Jump to content

Talk:Serbs of Croatia/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Serbs of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Serbs of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Serbs of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Serbs of Croatia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Lead

First of all, I would like to make it clear to all the other editors that I wasn't behind, probably an organized, malicious attempt to discredit me that took place yesterday with "user" Pippop/93.138.15.104 which I just become aware of.

@Mm.srb (talk · contribs), term "persecution" is the term used in the main article about the subject and it most certainly does not represent "watering down" or "political correctness", but is, in fact, the only right term that can be used to describe this subject about which there is clearly still no (academic) consensus. For example, look at the book by David Bruce MacDonald - Balkan Holocausts?: Serbian and Croatian Victim Centered Propaganda and the War in Yugoslavia, which is in fact used as a source, in which the author clearly says: <"While I'm not persuaded of a Serbian Genocide in the 1940s, this argument was made recently by Damir Mirkovich (...). Problematically, however, Mirkovich fails to convince us of the past when he applies his research to the present, citing 1941 " genocide "... (...) My personal opinion is that genocide of Serbs or Croats in the occupied and divided Yugoslavia during the Second World War is very difficult to prove. While the Genocide Convention does use the term "in part", the purpose of genocide traditionally has been to eliminate a group in its entirety. A related problem is that propagandisation of the number of dead... Mirkovich's research, as well as that of Batkovich and others, is rife with anti-Croatian vocabulary, not only from the past but also in the present."> Term "persecution" is absolutely in line with the NPOV policy and is in fact broad enough to encompass all forms of hardship Serbs were subjected to during WWII by the Ustashe. United Union (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

United Union, do you know if there are academic sources that discuss what the consensus is with regards to the massacre? --MrClog (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@MrClog (talk · contribs), I'm not aware of publications that specifically discuss the consensus, but as I said, there are relevant scientists that question whether genocide is an appropriate term to be used, like already mentioned D. B. MacDonald or, for example, dr. Alexander Korb of the Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, who is a renowned expert and an author of a number of publications on the matter, which certainly implies lack of consensus. And I'm not even going to mention local, Croatian and Serbian scientists or get into the whole "number of victims" issue, which ranges significantly based on who you ask, which just shows how much in-depth research this topic still requires. Nevertheless, I'm repeating that I do not claim that genocide did not happen, that's not my point here, all I'm saying is that I believe that the term "persecution" would be more in line with the NPOV as it would, in fact, include genocide, but also other malfeasances such as conversions or deportations. United Union (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Many authors in the genocide studies-journals have defined that tragedy specifically as a genocide. (1, 2, 3, 4). The main Holocaust memorial, the originator of the Genocide Convention and the Croatian and Bosnian heads of state did the same (and, of course, the high officials of Serbia and Republika Srpska). Indeed, it is definitely not a POV and it is not difficult to prove. Any attempt to avoid to mention a genocide is in fact denial. There are many deniers of all genocide examples even among academic sources. Highlighting some exceptions is a WP:GEVAL, especialy when we talk about topics like this. There is no reason to downplay the fascists' crimes.-- WEBDuB (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that regarding this issue we have to give overwelming credit to academic sources and reliable institutions. On the other side, declarations comming from politicians hardly have any more weight than the act itself. Specially in the Balkans where we had cases of politicians changing their claims 180º over one same issue. Academic sources provide us valuable content in respect of an event in question, wereas, politicians provide us just their reactions. I would be carefull not to mix the two. FkpCascais (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Various authors can write anything, that it was genocide and it was not, today everyone can be an author and put their POV. For this, there are international institutions of courts around the world that determine crimes.

@FkpCascais (talk · contribs) Definitely, but it should always be mentioned when officials acknowledge genocide. @LerisBiot (talk · contribs), International courts cannot formally rule on genocides that occurred before the Convention was adopted (1948), but certainly historians and other institutions often reach their conclusions (for example Armenian Genocide, Assyrian genocide...).-- WEBDuB (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

There are historians who disagree with this, so anyone can write what they want, without an international tribunal these are speculations,and wikipedia does not deal with this.

International tribunals can adjudicate someone for violating the principles of the Convention, but historians, scholarss, memorial centers, institutes etc. can describe the nature of the crime. We have a large number of articles about genocide without judgment of tribunal. Even Croatian presidents, including nationalist Franjo Tuđman who was accused of history revisionism and of downplaying the Holocaust victims, have acknowledged that genocide has taken place, especially in Jasenovac. Of course there is observes who disagree with the classification, every genocide has deniers. It is an integral part and the last stage of the genocide. In this case, it's a WP:GEVAL. Many relevant sources talk about this, and there is no reason to downplay the fascists' crimes and to cite genocide deniers. P.S. @LerisBiot (talk · contribs), please, sign your posts (WP:SIGHOW). -- WEBDuB (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this is a propaganda article or Wikipedia article?

History, Medieval history, part of the article I quote: "According to Srđa Trifković, by the mid-14th century Serbs were present around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača there was an Orthodox majority." According historical written documents Serbs are mentioned around Cetina river together with Vlachs and Croats[1] and in the Žumberak area along with the Vlachs.[2] These two mentions of Serbs are significant written records that mention Serbs in Croatia(Dalmatia to western Slavonia). There is no mention of Serbs I quote "around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača" therefore it is a lie and Srđa Trifković did not prove it with anything because Serbs are not mentioned in writing. Let's move on, I quote: "According to Yugoslav ethnologist Jovan Erdeljanović, members of the Orlović clan settled in Lika and Senj in 1432, later joining the Uskoks." What does this have to do with Serbs when they are not mentioned there(in historical documents)? Let's move on, I quote: "Serbs are reported in Hungarian documents as living in Croatia in 1437 (three documents call the Serbs in Syrmia and Slavonia as Rascianos–Rascians)" Yes and? From western Slavonia to Dubrovnik 90% of written documents mention Vlachs that originally has nothing to do with Serbians or Rascianos–Rascians. Let's move on, I quote: "and on 22 November 1447, the Hungarian King Ladislaus V wrote a letter which mentioned "Rascians, who live in our cities of Medvedgrad, Rakovac, both Kalinik and in Koprivnica" Yes and? What does Rascians have to do with Orthodox Vlach population throughout most of Croatian area? Let's move on, I quote: "After the Ottoman capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459, and by 1483, up to 200,000 Orthodox Christians moved into central Slavonia and Srijem (Syrmia in eastern Croatia)." Yes,this is agreat Serbian migration [3] What does this have to do with the orthodox Vlach population from western Slavonia all the way to Dubrovnik? Let's move on, I quote: "The Ottoman conquests of Serbia and Bosnia and future Ottoman wars sparked migrations into what is today Croatia throughout the Early modern period." We do not have any written documents to prove that "sparked migrations" towards Croatia except for eastern Slavonia and the great migrations of Serbs. Let's move on, Early modern period I quote: "As many former inhabitants of the Austrian-Ottoman borderland fled northwards or were captured by the Ottoman invaders, they left unpopulated areas. At the beginning of the 16th century settlements of Orthodox Christians were also established in modern-day western Croatia" Yes and? What does this have to do with the Serbians? Orthodox Vlachs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Cincars etc flee to Croatia and Bosnia, many Croats also switch to Orthodoxy or mix with Vlachs. Let's move on, I quote: "In 1550 they established the Lepavina Monastery" Yes and? There are mentioned Vlachs who have nothing to do with the Serbs. Let's move on, I quote: "The Habsburg Empire encouraged people from the Ottoman Empire to settle as free peasant soldiers, establishing the Military Frontiers (Militärgrenze) in 1522 (hence they were known as Grenzers, Krajišnici). They were mostly of Orthodox faith, Serbs and Vlachs (Romance-speaking)" As i said from western Slavonia to Dalmatia written records mention Vlachs. What does this Vlachs have to do with the Croatian Serbs and this article? Let's move on, I quote: "Catholic Vlachs were assimilated into Croats, while the Orthodox, under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church, identified as Serbs" Yes, that is correct. This is evidence that in most of Croatian area Vlachs are mentioned who have later asimilated in the Serbs population(Croatia) but then let it be written in this article and not to state that Serbs are coming to Croatia. In most of Croatian area originally Vlachs are coming which later became Serbs and a lesser part becomes Croats. Let's move on, I quote: "There was a Serb population movement from the Ottoman territories into Venetian Dalmatia in this period." There are no historical records arrival of large groups of Serbs at that time. Morlachs are mentioned not Serbs but they are not originally Serbs. Let's move on, I quote: "Archbishop of Split, wrote that Morlach leader Stojan Janković had brought 300 families with him to Dalmatia, and also that around Trogir and Split there were 5,000 refugees from Ottoman lands, without food; this was seen as a serious threat to the defense of Dalmatia" What does this have to do with Serbs and with Stojan Janković who is not mentioned as a Serbian.[4] Let's move on, I quote: "The formation of the Serbian identity of Vlahs in Croatia began in the 18th century under the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church" Yes, this should be basis of an article on Serbs in Croatia. Reading this article an independent reader gets impression that "Serbs" originally came to Croatia but that is not true. To Croatia Vlachs are coming(historical documents) who later became Serbs and this should be clearly stated in this article. That is clearly stated in the article "Vlachs in the history of Croatia"[5]. Therefore there cannot be two articles that talk about one Croatian population. For this reason this article needs a more radical editing and deletion of all inaccurate allegations and claims that do not have a source in written historical documents. Quoting some Serbian historians and their books does not make sense because they are not mentioned those which are at the source and they are Vlachs. Clearly this part of article is propaganda and I ask for urgent intervention. If there is no removal of disputed parts I will have to do it myself because the fake Wikipedia parts must be removed. 46.188.148.21 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)mikola

It is per refs and facts. Your pseudo-thesis that there were some imaginary Vlachs (multiple meaning!) who were later converted to Serbs by the Serbian Orthodox Chuch is a good case of pseudohistory, ignorance, bias and it is on the line of Ustaše ideology. Be careful what you belive in. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no written historical record of any Serbian migration to Croatia(part from western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area) except for the area around the river Cetina and Žumberak area but they are also mentioned with Vlachs who have disappeared. Your comment is just proof of that fact. If these records do not exist and in the article itself states that Vlachs later become Serbs then we have to revise that part of the article because we have two Wikipedia articles about the same population. This is not a forum and if you have any opposing evidence(historical records) show them, therefore they do not exist and I ask Wikipedia moderators to act on my proposal otherwise I will start deleting myself all false quotes.

31.217.4.183 (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)mikola

If you make a hypothesis you should post a lot of documents and facts as well to go along with it. That is one of the fundumentals of higher education. We had a bunch of migrations of Serbs from other places to modern-day Croatia, mostly from the region of western Bosnia and from other parts of the Balkans as well. If you do not know anything about it, than, well, you do not know anything and you should, by all means, remain in the dark. You see what you want to see (dirty propaganda and Great Serbia all over, God helps us!). The project is not here to fit your ideology and views. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
"Monuments of the Croatian Krajina" from the year 1884. by Radoslav Lopašić[6][7] Here you have over a hundred pages of original Austro-Hungarian documents which talking about Vlachs and Morlaks. In this "Serbs of Croatia" article it is claimed "According to Srđa Trifković, by the mid-14th century Serbs were present around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača there was an Orthodox majority." where are written documents that prove this? This evidence does not exist. As I said, there is no written evidence that someone comes as a Serb to Croatia(area western Slavonia all the way to Dalmatia), there is a couple of records in that area that mentione Serbs but a couple of records does not make history of one population for which there are hundreds of other historical records(Vlachs). Information about transition to Orthodoxy exist, data for escaping of Croatian peasants to Vlachs areas and mixing with them also exist. I am waiting for historical records that mentione Serbs in Croatia(area western Slavonia all the way to Dalmatia), if you can't bring it into the sun then this fact "what i'm talking about" is true.

31.217.4.183 (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)mikola

I suggest that all quotes that are controversial must check in original historical records and delete if they have no evidence in the original records

I urge everyone to come here to discuss. What is the problem? Here is an example: In Croatia Vlachs are historically mentioned and today they are Serbs and to a lesser extent Croats. Ivic Aleksa, Serbian historian (Budjanovci, 23rd XII. 1881 - Belgrade, 23rd XI. 1948). In his book he does not notice these original Vlachs, and he writes about them as Serbs. Mirko Valentić; Institute for Contemporary History, Zagreb, Croatia, states in the book "On the Ethnic Root of Croatian Bosnian Serbs"[8] page 18. as follows: "Budući da arhivska građa, osim rijetkih izuzetaka, daje istraživaču samo vlaško ime, A. lvić, prepričavajući arhivske spise, jednostavno ondje gdje piše Vlah čita Srbin. Našavši u arhivskoj građi veći broj spisa o Vlasima katolicima, tj. potomcima starohrvatskih Vlaha: Bunjevci, Morlaci i drugi, on će i te Vlahe proglasiti Srbima nazivajući ih •Srbi katoličke vere«. Pišući o pokušaju oslobođenja Like iz koje Vlasi čine nasilja i zločine po središnjoj Hrvatskoj, provaljujući i u dubinu Kranjske, lvić sugerira svome čitatelju kako je austrijski nadvojvoda naredio »proterivanje Srba iz Like«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji »[ .. . ] Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha [ ... ]«.24 Isti postupak primijenio je s gomirskim Vlasima, koje A. lvić čita kao »Gomirski Srbi«, iako u arhivskom spisu stoji »Wallachen zu Goymerie«.25 Jednako postupa i s poznatim vlaškim selima Dubrave i Ponikve u okolici Ogulina. lvić piše: »srpska mesta Dubrave i Ponikve, gde su Srbi živeli«. U originalnom dokumentu stoji•[ ... ] die in dem Dorff Dubraua und Ponique wohnende Wallachen [ ... ]«.26 'Tužbu žumberačkih Vlaha iz Marindola 1668. prikazuje Ivić kao tužbu »Srba iz Marindola«, iako u originalnom spisu stoji: •[ ... ] die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich [ ... ]«.27 Falsifikatima takve vrste vrvi svaka stranica Ivićeve knjige. Ovdje su gotovo nasumce izabrani samo neki primjeri"......"Because archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only the Vlach name, A. lvic, retelling the archives, simply there where it says Vlachs reads a Serbs. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings for Catholics Vlachs ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he would also declare these as Vlachs Serbs by calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. " Writing about the attempt to free Lika from which the Vlachs commit violence and crimes by Central Croatia, penetrating into the depths of Carniola, lvic suggests to his reader that the Austrian Archduke had ordered the“ expulsion of the Serbs from Lika. " The original document reads "[... ] Abtreibung der neu angesessnem Walachen in der Likha [...]. "24 The same procedure was applied by Gomirje Vlachs, which A. lvić reads as "Gomirje Serbs", although the archival file contains "Wallachen zu Goymerie" .25 He treats the well-known Vlachs villages of Dubrava and Ponikve in the Ogulin area as well. lvic writes: "The Serbian places of Dubrava and Ponikva, where the Serbs lived." In the original document reads • [...] die in dem Dorff Dubrau und Ponique wohnende Wallachen [...]. "26 The lawsuit of Žumberak Vlachs from Marindol in 1668 is presented by Ivic as a lawsuit by" Serbs from Marindol ", although the original file states: • [...] die Walachen zu Marienthall beclagen sich [...]. "27 Forgery of this kind is roped in every page of Ivic's book. Here are only some examples randomly selected" ...Many Serbian historians do the same in various scholarly works which are later quoted as evidence on Wikipedia. Therefore these quotes are not evidence but a forgery of history. It's allowed in own countries and i have no problem with that but this is Wikipedia and it is read worldwide by Croatian emigrants(America, Argentina, etc), students, people interested in history and origin etc. For this reason I suggest that all disputed quotes be checked in original historical records because only then we will know whether something is false and fake or true. This is also important because for part of the Croats is also used ethnonym Vlach while an independent reader who does not know the actual situation on the ground might think that these Croats-Vlachs are originally Serbs. We must respect historical records which say that Vlachs originally coming to Croatia not Serbs and there is no evidence for Serbian arrival (from western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area) except for a couple of documents but they are also there along with Vlachs. How Vlachs population later became Serbs or Croats that's another matter and it will not be a topic of this discussion, topic of this discussion are original records which are not presented as evidenceMikola22 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed

No one is coming to the debate yet so let me explain whay I'm looking for the original citation. "The Ottoman conquests of Serbia and Bosnia and future Ottoman wars sparked migrations into what is today Croatia throughout the Early modern period" Which are original documents that talking about concrete migration of someone from Serbia to Croatia (area of western Slavonia and towards Dalmatia)? "In the first half of the 16th century Serbs settled Ottoman part of Slavonia while in the second part of the 16th century they moved to Austrian part of Slavonia." Here is not clear which are that Serbs and in which area they are settled. In that area most of the records mention Vlachs so this quote does not show who really comes to those parts of Croatia. Therefore, concrete evidence is needed. "In 1550 they established the Lepavina MonasteryWho are they?(they established) Places around the monastery are referred as Vlachs. "They were mostly of Orthodox faith, Serbs and Vlachs (Romance-speaking)"At that time the Vlachs speak Slavic and have Slavic names so it's not clear what does "Romance-speaking" mean. We should see original historical records that speak about these "Romance-speaking" peoples. " Serbs acted as the cordon sanitaire against Turkish incursions from the Ottoman Empire."Which Serbs, in what area, what time period? We need the original historical records here. "Many of the Uskoks, who fought a guerrilla war with the Ottoman Empire were Serbs (Orthodox Christians), who fled from Ottoman Turkish rule and settled in White Carniola and Zumberak."Where the original historical records which prove that Uskoks are Serbian origin? "A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs" We need the original record here because as far as i know it says and Vlachs not "or the Vlachs" otherwise it is one of the few documents that mentions Serbs in Croatia and speaks only for a smaller group of settlers in the Žumberak area. "There was a Serb population movement from the Ottoman territories into Venetian Dalmatia in this period " Where are the historical records that prove this claim? "Serb (Orthodox) refugees are mentioned in 1654 by the bishop of Nin"Where are the historical records that prove this claim? "similarly by the bishop of Makarska"Where are the historical records that prove this claim? " in 1658 by the Archbishop of Zadar."Where are the historical records that prove this claim?Mikola22 (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleting parts of the article that have no evidence in the original historical records

"According to Srđa Trifković, by the mid-14th century Serbs were present around Klis and Skradin in central and northern Dalmatia, and by the 15th century in the entire region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača there was an Orthodox majority" There is no historical records who talk about migration of the Serbs to northern Dalmatia region of Knin with villages Golubić, Padjene and Polača as well as historical records who talk about concrete Serbs in that area in the mid-14th and 15th century. This quote is based on this source "Trifkovic 2010, p. 14." and in this source do not exist original historical data which prove that in these areas(14th and 15th century) live Serbs. For this reason that part of the article is not based on historical material truth and as such cannot be part of this article. Mikola22 (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Mikola22

No, the source is solid. The source very much "exisst". You can read about Jelena Nemanjić Šubić. She is responsible for bringing (most likely) the firs Serb settlers to modern-day Croatia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Source is not solid because there is no original historical records as evidence to prove it. Therefore, this information has not been substantiated by material historical data and as such there is no place for this quote in this article.Mikola22 (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
You can not be the judge of that. There is an official way to challenge a source (if you have any arguments). I invite you to play by the book or I will simply report you, because I did show good faith. Furthermore, you do not have Consensus for this change and yes, you do need consensus. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you understand what i'm talking about? There is NO historical records of Serbs in quoted area in the 14th and 15th century. Which consensus? You have historical sources and prove it, you don't need consensus, who are you waiting for? Therefore you have to prove it and show historical records. Where are proves? I've been waiting for two days. This is original historical data I quote " Kraljevski Vlasi (Olahi domini nostri regis, Wolachi banatus regni Croatie) žive u drugoj polovici

XIV. i u XV. st. u dvije kraljevske županije: ličkoj i kninskoj... Njihova je prednost pred hrvatskim plemićem upravo u tome da pod ‘svetom krunom ugarskom’ vojuju pod svojim zapovjednicima, što je bila povlastica koju hrvatski plemić ne može dostići" "Royal Vlachs (Olahi domini nostri regis, Wolachi banatus regni Croatie) live in the second half XIV. and in the XV. century in two royal counties: Lika and Knin ... Theirs is the advantage over the Croatian nobility is precisely that under the 'holy crown the Hungarians' fighting under their commanders, which was a privilege which a Croatian nobleman cannot reach" [9] page 228. Ivan Mužić(Ivan Mužić (Solin, 14 September 1934) is a Croatian jurist, historian and publicist). This is material historical truth from that area(original are mentioned Vlachs) and disputable quote is untrue. Therefore no consensus is needed but proof is needed, which does not exist and things are very clear.Mikola22 (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Forgery, in the article is states I quote"A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs." In the book(Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX. stoljeća (History of the Croats, 1899–1922)) of Vjekoslav Klaić[10] Croatian historian cited original document from year 1538. as follows "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque erga nos amplexi iam nunc ad loca ditionemque nostram commigrarunt et bona eorum omnia mobilia salva transportaverint, sedulam promptamque operam una cum ceteris navasse ac non vulgare adiumentum, quo id facilius fieret, per te allatum fuisse [11]

This means that in the original document are mention "Rascians or Serbians and Vlachs" not as is quoted in the article by a Serbian historian "Rascians or Serbians or Vlachs" furthermore original document says that they are commonly called the Ćići not the Serbs as is quoted by a Serbian historian and in this article. Since this is a lie and a forgery of history I suggest deleting it from the article.Mikola22 (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetina
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDumberak_Mountains
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migrations_of_the_Serbs
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stojan_Jankovi%C4%87
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs_in_the_history_of_Croatia
  6. ^ http://dizbi.hazu.hr/object/view/3mvMc1D3gL
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radoslav_Lopa%C5%A1i%C4%87
  8. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=307683
  9. ^ http://www.mo-vrebac-pavlovac.hr/attachments/article/186/19-01%20Ivan%20Muzic_Vlasi%20i%20starobalkanska%20pretkrscanska%20simbolika%20jelena%20na%20steccima-19-01%20dio.pdf
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vjekoslav_Klai%C4%87
  11. ^ https://issuu.com/mesicbooks/docs/vjekoslav_klajic_-_povjest_hrvata_o#page=26

Deletion facts from an article

"There are also records in the literature of the late 18th and early 19th centuries that point to the existence of Orthodox Croats. D. Teleki von Szék in 1795. claims that Croats are mostly Catholics and to a lesser extent they are Grenzers and belong to the Greek Church." This fact refers for the Orthodox population of Military Frontier(Grenzers) who are now Croatian Serbs but according to cited source these "Orthodox Grenzers" are Croats. There is no reason to delete something that has to do with the history of the Croatian Serbs, and I ask that it be returned.[1]Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not relevant. You can add it to Croats. It's not just about adding information. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
These Orthodox Grenzers are the ancestors of today's Serbs. If historical source considers those Orthodox Grenzers as Croats then it is important for the history of Croatian Serbs and Croats. We have and historical fact that part of Croatian peasants move to the areas where Vlachs live and later become Orthodox Vlachs who today are Croatian Serbs. It is not a fact that concerns only Croatian history, these Orthodox are ancestors of today's Croatian Serbs. Why would I need a consensus for that? Where is consensus for Vlach population from Western Slavonia to Dubrovnik area that is in this article referred as Serbs, where the Vlachs disappeared and who replaced Vlach's history with Serbian? Where is the consensus for that? How does someone have the right use the Vlach community and their written history as the basis for an article about Serbs when they have nothing to do with each other. Vlachs have more to do with Croats than Serbs, but articles about Croats on Wikipedia do not use Vlachs history as their own? Mikola22 (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:No original research... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I am talking about facts from history books written by Croatian historians, one quote "Information about the transitions to Orthodoxy is also provided by D. Andrijašević in 1627. who says that in Popovo because of the lack of priest and because there was none bishops 360 Catholic families crossed the schism(Orthodoxy) and 4 of the 12 churches were appropriated by Orthodox priests" [2] there is a lot of such information. In another book you have information on the crossing of Croatian peasants to the the Vlachs areas and transitions to Orthodoxy "The resettlement of „runaway serf“ in the Varaždin general command. Contribution to the understanding of Early Modern migrations in part of today´s northwestern Croatia", in which I quote "The author analyzed the resettlement of so-called colon fugitivi („runaway serf“) in the Military Frontier (Varaždin general command) and the related fragments of the migration process in a wider area (Varaždinština, Hrvatsko Zagorje, Međimurje, Podravina, Prigorje, Posavina, etc.)[3] These people are Croatian Serbs today but their ancestors are Croats as well and that should be stated in an article which talking about Croatian Serbs.Mikola22 (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ U literaturi s kraja 18. i početka 19. stoljeća također ima zapisa koji upućuju na postojanje pravoslavnih Hrvata. D. Teleki von Szék 1795. godine tvrdi da su Hrvati većim dijelom katolici, a da manjim dijelom, i to graničari, pripadaju grčkoj crkvi (1805:268) https://hrcak.srce.hr/44341 #page=27
  2. ^ Podatke o prijelazima na pravoslavlje donosi nam i D. Andrijašević 1627. godine, koji kaže kako je u Popovu radi nedostatka svećenstva i zato što nije bilo biskupa, 360 katoličkih obitelji prešlo na raskol, a 4 od 12 crkava prisvojili su pravoslavni svećenici..https://repozitorij.hrstud.unizg.hr/islandora/object/hrstud%3A1512/datastream/PDF/view #page=69
  3. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=127154

Original Research

A letter of Emperor Ferdinand, sent on 6 November 1538, to Croatian ban Petar Keglević, in which he wrote "Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs".[1] It's original research from Facta Universitatis, "Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History The Facta Universitatis, Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History (FU Phil Soc Psy Hist) is an open access peer-reviewed international journal published by the University of Niš (Republic of Serbia). We publish high quality, refereed papers three times a year. Papers reporting original research or extended versions of the already published conference/journal papers are all welcome. Papers for publication are selected through peer reviewing to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The journal publishes original papers of high scientific value in all areas of Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History. Survey articles dealing with interaction between different fields are welcome. Editor-in-Chief: Dragan Todorović".[2]Mikola22 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, you have completely misunderstood the Wikpedia policy WP:No original research. WP:OR prohibits the use of material that is not supported by reliable, published sources. This means that editors cannot make their own conclusions from the sources and publish their conclusions in Wikipedia. In this case we are talking about stuff published by an international journal. Seen from the journal's point of view, they will publish what for them is original research. (They will actually prefer only to publish original research. If it is not original research, it will either be plagiarism or uninteresting repetitions of already published works.) In order to get published by the journal, the material will be evaluated and selected for publication through peer reviewing. When it is published, it becomes, from Wikipedia's point of view, a reliable source.
It can be explained this way: If a scholar tries to "publish" his findings in Wikipedia, he will be rejected by WP:OR. When his findings are published by a quality journal or publisher after peer reviewing, it will be welcomed in Wikipedia as WP:RS. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
A lot of my quotes have been deleted because it was "original research" i.e. "izvorni znanstveni članak" from here[3]. Does this mean that I can use that informations if they are published here? Thanks for the explanation and i apologize for deleting this information. Mikola22 (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mikola22: Hrčak is not actually a publisher. It is a portal that offers a publication channel for material that has been published other places. Many of the articles in Hrčak are high quality scholarly articles from peer reviewed journals, but there are also articles from student magazines and other sources. To verify that a specific article is a reliable source, you will have to look at where it was originally published.
Another point is that even if you use only reliable sources, you are not allowed to make your own conclusions on the basis of those sources. In Wikipedia we only report what the sources say, we do not evaluate the sources. Neither do we combine several sources in order to "prove" something that is not mentioned in the sources. That is a called WP:Synthesis. --T*U (talk) 08:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is original historical record, te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque erga nos amplexi iam nunc ad loca ditionemque nostram commigrarunt et bona eorum omnia mobilia salva transportaverint, sedulam promptamque operam una cum ceteris navasse ac non vulgare adiumentum, quo id facilius fieret, per te allatum fuisse... translation of the Croatian historian Vjekoslav Klaić but you can translate it yourself from Latin language: "captains and dukes of the Rasians or the Serbs, and the Vlachs who are commonly called the Zytschy (Ćići).[4][5] Mikola22 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
What are you going on about? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 08:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs" Original historical document does not say this. What we should do now? Leave that fact in the article even historical source does not say that? Do you know Latin? If you know then translate that record. Mikola22 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am failing to see your point and I must say that we have no consensus over this. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Sadko, I think I understand what Mikola22 is trying to say. There is a discrepancy between the quote from Danijela Gavrilović (that has been removed by Mikola) and presentations of the same text from other sources. The latin text from the 1538 letter seems to be "capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy vocant". The last part (bolded by me) is elsewhere presented as "Vlachs, who are called Zytschy (Ćići)", but Gavrilović renders it as "Vlachs, who are called Serbs". It is rather obvious that Gavrilović is wrong. To call it "forgery" is of course nonsense, but the removal is imho correct. --T*U (talk) 12:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
TU-nor How would you call it, in original document says one thing and some historian translate this dokument in his book differently. It is not forgery? Mikola22 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mikola22: Forgery is a strong accusation. There can be a lot of other explanations. Gavrilović does not say from where she has the translation, so it may be someone else that has made the mistake. Gavrilović is professor in sociology, not a historian, so she will have to depend on historians for historical information. And we have no way of knowing if it is a conscious mistranslation, a misunderstanding, a misprint or whatever. So let us not put the blame on anyone, let us just conclude that it is an error. --T*U (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gavrilović, Danijela, "Elements of Ethnic Identification of the Serbs" from FACTA UNIVERSITATIS – Series Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History (10/2003), pp. 717–730
  2. ^ http://casopisi.junis.ni.ac.rs/
  3. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/?lang=en
  4. ^ https://dizbi.hazu.hr/a/?pr=iiif.v.a&id=10602&tify={%22pages%22:[416],%22panX%22:0.448,%22panY%22:0.672,%22view%22:%22scan%22,%22zoom%22:0.726}"page=411
  5. ^ https://books.google.hr/books?id=ht_-CgAAQBAJ&pg=PT77&dq=Serviani+atque+Valachi+Catherine+Wendy+Bracewell&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6-OH6lrfmAhXhpIsKHSEJA0sQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Serviani%20atque%20Valachi%20Catherine%20Wendy%20Bracewell&f=false

True historical information?

Serb (Orthodox) refugees are mentioned in 1654 by the bishop of Nin, similarly by the bishop of Makarska, in 1658 by the Archbishop of Zadar. I searched Serbian and Croatian sources but I didn't find this information about Serbs. The book itself for Makarska mentions "peoples" not Serbs so I would ask that someone provide original historical information or that we reach consensus and delete this information.Mikola22 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • For now we have these facts, this quote is from book (Živojinović, Dragan R. (1989). Ninić, Ivan (ed.). "Wars, population migrations and religious proselytism in Dalmatia during the second half of the XVIIth century".) and this information is originaly from book of (Marko Jačov, Spisi Tajnog vatikanskog arhiva XVI-XVIII veka, Srpska akademija nauka, Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskoga naroda, II. odeljenje, knjiga 22, Beograd, 1983.). Here are comment of Mile Bogović about book of Marko Jačov I quote: "Jačov izvlači samo one dijelove - ne znam zašto ne sve - gdje je riječ o shizmaticima, jer on pretpostavlja da su to Srbi" Jačov pulls only those parts - I don't know why not all - where it is about schizmatics, because he assumes that they are Serbs" Based on Mile Bogovic's claims, the Vatican archives mention schismatics not Serbs but Marko Jačov considers them as Serbs. Otherwise I searched both Serbian and Croatian data and there is no such information (Serb (Orthodox) refugees in 1654, bishop of Nin and 1658 by the Archbishop of Zadar) [1][2] It's easy notice that term "Serbian" was placed on place where it was written: Vlach, Morlak, schismatic, Greek, Orthodox, or simply added, inserted. That practice of Jačov is not created by Jačov, but he just continues writings of Serbian historians Aleksa Ivić, Nikodim Milaš, Jovan Radonoć etc.[3]

TU-nor Therefore apparently it is a forgery and that must be deleted.Mikola22 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Another example of forgery of Marko Jačov is from book(Le guerre veneto-turche del XVII. secolo in Dalmazia, Atti e memorie della Società di storia patria, volume XX, Venezia 1991) where he about Morlachs peoples simply writes as they are Serbs.[4]Mikola22 (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mikola22: Again, please do not call things "forgery" unless you have reliable sources that calls it so. I do not know on what basis Jačov concludes that groups mentioned in primary sources can be identified as Serbs. For all I know, he may be right, he may be wrong. I cannot read other sources than Živojinović, and he quotes Jačov. If I understand you right, Bogović and others contest the way Jačov identifies these groups as Serbs. Then we have conflicting sources. According to WP:NPOV we have to present such conflicting sources in a balanced way.
I have reinserted the part of the text that is not contested, only leaving out the text about the two letters from 1654 and 1658. If the mention of these letters shall be included, it will have to explain both that Jačov claims that the letters are about Serbs and that Bogović is contesting this conclusion. --T*U (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@TU-nor: This is how Croatian historian talks about book of Aleksa Ivić Serbian historian followed by Marko Jačov, I quote: As the archival material with few exceptions gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić retelling archival files, simply reads the Serb where writes Vlach. Forgery of this kind are roughed up by every page of Ivic's book.[5]

The Turkish conquest of Serbia and Bosnia also pushed refugees and migrants into western Croatia

"The Turkish conquest of Bosnia also pushed refugees and migrants into western Croatia," This is information from the source. Into the western area of Croatia coming refugees and migrants after conquest of Bosnia and Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia are not mentioned here(from source..waves of migration brought hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians to Croatia and Hungary. Each wave was distinct:different populations,). There is not only Serbia in the Balkans. Give some respect to other countries and other peoples who fleeing from the Turks. Therefore, we must respect the source.Mikola22 (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced conten

@Mikola22: Please explain this removal furhter. [1] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This information is not written in the source, the proof is the source itself page 286.Mikola22 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
When making edits such as this one, you should post proof and explanation for your removal on the TP. Once you do this (post the page), we could have consensus. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I stated the reason "on page 286 does not exist this citation". And we're going to talk about what? Let someone check it out and problem is resolved. Mikola22 (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I have a full copy of The Early Medieval Balkans (1991) in front of me, and this is not mentioned on page 286. But, it seems to me somebody mixed up two Fine's books. There is something in the other book I have in front of me, The Late Medieval Balkans (1994), on page 287. I can quote it, and then hopefully you can end silly edit war.
So in 1333 after negotiations Dusan sold Ston and its environs—including the Peljesac peninsula and the coastland between Ston and Dubrovnik—to Dubrovnik for eight thousand perpera in cash and an annual tribute of five hundred perpera to be paid each Easter. From 1348 on, by order of Dusan, this tribute was donated to the Monastery of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel in Jerusalem. Dubrovnik also had to guarantee freedom of worship for Orthodox believers in this territory. This last promise was not observed, for almost before the ink was dry on the treaty Dubrovnik sent Catholic clergy, particularly Franciscans, into this territory to proselytize on behalf of Catholicism. However, despite Dubrovnik's encouragement of the Catholic missionaries, for much of Dusan's lifetime Orthodox priests were tolerated in Ston. But after 1347 scholars have found no further references to Orthodox clergy in Ston. In 1334 Bosnia recognized the Serbian-Ragusan agreement. With this settlement Serbia, which had been the aggrieved party, could expect peace on its western frontier and thereby gain a free hand to carry on an active southern policy. Mhare (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mhare: What do I have with edit war? I deleted citation because the same not exist in the source. You found that information and put it in the article. This is deleted citation: Serbia continued to hold parts of southernmost Dalmatia into the 14th century. In 1333 the Republic of Ragusa bought the Pelješac peninsula and the coast land between Ston and Dubrovnik from Serbian King Stefan Dušan, while the Ragusans promised freedom of religion to the Orthodox Serbs. The sources mention Orthodox believers not Orthodox Serbs and this should be corrected.Mikola22 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I did not name anybody, and will not get involved as this isn't something that interests me. I have found you the quote and identified confusion. Interestingly, next paragraph literally says this: Since later, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, nationalism became so prevalent in the Balkans, many modern scholars have at times attributed nationalist feelings to leaders in the medieval Balkans
I would also add twenty-first century to that, sadly. Mhare (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mhare: Is edit Ok?Mikola22 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

One more forgery

After the Ottoman conquests of Serbia and capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459 and fall of Bosnia 1463 different populations of Orthodox Christians moved into Syrmia and by 1483 perhaps 200,000 Orthodox Christians moved into central Slavonia and Syrmia. This information is from the sources [6][7] This information is based on Serbian sources that talk about 200,000 Orthodox Serbs which coming from Serbia or Bosnia to Croatia ie Slavonia. The original document says the following I quote: "Tvrdnja kralja Matije Korvina iz 1461. godine jest da su Turci samo u posljednje tri godine "odveli 200.000 duša u ropstvo.. King Matthew Corvin's claim of 1461 is that in the last three years alone, the Turks "have taken 200,000 souls into slavery (from Hungary towards Turkey). This forgery was transmitted by Serbian historians and is now transmitted by foreign historians. [8] For this reason, I suggest deleting this information from the article.Mikola22 (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

A minor style tweak would be good, for the sake of context. Plain removal is not okay I do not see why would we need to completely remove the information. It falls upon you to prove that the used source is not RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
After the Ottoman conquests of Serbia and capture of Smederevo fortress in 1459 and fall of Bosnia 1463 different populations of Orthodox Christians moved into Syrmia This might remain, but the problem is that foreign sources speaking about different populations of Orthodox Christians using sources from Serbian historians who talk about 200,000 Serbian Orthodox(all of these sources are contaminated with that false fact). It would be better to use a Serbian Academician Sima Ćirković and his book "Serbs" I quote: "Najveća preseljavanja bila su u jesen 1480. i 1481. godine, kada je kraljeva vojska sa srpskim velikašima prešla Dunav istočno od Smedereva i pustošeći prodrla sve do Kruševca. Na povratku je u jednome pohodu prevela 60 000, a u drugom 50 000 ljudi te ih naselila na području Banata i Pomorišja." The largest relocations were in the autumn of 1480 and 1481, when the king's army with the Serbs crossed the Danube east of Smederevo and devastated everything all the way to Krusevac. On the way back, they brought 60,000 people in one campaign and 50,000 people in another, and settled them in the Banat and Pomorišje area.Mikola22 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The Turks continued to raid border areas and take people away. Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus complained in a letter dated 1462 that during the previous three years, 200,000 people had been seized from his country. This is information from a book(The Serbs, page 115) of Serbian academician Sima Ćirković. He doesn't talk about 200,000 Serbs which 1483 migrate towards south Hungary or central Slavonia because he doesn't use this information "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four years" which is a forgery. We cannot continue to use this fact just for a reason because some RS use this forgery fact. From Serbian scientific paper I quote: and this mistake is often repeated in historiography,.. Sima Ćirković pointed to this mistake; see: History of the Serbian People II, 431.Mikola22 (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak raasoning, a lot of spamming and ignoring other editor's view, plus not going per basic Wiki rules (primary/seconday sources and WP:RSN). I object. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
When you refuse (in good faith) to remove the forgery from the article then we will quote information of the Serbian academic who says that it is a mistake and that information does not exist. Mikola22 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ MILE BOGOVIĆ, SADRŽAJ IZVJEŠĆA SENJSKO-MODRUŠKIH BISKUPA U RIM OD 1602. DO 1919. GODINE, Vol. 23 No. 1, 1996. https://hrcak.srce.hr/43678, #page =165
  2. ^ https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_Bogovi%C4%87
  3. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/55453"page=333
  4. ^ Lovorka Čoralić, 1993, review, https://hrcak.srce.hr/55587#page=345
  5. ^ https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=307683#page=18
  6. ^ (Frucht 2005, p. 535): "Population movements began in earnest after the Battle of Smederevo in 1459, and by 1483, up to two hundred thousand Orthodox Christians had moved into central Slavonia and Srijem (eastern Croatia)."
  7. ^ Miller, Nicholas John, 1997, Between Nation and State,{ "Each wave was distinct: different populations, provoked by different causes, made their way to new homes. The first groups of settlers were pushed northward by the Ottoman conquests of Serbia after the Battle of Smederevo in 1459 and the fall of Bosnia in 1463. Orthodox Christians moved into Srijem thereafter. By 1483, perhaps two hundred thousand had moved into central Slavonia and Srijem" } https://books.google.hr/books?id=huXruAEACAAJ&dq=Between+Nation+and+State+:+Serbian+Politics+in+Croatia+Before+the+First+World&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy6_nE94znAhXupIsKHeMVC80Q6AEIKTAA #page=6
  8. ^ Ivanov, Aleksandar D., Banat in the age of king Matthias Corvinus:(1458-1490), 2017.{ Because one mistake in the old Hungary collection of original documents in the older literature states that this information comes from 1483 and that it is about 200,000 thousand people who moved from Turkey to Hungary, this error is often repeated in the historiography. The Serbian historians who conveyed this information were: Slavko Gavrilovic "Serbs in Hungary, Slavonia and Croatia in the Fight against the Turks from the 15th to the 18th Century", Aleksa Ivic "The History of Serbs in Vojvodina", Konstantin Jireček "The History of Serbs I", Jovan Pejin "Review of the past of Serbs in Banat"} http://nardus.mpn.gov.rs/handle/123456789/8951 #page=112

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Serbs inhabit most of Dalmatia

@Mikola22: Do you have the full quote? How do you know that it's "just a translation"? PLease explain before removing the material and do not link other discussions. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the source [2], se page 111. Mikola22 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Sadko: The book by Scholz is a translation into modern English of the Royal Frankish Annals from 741 to 829, so it is clearly primary. Also, I am not sure why it should be wrong to link to other discussions. Then it might not be necessary to explain the same thing again and again. --T*U (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Primary source and information

In 1222, the King of Serbia Stefan Prvovenčani gifted Mljet, Babino Polje, the Saint Vid church on Korčula, Janin and Popova Luka and churches of St. Stephen and St. George, to a Benedictine monastery on Mljet.

  • This information is from "Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae" ie summarium of historical diplomatic documents from year 1905. Source, page 480, [3] and it is WP:PRIMARY. Mikola22 (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Why is it primary? It's a historical fact. History must be based on original documents, ain't it so? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
History indeed must must be based on original documents, but we must also follow some Wikipedia rules. It is primary because it is a collection of all historical diplomatic documents in some time period. If we start to using such information's and such sources then only the sky is our limit. Mikola22 (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) C'mon, Sadko, of course it is primary. Did you take a look? The given source is Volume 3 (out of 18) of a collection of mediaeval source material, written in Latin and Church Slavonic. The relevant text is number 197, which you find in pp. 237–239 of the online version Mikola22 linked to (paginated 223–225). It is in Church Slavonic, written with a script I assume is contemporary with the text. --T*U (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia/Archive_11&oldid=1237855355"