Talk:Kukar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please, give references.
Second, I should avoid surnames. People have their right to privacy. Both Croats and Serbs. Kubura 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name of Kukar
I would love to see were the explination for this is from. Please site your source if not I think it should be deleted. Kukar 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for waiting so long.
Here Slobodna Dalmacija: Priznajmo Firentincu autorstvo nad šibenskom katedralom. "Kukari su jedno od onih 12 čuvenih izvornih hrvatskih plemena, koji su s Kolomanom sklopili taj famozni i dvojbeni pakt (Šubići, Kačići, Čudomirići, Jamometi, Kukari itd" (speaking about Pacta conventa).
Translation:
"Kukars (singular:Kukar) are one of those 12 famous original Croat tribes, that have made that famous and doubtful pact (Šubići, Kačići, Čudomirići, Jamometi, Kukari etc.)" You can find the names of those tribes in other online sources, just type those surnames. If you want the material from some books, then take a look at:
Hrvatski leksikon A-K
Hrvatski leksikon L-Ž
Klaić: Povijest Hrvata (1st book).
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so what. What does that have to do with the village?Kukar (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Surnames
I will see what other pages look like and look if surnames are given. I feel that any mention of Serbs is being erased on purpose on this page and in Vrlika Kukar 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Kubura - I agree. Done. Kukar 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kukari
There is some editing/reverting going on regarding the origin of the name of the town. Sources are clearly being cited, but they are not English sources and I am unable to evaluate if they are reliable or not. I strongly encourage you to find English sources, which will make it easier to figure this out. If that is not possible, I would still ask that both of you refrain from characterizing the other as "idiotic" - it is inappropriate, hostile, and counterproductive. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is really funny that Croatian sources are speaking about history of Croatian town. Where will we be if for all places we use only english language sources ?
- On other side can you please explain why croatian sources are good enough for article Vrlika [1], but not good enough for article Kukar ? --Rjecina (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia. English sources are strongly preferred, especially when people are arguing about their own personal translations of the page and when the reliability of the source is in question. As for your nonsense diff, you do realize that the link you provided clearly states 3 intermediate revisions not shown. The changes visible in that diff were not done by me. This was my edit. I'll assume that's an honest mistake, but I strongly suggest that you do not continue to deliberately misrepresent my contributions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because I have noticed this latter my today comments are different from yesterday comments, but they are staying because in that article you have accepted Croatian sources. It is not possible to think that every small village is having history writen on english language and in nationalistic edit warring even english language sources are not helping. I will show you this with 1 little translation from Vladimir Corovic book:History of Serbian people (on serbian)[2] :
- "On 19. august 1292 Charles Martel of Anjou has given Slavonia to Serbian prince Stefan Vladislav II of Syrmia".
- This statement is true but it is highly misleading. You know why ? Charles Martel has never ruled Slavonia and Slavonia of that time is under control of Hungarian king Andrew III (discussion about that has been in article Serbs of Croatia)
- Official town of state pages in Balkan are ulmost always speaking truth but they forget few things.
- If you worry about reliability of sources my suggestion is to look other articles which are not having internet sources but only obscure books. In my thinking this sources are real wiki problem. --Rjecina (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is the English Wikipedia. English sources are strongly preferred, especially when people are arguing about their own personal translations of the page and when the reliability of the source is in question. As for your nonsense diff, you do realize that the link you provided clearly states 3 intermediate revisions not shown. The changes visible in that diff were not done by me. This was my edit. I'll assume that's an honest mistake, but I strongly suggest that you do not continue to deliberately misrepresent my contributions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not believe that most Croat sources for either are 'good'. They are strongly biased and used to eliminate any mention of Serbians in and around Vrlika. You and a number of others are engaging in a systematic 'game' of making sure that any mention of Serbians that prove contradictory to the Croat biased history does not see the light of day on the internet. Kukar (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are forgeting 1 important thing about wikipedia. Mine or your personal thinking is not important !! All in all I do not understand your personal attacks against me (now this and before comments like total idiocracy) ? We have solved our different thinkings about article Vrlika and after that there has not been any discussions or edit warring between us ? --Rjecina (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
