Talk:Narentines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DAI[edit]

Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive reverts. @Sadko: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased pesonal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the edit war and I don't see any rationale in claiming that a direct quote from an ancient source is more relevant than the many secondary sources that built upon it in the last, oh, millenium? Sadko, please stop littering the lead section with a phrasing that is blatantly Serbian nationalist. Were you ever notified of the existence of WP:ARBMAC? If not, please consider yourself notified. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? You had the opportunity to set an example of appropriate behavior by writing a comment about the content instead of personal viewpoint, as noted, yet you made a comment on an editor making false accusations. You clearly have some issues with understanding Wikipedian editing policy when you are not able to recognize the reliability of sources, in other words, advocating the usage of unreliable (Serbian) nationalistic sources like of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo. Your edit on this article and simultaneously Višeslav of Serbia‎ clearly was not based on RS. If that's not true, sorry then, but you give such an impression. Making a revert of so reliably sourced information without proper substantiation is not in good faith.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "ancient source" is the most relevant source for early Serb and Croat history. If you do not know that, there is not much to discuss. Do not try to label me, your hate speech in attempt will be brought to light, because you know nothing about my views. Second of all, all of this information can't be in Wiki voice, and what you are doing is nothing but subtle POV editing and WP:GAMING. You've added a bunch of Croatian historian's viewpoints in Wikivoice. It's quite obvious that the sources make a distinction between Croats and Narentines. Interestingly enough, there is a sentence about differences between 2 historiographies, which see things differently, but you choose not to add any information from the noted Serbian historians. Instead, you are pushing the idea that they are "something else" which is not the general conclusion or viewpoint shared by all historians, and it's mostly pushed by a part of Croatian historians. Also, when an editors challenges your additions to the stable version, you should start discussing first and not pushing the version which you, one editor, think to be "better". It's not. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give us a break with this nationalistic and patronizing WP:OWN. Instead of focusing on the content and sources you're again mostly making comments about fellow editors who are falsely accusing of POV editing and GAMING - because you're exactly doing that. It's so transparent it's pathetic. The one whose behavior should be "brought to light" is you. Of course the historical source, DAI, makes a distinction between the Croats and Narentines, and nobody of the cited Croatian historians denies that. However, that doesn't imply they were Serbs as the source was obviously written from a political and not ethnic point of view at the time, and nobody of the cited Serbian historians denies that either. Due to scientific debate, the only right and best thing according to neutrality is to mention them in the introduction as South Slavs without any national association.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not adding content, therefore I can't be associated with any of such actions, on the contrary, I am trying to introduce a more balanced view to this article, which can't be achieved by adding a bunch of Croatian historians in Wikivoice and pushing all mentions of Narentines (per DAI) as Serbs deep in the article and not even mentioning it in the lead - like it's not relevant. Mentions of Narentines as Serbs (per DAI) must be in the lead as well. It does not have to be the first sentence.
After all, starting a debate like this just proves that some editors are not here to build an encyclopedia or accept any remarks by other editors, which is exactly what WP:OWN is, which is not surprising consdering that such comments are coming from an editor which had the audacity to call other editor's "biased" because they are "Serbian editors", while preaching about "scientific debate" on other articles. haha
Learn how to discuss with people who do not agree with you civily. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we should agree with your opinion about the introduction of what's written in DAI because of...? Are you aware that your personal opinion is not a reliable source upon which is assessed and built balance of an article? Mention of Narentines as Serbs in DAI is misleading without proper context. Per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia should be written by mostly using reliable secondary sources and not primary sources like DAI so all this bragging about DAI being the most relevant source upon which should be built balance and else is dull. In modern historiography even the DAI's mention of the settlement of the part of Dalmatian Croats and rule in Lower Pannonia isn't perceived in the sense the Pannonian Slavs are ethnic Croats as well as the term "Pannonian Croatia" is abandoned. A long time ago was concluded that DAI is primarily a political document.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pannonian Slavs are another matter. Historian Vladimir Ćorović writes - Out of these Serb tribes, the Narentines were the most warlike.[1] It's on the page 98, I have the book published by Feniks Libris in 2010. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not another matter. It's the same matter of DAI misinterpreting ethnicity according to the political events. Ćorović died in 1941 and as such is a historian from an older generation which is not part of modern historiography. Per WP:AGE MATTERS we should use modern reliable sources in topics related to scientific and academic fields, including historical events, because "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed". It's pointless for an encyclopedia citing what some 19th-century or early 20th-century historian argued about, but if are still going to have a section dealing with historiography then at least the balance should be based on modern historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the case for his other works, but the book I am quoting was not published during his lifetime, but only later in 1989, after 2 excellent historians and academics Sima Ćirković and Rade Mihaljčić examined it and edited the work. Also, the same book is probably one of the best works of Serbian and Yugoslav historiography. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when posthumous work published almost 50 years after death doesn't make it "outdated" as the other, and by now at least 80 years old? In what way other younger historians edited the book? What are we dealing with here, a book by Ćorović or by Ćirković & Mihaljčić?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know all the details. They found the manuscripts, organised, edited and published the book/s. Those are some of the best historians from the former Yugoslavia, all three of them.
Another respected author (not to be confused with pseudohistorian of the same name) calls lands held by Narentines as Serbian lands (it's early on in the book, page 54-55, if I'm not mistaken).[2]

References

  1. ^ Ćorović, Vladimir (1989). Istorija Srba (in Serbian). Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod. ISBN 978-86-13-00381-6.
  2. ^ Деретић, Јован (2005). Културна историја Срба: предавања. Народна књига.

19th century sources[edit]

@Joy: you said "the claims attributed to the old historians are dated so it seems fine to let them stay, let's just give them some context". Okay, it seems reasonable because such viewpoints can be found in later and modern historiography. There's a chronological link between them. However, age does matter and what's the point of mentioning the 19th-century "scientific" viewpoint i.e scientists when it is repeated and better formulated by modern scientists? Actually, what's the point of mentioning old historians and their date of birth and death at all? It is the historiographical viewpoint that matters. Shouldn't it be removed or at least trimmed to: "In the 19th century, scholars treated them as Serbs or a distinct South Slavic tribe". Isn't that enough for an introduction?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is worth mentioning, according to Ančić (2011, p. 31–32), 19th-century Croatian historian Miho Barada defined them as "neither Croats nor Serbs". Such a definition was also shared by prominent 20th century Nada Klaić and was generally accepted in Croatian historiography. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section is named "historiography", so I don't see the point in omitting these just because they're out of date. It illustrates nicely to the readers exactly how much confusion there has been in describing this tribe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: if that's the exact scope of the section then it's alright and fine with me. Indeed, there exist scholarly dispute on the topic of ethnic identity and origin, but thanks to such section is respected NPOV on the article. However, isn't at Višeslav of Serbia and Vlastimir. Please take a look and your vote/comment would be welcome to the Talk:Višeslav of Serbia#RfC on DAI and NPOV so we can finally reach a solid consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ančić (2011) references[edit]

@Miki Filigranski, in this edit I disambiguated the Ančić (2011) sfns to fix a multiple-target error. I believe that all the sfns that were in the article before your edit earlier today are pointing to the source that they were pointing to before, and that they one you added is now also pointing to the correct source. If you have access to both sources, could you check that all the sfns are correctly targeted? I can see neither source online and I don't understand Croatian anyway, so my utility here is limited! Many thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narentines&oldid=1206478917"