Talk:Konavle
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
CILIPI – an authentic, picturesque village in Konavle with a touch of the past, marked by charming rural landscapes. Folklore has always been an important aspect of traditional culture – it is a combination of all the phenomena in life, which are passed from one generation to another. Following the Sunday mass, the residents dressed in the well-known Konavle costumes, the loveliest in Croatia, dance on the main square before the church of St Nicholas.You will enjoy this scenery including interesting contacts with locals, good food and drinks. Cilipi was a village completly devastated during the last war, but today it is renewed and rebuilt back to its old shine.Numerous small roads or paths are ideal for taking long exploring walks through small villages and breathtaking nature. 20 km from Dubrovnik, 5 from Cavtat and just 1 from airport Dubrovnik. A nature's paradise, the whole region - starting from the slopes of the mount Snijeznica (1234 m) and stretching all the way down to the rugged rocks, hidden and deserted rocky beaches, overlooking Adriatic - is rich in evergreens, pine forest and Mediterranean vegetation. The sea glistened a beautiful blue, the sun shone warmly, and all seemed well in the world. barba1
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox"
RS check
[edit]Međutim, kad su 1427. stekli i drugi dio Konavala, postupili su jednako kao na Pelješcu i u Primorju, želeći iskorijeniti patarenstvo. Doista, napredak u obnovi katoličanstva na novostečenim područjima bio je tako brz i učinkovit da krajem srednjega vijeka ondje žive samo katolici. Katoličanstvo su obnavljali putem franjevačkoga pastorala... However, when they acquired the second part of Konavle in 1427, they acted in the same way as they did on Peljesac and the Primorje, wanting to eradicate Bogomilism. Indeed, progress in the restoration of Catholicism in the newly acquired areas has been so fast and efficient that in the late Middle Ages only Catholics lived there. They restored Catholicism through Franciscan pastoralism..
Government of Dubrovnik in 1427 eradicate Bogomilism in Konavle and acted as in Pelješac when they expelled the Orthodox priests. Catholicism to Konavle was restored with Franciscans. Restoration of Catholicism was so rapid and efficient that at the end of the Middle Ages only Catholics lived there. Information is from Janeković Römer, Zdenka from Raukarov zbornik : zbornik u čast Tomislava Raukara / Budak, Neven (ur.). Zagreb: FF Press, 2005. str. 317-346. I have only Google page and in the publication it is page 317-346.[1] Author biography[2] @PortalTwo: I think everything is clean here. Mikola22 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- We have conflicting sources, therefore - both should be included. @PortalTwo: why is the book by Ragusologist S. Stipcevic not RS? Care to explain? Do you even read Serbo-Croatian? How can you check it considering that the book is not available online? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Is this not it? Was it not also an RS issue on the Republic of Ragusa page? https://books.google.com/books?id=07ULAQAAMAAJ&dq=Dubrovačke+studije.+Zavod+za+udžbenike+i+nastavna+sredstva&focus=searchwithinvolume&q= PortalTwo (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it's on Google books, most works are. There is no option to read the full book. You have not addressed my questions, pointing to a discussion on the other page (which is not based on lack of RS, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not an argument. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Searching the town returns nothing in the book. As for RS it seems I am not the only one seeing an issue with the source. Any more questions that you wont like my answers to?PortalTwo (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming that you have made a blind guess that it's not reliable. Do not spin. Why is it not RS? 1) Published by a notable local publisher. 2) It's the work of an expert and uni. professor. 3) The whole text is neutral and not political in nature, as its main focus is literature and culture. See Wikipedia:Competence is required Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hah, two incorrect accusations towards me. I like how you still cannot explain where in the book that town specifically is mentioned along with the claim you placed in the article. I did not make a “Blind Guess”. The publishing company makes no difference there. A source can be RS for one article but not necessarily for another. The concern is possible partisanship. So multiple sources would be warranted. And that is not to say that Balkan sources are bad but the risk of partisanship is the issue. Now that you get what I mean by RS, what is the quote from the book that backs your edit as nothing is coming up from the ebook.PortalTwo (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming that you have made a blind guess that it's not reliable. Do not spin. Why is it not RS? 1) Published by a notable local publisher. 2) It's the work of an expert and uni. professor. 3) The whole text is neutral and not political in nature, as its main focus is literature and culture. See Wikipedia:Competence is required Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Searching the town returns nothing in the book. As for RS it seems I am not the only one seeing an issue with the source. Any more questions that you wont like my answers to?PortalTwo (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it's on Google books, most works are. There is no option to read the full book. You have not addressed my questions, pointing to a discussion on the other page (which is not based on lack of RS, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is not an argument. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Is this not it? Was it not also an RS issue on the Republic of Ragusa page? https://books.google.com/books?id=07ULAQAAMAAJ&dq=Dubrovačke+studije.+Zavod+za+udžbenike+i+nastavna+sredstva&focus=searchwithinvolume&q= PortalTwo (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- We have conflicting sources, therefore - both should be included. @PortalTwo: why is the book by Ragusologist S. Stipcevic not RS? Care to explain? Do you even read Serbo-Croatian? How can you check it considering that the book is not available online? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are pushing questionable sources that coincidentally have the same agenda on multiple articles.You are being proven wrong on all of them by multiple editors. Why are we hearing competence gospels from you? SerVasi (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Let’s all focus on the material than go after each other personally. PortalTwo (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @PortalTwo Just because you can not get that page opened on your computer, does not mean that the information was made-up. It's in the book, precise page was added. Explain to me why is it "partisan". That will be step number one. Yes, it does makes a difference, because you do not present solid arguments, just various comments which are not grounded in Wiki rules (multiple sources needed, etc.). @SerVasi If you have nothing to add to the discussion, please do not post empty comments and leave the debate for people with RS. Which "agenda", please explain? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Let’s all focus on the material than go after each other personally. PortalTwo (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- You are pushing questionable sources that coincidentally have the same agenda on multiple articles.You are being proven wrong on all of them by multiple editors. Why are we hearing competence gospels from you? SerVasi (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)