User talk:Zenanarh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Zenanarh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Ronz  17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Illyrians are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Please refrain from doing this in the future. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} -- Ronz  18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. -- Ronz  19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Your unsourced edits and reverts

It's one year that I have discussion about some 'typical' nationalistic edits, now you arrive to reopen some deep discussed arguments. Stop this. Forget nationalistic POV, and leaern previous discussion before to enforce POV. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no nationalistic POV from my side, you are manipulating with data and you are ignoring the sources which are not yours (written in Italian of course). Acting like that, you are the one with extremely POV statements. Never mind I will go step by step if it's needed, you can't make Zadar to become an Italian city. By the way it was only 23 years the part of Italy, isn't it? And your important people in Zadar are soldiers? The half of them? Zenanarh 22:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Zara WAS an italian city. It's on you to prove it was Croatia.... as it NEVER ws croatian.--Giovanni Giove 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


HA, HA, Tell him Giovanni! Zadar become 'croatian' when the YUGOSLAV ARMY, consisting of 80% SERBS,-'liberated' that beautiful city in 1945. And since then it was YUGOSLAVIAN city, not croatian. Anyway, I love that city. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 15 August 2007

Zadar has been Croatian for over a thousand years. Further proof you cannot edit Croatian articles, since you know nothing about the country's history. Shameful.--Jesuislafete 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It was Croatian from 10th to 15th century the most of time, it was Venetian from 15th to 18th centura and it was Italian from 1920-1943. No need to prove anything. You are the one who must prove how can Zadar can be more Italian than Croatian. Croats make the majority of population from 10th century until nowadays. The only exception was the period in 20th century when Italians were the majority thanks to the fact that 25% of population were Italian soldiers.Zenanarh 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reported

You have been reported to an administrator.--Giovanni Giove 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh, this Giove's message above can be treated as a threat.
He hasn't discussed at all, but after few messages, he childishly (or maybe not) threatens you with the administrator.
That's Giovanni Giove's behaviour pattern. When he can't proove what he wants (he never does , he just says "it's like that!"), than he threatens you with the moderators, admins etc..
I'm just asking myself how long'll admins tolerate him, his behaviour and his propagandist POV contributions and his vandalistic behaviour (deleting of "unwanted" references, ignoring of sources, 3RR...).
So, if you're not the sockpuppet of that user, than, don't be afraid. If you are that user... then, noone can help you. Kubura 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


HA, HA, HA!!! Sredio te Giovani! Neka te i dokrajci i tebe i sve kao ti na wikipediji! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 August 2007

[edit] Removed data

Listen, can you make a list of data that Giovanni Giove's removed, at least recent ones?
Like this [1], where he has on the talk page of article Maraschino removed your message.
That message was criticising, not insulting and contained no personal attack.
Also, make a list of links (compared versions) with, if possible, short descriptions what he did.
That way you're enabling to admins to see, in short, what wrong things has he done.
Napravi popis promjena di ti je on minja sadržaj članka ili stranice za razgovor (ostavi poveznicu na uspoređene inačice, tako da se može vidit odmah šta je on minja).
Reci na kojem je to članku/stranici za razgovor članka ili suradnika bilo.
Navedi ukratko šta je učinia pri toj promjeni (budi kratak, jedna rečenica je dosta, imaj na umu da će to administrator čitat, stoga nemoj zamarati admina sa kobasicon od objašnjenja). Kubura 03:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking... his edits are violent, naive and almost all incorrect. Since I know the themacity very well it's quite enough for me to edit correct states in proper context followed with the sources... if his behaviour would be the same I will do what you've proposed me. Thanks. Zenanarh 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zadar and Maraschino

You seemed to be having a dispute with Giovanni Giove over issues concerning these two pages. It will be appreciated if you could stop edit warring with him, and solve the dispute on the talk pages of the articles. Please note that my messages on the articles are not an endorsement of the current version, but are a way of stopping the warring. Further 3RR violations on the article may result in full protection of the articles. Particular attention needs to be paid towards the dispute resolution process, and assuming good faith with the other user. Thank you. --Dark Falls talk 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your energy on reverts, that'll compromize your position.
Read WP:DR (rješavanje sporova).
Give arguments on the talk page, and ask him to answer.
If Giovanni Giove ignores your arguments with his racistic remarks like "Ital. books are OK about history, just like German, French (or whatever) books. Croatian books will reach the same level in few years; it's enough to give to the democracy the proper time to push out all the Nationalistic debrishes of the Communist and Post-communist regimes" , or "Croats deliberately falsify the data about Italian personalities of Dalmatia", than he'll compromize himself.
He calls "Croatian books as nationalistic", and at the same time in Italy they romanticize Mussolini's era, especially fascist Italian rule over occupied territories of Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Lybia.
From the same country, Italy, where a political party, that openly calls/declares itself (at least, by their party chief) as "postfascist" (misini, MSI), came to rule???? Fascist revisionists. Where its chief political persons declare territorial aspirations towards the territory of neighbouring countries (Croatia) and deny the history of neighbouring peoples (Croats, Slovenes...). Kubura 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Kubura 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

His editing is more than shameless - he uses this source [2] for editing Zadar article - "Irredentismo" page. Imagine that Germans use "Mein Kampf" for editing the article about the Jews. It would be the same... Is it legal in Wikipedia?Zenanarh 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zadar

Would you consider leaving the article on this revision for now? It may not be a ideal revision, but it is an attempt to stop edit warring, without resulting in protection. Bear in mind that this revision will be permanent until the dispute is resolved. If you agree with this, please say so on my talk page. Cheers. --10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkFalls (talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 June 2007

Drzi se. Nemoj da te taj Dovani isprovocira. Ja cu ti pomoc koliko god mogu.--Jesuislafete 02:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Nema frke... Hvala i tebi i Kuburi... da je malo više vremena istjerao bi ga sa Wiki za sva vremena... ovako borba. Problem je što imamo strašne izvore na hrv. jeziku, ali nisu prevedeni i nema ih na netu pa bi moglo potrajati...Zenanarh 22:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ovako. Pobij mu njegove teze svojim materijalima na stranici za razgovor.
Možeš sa poveznicama, sa referencama na knjige, radove...
Na sam članak možeš staviti {{disputed}}, {{original research}}, {{POV}}, ovisno o slučaju u odlomku/članku.
Što ti trebaš napraviti - ukloni jedanput njegove sporne stavke u članku, i kreni sa "paljbom" na razgovoru: zašto si to učinio, jer..., zbog čega si to učinio, jer izvor taj i taj govori tako i tako.
Ako on krene brisati i vraćati na svoj POV, to je njemu otegotna okolnost. Ne spuštaj se na njegovu razinu.
Jednim mijenjanjem (i odlaskom na raspravu, i ne diranjem u članak poslije sve do zaključenja rasprave na razgovoru).
Štogod on sporno napiše, navedi to na razgovornoj stranici i navedi protuargumente. Zatraži neka on odgovori. Ignoriranje mu neće pomoći, štaviše VRRRLO će mu odmoći. Kubura 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Onda ovako. Ne diraj u članak, ne po sadržaju, ali možeš ostaviti one tagove.
Samo posli navedi na razgovoru zašto si to učinio, odnosno, što smatraš spornim.
U sadržaj članka nemoj dirati, a u dogovoru sa nekim od admina, s kojima si u kontaktu, pitaj može li se zakomentirati članak i "zaključati" ga, dok traje RfC.
Tako da nema spornog sadržaja na vidljivom dijelu, ništa nije obrisano, a argumentiranje može ići na razgovoru. U svakom slučaju, ne upuštaj se u uređivački rat!
Ako on šta obriše, njemu je to otegotna okolnost, to ti ponavljam. Kubura 06:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next step

We should send a message(s) to Giovanni Giove on his talkpage, regarding his contributions.
We'll ask him there to explain his attitudes in behaviour.
In fact, that's a next step, if discussions on the talk pages give no results.
In sections we have to ask him ALL things we want to ask him.
These aren't personal attacks, these are our requests for explanation.
You had problems with him on the articles of Maraschino and Zadar.
I had problems with him on articles Republic of Dubrovnik and Jakov Mikalja. There'll be more problematic articles, because he pushed his propaganda on a bunch of articles. It's hard to cover all those articles with "arguments against his POV and propaganda".
I saw that some other users had problems with him, like user Markussep, (see User_talk:Giovanni_Giove#Koper.2C_Isonzo with the article Koper.
If he cannot connect something (from Croatian Littoral) with Italy and Italians, than he tries to connect with Serbs, or inserts fictitious things, like Shtokavian language, "Serbocroatian" (centuries before that Frankestein term was coined)... Kubura 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here, see this as example [3].
I've sent him the message.
You can also specify all of his problematic behaviour on a certain article, and post him that on his user page (as an other section). You have to follow the procedure.
That message must show where he pushed an information, which you find as untruth/uncorrect/completely wrong/filtered/uncomplete/with double meaning.
Then, the message must show what counterarguments (if possibly, referenced) you and other users posted on the talkpage.
Then, the message must show where he ignored the counterarguments.
For all that, use "difference between revisions". Kubura 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentism, expansionism, fascism and revisionism

Zenanarh.
Things are going towards RfC.
Prepare material. RfC is not coming over night, neither in a few days.
It may come in two weeks, a month, three months, whatever.
But, prepare all materials where you disagree with him, where you ask him to explain something.
Today, he AGAIN put a tag "history of Italy" on the Republic of Dubrovnik talkpage.
Such territorial expansionism and historical revisionism cannot be tolerated anymore.
Not to mention his anti-Croat attitude, his "Croathood denialism".
For every Giovanni Giove's line you find disputable, put it on his talkpage (and a copy on your talkpage).
Then he cannot says that he didn't saw it (although he patrols on all Croat Littoral-related articles, so he always sees everything. Like... is that his job?).
And he MUST answer on those questions.
Onda će morat odgovorit, ne izmotavat se. I dobro objasnit i pokrit svoje izjave. I objasnit odakle mu njegovi stavovi. A za onakve šovinističke izjave, da se ticalo nekih drugih naroda, bia bi on davno trajno izbačen sa ovog projekta. Kubura 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

His companion in editwarring, Giorgio Orsini, it seems, earned an indefblock.
Trajno blokiranje. Hvala ti Isuse. [4]. Kubura 14:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


HA, HA, HA, HA, Umrite prljavi cro-nacionalisti! VIVA GIOVANNI! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 15 August 2007


"Cheers!"...? Mislim da znam tko je ovo, al' nije važno, što je tebi? To što radimo protiv taljanskih nacionalista, ne znači da smo mi nacionalisti. DIREKTOR 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
ma pacijent, postoje ustanove za takve Zenanarh 08:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for un-reverting that guys butchering. I acn't believe these guys have the nerve to just undo all my hard work...

I have warned that "professor". I'm going to the Admins next if he udoes.DIREKTOR

[edit] Zadar/Zara

Well, we call it Zara when referring to the medieval city, especially when referring to it in the context of the crusades. "Siege of Zara" is simply the name used in English. Adam Bishop 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not denying the different names of the city, I am just saying we call the crusader siege the "Siege of Zara". This is of course because the earlier scholarship on the issue was written while the city was still called Zara, in the 19th and 20th centuries. If you wish, I will check to see if anyone refers to it as the "Siege of Zadar" in more recent publications, but I do not think that is the case. Adam Bishop 01:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Italy or Croatia or nationalism; the vast majority of English speakers neither know nor care about Zara/Zadar, or even know where it is. For the thirteenth century city and the siege, we just happen to call it Zara. Adam Bishop 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again, I just wanted to confirm that it is always called Zara in English sources.
- The Penguin edition of "Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades"
- Edgar Holmes McNeal's translation of Robert of Clari's Conquest of COnstantinople
- The Old French original of Geoffrey of Villehardouin has Jadres
- Jonathan Harris' Byzantium and the Crusades has "Zara (Zadar)", but only at its first mention
- The Crusades by Hans Mayer
- Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades
- The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of COnstantinople by Jonathan Phillips
- God's War by Christopher Tyerman
- The New Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas Madden
These are just the ones I have in front of me right now; Tyerman, Madden, Harris and Phillips have all written within the past five years, so there really is no change in recent scholarship. There are numerous other older books about the Fourth Crusade that I have used in the past which also call it Zara (the book by Madden and Donald Queller, for example). Adam Bishop 18:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't fool me, you are Fabrice!
No, actually he's Zenenarh. DIREKTOR 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
oh,excusme.
You are excusmed, my friend...DIREKTOR 19:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL Zenanarh 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure your meticulous review of my edits has informed you, I gave up on the Zadar article long ago; dealing with the Balkan nuisance on the English Wikipedia is not worth my time or effort. As I have repeated to you and the rest of Croats who have been pestering me lately, I don't care what you think it should be called. I believe I have thoroughly proven that the 1202 siege is the "Siege of Zara" in English, so there is nothing left for me to do. Adam Bishop 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zadar

It looks like Giovanni Giove is once again trying to destroy the NPOV version of the Zadar article (as well as corrupt it with his terrible English). I would appreciate your support since it looks like my efforts to prevent the edit war will not be successful. Regards, DIREKTOR 14:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category "Former Towns of RSK 1991-95"

Can you please check this matter out and cast a vote. The link for the actual category is here and the discussion and voting is taking place here. Thanks. --No.13 07:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation of Zadar

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zadar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Dark Falls talk 07:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's quite strange that I wasn't invited there. If not on the article Zadar, I was engaged a lot on the article Jakov Mikalja. Kubura 13:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatian Anti-Riots

Do Not interfere with my edits. I have been objective in these matters since I came on Wikipedia. I rephrased the information without removing the details. If you have a problem with my edits, use the talk page. Use mine if you wish but never revert me, my edits are not saved simply to be reverted by people who like to paint fairy-tale pictures that the war in the Balkans was 100% the fault of Serbs and everyone else was plain innocent. Evlekis 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I Will interfere with your edits because you haven't been objective in this matter. Did you use the talk page? The rest is said by you, not me. Zenanarh 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That night, you did really anger me. It was the way in which you reverted the whole edit. My only purpose was to be objective. My only purpose is to be fair. If there were one or two parts you did not like, I rather you edited them; where-as I made grammatical changes all in the same edit. I will be using the talk-page and believe me, you may be in for a discussion war of words if you promote a pro-Croatian and anti-Serbian viewpoint, so prepare yourself and start seeking sources, you're going to need them. I'm not a Serb, nor a Serbian sympathiser, but I know propaganda when I read it. Following an exchange of messages with Dr.Gonzo I decided to restore the page back to how you left it. I'm a peaceful individual, but shortly, I will be raising issues on the Talk Page. Evlekis 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit because of a few changes which were leading to POV. Sorry for grammatics. Don't presume my viewpoints, you don't know it. Can you exactly precise what propaganda? Zenanarh 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, my talk comments (like the one on Dalmation Riots after yours) are largely a parody, nothing serious; I don't really expect you to start such an article. But about the Riot page itself, I wasn't planning on changing the content, I simply wanted to alter the presentation slightly and make it more readable. When I have more time, I'll make my proposals but I am sure they won't meet with any hostility. I'm not pro-Serb and I'm not pro-Croat in their affairs; I know that this is a sticky issue: nobody likes to admit that their people did wrong, then you provide them with a source (such as a video link with Youtube) which the other party states is nothing more than propaganda... we can't make any progress unless every editor unless we ackowledge that all sides did some bad, and not cry out that one side did worse than the other. I don't accuse you of having done this, I meant on principle: anyhow, try not to take offence of my comment on the bottom of the Riots talk page, it is one of dozens of similar comments I have made to people. Thanks. Evlekis 12:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As I can see you really seem to be a person who wants to be neutral so therefore objective, but... The point is that taking (what you suppose that it is) a "neutral" position doesn't mean that you are really objective! I was reading some of your contributions of similar matters and I have noticed this: concerning any of these cases - you stand in the middle and say I'm neutral, I'm objective, I'm fair. What makes you think that standing in the middle automatically means objectiveness? To someone who is not familiarized to agenda your attitude would seem to be the only correct one, but in the same time, to someone who is, you could look like just another provocateur. For example: my only revert of your edit was such a case. I appreciate your work here and you have all my sympathies but the Balkan circus is nothing simple and logical, especially not logical. And you are obviously trying to solve some of these problems by pure logic: A beats B, B beats A, A revenges, B revenges,... It could work at some isolated island in the Pacific ocean where 2 cannibal tribes eat each other repeatedly in hopeless never ending chain until C comes and eat them both... the Balkans are something completely different. You should turn on some new logic there which includes all letters of all known alphabetics and also invent some new complicated formulas. As you surely know the Balkan peninsula is historically really a specific space in Europe, it's populated by humans for 35-40.000 years. It played its role in Paleo-populating of Europe, Neolithic repopulating of Europe, ancient Mediterranean cultures, Dark Ages, Antique, Medieval, so many migrations, so many wars, so many crucial historical occasions which influenced all other European space... And there was never such simple logic as A->B, B->A. Practically you can say that all present ethnicities of the Balkans have painful memories, but what's more sure they never solve it with the initiators of the pain, always with someone else. It's like some traveling disease A->B, B->C, C->D,... How can it be stopped? I think the only way would be if every of these letters becomes conscious of its actions. And the only way to make A or B to become conscious is to make them realize their mistakes and to accept consequences. So I think that your engagement is just firing of new old fires. If you are giving blessing to a criminal he will be a criminal again. And that's what you are doing here, even your intensions are positive. It's completely the same story with Serbs and Croats in last 100 years. Serbian governments are always blessed by strong European countries and always get a green light for their initial actions. When these actions end in crisis these strong political offices are trying to equalize responsibilities. The result is a hundred years of local A->B, B->A,... The court in Haag made the same mistake. They are trying to equalize the responsibilities for this last war and the result could be only one - new crisis! Sad but true.
Well, I can give you a new general logic which is the key of these Serbo-Croatian crisis. It includes 3 letters and a period of last 500 years: A (Turkey), B (Serbia), C (Croatia). Simplified it was like this: A->B, B->C. Think about it. Cheers. Zenanarh 18:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zadar.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
since today...you are my friends!

[edit] Četvrti križarski rat

Ej, treba mi pomoc oko obrane moje JEDNE recenice kojom objasnjavan da ime Zadra u 1202 nije bilo Zara. Dobro bi mi doslo kad bi pomoga i doda neki izvor kojin bi usutka Giovea i Bishopa. Treba pokazat da Zadrani nisu svoj grad zvali Zara 1202, hvala. P.S. ako ga nades molim te objasni ga na talkpageu. DIREKTOR 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hvala. (P.S. Pisa sam na Hrvatski da ne bi citali taljani. Giove i Brunodam uporno prate sve sta napisem...) DIREKTOR 19:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Epic Barnstar

The Epic Barnstar
I award you, Zenanarh, the Epic Barnstar, for your thorough and detailed work and participation in articles related to the history of Zadar. DIREKTOR 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubrovnik

Ovi Giove je na steroidima zadnjih par dana i mjenja sve živo, probaje stavit imena na Republic of Ragusa u taljanski i prominit službeni jezik u taljanski. Treba ga zaustavit... DIREKTOR 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

hahaha ojačao mali na godišnjem, goni ga duracell, sto posto je bija u nas na zdravoj spizi, a balina samo tako Zenanarh 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Prijavia san našega malega mehaničarskog šegrta Adminima, na njihovoj ploči za prijavljivanje: opet je reverta onu rečenicu na četvrtom križarskom ratu i sada revertira moj teški trud u preimenovanju imena Dubrovačkih gospara iz "Ghetaldi", npr., u "Getaldić/Ghetaldi". Možda koja rič još od tebe pojača poruku... DIREKTOR 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Hi Zennerah. I see you are quite knowledgable about archeo-genetics. Tell me where i can confirm that ancient macedonians possessed the I1 and J2 haplotypes. Hxseek 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hvala lijepa Hxseek 12:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Z. Would you mind clarifyin something. When analysing haplogroups one speaks of 'frequency' and 'diversity'. Frequency is self-explanatory. But what does it mean when there is , eg, 'a high diversity of haplogroup R1a ? Hxseek 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again mate Hxseek 08:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zadar RFC

Ako još nisi primjetia, šegrt je stavia "Request for comment on the ethnicity of Zara" na Zadar talkpage. Predlažem da ga pobijemo u svemu čim zine. DIREKTOR 15:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Koji panglu nije ni svjestan, već sad tamo ima materijala a ja imam još samo treba prevoditi to je jedina frka jer uzima masu vrimena. Anyway I'm hardly waiting. Zenanarh 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If there's need of assistance I would be happy to help in translating said materials. DIREKTOR 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tvoje mišljenje

Dobro bi mi došlo kad bi iznijeo svoje mišljenje o našemu priajtelju gioveu na Administrators' noticeboard/incidents, tamo sam ga opet prijavia na savjet Isotope23 i što me više ljudi podrži to bolje. DIREKTOR 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Isotope23 forgot to mention this to you: The Arbitration Committee (the ultimate option) has been called in (by him) on the Dalamtia issues. You should definetly get involved, as soon as possible I might add. It's taking place here. Note that the comitee is primarily interested in the offences commited by our friend and others (use links when possible), but adding sources showing the validity of our side cannot be considered unnecessary, I believe. DIREKTOR 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A sockpuppetry

Do you know that user Brunodam had a sockpuppet, that he used for edit-warring?
Here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brunodam.
I'm telling you to have this in mind, to let you know that he's prone to do such things.
I'm notifying you, because you and Brunodam have intersections of interests; you're a party concerned here, and there's a chance that you'll have problems with his editwarring and sockpuppetry.
So, if you notice something suspicious, if somebody gets into edit wars on the article (and always "someone new" jumps in to save someone from violating 3RR rule), have in mind whome you're dealing with.
Especially when these "newcomers" have particular interest in same articles... and their interventions are theirs only contributions. First edits, and already edit-warring. Kubura 07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo

Here's the thing, Giove's expanding the front of his attacks, he now wants sources to confirm it is even a possibility that Polo was from Korčula (he added all sorts of "citation needed"s on my "Controversy" section). Polo is really not my thing so could you oblige him with a couple of sources, just to shut him up... DIREKTOR 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Thnx. I think the whole thing is his attempt to make me (or anyone that tries to remove his POV) look like the kind of people that destroy sources. I mean this is obvious POV pushing from him on an NPOV article. DIREKTOR 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We've been reported

Our evil game has been uncovered by Giovanni Giove, the champion of truth. You and I have been collectively reported for breaching the 3RR, by a guy that earlier made 7 reverts in one sitting. Imagine... DIREKTOR 21:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Zenanarh

I'm not into details with the reference you gave and translate - I had no time to read it, so I've no objection for mentioning Polo as a Croatian (it is not sure that he was but on the other hand-it's also not sure that he wasn't). More, I see that it's important to you and that you made a great effort to translate this article-so, I think that I've no objection any longer.--Gilisa 18:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Istrian exodus problem

Hi Zen, really could use some help in the Istrian exodus matter. The main problem is that User:PIO is trying to make me look like a lone "POV warrior" with the involved Admin, Riana (talk), and on the Istrian exodus talkpage. DIREKTOR 11:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Read your message

meant to reply earlier, but forgot. If you ever need help with English wikipedia, don't be afraid to contact me. Just be careful, I believe it's against the rules not to write in English, but I don't think it will matter if you are confused by something. Cheers! Message me if you need anything. --Jesuislafete 19:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo and Giovanni Giove

Do you see what this guy is trying to do? After posting the RfC and not participating in it, he wrote "Conclusion" on the Marco Polo talkpage, added his own personal beliefs beneath it and then went to an Admin (namely, Asterion) saying the RfC is "concluded" and that he should read the conclusion, unblock the article, and support his "concluded" version.
I'm a little indisposed for the time being (faks) so I hope you can stop his cheap, childish attempts to get his way. Britannica supports the "both theories are equal" theory. DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is now unblocked. I extended the original protection for a week longer but doing so again is not good. If things get too heated, I suggest you all seek informal mediation. I have my own opinion about the subject but I would rather keep it to myself and not let it interfere with admin actions. It would not be ethical to express an opinion on article that I protected. As I said when I first intervened, it is not really up to admins to "choose a version" or rule in content disputes. I am sure you will understand. Nonetheless, please avoid breaching the 3RR rule or edit war. Regards, --Asteriontalk 20:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Ragusa

Giove is now editing Republic of Ragusa. He once again claims Italian was the official language, with no sources at that, can you do something about this? DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo (and Ghepeu)

Hi Zen, I'd just like to turn your attention to the Marco Polo article again, there are basically two problems:

  • Our pal Ghepeu, insists on saying "most sources support the Venetian theory". And that "Polo was a self-declaring venetian citizen". What this means, really, is "we think most scientists believe this theory" and "Polo says he was born in venice, so the above thingy is stupid". He also insists on uncompromisingly calling Korčula "Curzola", without even the contemporary local word for the island in brackets ().
  • I seriously suspect a lot of stuff was removed from the Korčula theory arguments subsection. In any case it needs expansion, could you add a sentence or two?

Thnx, DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Korčula theory, I say: "mainstreams cience today support Venice theory". That means, "most sources".
But, Korčulan theory cannot be rejected, because it has grounds. Don't get into edit wars if someone is mutilating the "Korčula theory" section. Don't allow infantile egoistic persons to compromize your honest editing ideas.
Just warn him on the talkpage that he cannot do that. If he continues mutilating the section and/or ignoring your notices, then we'll elevate things to higher level. Kubura (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing!

I can' believe what a POV-fest that Marco Polo controversy section is turning into!... The Korčula theory is being ridiculed and relativized, while the Venetian one is stated as if it is 100% certainly true. Its arguments are stated as sure fact, even if they are nothing more than speculation. There's bad spelling&grammar there, there's like a metric TON of weasel words, and that's just a start! Somebody needs to do something, and with my restriction I can't really do much (the restriction doesn't seem to bother Giove, though, he's reverting everything he sees 8| ). Maybe we could alert an Admin, but who'd be crazy to mess with this? DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculizing and relativizing of things should be treated as anti-wikipedian and disruptive work. So, those who do that are bad-intentioning persons. Don't ever loose your nerves because of that.
The ridiculizers of other theories are writing their own indictment and sentencing judgement with such mocking work. It'll turn again them. Time works against them. Kubura (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Croats in Dubrovnik

Could you please explain what this edit summary means and who are those Orthodox Croats? --PaxEquilibrium 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RC

That Red Croats do not exist in any source whatsoever, and are a product of invention, mostly based on nationalism. --PaxEquilibrium 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources are listed in Red Croatia article. There should be added also sources from 13th century: Thomae Archidiaconi "Historia Salonitanorum atque Spalatinorum pontificum" and Chronicles by the same author. According to Toma, Croatian king (887-917) Budimir (Satamir,Satimerius) divided Croatian kingdom in 2 regions: Zagorje (eng. inland) and Primorje (eng. seaside); Primorje was additionally divided on White and Red Croatia. Croatian nationalism from 9th century? Zenanarh 14:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but later, launched mainly by Ivo Pilar. Red Croats are nowhere mentioned, but are a result of historical assumption from the term Red Croatia, for which there is very little historical data, close to nothing, to actually assume it existed in the normal historical course of time. For example, only one of the versions discovered in thr 16th century has records of Red Croatia itelf, other versions do not. The story refers to a mythic tale of Goths forming an Empire in the western Balkans, which was divided into Serbia (from Kosovo to the river of Una in modern-day Croatia) and Dalmatia, divided into Upper and Lower, for the latter of which the term "Red Croatia" sometimes appears, at a non-recorded congress in 753.
All the other statements come from copies of the very same one ambiguous work, which is outside the love tale between Kossara and Jovan Vladimir (which is also poetry, not history, however with a lot of historical basis) not much than, as Archbishop Gregory himself points out, national telling. If we could account the national telling of the clans in Montenegro, we would have to write that all Montenegrins are descendants of the heroes from the Battle of Amsfeld in 1389, which would be foolish in the same manner. Another interesting thing is the questionability of Thomas the Archdaecon's work itself, mentioned a Croatian ruler that did not exist. The 3rd source (between, the cite-source is broken, you should fix it) also just repeats the tale, but with an even more ahistorical mythological tone, presenting this Gothic Kingdom of Dalmatia, which was divided into several lands (of whom one is Red Croatia). In essence, this does not belong to a simple outright article as Croats, especially considering the fact that there was never ever any mention of Red Croats themselves, but is a recent product (which yes, probably has to do something with nationalism - the ultra-nationalist late 19th century course supported it), based on this word, which seems to appear but not present truly the real historiographical record. --PaxEquilibrium 09:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What is funny though is that those who call upon Red Croatia, never recognize that Bosnia was a Serb land and the area all the way to the river of Una populated by Serbs. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You should present references for your claims, your explanation is just your word. What is its relevance? BTW when you show it I will show you opposite references so we'll have "dispution situation" but I think you already know it, don't you? ;))) Zenanarh 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well did you read my comment? References for what precisely? I just explained the very self-contradicting issue you yourself showed when you cited the mentions of Red Croatia. For instance, I'll be glad to show you that from 877 to 917 ruled Iljko, Zdeslav, Branimir, Mutimir and then Petar, but do you really not know this? Also do you really not know that the first time a Regal crown is associated with the Croatian throne is in 924 (or 925, or perhaps even 923) with the case of Duke Tomislav?
Also, I shall repeat again - none of the sources you mentioned, and not a single even in history mentions the Red Croats, which are a product of plain assumption (i.e. Original research). --PaxEquilibrium 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but aren't we talking about the article Red Croatia and not Red Croats?? I agree that there is lack of that ethnic term which means nothing, since there are historical sources about geographical (or geo-political) term, it still doesn't mean that ethnical term didn't exist in some kind of usage. Does it matter? Red Croats however was for a long time well known ethnical term for centuries among Croats in the south - Bokelji for example. 3 sources in 12th to 14th century are not very little historical data, close to nothing by keeping in mind what period we aree dicussing of. How many different reliable sources up to 14th century about political and/or geographical terms in the western Balkans do we have at all for period 6th-9th century? Or elsewhere in Europe for the same period? In many cases saved sources are almost the only one for specific occasion. Why not using it in Croats article, BTW Raška is used in Serbs article isn't it? Please don't misinterpret and overturn every Croatian historical data into 19th century nationalism discoveries discussions etc...

According to Libellus Gothorum there were Silimir, Ratimir, Satimir, Budimir as earlier rulers. However Budimir from Hrvatska kronika was the same person named king Sventoplk/Svetopelek in Chronicles by the Priest of Doclea. Letters from Pope described Branimir and Sventoplk as gloriosus comes Sclavorum. Also there are even some claims that king Budimir-Svetopelek was actually most possibly Branimir. If some person didn't exist then it was king Svetopelek since his name was inventioned by bad translation of a original source to Latin language; sveti puk => svetopelek!!! sveti puk (eng. holy people), So "Budimir was ruling holy people" (well something like that) was translated as Budimir was "Holypeople" and his real name Budimir was erased (M. Hadžijahić: Pitanje vjerodostojnosti, 206). Your conclusion that he didn't exist is nothing but unsourced POV. Also "Hrvatska kronika" is by many authors concerned as the most relevant source for the area, actually opposite to your claim Another interesting thing is the questionability of Thomas the Archdaecon's work itself, mentioned a Croatian ruler that did not exist built on pure misinterpretation or ignorance whatever...

Not all kings in Europe got a crown from Pope, it still doesn't mean that they were not crowned or perceived as kings by their own people. Difference was whether they were accepted as kings by the Holy Roman Church or not. And Roman Church had a lot of problems in Illyricum after developing of Arian Christianity there. "Svetopelek" according to the Latin source by the Priest of Doclea accapted Arianism! And so on and on and on... Zenanarh 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the Red Croats, I only for a short notice skimmed to Red Croatia to point out several matters. Yes, it does matter. It does matter in the same manner that there is a village in the western part of the country called "Harvatovici", but has absolutely nothing to do with Croats, and since its creation till today no Croats live in it. A plain assumption as that about a mention of a Red Croatia, which doesn't have basis in the standard historical course (and is mentioned in obviously highly erroneous and mythic sources), is just as that - especially not to claim that during the migration of Croats into the Balkan peninsular "Red Croats" populated those lands, which is a plain violation of Wikipedia's policy no original research. I do not misinterpret any source - in this case it's being misused. The rise of romantic nationalism was a typical thing, and didn't occur just with the Croats - the Serbs too. For example, during the Age of National (Re?)Awakening the Dubrovnikers (many prominent individuals, as well as elsewhere from, well mostly Dalmatia) considered themselves Serbs-Catholics. That was even one of the reasons stated by the evil forces that teared down Yugoslavia in the 1990s for the Siege od Dubrovnik and that's why many Serbs (most notably the Serb Radical Party) still thinks "Dubrovnik is Serbian". That's misusage. How many different sources? Plenty. The Frankish Annals, Kekauman's works, John Skylitzes' records, Byzantine Princess Anna Comnenus' literature and hoards of others, none of them mentioning ever such a thing as a "Red Croatia".
The Red Croats was never ever a term that existed before interpretation of Red Croatia in the 19th/20th century, it has nothing to do with the Boccans - who themselves have little to do with the Croats historically, aside from the fact that the remaining Catholics have attained for a century or so some time by now a Croatian national identity. Many of them descent from Serb clans, e.g. the Zmajevic family.
My conclusion that "King Budimir" never existed is nothing but unsourced POV? Lol, see list of rulers of Croatia article in Wikipedia. ;))) The whole story about Goths creating some sort of a gigantic Kingdom and then dividing it, alluding that Croats and Serbs have completely identical origin and have been created in the Balkans through fictional toponyms "Croat-" & "Serb-" as well as the beforementioned allegation that we're all Germanians and not Slavs doesn't sound too fishy to you?
Svetopelek has never ever existed. That has been cleared up. He refers to several emotions, as well as geographical entities which were used by Archbishop Gregory to write a fascinating story. Stories like Serbs building in the Early Medieval Ages the city of Dubrovnik...all in all, should someone read (I advice you) the Chronicle and its several version, he/she should follow the interpretations of most historiographs in the world - that only the part about Jovan Vladimir and Kossara is historically accurate (like Paul Stephenson clears out - most historians dismissed the entire Chronicle completely unwilling to even consider it for a historically valuable source).
Taking all this to understanding, it seems shere madness to put that which I put at the Croats article. --PaxEquilibrium 09:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pax you must understand something: your personal opinion means nothing if it's unsourced in Wiki. Every such statement by yours is original research. If you're trying to impress me by conclusions that historical existing of Red Croatia should draw equally existance of an etnic group of the same name, you're on the wrong way. Let's say that Red Croatia did exist as geo-political unit, it still doesn't mean that it was formed by Red Croats. Actually there are sources that it was formed by a ruler. So there's possibility that later ethnonim was developed among Croats meaning the former Croat population of that area. You simply cannot deny it. As long as I know Red Croatia is deeply built in verbal tradition of Croats in Dalmatia and it really doesn't have anything to do with Croatian nationalism (to be honest your discussion about it, Tuđman's Croatia -LOL etc..., is something which I've heard about for the first time, it's totaly unknown in the Croatian publicity so I believe you've largly exaggerated it). Of course we definitely cannot deny even posible existance of the ethnic group Red Croats, but since there are no accesible or known reliable sources it's automatically agenda for forums and nationalistic Balkans orgies no matter from which side. However later it was used by nationalists but it's sad that you use it for discrediting of the article (rich text about who eat who, who was good, who was bad etc...). Such your contribution reveals your nationalism, well almost sick one by my opinion...

According to investigations of several sources of several authors it can be concluded that Budimir definitely did exist (somewhere he was named Svetopelek or similar) but not as the ruler of one huge state - he was just a ruler of one of the Sclavinias! and it's very well known that there was some number of it in the middle of 9th century in the area (affected by Duvno congress decisions). So dear Pax don't simplify it (list of rulers of Croatia article in Wikipedia) and don't misinterpret it (Stephenson's finding of errors in the text, in fact there are almost no historical sources without errors - it still doesn't mean that sources are not valuable - but that's something that scientists know very well - it's not on us to judge it - it's question of scientific treatment - not religion - is there a God or not...). Free your mind Pax don't be a horse (joke - no insult!)

Concerning Serbs and Dubrovnik (and why not Red Croatia again :)) I can say this: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula, it was never found in Serbia, Tracia and Danube Bulgaria, at the eastern Adriatic coast it was found from Istria to Dubrovnik, mostly in the area of previous Liburnians and Iapodes - later first Croatian state. Also it was stated that usage of Glagolithic alphabet was able to develop only through some political or military union of Croats from one and some Germanic ethnos (Goths?) from the other side, since there are Germanic names for a large number of Glagolithic letters. Recently a Slavic grave was found (by my sister-archeologist :))) in Župa Dubrovačka containing 10th century Porfirogenetus coins and Glagolithic text. However after scientific treatment it's dated in the beginning of 11th century. Text is not yet treated nor translated yet, hope it will be soon, but surely is the oldest Croatian one found in Dubrovnik region until now. Since that area is not yet archeologically investigated (and it's Dubrovnik! believe it or not...) there are implications that it's just first in a row. Confirmation of it would mean that the same Slavic ethnos was populating Dubrovnik region as elsewhere in the west - Croats! Time will show...

The whole story about Goths creating some sort of a gigantic Kingdom and then dividing it, alluding that Croats and Serbs have completely identical origin and have been created in the Balkans through fictional toponyms "Croat-" & "Serb-" as well as the beforementioned allegation that we're all Germanians and not Slavs doesn't sound too fishy to you? - this sentence of yours tell me this: - you don't understand historical processes like forming of an ethnos - what makes you think that some etnos can be so clean so it could be connected to one or another or third initial clean etnos??? Multi-diciplinary science abondoned this out of date kind of thinking! - We're all neither Germanians neither Slavs! Do you know exactly who have invented that etnonim (Slav) and how? - Even genetically and anthropologically the most of Serbs and the most of Croats are not of the same origin! One historian said (I forgot who...) that it's absolutely fascinating that Croats and Serbs have used pretty same language when all other differencies are kept in mind... Differencies attract but also explode - we know it aren't we? And there's nothing wrong about it. Zenanarh 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Accusing me of original research makes me think you don't know South Slavic history at all. ;))) Fine, I shall henceforth strictly give you sources.
Here's an example: it says that some sort of a "King Budimir" ruling between 877 and 917 divided Croatia into White and Red. Refer to the Kingdoms of Europe for example. I am very surprised that you didn't even try to search for a list of Croatian rulers. Between 877 and 879 Duke Zdeslav (famous Trpimir's son) returned to power. He was succeeded by Branimir, who reigned until 892. And then Muncimir (third Trpimir's son) ruled until 910. And finally, Tomislav (his son) reigned all the way to that 917. It's a bit weird to me that you actually don't know the Great Toma... ;P And the territory of the alleged Red Croatia was subjected to the Serbian House of Vlastimirovic then.
No, I'm not. I'm trying to note that it's highly POV to naturally *assume* such a excessively controversial thing and include it directly. I can deny it, as most historians (from Croatian like Ferdo Sisic across international like Paul Stephenson), because there is no such ethnonim outside some very unbased interpretations of Savic Markovic Stedimlija that "Crna Gora" evolved from "Crvena Hrvatska". In essence, it was launched by Ivo Pilar (refer to his works) and no one in detail before. If you know better, show me. ;)
You simply cannot deny it. As long as I know Red Croatia is deeply built in verbal tradition of Croats in Dalmatia and it really doesn't have anything to do with Croatian nationalism. Please show. Red Croatia is completely unknown to the world before the 16th century, when first copies of the Archbishop's Chronicle were made, the Croatian translators (Lucic?) even allegedly removed Red Croatia, considering it a mistake that mysteriously passed through several sources. The first more thorough research of Red Croatia surfaces in the 19th and 20th centuries and yes is directly related to nationalism, as its greatest researcher and theorist was an Ustasha.
Now there you're a bit too far going. ;) I would be willing to change my opinion if you show me any source earlier than the 19th/20th century nationalist interpretations, that were never ever accepted in broader scale until the Ustashas came to power. Should there ever be something alluding that Croats came in two groups: White and Red - I would gladly accept, but sadly there is no such thing. --PaxEquilibrium 20:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not doubt that a Budimir existed, but neither was he a King, nor did he live during the years Thomas states and he obviously didn't even do the things described. The interpretations of the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea are not those of my own, but of most historians. Unlike just holding errors, this propagandist/poetic/romantic work (shortly called "pamphlet" by some), has only the story about Jovan Vladimir and Bulgarian princess Kossara historically accurate (but normally as with most sources, told like a fairy tale), for others there is no historical confirmation anywhere else beyond the work itself. The same would be as if I would use the "History of Montenegro" of Petar I Petrovic-Njegos as a source for Montenegrin-related article, the article itself holding only a bit more than half actually true historical data (it bases itself on epic stories, much like the LjPD, and outright writes that Montenegrins are simpleton Serbs - and yet we don't see that used in Wikipedia, do we?). --PaxEquilibrium 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction: the Glagolitic script was used by Serbs too, but for a very short time, they crossed to Cyrillic script immediately as it was founded. AFAIK, the oldest Serb book - the Marian Gospel from the early 11th century, was written in Glagolitic. On the territory of Serbia two Apolostolic works, in Glagolitic, were discovered and studied: the 11th century Gerskovic's & Mihanovic's script, likewise written in Glagolitic. By the way, on the territory of Red Croatia, the Cyrillic script was mostly in usage ever since it was created, with the finest and oldest works in the Serbian recension of Slavic written right there. Oh and about taht post - the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja writes that the Serb ruler has constructed Dubrovnik in the 10th century (or slightly before). :)))) --PaxEquilibrium 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Even genetically and anthropologically the most of Serbs and the most of Croats are not of the same origin! Well there's your contradiction again. The sources of the theory of Red Croatia all undoubtedly claim that a single whole of peoples (Gothic/Slavic/whatnot) built a huge empire, and that they further divided along geographical lines, which obviously, according to you, became the basis for ethnogenesis of peoples, i.e. Croats and Serbs. An it also writes that the Croatian, Serbian and other dynasties commonly descend from the original rulers of this...ancient Yugoslavia? And of course I do not believe in that, there are differences - that's precisely why I dismiss the story of Red Croatia as a truly historical possibility. By the way, what differences were/are you referring to? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're playing dumb. I have never said that there were Red Croats in the sources, but half of your discussion is about it, feel free to enjoy your imagination. I don't need you to teach me a history. I know it very well.
You have 3 "Serbian" Glagolithic sources from 11th century? Nice. Croats have hundreds and hundreds of it 9th-16th century. Now if I would use your kind of logic in discussing it would mean that these "Serbian" sources were written by Croats! LOL
Cyrillic scripts in Dubrovnik were written in Western cyrillic alphabet used by Croats. Oh is it possible that the Serb ruler was "bauštelac" in Dubrovnik? Nice of him. He can always come back if he wants to work hardly again, but without the rockets, mines, granades, chemicals and 150mm pancir-bullets please.
a single whole of peoples ??? I won't comment the rest, you are very profiled misinterpretator. And I'm tired of this conversation with you. I suggest that this discussion at my talk page reaches "the end", see you in the article talk pages when I get some free time. Ciao for now.Zenanarh (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that's precisely what I've been trying to elaborate. What gives us (or better, what gave me ;) the right (potentially violating Wikipedia:No original research) to write Red Croats at the Croats article, especially in the manner at which it currently is?
What do you mean, and especially by the ""s? Let me quote you: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula, it was never found in Serbia, Tracia and Danube Bulgaria, at the eastern Adriatic coast it was found from Istria to Dubrovnik, mostly in the area of previous Liburnians and Iapodes - later first Croatian state. Well, it obviously was. And the Serbs used the script, just like the Bulgars, for a tiny short time before fully switching to Cyrillic. Your point was/is...?
I'm not talking about Ragusa, for which that might (or better, probably is) the truth. But for the whole hinterland from slightly beyond the river of Narenta to northern Arboria, of which Red Croatia was supposedly composed.
Tell me something, did you read the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea? The tale is that a people (the Goths/Slavs or whatever they are) settled in the west Balkans creating a small Slavic empire, this "proto-Yugoslavia" as some pro-Yugoslavian politicians from Croatia in the late 19th century used to describe, than on this Council at the Field of Duvno (which is unrecorded anywhere else outside it), they epically decided to split the country into two parts: Serbia (composed of the realms of Rascia and Bosnia, from Metohija to the river of Una) and Dalmatia, which split onto Lower Dalmatia or White Croatia and Upper Dalmatia (which is in some sources referred to also as Red Croatia). The conclusion from this that would simply follow, is that these (geographic?) terms became designations for the peoples (Serbs & Croats, sometimes taking the local names of Rascians, Bosnians and Dalmatians) that locally live there - however with the case of Red Croatia that sometimes mentions, gave birth to no Red Croats?
Well does this mean that you comply? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I never accuse - accusations come from certainty, I alluded to the possibility that you might be, among other reasons because Giovani (yes, that highly not constructive editor) accused you.
"you're just an extreme nationalist POV pusher". Now those are very, very hard words. You should explain yourself when making outrageous accusations, otherwise this might be plainly a PA|personal attack. For example, I've received countless Barnstars. Four of them from Bosniak users, two from Montenegrin, one from American, one from Greek, one from Jewish, one from Serbian and two from Croatian users (some of them I kept here). I've been proposed to become an administrator from a Croatian, a Montenegrin, two Albanian and an American wikipedian.
So in the end, I'll ask you again - does this mean that you comply? :) Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Excusé moi if I got wrong impressions about you... History is nothing like our discussion above, so I've already suggested moving to the related articles. There's a lot of mess in Dalmatia related articles and I'm more concentrated on other things so appreciate if you wait with Red Croats for a while... well, a little bit longer... Zenanarh (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Zen, someone hasn't mentioned you that ancient Doclea had mixed mentioning of Croats and Serbs in its history (if I remember well, Porfirogenetus "skipped" Doclea in the sequence that someone here likes to cite).
Second, go to hr.wiki, I'll explain you there the rest.
Third, don't ever loose your temper. Don't allow them to provoke you. That's what they want you to do. Rather talk to me. Bye, Kubura (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite correct. It is said on one occasion by Skilitza's continuer the people of Serbs that also call themselves Croats, because he doesn't look the difference and considers it whole one same people (which goes along with the theory of the Chronicle of the Priest of Doclea that it is one people who possibly later got two [and more] names).
I'm not provoking anyone. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin

I'm ensuring that some form of calmness and neutrality is preserved. No, Serbian is both ekavian and iyekavian dialect, Montenegrin is...well, none yet defined (although it'll probably be iyekavian). :) No, but because Serbian was always the language spoken in Montenegro, the term "Montenegrin language" is being brought into usage only lately, and is still a matter of great controversy - to be solved soon, I hope. The other way around is the political act. I do not understand what do you mean by "..how many original Montenegrin words became "Serbian"..", could you elaborate please? Well, I asked just for you my family this night, and they declared Serbian language. ;) Also, what is "proud original Montenegrian"? Please define. You're however, wrong. Montenegro broke its union with Serbia only a year ago. Of course t'is not be a forum - we're discussing the article.

P.S. I was a bit surprised when you appeared and wrote that, I expected that you'd write that Montenegrins are Serbs, since you even consider that Macedonians are Bulgarians. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL what are you using? Magic mushrooms? Such kind of playing dumb (first group of your statements above) and imagination (second-Macedonians) I haven't seen for a long time. Actually I think that you're a Serb (all homo sapiens = Serbs) and I'm a Martian (since I'm a Croat). :P Zenanarh (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, this is your second personal attack. Please refrain from such edit. Second of all, you said it on this very talk page: "I can say this: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula,...". :) Third of all, I don't nationally-declare myself & I think we should return to the main discussion to the up. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula - where exactly you see Macedonians are Bulgarians here? Zenanarh (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, right in there. Now please, return to the main subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Really you're my idol! Everything is so simple to you, maybe that's why I can find so many biased or unobjective interpretations of my words from your side. P.S. Excuse me for getting a little bit personal in my earlier reply, but some of your conclusions are so inspirative sometimes. No insult... I would like to have some more free time for discussions with you. Unfortunately I don't have it at the moment. Sorry... Zenanarh (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Will be waitin'. The intention of that comment was to raise up the mood, by the way. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] illyrian map tribes locations

Can you give me a hand in illyrian tribes pre-roman conquest locations? I can remake the map with all the tribes thought i i' ll make it bigger.There is a lot of tribes thoughMegistias 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Can you mail me about it? hoplitesmores@yahoo.grMegistias 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Have some problems with mail, give me 2 days Zenanarh 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sure, ill be waiting!Megistias 18:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

an example,also the some thracians that mixed and are considered "illyrians" from a time thereafter will be simply shown as illyrians or should we use some special symbol in Dardanians?

Illyrian tribes in antiquity
Illyrian tribes in antiquity

Illyrians prior to Roman conquest]Megistias 11:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe color of the name can help. Dardani were more Thracians than Illyrians, Iapodes were mixed with Celts. Since there were Celtic tribes present in some number among Illyrian ones, we can put them there too, so I think the usage of different colour can help. This is very "sensible" matter and any kind of simplified approachment can be reason for dispution. Maybe we can do something like this: Celts-blue, Iapodes-purple, Illyrians-red, Dardani-orange, Thracians-yellow,... hmm too complicated? There are Veneti and Greeks too so... What do you think?Zenanarh 11:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed its problematic.It will be look bad and wont really explain rather than confuse.We either leave it in a generic fashion-aereas and tribes- and let interested parties get their info on each tribe(dardani case in example)from its description in according subject pages rather than confuse them with the map.Too many tribes and the issue of when were they thracians and when did they turn illyrian by mixing.Better simple and explanations will be found in the subject pagesMegistias 12:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Or half colorize mixed tribe names in the fashion you suggest!Megistias 12:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Now when I see map I think colors will not help. Since name Illyrians was applied to all of them, which is dispution matter concerning some of them, it would be better not to take jury side. It's not on us to decide. Ethnogenesis is much more complicated than a few different colors. Let's leave it to a reader and related articles, by first suggestion of yours. Zenanarh 12:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok i ll leave it as it is and check out some more stuff to see what improvements can be madeMegistias 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you agree we can do it here or at your talk page, whatever you like. I think it would be much easier and quicker than by mail, since I can give you modern geographical places (with wiki links) the closest to the pre-Roman conquest positions of the tribes. Almost every Wiki article of the modern city, river or mountain have a map with position, so you can easily use it for your map. Is it OK? Zenanarh 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure ,mail me!Megistias 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous user

Maybe it's unbelievable, but I used the same argument. Was the name "Siege of Zara" really used only in 19th century books? It looks strange to change the name of a historical fact. Anyway, if it has really happened, that's all. 87.8.239.37 11:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not the name of a historical fact. If Englishmen in 18th and 19th century were using Zara (since it was the name of the same time), this logic would mean Zadar at present (since it is the name at present). Historical name was Jadera (J was spoken Z, adding accents - Zad(e)r(a) or Zad'r' and here we go again - Zadar - by modern Croatian slang spoken in Zadar at present it's Zad'r). Zenanarh 12:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The historical fact is the "Siege of Zadar". Compare to the "Battle of Stalingrad". Anyway, I repeat, if modern English history books calls it "Siege of Zadar", that's the name which should be used. 87.8.239.37 12:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Last time I disturb you. I'm anonymous because I don't want people to judge me on my past edits. Wikipedia gives me this freedom, and I use it. I committed the error to touch sensitive issues, and I'll do that no more. Regarding the article Birth Place of Marco Polo, I hope you could revert two obvious errors (you can check any dictionary):

  • "Polo means chicken or fowl" should become "Pollo means chicken or fowl";
  • "Habitatox" should become "Habitator".

An other thing, maybe more controversial: it's really probable that "Marc Pol" is only a Francization, it was a really common practice to translate names (don't you remember all the italianized Croatian names?), so that should be mentioned at least in the "Criticism of the Curzola theory" section. To end all discussions about me around there, yes, my English is not very good, and I need evening classes. Is it really so funny? Last time I say that, I was not that man, anyway, it doesn't matter, I will disturb you no more. 87.9.235.137 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni IPs

Zen, please don't waste your energy with some more "Giovanni discussions", just revert and report him, User:Afrika paprika was dealt with, so will he. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Zenanarh 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just don't forget to revert the IPs all the time (as you know, I can't :( ). I'll see about reporting him and getting an Admin on the sockpuppetry case. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


I've posted a sockpuppeteering report about all this, here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (4th). Any help in the way of additional evidence or support would be appreciated. This guy simply must be stopped already! --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just to let you know...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

See [5]. You've been mentioned. Kubura (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theories about origins of Croats

Look my work on hr.wiki.
I've made a list of theories, and each theory is an article for itself. Kubura (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dalmatia's now in Italy

Have you seen this? [6]

Dalmatia???? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff in which that categorization was done [7]. Kubura (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian fighting style article - War tactics

Hi Zenarnarh.I have material in here for the endeavourIllyrians groupand i renew and update anything i find as much as i can.We have a resurrected discussion here from when i knew littleIllyrian stuff.Tell me what you think.They were the Uber-peltast mountain warrior hybrid !Megistias (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Helmets shown in the pictures and illustrations were found in Novo Mesto and Vač in Slovenia, Vač location was Iron Age Hallstat culture and closer to Veneti [8]. Some other: [9], [10], [11], [12], no link - bronze helmet in Trstenik in Serbia (5th century B.C.),... Zenanarh (talk) 11:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ..., no link - bronze helmet in Picug near Poreč in Croatia (5th century B.C.) Zenanarh (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wonderfull i have gathered lots of stuff as well.The hellenistic illyriaand this troop appearance and these would be kings and lords in hellenistic era style usage of the hoplite shield/or a circular one on horseback or off itIllyrian kings.Megistias (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a variety from Iapodesillyrian capsand from an illyrin king's grave king arms.In the group i have all the material illyriansMegistias (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
See webber tooIllyriansMegistias (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
STipeviccoverMegistias (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gradisca/Gradišče

Hi: check out the changes on the page Gradisca d'Isonzo. Take care and happy New Year, Viator slovenicus (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Hello Zenanarh. Can you help me understand what this mean (from Haplogrou I article)

Despite the fact that the predominantly Sardinian Haplogroup I1b1b-P41.2=M359 is derived from the predominantly Balkan Haplogroup I1b1*-P37.2, the derived Haplogroup I1b1b is practically absent east of France and Italy, while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb, Great Britain, and Ireland. Thus, Haplogroup I1b1b appears to be strongly associated with Southwest Europeans of Paleolithic ancestry, and its carriers bear only a distant relictual relationship to the I1b1*-bearing populations of the Balkans.

?Hxseek (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Hello Zenanarh. Can you help me understand what this mean (from Haplogrou I article)

Despite the fact that the predominantly Sardinian Haplogroup I1b1b-P41.2=M359 is derived from the predominantly Balkan Haplogroup I1b1*-P37.2, the derived Haplogroup I1b1b is practically absent east of France and Italy, while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb, Great Britain, and Ireland. Thus, Haplogroup I1b1b appears to be strongly associated with Southwest Europeans of Paleolithic ancestry, and its carriers bear only a distant relictual relationship to the I1b1*-bearing populations of the Balkans.

?Hxseek (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks friend, that explains it very well. Yes, i got the quote from the wiki page on Haplotype I . Hxseek (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] true

Yes, you're right Z. I wasn't trying to put any particular case across, but i thnk that is where most of the animosity stems from WWII , does it not? from what i know, serbia and croatia never had any conflicts in medieval or ottoman times (excpet for maybe brief skirmishes over Bosnia c. 11th century) , did they ? it just seems so crazy such animosity can come about in the space of 100 years. Hxseek (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor"

So, in order to combat this and restore balance, you're doing exactly the same thing but with the languages reversed? This is why I generally wouldn't touch Balkans-related articles with a ten-foot bargepole. It's insane. Dewrad (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some genetics

Hey Z. Regarding the south slav genetics study: although we have estimated how old the different haplotypes are, can we determine when they actually entered the balkans? Also do we know of any mtDNA data pertaining to Balkans peoples ? Hxseek (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

KAk ci Zenanarh. I was wondering if you were aware of any data on mtDNA for sout slavs, and any DNA studies on old slavic burials ?? These would add a lot to the picture Hxseek (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes i underatand the utility of Y-Dna, but its ony half the picture. Since women didn't migrate as much, they were more static. Thus analysing mtDNA of former Yugoslavs would give us a better picture of the native Balkaners who were Slavicized-who was already there before Slavs arrived.
Interesting what you say about the tribes. I am not sure i neccesarily agree that Ikvains,Shtokavians, etc were tribes, they are merely modern lignusitic (and a bit arbitrary) sub-classes. From what i have read: Serbs, Croats and Bosnians are descended from the Sclaveni- a western south slav group that dwelt in the middle danube, as opposed to the antes (who were nontheless very similar). They were essentially one people divided into many small tribes. Serbs and Croats might have been one of these tribes, or a noble clans that rose to rule others. Their power waxed and waned, thus the borderes of their early states fluctuated. Centuries later, Serb and Craot came to be a 'core' for formation of ethno-national state (encompassing surrounding SLavs). Certain areas might have been bastions of Illyrians. Apart from the Byzantine Dalmatian towns (SPlit, Kotor, Ragusa, etc), Illyrians / Vlachs survived in the mountainous areas -especially montenegro and parts of Bosnia. Zlatarski -a bulgarian Slavist, suggests that Macedonians are descended from eastern south slavs - from the ANtes supra-tribal federacy. Slovenes might have been more a western Slavs group (descended from Duljebs, Vah and Morav slavs) that became seperated from cheques and slovaks. What do u think ? Hxseek (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] He lives!! ;)

Hi Zen Well I'm finally done with all the tests and exams, and I'd appreciate if you could bring me up to speed with the latest events around here. What goes on? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 04:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are mistaken

I have never at one point stated that Pagania was Serbian or Croatian ! I have not actually written anything for the Pagani, Zahumje or Travunia article. Over the past 3 months, i have been doing extensive research by non-Serb, non -croat historians. Now i can say that my knowledge about early slav history is better than anyone. I have no interest in proving one view nor another.

If you read my last edit on south slavs (read the article and check the maps), early states section- you will note that i state that there were 7 or so early slavic 'states' . The croat duchy of dalmatian, savia/pannonian 'croatia', serbia, zahum, travunia, dulja, pagania. I clearly state, at one point one of these duches grew powerful and exerted influence over another. Never did i say that Paganians becamse Serbs or whatever.

Most western historians- Curta, Fine, Hupchik- use cinstantine porphyrogenitus as a source. Yes, it has its problems. But it is still the only useful source on the early slav states apart from royal frankish annals. The chronicles of the priest of Duklja is next to worthless because it is a legendary account.

Now, my conclusions, from what i have read, are thus: The western south slavs may be all descended from one tribal union- the sclaveni. Also much of dalmatia was also settled by Avars. The serbs and croats were a numerically small group. They became a leading clan in their central territories (ie dalmatia around nin) and southwestern Serbia, respectively. As their power grew, they commanded loyalty, etc from paganians or zahumljiani. Centuries later Croats and Serbs came to be the name for the nation rather that the people/clan. Because the original Serbs and croats were so small amongst a sea of other slavs (that were the same), essentially zahumljiani, pagani, travunians were all the same ethnically. Even if you do not wish it/ beleive it, even Serbs and Croats were probably very very similar. We cannot overlook the similarities in the whole "white' homeland or the possible iranic origins which applies to both. So what happens when sclaveni occupy all the former yugoslavia, mix with some Illyrians here and there, plus few avars. Then come serbs and craots (who are very similar/ same)? Final product largely a very similar people all inhabiting from Slovenia to northern Macedonia. So how can we prove by language or acrheology that Serbs or Craots actually ruled Bosnia (or whatever) when (1) their cultures/ language where not even significantly different from one another, (2) there is actually not much evidence from these early periods anyway (3) both probably ruled the area even within the space of 20 years ??

I can honstly say, again with no pro-Serb agenda, that historians such as Hupchik, Fine and Cruta all tend associated Dukljian, Zahumljiani and TRavunians as Serbs. Eg call them Zetan Serbs. THe Paganii are less mentioned after 1000, but they were probably more independent. If you can notify me of a western , non-croat source calling Dukljians or Zahumljians as Croats, then i would be happy to take it on board. But as i said, it is not even worth debating because they were all one people, divided into many tribes (quote from Fine). So proving whether Paganians where Croats or Serbs is like trying to prove whether Charlemagne was a Salian or Ripurian Frank.

As conflicting as constantine's account is, it doesn;t matter. He says that Paganians, Zahumlji, etc are Serbs. This may be because during his time (ie 10th century) they were under Serbian influce. When i redo the serb, duklja articles, i will state this, rather than leaving contsantines account (or the Dukljian PRiest's account) as gospel. Hxseek (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And i never supported the cetina river as being a border . It is far too artificial to suggest that serbs and croat were neatly divided into delineated territories. The medieval world was multi-ethnic and non-national. There were no border (well, they were fluctuant and fluid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. I understand your emotion. Since i am borne in asutralia, and consider myself australian, i think i am a bit more neutral on the matter. But anyway.

As for the avars, contsantine in D.A.I repeatedly makes mention of Avars settling parts of Dalmatia. Plus there is archeological traces of Avar culture, plus various turkic toponyms. Out of interest, see that croatian female tennis player, i forget her name. She is quite dark and almost looks as if her eyes are asian. Perhaps a trace of Avar ??

You should read this book: Southeastern Europe in the middle ages by Florin Curta. Its a it full on. He suggests that 'Croats' was not an ethnic label. He thinks that croats might have been a clan of Slavic nobles that came to rule over much of dalmatia in service of the Franks. They had very developed material culture. Interestingly though, there is no metnio of 'Croats' in the literature until COntsantine's works in 10th century. The royal Frankish annals only metion the guduscans and Liutevit as a pannonian slav. They do not mention any croats ! ? Hxseek (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you know anything about the Guduscans ?
Fascinating. So you think that the Guduscans might have been descended from the Goths. Is Borna a German name ? What source provides such a theory (so i can include it in my upcoming revision to articles)? Hxseek (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Excellent. Thanks for that. I want to include it . Soon i want to upgrade the croatia, Duklja , Bosnia articles- medieval section. I am just summarising my research, I think their quality will be much improved. I will include this info about the Guduscans.

ABOUT R1a. IT has been dated back to ? 15, 00 years ago. As you are well aware, three theories about its spread to the Balkans are as (1) part of re-population of Europe from the refugium in Ukraine (2) Spread of indo-Europeans and domestication of horse (c. 2, 000 years ago) (3) Spread of Slavs. The last is least likely. Because we know think that the migration of slavs would have to have been HUGE to actually effect the genetic composition of Balkaners. Therefore R1a was already in the Balkans before Slavs arrived. They might have merely increased its presence by a tiny margin

What i asked you eralier is about mtDNA of south salvs. Do we know anything about this ?? Because Y-DNA is obviously only half the story. Women tended to be more sedentary, as men were more involved with war and migrations/invasions. So if we knew the mtDNA composition of south slavs, we would have a better picture of the pre-Slavic peoples in the Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Incredible, its like I never even left in the first place! Its like I said with these nationalist Italians, they think of themselves as superior "renaissance-like" civilized European gentlemen (even though most can't even write in English), while we are primitive "barbarians" who slaughter each-other constantly and reproduce at an alarming rate, so as to swamp the "builders of Dalmatian culture", the Venetians, out of their lands. What they cannot realize is that despite their (economically oppressive) rule, the Croats (i.e. Slavs) always formed the overwhelming majority in Dalmatia, ever since the fall of the Roman Empire (of which Italy is hardly the successor-state).
Wikipedia is simply unable to combat these people, and the like. They are obviously the "aggressors" here, with their strong sympathizing with irredentism, but Italians are much "closer" culturally to Americans (and the British) so the thing is "evened out". --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful data

Here's to help you with DAI. Here's the link.
Mit o srpstvu srednjovjekovne Bosne and the book of Ivan Mužić Hrvatska povijest 9. stoljeća (*.pdf file, 1,7 MB). These are in Croatian. Also, dojdi na našu wikicu, još ti iman tega za reć. There we don't have obligation to write in English. Kubura (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glacolitic, etc

Yes, i definitely agree the DAI was political bias in some aspects, since hie tries to downplay Croati'as independence, etc. He mentions the minor skirmish between Croatia and BUlgaria in the mid 800s, but doesn;t even talk about the major battle of Bosnians highlands, which was during his time.

I understand that glacollitic was used by Croatia. More correctly though, it was used by the Dalmatian bishoprics, was it not, befoire the Split synods slowly removed it. With all due respect to your suggestion, i dont think that we can safely say that Duklja was under Croatian rule, or was of Craot ethnos, just because Glacolotic scriupt was found there. Was it not also used in nearby Macedonia for example ?

Like i keep saying, it is pointless to keep trying to prove whether Pagans, Zahumljians were Serbs of Craots. in the 700s- 100s, these early times, they were seperate duchies. Ethnically, they were all very similar, speaking a very similar language. Croat (and Serb) just probably referred to one clan or tribe of southern slavs. THus the traditional view that Serbs occupied the southeast half and croats occupied the northwest half is wrong. In fact, their initial territory was probably much smaller, ie northern dalmatia around Nin, and southwestern Serbia around the Lim and Ibar rivers, respectively. Later, over time, their power increased. Eg croatia spread to Slavonia, and Serbs spread into srem. Thus the slavs in these areas, which were probably of different tribal clans/ tribe originally, also came to be called Croats and Serbs subsequently. Thus what were Paganians ? They were south slavs who were called Paganis/ Neretvi/ Mariens. Croats were their neighbours, and also related , and often allied. Hxseek (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I see your points. I have not come accross any English-language books going into the Glacollitic aspect. Either way, i am not convinced that finding of Glacollitic script will 100% equate with Croatian ethnicity. I am taking the approach of John Fine, and other western historians, who present the view that 'Serb' and 'Croat' only became established as ethnic labels much later in history. initially they were tribal, or less so- even a clan or dynastic name. Curta suggests that the 8th century Croats were a collection of nobles -Trpimir and his Zhupans. As they established control over most of northern Dalmatia, western Bosnia, the area became known as Duchy of the Croats. Much later, the area became known as Croatia, in the name sake of the founding rulers.

Comparison: Bulgaria. In 900 Bulgaria was huge. But it doesn;t mean that the Bulgars settled Dacia, Moesia, Macedonia, Serbia, Slavonia, Greece. Similarly we can find Bulgar artifacts in these areas alos. However, the Bulgar elites and their family clan were only concentrated in Dobrudja.

Only difference is : Croats were Slavs . For all the different theories about their origins and settlements (whether they were Sarmatian, or Goths) for all intents and purposes, they were Slavicized by 700. So, they were too similar to their other Slavic neighbours- the Serbs, Pagani, Zahunljiani, Trabunites- to have established a clearly different nature of existence to look into archeology and clearly say "here are croats, there are Serbs".

As for Zahumljiani and TErbunites. The same arguement could be applied. Slavs that fell under Serb rule at times. Hupchik and Fine generally refer to them as Serbs though. If you can point out to me a western scholar that calles them croats, i will be too happy to include that into my new articles.

Regards Hxseek (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zen, there's a book of Ivan Mužić Hrvatska povijest devetoga stoljeća (this is a *.pdf file, 3.83 MB in size). You may find some of Croatia's early history there and explanations. Kubura (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian War of Independance

Stop re-editing the Croatian War of Independance article.I agreed on those changes with SWiki78.ok?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC) If you want to change something go to the descussion page first. Disscuse the issues and do not edit without anybodies approval.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that joke-incident didn't take place in 1990. and in the referrence title is Franjo Tudjman 1992-1999. Until someone finds the actual date when that quote was made it shouldn't stand there because the story should go in chronological order. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for the source/refference for your change.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

This paragraph that you have reinserted for the second time is a word-for-word copy of the text at the reference you provided. The reason I removed it is because it is a possible copyright violation and text in Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please rewrite that paragraph, otherwise it will be removed again as Wikipedia can get into legal trouble by hosting copyrighted material.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Munjopošta

Javi mi se na hr.wiki. Kubura (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I requested a move of Dalmatian Italians to Italian minority in Dalmatia, just though you'd want to know. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rudolf Horvat

I just realized he's practically the same as Dominik Mandic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suffix -mir

Er, Zenanarh, do you perhaps happen to think that Serbs didn't have such names? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed opinion? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Boring? Zenanarh (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, you really definitely need to work up on your mood. ;-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm in excellent mood... when I don't have to dig those mines on the moon with you... in those neverending debating sessions. And buddy, you really definitely need to work up on your private life. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And... hmm... Actually, I've asked you: are you feeling bored? Zenanarh (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About fascist italianization

HI

I have found some data abou Italian historiographer. Those guys disclose the myth about Italian soldiers as "brava gente" who were coming to war with guitars :

  • Paolo Rumiz
  • Gianni Oliva
  • Davide Conti

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Rumiz [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Captain Corelli's Mandolin (film) was a totally forgery!

--Anto (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


LoL! :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
John Lennon: Imagine there... :) Zenanarh (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Diacritics-arbitration

Hi

I intend to send this argument about spelling the south Slavic names (Franjo Tuđman ,Novak Đoković etc. ) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration

It seems it's the only solution! --Anto (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dalmatia

Were the northern-most islands part of Croatia in the 11th century (ie Rab, etc)? If so, when did Byzantine status formally end? Hxseek (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ALso, when you get a chance. Correct me if i am wrong. Slavonia is a portion of what was Savia-Pannonia in the 9th century , right? WHen did it begin to be called Slavonia. ?
When Hungary amalgamated Croatia, was Slavonia a direct part of Hungary, whilst Croatia was more independent ? Hxseek (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought so. What were the borders of the Banovina of Slaovenia? Was it like present-day Slovenia

By the way. I am working on a bit of early to mid medieval history for Croatia and Dalmatia. I just want to add a bit of extra info to what we have now in the articles. When it is finished, i would appreciate your comments/ approval, etc. Hxseek (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubrovnik, the ancient Ragusa

i want to let you know that Ragusa, because of its venetian-like italian speaking government, in analogy with the famous four Italian maritime Republics, was also known in europe as the fifth Italian maritime Republics. Ragusa was a Venetian City from the IV crusade (1204) until 1358. So this beautiful city was also italian, (and so in 1809 was part of the Italian Napoleonic Kingdom). It is a fact that many italian poets and artists was born there. It was also Croatian (and many famous Croatian people was born there) and now is still a Croatian city, but history and origins can not be denied. So please re-consider my edit in Dubrovnik ;) bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.27.86 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 19 April 2008

Here's my message on Talk:Republic of Dubrovnik from 18 March 2008, 13:56:
Here's the reference [21] and [22] Pavao Krmpotić: Kazneni postupak prema srednjovjekovnom statutarnom pravu Dubrovačke Republike, Pravnik, 40, 2 (83), 2006, p. 89. (Criminal procedure according to the statutary Law of Republic of Dubrovnik):
 Venice has concquered Dubrovnik in 1205. With the Peace Treaty from Zadar from 1358, the rule of Venice over Dubrovnik ended. Until 1526, Dubrovnik recognised the King of Croatia and Hungary as the sovereign (dinasties: Angevins, Luxemburg, Habsburg, Hunyadi, Jagiellon).".
 If someone continues to speak about Dubrovnik as Italian city, ask him why don't he/she speaks about Southern Italy as Arab land and that those beautiful areas were also Arab land. Kubura (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All hail the King! ;)

Hi Zen, maybe you'd be interested in the ongoing discussion concerning the legitimacy of our King, His Royal Majesty Tomislav II of Croatia ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In either event, your participation would be appreciated. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You asked for some sources saying NDH was a monarchy and Tomislav II was the king their are plenty. Are you going to reconsider your position to reflect what published sources say isn't that what were supposed to do on Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Lies"

Insted of saying that my work is lies. Take one point and prove it wrong with a source. There you go. Mike Babic (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Croatia and royal rights

Hi, Zenanarh.
You'll find this info useful. When the Catholic reconquista began on the areas of Croatia, appeared a problem between "allied" sides, Habsburgs and Venice, because they all wanted to have Dalmatia for themselves. Venice was seriously concerned, because Habsburgs claimed the Dalmatia according the fact that it was one of Habsburgs' obligations, when they accepted Croatian crown (separately from Hungarian): to liberate and unite all Croatian lands. Dalmatia was one of them.
Ukratko, Habsburzi su polagali pravo na Dalmaciju temeljem tega što su bili hrvatski kralji odnosno jer je Dalmacija je bila dil Hrvatskeg Kraljevstva. Kubura (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haplogroup I2a1

It states: "Haplogroup I2a1 (P41.2 (M359)) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians" ... In fact 40% of Sardinians have M26 not P41/M359 SNP. You can check the source you cited. (on p.19 I1b2-M26) and also ".Zei G, Lisa A, Fiorani O, Magri C, Quintana-Murci L, Semino O, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS.:"From surnames to the history of Y chromosomes: the Sardinian population as a paradigm". By the way, SNP P41/M359 is very rare in hg I, and it is mentioned as M359 in Cengiz Cinnioglu et all.:"Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia". So, "Sardinian" subgroup is I2a2 not I2a1. Medlare (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic language

You wrote very interesting comments on the Bosniaks talk page about DNA etc. Unfortunately the Noone Soong idiot was just that same Bosniak puppet whose been writing rubbish all this time. Where did you read about the theory that Slavic was used as a Trade language near the Black sea ? Hxseek (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i am (a little) acquainted with the spread of Slavic and IE languages. But i had not heard of before you mentioned it that Slavic might have been a language of traders. Quite interesting. How did it eveolve? Were these traders some specific ethnicity. Did Slavic evolve from an interplay of gothic with Scythian ? ? All i know is the most common theory that Balto-Slavic languages are what remained in Ukraine after the other IEs spread out. (I am not a linguist, by the way,. More a scientist) Hxseek (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: And you think they were bearers of Haplogroup N ? Like Uralics and Mongols ? Hxseek (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. So the Stokavians were a newer arrival, with slightly different dialect and some unique material cultures. So how did Croatian Stokavian come about. It must mean that the new Stokavians mixed in with the original Kakvain Croat Slavs.

How do you actually propose that the Language moved from the Urals to Ukraine? The far majority of scholars state that Slavic originated in Ukraine- where the oldest hydronyms are found. How can we reconcile these two theories ?

Also: When the Slavic speakers arived, do you think that any of the authochthons were still speaking Illyrian and Thrcians, or were they all Hellenized and Romanized. Ie did any Illyrian contribute to Serbo-Croatian and did Thracian really contribute to modern Bulgaro-Macedonian ? Hxseek (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Fascinating as always. I will check ou that fibrosis disease you referred to ( I am a doctor).

I can only spaek a bit of Macedonian (because my grandmother is Maco- she took care of me as a baby). My girlfriend is Russian. It sounds bloody alien to me ! A lot of "njet" and such sounds. They accent their words differently also, more at the beginning of the word rather than at the end like us south slavs. In contrast i find Ruthenian and Ukrainian very similar to Byulgarian and Macedonian. Must be that Antean legacy ? ! Whenever i meet a croat, we can speak together well. He speaks Craotian and I speak Macedonian, but we are understanding each other still. Funny, eh. POlish also more similar than Russian. But i just don;t get exposed enough to really know.

Interesting also what you say about Croat kingdom. Yes, I find myself wondering how things might be different if history was different. I think that the Slavs had the potential to be the greatest superpower , but too divided. A lot of us hate each other. Croats had a great and prestigious kingdom, same with Serbia later, Bulgaria- was a power almost as good as the Franks. A lot of it was bad luck. For example, the Franks- they were also divided into many tribes but they had rulers which would be able to forecefully unify the Frankish realm and spread further (although not always). In contrast the south slavs always remained seperate. The polarising influences of Catholicism and Orthodoxy only enhanced this. The worst thing was the Ottoman occupation. It devastated the Balkans. My dad tells me how the best "Turkish" fighters were Slavs from Dalmatia and Hercegovina (? Paganian amcestors). They killed all the Slavic nobles - who carried the prestige, culture and spirit of our people. WHilst western Europe was going through the enlghtenment, scientific revolution, liberalism; our people were slaving to survive, being massacred by Islamic oppressors. We had to re-develop a noble class, re-define our identities (althoug it was never really lost). This put us very much further back compared to west Europe. Anyway. Hxseek (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes i can read it and understand most of it : )

By the way is Zenanarh your name, or does it stand for something ?

Well the theory about the Iranic/ sarmatian origin of Croats (and Serbs) is very possible. have you read my article on the Antes ? Valentin Sedov is a Slavic scholar, who statet that the Serbs and Croats were one of a number of tribes of the Antean tribal union . People think that the name Antes is Iranic, just like Croat and Serb. The Alanics mobilised and rled the mores numerous SLvas, being absorbed into them, but the name is kept. A testament to the Sarmatian influence.

The whole "massive Slavic migration" theory is undoubtedly linked to the Byzantine accounts where they state that "hundreds of thousands of Slavs took Macednoina, Moesia" etc. Obviuosly an inflated figure. As we both know, the genetic studies show that modern day Serbs,Croats, macedonians etc are primarily descended from paleolothic balkan peoples. But again, the only trouble is we don;t know with certainty what the markers' of original Slavs were. For example, slavs coould have been different. The Byzantines noted that there were Antes and Slaveni- 2 different but otherwise identically-speaking groups. The Balkan slavs -as yuou say- could have been Slavified dacians, Sarmatians, etc. I am sure there was aGermanic contribution as well, for we know that the Gepids and Goths all lived in the Balkans,. Only thing is, we don't know whether they had a significant ground presence ( a snumerically significant presence) in the balkans. it could have been just a small number of elites ruled over Thracians, Dacians, illyrians, etc.

lastly, your CF gene which places a large Slavic settlement in Macedonia is a bit at odds with the fact that Macedonians have the lowest levels of R1a of all Slavs. . . Hxseek (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

What does one refer to when they speak of a cluster in genetics

Eg; E3b1a (M78) has 'a', 'b' and 'y' clusters; of which 'a' is unique to Europe. Does it mean variations in microsatellite sequence ? Hxseek (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slavic settelemts

The books I have read i suppose put forward the 'dogma' that Slavs settled from the 500s. Although they do clarify that the Byzantines often branded anyone from the east a "Hun" or "Scythian", so a Scythian raid in the 400s could have been Slavs. And certainly Slavs could have been part of the Goths and Huns, but only became the dominant demographic from the 500s. Hxseek (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nase More?

Have a look at this: Italian Mare Nostrum by Brunodam. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I proposed the deletion of Mare Nostrum. [23] --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrians, hallstatt

Hey Z. I am curious about the influence of Hallstat culture on Illyrians. is your arguement that its presence was largely confined to Pannonia , whilst the Illyrians had tjeir own, independent cuklture that eveolved endogenously in the Balkans theough the Bronze age ? Hxseek (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I love your joke mate. Which book would you reccomend to read re: Ilyrians. is Wilkes good ? I can read Croatian, but it will take my 20 years to get through works by Stipcevic or Benac . Hxseek (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Dalmatia cleanup

Hi Zen, I recently cleaned up, organized and expanded the Antiquity and Medieval period sections of the History of Dalmatia article. I was wondering if you could take a look at my effort, and maybe fill in the few gaps that are left in the temporal continuity of the article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)