![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is based on 1885 Serbian source, which itself isn't RS (outdated etc.). However, the problems begin with the attribution of the claims. Graziadio Isaia Ascoli isn't the ultimate source, a fact evident in the journal too (По господину Рубертнеу). Who is Рубертнеу(Рубертис?) ? This a 19th century Serbian source and this Рубертнеу says that the Schiavoni/Dalmati of Molise are Serbs that were brought by the Albanians but in the relevant article i.e. Molise Croats the case is very different. That being said as always WP:BRD applies, so no reverts please.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)I won't dwell on the usual national WP:FRINGE that has been refuted. Apparently Ascoli had no part in yet another misrepresented claim. We know this community as Molise Croats and from what I can verify there's a consulate of Croatia too in their villages, so you can't dispute that with a 1885 claim from a Serbian source and your OR.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)Different Slavic-speaking communities ≠ Serb communities brought to Italy by Albanians in the 15th century i.e. WP:OR. In fact, Castelluccio degli Schiavi was first attested in the mid 12th century [1] . The quote comes from Giovanni de Rubertis and his identification of Dalmatian (Croat) and Slavic (Schiavoni) communities as Serbs that were brought in the 15th century by Albanians is another 19th century fringe view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)It'll be removed because it's a subject that has been covered by many authors and since this 19th century source is the only one that maintains this view without support from modern reliable sources it's fringe. Historiography has moved on from 19th century (ethnocentric) accounts that primarily deal with the appropriation and identification of everything other with the self.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)Sourcing an assertion doesn't make it an assertion that should be included. That is determined by the number of other sources that have supported and propagated it. I can find a source about the flat earth theory, various conspiracy theories etc. and they're all fringe. Given that it's been more than a century since this was published in this Serbian work (still don't know who ultimate source is), by now if this was a legitimate theory some modern sources about the Molise Slavic speakers would support it. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)... i.e. still not a source that supports your view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)You again attributed it to Ascoli and actually reworded it in a manner that read as if the existence of such a community is a certainty and the theory is de Rubertis's view, however, the whole argument per the quote is his theory. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This is based on 1885 Serbian source, which itself isn't RS (outdated etc.). However, the problems begin with the attribution of the claims. Graziadio Isaia Ascoli isn't the ultimate source, a fact evident in the journal too (По господину Рубертнеу). Who is Рубертнеу(Рубертис?) ? This a 19th century Serbian source and this Рубертнеу says that the Schiavoni/Dalmati of Molise are Serbs that were brought by the Albanians but in the relevant article i.e. Molise Croats the case is very different. That being said as always WP:BRD applies, so no reverts please.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)I won't dwell on the usual national WP:FRINGE that has been refuted. Apparently Ascoli had no part in yet another misrepresented claim. We know this community as Molise Croats and from what I can verify there's a consulate of Croatia too in their villages, so you can't dispute that with a 1885 claim from a Serbian source and your OR.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)Different Slavic-speaking communities ≠ Serb communities brought to Italy by Albanians in the 15th century i.e. WP:OR. In fact, Castelluccio degli Schiavi was first attested in the mid 12th century [1] . The quote comes from Giovanni de Rubertis and his identification of Dalmatian (Croat) and Slavic (Schiavoni) communities as Serbs that were brought in the 15th century by Albanians is another 19th century fringe view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)It'll be removed because it's a subject that has been covered by many authors and since this 19th century source is the only one that maintains this view without support from modern reliable sources it's fringe. Historiography has moved on from 19th century (ethnocentric) accounts that primarily deal with the appropriation and identification of everything other with the self.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)Sourcing an assertion doesn't make it an assertion that should be included. That is determined by the number of other sources that have supported and propagated it. I can find a source about the flat earth theory, various conspiracy theories etc. and they're all fringe. Given that it's been more than a century since this was published in this Serbian work (still don't know who ultimate source is), by now if this was a legitimate theory some modern sources about the Molise Slavic speakers would support it. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)... i.e. still not a source that supports your view.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)You again attributed it to Ascoli and actually reworded it in a manner that read as if the existence of such a community is a certainty and the theory is de Rubertis's view, however, the whole argument per the quote is his theory. -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)