Misplaced Pages

Talk:Finiq: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:40, 30 December 2009 editKhirurg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,675 edits →Edwin Jacques is not a serious source← Previous edit Revision as of 19:51, 30 December 2009 edit undoSulmues (talk | contribs)22,787 edits →Edwin Jacques is not a serious sourceNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:


::::You conveniently ignore everything else that Elsie says about the "book". Edwin Jacques is a clown, and his book is trash. Period. There is absolutely no way we are going to use him as a source, either here or anywhere else on this encyclopedia. This "discussion" is over. --] (]) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC) ::::You conveniently ignore everything else that Elsie says about the "book". Edwin Jacques is a clown, and his book is trash. Period. There is absolutely no way we are going to use him as a source, either here or anywhere else on this encyclopedia. This "discussion" is over. --] (]) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Well, I'm not convinced yet. But for the sake of I'm going to leave it here for now. And I'm not going to ask for Mediation, because you are a much more experienced auditor, and it would be the equivalent of testifying against a cop in the ].] (])
--Sulmues 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:51, 30 December 2009

WikiProject iconEurope Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Edwin Jacques is not a serious source

Stuff like Jaques isn't 'rs' for sure. How can someone believe that ancient Albanians fought in the Trojan War like he mentions? Moreover, there is a major historical discrepancy since Finiq was under Byzantine rule until 1348, how can a (possible) Albanian clan originate from there? Off course some 'rs' can give a solution to this.Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Now why should the greeks fight in the Trojan war and the ancient Albanians couldn't?
How can the Albanian clan originate from Finiq: simply because Finiq was and is still in Albania. Don't confuse Byzantine with Greek, Byzantine means Roman Empire of the Orient and was place to Albanians, Romans, Greeks and everybody else. Cheers! sulmues (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
Are you serious? What an incredibly inane, childish comment. Ancient Albanians? What a joke. As for Edwin Jacques, here's what Robert Elsie has to say about his "book" . Not for the serious person. --Athenean (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Now, since I am in civilty supervision, I cannot reply to you with the same pathos, so I'm going to not respond at all to your incivilty that includes "inane", "childish", and "not serious" in two sentences. You would have reported even my cousins for much less to your friends without even thinking twice. However if you truly read till the end what Robert Elsie say about the book he closes it starts with the following sentence its last paragraph:

"Is The Albanians to be recommended as worthy reading? Very definitely. It offers the reader a pleasant and elucidating stroll through Albanian history as well as an impressive amount of detail and information, in particular about the communist period."

So bottom line, Elsie is recommending the book! Now of course Bartl is a friend of Elsie so he should sell too, but keep in mind that Elsie is saying that he is recommending the book.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 19:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You conveniently ignore everything else that Elsie says about the "book". Edwin Jacques is a clown, and his book is trash. Period. There is absolutely no way we are going to use him as a source, either here or anywhere else on this encyclopedia. This "discussion" is over. --Athenean (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not convinced yet. But for the sake of I'm going to leave it here for now. And I'm not going to ask for Mediation, because you are a much more experienced auditor, and it would be the equivalent of testifying against a cop in the USSR.sulmues (talk)

--Sulmues 19:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories: