(2012). Regarding third issue, behind claim of Tibor Živković i.e. RS we can put and other sources which data of Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi's interpreted differently or the same. Normally and that data must be RS, so any data can be entered and I am not against it. Mikola22 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, what is your opinion on the third issue? Are you willing to accept the inclusion of the paragraph proposed by Nicoljaus above? Also, I do want to point out that it's inaccurate to say that we cite other historians with claims contemporary to Kolberg and Wojchiechowski. Both of those sources are from the 1800s. The oldest source currently cited is from 1990. signed, Rosguill talk 07:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22 The difference between those cases is that the master's thesis that mentions Kolberg and Wojciechowski is not a reliable source. Safarik and Niederle are cited to Majorov (2012), and Barsov is cited to both Majorov (2012) and Korchinsky (2006). The reliability of Majorov and Korchinsky has not been disputed in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I understand. Mikola22 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22 The difference between those cases is that the master's thesis that mentions Kolberg and Wojciechowski is not a reliable source. Safarik and Niederle are cited to Majorov (2012), and Barsov is cited to both Majorov (2012) and Korchinsky (2006). The reliability of Majorov and Korchinsky has not been disputed in this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Save it for the RfC
|
|---|
|
- I completely agree with all three points proposed. I just want to say that I was initially ready to indicate the opinion of Zhivkovich, and the proposed edition completely suited me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies for misconstruing your opinion. signed, Rosguill talk 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Moderator comment on RfC preparations
Ok, so at this point all that needs to be done before continuing to RfC is for both Nicoljaus and Mikola22 to write a complete draft of your desired version of the paragraph mentioning the usage of Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi, complete with citations to relevant sources. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
(White Croatia) Draft proposals for Issue 3
- "Tibor Živković analyzed De Administrando Imperio and concludes that Croats(White Croats) live beyond the Magyars i.e. in southern Poland claiming that it has been confirmed with writing of the Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi."[19]Mikola22 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- This would be my citation for RfC. Should I cite sources which confirm south Poland(Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi) as additional source? Mikola22 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, you should mention other reliable sources which use Alfred and Masudi as sources, regardless of what their conclusions are. Moreover, the question of what to put as the location of White Croatia for Živkovic's claim will be resolved separately from the question of how to handle Alfred and Masudi, so a better phrasing would be
Tibor Živković analyzed De Administrando Imperio and concludes that Croats(White Croats) live...claiming that it has been confirmed with writing of the Alfred the Great and Al-Masudi
. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)- In my earlier discussions it was said that we quote RS and below that someone else writes RS who says different. Let's say that all historians claims that Alfred and Masudi talking about Croats in Czech Republic or Germany but Živković has thesis and clame that Alfred and Masudi talk about southern Poland. This is RS. I cited example of Shtokavian dialect, that citation(migration from eastern Hezegovina) of Serbian linguist still exist in the article because it is RS although no historian, history book or original historical documents prove that someone migrates from eastern Herzegovina. It is a drastic example because books that mention Alfred and Masudi and southern Poland exist. We also have an example of Croatian Serbs, in some villages originally are mentioned Vlachs and this is mentioned in the books of Croatian historians(RS) but Serbian historians (RS) say that Serbs are in that village or villages and I cannot delete this information. Only thing I can do is put the data for the same village but in which are Vlachs are mentioned. So we have the same village and two different information about the same people. Here we separate opinion(RS) of academic and explore whether or not some sources are correct? Mikola22 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, if different RS's disagree, then we include mention of their competing claims in a manner that is proportional to their presence across all available RS. I would suggest reading through the sources currently cited at White Croatia, identifying which ones mention Alfred and Al-Masudi, and then base your draft off of the balance of sources that mention them. It may also be appropriate to dispute whether some of the sources are truly reliable, which should be done in a talk page discussion (or here). However, if you intend to dispute the inclusion of a source, make sure that you have a valid reason to do so other than just disagreeing with it (e.g. "the source is not published in a peer-reviewed journal", "the source is written by a scholar known for having WP:FRINGE positions", "another source specifically identifies errors in the source"). signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Academic Tibor Zivković analyzes De Administrando Imperio and determines that information about Croats came from the west (northeastern Italy) and not from east i.e. Constantinople. After that he brings conclusion that from view of northeastern Italy behind Bavaria is south Poland and adds additional evidence. I put conclusion of academic in the article about White Croats because it is RS. I can not examine whether his claim and further evidence are true or not. We don't really know where Alfred and Al-Masudi locate Croats and there are more theories, this is the theory of academic Tibor Živković and it is RS. That's my view if we go to RfC. Or if is a problem we can just quote this part: "Tibor Živković analyzed De Administrando Imperio and concludes that Croats(White Croats) live beyond the Magyars i.e. in southern Poland". In the article we could write theories where Alfred and Al-Masudi locate Croats and there can also be and Tibor Živković as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, so if I'm reading this correctly, is your position now that it's not critical to include Alfred and Al-Masudi in our introduction of Živkovic's position, and that you are open to mentioning them elsewhere in the context of both Živkovic and other source's analysis? Or did I misunderstand something? signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- If this is concrete problem then the only option is to separate citation of Tibor Živković. However this is only possible if southern Poland is cited not and "Bohemia" because he uses these two sources as evidence for his claim(south Poland). Data from doctoral thesis: "A possible earlier mention by Arab geographers or by Alfred the Great refers only to the area north of Moravia, so it could ultimately support the existence of White Croats and authors who believe that migration of Croats comes from that area". "Skeletons analyzed from the sites Nin - Ždrijac, Danilo - Šematorij, Bribir and others(Dalmatia) show greatest similarity to skeletons from the area of present-day Poland and it is concluded that local population in that period probably came from there".[20] Mikola22 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, if that's your position, then I would suggest that we first resolve the other issues via RfC and only then address the inclusion of Alfred and Al-Masudi signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's cool. Fans of measuring skulls who survived in the Croatian refugium.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- If this is concrete problem then the only option is to separate citation of Tibor Živković. However this is only possible if southern Poland is cited not and "Bohemia" because he uses these two sources as evidence for his claim(south Poland). Data from doctoral thesis: "A possible earlier mention by Arab geographers or by Alfred the Great refers only to the area north of Moravia, so it could ultimately support the existence of White Croats and authors who believe that migration of Croats comes from that area". "Skeletons analyzed from the sites Nin - Ždrijac, Danilo - Šematorij, Bribir and others(Dalmatia) show greatest similarity to skeletons from the area of present-day Poland and it is concluded that local population in that period probably came from there".[20] Mikola22 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, so if I'm reading this correctly, is your position now that it's not critical to include Alfred and Al-Masudi in our introduction of Živkovic's position, and that you are open to mentioning them elsewhere in the context of both Živkovic and other source's analysis? Or did I misunderstand something? signed, Rosguill talk 16:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Academic Tibor Zivković analyzes De Administrando Imperio and determines that information about Croats came from the west (northeastern Italy) and not from east i.e. Constantinople. After that he brings conclusion that from view of northeastern Italy behind Bavaria is south Poland and adds additional evidence. I put conclusion of academic in the article about White Croats because it is RS. I can not examine whether his claim and further evidence are true or not. We don't really know where Alfred and Al-Masudi locate Croats and there are more theories, this is the theory of academic Tibor Živković and it is RS. That's my view if we go to RfC. Or if is a problem we can just quote this part: "Tibor Živković analyzed De Administrando Imperio and concludes that Croats(White Croats) live beyond the Magyars i.e. in southern Poland". In the article we could write theories where Alfred and Al-Masudi locate Croats and there can also be and Tibor Živković as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, if different RS's disagree, then we include mention of their competing claims in a manner that is proportional to their presence across all available RS. I would suggest reading through the sources currently cited at White Croatia, identifying which ones mention Alfred and Al-Masudi, and then base your draft off of the balance of sources that mention them. It may also be appropriate to dispute whether some of the sources are truly reliable, which should be done in a talk page discussion (or here). However, if you intend to dispute the inclusion of a source, make sure that you have a valid reason to do so other than just disagreeing with it (e.g. "the source is not published in a peer-reviewed journal", "the source is written by a scholar known for having WP:FRINGE positions", "another source specifically identifies errors in the source"). signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- In my earlier discussions it was said that we quote RS and below that someone else writes RS who says different. Let's say that all historians claims that Alfred and Masudi talking about Croats in Czech Republic or Germany but Živković has thesis and clame that Alfred and Masudi talk about southern Poland. This is RS. I cited example of Shtokavian dialect, that citation(migration from eastern Hezegovina) of Serbian linguist still exist in the article because it is RS although no historian, history book or original historical documents prove that someone migrates from eastern Herzegovina. It is a drastic example because books that mention Alfred and Masudi and southern Poland exist. We also have an example of Croatian Serbs, in some villages originally are mentioned Vlachs and this is mentioned in the books of Croatian historians(RS) but Serbian historians (RS) say that Serbs are in that village or villages and I cannot delete this information. Only thing I can do is put the data for the same village but in which are Vlachs are mentioned. So we have the same village and two different information about the same people. Here we separate opinion(RS) of academic and explore whether or not some sources are correct? Mikola22 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Mikola22, you should mention other reliable sources which use Alfred and Masudi as sources, regardless of what their conclusions are. Moreover, the question of what to put as the location of White Croatia for Živkovic's claim will be resolved separately from the question of how to handle Alfred and Masudi, so a better phrasing would be
Well, my draft is:
The chapters in DAI also have other contradictory information, as the Croats could not live near Franks in the West and at the same time be constantly plundered by Pechenegs who lived far in the East. At the same time, it is alleged in DAI that Pechenegs lived north of the Hungarians, and the Croats bordered the Hungarians from the south. That is probably because these chapters were based on several archival sources, and that in DAI was mistakenly argued 7th-century location and migration on the basis of the location of contemporary Croats in Bohemia.[21][22] Since the DAI data are inconsistent, historians used auxiliary sources, mentioning tribes with names similar to the Croats, to locate White Croatia. These are the King Alfred the Great's translation of Orosius' History of the World, West-European and Old-Russian chronicles, charters of Otto I and Henrich IV, and the data of some Arab geographers. In addition, toponymy data was used. However, different researchers also came to different conclusions.[23][24]--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, you've introduced new sources here, which I was unable to access. Would you be able to provide relevant quotes from these sources, particularly 20 and 21? Russian is fine for now, although they should probably be translated for the RfC itself. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it seems to me that numeration have shifted. Could you name the authors of "20 and 21" sources?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, Sedov and Majorov. They were already cited in the article, but we hadn't reviewed them in this discussion and I wasn't able to find the actual text for these sources.signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can send you files if this helps.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I guess it's not strictly necessary, I just was hoping for a source for the claim that the DAI is mistaken, although I suppose that this isn't particularly surprising given that it is self-contradictory. At any rate, based on Mikola22's comments above, issue 3 may be moot, so at this time I think we can move forward with an RfC for the first two issues, and then revisit this issue if there is anything left to resolve. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you still want to take a look at these books, write me a wiki-mail, I will send them to you with pleasure. What is now required of me at the RFC? Explain my position once again?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, yep, although if you think there's a section in this discussion that sums things up nicely you could just state your vote and wikilink to the relevant section. signed, Rosguill talk 09:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you still want to take a look at these books, write me a wiki-mail, I will send them to you with pleasure. What is now required of me at the RFC? Explain my position once again?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I guess it's not strictly necessary, I just was hoping for a source for the claim that the DAI is mistaken, although I suppose that this isn't particularly surprising given that it is self-contradictory. At any rate, based on Mikola22's comments above, issue 3 may be moot, so at this time I think we can move forward with an RfC for the first two issues, and then revisit this issue if there is anything left to resolve. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I can send you files if this helps.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, Sedov and Majorov. They were already cited in the article, but we hadn't reviewed them in this discussion and I wasn't able to find the actual text for these sources.signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, it seems to me that numeration have shifted. Could you name the authors of "20 and 21" sources?--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Nicoljaus:, @Mikola22:, I've opened the RfC here. signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Živković, Tibor (2012). De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Belgrade: The Institute of History.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ^ Majorov, Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich (2006). Velikaya Khorvatiya: Etnogenez i rannyaya istoriya slavyan Prikarpatskogo regiona Великая Хорватия: этногенез и ранняя история славян Прикарпатского региона [Great Croatia: Ethnogenesis and early history of the Slavs of the Carpathian region] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press. ISBN 5-288-03948-8.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Poland#Piast_dynasty
- ^ https://katalog.kgz.hr/pagesresults/rezultati.aspx?&searchById=10&xm0=1&spid0=10&spv0=Bechcicki%2c+Jerzy
- ^ http://www.knjigolov.hr/katalog/Jerzy-Bechcicki--et-al/Bjeli-Hrvati-1/39547 #page=5,6
- ^ This book is the second in a series of White Croats, this series will publish texts by authors from outside Croatia who have written about White Croats who once lived in White Croatia covering all of southern Poland etc... http://www.maveda.hr/knjige/knjiga33.html#page=7
- ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=White_Croatia&diff=928811412&oldid=928805143
- ^ Ivan Ljubičić, PODRIJETLO HRVATA TRAGOM HRVATSKOGA IMENA, 2012, (master thesis), http://darhiv.ffzg.unizg.hr/id/eprint/2420/2/DIPLOMSKI-Ljubicic_Ivan.pdf #page=46
- ^ Živković, Tibor (2012). De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source. Belgrade: The Institute of History.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_Krak%C3%B3w#Early_history
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=T3PqrrnrE5EC&pg=PA34&dq=Alfred+the+Great+croats+poland&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivveuKlKjmAhUN0qYKHaHCBYoQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20the%20Great%20croats%20poland&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=SfC1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA37&dq=Alfred+the+Great+croats+poland&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivveuKlKjmAhUN0qYKHaHCBYoQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20the%20Great%20croats%20poland&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC&pg=PA185&dq=Alfred+the+Great+croats+poland&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivveuKlKjmAhUN0qYKHaHCBYoQ6AEIRTAD#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20the%20Great%20croats%20poland&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=kTcRDKnYf2cC&pg=PA15&dq=al+masudi+poland+croats&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY18mrnKjmAhWG1aYKHQZ5BJcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=al%20masudi%20poland%20croats&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=-sqiDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&dq=al+masudi+croats&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwir_sH2nKjmAhUk4aYKHQ9DAzMQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=al%20masudi%20croats&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=T3PqrrnrE5EC&pg=PA34&dq=Alfred+the+Great+croats+poland&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivveuKlKjmAhUN0qYKHaHCBYoQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20the%20Great%20croats%20poland&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=SfC1AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA37&dq=Alfred+the+Great+croats+poland&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivveuKlKjmAhUN0qYKHaHCBYoQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Alfred%20the%20Great%20croats%20poland&f=false
- ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=kTcRDKnYf2cC&pg=PA15&dq=al+masudi+poland+croats&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiY18mrnKjmAhWG1aYKHQZ5BJcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=al%20masudi%20poland%20croats&f=false
- ^ Zivkovic Tibor, 2012, De Conversione Croatorum et Serborum, https://www.academia.edu/1231887/De_Conversione_Croatorum_et_Serborum #page=111-113
- ^ Goran Bilogrivić, 2016, doctoral thesis, ETNIČKI IDENTITETI U RANOSREDNJOVJEKOVNOJ HRVATSKOJ – MATERIJALNI I PISANI IZVORI (ETHNIC IDENTITIES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL CROATIA - MATERIAL AND WRITTEN SOURCES) http://darhiv.ffzg.unizg.hr/id/eprint/6293/1/Bilogrivi%C4%87,%20Goran.pdf#page=38, 46
- ^ Sedov, Valentin Vasilyevich (1995). Славяне в раннем Средневековье [Slavs in Early Middle Ages] (in Russian). Moscow: Фонд археологии. p. 325-326. ISBN 5-87059-021-3.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Majorov, Aleksandr Vyacheslavovich (2006). Velikaya Khorvatiya: Etnogenez i rannyaya istoriya slavyan Prikarpatskogo regiona Великая Хорватия: этногенез и ранняя история славян Прикарпатского региона [Great Croatia: Ethnogenesis and early history of the Slavs of the Carpathian region] (in Russian). St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press. p. 48, 54, 58. ISBN 5-288-03948-8.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help) - ^ Borri, Francesco (2011). "White Croatia and the arrival of the Croats: an interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus on the oldest Dalmatian history". Early Medieval Europe. 19 (2): 213-216. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0254.2011.00318.x.
- ^ Alimov, D. E. (2016). Etnogenez khorvatov: formirovaniye khorvatskoy etnopoliticheskoy obshchnosti v VII–IX vv Этногенез хорватов: формирование хорватской этнополитической общности в VII–IX вв. [Ethnogenesis of Croats: the formation of the Croatian ethnopolitical community in the 7th – 9th centuries] (PDF) (in Russian). St. Petersburg: Нестор-История. pp. 239–255. ISBN 978-5-4469-0970-4. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
2020 Formula One World Championship
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Lazer-kitty (talk · contribs)
- SSSB (talk · contribs)
- Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
It is a very long-standing practice to include both engine make and model names for each team listed in the yearly F1 season articles, possibly going back to the very first season articles (it's been there as long as I can recall). A couple months ago an editor suggested that this information, along with several other pieces of information, be removed from the article in order to simplify the tables. This discussion was very brief, encountered significant pushback, included only a handful of editors, and petered out without a clear consensus to change anything. A month or so later SSSB decided to interpret this lack of activity as consensus and removed engine model names from the article. Upon noticing this change I reverted it and informed SSSB that he was premature to assume consensus; however, he has repeatedly reverted me, insisting that consensus has been reached and I must now work to challenge that consensus. I acknowledge that he had every right to be bold and make this change, but once clear there was no consensus to do so he should've simply resumed the discussion. I ask only that the page be returned to the way season articles have been formatted for many years so that we can allow this discussion to continue in good faith while such a long-standing practice is respected. SSSB has refused this request. In my opinion it is not acceptable to so quickly discard information that has been included for so many years. This is a decision that should require broad and obvious consensus from a wide range of involved editors and we have achieved nothing close to that.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Entry_table_proposal
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Establish that consensus has not been reached and allow the earlier discussion to continue where it left off.
Summary of dispute by SSSB
That is inaccurate. A month or so later SSSB decided to interpret this lack of activity as consensus and removed engine model names from the article.
- that is catergorically untrue. I interpreted the lack of further activity as the discussion reaching a natrual death and felt the need to sumarise as the thread had covered several propositions and in doind so I informally closed the discussion. I judged, based on the discussion, that there was a consensus for the engine specification to be removed. At this point Lazer-kitty reverted indoing so started making claims that the discussion was not over despite no new opinions being offered for over 2 months, at this time (s)he also took it upon herself to unilaterally declare that my concluding statement was ignoring other editors
among several other bad faith accusations on my user talk page. Lazer-kitty claims that she wishes the article to return to its previous state to continue the discussion
despite the fact she isn't continuing anything but rather she is restarting the discussion in order to attempt to overturn what I had judged to be the earler consensus and she refuses to constructivly discuss anything until (s)he gets his/her way/ Finally - This is a decision that should require broad and obvious consensus from a wide range of involved editors and we have achieved nothing close to that.
- Nowwhere does it state that this is a requirement and given that the discussion happened at WT:F1 there was little more that I or anyone else could have done.. Now that I have corrected Lazer-kitty's statement I can move on to declare this thread void. Lazer-kitty has just linked to a peice of policy which makes me realise I am in the wrong here over at WT:F1, there is no need for this to continue any further.
SSSB (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
(underlined content added at 09:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC))
Summary of dispute by Mclarenfan17
First, let me say that I have no idea why we're here.
Secondly, I agree with everything SSSB has said.
Third, I would like to add that this appears to be an attempt to overturn a consensus that Lazer-kitty personally disagrees with. There was nothing wrong with the consensus that was formed in October. The discussion had naturally run its course and a conclusion was reached.
Finally, I don't know what Robert McClenon means when he says "I am always involved in" discussions like this, however it appears to imply that if there is a dispute on a motorsport article, I must have something to do with it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth (as a neutral party in all this), I took it as Robert McClenon implying that you're active in motorsport matters on Wikipedia generally, which it appears you are. I didn't detect any indication of mala fides in their comment. Domeditrix (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2020 Formula One World Championship discussion
- Volunteer Note - I have added a user who has been taking part in the discussion and who is always involved in these auto racing discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! I should've tagged him from the beginning, that's my mistake. Lazer-kitty (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: in the time since this DRN request was lodged, the discussion at the WikiProject has since been renewed, so I do not think that this DRN is needed; to be perfectly honest, I don't think it was required in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment: just to build upon my above comment, I think this DRN report was inappropriate. Lazer-kitty's initial report stated that the aim of the DRN report was to
Establish that consensus has not been reached and allow the earlier discussion to continue where it left off.
Not "establish whether a consensus has been reached", but rather "establish that consensus has not been reached. Between this, her attitude in the WikiProject discussion (which I feel is very aggressive) and some of her comments (such as this one on my talk page, which I took to mean "do what I want or I will go to the admins"), I feel that the purpose of this DRN report was not to resolve a dispute, but to circumvent the process of forming a consensus (which undermines WP:CONSENSUS) because Lazer-kitty did not like the consensus that was formed. Before anyone suggests that this is an accusation of bad faith, I think it is more a product of Lazer-kitty not understanding what the DRN process is designed to do. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- Further comment: just to build upon my above comment, I think this DRN report was inappropriate. Lazer-kitty's initial report stated that the aim of the DRN report was to
Module:Efn native lang
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This has also been pending at WP:ANI. This is a dispute about the requirements for a module, which is a computer program. Edit-warring over a module is an even worse idea than edit-warring over an article. Discuss on the module talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of Steven Universe episodes
– New discussion.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
Should the limited series Steven Universe Future be listed under the heading "Specials"? One editor argues that, as it is a series with multiple episodes and a regular weekly airtime, it is by definition not a special; another editor cites articles describing it as "a special limited series" or characterizing the debut episodes as a "special event".
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#Listing Steven Universe Future
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide a third-party perspective on whether it makes sense to describe Steven Universe Future as a "special" and/or to list its episodes under the heading "specials"; it went back and forth between two disputants with no progress for days.
Summary of dispute by Alex 21
List of Steven Universe episodes discussion
- Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion would be a simple way to resolve this matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Robert Falcon Scott
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | (question was policy based and is resolved based on WP:MOSNUM) Nightenbelle (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Everett Stern
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This dispute is also pending at the neutral point of view noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Fox News
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | General close. The filing editor must notify other users involved by posting on their talk pages, and has failed to do so. Should the filing editor wish to continue seeking mediation, please file a new request and notify the other users involved. Thanks, -- DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|