Talk:Serbian historiography

GA nomination?

I would not recommend this GA nomination. The article includes small sections of various views on themes, by large where the "official" or "nationalist" Serbian historiography clashes with Bosnian, Croatian or Albanian historiographies, and not the actual course of Serbian historiography.--Zoupan 20:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I agree. I would strongly suggest removing the GA nomination. The article is fairly poor at the moment: 2 sections, one of which has 26 subsections (most of which are very short) is ridiculous. It also needs some spelling/grammar corrections. ~barakokula31 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Zoupan. WP:COATRACK. 23 editor (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Serbian historiography. The sources refer to historiography in Serbia, its processes, development and those involved. Historiography is written by historians (hence included in this article, its why the Serbian ones who have had most impact are included), and the sources refer to that. I structured the article the way Historiography of Albania was structured by Antidiskriminator who included a themes section too. Yes there but no in here ? I still fail to see how this article clashes with Bosnian, Croatian or Albanian historiographies? The themes and views of those historiographies are not noted in here and only content relating to Serbian historiography and the dominant historiographical perspectives within it. Wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources note that Serbian historiography is imbued heavily with nationalist influences. That is cited because it is not contested by even Serbian scholars who have written in wp:reliable and wp:secondary sources. Are they wrong and if so how (and please provide wp:reliable and wp:secondary, not personal opinion)? Is this a case of wp:idontlikeit ? As for spelling mistakes point them out and i will deal with them. If this article has other multiple issues point them out here too. I have access to a lot of good and strong scholarship. Guys check every single source - follow the weblink and it will take you directly go to the source. These are all accessible. I also want to note that i extensively looked through google books using multiple search terms and exhausted the process online (and then at the library at my university). Many of you if you so wish can do the same and you will come across the sources i have or other ones - if so do add. On the themes thing, if you guys want we can lump some of the themes into 4 or 5 sections, i.e Medieval era, Ottoman era, Kosovo, etc etc and then smaller subsections. Best. Resnjari (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand what the article should be about, but this does not look like it. its processes, development and those involved are lacking. Neither this article nor Historiography of Albania are GA-worthy. You did not answer to this fact, but "defended" the themes. As for these, they should indeed be balanced, instead of this finger-pointing, generalization and cherrypicking.--Zoupan 23:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I'll clear up a few things on my part. One i based the structure of this article on the one that Antidiskriminator had set out with the Albanian historiography layout. Since no one had issues with a themes section being there (for many years) i decided to replicate it here. As for deficiencies with that yeah there might be as there probably is more stuff out there and room for expansion on the Alb historiography article. More about Enver's nationalistic influences especially Islamophobia and Turkophobia still resident in Albanian historiography needs to be covered. On Serbian historiography, it is heavily imbued with a Serbian nationalist component and historiography in Serbia was used for political and other societal purposes (Perica outlines this in depth [1]) and so do others. Bieber and Galijas [2], is the most recent (2016) in their work do state that its only in a post-Milosevic era (2000 onward) that a new group of Serbian historians have emerged challenging the older group of the nationalist-patriotic group. In scholarship not much has been written analysing the position of this new emerging group and their positions on issues. I searched and searched and this is what came up. You can do the same if you so wish. If you have come across additional stuff, do add. Sources/references within this article are accessible through weblinks except Anscombe. Anyone wanting that journal article i can send it to them (if so ping me). Content is based on wp:reliable and wp:secondary and sentences are based on that content and not fingerpointing (consult sources for more and double check it and the sentences based on that content). Apart from that, on the themes matter, it covers a wide array of subjects and topics. There is no cherry picking. The sources directly refer to Serbian historiography and Serbian historians (the producers of Serbian history) within the context of a topic they are referring too and hence catered for in the themes section. Serbian historiography holds many historiographical positions on topics/subjects and this article is about historiography in Serbia and all of that relates to historiography in Serbia. Why should that be omitted from the article ? We can come up with a better and simpler structure for organising the sections like i proposed ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Still doesn't clear up your position on how this article is GA, which is what we are talking about here, not how you mirrored the article or how the themes are reliably sourced. There are countless monographs on the course of Serbian historiography, none of which are used in the article. I suggest you retract the nomination and let us work on this high-importance article from the start, building it up as it should be.--Zoupan 10:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Working on a restructure of the themes section after receiving some recent advice. Themes however are reliably sourced. Sources meet wp:reliable and wp:secondary. As i have said previously, consult them one by one -the cited pages are available through their weblinks if hard copies of the book are unavailable to attain. GA wont be taken up immediately anyway and when its does get there it wont hurt if it passes or fails. Good recommendations are made even it fails because editors not associated with the editing of the page can look at it with fresh eyes. "There are countless monographs", in English or Serbian ? The ones in English after using search terms such as Serb/ian historiography and Serb/ian historians yielded these and i added to the article. There might be more. If you come across them then add to the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

...Amazing how you are replying three times without adressing the actual issue. Is the article GA-worthy or not? No. The article lacks the actual course of Serbian historiography, that is, the evolution from medieval hagiographies, medieval and early modern chronicles, Serbian renaissance, enlightenment and beginning of modern Serbian historiography (including movements in Habsburgs, Venice, Ragusa, Austria-Hungary), Romanticism, Serbian national interest and its influence on historiography in the Principality of Serbia, importance of Serbian epic poetry, Yugoslavist [and/versus] pan-Serb historiography, expansion and political questions in the Interwar period (post-unification), Socialist historiography (post-World War II), nationalist resurge in the 1980s, Yugoslav breakup, contemporary... Isn't it obvious that this subject needs serious consideration, and not this drive-by nomination? You've worked extensively on the subject of Islam in Albania (good job), but somehow decided to nominate this article? I have no idea how you reasoned.--Zoupan 12:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

I don't think this is GA-ready on en WP. The lead mentions four stages of Serbian historiography, and if these are established stages identified in the academic study of the subject, the article should follow them, rather than what is essentially a list of themes. The content of the themes should therefore be broken up into the four stages. Just a suggestion at this stage, but this doesn't look anything like a GA at this point. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

.Thank you, 67.--Zoupan 13:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

ok, i'll withdraw GA until issues are worked out and other content added. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Generalizations

One of the problems this article faces is generalized statements such as "Serbian historiography believes this..." and "Serbian historiography says that..." Which historians? From which period? Such statements infer homogeneity of opinion regarding historical matters, which isn't the case in any country's academic/scholarly community, except maybe North Korea's. 23 editor (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. ~Serbian historians are lying xenophobes. Either we continue this finger-pointing by adding all controversial statements and ideas=coat-racking, going further off-topic; expand by including all views in Serbian historiography on all themes, including non-Serbian arguments=balance, but overkill; drum roll... remove generalizations (themes)? Some central themes in Serbian nationalist historiography may warrant inclusion (if relevant), but it should be done effectively. --Zoupan 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Its all good to say about doing something effectively, but then deleting something in whole [3] without offering some kind of suggestions first about how to proceed in the talkpage, doesn't go toward being effective. Its more on the wp:idontlikeit side. Serbian historiography contains a whole host of views and the scholarly analysis is what it is - the sources don't refer to Serbian historians being "xenophobes" etc and nor do those Western sources use those terms, but they do point out the issues with nationalism. Literally everything available on google books and available through a library in book form was sought for the writing of this article -Balance is provided -and for those doing a search themselves, you will encounter the same sources. A little concerned about the reasons for deletion without some real attempt in the talkpage to work things out. If there is an assumption that there is much here, each piece on content can be transferred to individual articles of the views/positions of Serbian historiography relating to a certain subject matter, as the content meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. There are some parts that can be integrated into the main body as well.Resnjari (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

With no additional reply were given here and after much reflection, I have integrated the many subsections of the themes section into 5 main subsections. No content text was changed or altered, however some sentences were moved and placed into relevant new subsections. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari I just looked over the page from the perspective of dealing with NPOV issues, and for the most part I think it is okay. Many nations, especially Balkan nations, have had their historians scrutinized for exhibiting biases and participating in the nation building process and this certainly isn't limited to Serbia, as we also have Albanian historiography, Romanian historiography, Croatian historiography and so on, and all of these are respected meta-field studies. Indeed on wikipedia you yourself Resnjari have added much text by authors critical of Albanian historiography to pages like Albanian nationalism so if there is an accusation of anti-Serbian POV pushing by yourself, the natural extension is that you Resnjari are also a particularly rabid anti-Albanian POV-pusher--- which is ridiculous, I don't buy it. Of course historiography has themes especially where they are involved in nationalism -- so does Albanian historiography, and indeed the role of historians and others in spreading myths and themes associated with the nation building process is covered on Albanian nationalism pages, and was written by Resnjari.

I do have a couple suggestions. First of all, there are some cases where the accusation of 'generalizations' is valid. For example: Serbian historians dispute the argument that Albanians are the descendants of ancient Illyrians and being established in the region prior to the Slavs. This is not universally true. There are in fact Serbian historians that have supported Illyrian-Albanian continuity. The archaeologist Garasanin was one. Around the late 1980s he mysteriously changed his views, but this still does prove that the statement that "Serbian historians" as a unit dispute Illyrian-Albanian continuity doesn't hold. It should be "most" or "some". There are a couple similar examples elsewhere on the page; some xenophobic and ethnocentric aspects in Serbian historiography have been criticized within Serbia and that is also worth including, so it doesn't look like we're painting all Serbian historians as monsters. On a side note, I think it might be appropriate, since we cover Serbian historiographical views of Medieval and Modern history, to also have a small section for views of antiquity, where Illyrian issues can be discussed. Stipchevich wrote a paper, in fact, on the views of Illyrians and Illyrian-Albanian issues among Serbian historians, so that may be of use.--Calthinus (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Calthinus, i am strictly going by the scholarship, as per wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Of course historians have had their own separate or diverging views. Writing an article such as this, even with the page name is basically looking at Serb scholarship as a whole, so in that sense it could also be considered a generalisation. All sources used however have the terms "Serbian historiography", "Serb/Serbian historians" etc and those key words relate directly to article content with non-Serb scholars looking at the issue of Serbian historiography. These cited scholars have looked at many texts from Serbian scholarship with after noting something on a certain position. All sources used are what you will find on google books, if you did a search using search terms (as noted in previous sentences) -and i made sure to include everything -i didn't do a google scholar one though as at the time i was overwhelmed with reading on the subject. I just made this article more manageable with condensing it into 5 subsections on the Themes section. There is heaps more room for expansion, as its around 3,500 words and wiki guidelines say an article can go up to 4,000-10,000 words (WP:LENGTH). Stipchevich would be a good addition (need to fill me in on that one), on Garasanin you need to fill me in as well. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My comment was in the context of the article's past GA nomination and the discussion resulting from that. Indeed, "the historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches" as we note here on the topical page on wiki. As for Garasanin and Stipchevich, I will try to relocate the links. --Calthinus (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Hopefully in future this article can go to a GA. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

The article is too focused on shortcomings in historiography and criticism. Although there are many so-called “fraction” in Serbian historiography, not just nationalist biased. For example, one of more recent paper describes Serbian historiography, referring to these “fractions” and mentioning the increasing publication of Serbian historians in international journals and participation in conferences. Also, the category of historical revisionism is not justified, not even of anti-Turkism.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I found an accessible copy of the article you refer to [4]. Its valid to this article. The scholar Axboe Nielsen does not contradict RS sources that are used in the wiki article. He even states that his focus is not past history of which many scholars have analysis but the period, post 1991, and in particular the twenty first century: p.91. "Although I focus on the twentieth century, I have decided to exclude the Serbian historiography of the collapse of Yugoslavia and the ensuing wars. A number of historians in Serbia have engaged with this topic and continue to do so, but a survey of it and the attendant controversies would at a minimum require a separate article. My hope is that the present piece will succeed in acquainting a broader audience with significant newer trends and names in Serbian historiography as well as detailing the often pervasively politicised environment in which historians operate in Serbia." When i expanded the wiki article which was about 3 years ago, the only RS source that i could find (and i went through all the google book and scholar search results on this topic) about the modern period discussing Serb historiography of about a decade or so was Bieber. More RS sources will come through as scholars analyse newer Serb historiography. You are more than welcome to expand the article like with this source. I think though your tags are misplaced as what you say in your previous comment is not supported by Axboe Nielsen. Please show why the tags are needed over coming days, otherwise they will be removed. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the article focuses mostly on the shortcomings of a group of Serbian historians, ignoring the entire scope, even in previous periods. The templates will remain until it is corrected, whoever rewrite the article.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Shortcomings are just one part of it. A large chunk of the article actually gives details about Serb histriographical positions it held over time, and yes they have issues and have been noted in RS. Glossing over that would be undue. The article does give scope to the modern time period (late 19th-century-1990s). Its reflective of what each contents states about the subject and i tried to include as much as possible for the source into the wiki article and not to cherry pick something negative while leaving a positive out. You can go over the sources one by one. If you did a google books search, etc of terms like Serb/Serbian historians, or Serb/Serbian historiography, that is what will come up. If you come across more content about the post 2000 period, that would be good. Bieber is good, but really a starter. Axboe Nielsen notes that the post 2000 period has not attracted much analysis of Serb historiography outside the Balkans and he attempts to start filling the gap. If you feel the article needs more on scope, you can always add provided your sources are solid. As i said, i'm of the view your tags are misplaced. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

One part, but not the largest part. It is clear that there are shortcomings and that everything is described in the literature, but here they are described in too much detail. All the time, there have been a significant number of Serbian historians who were critics of nationalist bias, especially of historical revisionism. For example, the article mentions Dubravka Stojanović's criticism of some Serbian historians, and does not mention her contribution to historiography etc.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a source looking at Dubravka and her work, use it. On shortcomings etc, RS scholarship outside the Balkans has mainly focused on these things about Serb historiography, and hence its reflected in the composition of the article. As i said i worked with what was available and met the criteria of RS. In a google books search, that's what will come up page after page on sources. If you got RS like the Axboe Nielsen journal article, and it deals with other aspects that you refer too, by all means edit. Best.Resnjari (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed templates. The article is written more than well enough according to RS.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

No it clearly isn't. Revisionism and negationism are strong threads in the subject area since 1990 at least, and are currently under-represented in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

For example? Can you cite any secondary or tertiary RS? Since you have some knowledge about it would you be interested to include more info about "revisionism and negationism"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is heavily skewed to what Serbian historians have said about Serbian historiography. There are dozens of non-Serb POV RS published outside Yugoslavia and Serbia out there that examine aspects of Serbian historiography, some are used in the article but cherry-picked for a particular POV. Nielsen, Ramet, Anzulovic, Perica, Judah, Byford, Jareb, Lazić and Kolstø for example. Also, Stojanović is a stand-out among Serbian historians in this area and should be used more. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you on? Those people you mentioned are cherry picked examples of anti-Serb hysteria, some of them are not even historians (and they are not RS). You are mentioning Stojanović like some stand-out that needs to be mentioned. She is a opportunist who found a niche where she can take a dump on anything Serb-related and make a name of herself by doing so. She is not even renowned enough to be mentioned.

And that thing about "heavily skewed"... if Serb historians are not competent enough to say anything about Serbian historiography then no one is. 212.178.241.246 (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC) (this is a blocked sock)

My point about POV IPs in the other thread is just as relevant here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Anzulovic

For some years now Albanian, Croatian (and apparently some Australian) editors have been pushing highly controversial source on this page: Branimir Anzulovics Heavenly Serbia: From myth to genocide. It is my firm belief that this author and its book should be removed:

1. Anzulovic was not a professor of history, but of something else, and from what I can see this is the only book he has ever published. It looks like one of those books published in the last two decades by Croat authors who push for historical revisionism.

2. During the 60s and 70s Anzulovic contributed articles to Studia croatica [5] and Hrvatska revija, who were published by Ustashe immigrants in South America, and that says even more about his political affiliation.

3. Several historians have criticized his book (but not many bothered because they did not even consider him a historian) and I think it is very inappropriate to put such author here as someone who can explain Serbian historiography (a man who was not professor of history and had Ustasha ties).

212.178.224.144 (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to add why are you even replying? 212.178.224.144 (talk) 09:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m telling you what to do if you want to get consensus it is unreliable. Otherwise it is you that are wasting your time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

So, we cannot reach consensus here? 212.178.224.144 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

To the IP, i added Anzulovic, because his book meets wiki criteria of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SECONDARY, i.e published via New York University Press etc. A scholar's ethnic or linguistic background is not something used in wikipedia to determine if a source goes in or out of a wiki article. Also having a go at people from where they are from, like myself from Australia will get you nowhere.Resnjari (talk) 10:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I could see his book does not meet those requirements you posted, his book being published by NYU Press does not mean it is a good or historic source. I was not mentioning his ethnic or linguistic background I mentioned his political background, his ties to Ustasha emmigration in South America. I mentioned where people are from because I saw a pattern, people of those origins push a Ustasha revisionist author who was not professor of history. I was not talking about you when I mentioned Australians, but looking at your edits and your talk page I can see you are probably Albanian and that you are pushing your Albanian narrative into articles. 212.178.224.144 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari, I suggest you do not engage with random “new” IPs on talk pages. It is a waste of time, generally on these types of pages they are logged-out POV warriors or meat puppets, who refuse to use established noticeboards because they know they will be given short shrift by the community. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Discredit my arguments, not my IP. Also, nice projection there, mate. 212.178.224.144 (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the thread was opened and i was involved anyway, i thought i should say something about the source. But your right Peacemaker67, my bad. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the IP is indeed a puppet account. They undid edits I made to another article related to the Balkans and similar topic areas meaning they were alerted to changes. Something you need an account to do.OyMosby (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I deem evidence proving my suspicions where they are edit warring [HERE] in an article of Balkan similar topics. OyMosby (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what all your insults mean, but it sure is better to be that than a Ustashe revisionist like you people here. 212.178.224.144 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

We along with Ana Antić, a Serb historian are “Ustahse revisionists”. Got it. Thanks for educating us. Or should I say attempts Gaslighting us with YOUR projections. OyMosby (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

But you are not Ana Antic. I have no idea who you are, all I know is that you consider Anzulovic to be reliable source (you mentioned that on other talk page), a man who wrote only one book in his life about history (and he was not historian) and who had ties to Ustasha emmigration in South America. 212.178.224.144 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I never said I was her. But you accused me of vandalizing Serbian wiki articles and accused me of revisionism on the Banjica Concentration Camp article. When you demanded a sources I showed her and you still ignored and undid my edits. Enough with these games. And your puppet IPs such as [HERE]OyMosby (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

This thread is a waste of time. POV IPs like this are a dime-a-dozen in the Balkans area. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:@OyMosby:@Resnjari: I have struck all the IP edits based on the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theonewithreason.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Colour me surprised. And thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: and @Maleschreiber: Yeah not worth wasting time with them. Good work. Rinse and repeat. OyMosby (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber thanks. Much appreciated.Resnjari (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)