This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
A fact from Marin Temperica appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 June 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article contains misleading information[edit]
I corrected the article on 9 June 2015 by using the source document which clearly states that Marin Temperica spoke about the Slavonic language "lingua sclavona" and not the Serbian language. I also cited an academic article by Gabrić-Bagarić (FLUMINENSIA, god. 22 (2010) br. 1, str. 149-162, http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/89397) which discusses the influence of Temperica on the Croatian language standarisation in the 17th century. These corrections were removed by "Antidiskriminator" who reinstated references to secondary sources. The secondary sources misquote the source document "Bibliotheca apostolica" (http://books.google.com/books?id=5RWwyA1IgIUC&pg=170) by asserting that Temperica talked about the Serbian language.
It is true that "Bibliotheca apostolica" contains a reference to the "alphabetum Seruianum" or "Servian" alphabet, but this is the alphabet used for Church Slavonic in the Catholic church, and is not the alphabet used in modern Serbian. While I corrected the link (by linking it to Church Slavonic), Antidiskriminator has removed the correct link, and has reinstated the link to the modern Serbian alphabet. I will not get involved in a re-editing situation, but all users of this article, please be aware that the article contains incorrect or potentially misleading information due to these re-edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 04:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable secondary sources have advantage to wikipedia editors' interpretation of primary sources. Your removal of the referenced text is disruptive. The article already explains that he referred to the Cyrillic script as "Alphabetum Servianum" which is not conected with Temperica's opinion about beauty of the Serbian language spoken in Bosnia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I since stumbled upon this and noticed it was referenced to Ivo Vukcevich, who is well known not to be a reliable source. And now I see it was at DYK like that. Wow, just wow. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Pasting from the other Talk page for completeness) Apparently an extraordinary statement was referenced to an Ivo Vukcevich source, which is not only not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not even WP:RS, because of his countless biased diatribes against nationalities other than his own (he's so biased that he even put some of that in book titles, so it's not only non-encyclopedic, it's Vojislav Šešelj territory - a borderline WP:ARBMAC violation in and of itself). I have recently edited the article to remove the invalid source and the contentious claim, and the remaining issue is whether we still do something with the DYK entry (and what). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivo is common Croatian name, so I did not look carefully for a certain type of bias in English language US published works of Mr. Ivo Vukcevich. I did notice it, but because it was so blatant I thought he was ridiculing a certain point of view. Now I see I made a mistake. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Filologija. Izdaje Jugoslovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Odjel za filologiju. 1979. p. 14.
It's clearly not formatted right, this is the Academy's journal from the philology department, and every text within in has specific titles and authors, so "Philology" is not a title. I tried to verify it in Google Books and couldn't find much. I tried to verify it at the Academy's website and only found http://dizbi.hazu.hr/object/711 which indicates the number could have been off by 10?! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Philology is the title of journal. The author is Josip Vončina, as presented link indicates. Eventual error in volume number is not reason for deletion of the source, but for correction. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link snippet which supports that "The Catholic Reformists believed that it was necessary to determine what would be the most understandable language version on the territory populated by South Slavs" - "... ali se također odavno zna ne samo koje su potrebe nego i koji neposredni poticaji začeli protureformatorski interes za jezična pitanja: tražio se takav jezični tip koji bi mogao biti najboljim sredstvom za sporazumevanje na cijelome Slavenskome jugu." I will restore reference obviously removed without valid reason.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the journal is not relevant to the title field there. Each journal article has its own title, and that's what should be referenced. Either way, I don't think we can conclude that Vončina is the author just based on this Google Books page, because it says "Josip Vončina 7 Karlo Kosor 37 STjepan DamjanoviĆ 73 10 other sections not shown". Since there are so many sections not shown, how do we even know that Vončina's section was 20 pages long? I checked the second link you pasted and unfortunately the snippet doesn't render to me. Google Books snippets are generally useful, but they're obviously fickle and out of context and we can't edit just based on them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I see perfectly well the text which I quoted. Here is a link which confirms that Vončina is author of the article "Vrančićev rječnik" published in Filologija on pages 7-36. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That link happens to work for me, too. I googled the full name elsewhere and verified that this article spanned pages 7-36, e.g. at http://katalog.hazu.hr/WebCGI.exe?Tip=Listic&Jbmg=024492&Baza=1 Looks like it can't be found at the original archive because http://dizbi.hazu.hr/?object=list&mr[97434]=a&restricted=n&oby=timem&obyt=d&published=y indicates they only digitized that journal's issues after 2007 there. I'm still not happy with the idea of referencing things to snippets without access to whole texts, but I suppose it's sufficient to assume that readers can find ways to get the paper copies based on proper meta data. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
