Talk:Katun (community)

Commune vs. settlement
Katun, as described in this article, is more political organization than settlement, and in that sense katun was, more often than not, composed of several settlements, sometimes encompassing huge areas with many villages which were located in a lowlands in karst, atypical and completely different from temporary summer shepherd mountain camps/villages known today as katuns.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Above comment refers exclusively to the situation on the Adriatic-coast side of the Balkans.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Some urefed content
Of course, it would be perfect encyclopedia if we could have all content refed with verifiable sources, but as we strive for this, it would be desirable to have some criterion when removing a text that currently has no reference. This content is written in absolute "good faith", with well-written meaningful content making it more than a rough collection of information, and if given time, someone, be it me or someone else who is interested in this field, will sooner or later find and include additional sources. That is exactly the point of WP:BURDEN, which says: Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; but also: ''Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.''-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the uncited material again as per WP:DDE, you have had over a month to add sources, and refuse to do so. WP:OR and WP:VERIFY are principles of the project. And one of the two sources currently in the article is does not have enough information to satsify VERIFY. Yes, and one should assume good faith, but you are incorrect about BURDEN, the first sentence of which reads, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Furthermore VERIFY states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It goes on to say, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports. When material is removed, that amounts to challenging it.  Onel 5969  TT me 10:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, it's really important subject for you, this segment on medieval history of the Balkans, that you are willing to edit-warring over it, although you have not mention one thing which you found erroneous, or that it looks suspicious to you, that could be contentious or controversial, or unverifiable by two existing sources, or, it just happens that you are so very concerned by, how many of stubs which I created in the last year or so, oh, all of them.
 * WP:DDE is very clear, step 2.: ...; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage. Step 3.: At all times, stay civil, and avoid engaging in multiple reverts yourself. (I guess, don't remove content until we make reasonable amount of discussion.)
 * How many time have you reverted this paragraph and labeled article as not notable, before engaging in TP discussion?
 * Have you initiated TP discussion to remove unrefed content or when have you joined discussion? Have you offered "clear explanation for the difference in opinion"? Have you offered "compromise"?
 * You, it seem, never took my objection to your removal of Dinjicic noble family stub from the mainspace likely, so you decided to review all stub articles which I created during the last year, and removed all of them despite the fact that they were all stub with at least one or two refs. So, beside being savvy enough with interpreting policies and guidelines, and beside all this wikilawyering, is there anything in particular worth of all this energy to find all my recent creations and edit war to remove it from mainspace, or like here to at least remove small piece of unrefed content and to label entire stub as not notable, notwithstanding two good sources/refs and stub article status.
 * Those two sources, one written by top medievalist on the Balkans medieval history, Sima Ćirković, alone provide evidence that your notability labeling of this stub is at the very least strange way of dealing with a lack of refs - not to mention at least 4 articles on this topic.
 * Finally, I have provided article with a template message on lack of refs, but for some time you are obviously unwilling to accept that viable option as a compromise, despite the fact that existence of such options (WP:FAIL) also prove my point, which is that we don't remove unrefed content simply at any ones will, we weight content and sources present, and more often than not we use template messages such as those offered at the WP:CTT template message index.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This last point on content removal can also be weighted through WP:USI.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)