Talk:Old Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. 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. Wikipedia 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 [1]; Boskovska 2017 [2]; Rama 2019 [3]; Madgearu & Gordon 2008 [4]). 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 [5] 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 [6] 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. [7] 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 [8]. 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)

Sadko, please don't remove Ktrimi991's additions. They deal directly with the topic and are RS. I double checked and added the relevant weblinks so anyone can also do the same.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari and Jingiby: regardless of what sources currently on the page say, there are at least 42 scholarly papers discussing Serbianization in the context of "Old Serbia" [9], and then 22 when it's Serbianisation [10] -- as is to be expected for a term that emerged as propaganda to emphasize some two centuries of medieval Serbian rule in "Old Serbia" while erasing its Albanian population and its deep Bulgarian heritage (and population). Example of a paper explicitly discussing the two in conjunction [11].--Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, nice find. Thank you. Looks like i got a lot of reading to do over coming days. This article is in for a major revamp. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You added a bunch of content which is not notable for the article and only gives broader information which are only loosely connected to Old Serbia and could be placed on more appropriate articles. Adding Načertanije is a nice touch. It reads like original research and, no Rama is not that notable scholar. Nothing more than Carl Savich for that matter. Plus, his info is plain wrong and it is his research. Did you read anything by Petar II Petrović-Njegoš and Petar I Petrović-Njegoš (correspondence and literary works as well)? I guess that he didn't. I don't see the proposal to discuss the added content with other editors (which is altering the article quite a bit), while I have seen tha cases of the same editors pushing undos on edits with the same diff ("talk to the talk page", "discuss first" and such). It makes me wonder... I will do a major clean-up of the article once you add your content. And no, I don't care for the fact that Old Serbia was used in propagandistic purposes from time to time. Plus, the fact that Serbian state ruled some 2 and half centuries over the area is nothing compared to the fact that Serbs lived in the greater part of that area for ~1500 years (parts of Macedonia included). I will kindly advise you to make tweaks regarding the tone and style of the new info and stop cherry-picking and utterly politicising the article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rama is RS. Slavs lived in Rashka, Kosovo, Macedonia for awhile, but Serbian and Bulgarian state identities came later and spread through a top-down process. Except in purely Serbian Rashka, both identities had plenty of history, so Old Serbia could just as easily be "Old Bulgaria plus Rashka" (yes, Kosovo too was Bulgarian before it was Serbian; even Serbian authors ″recognize this). Don't take it from me though. Better just leave it to the provided RS.--Calthinus (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

His info is not correct and I explained why. If I was to provide a ref. which would give a claim different to the info. given by Rama, what would be your suggestion that we do next? Rama's work is indeed original reserach and it is pretty much copied to this article! Serbs and other Slavs lived and live in Raska, Kosovo and Macedonia for about 1500 years (give or take), that is not "for a while". White American citizens and their ancestors live in USA for a while. Of course that it was Bulgarian, most of the Balkans was Bulgarian at some point, because their state was a conquering warrior empire, which came from the east and later got slavicized. Bulgarian identity was not present in all parts of Macedonia. That is just wishful thinking.Things are more complicated. I can claim that Serb identity was present in the west, north and north-west of modern day North Macedonia. If that was not the case, there would be no struggle for Macedonia. And their identity was not only "forced" by the Serbian state like some people fantasize, but it was a part of common heritage (epic poems on king Marko, influence by the SOC, Kosovo myth and the whole lot). Once again: Wikipedia is not an essay, NO original research allowed, most of the info is broader, spam and has nothing to do with the main line of the article but it only scrams "Bad, bad Serbian state assimilating and attacking all of it's poor neighbours" (which steems from personal feelings and is biased). That is the gist of it. The added content is also a sneaky way of pushhing the POV that only in the 19th century Serbs "decided" that Kosovo is "the heart of Serbia". That is both ironic and moronic. It is ironic because it was only in the late 19th century that Albanians became the majority in modern-day territory of Kosovo and it is funny because Great Migrations of the Serbs made sure that the idea that Kosovo was "a holy place" was spread out to most areas where Serbs lived. It was also very much alive in the 18th century Montenegro (check it, be my guest) and lastly it was updated in the 19th century with the Serbian Revival. Therefore, the idea pushed here, that Old Serbia was/is nothing but a propagandistic term which was made up in order to conquer Kosovo (something which would be "repeated" in the 1990s), simply holds no water. I see the ideas pushed here, it's simply weak and not per history but one side's view. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than the colorful and highly spicy soup above, why not just post such a source that gives a different POV, and then we can discuss that, rather than your opinion of your colleagues?--Calthinus (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus "Spicy soup" (I can mostly agree with the description) is only per the current mess, that is this essay-like text which has been pushed in the article. It is just ridiculous, in poor style, connecting dots all over the place, making mistakes with Serbian names (Naćertanije), quoting Rama who is doing his own thing (original research), formulating and accentuates content from a clear Kosovar POV (regardless if you realise it or not). I will not fight windmills, but this TP will be present and available for the next generation of editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)