User talk:Marcos G. Tusar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Your comments on Talk:Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps
It seems to me that you are being uncivil in pages like Talk:Slavic settlement of Eastern Apls, so I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Regards. --Jalen (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Uncivil?? Uncivil would be deleting it, as I don´t believe in what you have written I say that in "discussion" which I think is the proper site for that.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from using an excessive amount of capital letters and exclamation marks in your comments as these give an impression as if you are shouting at people. --Jalen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, no capital letters. But to the point...There is no any proof of the suppposed invasion of Slavs in the 6th century in the Eastern Alps. It is just a supposition. Your article is all about a supposition. I suggest that it may say, at least, that it is a Theory and not a proven fact.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm afraid your statements, both here and on the article's talkpage, really make no sense. There is ample proof of Slavic settlement in the 6th century, all of which is described in the article. --Jalen (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
About the comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_settlement_of_Eastern_Alps I must insist that the article is based only in writers with a political intention and there isn´t any proof of such supposed invasion, it is just a Theory, not a proven fact.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by writers with political intentions. This is a serious accusation. All of the authors listed under the reference section are reputable Slovenian (and other) historians. --Jalen (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
About the historians refered in the article, I couldn´t find anything in english or spanish about his position against the "Veneti Theory", at least in internet. Šavli, Tomazic and Bor provide better proofs. From the "Carpatian Theory" I didn`t find a single proof, even one, just historians wrtiting the ideas of his financial pagermanist or panslavist circles, just opinions, no evidence, no writters contemporary to the "invasion", nor a single mention in historical records. Interesting to read Dr. Šavli himself in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?" or Tomazic explaining the "Veneti Theory" [1]. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I would kindly request you not to add such unencyclopedic external links into articles as this one [2] which represents extreme pseudoscience and romanticism, or the Carantha.net website which promotes Slovenian nationalism. Regards, Jalen (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC).
- Marcos, please stop this nonsense. Wikipedia is not a battleground to prove one's point. I kindly asked you not to add inappropriate external links into article as they disrupt the whole content. --Jalen (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, Jalen. It´s you who must stop erasing my editions. I asked you proofs and you have none, you cite authors, but that are opinions not proofs. The link is to read about the theory, which I believe in, so please, who are you to insult everibody?, especially academics like Dr. Šavli, a doctor. You insist to edit that he is an "amateur", it is offensive, and he replied you in the article "Who is afraid of the Black Panther?". So please stop, and please do not erase my opinion in your talk page, it is vandalic And I am tires with this, if you insist erasing me, insulting academic authors and exposing theories as a proven and pacific fact I´ll contact an administrator for a solution. And my name is Marcos Gabrile Tušar, and I am a lawyer, who are you (full name) to judge everybody? Which is your profesion? --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen your mail only now, next time just post it on my talkpage so I can see it straight away, ok? I don't agree that calling someone an amateur historian is offensive. Simply, Dr. Šavli has a PhD in socio-economics, as you say. Therefore, he is not an academic historian, is he? (An amateur economist would be offensive, sure.) And Matej Bor indeed won a Prešeren prize. These are awarded for significant achievements in cultural field. Again, nothing to do with history and certainly not something that would make his ethnological theory more reliable or trustworthy. Those you get only with approval of academic society. So this really leaves only Charles Bryant-Abraham as the only counter argument to put against established academic authors Štih, Bratož, Skrbiš and others. If you want to make a discussion on academic level, this is what you have to take into account. Of course, history always provides new evidences and new theories are developed so it is completely possible that my viewpoint proves totally false one day. And please, don't use terms like nostalgic yugoslavism to me, I was a little kid when Yugoslavia broke apart so I can't feel nostalgic yugoslavism really. Have you ever thought that such a support for Venetian theory could actually be powered by strong anti-yugoslav feelings? And this is not only in Slovenia, recently I read a theory that Croatians in fact came from Iran. But that's not what we discuss here. I am open for new ideas. I hope this helps. Greetings to Argentina. --Tone 20:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why is Charles Bryant-Abraham a redlink? A more important academic in this subject certainly deserevs an article, could you work on it? (Don't take this as a provocation, it isn't one.) --Tone 20:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Tone on the first point. You have dismissed a historic view that is widely agreed upon by the academic circles by branding its authors as Yugoslav nostalgists, without actually knowing them or having read their publications (authors like Peter Štih are among the most reputable historians and mediaevists in Slovenia), but on the other hand you consider it to be offensive to call Šavli an amateur historian despite the fact that he has no formal qualifications as a historian. This seems contradictory to me. Saludos, Jalen (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
About what Tone said, I mentioned PhD in linguistics Charles Bryant-Abraham just to show that not only "economists, priests or poets are in the side of the Veneti Theory". I consider that stressing the adjective "amateur historian" instead of doctorate in socio economic Sciences, or priest instaed University Professor (Prof Tomazic) is of a bad intention. Because those people investigate as doctorate socio economic Sciences and as University Professors, not as Amateurs or as priests. I just want the Veneti Theory not to be censured. I just want to show the truth as it is, and I believed you and Jalen were obstacles to that and were presenting diputed facts as proven ones, and presenting Veneti Theory in a way very unrespectable and that is not a NPOV. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Answering Jalen, I called "yugoslav nostalgics" because of the ideology of those respectable author. The difference, Jalen, is that I called them so in the Discussion Page and you insist in pejorative adjectives to the writers who are in the side of the Veneti Theory in the article itself. That is why is not contradictory this poin, instead you present Veneti Theory in an unrespectable way, if not in some articles censuring even it existence while not mentioning it, and presenting some theories as proven and undisputed historical facts.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline of Slovene history
I have bad experience with this user (more exactly, his attitude) too but as I am neither a linguist nor a historian I will not contribute to the article in question. Perhaps you will find helpful to use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. --Eleassar my talk 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Dejan (Eleassar), so I was right, these people have interests in what is showing in Wikipedia, they don`t have proofs. I`ll contact a neutral administrator. I`d like a NPOV to the topics and they are censoring me.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My comment
Hi Marcos, you have asked me for a comment on the article Slavic settlement of Eastern Alps. I must say I am not the right person to get into debate on this because my knowlege of history is not sufficient. The Venetian theory is something what appeared quite surprising to me when people started to talk about it, since it seemed in discrepancy with what was my general feeling of large migrations occurring in the second half of the first millenium. My awareness of west and south Slavic languages is also difficult to put in line with such a theory. As I said, I'm not an expert in the subject so this is purely my personal opinion. I never felt that "Carpatian Theory" would have something to do with nostalgic comunists or something. I can agree that in Yugoslavia some historic facts (especially form the previous century and in particular close to the ww2 period) were prone to systematic distortion for political reasons, but I find it unlikely that general perception of Slavic settlements would also be heavily affected by such intentional distortion. Ajgorhoe (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
