Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Iconian42 (talk | contribs)
78 edits
Line 96: Line 96:
::Clearly.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC))
::Clearly.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC))
:- What is the reason behind the opposition? As I said, the information I added can be found in the main text in another form, so your criticism is invalid. [[User:Iconian42|Iconian42]] ([[User talk:Iconian42|talk]]) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
:- What is the reason behind the opposition? As I said, the information I added can be found in the main text in another form, so your criticism is invalid. [[User:Iconian42|Iconian42]] ([[User talk:Iconian42|talk]]) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
::The reasons have been explained more times, and not just here and as I see not just by me.([[User:KIENGIR|KIENGIR]] ([[User talk:KIENGIR|talk]]) 02:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Revision as of 02:00, 8 December 2020

Duplications

@DalbozDuncanthrax:, we do not duplicate information in the same WP article, because WP is an encyclopedia. Pop's PoV is presented in the article based on the English version of his study. ([1]). Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Why did you write me here? DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of your previous edit and edit summary ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oláh, Szamosközy

@LordRogalDorn: why do you think we should mention two Humanist historians in the section dedicated to the "First references to Romanians"? Do you think there is no written sources about the Romanians before the 16th century? If we want to mention Oláh and Szamosközy, we should list them among the other Humanist historians, because Oláh and Szamosközy repeated their ideas, invented in the 15th century. Please read WP:Source: we cannot establish two 16th-century historians' relevance in the context of the article on their own works. You should refer to a peer-reviewed academic work to mention them. Please also remember WP:3RR. 14:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the two Humanist historians talk about the Origin of the Romanians. I did not remove your mention Oláh and Szamosközy among the other Humanist historians, my aim however was to list the direct quotes themselves, as direct quotes or documents are better than the interpretations of various people. Because are interesting for readers. Can you further explain what you main in the last part? I provided the sources. I did not say or imply that they are the first written sources, I was not making that point, so why are you asking me this? How, so? The page is called Origin of the Romanians. The two 16th-century historians are talking about the Origin of the Romanians. It cannot get more relevant than that. I read WP:Source but I don't understand what part you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to present our own interpretation of facts, but to present scholarly views about specific subjects. I still do not understand why do you think we should quote texts from all Humanist historians' books. I again suggest you should read WP:Source, WP:NOR and WP:DUE. Your edits will be deleted if they are not in line with our community's policies. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not my personal interpretation of facts. How could they ever be? They're quotes. By their very nature, quotes do the exact opposite of allowing personal interpretation of facts. I have explained it twice, the short version is that they are an improvement to the page, I don't understand why you think we should not. I again ask you to be specific, if your reason for being against it is a full wikipedia page, and you will not explain what part is related to this edit and where, I cannot give you a proper answer, my mind-reading abilities are limited. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I was clear, but I summarize my concerns again. 1. That Humanist historians believed that the Vlachs, or Romanians, had descended from the Roman colonists in Dacia is mentioned and emphasized in the article in section "Historiography: origin of the theories". 2. We cannot quote all Humanist historians' texts, because WP is an encyclopedia, requiring summary style. 3. We cannot refer to two Humanist historians' own works, because they were not peer-reviewed. They are primary sources and we should verify their relevance in the article's context with a reference to a reliable source. 4. We cannot present Oláh and Szamosközy in section "First references to the Romanians", because hundreds of medieval and early modern historians had mentioned the Romanians. So I think that Oláh and Szamosközy could be listed in section "Historiography: origin of the theories", among other Humanist historians accepting Bracciolini's views about the Romanians' ethnogenesis, provided that a reliable source verifies their importance in the context of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I see, can you please fix the citation needed part? I don't really know how to attach it. The sources are: Analecta lapidvm vestvstorum et nonvllarvm in Dacia antiqvitatvm for the former, and Hungaria sive de originibus gentis, regionis, situ, divisione, habitu atque opportunitatibus for the latter. 2. I have seen primary sources on numerous other wikipedia pages, I don't think adding 3 extra lines will make this Wikipedia page less of a summary. 3. It also helps the reader due to the nature of this page, since there are 3 theories out of which 2 are the main ones, the reader can see the primary sources for himself rather than rely on trusting the editor. It's no secret that while Wikipedia is viewed as a good source of information, is also viewed as far from a mistake-proof one due to it's open nature. Personally, whenever I research a subject, while I read peer reviewed books, I always prefer primary sources because they are less inclined to bias, even if the author of the primary source can be biased, his bias can be seen in the context of that time, where as modern historians' bias is in the context of the present, and what do we do when we have 2 peer reviewed works that contradict each other? And since the quotes in question are from books written by the people mentioned, they are academic publications. Considering WP:PRIMARY, I am not making any personal interpretation of these primary sources, but simply listing them as they are without adding my personal opinion on the matter. 4. I agree, their quotes are best listed in "Historiography: origin of the theories". 5. You raise a good question, the "First references to the Romanians" section lacks the first references to the Romanians, should I look for the actual first references? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:HISTRS. We tend to dismiss sources older than 50 years and 100 years old sources are seldom accepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see, however, WP:HISTRS states: Historical scholarship is generally not: Any primary source; however primary sources may be used in accord with the WP:Primary rules. WP:Primary rules were considered in the previous comment. LordRogalDorn (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. We could hardly refer to the two Hummanist scholars' own work, because it would be original research. For instance, we could not state that the Hungarians were descended from the Scythians based on medieval and early modern chronicles, although this was a common place in medieval and early modern historiography. 2. We do not need to quote all primary sources written by Catholic scholars in the 15th and 16th centuries, because they agreed that the Romanians were the descendants of Roman colonists in Dacia. This fact is mentioned and emphasized in the article. They also agreed that the Hungarians descended from the Scythians, but we should not quote all Humanist historians' text in the article about the Hungarians' origin. 3. Please remember you should verify any reference to Oláh and Szamosközy with a reference to a peer-reviewed scholarly work. Otherwise they will sooner or later be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Right before the mentioning of Oláh and Szamosközy, there is mentioned Silvius Piccolomini with his views. The source given for that is a primary source - Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Europe. The book that he himself wrote. Why is that allowed in the case of Silvius Piccolomini but not in the case of Oláh and Szamosközy? It's the same situation. 2. We do not need to quote all primary sources, but we are talking only about 2 quotes, not all of them. We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said, this is the page about the origin of the Romanians, their work on the Hungarians can be used on the origin of the Hungarians. 3. Same as point 1 with the example of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The relevance of the quote from Piccolomini's work is verified by a reference to a reliable source (Vékony (2000), p. 5.) at the end of the sentence. 2. I still do not understand why should we quote text from their work. Their views do not differ from other Humanist historians' views. Should we also quote all contemporaneous Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles about the Romanian immigration to Hungary? 3. Same as point 1. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I see, but primary sources are still allowed. 2. I have explained it 3 times, the short version is that they are an improvement to the page, I don't understand why you still insist on this question since I already answered it more than once. The two Humanist historians talk about the Origin of the Romanians. And please don't exaggerate. You said that "We also don't need to quote everything Oláh and Szamosközy said" when I never suggested that in the first place. You said that "We do not need to quote all primary sources written by Catholic scholars in the 15th and 16th centuries" when I never suggested that in the first place. Now you say that "Should we also quote all contemporaneous Moldavian and Wallachian chronicles about the Romanian immigration to Hungary", when yet again, I never suggested that in the first place. If you think I might have suggested that in some way, I did not. Stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. A suggestion to buy 2 small boats for a tourism company is not a suggestion to buy all the boats in existance, to buy yachts too or to buy cars that could be used with that boat as well. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Primary sources are allowed, provided their use is verified by a reference to a reliable source. You have not found a reliable source to verify any mention to Oláh and Szamosközy for 5 days. 2. Do you think we can arbitrarily pick Humanist historians to quote them? Why should we ignore other Humanist historians? If Humanist historians' views about the Romanians' Daco-Roman origin is quoted several times, why should not we quote 16th-17th-century Romanian (Moldavian and Wallachian) historians' chronicles about the immigration of Romanians to the Kingdom of Hungary also multiple times? Both views are represented in the article, and "Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:Primary doesn't say that. It says that any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This is not an interpretation of the source, this is the source itself. No OP on what that implies was made. 2. If you want to do that, why not do it? It's not like I'm trying to stop you. But don't imply that I have said that. Both views are represented in the article and these two quotes also offer examples. As I said previously: It also helps the reader due to the nature of this page, since there are 3 theories out of which 2 are the main ones, the reader can see the primary sources for himself rather than rely on trusting the editor. It's no secret that while Wikipedia is viewed as a good source of information, is also viewed as far from a mistake-proof one due to it's open nature. Concerning the the citation needed part, I previously asked you if you could help me with that since I don't really know how to attach it and gave you the sources that are supposed to be attached, you didn't say anything.LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. ... A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." You have not established Oláh's and Szamosközy's notability in the article's context. 2. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We are not here to quote dozens of primary sources because we like them. If we cannot establish their relevance, we should avoid them. 3. If you need technical assistance, please seek assistance at the Teahouse. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you, because we reached a stalemate. Two editors say you cannot use primary sources without references to secondary sources. I also say we should not quote more primary sources in the article. You may also want to read Wikipedia:CONTENTDISPUTE. Borsoka (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. "and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" as well as "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". I already stated previously, it's a page about the origin of the Romanians and primary sources are allowed, what more notability do you want? 2. Please stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. The only person in this discussion who ever talked about "quoting dozens of primary sources" was you, all 4 times. The reason why, once again I stress that I never suggested that in the first place. If you think I might have suggested that in some way, I did not. Stick to what I said, don't exaggerate. You are constantly arguing against a point I was not making. I think we can both agree that this article is far from "an entire article on primary sources", do you agree? 3. Editor Tgeorgescu never said that, as he was talking about secondary sources not being older than 50 years and 100 years, that leaves only one editor who said that I cannot use primary sources without references to secondary sources, and a Wikipedia guideline page that says that I can use primary sources without references to secondary sources. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. You misunderstand our policy. 2. You want to quote two Humanist historians arbitrarily, without proving their importance with a reference to an academic work. You want to quote lengthy text from them based on their own works. I approached the relevant noticeboard about this issue ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. The policy is clear and we discussed it, if I misunderstood it, explain where I'm wrong with quotes from the policy, like I explained where you are mistaken with quotes from the policy, instead of vague attempts to prove I'm wrong, like "look WP:Source and WP:Primary", and when I click those links it turns out they agree with me. 2. I already did that. Then you asked me the same question, again, and again, and again, this is getting so ridiculous I could reply to you with copy-paste from my previous answers. Ok. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not want to play this game of yours. The relevant policies are mentioned and quoted above. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What game? I merely asked you to justify your accusations. The relevant policies mentioned and quoted above were already discussed. WP:Source allows you to use primary sources in certain conditions that are met here. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of modern Atosomal genetis researches

We can see only outdated backward so-called Y DNA marker reserarches in this topic. Only Autosomal DNA can really prove and disprove egenetic relationship and it is the only tool to determine genetic distance of various populations. It is also the only method to show detailed genetic admixture of various populations. According to autosomal genetic researches and genetic admixture , it is extremly hard to distinguish Romanians from their true cousins, the Bulgarians and Southern Serbians.--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember you cannot edit WP. Borsoka (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember. Have you ordered the DNA kit to analize your Genetic origin? Did you upload the genetic data file to Gedmatch company for a better research? Szeged boy, did I have right that you are genetically Serbian rather than Hungarian?--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your messages are always entertaining, but sorry, you were banned from the community, so I cannot continue this conversation. Stop editing this page. Borsoka (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAybe you confused me with sy. Have a nice day Serb boy!--Royal Free Citiy (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Daco-Roman continuity theory section

The theory is a key topic in Romanian history, it has been considerably studied and it is one of the biggest clash issues between Hungarian and Romanian historians (and not so historians). I think it has good potential to become a nice and long article. We already have articles on the origins of some ethnicities, although they tend to be more linguistically focused. Super Ψ Dro 19:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Hungarian vs Romanian historians/Hungarians vs Romanians approach is simplistic, the split is a good idea. The present summary in the article could hardly present all aspects of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article per it's title covers sufficiently the subject and approprietaly summarizes it (and the other major directions), which could expanded if anyone would consider something relevant would be missing. I hope split out would not mean we just cut-off and remove and leave only a link, e.g. what is already here would remain here, and in the supposed new article everything would be expanded? I agree with Borsoka on that the approach is a bit simplistic, even if HU-RO issues are relevant in that subject, but not solely. Also we have to mind with a new article we don't open a new battleground and place for POV-trolls, given the history of also this page?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't intend to remove anything from this article, so yes, the new one would be expanded. I imagine we could protect it to prevent trolls from coming but I doubt a new article will be protected and this one somehow isn't in the first place so I guess we can only just keep an eye on the page. Super Ψ Dro 09:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have 93,422 characters, which means that the article probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time). I don't think splitting is imperative. Anyway, why not to treat the both main theories equally? Why not to also split out the Immigrationist theory? 86.120.179.11 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the topic surely justify the size, and it is within the "readable prose size" category. We could also split it, but we should secure the neutral presentation of both theories. Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can split it too. Super Ψ Dro 13:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could we secure the neutrality of both articles and how could we avoid to triplicate the present article in order to secure the neutrality? Borsoka (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent vandalism, we could semi-protect both pages, and regarding the other, I imagine that researching and expanding is the only way. Another option is to leave it as a start-class article but without using any of the sources used here so that we don't repeat the text. We could also remove some parts that are more detailed about both theories on this page once the sections are split. I think we should wait a couple of days to see if other editors agree with the split or not and to see if they offer any help or ideas. Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the development of the theories could be presented in separate articles. We could hardly provide a neutral picture about any of the theories if criticism and evidence contradicting them are not presented in the same article. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to include the development of the theories in the articles of the theories or to make other separate articles for them? Super Ψ Dro 20:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the separate articles could be dedicated to the development of the theories. None of the theories are dogmas, so we could hardly present any of them as a uniform approach. The separate articles could nicely present the internal discrepancies. Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure then. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Their view was accepted..."

KIENGIR, the motivation of my edit was that the current phrasing ("their view was accepted...") implies (in my opinion) that the Oxford scholars reviewed the conclusion of the Cambridge scholars and agreed with it, when in fact the two verdicts are unrelated. Currently the texts sounds like: "C says X is true. O agrees with C that X is true." 86.120.179.195 (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"authors of" --> "their". Regarding the acception of a non-definitive answer may be substituted with shared, if they are really unrelated.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Soruces in the lead

Borksa, if sources are not allowed in the lead why are there 3 sources in the lead? I have seen plenty of other Wikipedia pages with sources in the lead. Besides, if that is the case, what is the process of adding the new information to the lead? you removed the contribution from the lead arguing -OR, when I offered to add sources for my contribution, you argued that the lead doesn't need soruces. Seems like a catch 22. Iconian42 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:LEAD, it does not say they are not allowed. A quote should always be accompanied by a reference to the quoted source. Borsoka (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read WP:LEAD. I was about to that, but you revered my edit saying we do not need sources. Iconian42 (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not quote anything. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't quote anything, then why tell me that a quote should always be accompanied by a reference to the quoted source? I don't understand the nature of your opposition to my contribution. You said that we do not need sources but reverted my contribution because it lacked sources. While at the same time saying WP:LEAD does not say sources are not allowed in the lead. Iconian42 (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again WP:LEAD. The lead must summarize the main text and the main text is to be verified. Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I read WP:LEAD. The information I added can be found in the main text in another form. If you want to, I can expand the section from the main text. Iconian42 (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there still opposition to my contribution? Iconian42 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
- What is the reason behind the opposition? As I said, the information I added can be found in the main text in another form, so your criticism is invalid. Iconian42 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons have been explained more times, and not just here and as I see not just by me.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F992964388

Leave a Reply