Talk:Milorad Ekmečić/Archive 1

Archive 1

Shortened footnotes

G'day, I propose changing the citation style to shortened footnotes to save space and make the sourcing clearer. Any objections? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pseudohistorian?

The text of the article does not contain a single assertion about ME being referred to as pseudohistorian. The text contains the opinion of limited number of historians that period was referred to as period of pseudohistory. Still, this pseudohistory assertion was given undue weight in the lede while person is categorized as pseudohistorian, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The source clearly includes Ekmečić in this group of historians. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the first time you label historians whose works contradict your POV as pseudohistorians. Last time you did it (diff) was related to historian who is alive and probably constitutes a serious violation of WP:BLP. This modus operandi is not constructive and I advise you not to continue with it.

Your reply does not address any of two major POV issues I pointed at:

1. The text contains the opinion of limited number of historians that period was referred to as period of pseudohistory. Period, not ME.
2. Having in mind that the person in question was a member of multiple academies and recipient of numerous awards, presenting this opinion about a period as a fact related to ME and categorizing ME as such is source misinterpretation and a violation of WP:NPOV. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the categorisation, although I still consider it is accurate when it comes to his post-1991 work, I will look at further sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the sources are accurately represented in the article, and clearly say that ME was complicit in the wave of Serbian historiography that was described as eschewing the standards of international scholarship and concentrating exclusively on sectarian myths, resulting in the production of what has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory". So, whether he actually produced any pseudohistory himself is yet to be established, but he contributed to and participated in a wave that produced pseudohistory. These are not disparate statements cherry-picked from a source, they are clearly closely related, as one statement follows the other in a summary of the state of Serbian historiography at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

whether he actually produced any pseudohistory himself is yet to be established but you insist to connect ME with pseudohistory in the lede of the article. No. That is not how wikipedia should work. You violated several wikipedia policies and guidelines:

1. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is explicit: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.
2. What you did here is school example of violation of WP:OR policy. Although whether he actually produced any pseudohistory himself is yet to be established, just because he wrote books in the period that has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory" ME should linked to pseudohistory in the lede of the article.
3. Violation of WP:NPOV, labeling historians as pseudohistorians just because their works contradict your POV, (even within edit lines of Wikipedia edits violating WP:BLP) is not constructive, to put it mildly
4. Wikipedia:Verifiability (precisely WP:EXCEPTIONAL), you are quick to label member of multiple academies and recipient of numerous awards as pseudohistorian based on OR misinterpretation of a single source authored by an author who is Associate Professor.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing WP:EXCEPTIONAL about his work's assessment as pseudohistory - it belongs in the same group as that of many historians from the Balkans in the 1990s. If that assessment is disputed in international bibliography, the overview can change - but there is no other assessment about Ekmečić. Also, Peacemaker67 hasn't engaged in any BLP violation here - Ekmečić has been dead since 2015 and according to WP:BDP Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. --Maleschreiber (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Pragmatic approach to sources depending on their POV

I removed assertion about what Komšić said of ME and explained My removal "removed assertion based on Komšić, who is not independent from the subject" (diff).

With this edit (diff) editor Peacemaker67 reverted my removal of assertion which presents opinion of Željko Komšić about ME with explanation: He doesn't have to be independent.

Željko Komšić is a politician in Bosnia whose political position is controversial and disputed, while it is also directly opposed to ME activities. WP:RS insists on independent sources. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Komšić is NOT the source, the source is a reliably university published dissertation by a third party Spanish academic, Sasso, who is completely independent of the subject, and has specialised somewhat in BH. My point was that only Sasso has to be independent, not Komšić. Sasso interviewed Komšić and another politician (who corroborated what ME said during the negotiations) and clearly believed them. Sasso is not connected in any way to any side in the Bosnian War, so I fail to see where you are claiming bias from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sasso (2015) is a reliable independent source. Also, the account is from Ivo Komšić, not Željko Komšić.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Queries about source

Safet Bandažović appears to have a PhD equivalent and be a scientific adviser at the Institute of History at the University of Sarajevo. The Journal of the Center for Research of Modern and Contemporary History in Tuzla also seems to have an eminent editorial board (of which Bandažović is a member), so I think it is reliable. I will shortly fix the formatting of the citations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Source: (Public library "Dositej Obradović" Novi Pazar), Na Filozofskom fakultetu u Sarajevu odbranio je doktorsku tezu pod naslovom "Iseljavanje muslimanskog slavenskog stanovništva (Bošnjaka, Goranaca, Torbeša i dr.) iz Sandžaka, Makedonije i sa Kosova u Tursku (1912. - 1970.)". Radio je u Institutu za historiju u Banjoj Luci, Institutu za nacionalne odnose u Sarajevu, a sada radi u Institutu za historiju u Sarajevu...At the Faculty of Philosophy in Sarajevo, he defended his doctoral thesis entitled "Emigration of the Muslim Slavic population (Bosniaks, Gorani, Torbeš, etc.) from Sandžak, Macedonia and Kosovo to Turkey (1912-1970)". He worked at the Institute of History in Banja Luka, the Institute of National Relations in Sarajevo, and now works at the Institute of History in Sarajevo.[1] Mikola22 (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

He hasn’t reliably published any books, but I don’t think that is a big issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Have now created a full citation and converted the long in-line ones to sfn format. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Books of Safet Bandžović: "Ideja i iskustvo: jugoslavenski socijalizam i bošnjačka pozicija" (2017) [2], "Iseljavanje Bošnjaka u Tursku" (1994)[3], "Sandžak historija i činjenice" [4], "Iseljavanje Muslimana iz Sandžaka" (1991) [5], "Iskušenja historije" (1993) [6], "Ratne tragedije Muslimana" (1993) [7] Mikola22 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. I didn't find anything on Worldcat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Queries about possible source

This material is copied from my usertalkpage, but because it reflects on a suggested source, I think it should be included here as well:Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw your FAC withdrawal comment at this article about a bio in Serbo-Croatian. I am wondering whether you have already researched the reliability of the book, cause if you haven't I have a few comments about it which you might find helpful. Cheers, OakMapping (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

G’day OM. I haven’t had a chance to look at it yet. I am aware of some details about the author, publishing house and its owner and his background, but need to locate some reliable reviews of the book, which should exist given the subject was a prominent person. Searching and reading in Cyrillic hurts my brain, and it doesn’t appear to have been printed in Latin script, so anything you can help with in respect of locating reviews or with regards to the reliability would be of value. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a review of the book in Serbo-Croatian in the journal Istorija 20 veka, you can access it via CEEOL using TWL, here's the link, but I haven't found any others. Regarding the publishing houses and editors, there's a bit I would like to say. It has been published by Novosti a.d. and Naš Pečat, companies that publish Večernje Novosti and Pečat respectively, which I would say are not reliable at all. If the worldcat is right, the book was edited by editors-in-chief of these two newspapers, which for sure doesn't make it more reliable. All in all, I doubt this source can be used in a FA, but you're more experienced than me so read the review at CEEOL and judge for yourself. Let me know what you have decided and whether I can help any further with this book, OakMapping (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll have a look. Presumably you are referring to Milorad Vučelić? Bearing in mind the BLP guidelines, what in addition to the material that is in his article would be relevant to his reliability as editor? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to Milorad Vučelić. He was a member of the executive board of the Socialist Party of Serbia during the 90s. He was also the General Director of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) from 1992–95, i.e. during the Yugoslav wars. I believe you are aware of the propaganda of the RTS in that period. OakMapping (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, have now read the review. The book might be worth reading for interest, although the review makes it clear that it is based on eleven interviews with Ekmečić and one of his speeches (so useful at least to provide his views given he didn't give many interviews), whether there is any analysis of what he said is an open question, and there are questions about why the filmmaker Emir Kusturica was chosen to write the preface of a book about a historian. Kusturica was clearly a fan, but it makes one wonder why an eminent Serb historian was not chosen to write it. The book apparently also has serious limitations regarding his confusing attitudes to socialism, serious gaps regarding his political activity, and even his period at Sarajevo is apparently unreliable according to the reviewer, Dr Nikola Mijatov, a historian at the Institute. I'll have to think about it, as getting access to a copy will be hard (the Serbian bookstore in Australia doesn't have it) and probably expensive, and given the absolute dross [8] and genocide denial [9] apparent on the Pečat website, given it is the publisher I'm just not sure it would be worth it in terms of being reliable enough at FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I could maybe get the book but I can't guarantee anything. If I get my hands on it I can give you more details about it and send you the interviews and the speech parts via email. I doubt the rest of the book will be of much use anyway. During the next week, I will be quite busy with IRL stuff so I'll try to get the book after that. OakMapping (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated, there’s no rush as I have plenty of FAC candidates either ready or nearly ready for nomination. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

References