Talk:Old Serbia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:55, 4 November 2019 editResnjari (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users27,468 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:51, 4 November 2019 edit undoKtrimi991 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,596 edits →Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry: reNext edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on ] was spamed with info that ] made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. ''']''' ] 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)		:It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on ] was spamed with info that ] made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. ''']''' ] 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Jingiby}}, {{u\|Sadko}}, {{u\|Ktrimi991}} and {{u\|Calthinus}}, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb ] organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues . This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.] (]) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)		::{{u\|Jingiby}}, {{u\|Sadko}}, {{u\|Ktrimi991}} and {{u\|Calthinus}}, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb ] organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues . This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.] (]) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
			:::Good point {{ping\|Resnjari}}. That sentence of the article should be replaced with relevant content from Djokic and Crampton. And I agree that the article needs some additions in order to clearly reflect the meaning and legacy of the subject. Cheers, ] (]) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:51, 4 November 2019

Serbia Start‑class High‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Start‑class

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry

@Jingiby and Sadko:, that content is related to the Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry over parts of what is called "Old Serbia". The term was widely used at the time to support Serbia's claims with what were considered by Serbian elites to be historical rights. Hence "old Serbia". So should not the article have such content? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moreover the name Macedonia was forbidden in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by political reasons. Most of that territory was ceded to medieval Serbia in the 12th century for the first time and was in fact New Serbia. Most of the Slavic-speakers into the whole area were described until the 20th century mainly as Bulgarians, not as Old Serbs. Because of that I agree with Ktrimi991. Jingiby (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not most of the territory. Slavic and Serb presence (per DAI and other sources) came before the Bulgar migration. That is not the most important here, the facts is that territories of Raška (a different territory compared to the future sanjak) and parts of modern-day disputed territory of Kosovo were settled by Serbs and were a part of early proto-states and later state formations. Those are just the basic facts. Macedonianism, Bulgarization and Serbianisation are not that relevant for this article and have articles of their own. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I added content sourced to Motta who elaborates on how southern Old Serbia and Macedonia became subject of the Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry at the time of the Macedonian Question. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

1) You are yet again being disruptive (but with good intentions). The info is not important for the article and should be (and is) a part of other articles. Plus, the information is just obvious and logical. 2) A discussion has began and we are discussing what to with the content and therefore - how the heck do you think that it is okay to push another undo? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Motta and Rossos have done good studies on the Serbian-Bulgarian conflict over the area, and its legacy. Thus, the content is very relevant to the article. If you are concerned that way, do not remove content without consensus....and do not keep making assumptions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The main point is relevant and I agree with it. The second - is not. It's not notable and borders with propagandistic spam. And you do not have consensus on that and do not get to walk over other users, per basic Wiki rules and culture of democracy. I see no answer to the second question. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, we indeed have no consensus for this part of text to be included, as I think that it is not notable and not about the article. I will remove it as soon as tomorrow. And I will remove it day after day, because this way of behaviour is insultive and disrespectful for other editors (and pseudo-arguments like "it has been there for a long time" mean nothing). Stop manipulating with "conensus" as a way to push your POV. Misplaced Pages is not a political arena. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Consult the sources, try to do some further research, and enrich the article with anything relevant you might find. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RS sources point to this term having originated in the 19th century and used for nationalist purposes to claim territory (i.e Atanasovski 2019 ; Boskovska 2017 ; Rama 2019 ; Madgearu & Gordon 2008 ). Hardly anything of the sort is referred to in the article which presents this term as a generic word used by Serbs from back in the day. I'm thinking about covering that aspect. Jingiby, Sadko and Ktrimi991, thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind, Resnjari. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources and included text that it was coined that is promoted in the 19th century. That is nothing new. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, its common knowledge for us, but the article lacks what i outlined in the previous comment. Plus, these RS sources are solid too and can provide information about the term that readers are not familiar with.Resnjari (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit-war Sadko. You do not gain a consensus for removing this passage here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Every opinion matters, some people are failing to realise that. Therefore, there is no consensus. I disagree with this entry as it is not notable or on-topic. The content was added for purposes which are not that noble. "It has been there for a long time" is no argument and you know it. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jingiby and Ktrimi and Resn here. When there is Turkification, wiki covers it. Same for Hellenization, ditto Romanianization, etc. Same for Germanization, Polonization, Sinification, Russification... The only reason we don't have Bosniakization/Slovenization/Lazification/etc is that some nations never got the chance, very few countries were actually like Switzerland and actually respected people's identities. Serbia has not been singled out. So don't muse about people's motives. Furthermore, even if some material was added as part of a plot to annex Sumadina to Greater Mars, if the result is material that is backed by RS, written in NPOV, and valuable for comprehending the topic, what's the issue?--Calthinus (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on karst was spamed with info that Jovan Cvijić made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, Sadko, Ktrimi991 and Calthinus, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb Black Hand organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues . This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.Resnjari (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point @Resnjari:. That sentence of the article should be replaced with relevant content from Djokic and Crampton. And I agree that the article needs some additions in order to clearly reflect the meaning and legacy of the subject. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 12:55, 4 November 2019 editResnjari (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users27,468 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:51, 4 November 2019 edit undoKtrimi991 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,596 edits →Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry: reNext edit →
Line 21:		Line 21:
	:It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on ] was spamed with info that ] made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. ''']''' ] 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)		:It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on ] was spamed with info that ] made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. ''']''' ] 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
	::{{u\|Jingiby}}, {{u\|Sadko}}, {{u\|Ktrimi991}} and {{u\|Calthinus}}, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb ] organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues . This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.] (]) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)		::{{u\|Jingiby}}, {{u\|Sadko}}, {{u\|Ktrimi991}} and {{u\|Calthinus}}, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb ] organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues . This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.] (]) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
			:::Good point {{ping\|Resnjari}}. That sentence of the article should be replaced with relevant content from Djokic and Crampton. And I agree that the article needs some additions in order to clearly reflect the meaning and legacy of the subject. Cheers, ] (]) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)