Open main menu

User talk:EdJohnston

Active discussions

Well, you are already familiarized to some extentEdit

That's why I am asking you, Ed, if you are willing to take this issue into your hands once more, you know some aspect of this problem, and to be frank it isn't a joke anymore (if it ever was), I can't even edit anymore on those couple of articles (Turkish and Donji) without being reverted completely, regardless of amount of prose, information and sources that I put in, and that Ceha (or it's just a matter of time for Silverije to appear) won't remove with their usual "vandalism" edit-summary. I actually started suspecting that this is now personal for these editors, especially since they are well aware that I took part in Rfc (meta) regarding problems with Wikipedia in Croatian language. Maybe I am complicating my reports too much or admins simply don't want to engage with obscure topics, whatever, but no one can claim lack of effort to resolve and reasonably explain issues on my part surrounding these problematic articles.--౪ Santa ౪99° 04:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Santasa99: Turkish Croatia is a. An obscure topic, b. An unclear dispute, c. Has few Englieh language sources, d. Is hard for admins to figure out. It is somewhat easier to deal with a dispute like the one at Ivan Gundulić. In that case, it is easier to imagine that those wanting him to be Serbian vs. Croatian vs. Ragusan might have some ethnic motivation. In the case of Turkish Croatia I suppose that, if there really was a Turkish Croatia at some point, it strengthens a possible claim that Croatia is the true owner of some territory that is now in Bosnia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: you are clear as a clear day, sir, and I couldn't have said it any better, or more clearer, or add anything else. It is all that you explained and on top of it, it never existed except as a trope - but how could one explain that to someone who is not acquainted, to some degree, with regional history, with or without some evidence, especially if such evidence do not exists for something that never existed. It's a famous Bertrand Russell's "teapot in space" conundrum, and the burden of proof should fall on those who claim it existed. If they can prove that Turkish Croatia existed, then it would be easy to include that in article, and article existence as a standalone would be validated. Problem is that those who think they have a proof actually have some military maps made by one side in the conflict (Austria-Venetian Rep.), drawn based on one side border-commission report, and they have some 19th c. popular magazines with published excerpts from front-line officers diaries, and at one of the link, I believe, they have excerpts from the border-commission report itself. This commission went out to the newly established frontlines to demarcate new borders, established with peace treaties. So, basically, it wasn't geographical term, it wasn't political, nobody ever used it in any communication, Bosnians certainly never used it, and its theirs country, and so on. Some early medieval history of the region is murky and undocumented, so what happened in the region in the 8th and 9th century, almost a millennia before, when various Croatian states in various political and territorial form existed, is irrelevant. Not to mention that if validate such questions and claims of true ownership over lands in this context in Bosnia, than such validation would be applicable all over Europe, which would make our continent, and indeed entire world, truly horrendous place to live in. So would editing wikipedia. I don't wish to annoy you any further, but if you are interested in some additional information or reasoning, ping me, I would actually be happy to add few more lines :-)--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If Turkish Croatia is just a nationalist trope, then it should be documentable like other tropes, such as Italia irredenta, Megali idea or Northern Epirus. That would require documenting 'who' believed 'what' at which time in history, which would take spectacularly good sourcing. It seems unlikely that anyone would have the patience to find the needed sources, even if they exist. Maybe there are works of diplomatic history that have looked into this. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
After this article caught my attention, I spent a lot of time researching to find something in academic sources on the subject, but all I could find was what I included in the article at this point: 3 papers are academic research, and two references are daily press articles (both outlets are highly credible Croatian political magazines, and articles are interview and short essay, if I recall correctly). This shortage in sources is the main reason why I insisted that the article be merged with the article concerning that region (Bosanska Krajina), where a subsection would be made (say, Name or Etymology or some such usual subtitle), so that what can be confirmed by reliable sources is then outlined there. I was able to find those five, and they are reliable researches from credible scholars with good credentials (and for what is worth, they are all Croatian scholars, so are people in those two magazine articles), and maybe something else can be found for additional confirmation, but with all the pressure and constant disruption, I saw no reason to look any further.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you think it should be merged, then the mention of Turkish Croatia in the merge target would presumably be quite brief. Possibly one paragraph. If you agree, then you might consider what kind of a paragraph could be written based on the sources that you consider reliable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course, I could do that. I could take key line, those most informative, which can be directly confirmed with existing sources. I would most certainly prefer someone neutral, possibly with some idea about the subject, helping me in deciding on the amount of prose, but that's doesn't seem viable at this moment. In any case, if you think that I should rewrite some prose with these existing references, than I could try to find best parts and give you input on it tomorrow same time, so that you can check how it looks, and decide on it?--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could put that together. I can't say whether the others will accept it. But if a merge is proposed, it may be easier to get support if it appears that somebody has a plan for how to condense Turkish Croatia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will, than, try to do that. And then new proposal for merger is needed, since that old one expired (not to mention everything else that happened during merger discussion). There is another point - when you mentioned articles examples on (Greek and Italian) irredentism, I wanted to note that my intention was to try to salvage "Turkish Croatia" ("TC") as an article on one aspect of Croatian irredentism, but what didn't occurred to me is that there is an article on Greater Croatia - just like Serbian expressed through Greater Serbia - and that that article may have some contextual sources which deal with trope "Turkish Croatia". This also means that some, or to a degree different, version of condensed "TC" could be included into both articles, Greater Croatia as well as into Bosanska Krajina, which is related to "TC" trope as its geographical allocation. What could this mean for eventual redirection (I know little about technical aspect of merger, redirect, etc.)? My plan include investigation on what is written in Greater Croatia, does this piece mention Turkish Croatia, and if so how, to check refs there to see if any contextual could be used, and try to find a way to include portions of prose into both, Bosanska Krajina and Greater Croatia. I will keep you in the loop, though, and try to finish this until tomorrow same time. If you have time, and if you are interested, you can check Greater Croatia, and offer your thoughts on whole idea?--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, please note that my timetable, which I set above, may actually needs some adjustment (extension) - I am stuck in hell, and I need to work parallelly on more than one problem at the time, but I reviewed both Bosanska Krajina and Greater Croatia articles to gain some insight in what parts of Turkish Croatia should be proposed for merger with which target article. I will work something out, and create at least two shortened version in my sandbox (which can be viewed here). As soon as I have something, I'll ping you and ask for additional directions (about renewal of merger process and if goes through, redirection).--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Crnojević noble familyEdit

Crnojević noble family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi EdJohnston. The article has seen many reverts lately. One of the editors involved, Sadko, has been warned twice by you for edit warring [1][2]. I am leaving this note here as you might want to keep an eye on the article and protect it if reverts continue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice you gave to one of the editors. Although I am not involved or particularly interested in the content dispute, I invited the involved editors to discuss on the talk page, and gave some suggestions how they might proceed [3]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of anyone watching this page, the advice you mentioned was at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection of page of Steve ChenEdit

Thank you for protecting this page. The reverting user has refused/neglected every opportunity given to engage on the Talk page despite my requests. My question is, since the user's additions have been included in the protected version of the page, what is the appropriate next step for me? I have tried to engage on the Talk page regarding the specific additions the user wanted to make but the user has refused. I don't believe that the additions are appropriate given Wikipedia regulations for biographies and have provided my reasons why on the Talk page. If I edit it once again after the protection is removed, I will be engaging in edit-warring which I definitely do not wish to do, and I strongly feel the user will just continue to edit-war and refuse to engage in discussion on the Talk page. What is the appropriate thing for me to do? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I am concerned that the IP's last edit adds a citation to the Daily Mirror, and adds a claim that Taiwan holds nuclear weapons. While this edit is very peculiar, I wasn't sure if I could revert it under admin authority, but have no objection if somebody else does it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If I revert it, would I be engaging in edit-warring? Would it be appropriate? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be edit warring. If you do revert the edit, you can open up a thread on the talk page explaining why you made the change. Anyone who disagrees can then give their reasons. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Another editor has now undone the change. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, yes I saw Apoorva Iyer (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Market Raja MBBSEdit

Why have your protected the page from false cast. The lead actress is nikesha patel. And you have written kavya thapar. And removed nikesha Patel's name. Please add her name to the lead cast and add her name in the cast section also. Regards. Tamilcinemachannel (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears this is already dealt with. See Talk:Market Raja MBBS. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "EdJohnston".