Talk:Raška (region)/Archive 1

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raška (region). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506210349/http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0351-0050/2008/0351-00500833113G.pdf to http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0351-0050/2008/0351-00500833113G.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115125922/http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/jkalic-raska.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/jkalic-raska.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Raška (region) → Rascia – Since this is an historical region (like Bosnia, Syrmia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, etc), it makes more sense to use the common English name for it. It also eliminates the need for parenthetical disambiguation. Having Rascia and Raška (river) would then be parallel to Bosnia (region) and Bosna (river). Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting.  SITH   (talk)   16:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I like it. Srnec (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Term "Rascia" is not equivalent to Raška (region). If we change "Raška" to "Rascia" in title of article Raška (region) then what about "Raška" in titles like Raška (river) and Raška District, and also Raška, Serbia and Eparchy of Raška and Prizren? Changing those titles to non-existent forms like "Rascia (river)" or "Rascia District", and so on, would not be useful, and the same goes for the proposed move. Term "Rascia" has several meanings, and should be redirected to disambiguation page Raška. Sorabino (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a proposal to change the name of anything else. Srnec (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As shown in the link, the term "Rascia" refers predominantly, if not exclusively, to the historical region. We have Bosnia (region) yet Bosna (river), so that would not be a precedent. Surtsicna (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not true that the term "Rascia" refers "predominantly, if not exclusively" to the Raška (region), since any Google search can show that it is very frequently used as one of two main designations (Rascia or Servia) for a particular Serbian medieval state that existed from 11th century to 1217, and we have an article on that subject, called the Grand Principality of Serbia - go there and see how many redirect with terms "Raška" and "Rascia" are pointing to that article. And also, there is a question of consistency. If you want to change Raška to Rascia, because of a "historical region" argument (whatever that is), why didn't you also propose to move Sandžak to "Sanjak (region)"? Term Raška is Serbian endonym for the region, and term Sandžak is also endonym, used by ethnic Bosniaks for the same region. If you are proposing to move only one, not the other, then we might have a different problem here. Sorabino (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support based on WP:COMMONNAME. After some online research I conclude that the proposed name is used more by reliable sources than the current name. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Encyclopedia Britannica uses Serbian endonym "Raška": (see Encyclopedia Britannica search engine for "Raška"). It is clear that there is no real reason for moving this page to Latin exonym "Rascia". In English language, term Raška is adopted in its endonym form for the names of the river, city, district and diocese: Raška (river), Raška District, Raška, Serbia, Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, and there is no need to change the same term in the title of the region. Sorabino (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  03:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Rascia" is not the English name, it is the Latin name. The commonly used English name is Raška (146,000 hits) (compare to "Rascia" 43,000 hits ). Khirurg (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I could just as easily say "Raška" is not the English name, it is the Serbian name. Note that half of the first ten Google Books hits for "Raska" you cite are surnames, one is about the river and one is not in English; thus 30% are English sources about the region vs. 60% of the top ten Rascias.  Raw numbers won't work alone in either of these cases. —  AjaxSmack  06:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you might be missing the point here - this article is about the region Raška, and it is properly named "Raška (region)", while old Latin term "Rascia" has several different meanings and should be redirected to disambiguation page. Just take a look at all these proper titles: Raška (river), Raška District, Raška, Serbia, Eparchy of Raška and Prizren, Raška architectural school ... are you saying that all of them should be changed? And what would be the reference for such a change, or any change? As I said in one of previous comments, editors of Encyclopedia Britannica have decided to use the term "Raška" in their articles. Are you saying that they are wrong? :) Do you have any such reference in favor of "Rascia"? Take a look at works of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. who is one of the greatest American experts on the history of Southeastern Europe. He is constantly using "Raška" in his works, for example here and here. So far, since the beginning of this discussion, no one has stated any reference that would support the claim that we should use old Latin term "Rascia" in the title of the article on the Raška region, not to mention all other articles that are using the proper term "Raška". The lack of arguments and references in favor of the move is quite strange. Sorabino (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The title "Rascia" used to be applied to the content that now sits at Grand Principality of Serbia and Principality of Serbia (early medieval), but the entire history of content is now muddled by multiple merges and moves. "Rascia" is certainly not a modern English term for the modern region, but has been applied historically to the said principality and various polities of the region. As Sorabino said, the term is ambiguous and should be redirected to the dab page, and we should not promote anachronisms that are seldom used in modern context. No such user (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per wp:COMMONNAME & after research the proposed name is "not" used more by reliable sources than the current name (see overwhelming results in googlebooks etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, per sound reasons of @Surtsicna.Resnjari (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historiography vs. wikifiction
Now, it's obvious that the editor who made the edit knew that Cirkovic (2008) never wrote what the article supported for many years - that is why no page was provided. I've done some cleanup, but may have to tag the article until all sources are verified.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * An editor had written that Stari Ras was the "capital of Serbia" from the 11th to the 13th century. They have added Cirkovic (2008) - without providing a page! - as the source. Of course, Stari Ras couldn't have been the "capital of Serbia from the 11th to the 13th century" because it was under Byzantine control. The Serbian army got control of Ras and burnt it in 1127.
 * Cirkovic (2008), p.29 writes:
 * Ivanišević (2013):
 * Moravcsik (1949) is a translation of the original De Administrando Imperio and in the article - as the previous citation - it was used without a page. It's obvious that the original editor who added it knew that the source - which shouldn't be used per WP:PRIMARY - didn't support the claim. If you (in this case, ) haven't verified a source, don't use it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The following comment is intended for the curious reader who is in fact interested in historiography: Ivanisevic (2013) in the above quote explains that the mention of Ras(a) in DAI is not sufficient for an understanding of who ruled it to emerge, but modern research places it within the Bulgarian realm. Now, what is the one quote from DAI which didn't allow for a clear interpretaion to emerge? (p.155, Moravcsik (1949) translation). It's a small factoid for those who want to get into archival research. It also shows why no editor who had used the DAI as a primary source for this area ever cited a specific page - there's nothing to cite.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Misquote
The source (Cirkovic) says that: The town of Ras and the territory of its bishopric was the first larger administrative unit seized by the Serbs from Byzantium. Serb rulers made it their seat, which is why Latin texts began to refer to them as the Rasciani and their state as Rascia. Ivanisevic says that: The Serbian conquest of Ras is confirmed at a later date, during the reign of John II Komnenos (1118–1143). John Kinnamos relates the Serbian conquest and burning down of the Byzantine Ras (circa 1127–1129), which prompted the Emperor to punish Kritoplos, the commander of the fortress. They don't say that it was "recaptured" or that it was ever part of Serbian rule before this point in time. Ahmet Q. (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask how did you come by this article, dear fellow editor Ahmet?  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already added the full quote since October. What Sadko and Sorabino are trying to put forward is not in the sources. Admin oversight will be asked for if they continue to edit-war in order to keep a narrative that doesn't appear in bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * To recap: Bibliography mentions that part of this region was captured in the 1080s by Constantine Bodin and the fort of Ras was burnt and captured in 1127. It was seized by Serbian feudal rulers by the Byzantine Empire. Narratives about "Serbian lands" which were "recaptured" don't appear in bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * which was turned into "Ras was recaptured the Serbian army". Editors must understand that they can only write what bibliography supports. If bibliography says "conquered and burned" then you can't turn that into "recaptured Serbian lands" and then ask for a "discussion". Discussion presupposes that there is a debate in bibliography. If there is no debate but authors hold the same position, then it's your opinion vs. mainstream Serbian historiography in this particular case.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly Maleschreiber, thank you for taking the time to correct the content, much appreciated. Ahmet Q. (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * should stop inserting material that is not found in bibliography. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? Please, provide one such edit, that would support your claims. In fact, your recent revert has removed sourced content, and also reinforced obvious misquoting of sources. That can be easily established by simple comparison of some "quotes" with texts of sources. Sorabino (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there are many direct quotes which were added and you removed. Nobody discusses a "recapture of Serbian lands" - which you keep adding back. In your last you revert you also removed  from Dimnik (1995) . Don't put forward claims that can be verified to be false and be more careful in your edits. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are falsely attributing non-existing statements to Sima Ćirković, and that is a simple fact. The so-called "quote" of yours, referring to the page 29 of the well known work of Sima Ćirković, does not exist on that page, or on any other page of that work. Look it up yourself, and you will see how wrong you are. Sorabino (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have full access to the book, I'm not using gbooks. But if you have limited gbooks access - you can verify it via this link, otherwise you can ask for help from others which may be able to verify it for you if your geolocation doesn't allow you to do so. This also highlights that you shouldn't quote bibliography to which you don't have actual access. There's a source request noticeboard which might be able to help you in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you being serious? Are you still claiming that your quote: "On the other hand, the Chronicle of Dioclea states that in the 1080s Bodin conquered Rascia, the region where – with his help – župan Vukan and his brother Marko established their rule; however, the question remains whether the Byzantine border fortress became a part of Serbia at this time. The Serbian conquest of Ras is confirmed at a later date, during the reign of John II Komnenos (1118–1143)" comes from the work of Sima Ćirković (page 29, as you state, or any other page)? There is no such quote in that work, or any other work of Sima Ćirković, and that is a simple fact. Sorabino (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It comes from Ivanisevic (2013) and it has been added in the article as such (but it did appear as a double quote in the article and I've fixed that). You should read the article carefully when you make edits. You asked for a link for the quotes which come from Cirkovic and you have access to them. Now, don't ever again use bibliography in the way you've done so far in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you attributed the quote to Sima Ćirković, and you did it twice in the article. If you are now claiming other source, why did you persist in inserting false attribution in the article? You should acknowledge your mistake and fix it, on all instances, or stop preventing others to fix it. Sorabino (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a minor double quote, which didn't change anything in the article's content in the first place and it has been fixed. What you put forward never appears in the sources and you removed sources like Dimnik (1995). The three quotes by Cirkovic which have been used are:


 * The article relies on these quotes for the parts attributed to Cirkovic. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , It was not "a minor double quote" as you are stating now, but a 100% false attribution, that you tried to insert into the article, as recorded in the history of edits. But that is just the tip of an iceberg. Your editing process is quite unreliable, since you are misrepresenting sources in general. Sorabino (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Think what feels best for you - just don't add back in the article your personal beliefs about the "recapture of Serbian lands" and don't remove bibliography and then use as an excuse a minor change in which a part of a quote got swapped in one of the many times it has been used without it ever actually affecting the content of the article. You tried to quote Cirkovic as "p.29-30" which of course say nothing about the "recapture" of Ras or that this was ever part of the Serbian state before 1127-1129. I added the actual quotes and they don't support your narrative. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is your misrepresentation of the well known historical facts. The region of Raška was well within the borders of Serbia by the end of the 11th century, since Byzantine Princess Anna Komnene states in her historiographical work that in the 1090s, Serbian grand prince Vukan was also holding Zvečan fortress, far to the southeast, and in the same time she describes Serbian advancements towards Lipljan, Vranje and Skopje. All of that was stated in the article, with references to sources, but everything was removed. Your assumption, that the region of Raška became part of Serbia only after the war of 1127-1129, is in contradiction with the well known sources. Sorabino (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Think what feels best for you - just don't add back in the article your personal beliefs about the "recapture of Serbian lands" and don't remove bibliography and then use as an excuse a minor change in which a part of a quote got swapped in one of the many times it has been used without it ever actually affecting the content of the article. You tried to quote Cirkovic as "p.29-30" which of course say nothing about the "recapture" of Ras or that this was ever part of the Serbian state before 1127-1129. I added the actual quotes and they don't support your narrative. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is your misrepresentation of the well known historical facts. The region of Raška was well within the borders of Serbia by the end of the 11th century, since Byzantine Princess Anna Komnene states in her historiographical work that in the 1090s, Serbian grand prince Vukan was also holding Zvečan fortress, far to the southeast, and in the same time she describes Serbian advancements towards Lipljan, Vranje and Skopje. All of that was stated in the article, with references to sources, but everything was removed. Your assumption, that the region of Raška became part of Serbia only after the war of 1127-1129, is in contradiction with the well known sources. Sorabino (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You may object to that in a paper which you can submit in a reliable journal about prof. Cirkovic's assertion, a reliable source who writes that Whether Vukan had control of Zvecan is an irrelevant fact and WP:SYNTH speculation in relation to this area. Also, read carefully what has been written. There's no claim that there was no Serbian presence in the entire region of Raska, but that Serbian control was firmly established after the conquest of Ras in 1127.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Serbian possession of the Raška region (including the city of Ras) during the reign of grand prince Vukan is well established by sources, and recognized in scholarly literature. There is no justification for the removal of those data from the article. Sorabino (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't added any source which supports that Vukan held Ras - Cirkovic and Ivanisevic don't support that narrative. You have to show with actual bibliography that a narrative is part of the consensus and so far you haven't done so. You can't just claim that something is "well established", but have no sources to back it up.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop misrepresenting views of Sima Ćirković. He was not excluding Serbian control over the Raška region during the course of the 11th century, related to the reign of grand prince Vukan. On the contrary. But, you are presenting only selective quotations, taken out of the context. There are various prominent scholars who can be quoted in addition to sources from Anna Komnena. Sorabino (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how adding multiple full quotes is a misrepresentation. What you must understand is that the fact part of Raska since the 1080s increasingly fell under Vukan doesn't mean that all of Raska fell under Serbian feudal control. That's what bibliography puts forward. Find these prominent scholars, tquote them on the talkpage - no large page ranges. Cirkovic (2008), Ivanisevic (2013), Curta (2019) are all putting forward a very different narrative. Thank you - I'm off to do some work.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ras, capital of the Serbian Principality in the 11th century?
One of 's unsourced edits/reverts claimed that Ras was the capital of the Serbian Kingdom Principality "from the 11th to the 13th century". It's a false claim. Cirkovic - p.29-33 which Sorabino quoted - doesn't put forward that claim. Cirkovic (2008) writes:
 * and also that the Byzantines recovered it in 1149.
 * I have also added Curta (2019) who writes
 * To recap, it was not the "capital" of the Serbian kingdom, it wasn't controlled by Serbian feudal rulers in the 11th century, it didn't acquire the trappings of a Serbian medieval center until the late 1160s. The quotes are posted for the curious reader and editors who may face the same verifiably false narrative in the future despite the fact that such theories don't appear in Serbian mainstream historiography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are continuing to misrepresent the facts, and produce unsubstantiated allegations. This is my true edit, that can be seen in the edit history: In the Middle Ages, the Land of Raška (Serbian: Рашка земља) was the central province of the Serbian Principality and of the Serbian Kingdom, whose capital was the city of Ras (a World Heritage Site), from the 11th to the 13th century. In other words, you are trying to misrepresent my edits, since I was talking both about periods of the Principality, and the Kingdom, from the 11th to the 13th century. Your "title" of this section ("Ras, capital of the Serbian Kingdom in the 11th century?") is your own fabrication. Sorabino (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether it was the capital of the Serbian Principality or Kingdom - I can change that on the header - but that it couldn't have been the capital of any Serbian state as it wasn't under Serbian control. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, now you are retroactively changing titles of sections on the talk page. Keep up the "good" work. As I stated above, Serbian possession of the Raška region (including the Ras fortress) as early as the 1090s (reign of grand prince Vukan) is well established by sources, and recognized in scholarly literature, in relation to historical data from the works of Anna Komnene. There was no justification for the removal of those data from the article. Sorabino (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe that there is a "well established" consensus which supports that Vukan held Ras (fortress/town) in the 1090s, use reftalk and full quotes to present those sources. Because nothing in the bibliography of the article suggests that Ras was capital of any Serbian state or even under Serbian control during that period. Both Cirkovic and Ivanisevic support the opposite. Also, I don't find WP:LASTWORD discussions very productive. When you find bibliography(page, full quote), we can discuss this topic again.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I stated above, sources like works of Anna Komnene and scholarly works related to the rule of grand prince Vukan, including his possession of the Raška region, should not be removed from the article. Sorabino (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a how bibliography functions. You're trying to use as a source your personal reading of a WP:PRIMARY document without any quote or context. It's not how wikipedia functions. There are guidelines on WP:RS. Thank you - I'm off to do some work.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you produce any source for your claim that during the period from 976 to 1018 the region of Raška was under the rule of Bulgarian Empire? Sorabino (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Ivanisevic 2013). I've removed some WP:PRIMARY which you've added from the 1967 DAI translation. The translator shouldn't be quoted as the author, and the work shouldn't be quoted directly. --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:STABLE
You must edit Wikipedia in good faith. Make up of artificial reasons (WP:STABLE) has nothing to do with my edit summary and information's which do not exist in the sources ie this is WP:OR. If you always think of supporting other editor when I edit some article, that's your right, but we have to follow Wikipedia's rules. You have sources present in the article and show where this information's are written in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to prove that it is OR, it means nothing just to say it. Another thing, quoting WP:STABLE is not "artificial reasons".  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  11:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably kidding? I should quote the whole page for the first source and the whole scientific paper for the second source to prove that information's from the article are not written in the sources? Therefore information's which exist in the article are not written according to the sources nor does this information's exist in the sources. The proof are sources themselves. This is WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. the WP:STABLE is the version before Sorabino's edits. Now, if you edit-war to include challenged ideas which are not even discussed by the sources themselves, there'll have to be admin oversight.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorabino's edits also removed parts of the article without any explanation. The editor has tried again to remove the same citations. To recap: there's WP:OR, disruptive removal of citations and edit-warring to force a POV which doesn't appear in bibliography. If bibliography doesn't put forward what you want to discuss, don't bring it to wikipedia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be an admin oversight since it is obvious break of several wiki rules : false use of WP:OR since this information exists in Cirkovic (Serbs) page 30 explaining the use of term Rascian with Serbs (used in Latin text for Serbs, used by Hungarians and Germans for Serbs until 19th Century), there is also deleting information from the same source about Serbs who were controlling this Region before 12th century, which obviously has WP:TENDENTIOUS elements in this edit, third User presented sourced material and improved the article which now gives more WP:NEUTRALITY to i.e presenting that region was near Novi Pazar gives the best explanation of it.,  or  It appears that this edit war should be stopped and since this is your level of knowledge maybe you should give an opinion and suggest which Admin should overlook since there is also lack of WP:GOODFAITH in recent edit.Theonewithreason (talk) 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling the editors for help does not solve the fact that current information's from the article are WP:OR. Try in future edits or while following me, to act alone because if your edit work is in good faith you will have no problems. We all work together here. Mikola22 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not calling for help, it is asking for opinion from more experienced editors with more knowledge about the subject, maybe you should ask them too since you are so interested in Serbian history but it is obvious that you are struggling. Deleting and calling everything WP:OR even when there is a mention in sources is not a cooperation. Theonewithreason (talk) 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to struggling here. You have source and information from the article, if someone notices that something is wrong we must react and act as editors. Regarding OR issue, I see you took this claim from editor Sadko, but this is a basic rule of Wikipedia which must be followed. Mikola22 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has more than one rule, you know. Theonewithreason (talk) 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I see your point, there is abuse of quoting "OR" and it has been going on for some time. Cirkovic has explained it all well and it's RS. Most of the new information is well-sourced; it's just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  18:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)