Diskusia:Frizinské pamiatky

NPOV Dispute

This is a clear example, how original research and personal opinion destroys NPOV. No matter what the editor THINKS about the manuscripts, it is basically a consensus that they are a Slovenian document and that language is Slovenian. The article is written to prove otherwise and in several places author tries to dispute that consensus amongst hundreds of experts that have written so.

"Digital edition with a commentary in Slovenian, in English and partly from the Slovenian perspective"

"z pohľadu Slovinska ide o najstarší text v slovinčine"

Also the main source of the "inspiration" (not very Wikipedia like, is it) is book by Isacenko, written during WWII on occupied territories. The Freising manuscripts part of that book is generally considered a nonsense amongst experts from other countries. I have asked several top linguistic experts and they all claim the same. This is of course original research and can not get on Wikipedia. But it shows lack of credibility of one single source amongst many others. And I believe that it is completely unacceptable that any Wikipedia article chooses to base its content on one source instead of the consensus hundreds of sources.

The POV is obviously on your part. Isačenko is a reputable scholar, the article is the standard academic interpretation (not based primarily on Isačenko) and the article mentions both POVs. If you want to write nationalist articles, find another website. And let me be clear: The article contains NO original research, because it is sourced. Bronto 14:13, 30. júl 2010 (UTC)

Bronto, NPOV is still disputed and I suggest that we find someone with authority to reach a decision in the case. Obviously neither of us is able to decide. Do you suggest anything different from the usual Wikipedia procedure? If you are correct, then I don't see what are you afraid of? Then the decision will obviously be that your article has NPOV. I believe that the decision will be different though.

Let me summarize (and this is my last word, I do not discuss with nationalist vandals): The article is sourced. It contains the version taught at Slovak or Czech universities and in addition, it contains the Slovenian nationalist POV. In sum: It contains both points of view and sources for both. Your lies about what someone has told you are irrelevant and no source. In other words: There is no POV dispute (both POV are present). The fact that the text is not limited to your personal POV does not imply a POV dispute. That is all. Bronto 14:31, 30. júl 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, why are you afraid of the usual Wikipedia procedure in such cases? Why are you removing NPOV label when there IS NPOV and decision needs to be reached? It seems we are both acting irrationally and there has to be a third party helping us out. If you revert one more time, I will ask an administrator for help.

There is no POV dispute, because the article contains both POV. Is that clear or not? Therefore everything your are saying is compelete non-sense from the very beginning. Bronto 14:39, 30. júl 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with both point of views but there is a difference for example if you talk about how there was no holocaust for 99% of Holocaust wikipedie entry and then write 1% how some people claim that there was holocaust. That is the problem of your article and it is clear violation of NPOV.

Reverts by Bronto

Bronto: "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not."

This is straight from Wikipedia policies. I will add NPOV tag one more time. Don't reverse as it is AGAINST Wikipedia policy to do so. Do you understand? Do you need links? Do you know that by adding content to Wikipedia, you accept Wikipedia rules? Do you have any other problems with my NPOV tag? If so, let's discuss. But right here, not through stupid revert war. You are on the wrong side of the revert war, you are not allowed to remove NPOV tag. How much clearer this needs to be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

Yes and there is no POV dispute, because your arguments are technically wrong. What you propose would mean turning the article into a Slovenian nationalist text, which is in direct contradiction to your assertion (to put it politely). The article contains the nationalist version, but it will not contain only the nationalist version. Bronto 14:25, 30. júl 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to say that my arguments are technically wrong? I say that my arguments are technically correct and there are "judges" that can decide who is correct. I consider your version to be nationalistic, because it is the only version anywhere in the world with such view on Freising manuscripts. But as said before, it will be decided one way or another and there is nothing you can do about it. You will NOT be the one making this decision and I will not be the one either.

Isačenko is a highly reputable scholar, the article contains both POV (you want just one), the article is not based only on Isačenko, the article is sourced. I will not repeat this 10x and stop vandalizing. Bronto 14:35, 30. júl 2010 (UTC)

I will not repeat myself. This is my last edit before I ask higher authorities to intervene.