Talk:Matthias Flacius

message: Chadwick mentions the fact that Matthias Flacius contemplated suicide at one time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.116.134 (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans 

message: I recently edited this article by adding valuable information and providing sources. In separate edits. I also changed the naming approach in the article (e.g. from Albona (Labin)>to Labin (Albona)). However, an user has reverted all edits, perhaps unconsciously hiding valid sources and information the work of a whole morning. 
I made the latter edits because this is the style for other articles on contemporary or near contemporary Venetians (e.g Fausto Veranzio; Marino Ghetaldi, etc.). Still, I left the Italian version of the modern-day Croatian town in parentheses. 
This was done not only to match with other articles but also to be fair: the city is, like Sibenik and Dubrovnik for the aforelinked articles, in modern day Croatia. Vlacich Francoich (who bore an unmistakable Slavic surname) is a prominent figure among Croats and Croatians history books, while it is hardly part of Italian culture. Still, I used Flacius' Latin name throughout the article; and even in the heading and in the infobox the Latin name is used first. On the other hand (again, trying to be fair), the name of Baldo Lupetino (Lupetina) was written in Italian first, as that is the most obvious origin of the surname. 
All other information provided has valid and multiple sources by non self-publishing authors publishing for noted publishers; encyclopedias, or statements by Flacius and his contemporaries.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have reverted everything it is because I did not realize the addition of other content, which is my bad, so sorry about that. I honestly don't mind whether the Italian name is used or not. If it is the common practice among other articles then I see no problem maintaining the Croat names. You cannot not use "Flacius" as it is used in the article's title, so that point at the third paragraph is irrelevant. It seems that you have focused on Italian language related issues, but the real reason for my revert is the removal of the claim that he was Istro-Romanian, which I am against. It should have at least one brief mention that shows that the claim exists. If we achieve this, I have no problem keeping the rest of the changes. Super Ψ Dro 16:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, now I see. If you read the section I just opened on the Istro-Romanians, you will understand why that simply can't happen (at least not on this article, as the misinformation is in any case not even relevant here). It simply makes no sense, it is one source, written by the founder of the Istro-Romanian association. You see? In the aforementioned section I explain why it makes no sense, it is bad for it to be on an encyclopedia, and it can't be published per se. Still, I may agree on keeping the bit, under the heading alleged that some other editor suggested,  with the tags you removed, and possibly with a little bit of rephrasing, but only on the Istro-Romanians' article, since it's relevant in that context, although it remains misleading and absurd. Also, if you didn't notice, I'd added a footnote on this article in my first edit, where I briefly point out that Vlacich may indeed be related to Vlach, and yet I keep thinking even that's not relevant outside an article on the surname "Vlacich". If you notice, nobody even mentions the fact that he was/might've been ethnically Croat, even though he had two Croatian/Slavic surnames, was born in a city with either a Croatian majority or a significant minority in modern day Croatia and there are dozens of scholars of different nationalities that suggest he was Croatian.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't feel like discussing on two different places this issue. Move this reply and your points to Talk:Istro-Romanians#Misinformation if you wish. Super Ψ Dro 22:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm missing something, this is a dispute about an article's content, which is not a matter that needs administrative input. Discuss it with other editors on the article talk page. GirthSummit (blether) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it through and thanks, so much fun :,). Anyway, I agree with Wiki.Jaap.07: the information is simply not relevant here and the source is not reliable. Next time you see pollution just revert tho.--Adrianus-Andrea (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

text: You mean reverting his first edit? Unfortunately I thought there were other edits in-between. That was on the Istro-Romanians page, where the fake news about Tesla is also reported.--Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Adrianus-Andrea  btw, the user above (User:Super Dromaeosaurus) just accused me (us?) of sockpuppetry. That's good-faith talking right there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki.Jaap.07 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppression of information