Talk:Aleksandar Donski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] About Donski

I personally read some from these "books"! Belive my, all is described truthfully! Jingby 13:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the standard for wikipedia. It's verifiability. Please review our policies before making such changes. Specifically, this article has received several complaints to the wikimedia foundation. Do not further undo them. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References at bottom

{{editprotected}} Hi, it seems there is no "References" section with "reflist" or "/references" to make the titles of sources (if any) appear. Please kindly make it/them appear. - Dragonbite 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change. There was no references section because the article was just using an external link instead of the cite.php system. --- RockMFR 17:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dragonbite 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting down, BLP warning

Even supposedly crackpot historians are protected by WP:BLP. I've stubbed back the article and recommend leaving it like that. If you can't stand the guy and whatever nationalist nonsense he's written, write less about him, not more. Anybody re-itroducing negative evaluative claims about him that are stated as fact and/or not attributed to reliable academic sources may get blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have blocked User:Laveol, as being the latest culprit (although, on the whole, not the only one and probably not the worst one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was the bit about the degree removed? I cannot find the edit in which it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.182.150 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean the one that we had consensus on - I am not totally sure. So many IPs have edited the article that the edit history is a mess as well. --Laveol T 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was me who removed it. I felt it was sort of less damaging that way. I mean, come on, a bachelor's degree? If that's really all he has, and if it means what it means in the Anglo-Saxon world, it's not very impressive, is it. Hardly qualifies one as an acadmic writer in the field. Then better not talk about it at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is why he had the pseudohistorian and the other stuff - cause he is in no sense a real historian. There was a dispute between me and Frightner as I had no sources for Donski having any degree in history. It turns out he has - but a bachelor degree is laughable for someone who has published that many books. He is popular with his controversial works, not for his knowledge on the subjects. Oh, and another thing - could we still have a few words that he is considered a pseudohistorian and his statements - racialist in Bulgaria? Cause the whole tataro-mongol stuff is really unpleasant and he was the one who started it. --Laveol T 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I just went through the articles on BG and MK wiki. I'll discuss every edit I plan. So, firstly, it's the fact that he worked for Makedonsko Sonce (probably nationalistic - I'm investigating as I see it might be used as a reliabl source in the Vergina sun article) and Nardondna volya (irredentist and as such currently banned in Bulgaria). I'll gather some more info on the papers before posting anything about them. What I cannot agree is the 'less damaging part' - he is considered laughing stock in RoM itself (an administrator of the MK wiki says Donski is a fantasizer). It would be fair to present all the facts about his life and works and let people interpret them for themselves. Sadly, they will come to the same conclusion, but it is the author's fault, not ours. The ridiculousness of most of his works compromises the trustworthiness of his other publications with names that do not sound that stunning.
And the book about Jesus Christ and him meeting the Macedonian people is real, too. His writings speak for himself. --Laveol T 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I repeat: If he really is as ridiculous as you say, the solution is to write less about him, not more. Why would we have articles about crackpots anyway? Of course, if he has attracted negative criticism, we can report on that - but only to the extent that this criticism is attributed to reliable sources. And reliable sources, here, means: academic historians writing in reputable academic outlets. We should definitely not "let his writings speak for themselves". That would be OR by means of insinuation, just like the point about his lack or semi-lack of qualifications. And as for the refutations, thing is, if he really is such a laughing-stock, you'll hardly find serious historians bothering to refute him. If academia can simply ignore him, so should we.
But I could agree to adding "racialist" to the sentence describing what he's been criticised for, if that's in the sources. Just don't blow it up again.
In any case, WP:BLP is required reading for anybody who wants to work on this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I finally get it - ok, no more additions of this kind. If I find a source for him working for these newspapers, I'll add the info. So the article will stay as it is - real academicians don't bother with him (not the most reliable academicians that is). --Laveol T 09:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously in or out?

I am sorry to read we should abstain from quoting Mr Donski; either he is a crackpot, a racialist, a whatever, who should be removed from wikipedia, or he can be taken seriously with all that this implies on Skopie based historiography. But if the article on him remains, we need to point out what he writes about and quote from his works. If Makedonce or other editors take him seriously, then they need to be encouraged to quote from him and allowed to expand this article. If the oposite is true, why are they silent in 'showing him up'? Apparently he is on the Board of Directors at maknews.com, a site whose slant on the news and history is widely quoted and reproduced by Makedonce sites. Politis (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)