| Revision as of 23:11, 27 June 2012 editOttomanist (talk | contribs)383 edits →History section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:34, 18 December 2024 edit undoTylerBurden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,460 edits Undid revision 1263819814 by 92.97.20.5 (talk) WP:NOTFORUMTag: Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|ee}} |
|
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Serbia}} |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WPCountries|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=24 March 2013 |
|
{{WikiProject Kosovo|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Serbia/GA1 |
|
{{WikiProject Belgrade|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=failed |
|
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Geography|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
{{WPCD}}}} |
|
|
|
|action2date=16 January 2020 |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2005-02-15|oldid1=16335607|date2=2006-02-15|oldid2=39775930|date3=2007-02-15|oldid3=108240226|date4=2008-02-15|oldid4=191368221|date5=2009-02-15|oldid5=270811200|date6=2010-02-15|oldid6=344215638|date7=2011-02-15|oldid7=414024347|date8=2012-02-15|oldid8=477033111}} |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Serbia/archive1 |
|
{{Archive box|jnor fgkn knps nsgnrs |
|
|
|
|action2result=reviewed |
|
sl- Kosvoco <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|topic=places |
|
* ]: (August 2003 - March 2006) |
|
|
|
|otd1date=2005-02-15|otd1oldid=16335607|otd2date=2006-02-15|otd2oldid=39775930|otd3date=2007-02-15|otd3oldid=108240226|otd4date=2008-02-15|otd4oldid=191368221|otd5date=2009-02-15|otd5oldid=270811200|otd6date=2010-02-15|otd6oldid=344215638|otd7date=2011-02-15|otd7oldid=414024347|otd8date=2012-02-15|otd8oldid=477033111|otd9date=2013-02-15|otd9oldid=538265079|otd10date=2014-02-15|otd10oldid=595436446|otd11date=2015-02-15|otd11oldid=646941143|otd12date=2016-02-15|otd12oldid=704737734|otd13date=2017-02-15|otd13oldid=765486156|otd14date=2018-02-15|otd14oldid=825669298|otd15date=2019-02-15|otd15oldid=883473580|otd16date=2020-02-15|otd16oldid=940916089|otd17date=2021-02-15|otd17oldid=1006565555|otd18date=2022-02-15|otd18oldid=1071769431|otd19date=2023-02-15|otd19oldid=1139591851 |
|
* ]: (April 2006 - May 2006) |
|
|
|
|otd20date=2024-02-15|otd20oldid=1207584471 |
|
* ]: (June 2006 - July 2007) |
|
|
* ]: (February 2008 - June 2008) |
|
|
* ]: (to July 2009) |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Serbia|Belgrade=yes|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Illyria|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|counter = 10 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Serbia/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Serbia/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request to Include Factual Info on Serbia == |
|
|
|
|
|
The first state to be found in breach of the Genocide convention was Serbia. In the '']'' case the International Court of Justice presented its judgment on 26 February 2007. It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in ] during the Bosnian war,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSL26638724._CH_.2400 |
|
|
|agency=Reuters |title=Serbia cleared of genocide, failed to stop killing |date=26 February 2007 | first=Alexandra | last=Hudson}}</ref> but ruled that ] did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 ], and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ], in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General ].<ref></ref><ref> The New York Times, 26 February 2007. A copy of the ICJ judgement can be found </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-presidential or parliamentary republic? == |
|
|
|
|
|
In Serbian constitution it is stated that Serbia is parlamentary republic. However, in many articles, for example, in this one: http://www.semipresidentialism.com/The_Semi-presidential_One/Blog/Entries/2011/8/31_Historic_cases_of_semi-presidentialism_-_Peru_2.html is clearly stated that Serbia is semi-presidential republic, because president is elected directly. Should we, at least, add a footnote?--] (]) 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well, no constitution in the world will say that "Foo is a semi-presidential republic", so it is not a particularly good source. Technically, parliament is always the highest body in every democracy. However, nature of the system is judged by analysts and politologists, and in this case they're fairly unanimous in classifying Serbian as "semi-presidential". ] (]) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
I agree. So, what should we do?--] (]) 14:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ah I see. I thought that we had "semi-presidential" mentioned somewhere in the article, and I'm sure it used to be here. However, it's not. It has been discussed long time ago, see ], but with no clear conclusion. If not in the infobox, that should be mentioned in Politics section, as well as in ]. However, the source you bring is not ], being a blog. We need to find something better than that. This one is, unfortunately, a student's work, so it's out too. http://www.google.rs/search?q=Serbia+semi-presidential+system gives some useful hits, but it should be researched a bit more. ] (]) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
As I saw on other Misplaced Pages pages, there is possibility that president is elected directly even in parliamentary system. However, in practice, it is more than obvious that incumbant influenced formation of executive branch and even more influenced Serbia`s politics. I would even say that he- by doing that- exceeded some of his constitutional powers (that should be largely ceremonial), so Serbia is heading towards so called "super-presidency", as stated in some of articles. --] (]) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I was really surprised to read that Serbia is a parliamentary republic because i had the impression that it was a presidential or a semi-presidential republic. Can somebody please confirm that in the constitution is written specifically a parliamentary republic? While it is not uncommon to directly elect a president in a parliamentary republic the difference is that the position is mostly symbolical and that real power is vested in the prime minister, however this doesn't seem to be the case with Serbia. If it is true that the constitution states parliamentary republic while giving extended power to the president than i would say that this is a very surprising mistake that any political scientist should know. ] (]) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Karađorđe Petrović == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{resolved}} |
|
|
Would it be possible to include the picture of ] again on the article about Serbia? He is named as the founder of the modern Serbia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:His image has been added.--] (]) 13:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pictures == |
|
|
|
|
|
I can see that there is some cind of edit war, conserning pictures which shoud be featured on this article. For example we have two pictures on Nemanjić dynasty. They are indeed important, maybe the most important, but they ruled for ~200 years, and Middle Ages lasted from the 5th century to the 15th century. I added some other picture, few days ago, and now it's simply gone. |
|
|
There is no need to be ignorant. My ''suggestion'' is that we should '''talk''' here, about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
== File:Podujevo srusena crkva.JPG Nominated for Deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests March 2012'' |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 24 March 2012 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
To add information about Serbia's armed forces and foreign relations. Add information to how old Serbia's armed forces are, what they do, and their relations with other armies. Add information about Serbia's foreign relations and who they have relations with and who they have the best and worst relations with. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 22:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ESp|n}} The template is for specific requests which someone else will type in for you. Since you are registered, Just wait four days and make three or four more edits and you will be able to edit this article. Welcome, ] (]) 04:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Edit request on 24 March 2012 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Please include a picture of Vuk Jeremic, Mirko Cvetkovic, and Dragan Sutanovic and a picture of the palace of Serbia and the presidential house. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 23:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ESp|n}} The template is for specific requests. You will need to find pictures which comply with our ] and find someone willing to upload them for you, then open a new request saying where you want the picture to be. Thanks, ] (]) 04:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
== File:Subotica centar.jpg Nominated for Deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests March 2012'' |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 01:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
== File:Autoput Jug.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion at ] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations'' |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ] |
|
|
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
== File:Solar Plant in the town of Zrenjanin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion at ] for the following reason: ''Copyright violations'' |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ] |
|
|
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 00:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Map - Administrative division == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone add a map for ''Administrative division'' ? Like it's done here for example: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Colombia#Administrative_divisions |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/Croatia#Administrative_division <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==History== |
|
|
|
|
|
This page suffers from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects none of the recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. I have tried to include some of these (all sourced, off course). I would like to reiterate that wikipedia is not about writing up nationalist myths, but about presenting the most common held views of scholars. ] (]) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
: This page suffers not from a totally biased, nationalist reading of history. It reflects of course recent research and historiographical developments that scholars have made. From your point of view this may be so, but look at the page of times over the Ottoman Empire, than you see which side is suffering totally biased, nationalist reading of history.Best wishes--] (]) 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sorry, I don't understand that, I've managed to add a few sources which bring the Ottoman part unto scratch. ] (]) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Undid Ottomanist POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have undone this edit on the ground that it is strongly pro-Ottomanist pov (after all, the user's name says it quite clearly) and gives undue weight to views that are still controversial and somewhat partisan. While the material is indeed sourced, it presents what are controversial matters and subjects of dispute among scholars and uncontroversial facts, and this the definition of undue weight. Also, it is poorly written, with an editorializing and partisan tone ("However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars have refuted" and again with the "However, modern Ottomanist and post-constructivist scholars"), and as such is inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Let's just analyse what you just wrote "gives undue weight to views that are still controversial" - controversial to whom? Who are these "scholars" who dispute the works of a Greek anthropologist (Kitromilides) who relied on Orthodox priests' biography for his views of the Ottoman empire? |
|
|
|
|
|
:If it was poorly written, then use your skills to edit, but don't remove whole'''sourced''' sections - something which is against wikipedia rules. I will revert your edit ] (]) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've reverted the edit for now per ], but sources ''have'' been listed. Anthenean, you should provide evidence for a sources conflict. If you can't, the edit should go through. Ottomanist, please consider waiting a while for Athenean to show evidence with regard to the existence of a controversy. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 07:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I need a few days to conduct a proper literature search, but what I especially object to are the tenor and slant of Ottomanist's edits, as well as their relevance to the article. For example here , in the last paragraph, he takes the previous sourced wording and adds "According to the nationalist reading of history...". Ottomanist's characterization is not sourced, it is OR. There are plenty of sources that attest to the brutality, arbitraryness and capricious nature of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and no, they are not "nationalist", and it's not hard to find them if one is willing to look . Ottomanist is clearly trying to portray the Ottoman period in a positive light, that's why he ] descriptions of the brutality of Ottoman rule as "nationalist", while describing "Ottomanist (no pun intended) sources as "modern" and "post-constructivist" . "Post-constructivist" doesn't even mean anything, it is just an attempt to associate the Ottomanist POV with positive sounding words like "constructive" and "modern". Such labels should be avoided. The claim that the Serb migrations have been "refuted" is similarly POV. Anscombe and especially Malcolm are highly partisan sources, they have not "refuted" anything. "Refuted" implies a certain finality, that the matter has been closed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lastly, and most importantly, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss how religiously tolerant the Ottoman Empire was. There are plenty of articles for that, e.g. ], ], but the function of the history section of ''this'' article is to discuss Ottoman rule in the territory of Serbia, which mostly consists of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals, and little else. ] (]) 22:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Specious arguments won't do any good here. I provided sources as per wikipedia guidelines, and you say you "need a few days to do a literature search" -- why would you need to do that if you're already convinced Noel Malcom and Anscombe are biased? Moreover, I think you'll find historians have moved away from seeing hundreds of years of Ottoman rule as "mostly of failed rebellions and bloody reprisals." I'll give it a few days and revert to the previous '''sourced''' edits. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You have shot your self in the foot by referring to a work by Inalcik, and Quataert, who are all Ottomanists of the highest standing, but who don't agree with your outdated historiography. ] (]) 23:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::@Athenean. First of all, I suggest you conduct a literature search and provide sources that contradict the statements and/or "tone" of edit. If there aren't any, we move on. Next, what I propose is that you point out exactly which sentences (or parts thereof or reoccurring phrases) you consider biased, and then Ottomanist can show us a few direct quotations that justify phrases like "according to the nationalist reading of history" (specifically in that case one would require a source that uses a similar phrase, I assume there is one?), etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Personally, from what I can see, there is a certain "slant" in the added text. However, as sources have been listed, I can only assume they have been followed? Perhaps Ottomanist can copy-down a few quotations from the listed sources that he believes support his position? For example, a quotation from a source with the phrase "nationalist reading of history" would support the usage of such a phrase in a sentence etc. (we ourselves can certainly not invent "readings" of history). That way we can rest at ease that the tone of the scholarly reference has been conveyed faithfully (''i.e.'' that there is no "slant"). Ottomanist? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Basically what I'm saying is that, since a source is listed, there are only three things we need to concern ourselves with: '''1.''' is the source ]? '''2.''' has its position been conveyed faithfully? and '''3.''' are there contradicting sources? Since the sources seem reliable enough, only the other two questions need concern us. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Well, looking at the latest edit by Ottomanist , there are three new sources that are introduced. Two of them regard the Serb Migrations out of Kosovo, the other is Kitromilidis regarding religious freedom in the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the first two, Anscombe and Malcolm, they challenge the Serb migrations, however this is a minority viewpoint. It is trivial to find contradicting sources, and many of them , and all of high quality. Furthermore, while Anscombe's and Malcolm's challenge to the Serb migrations is noted in the article on the ], considering that theirs is a recent and minority view, their inclusion here is beyond the scope of the article, i.e. it is undue weight. Regarding Kitromilidis, I do not dispute that Christians were allowed to practice their faith freely in the Ottoman Empire, however once again I feel this is a question of undue weight. One sentence would be ok, but 3 is far too much. In addition, if we were to include a sentence about religion in the Ottoman Empire, we should then also mention the various forms of discrimination that Christians in the Ottoman empire faced, as detailed here (see Ch. 2). Labeling of sources as "nationalist", "post-constructivist", etc...should also be avoided. Lastly, Ottomanist's clumsy and disruptive attempts at canvassing users he thinks are sympathetic to his POV are also noted .] (]) 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Thanks for that, but your sources don't hold up to scrutiny. Anscombe is an expert in Ottoman history (and he challenges Noel Malcolm - far from agreeing with him). The sources you provided (such as Banac), are studies on the first Yugoslav Kingdom, not the Ottoman Empire - besides, he's explaining Serbian ideas about Kosovo, not stating historical facts. As with your earlier attempt to present sources (which actually dismissed nationalist historiographies), your other sources, such as Osman Karatay, don't even deal in detail with what you're arguing about, same with many of the other sources who only mention the word "Serb migration" without even discussing the supposed event. Read what the experts have to say, , and what your own recommendation says.<br /> |
|
|
Direktor, I propose a sentence like this: "According to scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire, the Great Serb migration was either much smaller than originally stated by Serb writers (source Noel Malcolm) or it did not occur at all (source Anscombe). Other writers contend it did happen (source Serb historians and other non-specialists Athenean mentioned)." ] (]) 23:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:@Athenean |
|
|
:*I don't think a simple search on Google Books will do the trick. The bare minimum is an author, a year, and a page number. Preferably also a brief quotation and/or link. List a few sources in such a manner that contradict Ottomanist's position, and you'll have shown a source conflict. Please be careful, however, to only list sources if they're describing their own position, and not someone else's. |
|
|
:*] is annoying but its usually pretty useless. This isn't a democracy, and, in my experience, no amount of "pressure" will get an edit through without consensus. |
|
|
:@Ottomanist |
|
|
:*Lets please not ] people, Ottomianist. Whatever may be the actual case, it makes you look like you don't have the sources, and need pals to push something through. Also as I said, its pretty useless. All the more for being noticed. |
|
|
:*Firstly, we do not require a scholar to be a specialist in a particular field in order to count him as a reliable source. An author even need not necessarily be a professional historian. If its a published scholarly work - its a valid, reliable source. That's all that matters. ] is a respected historian (from Yale iirc, and he's not Serbian) and it doesn't matter whether his study primarily focuses on the Ottoman period or not. '''''If''', '''however''','' the author is not stating his own opinion, but is describing the opinions of laymen, then we must disregard such statements. But it doesn't really matter much what the primary focus of a study is, as long as a scholar presents his position on a subject. |
|
|
:*Secondly, we cannot make statements on behalf of all "scholars who have researched the Ottoman Empire" - there must be thousands upon thousands of them. If there is a sources conflict, and we choose to describe it in the text - we list the sources ''by name.'' |
|
|
:''P.S.'' I've had a look around, and my general impression is that most authors accept that the "]" did occur, but that this conservative position is challenged by a number of authors. I've not had the time to research the matter thoroughly, though. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
'''I kindly request''' that you take a quick look at the work by Anscombe, the link is provided, where he deals with historiography (how history has been written, and the limitations of the sources, etc.,). Banac is a historian of the Yugoslav period (he's Croatian, but that's not even the point here?) - the point is that that he's describing an opinion '''not''' saying he agrees or disagrees. Again, I urge you to read the Anscombe article to get a clearer picture about the Serb migration. |
|
|
|
|
|
Secondly, my whole section, which was sourced with an author called Kitromilides, who talked about how the Ottoman Empire helped to forge a common Orthodox worldview among Balkan people was deleted. Against wikipedia rules to remove sourced material? I will restore this, but I would rather do it with consent. |
|
|
|
|
|
(P.S. post-constructivist scholars are people who don't see ethnicity or nationality as 'primordial' and fully-formed to begin with, but is 'constructed' over time, using history, myths and other devices) ] (]) 01:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Once again, it is not acceptable to disregard or sideline sources based on what period they primarily focus on. That's not ]. Also, ''explicit'' agreement is not necessary, nor is the "its an opinion" line an acceptable excuse: it is ''precisely'' the educated opinions of published scholars that we're looking for. |
|
|
|
|
|
:That also means, however, that we should by no means disregard the sources you've presented. They certainly do challenge the existence/extent of the "Great Serb Migrations". I don't think there's any chance we'll end up omitting them. What I'd like to see now, are about a half-dozen properly cited sources for the "Great Serb Migrations" (if there are any), so that we can finally conclusively establish a sources conflict. Then, we should evaluate which position has more support, and move on from there. Its always annoying when there's a sources conflict, there's no easy way about it. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 10:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks, and I don't mean to bang on about this but Banac in the sourced text is speaking of an opinion crucial to Serbian claims on Kosovo - he isn't discussing whether he agrees with it - so he can't be used to 'verify' it (moreover, he isn't the biggest fans of Serbs anyways!). I agree with you, let users provide their sources, and I'll provide quotations from the ones I've used. Then we can work on a good article. ] (]) 11:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(outdent) Like I said earlier, it's not hard to find good sources on the Serb Migrations. One must really try to look the other way in order not to. |
|
|
|
|
|
1. Velikonja, Mitja. ''Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina'' - Page 76 . Texas A&M Press, 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Mitev, Plaven. ''Empires and Peninsulas: Southeastern Europe Between Karlowitz and the Peace of Adrianople 1699-1829'' - Page 172 . Lit Verlag Munster, 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. Lampe, John R. ''Yugoslavia As History: Twice There Was a Country'' - Page 55 . Cambridge University Press, 2000. |
|
|
|
|
|
4. Bucur, Maria, and Meriwether Wingfield, Nancy. ''Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, from 1848 to the Present'' - Page 237 . Purdue University Press, 2001. |
|
|
|
|
|
5. Popović, Tanya. ''Prince Marko: the hero of South Slavic epics'' - Page 38 . Syracuse University Press, 1988. |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Aleksov, Bojan. ''Religious dissent between the modern and the national: Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia, 1850-1914.'' - Page 32 . Otto Harrassowtix Verlag, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
7. Sugar, Peter F. ''Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354-1804'' - Page 309 . University of Washington Press, 1993. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. Dutceac Segesten, Anamaria. ''Myth, Identity, and Conflict: A Comparative Analysis of Romanian and Serbian Textbooks'' . Lexington Books, 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
9. Ingrao, Charles, Samardžić, Nikola, and Pesalj Jovan. ''The Peace of Passarowitz, 1718'' - Page 28 . Purdue University Press, 2011. |
|
|
|
|
|
10. Safran, William, and Máiz, Ramón. ''Identity and Territorial Autonomy in Plural Societies'' - Page 176 . Routledge, 2000. |
|
|
|
|
|
11. Kostovicova, Denisa. ''Kosovo: the politics of identity and space'' - Page 150 , Routledge, 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
12. Jelavich, Charles, and Jelavich, Barbara. ''The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics Since the Eighteenth Century'' - Page 98 . University of California Press, 1963. |
|
|
|
|
|
13. Alexander, Ronelle. ''Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary'' - Page 416 . University of Wisconsin Press, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
14. Byron, Reginald, and Kockel, Ullrich. ''Negotiating Culture: Moving, Mixing and Memory in Contemporary Europe'' - Page 147 . LIT Verlag Munster, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent changes == |
|
15. Liotta, P.H. ''Dismembering the State: The Death of Yugoslavia and Why It Matters'' - Page 200 . Lexington Books, 2001. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The responsibility to explain recent changes lies with the user who recently provided new information, especially given that the material was disputed. Please, do so. — ''']''' ] 10:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
16. Meier, Viktor. ''Yugoslavia: A History of Its Demise'' - Page 24 . Routledge, 1999. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I need to inform the administrators that the user Sadko has been blocked from editing Eastern Europe.] Again he started deleting sources and doing disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages. ] ] (]) 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
17. Elsie, Robert. ''Historical Dictionary of Kosovo'' - Page 118 . Scarecrow Press, 2010. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's quite ridiculous that this happens every time anything remotely "negative " about Serbia is added to the article. It took an entire RfC just to add a basic link to ], so I'm not surprised to see a well sourced section removed on dubious grounds. It seems the priority on this article is a little bit too focused on bragging about sports rather than giving a balanced and neutral overview of the country as a whole. |
|
I know you asked for only half a dozen Direktor, but within a couple of hours of searching I found well over a dozen. And there are many, many more. I obviously cannot list them all here, but you get the idea (that was the point of my earlier Google Search). Finding sources is as easy as searching for "Serb migrations" or "Serb migrations 1690", and this was one of the easier searches I have done. From my reading of the literature, it appears that the Serb migrations out of Kosovo in 1690 and later years are a historical fact that is not disputed by the academic community. It is characteristic that even sources sympathetic to the Albanian cause, such as Robert Elsie and Noel Malcolm do not dispute the veracity of these events. While it may be true that Serbian nationalist historiography has exaggerated the size of the migrations, that does not call into question their veracity, nor is it within the scope of this article to discuss this. Against this massive array of sources, all we have is the one paper by Anscombe, which to my knowledge is the only source that explicitly challenges the existence of the Serb migrations. ] (]) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:We can have a section dedicated to telecommunications, but not human rights. |
|
:Right :). Yes, like I said, it seems that the Great Serb Migrations are the majority position - which is being challenged by a number of authors. The issue now is to see how much emphasis is required for the "challengers". The range would be: |
|
|
|
:We can have a link to ], but ] is contested to the point it required an RfC to add. |
|
:1. presenting the two positions equally |
|
|
|
:I think there is a wider issue on this article than just recent changes, there is a pretty clear nationalistic opposition to anything critical of Serbia being added to the article. The problem is this isn't a propaganda site, it's meant to be a neutral encyclopedia and it is ]. |
|
:2. presenting the "challenger" position as a widespread position (along the lines of "the great serb migrations are, however, disputed by some scholars") |
|
|
|
:@] Since you opted to remove everything that was added about human rights rather than trimming it and incorporating it into an existing section, what section do you propose this information is added to given that the edit included several high quality up to date sources? What sources do you feel should be added to offer a more balanced overview? ] (]) 19:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:3. simply listing the few "challenger" authors (e.g. "Historians XY and ZX dispute the existence of the migrations") |
|
|
|
::This was neither a high quality nor well informed section, it was per ] included with pointing out different years with exclusively negative changes in it, and since this is contentious topic, editors should be aware of ] policy, Sadko was correct in several points, that those statistics always changes, that other countries don't have it included in their articles, like Germany, USA or even Albania or Kosovo, and that this section was disproportionally too long, and since this article is summarisation of most important information about this country and the people - lots of parts are already included in contemporary period, i.e. there is a section that already states that: "According to a number of international analysts, Serbia has suffered from democratic backsliding into authoritarianism, followed by a decline in media freedom and civil liberties." Furthermore there are articles about human rights that are specifically created to cover human rights issues of specific country. ] (]) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:4. disregarding the "challenge" entirely as a ] view. |
|
|
|
:::We could add 1 sentence (''Politics'') based on . Critical thoughts and comments have already been provided in the article, as is appropriate. Initiating an RfC is often justified, as it helps Misplaced Pages progress; however, personal opinions and random complaints are not relevant to the discussion. Additionally, please be mindful of where you're placing your comments, as this thread is slowly becoming disorganized. — ''']''' ] 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That all depends on the number of authors we find that oppose the migrations. How many such sources can you find, Ottomanist? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
What we have to understand about writing history is that it is often a tool for political ideology. Moreover, historiography changes all the time, as new sources come to light. The best way to present the issue is to go for option three, since it represents the latest research (Anscombe's paper) in the field by an expert whose paper is '''peer reviewed''' and accepted by a highly reputable body (The International History Review) as sound scientific research. ] (]) 00:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that option three would probably be optimal, with the source we've seen so far. This means we elaborate on the migrations normally, but we add a small caveat explaining that authors XX and XY and ZZ challenge the above. Sound alright? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 06:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sure, do you think we should present changes here or just make them then discuss? ] (]) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The new section I created is essential for understanding the current state of ], particularly in light of significant concerns raised by reputable sources, including ] and the ]. This content highlights a notable decline in the observance of human rights since 2012, as detailed in the Freedom House Report and recognized internationally. Misplaced Pages encourages the inclusion of diverse perspectives, in accordance with ], and underscores the importance of citing reliable sources as outlined in its guidelines. The information presented in this section is well-supported by credible references, and removing it would not only compromise the article's integrity but also contradict Misplaced Pages's commitment to providing comprehensive and balanced coverage of critical issues. According to ], content should not be removed simply because it is controversial or critical. I'm sorry but accept it. And also regarding ], the section aims to present factual information grounded in reputable sources, thereby contributing to a balanced representation of Serbia's human rights landscape. ] (]) 12:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::There is a question of ] here. I mean, we are taking about a ''single'' paper. It is telling that even though the paper was published in 2006, it hasn't been cited in the literature (as far as I can tell) and Anscombe's view hasn't been adopted by the scholarly community. Some of the sources I have provided above are from after 2006, and they do not cast doubt on the veracity of the migrations. While Anscombe's paper can and should be mentioned in the article on the ], I think adding it here gives undue weight to what is a minority position in what is a rather general article. Thus, I think the paper should be left out and the issue of the Serb Migrations is best discussed in detail at ]. This article only meant to provide a ] version of Serbia's history, not get into details like which scholar challenges what and which other scholars challenge that in turn, etc.,. ] (]) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::Is that really the case? From what I can tell, this looks like a classic example of ]. All of this could be summarized in one or two sentences within the sections that already exist in the article. This addition is weak because it focuses on just a small part of a much larger topic, and strangely, it highlights only the negative aspects. Furthermore, similar sections are missing in many, if not most, articles about UN member states. For instance, the issue of Human rights in the ] is briefly mentioned with a link to the main article, and there's no separate section in the ] article either. Given that this page is already overly long, with over 500 references and recent efforts to streamline some sections, adding more material (with even more to come) seems excessive. Once there's consensus on this issue, more sentences could be added if necessary. This addition, in my book, is simply way bellow the level of this article. Also, those statistcs often change, which has been the case with Serbia. There is none of that in the text you proposed. Also, please do not engage in EW and do not drag other editors into similiar situations. |
|
|
:::Secondly, could you kindly point out where and when you achieved a clear consensus to include Milosevic's photo? What we need is a clear proof of concensus on this matter. I used the Visual Editor and didn’t notice the bold, caps-lock text you added, advising editors not to be bold and act based on their own judgment, which, all things considered, would likely lead to the image being removed. — ''']''' ] 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::What policy based reasons do you have for removing the image of Milošević when he is one of if not the biggest topic of the section it accompanies? ] (]) 19:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I've asked a clear and relevant question and got no answer. It makes one wonder why. |
|
|
:::::There are 2 problems here: 1) It is highly doubtfull that ] was achieved. 2) There are ] issues. Do check the old (2010) and the new (2022) WP theme, width - wide. |
|
|
:::::Another question arises: why was an artistic photo of Milosevic used? Wouldn't a picture of him alongside other Balkan leaders and foreign mediators be more appropriate? Including a more descriptive caption could provide additional context and prevent any potential misinterpretation. — ''']''' ] 21:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Sadko. Hitler's picture is on the Germany page ], so nobody moves it. Hitler was a historical figure like Milošević. You would put a picture where he is signing as some kind of peacekeeper to make him look better, instead of his portrait, and he ended up in the Hague as a war criminal. These are historical facts. Everyone can see your Serbian POV, that's why you were blocked from editing ] Eastern Europe.] (]) 01:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So you're going to complain about not getting an answer, while also completely avoiding the question directed at yourself. How is that productive? |
|
|
::::::No good reason has ever been given for removing the image, he is a focal point of the article section, and is thus entirely appropriate per ], which is an established standard per the ], not some essay like ] that is constantly being referenced to with this article. |
|
|
::::::I have no idea what you are even on about regarding the "artistic photo", it is a high quality image taken around the timeframe the section describes. The section is about Milošević's tenure, not him signing peace agreements. It's quite baffling you think that would be a ] change and seems to be entirely based on your personal feelings rather than Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 19:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Step by step TylerBurden. Once again, where and when was this consensus reached? I’ve never seen captions added warning editors "not to mess" with a single image without any prior consensus. That's not okay towards other editors. I’ve checked the archive. |
|
|
:::::::It's quite simple: the photo was likely taken by one of the best Yugoslav photographers, renowned for his portraits. Yes, the first half of his career (which included an entire war, by the way) concluded with that signature, so to speak. That's highly relevant and fitting. Exactly, MOS indicates there shouldn't be too many images, and now we have a mess. If this stonewalling continues, another RfC might be necessary. — ''']''' ] 22:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::If you can't accept that there have been multiple discussions about the image and none of them have resulted in the image being removed being consensus, then perhaps you don't understand the idea of consensus. |
|
|
::::::::At this point you're straight up misrepresenting what's on the article, the editor note (which I did not add, by the way) included is "PLEASE SEE TALKPAGE AND ITS ARCHIVE BEFORE REMOVING THE IMAGE", I think that is not unreasonable given multiple attempts to remove it that have cited reasons violating ] such as him being "controversial". |
|
|
::::::::Are you actually arguing that the image is somehow less suitable because it was taken by "one of the best Yugoslav photographers"? Please explain how that makes sense because I must have missed that policy or guideline that prohibits the use of work of renowned photographers. Giving particular weight to any certain event is not neutral, including a picture that is simply of him makes a whole lot more sense, the IP above while very direct has a point that it arguably comes across like trying to present him in a certain way. |
|
|
::::::::The only ] (another essay) I see on this article is the POV nationalist opposition to content critical of Serbia, given that the latest RfC overcame that stonewalling which was initiated by an editor above, Theonewithreason, feel free to start one since it tends to bring in neutral eyes that will look at things objectively. ] (]) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I respectfully ask that we avoid labeling people, as it's not considerate; WP is not X. It would be helpful to incorporate more references and constructive additions to the article. While adding tags and discussing politically-minded aspects of the country is important, it's just one part of the bigger picture and shouldn't be the primary focus. No worries, will do. Have a good one. — ''']''' ] 23:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{outdent}} |
|
|
:Hello {{ping|TylerBurden}}. Could you kindly elaborate, in good faith, on what you meant by '''' and clarify specifically what you find problematic with the changes I proposed? — ] ] 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You have expressed desire before to change the image, and now you attempted to do so in a ] edit, followed by other image changes, as is your right, and I have mine to revert you. Not sure how else you want me to elaborate "in good faith", sorry if you took offense I guess. |
|
|
::Your reason give for the change: "added with additional context and detail. I firmly believe it is more informative and visually engaging compared to another standard portrait" |
|
|
::"Visually engaging" is very subjective, you seem to have based this entirely on personal opinion, why is a picture of a banknote more visually engaging than an actual image of the man described? If I'm a reader reading about someone, I'd probably more likely want to see an image of them than some banknote. |
|
|
::I'm less opposed to your caption change, though I don't think there is anything wrong with the current one either. ] (]) 23:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::1) A 500 billion banknote is certainly not something editors come across every day, don't you agree? Official portraits of politicians, on the other hand, are much more common. 2) Using Vector Legacy (2010) presents a significant issue — the entire appearance becomes a chaotic mess. Give it a try and see for yourself. 3) My caption provides significantly more detailed and relevant information. 4) I’ve consolidated the essence of another image into this one, making the article readable and well-structured in both the old and new Misplaced Pages skins. — ] ] 23:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Interesting sure, but not the right place for it. The reason why such sections with heavy focus on an individual are often accompanied by an image of said individual is because well, it makes sense, see the aforementioned reasons. The relevance of the banknote simply isn't there, at least not compared to an image of the person the section is largely about. I use Vector Legacy 2010 and it looks fine, I also tried switching it to the default and it looks fine there too. ] (]) 20:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024 == |
|
:::Another option is to avoid the whole issue by simply not mention the Great Serb Migrations at all, by just saying that southern Serbia was depopulated by constant warfare and uprisings and leaving it at that, which is both true and easily sourced. ] (]) 21:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sure, we should leave that to ] articles. This is main and general article about Serbia, and should not deal with minority positions. Just imagine the mess that wiki would be if we do that. Only ] article is good for that, not this one, for sure. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 21:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
You're missing the point of our discussion above. There are two reliable expert scholars who both question the extent (or the existence rather) of the supposed migration. That is enough to merit a mention. ] (]) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:We are not asking that question here. Why are you pushing, there is really no need to mention those thing in here. Go to Great Serb Migrations with that. --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Clearly some have failed to glance properly at the discussion in question. Another solution is to scrap mention of the supposed migration altogether and focus on the page which deals specifically with it. ] (]) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Serbia|answered=yes}} |
|
== History section == |
|
|
|
I want to change number of inhabitants of Serbian cities according to the latest 2022 census, current data is outdated. Source: https://popis2022.stat.gov.rs/sr-Latn/ ] (]) 12:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 22:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Widespread violence in Serbia? == |
|
The section Ottoman and Austrian Rule needs some additions or changes |
|
|
# According to Somel, "The Serbian patriarchate which had been abolished in 1459 was reestablished in 1557; this provided the continuation of Serbian cultural traditions within the empire".(S.Aksin Somel :''Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire'', Scarecrow Press Oxford, 2003, ISBN 0 8108 4332-3 p 268) |
|
|
# It may be added that the Ottoman millet system was a partial autonomy . According to Shaw, "''was created the millet system of autonomous self-government under religious leaders''" (Stanford Shaw: ''History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey'' , Cambridge Press, ISBN 0 521 29163 1 p.59) |
|
|
#Banat Uprising should be reworded . Actually it was a part of the ] between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs. According to Agaston-Masters, "''Serbs took an active part as opponents of the Ottomans, including organizing uprisings''" (Agoston-Masters:''Encyclopaedia of the Ottoman Empire'' ISBN-10: 0-8160-6259-5 , p.518) |
|
|
# It is claimed that "''Vojvodina endured a century long Ottoman occupation before being ceded to the Habsburg Empire in the 17th–18th centuries''." Technically the last part of this sentence is not correct. Because Vojvodina was ceded to Habsburgs by the treaties ] and ] the first in 1699 and the second in 1718. Thus in the 17th century Vojvodina was not a part of Habsburg Empire. |
|
|
] (]) 08:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for bringing important sources. Will make relevant changes. ] (]) 23:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
Also, more work needs to be done since the Middle Ages section cuts into vital parts of the Ottoman period. A map will also be needed to show the size of Serbia during the Ottoman period. ] (]) 23:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there widespread violence in Serbia? Because there exists an article called ], so I shouldn't visit Serbia because people will be engaging in tons of violence and killing each other. Isn't that how Serbia is, so revise the Misplaced Pages article about it? I'm 16 ] (]) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Please don't use sources like Stanford Shaw. He is extremely partisan, outdated, and his work has been ] by other scholars. FYI, the Patriarchate of Pec was abolished in 1766, I thought you would know that. So I replaced Shaw with that. Also, please don't change wording while keeping the same source (like you did for the sentence about the Sanjak of Smederevo), that could be interpreted as intellectual dishonesty. The source was anyway not working, so I replaced it with a much better source. ] (]) 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I kindly request that you stop presenting your self as some sort of prominent historian who can discount the works of Proffessor Shaw. Name me one historian who hasn't had their work criticised? You are not here to conduct original research, but to contribute to the making of an encyclopaedia based mainly on secondary sources. Thus you should make changes and refrain from personal attacks about peoples honesty and assume good faith. (sorry to bring this here, but Athenean doesn't respond on his talk page, which is highly rude). ] (]) 22:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This is not a forum for general questions about Serbia, if you want the Misplaced Pages article revised, you would need to provide a number of reliable sources (]) supporting this assertion. A Serbian Film is a fictional movie.. ] (]) 19:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Not engaging in any kind of original research. The (long) criticism section on the ] article, which you would do well to read, is very well sourced. I don't recall being under any obligation to respond to you on my talkpage, but one reason I can think of for not doing so is so as to encourage you to stay away from my talkpage, which I would prefer. ] (]) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
The issue some editors have is that new research into the Ottoman period goes against romantic mythologies which are central to many nationalisms in the Balkans today, indeed, they are part of the identity of many nations. The construction of the ] nation from many disparate ethno-linguistic groups relies particularly on the idea of a 'Turkish yoke' holding back the 'natural' expression of the so-called Greek nation. Thankfully, academia is not interested in '''constructing nations''' but with deconstructing mythologies and conducting scientific analyses of sources. If that doesn't suit some editors, then a modern encyclopaedia like Misplaced Pages isn't for them - especially not in the the long run since scholarship will keep debunking nationalist myths. ] (]) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
The responsibility to explain recent changes lies with the user who recently provided new information, especially given that the material was disputed. Please, do so. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP 22:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)