Talk:Branko Petranović

Note

(cur | prev) 07:33, 16 April 2017‎ TheSandDoctor (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,795 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (Declining submission: ilc - Submission is a BLP that does not meet minimum inline citation requirements (AFCH 0.9)) (undo)

This scholar is not a living person!--109.92.74.49 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed a broken link i.e. found its cashed content--178.223.83.159 (talk) 12:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions to reviewers

See here and here and here. --109.92.78.197 (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Branko Petranovic

Thank you for reviewing this article and for your edit. However, for insisting on minimum inline citations, I am not sure what minimum you have in mind. From here I read:

Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source for only the following four types of statements:

Type of statement	Policy requiring inline citation
Direct quotations	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that has been challenged (e.g., by being removed, questioned on the talk page, or tagged with {{citation needed}}, or any similar tag)	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged.	Wikipedia:Verifiability
Contentious material, whether negative, positive, or neutral, about living persons	Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The last one in the table above is not applicable because B. Petranovic died. Could you, please, read the draft and tell me where I should add more inline citations? Thank you.--109.92.84.160 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@109.92.84.160: I have added citation needed templates to the draft to help elaborate on what I meant. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I still do not understand you. Wikipedia says: Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Why you are requesting huge number of inline citations? Almost for each sentence in some paragraphs? The references as given are verifying the text above in the article. It's easy to verify it if you have access to the references.--109.92.84.160 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the author of this draft but I took freedom to ask you why you did refuse the article submission? You wrote

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Why do you think that the sources are inadequate, not reliable? Why the sources are not sufficient? Which source is not secondary or does not provide significant coverage? Please, go to the draft talk page and be more specific i.e. be sure that you have access to the given secondary sources and your reading comprehension of the sources written in Serbian is adequate in order to address claimed notability issues.

Thank you.--178.222.129.66 (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi 178.222.129.66, thank you for your message. Admittedly, my command of Serbian isn't exactly excellent but of the six sources you have cited at least one is affiliated. Normally, that's okay in all fairness and I'll see if I can find a reviewer who speaks Serbian. DrStrauss talk 21:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Branko Petranovic

You say

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject

Please,

• mark where the neutral point of view is violated,
• why the sources are not independent, reliable, published,
• where do you see the peacock terms in the article.

Elaborate all on the Draft talk page. Thank you.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I will respond here, thank you very much. Looking at it again, it seems that the sources are reliable. But, you need to avoid stuff like "fought against historian being a paid liar of the rulers" and "These, for a historian, unfavorable social conditions were something he faced and understood as a dictature." It promotes the subject. There are other examples like this in the article; I trust that you will find them yourself. Hope that helps. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference saying "fought against historian being a paid liar of the rulers" just rephrased H. de Balsac. See, for example, Balsac's Catherine de Medici. The sentence "These, for a historian, unfavorable social conditions were something he faced and understood as a dictature." does not promote anything, rather stated a fact. The sentence is supported by a reference. How about the POV violation, the peacock terms?--109.92.165.210 (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

References may be biased, but that doesn't mean that the article should be. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

We are not supposed to judge references for that will unavoidably introduce POV.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But we are. Please see this. It tells us that we should balance the sources. I bet that there are some people who would disagree with the statement about historians being a paid liar of the rulers. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No Sir. We can only counter one reference by another, not to use our personal opinion to disqualify reference we do not like. This is not place for betting. Please, provide reference rejecting de Balsac.--109.92.165.210 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

By the way, your this says: The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. --109.92.165.210 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, I just left a message on my talk page regarding this draft. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I responded to this message on on RileyBugz's talk page. See here--109.92.165.210 (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)