Talk:Crnojević noble family

"Nationalist Propaganda"

Hello, @Shadow4ya @Theonewithreason @Sideshow Bob Can this edit war be discussed with positive and civil results? I am starting to get tired of Sideshow Bob using terms such as "Serbian ultranationalist pov pusher, you are repeating a well known propaganda" along with doing an edit saying "nationalist propaganda". These are 2 recent pages I have noticed SideshowBob editing with such terms, most likely much more.. Anyways back to the topic, What makes this page nationalist propaganda? Actually, I just read your comment on your edit and once again with the confrontational insults, "this article is just a bunch of cheap propaganda". Can someone seriously warn this guy? Surix321 (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Saying that this ruling family was Serbian and not Montenegrin is POV. Different Wikipedias display them differently. The Bulgarian and French don't give them a nationality, just ruling family of Zeta. German, Bosnian and Croatian call them Montenegrin, while Serbian calls them Serbian. No nationality is probably the most middle of the road here. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Well @StellarNerd what wikipedia does is not copying what others Wikipedias are doing but what WP:RS is saying and here are few examples of the sources: Risto Kovijanic a Montenegrin historian on presented source [[1]] through pages 128-136 describes direct genealogy of Crnojevic family starting from Đuraš Ilijić a Serbian lord in service of Serbian emperor Stefan Dusan, 2.source Britannica says that: After the Balšić dynasty died out in 1421, the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Žabljak (not far from Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojević set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan Crnojević (Ivan the Black), who, in the unlikely setting of this barren and broken landscape and pressed by advancing Ottoman armies, created in his court a remarkable, if fragile, centre of civilization. Ivan’s son Djuradj Crnojević built a monastery at Cetinje, founding there the see of a bishopric, and imported from Venice a printing press that produced after 1493 some of the earliest books in the Cyrillic script. During the reign of Djuradj, Zeta came to be more widely known as Montenegro., [[2]], Vladimir Corovic says:As the emperor did not want any conflict with the Venetians, he, seeing their insurmountable desire to get those cities, agreed to have his sister negotiate the sale. Seeing the displeasure of the Skradin citizens against his people, and hearing perhaps about the emperor's death, his duke Đuraš Ilijić handed over the city to the Venetians on January 10, 1356, as the emperor had previously ordered. The city of Klis was taken over by the Hungarians, there are also quotes from this talk page archive from Metropolitan of Cetinje:Đuro Crnojević is celebrated among the Serbian people as a good ruler, and as a brave hero and military leader, who defeated a strong Turkish army on the Ćemovsko field, which was led by the traitor Staniša against Montenegro. In addition, the name of Đuro Crnojević is notable for the fact that he was the first among all Slavs to acquire a printing house, in which church books were printed on Obod in 1493, which were distributed not only in Montenegro but also in all Serbian countries. in order to preserve the Orthodox faith in the Serbian people. Some of these books, as a special landmark, are still preserved and carefully fed among Serbian antiquities. 4. This source from 2008. [[3]] or [[4]] which has a title Genealogies of Serbian dynasties gives a genealogy of every Serbian dynasty including Crnojevic family, it starts with Djuras Ilijic and it says: Celnik Stefana Decanskog i cara Dusana, meaning that he was in service of Serbian lords.

@Shadow4ya and @Surix321 I would suggest that you add more sources if you think is needed, but if you take a look on the article sources of Fine and Kovijanic (I believe they are both open access) you will see that they are describing everything what article says, that the family comes from Djuras Ilijic, that their surname was Djurasevic then changed to Crnojevic etc. which means there are no justification for placing pov tag. Do you agree ?

Last, the question to admin @Daniel Case who decided for no violation decision, I believe that presented sources are enough to explain the issue of discussion. Isn`t this enough to remove a pov tag since the counter argumentation were "Serbian POV nationalist etc," insults towards me and other editors Theonewithreason (talk) 21:36 07.June 2022 (UTC)

Change in LEDE and sources

On 7 September 2021, IP:2021‎ 2a01:261:54d:6200:1029:b45:8371:6d19 through unexplained edit introduced this national label to the article, without proper referencing. Any one editor who tried to revert that anachronism, brought into the article by unexplained IP edit, had full strength of English Wikipedia guidelines and policies behind its revert - those who came forth against it, did not. So, this sudden change from neutral "nobleman from Zeta" to unsupported anachronistic "Serbian nobleman", started this circle of reverts and edit-wars, with sudden albeit quite usual influx of inactive on en.wiki Serbian editors (from sr.wiki), who supported this anachronism in unexplained IP edit to the point that issue became a problem. Maleschreiber tried to bring back neutral and correct non-labeling terminology on 13 January 2022‎, but that was, expectedly, reverted by editor Ничим неизазван, and supported by Theonewithreason, Shadow4ya, MareBG, Surix321. Botushali tried to do same (right) thing Maleschreiber did, but was immediately reverted. I find it odd, as often is the case, this sudden appearance of likeminded editors on issues of Serbian national and ethnic labeling across the Balkans history-culture articles. Sources referred to in above post are hardly strong, only Ćorović is serious enough, but used alone he is absolutely outdated. So, unless we have neutral, mainstream and recent sources suggest differently, remove this anachronism "Serbian nobleman" from the article, use fresh, strong sources, and bring back neutral "nobleman/noble family from Zeta". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Kovijanic is also a very strong source, Veselinovic and Ljusic too (both professors) so your argumentation that there is no strong sources is misinformation, also the fact that the origin of this family is also known from Djuras Ilijic a Serbian lord (presented above) there is absolutely no reason to remove this section, and since you are an editor known for forcing interpretation that Kotromanic family is a Bosnian noble family ignoring any mention or connection with Serbia or its nobility, neutrality is definitely not your first aim. Sources are clear, genealogy too. Also as I can see from the number of editors you pinged most of them agree with it. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:01 03.July 2022 (UTC)

Where does Kovijanić labels the Crnojevićs as Serbs in his book from the reference?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Kovijanic describes the whole genealogy of the family starting from Djuras Ilijic Serbian lord in service of Nemanjic, heading further to Djurasevic and change of the name of Crnojevic, the same thing is presented in other sources who are presenting them as Serbian, the link is above. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:37 03.July 2022 (UTC)

Where? Which page, paragraph, or line in the text of his book "Crnogorska plemena u kotorskim spomenicima" - please point where author labels them as Serbs?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah you want a source that directly says a Serbian noble family or maybe a geniologies of Serbian noble families? Very strange standard from you since you do not do that on other pages but very well here it is: [[5]] rodoslovi srpskih dinastija meaning genealogy of Serbian dynasties pg 34 with the same description and section like Kovijanic, pages of Kovijanic I also presented above. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:01 03.July 2022 (UTC)

Those two with that pop-literature and pseudohistorical claptrap, where all South-Slavic noblemen and every noble family, that ever lived in the Balkans, were Serbs, can't pass muster. Kovijanic's book is more serious, but it doesn't offer any national labels. Beyond nationalistic pseudo-history, no serious historian labels medieval people with our time ethnic labels.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Um no, those two are both university professors and it is not on you to attack them, Kovijanic ALSO mentions on the page 128. that the family comes from Djuras Ilijic, stavilac of Stefan Decanski in the service of Nemanjic family which only confirms the same thing what Ljusic and Veselinovic are saying. The sources are clear. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:16 03.July 2022 (UTC)

If they are Uni Profs. doesn't mean they can't use their position for purposes which suites their ideological worldviews - actually, those academic names and titles are those who, when turn to ideology, make the most damage. Ljusić and Veselinović are both renown "desničari" (right-wingers) even among their peers at Belgrade Uni and at SANU. Ljusić is politically engaged since Milošević's days and today active member of SNS, and as such is unacceptable as a lone source for anything concerning editing English Wikipedia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Veselinovic is professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade and head of the Department for the History of the Serbian People in the Middle Ages, which makes him a reliable source, he was not being charged to be any political extremist in international sources, not like some Balkan authors and I am also going to repeat that Kovijanic also gives the same genealogy, furthermore on Britannica few members of Crnojevic dynasties are mentioned as Serbian leaders, there is also a whole description of Serb resistance led by Stefan Crnojevic, that means we already have 3 sources that are mentioning the same thing. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:33 03.July 2022 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved here as of yet, but does Kovijanic say they are Serbs or no? Does he say they were Serbian as in they were a part of the Serbian Empire and Despotate? Can the editors please provide relevant quotes. Besides that, Brittanica fails WP:TERTIARY and should definitely be avoided.Alltan (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason, I know who are Ljusić and Veselinović very well, Kovijanić doesn't support any of anachronisms introduced into the article - it's just waste of time and energy to repeat these things so many times. There are literary hundreds of more reliable historians, who are less influenced by ideology and politics, younger generations on all sides who reject nationalistic myths and reject misappropriation of other, separate, South-Slavic identities into homogenous idealized nationalistic fold, yet you (supported by linked editors) got stuck with those who abused their academic titles for higher national goals. Find some source that would be acceptable regardless how controversial is claim you are trying to introduce. don't use even more controversial authors to support something already controversial.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan, Kovijanic doesn't labels them in national nor in ethnic sense, he makes observations of their vassal relations to various Serbian rulers, all of which can be explained without anachronistic labeling in either ethnic or national sense. Thanks, Alltan, we need diverse views and opinions on such a controversial issues like this one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99 What exactly does Kovijanic say on page 128 about the Crnojevic? If he doesn't mention them as a Serbian family, then the reference should be removedAlltan (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Veselinovic does post them as Serbian family and so there is a source that claims that. Kovijanic gives a genealogy from Serbian lord Djuras Ilijic and since Alltan is very much into presenting in origins that meamns that Crnojevici are a Serbian dinasty.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:51 03.July 2022 (UTC)

I am very much into what?Alltan (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Into origins, didn't we had an discussion on Ridjani article where you were very much attested that they were of romanised origin, ergo they cannot be Serbs even though I presented a source, well same situation is here Kovijanic gives the origin of the family which is from Djuras Ilijic, other source confirms it, brittanica too. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:57 03.July 2022 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason, do you even read my last post - it means nothing of sort, especially since the claim doesn't have a RS - yet. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG), not authors extremists, be they from the SANU or from the fringes of pseudo-history!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alltan, I agree - Kovijanic never labels them as Serbian family nor as ethnic or national Serbs - he does mention that some of the family members served (worked for) certain Serbian rulers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And do you understand that if you claim that someone is a extremist it does not means it is true, there is nothing about them on WP:RSN you whole basis is that they are nationalist because they are Serbs, on the other hand you were posting Draganovic on several articles. And I also said you are explicitly asking that they should be mentioned as Serbian family, I postged that with additional source on Brittnica which is again removed, both aou and Alltan are self interpreting sources and WP:gaming the system using every little excuse to erase them.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:06 03.July 2022 (UTC)

If deemed necessary I will provide sufficient sources for my claim about extremism and right-wing stance, all written by their peers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Again I'm not really sure what you mean by me being "attested" or "into origins". If you feel I have wrongfully removed content from the Ridani article you can follow through with a report. I will ask you kindly to respect WP:NPA and not accuse editors of Gaming or Self-interpretign sources. I have asked for a quote from Kovijanic, you could have verified the claim. Any source has to clearly state what it's supposed to support, otherwise it is nothing else but original research. Kovijanic does not seem to do so.Alltan (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

No Alltan I did not and it is not my intention to attack you personally I just meant that lot of your edits included origins of someone, the same is here, which Kovijanic is writing about, I have posted the book open acces above so you can read it from pages 128-136 another thing on WP:RSN Britannica is recognised as reliable source especially if supported by another sources or not disputed by another sources, so you cannot remove it because it is wp:tertiary. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:35 03.July 2022 (UTC)

Britannica is tertiary source, unsupported here by strong secondary, which is elaborated in length, more than one pop-book by Ljusić/Veselinović requires.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And again nothing about that is on WP:RSN so it is your personal opinion, on the other hand Britannica is very much suported on the same page. Archive 281. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:03 03.July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I have mentioned it few times already but you never seemed to show any interest in responding - you you have at least one editor, me, and maybe even @Alltan:, who demands exceptional source for your exceptional claim (WP:REDFLAG), so provide it or claim will be removed as unsubstantiated and/or poorly sourced piece of OR.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In this source, it claims that Ivan Crnojevic was a Serbian ruler, (here) "Catalina's father was Andrija Crnojevic, brother of the Serbian ruler of Zeta, Ivan Crnojevic" Surix321 (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem, first I did respond and presented sources you have not, you also showed none of evidence that those historians are nationalist only your claim. there is another source, written by Srejovic, Cirkovic where Djuras ilijic a founder of Crnojevic noble family is explicitly mentioned as Serb (srpski vojskovodja) military commander. Here is the quote. In the autumn or winter of 1355, the crew of the Serbian emperor arrived in Jelena's cities. Dusan's army was led by Palman and Djuras Ilijic. The first commander entered Klis and the second entered Skradin. The army of the Serbian ruler did not stay long in the towns of Jelena Subic. Since he could not hold out, Djuras Ilijic handed over Skradin to the Venetians. The Serbian commander acted on this way according to the divine instructions of Emperor Stefan Dusan, not realizing that he died on December 20, 1355. page 557 [[6]]

So let us resume: 1) we have Kovijanic who gives a detailed genealogy of Crnojevic family which starts with Djuras Ilijic it founder, we have Srejovic and Cirkovic that calls Djuras Ilijic a Serbian comander, we have Veselinovic who names the family Serbian noble family with the same genealogy as Kovijanic and we have Britannica which article was edited by non other than John.R. Lampe which also names some of the members of the family as Serbian leaders.Theonewithreason (talk) 00:35 03.July 2022 (UTC)

First, until you understand that your "resume" is pure OR and SYNTH, you will continue to build up these preconceptions. Second, until you understand that your preconception on nationality and ethnicity does not works for medieval people you will continue to draw these typical conclusions, and I may add out of context entirely, because that Ilić is mentioned as "srpski vojskovođa" not as a Srb nobleman - he is still Zeta nobleman. (Please, keep your TP discussion in order - I can't tell where your discussion begins and where it ends)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read what wp:or is you are ignoring sources, not just that you are now purposly ignoring sources presented by other Editor that is wp:icanthearyou, it is obvoius that the Main Problem is that you are bothered with Serbian Part since in other articles you dont have Problems with posting bosnian prefix. 5 sources disagree with youTheonewithreason (talk) 00:35 04.July 2022 (UTC)

I have found some quite interesting material on the matter. I will add them shortly.Alltan (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Alltan, please do. Theonewithreason, again, please, keep your TP discussion in order, make sure to maintain queue and to sign your posts! Yes, I know what OR and SYNTH is, it is exactly what you are doing here. I never reject sources, I question them, and if they are weak I have obligation to say so and ask for better ones. I don't have problem with the "Serbian" prefix unless it is introduced where it does not belongs, under false pretenses, making OR and SYNTH while using poor sources. "Bosnian" and "Serbian" in this case are two completely different categories: one which I use is very narrow identity which is used for the class of people - "Bosnian nobility/Bosnian noblemen" - while one used by you and editors who support you, namely "Serb(ian)" is ethnic/national labeling!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Then there is no excuse to add this newly presented sources by me and Surix321 because they are both RS. I will sign myself too later in the Day. Please a little bit of patience.Theonewithreason (talk) 00:35 04.July 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99: is right. Modern ethnic identities can't be projected back to the past when more than one such identity emerged from a medieval political identity. There is no research value in asking if the Crnojević would have a modern Serbian or Montenegrin identity today because they don't live in our era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well if that is a case then we should remove that from i.e Dukagjini family or from Kotromanić dynasty because they are both described as Albanian or Bosnian family,we cannot have double standards on wikipedia, especially if the sources are clear, besides modern Montenegrin ethnic identity emerged much later than the Serbian, forming itself fully in Yugoslavia era and it is still a hot subject in modern day Montenegro. @Shadow4ya:, MareBG you have also contributed to the page, what is your opinion?Theonewithreason (talk) 18:22 06.July 2022 (UTC)

I am tired of explaining the obvious and of these cheap attempts to muddied the waters with misconstruing of what is being said or introduction of logical fallacies, notwithstanding the fact that Maleschreiber was absolutely clear, which means that he did not say anything about their historic identities, he was talking about anachronistic projection of modern identities into the past! Historic identity of Kotromanićs' as a Bosnian identity is evident in historiography, at least part compiled from serious and neutral scholarly research of medieval histories even (at least in part) among Serbian historians, so is historic Zeta identity of Crnojevićs'. That's what Maleschreiber was talking about, and what I was arguing all this time.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, there is no double standards in English Wikipedia, every article is an island. Further, yes, only sources are relevant.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No you are purposely ignoring sources and the facts that Crnojevici were connected with Serbian aristocracy, that Zeta was a land under Serbian rule at the time and that progenitor of the family Ilijic was a military Serbian commander in service of Serbian royal members, one of the most important generals as a matter of fact and like you say sources are important and on this talk page and on this discussion I presented 5 of them and another editor presented 1 more. So it is clear. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:31 06.July 2022 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth - I have asked for an "exceptional sources" for an "exceptional claim", which Ljusić and his radical nationalistic and chauvinist clique certainly is not - your explanations and your OR and sources synth is irrelevant, so is Ilijić explanation. When you get exceptional sources confirming that Crnojevićs were Serbian aristocracy and not Zetan, only then we can see how to phrase that into the article.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But there is, editor Surix321 presented the source where a member of the family was named Serbian lord of Zeta. Besides the main author of the book of my source is Veselinovic and he is definitely not a chauvinist etc. If you claim that that is your opinion. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:26 06.July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing of sorts happened, we don't have "exceptional source" that refer to the family as Serb(ian), but we do have one ("exceptional source") that refer to them as Zetans - that source is J.A.Fine.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Really ? Then you obviously did not read the talk page, it did happened and here is the source from Surix321 (here), so it happened. And the book is quite new, from 2021.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:18 06.July 2022 (UTC)

Yes really! She (Jelena Erdeljan) is historian of art not medievalist - she can write that family came from Mars as far as we are concerned.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Santa, there are many sources provided, you are purposely being POV and ignoring everything we are saying. Crnojevic progenitor was a Serbian military commander as @Theonewithreason proved, you are constantly ignoring our messages, please be compliant and discuss reasonably. Like this there will be no result. Surix321 (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you editor Surix321 for your comment, Jelena Erdeljan has PHD in history, not a convincing argument from Santasa side, but it is already a second source that calls Crnojevic a Serbian lords of Zeta. Meanwhile Francis Seymour Stevenson also calls Crnojevici Serbs.Here can, however, be no reasonable doubt that Stephen Crnojevic was, as Flavius Comnenus calls him, a " native Dalmatian," in the sense that he was a Serb. It is equally certain that he was the son of the Radic Crnoj Theonewithreason (talk) 22:52 06.July 2022 (UTC)

Francis Seymour Stevenson is unnecessary as he is outdated - he wrote in 1912, while Fine in 1982, and Kenneth Morrison is currently active professor of modern history of Southeast Europe, namely Balkans with a focus on Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia, and a productive author. No serious let alone exceptional source is presented here, you are literally scraping Google in search for key words for confirmation of your POV and your bias - consider this to be also response to claims of POV on my part. Only POV here is anachronistic imputation of modern identity to a medieval people done by a group of editors, who would like to make Ljusić's worldview a mainstream, where medieval Albanian, Bosnian and Montenegrin (Zetan and Dukljan) socio-political class of people we label as nobility is appropriated into Serbdom through OR and Synth with obscure or nationalistic sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope the sources are clear and it is only your opinion and every attempt to ignore shows that you do not have any valid argumentation,not just that even Fine is very much clear that Zeta/Duklja were Serb states there are other historians like Elisabeth Roberts who calls Zecani people Serbs and uses Seymour as reference, but it is not important anymore. There are numerous presented reliable source, 2who directly call Crnojevic a Serbian noble family and on this talk page and also editors that are disagreeing with you so please WP:DROPTHESTICK.Theonewithreason (talk) 07:19 07.July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to give proper ref for every claim you want to include into this article still based on one and only abysmal source - the more exceptional claim the more exceptional source will be necessary, meanwhile all unrefed, or poorly refed will be removed per WP:RS, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:verifiability (poor like Stevenson and Ljušić, or any other less neutral author from Serbia - you are aware of the fact that, as well as you are reaching for biased Serb historians to confirm your POV, editors could reach for Montenegrin historians and authors to confirm contra arguments?).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I guess, Your POV is pretty obvious. Please show where Ljusic and Stevenson use Bias or something that would discredit them And yeah we are presenting sources that are WP:RS which you are ignoring due to the ethnic origin of such people, even though Stevenson is not a Serb. Anyone can write what they want about them including Montenegrin Authors however it is already known and proven that their ancestor is a Serbian military commander (Djuras Ilic) and something claiming otherwise could be WP:FRINGE, You are free to present sources that claim they are not Serbian but they need to be WP:RS and by your logic, non biased. Surix321 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And one other thing - issue will be resolved when it gets resolved, meanwhile you could learn to keep decorum, otherwise you could end up being ignored.--౪ Santa ౪^99°

Answer to Santasa, everything is properly cited on this tp, calling Serbian historians biased or poorly sourced only based on your opinion goes against WP:NEUTRALITY.Theonewithreason (talk) 05:52 08.July 2022 (UTC)

TP is for discussion between editors, not for refing the articles. It is my utmost prerogative as an active editor to question sources neutrality - that is actually how wp:neutrality is best preserved - read about it WP:PARTISAN--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And then in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view # Bias_in_sources--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Followed by WP:ONUS--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of this rules, I am also aware that the most important rule in wikipedia is WP:RS which is not disputed and cannot be disputed if someone on tp just writes that the source is bad because is Serbian etc. which actually includes breaking of the rule WP:NPOV I am also aware of the rule of WP:STABLE which shows that in this form article hold for more than a year, I am also aware that denying already 6 or 7 presented sources on this talk page by different editors goes under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so yeah. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:20 08.July 2022 (UTC)

I am inclined to sincerely doubt that you are aware of any of the policies and guidelines actual content, since you are unaware of the content of these WP's you are linking - like WP:STABLE, which also has a section Wikipedia:Stable_version#Inappropriate usage, which is more than a clear what is that essay all about.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure continue insulting and attacking, I am also aware of a guideline WP:Civility.Theonewithreason (talk) 05:22 10.July 2022 (UTC)

Then you better re-read section Incivility, last paragraph, because it seem that you need to refresh your familiarity with that policy as well.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Another attack, guess I am not the one needs reading.Theonewithreason (talk) 06:18 10.July 2022 (UTC)

There are no insults and attacks here, only now you are disrupting talk page by casting aspersions - this article belongs to a scope which is under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBEE.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Best to discuss the matter at hand, not conduct. Why not use a more inclusive description? StellarNerd (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess, you will continue to ignore the discussion and instead start saying that we are being inappropriate Surix321 (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)