Talk:Benedikt Vinković

Neutrality of language, verification and proofreading

This article contains remarks that present an unverified point of view, and contains controversial remarks. It is suggested that a more neutral language should be used. Examples are:

(A) "With accentuated hatred Vinković (and Petar Petretić) wrote numerous obviously untrue texts and even larger elaborates against Serbs and Orthodox Christianity". "Accentuated hatred" and "obviously untrue" are very subjective terms. They require proof. Other corrections are needed to the language and the factual veracity of the assertions in the article:

(B) "The policy of Vatikan was to send jesuit priests " needs to be rewritten into idiomatic English. The correct English spellings are "Vatican" and "Jesuit".

(C) "fluently spoke many different languages including Slavic." Slavic is not a language. It is the name used by linguists to refer to a group of related languages that includes Czech, Polish, Russian, Bulgarian etc. It is not clear whether Vinković spoke all these languages?

(D) The "nationality" section states that Vinković was "Habsburg, Ottoman". Firstly, the Habsburgs and the Ottomans were ruling families and not nationalities. The intention here may have been to say that Vinković had a dual Austrian and Turkish nationality. This seems extraordinary and should be supported by evidence. It seems more believable that Vinković was a Croatian given that he was born in Jastrebarsko in Croatia and that he served as the bishop of Zagreb.

(E) The "occupation" section may need to be changed from "Catholic priest" to "bishop".

(F) The "known for" section states "Catholicization of the Orthodox Serbs", but the body of the article merely states that he wrote some anti-Orthodox (not anti-Serb) texts and that he wrote a letter to a papal nuncio that some other bishop should be made subordinate to him. This hardly constitutes a catholicisation of the Serbs. Is there any evidence that he "catholicised" anyone or that anyone was "catholicised" as a direct result of his writings? My submission is that this article be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.181 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(A) - The assertion is cited.

(B) - done

(C) - clarified.

(D) - The names of states in question were Ottoman Empire and Habsburg Monarchy. Citizens of those states had Ottoman or Habsburg nationality. The name of USA is also derived from personal name of Amerigo Vespucci, which is not an obstacle for existence of American nationality.

(E) - done

(F) - removed known for field

202.0.15.181, you added different tags to your own comments which is wrong. I removed them and adressed the points you raised. If you think this person is not notable enough, there is procedure for proposing the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. However:

(A) I restored the NPOV to the article. The usage of terms like "accentuated hatred" and "obviously untrue" is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. The fact that such language is used in the cited source is only indicative that the source cited is biased rather than reliable.

(B) Thank you for correcting the spelling, but the whole article still needs proofreading to change it to idiomatic English and to verify the factual correctness. For example, "Ilyrian college" should be "Illyrian College" and the usage of the term Vatican seems anachronistic given that Vatican achieved independence in 1929. The intention may be to refer to the Papacy, or maybe a particular Pope, or to some other Catholic official - but it is not clear from the article what is the intention. Another example is the sentence "The policy of Vatican was to send Jesuit priests who fluently spoke many different languages, including what they called Slavic." - where were the Jesuits sent? Was it to Pécs? Why - was it as punishment or as a reward? What about priests who fluently spoke many languages but not "what they called Slavic" where were they sent? This sort of thing just creates confusion and does not make sense - the article suggests that polyglot Jesuit priests were sent to Pécs for some reason as a result of Papal policy. The whole article needs re-editing to clean it up from such statements.

(C) "what they called Slavic" is still confusing. What language is referred to here? Can a user of the English language Wikipedia be expected to know what language "they" (who?) called Slavic in 16th and 17th century Croatia?

(D) There is confusion between a ruling dynasty and the territories over which it rules. As there was never a state called the Habsburg Empire (though it should be noted that historians may use the term Habsburg Empire as a convenient description), there was never such a thing as a Habsburg nationality. No ruler ever used a title such as "the Emperor of the Habsurg Empire". Habsburgs were the "August Emperors of the Romans" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor) or "Holy Roman Emperors, forever August" (see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor) as well as the rulers of several different states. These different states had their own laws, parliaments, languages, currencies etc. So for instance, someone in the Kingdom of Bohemia did not have the same nationality as someone in the Kingdom of Hungary or in the Austrian Netherlands. A parallel situation existed in the 18th century where the same dynasty ruled Hannover, Britain, Ireland, British India and British America - but no 18th century Londoner, New Yorker or Calcuttan would be considered a Hannoverian national. Even today, the Queen of Great Britain is also the Queen of Canada, the Queen of New Zealand and the Queen of Australia, but Australians have a different nationality to Canadians. As far as Vinković is concerned, he lived the Kingdom of Croatia, which was outside of the Holy Roman Empire. Regarding the Ottomans, I doubt there was a nationality law in existence at the time. The titles of Ottoman rulers pretended to universal rule (refer to the "style of the Ottoman Sultans" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sultans_of_the_Ottoman_Empire). However, using the logic of the article, the following people would all have Ottoman nationality:

- Mehmed-paša Sokolović (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokollu_Mehmed_Pasha) the Ottoman grand vizier of Serb ethnic origin,

- Lajos Kossuth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lajos_Kossuth), the Hungarian nationalist leader, who lived in exile in Turkey - perhaps he might even have Italian "nationality" since he died in Turin?,

- Petar II Petrović-Njegoš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petar_II_Petrovi%C4%87-Njego%C5%A1) the ruler of Montenegro and all other rulers prior to 1878, because Montenegro's independence from the Ottoman Empire was not internationally recognised until the Berlin Congress in 1878,

- Karađorđe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara%C4%91or%C4%91e) the leader of the first Serb uprising against the Ottomans, because he was born and died in the Ottoman Empire, as his Wikipedia article clearly states,

- every Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_patriarch) since 1453 when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople,

- every Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Patriarch_of_Constantinople) for the same reason,

- every Patriarch of Peć (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Pe%C4%87) from the fall of the Serbian state to the Ottomans in 1389 until the abolition of the patriarchate in 1766.

Nationality is not really appropriate in pre-20th century contexts. For example, there is no "nationality" in the info box for the Turkish traveller Evliya Çelebi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evliya_Celebi), or for the French-born Austrian general Prince Eugene of Savoy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Eugene_of_Savoy). It appears that rather than "nationality" what is meant is "location where Vinković lived".

As I've mentioned before, it would be remarkable if Vinković held dual Austrian and Turkish citizenship or nationality (which is it?). In any case, the author should check the Wikipedia article on Nationality (From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality). Here are some quotes from it that could be relevant whether what was intended was "nationality", "citizenship" or "ethnicity".

"By custom and international conventions, it is the right of each state to determine who its nationals are. Such determinations are part of nationality law." Is there any proof that there was a nationality law in either the "Habsburg empire" or the "Ottoman empire" at the time? Further, is there any proof that Vinković had dual nationality under those laws?

"In English and some other languages, the word nationality is sometimes used to refer to an ethnic group (a group of people who share a common ethnic identity, language, culture, descent, history, and so forth)."

"In the context of former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, nationality is often used as translation of the Russian nacional'nost' and Serbo-Croatian narodnost, which were the terms used in the Soviet Union for ethnic groups and local affiliations within the member states." If this is what was intended, then it is most likely that Vinković is Croatian.

(F) Vinković was a bishop who engaged in the ministry of the Catholic faith. Both these facts by themselves are not remarkable. Is there any other reason why Vinković can be regarded as so notable to warrant a separate Wikipedia article? Are there articles on Vinković on the Croatian or the Hungarian language versions of Wikipedia, which is what would be expected if he lived and worked in those areas? If not, then this article should be marked for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(A) Y Assertion about "accentuated hatred" and "obviously untrue" is now attributed to Serbian historian and academy member Slavko Gavrilović, specialist in history of Serbs in period between 16th and 19th century. No need for NPOV tag. If there are positions, grounded in reliable sources which say that Vinković expressed love toward Orthodoxy and Serbs supporting their right to remain Orthodox, anyobody are free to add them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

(B) "Ilyrian college" replaced with "Illyrian College". Sending of Jesuit polyglots clarified.

(C) "what they called Slavic" - they obviously refers to Jesuit priests. I don't know what exactly was the Slavic language spoken in the Ottoman controlled territories in Europe that those Jesuits had in mind, nor I think it is particularly important to specify it. If you think it is, feel free to do so. Its not hard to guess what was the most widely spoken Slavic language in the 16th and 17th century Ottoman controlled territories in Europe.

(D) You misindentified ethnicity with nationality. The Template:Infobox person has separate fields for ethnicity and for nationality. There are plenty of sources about Ottoman and Habsburg nation.

(F)If you think this person is not notable enough, there is procedure for proposing the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you once again for responding, I'll comment on your responses, out of respect. However this article seems to qualify for deletion, for notability reasons.

(A) NPOV tag is still needed as the usage of terms like "accentuated hatred" and "obviously untrue" is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. I've never heard of Gavrilović, but I'll take at face value the statement that he is a specialist in Serb history. Even so, terms like "accentuated hatred" and "obviously untrue", without additional support or evidence, do not belong to academic discourse.

(B) Thank you for correcting the spellings I mentioned, but there are more instances of changes needed to the article. The whole article still needs proofreading to change it to idiomatic English and to verify the factual correctness. I've removed the cleanup tag because I propose that the article be deleted. However, if the article is not deleted, the Cleanup tag should be reinstated.

As an example of confusion in the article is the sentence that Vinković wrote "numerous obviously untrue texts and even larger elaborates against Serbs." If that statement is taken at face value, then the other statements in the article about Vinković's writings are logically "obviously untrue". These include the statements that Vinković:

- wrote that "Predojević refused to support the conversion of the population of his bishopric to Catholicism"

- "estimated that number of Serbs in Slavonia was about 74,000"

- "claimed that Orthodox bishop Predojević is subordinated to him"

- "expected to receive some income from" Predojević

- "wrote that Catholicized Serbs are the most ardent followers of the Catholic faith"

- "reported that Serbs are using Cyrillic script"

- "that Serbs (Vlachs) of Istria, Senj and Vinodolski were converted to Catholicism"

In conclusion, are the listed statement true or not? If they are not true, they should be clearly marked as examples of Vinković's "obviously untrue texts". If they are true, then what exactly was it that Vinković wrote "with accentuated hatred" which was "obviously untrue"? If it casuses confusion, the best thing would be to leave it out.

(C) Sorry, but it is not obvious that "they" refers to Jesuit priests. In the context of the sentence "they" could also refer to the Ottoman Empire and the Vatican. This sentence is another example of the confusion and the use non-idiomatic English in this article. Finally, why should the users of the English language Wikipedia be expected to "guess what was the most widely spoken Slavic language in the 16th and 17th century Ottoman controlled territories in Europe"? Was it Bulgarian? Macedonian? Croatian? Serbian? Bosnian? Ruthenian? Ukrainian? Polish? Church Slavonic? Byelorussian? - all these are Slavic languages that may have been spoken in those areas that were controlled by the Ottomans at the time. Unless there is some reference to language statistics of the Ottoman Empire in 1630 that can be inserted into the article, the language should be explicitly named. Better still, the whole sentence could be left out or reworded to avoid confusing and misleading statements.

(D) There was no misidentification. I am merely pointing out the confusion between the ruling dynasty and nationality that currently exists in the info box. The preference would be to remove the reference to nationality as it is not really appropriate in pre-20th century contexts, for the reasons I have given - no nationality given for other historical figures such as Evliya Çelebi and Prince Eugene of Savoy, and no evidence that there ever was such a thing as an "Ottoman" and a "Habsuburg" nationality. If you are adamant about keeping the nationality in this article, then evidence is required as to how Vinković acquired and held dual "Ottoman" and "Habsuburg" nationality. Finally there should be some consistency with the articles on other historical figures, some of which I have listed. So for example, the Wikipedia article on Petar II Petrović-Njegoš gives his nationality as Serbian, while Lajos Kossuth's nationality is given as Hungarian.

(F) Thank you, will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.181 (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

(A) NPOV tag is used if "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are not fairly represented. You haven't presented any other views, so no need for this kind of tag. Unless you are able to do it, please remove the tag.

(B) The task of wikipedia is not to determine what is true and what is not true, but to present all positions based on reliable sources. I agree that it would be less confusing if wikipedia would be able to define what is the truth and to present it to the world. I am afraid that it is impossible at this moment. If every information which can cause confusion would be left out of wikipedia there would be no wikipedia.

(C) The Ottoman Empire and Vatican could not refer to anything. Only people could refer to something. That is why I still believe that "they" obviously refers to Jesuit priests, though I don't think it is particularly important who "they" refer to. Don't you agree?

(D) I would understand (not that I would necessary support it) if you wrote that ethnicity was not really appropriate in case of 16th century people. But that is not your position here. On the contrary, you insist that nationality was not important in case of this 16th century person and at the same time you use every opportunity to imply that he was Croatian. My position about infobox is grounded in the Template:Infobox person. Unless you can you present some consensus, wikipedia policy or guideline that support your position that nationality is "not really appropriate in pre-20th century contexts", there is no issue here.

(F) Since you intend to nominate this article for deletion you should not have tagged it with disputed notability tag. Template:Notability says that in such cases you should nominate it for proposed deletion or take it to Articles for deletion instead. Please be so kind to remove this tag.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I've removed the notability tag - bishops are generally considered notable (in this particular case - Pecs and Zagreb - even more so), while sourcing clearly suggests WP:GNG is met. GregorB (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)