Talk:Illyrian movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Only Croatian?

From what my history books say, the Illyrian movement originated much earlier among South Slavic peoples under Ottoman and Austrian rule (Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins, Croatians) as a movement for South Slavic unity and a united state belonging to all. The Croatian movement is just a later part of this one, so I'd suggest this title is reserved for the wider term and Croatia probably be only a section (or you could leave it in a separate article, say, Illyrian movement (Croatia)). What do you think? → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 09:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That is contrary to what I know (and wrote) about the subject; not 100% sure about Bulgaria, but the only "Ilirski pokret" on ex-Yu area was this one, and its core were Croatian intellectuals (with Vuk, Daničić and Kopitar as close associates and friends but not exactly members). Maybe the name origin is older (I put the {{fact}} tag because I can't find the real origin), but AFAICT that's it. Duja 12:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the concept of a South Slavic unity under Illyrian label existed before that specific Croatian intellectual circle. In Bulgaria about 1750 Hristofor Zhefarovich was an active propagandist of "Illyric" (under Croatian/Dalmatian influence) and Paisius of Hilendar was criticizing him about that. (Радев, Иван (2007). История на българската литература през Възраждането. Велико Търново: Абагар. p. 68. ISBN 978-954-427-758-1.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nk (talk • contribs) 1 September 2010

JFTR the Croatian orientation is pretty much the consensus in Croatian historiography, for a quick sample see http://www.google.com/search?q=ilirski+pokret+hrvatski+narodni+preporod+site:srce.hr The mention of the synonym doesn't mean that's "only" a Croatian movement, only that that there exists such a synonym, for better or for worse. To address the above request more specifically: in the meantime the article was refactored to describe more earlier context. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Croatian revival = Illyrian movement?

I see the above section covered this to some extent as well. Yes, it looks like an error.. Can someone provide a source that states the Illyrian movement is the same thing as the Croatian revival? To me it seems the terms overlap significantly but are by no means synonymous:

• The Illyrian movement was a pan-South-Slavic movement and was in existence among Slovenes and Serbs as well. Hence there the IM is a wider term than the Revival. Its also worth mentioning that the Illyrians did not even recognize the existence of a Croatian nation.
• I believe the retroactively-imposed concept of the Croatian National Revival also includes post-Illyrian activities and persons (among Croats). There the Revival is wider than the Illyrian movement as such.

Also, as I said just above, the Illyrian movement is a real live historical organization, whereas the "Croatian National Revival" is a vague, retroactively-imposed concept encompassing certain people and activities of the period. To me it seems that the Croatian Revival is a subject for a separate article. If it is to be covered here, it should not be mentioned as synonymous with the movement, but should imo get its own section or something. -- Director (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The relation of the terms is basically already described in the article and you're pointlessly censoring an incoming redirect and confusing readers. If you want to write a separate article about it, fine, just do that then. (But then the onus is clearly on you to define the term in a way that doesn't make it an instant WP:MERGE target.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet more hostility from Joy. Shocking..

I'm not "censoring" anything, I'm correcting an obvious misrepresentation of said redirect (as synonymous with the Illyrian movement). The point of the talk section was to figure out if and how to include the subject here. Heaven forbid it should be absent from the article for some hours.

I don't want to create a Revival article, as I believe retroactively-imposed supposed "processes" of this variety aren't noteworthy ("they were Croats, they just didn't know it".. that kind of smacks of Seselj). The name itself is inherently POV and pretty preposterous. "Revival"? As pertaining to some non-existent pre-19th-century Croatian nationalism that we're "reviving"? The thing should be in inverted commas. -- Director (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand how your repetitive removals of content that breaks WP:R#PLA is hostile in and of themselves, I can't help you... yes, heaven forbid that you avoid randomly censoring valid encyclopedic information. Your personal opinion about the validity of the term is irrelevant; it's something that exists in real life, and is indeed approaching the status of WP:BLUE in Croatia. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make it go away. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Repetitive removals"? You mean when I twice removed a blatantly wrong and misleading statement from the first sentence? Of course you would perceive it as an act of "hostility" towards you, I mean why not? Speaking of hostility, this appears to be the second place you've stalked me to, just in the last couple days. Would you get away from me please? Nobody needs you "proof-reading" their edits. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I for one think it wasn't even blatantly wrong, it was only slightly misleading because it may have been read as implicit total equivalence. This isn't the first time I've seen you do a slaphappy removal of content that's better adjusted than censored. (While at the same time you were hell-bent on e.g. preventing the removal of Gračac from the definition of Dalmatia, paradoxically enough.) I don't stalk people, I just read my own watchlist. Not that I need a reason to have an article in my watchlist, but you can also see it from the article history - I've already made dozens of edits here, so to claim that I somehow suddenly stalked you at a place where everyone knows I'm already at, is silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"The term Croatian national revival is used particularly in Croatian historiography to describe the events as they pertain to Croatia."

The problem with that elaboration is that, unless I'm very much mistaken, the "Revival" (and their activities) also includes activities and persons non-Illyrian. Both contemporaries of the Illyrians that were not associated with them, and events/persons after 1849. -- Director (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how what you just said conflicts with that description. hr:Hrvatski narodni preporod, that seems to be properly referenced to a 1965 Matica hrvatska book, doesn't conflict with it; it just interprets Illyrism as a phase in the revival. --12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Did I say it "conflicts" with it? It simply implies, by omission, that there is no "Revival" outside of the Illyrian movement. Its an error. -- Director (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to rephrase that to avoid that inference. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Or, your text is okay. It could also be noted that the notion of the revival also largely matches the timeline of the Illyrian movement, but that all would be best left for the text outside the lead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian stuff

Natalino7 (talk · contribs) added a bunch of material that was referenced to Wikipedia articles (i.e. not actually referenced at all) and to primary sources - there was a ref to Ivan Franjo Jukić's book with a quote that doesn't support the English text at all. In addition, there are {{better source}} and {{failed verification}} tags in one part of the added text, which indicates this was copied and pasted from another article. Overall, this whole addition doesn't seem to explain how these people were part of the Illyrian movement, rather it adds a WP:COATRACK component to the article. If there are reliable sources that have something to say about Jukić and Knežević as part of the Illyrian movement, now's a good time to cite them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Section "Early modern period"

Reinstated by User:Joy - [1]. This has nothing to do with Illyrian movement. It's a bunch of SYNTH regarding various usages of the term Illyrian in various languages. Illyrian movement specifically deals with the 19th century cultural movement and nothing else. The term Illyrian in that context was artificially resurrected from older usages to serve as an umbrella term for South Slavs and their language, which were romantically imagined to be the descendants of ancient Illyrians. It is not a of continuation of the usage of the term Illyrian from older sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're correct. I initially thought largely the same as you did, but after reading up on this, I saw that Blažević isn't fringe - for starters here's a positive review by a Croatian academician - http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=113519&lang=en --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That deals with the term Illyrian as an ideologeme in various functions (political, ideological, regional etc.) I.e. meanings of the word Illyrian across centuries. Why the Illyrianists of the Illyrian movement chose the term Illyrian is well known and I've explained it above. The section makes it sound that the 19th century Illyrian movement is somehow a continuation of cultural and political movements of earlier centuries with a similar function, which it is not. Only the term Illyrian in its name can be traced to similar purposes. But the 19th century Illyrian movement has absolutely nothing to do with "Illyrism" of the previous centuries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I see merit in the claim that the context differs, but the source explicitly contradicts you with regard to the claim that it's unrelated. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote where exactly does it contradict? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, can you quote where it doesn't?! Let me put it this way - an encyclopedic description of the Illyrian movement (the 19th century one) is incomplete without an elaboration of why they picked that curiously anachronistic name. Dropping the explanation of the etymology and this whole reasoning - is more detrimental to the readers' understanding, than keeping it. Please collaborate on making the text better, as opposed to censoring it.
--Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

But that section doesn't explain at all why the term Illyrian was used. It only lists some obscure "Illyrism" usages that have absolutely nothing to do with the 19th century Illyrian movement. Here is Blažević's paper in English. It only deals with the "performative" (whatever that means) analysis of the word Illyrian in various meanings. The only relevant quote (p. 17):

Similar tendency characterises two (Proto)national Illyrisms – the Croatian and Serbian one, which represented the final result of the process of the "nationalisation" of the Illyrian ideologeme at the beginning of the 18th century.

In other words, it's analysis of why the Illyrianists of the Illyrian movement adopted the word Illyrian. Nothing else. Every usage instance of the word Illyrian or its derivations in every langauge (Slavic, Latin) is described as "Illyrism". Nowhere does Blažević say that the 19th century Illyrian movement is a continuation of some 15th century or later "Illyrism". Blažević's analysis is could only be useful for the article [[Illyrian (terminology)]], and not here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not sure how to begin to respond to this without invoking WP:Competence is required. Please read page 19 of the work you referenced to see how that literally explains how early modern Illyrism fits into 19th-century Illyrism. You can dispute the relevance of this work on many levels - for example, even if Illyrism has redirected here since 2007, with no changes to the redirect at all, you could say that we need to discuss that in a separate article, making this an editorial decision to split content. On the other hand, saying that what appears to be a reviewed, scholarly secondary source - is in itself a violation of a Wikipedia policy on improper synthesis - is plain wrong. Tying separate reviewed, scholarly secondary sources into a single narrative that they do not support - that's improper synthesis. One single source discussing literally what the article is called - that's just plain normalcy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I never would have expected you of all people to try to remove something like this. You've regularly disputed various Croatian nationalist or sociolinguistic concepts in numerous earlier discussions, even to the point of being insulting to holders of a different point of view by blithely calling things fictional, yet you here want to follow the Croatian Encyclopedia's cursory description of the etymology to the letter? Note that the CE article is describing the Croatian national revival - DIREKTOR disputed the equivalence between the two concepts earlier. Perhaps this is one of those points where the concepts most obviously diverge. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it describes Croatian national revival because Illyrian movement operated as a part of it. It also abundantly discusses Illyrian movement and nowhere are its supposed origins that the disputed section talks about mentioned. CE's coverage of its etymology not "cursory" - it's about as extensive as it can get. There is no "historical depth" at all. The term was resurrected with a specific goal in mind and that's all. The section establishes some kind of imaginary historical continuity of "Illyrism" on the basis of ambiguousness of the term Illyrism used in a completely different contexts, eras and meanings when there is none. Where are historical books that support it? They do not exist. It's SYNTH and OR. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Illyrism is an ambiguous term and is used by Blažević to refer to any of the historical usages of the term Illyrian as an ideologeme. However, Google Books search shows that in English it primarily (99% of hits) refers to Illyrian movement. Blažević's book and paper do not refer to Illyrian movement except in a single sentence where they describe how the term Illyrian as an ideologeme was used in the context of the movement. 19th century Illyrian movement has nothing to do with "Christian identities", "Illyrian emperors", "Illyrian saints", Ohmućević Armorial and other topics that that section is talking about. Whoever added that section combined two completely different topics 1) Illyrian movement 2) a very specific analysis of the usage of the term Illyrian and its derivatives across ages. These have nothing to do with one another. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Responding to both subthreads)

Blažević (2010) is a historical secondary source that specifically discusses this concept. The Croatian Encyclopedia is a tertiary source, and it doesn't really contradict Blažević. You need to back your assertions up with some secondary sources that do so. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note that the bulk of the description of non-19th c. Illyrism was added in an October 2011 edit by User:Dbachmann - hereby notified so they can perhaps help us out here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Blažević's paper doesn't deal at all with Illyrian movement. It deals with Illyrism as an "ideologeme" across ages. And her analysis is too obscure and WP:FRINGE to be included either here or in a separate article anyway because nobody else links those two in historical context. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet again, I have to repeat - the content has been here for over two years. A modicum of consensus has therefore existed that it's not fringe. You're claiming that it's synthesis and fringe, but you haven't provided a single comparable secondary source to support your assertion. Surely if you're reading a contradiction from that tertiary source (CE), there should be ample secondary sources to support what you're saying. Again, I'm not hell-bent on keeping all of this here, Illyrism could be split into a separate article, but the onus is on you to back your claims up with sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long it has been there. It's synthesis because the paper itself nowhere claims to be related or descibe the Illyrian movement, and the factoids collected from it and presented in the disputed section have nothing to do with it, and the word Illyrism in English language in 99% of usages refers exclusively to Illyrian movement as google books search show and not unrelated usages of earlier centuries. It's fringe because this whole Illyrism-as-an-ideologeme theory is held by one historian only. Which is not that of a problem, but she doesn't seem to be a major figure (no wiki article). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I always though 'slavic' comes from 'slovo-word' and slavic nations are who understand each other, am i right? Also, in modern historigraphy objective historians actually point out thata ll yugoslav countries COULD be descedant of illyrians, simply because some bigger migrations into what we call with somewhat "modern" term "Balkan" were never recorded. It's possible these so called Croats and Serbs took the name from some people who came and made their states there. [This comment was added 10:58, 26 July 2015 by IP user 77.239.19.94. --Thnidu (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)]

1. Whatever the etymology of Slavic, it is irrelevant here. Etymology isn't definition in any case.
2. It's not clear that the above comment has anything to do with this section, "Early modern period". --Thnidu (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)