User talk:Sargeras~enwiki

Welcome

Glad to see you register :)

If you hadn't already, have a look at the Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers page. If you have any questions related to Wikipedia form (rather than content), please feel free to ask me. --Joy [shallot] 11:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Braudel & Ragusa

I can't quickly summarize Braudel with reference to Ragusa: his book is a 2-volume monster that argues that the decline of the Mediterranean relative to the north should be dated at least a century later than historians before his time dated it. If covers everything from sailing times from Gibraltar to Istanbul to the diet of the Venetians in the 16th century. He was the founder of the Annales school of historians, if that means anything to you.

I read this some 15 years ago, and it's a dense book. I don't have everything at my fingertips, but if there is something in particular you want looked up, there is a fair chance I can find it.

Anyway, what particular dispute are you alluding to? If it's just the matter of whether the republic should be called the Ragusan Republic or the Dubrovnik Republic, I think there is no question that it should be the former. In the period where the Republic was at its height, the ruling elite did the business of government in Italian, even though most of them were, like the rest of the population, Slavs. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Braudel would have little to say about whether Ragusa should be thought of as "Croatian" or "Serbian": he is mainly concerned about its 16th-century relations with Venice, and in that context the "Croatian" vs. "Serbian" distinction is irrelevant. I frankly doubt that at that period this line was drawn anywhere near as clearly as it is at this moment. Clearly, geographically, Dubrovnik is in present-day Croatia. It would probably be possible (though perhaps not trivial) to determine whether the city was mainly Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox at that time (I'd guess the former, but I don't know). Is there really any other sense in which one could project back the modern national concepts of Croat and Serb to that date and still be talking about something meaningful? We certainly cannot trace the slight linguistic differences back that far. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[1] would suggest that the city was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Unless someone has a basis to challenge that, it would seem to settle the matter: I don't think it would be reasonable to claim that it was a city of Roman Catholic Serbs, do you?

Feel free to transfer my comments to wherever this is being argued out; I request that if you copy my comments, please either copy all of them or point to this talk page so people can read the full text for themselves. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:20, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

pong

If you wish to check up on me, please leave a message at User talk:Joy, preferably by creating a new section (click on the little plus sign next to 'edit this page'). This works for all other users, too.

I've been somewhat busy in real life, but I do still indend to continue our discussion at Talk:Croatia, of course. I'd also appreciate if you could make smaller paragraphs, because thousand-word paragraphs make my head hurt :)

Cheers --Joy [shallot] 00:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I sympathise with your dismay at the amount of things that need trivial correcting. If you look at the history of the Habsburg article, you will notice that previously we didn't even have proper ordinal numbers for each of their kinghoods - whereas they differed a lot. It's a work in progress, I guess.

The stuff about "socialist" and "communist" adjectives for states is a matter of English language style. Over here we would not hesitate to brand the Yugoslav system as "socijalizam" and be a bit more wary of using "komunizam", but socialism and communism have a slightly different undertone in English so it's a problem for non-native speakers. I'm Shallot, BTW, that was my old nickname here :) We discussed the issue later at some other discussion page, I'll see if I can tie up the loose ends.

I'm not certain about the number of victims of NDH any more than anyone else is, but it seems to me that the numbers presented by Vladimir Žerjavić (and Bogoljub Kočović) have the most merit. They are fairly elaborated and don't contradict with the latest findings. I won't paste them all here, you can read it at the article. I have had to mediate this issue in the past, and I think that the discussion on the articles Ustaše#Victims as well as Vladimir Žerjavić should be reasonably informative. I've also added much text to the discussion pages of those articles, I suggest you have a look, there was much argument about this. --Joy [shallot] 12:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't follow up on the issue at the history of Bulgaria immediately, sorry - I've fixed it now, you're correct.

As for the victim count, like I said above, it's hard to be certain or to give any range that would be definitive. It's particularly impossible for poor old me to give you an estimate that would mean anything in the numerical sense. It's probably going to be impossible to narrow the number down to the hundreds, or have all the victims on an accurate list, but the eighty thousand already listed are horrendous enough. You don't need exact maths to feel humbled by the amount of lunacy and suffering that went on there... --Joy [shallot] 21:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Grrrr, some Tesla and Nikola users keep changing exerithing to complete nonsense, are they blocked already by someone?

Where is this? I don't understand what you're talking about. --Joy [shallot]

I was on vacation for a couple of weeks, and I've responded at Talk:Croatia finally :)

I think that as the president of Croatia in 1989 could not do much to halt the war, the propaganda was well under way at the time. You'd have to go back to 1980 and start working from there. Even better - go back to 1945 and prevent the anti-nationalist policy from ever happenning - because it was creating a bubble that only waited to burst. It would have taken a concentrated and wise effort from influential people to stop the war... we will never know if it would have worked. --Joy [shallot] 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

New replies

My dear friend Joy-shallot, I had noticed that someone has re-arranged the info in the Croatia article, percisly not to include the Serbian history (twice Dubrovnik) as it says that it was originally Byzantine (Roman) and Venetian. Between those two stood ", Serbian" before as it became a part of Duklja before Venetia.

During which time was it part of Duklja? I can't say I recall which exact period you are talking about. It's important because the Duklja before Stefan Nemanja was not actually very Serbian, saying it like that would be a distortion of another kind. --Joy [shallot] 11:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I scrolled across the Croatian Dubrovnik-concerning websites, and I noticed that not only the Serbian perios is completly missing, but they mentioned tw times in the history when Dubrovnik was frontiering a Croatian state (besides the fact that it was engulphed by a Serbian nearly all the time).

You can always find web sites that talk crap... I had intentionally added "The Republic of Dubrovnik was independent" in that later section of the summary at Croatia#History and with that phrasing because I don't see much relevance of its in the earlier Middle Ages, and I don't feel a need to rant "ancient Croatian city!" or whatever else. --Joy [shallot]

I don't mind it, I got very much used to being discriminated just for being an Orthodox, as I spent the last three weeks in Croatia. I can't tell you in short notice my experiences, but I asure you, you won't like them. Everywhere where I turned I saw only hatred, further destruction and etc.

Must be tough. You were in Karlovac or somewhere on the countryside? --Joy [shallot]

history of Croatia ... at several other cases it keeps forcing the reader to understand that Serbs are evil.

Where? I don't get it. You have to quote me something more exact.

That sentence about civilian population fleeing is as neutral as possible - you don't want to know the stuff I tend to revert from random anonymous editors in Croatian dialup blocks.

I think your confusion stems from the fact that this describes the war in 1990 and 1991, during the formation of RSK.

The later period is explained later. I think this just needs to be spelled out.

I also noticed it says that Alexander was assassinated by radical groups (evading to mention the Ustaša and VMRO separatist movements)

Well, I was going to keep that edit, but the historical link has not actually been proven. We know that this Vlada Georgiev was a Macedonian and I think that he was established as a member of VMRO, but everything else seems to be interpolation. I haven't seen a single clear record, even a clear indication, that the Ustaše plotted it together with VMRO.

P. S. I discovered that the Bosnian and Frontier Serbs were generally called Četniks and Croats Ustašas; that is the reason why I referred to "Ustasha war plans".

That's war-time terminology, sadly, yes. I don't think saying "the Serbs" or "the Croats" is much better, but the former is even more irritating so we better avoid it.

And I would like a mention of Croatia's gigantic refugee problem in it's article (if that is even possible).

You have a point there, I'll see if I can add something.

As far as calling it gigantic, I don't think that's accurate, because many of the refugees have waived their status as such - there were only about 14,000 house reparation demands registered with the government at the peak, which would imply that a large part of those 140,000 Croatian Serbs in Serbia never filled out the forms. Well, either that or all families had ten members, which is impossible.

So while one could blame the Croatian government for governing badly and not having all of its citizens live there, you have to take into account that a lot of people, both Serbs and Croats and people from/with mixed marriages, simply emigrated for good and they wouldn't have been happy with any post-Yugoslav situation. And some refugees actually found a life for themselves where they are now and don't intend to return because of their economic or political convictions. --Joy [shallot]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sargeras. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sargeras~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

18:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)