Talk:Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik

Harris v. V. A. Fine

So after the recent anonymous edits, we have a bit of an incongruity in the background section - they reference Robin Harris's 2006 history book (presumably [1]), which seems to prefer the Croatian terminology while the existing reference there is from John V. A. Fine's 2010 history book which does not do so. Are these two actually comparable? --Joy (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2006, Fine published a study of notions of ethnicity in Croatia from the medieval period to the nineteenth century titled When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. Neven Budak of the University of Zagreb gave a mixed review, noting both some positive and negative aspects. On the negative side, Budak complained alleging "ideological prejudices" and "preconceived conclusions". He claimed that "the author did not prepare methodologically, nor did he become acquainted with the relevant works of non-Croatian authors", that Fine's approach to the topic "contrary to stated intentions - is traditionalist in its method, superficial and unreliable", alleging inappropriate "attitude towards Croats". 46.188.178.195 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of Budak's criticism of Fine's methodology, but I'm not sure that two wrongs make a right. Has Harris' book been reviewed by Budak or another historian of similar stature, and have they examined the same methodological questions? --Joy (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Read first Budak's review on Fine's book so we can talk about it. Mr. Fine considers that there were no Croats (Slavs) or Croatia (Velebitija). Not to mention his other problematic views;

"And, thus, in this go-around of the 1990s, divisive ethnicity (arising out of economic difficulties and played by ambitious politicians) succeeded in destroying, at least for the present, the Once and Future Yugoslavia." (p.562)

https://hrcak.srce.hr/49246?lang=en 46.188.178.195 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, this escalated quickly. That's a blatant misrepresentation of both Budak's review and Fine's book. Please find a better hobby, don't try to abuse Wikipedia like this, it's just bad. --Joy (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess Fine's "When Ethnicity..." should be quoted carefully because it seems he wrote many misconceptions and misconclusions about Croatian-Hungarian-Venetian history, and the Slavic and Croatian identity (although giving plenty of evidence for otherwise being interchangeable). As can be read, his bold conclusions are based on his definition and personal-idealistic sentiment as shown on:

pg. 6 "After all, if Yugoslavia had found a way to make being Yugoslav into a primary loyalty, something more than a state name, the Croats and Serbs might have blended into becoming ethnic Yugoslavs (keeping their Croat and Serb aspects as regional affliations like regional pride among Americans), just as the different tribes who populated what became France and Germany eventually allowed themselves to become Frenchmen and Germans. With a different location and history, the South Slavs might long ago have been able to achieve this. After all, the various Croatian and Serbian dialects were no more different from one another than the various French and German dialects that were overcome to create those two states"

pg. 13 "I have defined above what I mean by “ethnicity”; many Yugoslavs seem to use the term “ethnic” whenever a people (or given individuals) is labeled by a national/ethnic (e.g., Croat/Serb) name. I believe that even by the Yugoslav defnition, if we exclude clearly political unit references, we have, as shall be demonstrated in my text, only ten or so references from the Middle Ages in what we think of now as Croatia that could be called ethnic; if we use my defnition, we have only a Novi Vinodol priest from 1493 and then, even in the sixteenth century, only a few intellectuals. However, though the Middle Ages are as clear as can be as to the nonexistence of a Croat ethnicity, the issue becomes more complicated after 1500, as the reader will see in the last two chapters..."

pg. 14 "These factors may change, so the Slavs or Illyrians of the eighteenth century could and did turn into the Croats of the twentieth century who may become South Slavs (Yugoslavs) or even Istrians, Dalmatians, and Slavonians in the twenty-fifth century" (?!)

pg. 15 "Just as one could imagine, say in 1965 or 1980, within the Republic of Croatia in Tito’s Yugoslavia, that though some people (as we know) clearly did feel Croat, others bought into Yugoslavia and felt Yugoslav, and some others might have remained or even then come to be provincial and felt Dalmatian or Istrian" (?!)

pg. 20 "So, the mere acquisition of a “Croat” identity label in itself may be of no ethnic significance. I may move to New York City—God forbid—and call myself and be referred to by others as a “New Yorker,” but this label will not reflect anything essential about the way I view my own identity. And, I believe the evidence bears out the conclusion that in most examples provided by our sources the use of a specific identity term for an individual in Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, or elsewhere was no more significant to that individual than my example of acquiring the “New Yorker” label" (?!)

pg. 114 "If one believes in the Yugoslav ideal, as I do, one can regret anything that divided any two parts of the Serbo-Croat people".

pg. 133 "A Venetian report also provides an ethnic reference (at least one in the looser Yugoslav sense, as defined in the introduction, but with no detail to support its being included or not under my defnition). In this report, written in 1481 at the conclusion of his term as a commissioner on the island of Krk, the Venetian Antonio Vinciguerra referred to Count John (Zuane) (Ivan Frankapan), then head of the family of Krk princes, as being of Croat nationality (de natione Crovata). This, of course, is a late text, and a Venetian in previous centuries, judging from the many Venetian texts we have, would certainly not have described John in this way. However, the Frankapan family, as we shall see, was active in commanding armies levied in Croatia against the Turks, and John may well have picked up a feeling of being “Croat” in some way which he passed on to the Venetian. It is a pity that we do not have more information on what John (or the Venetian) believed was necessary for one to be included in the Croat “nation.”"

...and so on, this is some postmodernistic deconstructionist methodological-God forbid-whatever superficiality.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski that is all fine and well, but it's still playing into our anonymous editor's narrative of basically bashing something we don't like without looking at the entire picture. There are three other reviews referenced in the John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. article, all of which are described in positive terms and referenced to what seem to be the same level of reliable sources, so can you please give a coherent view of these and likewise provide the same for Harris? And hopefully we can round it out by seeing how this all actually ties in in the background section on the Serb-Catholic movement article, because we want to explain to the reader how it was actually possible for a part of the city's intelligentsia to just switch national allegiances for a while as they did here. --Joy (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your 10 edits without any sources where you just replaced every mention of "Croatian" to "Slavic" in my quotes from Harris, Lodge & Pugh escalated the issue. Misrepresentation is that Budak had "mixed" review, it was "negative". Not to mention your Ad hominem attacks; first you accused in private talk to be some "Kubura" and now "I should find a better hobby, don't try to abuse Wikipedia like this, it's just bad." It'is bad, and it will be reported. 46.188.142.181 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You're very adept at this kind of wikilawyering, which makes me believe we're dealing with repeat business here. We're bashing the long-standing consensus about Fine's work being used across Wikipedia without a problem, without giving any thought to answering a simple question about the other work. That is not an actual discussion about the application of WP:V, it's just an Internet flamewar where you're trying to score points, which is a misuse of Wikipedia talk pages. --Joy (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)