Croats are much closer to Hungarians than to Serbs by Autosomal Genetics, how do you explain it?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

They're more or less there to show that Britannica isn't an infallible source, which is what the initial argument was about.

That wasn’t the initial argument. That was the argument you decided to make. No one claimed Britannica was infallible.

I said that unlike Wikipedia Encyclopedia Britannica could be referenced as a source. You said it could not. I pointed out Britannica is a secondary source and that although it’s perceived as lazy to cite a secondary source it’s allowed.

That doesn’t mean Britannica is an infallible source. No source is infallible. Human nature doesn’t allow for the infallible. To be an authority doesn’t mean without error. What it means is that it carries more weight because of the credentialled people involved.

The editors of one are named and credentialed. They didn’t get their positions because they had the free time to involve themselves in a hobby. The editors of Wikipedia are anonymous. They don’t have a reputation. An anonymous editor doesn’t have to worry about what they do undermining their reputation in their field. They don’t have a field.

There isn't anything directly comparing Britannica with Wikipedia in historical/cultural/political criteria, so we can't say exactly how much of a difference there is between Britannica and Wikipedia in that regard. But if Britannica makes errors in regards to a relatively more straightforward topic like pharmacology, then you can't always take their word at face value regarding stuff that are gonna cause controversy.

Given the choice between an encyclopedia edited by people with credentials or anonymous editors you choose the one that has authority. Why is that you can cite Britannica in a paper but not Wikipedia? One is a scholarly work, while the other is not.

Here is a simple analogy:

Freidman (an editor for Britannica and highly regarded in the field political economy) is sitting next to you at a bar. On the other side of you is Bob the mechanic. Freidman - I’m making this up - enjoys working on cars. Bob enjoys reading about socialism, capitalism, and all that other -isms. If I have a question about the Fabian society, I’ll naturally ask Freidman. That’s not to say Bob can’t correctly answer my question but between the two men Freidman has proven himself to be the authority on that subject. If I have a question about car mechanics, I don’t ask Freidman if I can ask Bob. Friedman very well could give me the correct answer but he’s not an authority in that area.

At this point you might say what does it matter? These guys are just deciding on what sources should be allowed for the article.

It does matter in that the person who decides what is and is not acceptable should be the one who is credentialed. The one who has shown over the years that they not only know their subject but are highly regarded by their peers because of the work they have done. They have a reputation to protect. The anonymous person has no reputation. We only know what they tell us about themselves and that may be false. They don’t suffer consequences for pushing an agenda. Their peers are other anonymous editors.

There's no question that they refer to Croatia as a Balkan country, but they admit the definition of what defines a Balkan country is subjective and say that it usually comprises Croatia. They choose to stick with Croatia being usually characterized as a Balkan country, but they don't say it is always characterized as a Balkan country. Just cause they don't use multiple terms (CE, Balkan, etc.) to characterize Croatia doesn't mean they consider it as a region that is undisputibly Balkan. But if they do, then it doesn't matter as my initial point was just in regards to you treating Britannica as infallible.

I specifically addressed this ‘point’ you’re attempting to make in the previous post. You’re simply repeating yourself. Instead of repeating yourself you would do better to address what I said. I base my point on what is actually written. You base your point on assumption. Perhaps you should write them a letter for clarification. My understanding of the English is perfectly fine and so I don’t find it necessary to do so.

This is also from Britannica, although not from the online version.

First of all, I pointed out in a previous post to Nato Balkans was a Turkish word (which is probably the cause of this irrational nonsense. Andalusia is based on Arabic (land of the Vandals). No one chimps out over it.) Apparently he wasn't aware. Secondily, you're giving me an incomplete article. What else is written because the subject was not done before being cut off. You tried this with another snippet in your post. However, in the articles that aren't cut off we see it doesn't support your argument. You thought it did but it doesn't as I will show.

Another one:



The source for the above is Dennis P. Hupchick.

Thank you for posting a source that supports my argument: "the Julian Alps delineates the peninsula’s extreme north western corner.”


That the Sava River had been designated a boundary was only for political reasons (because it was a border area to the Ottoman Empire). If someone chooses to base their argument on political reasons then it can be argued that Croatia is a Balkan country simply because it was previously part of Yugoslavia. It was the last political reality before Croatia became independent.

The above describes Croatia as a peripheral Balkan country (thus a Balkan country), but says some sources exclude it from the Balkans and that the Sava River can function as one of the borders for it.

Author is Donna A. Buchanan.

Once again - as your own source is stating - the confusion is based on politics or in other words political beliefs (as we can see represented in Nato) are the motivating factor in the confusion.

The quote shows up in Google searches but only a small snipper shows up when you click on the book link and the small snippet excludes this part.

The Sava River in the west and the Danube in the northeast have been the traditional geographic limit between the Balkans and central ...

The above quote is from The Origins of Transhumant Pastoralism in Temperate Southeastern Europe: A Zooarchaeological Perspective from the Central Balkans, Volume 1538 by Elizabeth R. Arnold and Haskel J. Greenfield. Similarly, that quote only show up in Google search results and isn't displayed when you click the link.

And if you had posted a snippet of the previous two quotes, I would have a very different impression than the one I had when seeing the entire paragraph. If the best you can do after the other two fails is a snippet then you have hit the bottom. I need the whole text.

The Wikipedia pages for non-obscure articles are locked. Although it obviously is edited by humans, it's not something anyone can easily edit.

Try editing the Wikipedia page for Croatia and edit in something like "Croats originate from Mars".

Once again, anonymous editors are not authorities.

Perhaps this article can blow away the fog of autism that is blinding you:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...-of-wikipedia/

Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-ranking quality scores.

Wikipedia inherited and embraced the cultural expectations that an encyclopedia ought to be authoritative, comprehensive, and underpinned by the rational spirit of the Enlightenment. But it threw out centuries of accepted methods for attaining that. In the established model, advisory boards, editors, and contributors selected from society’s highest intellectual echelons drew up a list of everything worth knowing, then created the necessary entries. Wikipedia eschewed central planning and didn’t solicit conventional expertise. In fact, its rules effectively discouraged experts from contributing, given that their work, like anyone else’s, could be overwritten within minutes. Wikipedia was propelled instead by the notion that articles should pile up quickly, in the hope that one Borgesian day the collection would have covered everything in the world.

--------------------------------

They delete and edit their quotes often. Being marginally better than Wikipedia doesn't mean they're not questionable on any matter. I mean their page on Croatia was just updated three days ago.

In the previous two posts I’ve been very clear in my argument. You have not addressed the issue of professionals with credentials versus anonymous people.

And as I said, it's a controversial matter and the definition of such a region changes often. A single encyclopedia can't always be taken at face value. Different sources interpret the boundaries differently.

What you don’t understand is that Wikipedia isn’t a legitimate encyclopedia. If you want to argue what encyclopedia is better then go ahead if they’re both helmed by respected professionals with the credentials that allowed them their place as senior editors. If you want to argue whether anonymous people have the right to be regarded in the same way then you’re a fool.

The only value wikipedia has is the footnotes. When looking into a topic it makes it easier as a starting point to look through the footnotes than to start off googling, imo. However, as I’ve pointed out, there are problems with many articles when it comes to footnotes. Most people don’t look at the footnotes. I do and that’s why I pointed it out.

I don't really care anyways whether Croatia is considered a Balkan country or not. I don't view the term Balkan in a negative manner personally. My point was just that the definition of the Balkans varies a lot (as opposed to having a single undisputable definition) and that Britannica isn't perfect, mainly the second part.

If that was the case then your ‘snippets’ wouldn’t be your best source. I’m not interested in people’s political beliefs influencing their view of geographical terms.

You do realize that what you linked has nothing to do with how the Balkans is defined. It's speaking of changing national boundaries caused by conflicts.

Just cause Britannica says something doesn't automatically make it true.

When confronted with a question what has most authority carries the most weight. That is the point. That has always been the point. Your autism and inability to grasp the English language has caused us both to waste our time.

Are we done here cuz right now I'm more angry at myself than you for allowing myself to waste my time.

[ixulescu]

I2a-Y3120 is a Slavic specific clade, however there are non-Slavic clades of I2a.

Why is it Slavic when it actually starts with non-Slavs?

[Mingle]

That wasn’t the initial argument. That was the argument you decided to make. No one claimed Britannica was infallible.

Given the choice between an encyclopedia edited by people with credentials or anonymous editors you choose the one that has authority. Why is that you can cite Britannica in a paper but not Wikipedia? One is a scholarly work, while the other is not.

I specifically addressed this ‘point’ you’re attempting to make in the previous post. You’re simply repeating yourself. Instead of repeating yourself you would do better to address what I said. I base my point on what is actually written. You base your point on assumption. Perhaps you should write them a letter for clarification. My understanding of the English is perfectly fine and so I don’t find it necessary to do so.

It states "Croatia" is usually described as part of the Balkans. They choose to go with the usual definition when describing Croatia as a Balkan country, but that doesn't mean its an indisputable definition. You're the one that jumped to the conclusion that all of Croatia is always described as Balkan when they said the word usually.

Yes, if Wikipedia and Britannica are the only sources and there's nothing else available, then Britannica wins.

First of all, I pointed out in a previous post to Nato Balkans was a Turkish word (which is probably the cause of this irrational nonsense. Andalusia is based on Arabic (land of the Vandals). No one chimps out over it.) Apparently he wasn't aware. Secondily, you're giving me an incomplete article. What else is written because the subject was not done before being cut off. You tried this with another snippet in your post. However, in the articles that aren't cut off we see it doesn't support your argument. You thought it did but it doesn't as I will show.

It has to do with the connotation of the word, not the etymology of the word. It's similar to how "West Asia" has a better connotation than the word "Middle East" despite the fact both words come from English.

That the Sava River had been designated a boundary was only for political reasons (because it was a border area to the Ottoman Empire). If someone chooses to base their argument on political reasons then it can be argued that Croatia is a Balkan country simply because it was previously part of Yugoslavia. It was the last political reality before Croatia became independent.

Once again - as your own source is stating - the confusion is based on politics or in other words political beliefs (as we can see represented in Nato) are the motivating factor in the confusion.

As I said, the definition varies.

The Balkans (like Europe) is a largely political term. Attempting to use natural boundaries to define them doesn't change that. There's no sound reason going purely on geography as to why northern Croatia is geographically part of the Balkan Peninsula but southern Hungary isn't since there are no natural features (mountains, rivers, etc) that separate Croatia from Hungary. It's boundaries are largely based on politics and not purely on geography. Just cause my source mentioned the specific political reasons for why the Sava River is used whereas yours didn't doesn't change that.

Yes, Croatia can be argued to be Balkan based on political grounds due to it being previously part of Yugoslavia. The Balkans doesn't have a single definition. If you want to define the Balkans as a peninsula purely on geography, the it would probably look something like this. I didn't state that Croatia can't be called a Balkan country, only that the definition isn't a fixed one.

And if you had posted a snippet of the previous two quotes, I would have a very different impression than the one I had when seeing the entire paragraph. If the best you can do after the other two fails is a snippet then you have hit the bottom. I need the whole text.

The full text wasn't available. I gave you the source in case you feel like looking for the full text. When the snippet is all that's there, that's all I can post.

These sources should be clearer:



Here it states that there isn't a clear northern boundary but that the Sava River may be used sometimes.

The source is Balkan Biodiversity: Pattern and Process in the European Hotspot.



Here is a source that clearly states that the Sava River is the northern boundary of the Balkan Peninsula. The source is Balkan Sprachbund Morpho-Syntactic Features.



This post above is also only a snippet (couldn't find a longer passage), but its only a single sentence citing one person and then a new sentence begins talking about something else, so not much extra context is required here. The source is An historical geography of the Balkans.



The above is from The Wiley-Blackwell Dictionary of Modern European History Since 1789, gives the same boundary I've been mentioning.

Now I'm not saying the Sava River is the boundary of the Balkans, but it is simply a boundary of the Balkans. There is no clear one, and Britannica doesn't either mention there being a clear one. If you still feel that the Balkans has a single fixed indisputable definition (the only thing I was arguing against), then I can't help you.

Are we done here cuz right now I'm more angry at myself than you for allowing myself to waste my time.

Sure I guess, the feeling's mutual.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Your emotional baggage blinds you from reality. I find it amusing that the guy who tells me I'm a loser in my basement suddenly doesn't want me to comment on his life. What have we learned about you other than you spend not only 24/7 on this forum but that time is spent waiting for people to post responses. While I have been doing shit - like choking niggas out and watching playoff football with bros - I have no doubt you were sitting in your room waiting for responses. No doubt you study a useless subject at uni if you have this amount of free time.

I'll answer your 'knight in shinning armor's' post just to make you cry. How embarrassing that you have to rely on someone else on your pet subject.

I am not that interested in what you have to say man.

[Dunai]

Croatia cannot be fitted into one region exclusively, since Slavonia and Northern Proper Croatia, until Zagreb are geographically and culturally Central European while the Southern parts fall more into the Balkans, at least this was my own interpretation whenever looking at the map. If Vojvodina and Slovenia are Central European than I don't see how all Croatia should only be Balkanic, geographically wouldn't make sense this argument.

[ixulescu]

Why is it Slavic if it actually starts with non-Slavs?

Since I'm not getting any replies I can only assume this as acknowledgement that I2a-Dinaric is Balkan, and spread to Slavic populations from Northern Romania/Western Ukraine region (inhabited by Dacians at that time) to North, East And South. I2a-Dinaric expanded its area for a millennium before it made contact with Slavic people.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

Since I'm not getting any replies I can only assume this as acknowledgement that I2a-Dinaric is Balkan, and spread to Slavic populations from Northern Romania/Western Ukraine region (inhabited by Dacians at that time) to North, East And South. I2a-Dinaric expanded its area for a millennium before it made contact with Slavic people.

lmao. no it isn't, otherwise it would make south slavs much more balkan than romanians which is fanatsy from genetic point of view. It's proven as slavic already so it became kind of boring to discuss.

However, in comparison to older research which argued a prehistoric autochthonous origin of the haplogroup I-P37 in Croatia,[nb 1] the most recent research by O.M. Utevska (2017) found the haplogroups STR haplotypes have the highest diversity in Ukraine, with ancestral STR marker result "DYS448=20" comprising "Dnieper-Carpathian" cluster, while younger derived result "DYS448=19" comprising the "Balkan cluster" which is predominant among the South Slavs.[14] The clusters divergence and gradual expansion from the Carpathians in the direction of the Balkan peninsula happened approximately 2,860 ± 730 years ago, coinciding with the Slavic migration. The lack of diversity of "DYS448=19" haplotypes in the Western Balkan also indicate a founder effect.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Croats

[Blondie]

Croatia cannot be fitted into one region exclusively, since Slavonia and Northern Proper Croatia, until Zagreb are geographically and culturally Central European while the Southern parts fall more into the Balkans, at least this was my own interpretation whenever looking at the map. If Vojvodina and Slovenia are Central European than I don't see how all Croatia should only be Balkanic, geographically wouldn't make sense this argument.

I don't agree with this map. Culturaly Croatia, Slovenia do not belong to Balkans they are catholic and geographicaly South Romania is in Balkans.

[Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić]

double

[Ayetooey]

Since I'm not getting any replies I can only assume this as acknowledgement that I2a-Dinaric is Balkan, and spread to Slavic populations from Northern Romania/Western Ukraine region (inhabited by Dacians at that time) to North, East And South. I2a-Dinaric expanded its area for a millennium before it made contact with Slavic people.

All the TMRC's are 2k years old and go back to Poland/Ukraine, spread through Slavic invasions. You're probably I2a and trying to cope with these weird theories.