Talk:Rascians

Raci City / Serb City

Didn't mean to offend, just thought in the context of the article Raci it'd be ok to use the word. Adam Mathias 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Other meaning

RACI is also used to mean: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed. This indicates for a given task, the participants roles. 194.60.85.4 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) BBurrell

That is why we have disambiguation page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Raci_(disambiguation) So, please writte that information there. PANONIAN (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course! in any case it would be interesting to point out that Raci can have a peyorative usage when refering to the Serbs; or at least that it had a peyorative meaning in the past.

--83.33.247.125 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation

For links, should we have some appropriate redirect such as Raci (ethnonym)? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It was available, so I created it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein, I'll also create Raci (exonym). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridicilous

Rascia in Turkish empire near Virovitica ? --Čeha (razgovor) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Maps are hilarious examples of Serbian myths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.232.49 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Shady recent arrangement and problem with maps

Why is the coat of arms (a historic point) moved to the bottom of the article and the map (historical nonsense) moved to the top? It even says "Approximate" in its caption. What does approximate means scientifically? Maps of this sort need to be backed up with lot of references, namely anyone can draw a map like this, and "redraw" history... The references for this map were carefully selected, even though hundreds of other maps from the same period show slightly different arrangement. Wide objective scientific approach for this encyclopedia, or pursuit to prove a POV?

According to references used for proof of the blue shading, Rascia – whatever it meant to the mappers, and whatever it meant literally in real history – the north border of Rascia is about at the half of the blue shaded territory. Even compared to the given references the map is evidently exaggerated. Same is true for the map below it. Who knows what the point made here meant... Should someone correct those maps, or else they need to be replaced with something more scientific?Jozefsu (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rascians. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115125922/http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/jkalic-raska.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/istorija/srbi-balkan/jkalic-raska.html

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) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

200,000 Serbs is forgery

A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four years This information is a forgery, everything is explained here . I suggest deleting this information from the article.Mikola22 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Academician Sima Ćirković and book "Migration of the Serbian peoples to the Kingdom of Hungary in the 14th and 15th century". The announcements in the letter above confirm some of the statements made by King Matthew himself, and even more so his policies for years to come, preoccupied with the revival of devastated areas. In a letter to the Venetians of 1462, the king complained that the Turks had taken more than 200,000 inhabitants from his country in the past three years, or since 1459. (I must mention here that due to misunderstandings in the old Hungarian original collection, this number was used as a reference to the Serbs who immigrated to Hungary. It was taken by Konstantin Josef Jireček, then Aleksa Ivić, and repeated many times later, and this mistake it will hardly and slowly be corrected.). This is data from original letter: "King Matthew Corvin's claim from 1461 is that in the last three years alone, the Turks "have taken 200,000 souls into slavery". This is data from forgery not existing letter: "A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four yearsˇ"Mikola22 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight". You continue to ignore this core wikipedia policy explained to you multiple times. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four years This letter does not exist, it is a forgery. I don't know how many times you need to be told? Or we will next to this information cite information of the Serbian academician Sima Ćirković that it is fabricated information. We can do it that way. Mikola22 (talk) 09:13, 17 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) 19:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What did you think, that this information would still be part of the article although the letter does not exist? You would left that forgery because of "weak raasoning, a lot of spamming". Therefore, if this forgery cannot be deleted from the article then we have to provide information of the Serbian academic from RS who says that this clame is a mistake. I already found a couple of forgeries(Serb history) and you tried to hold these forgeries in the articles, are you edit in good faith or promoting your view of history? It is a matter of historical facts concerning Croatia, and I ask you to respect the true history of Croatia and not to promote forgerys. Mikola22 (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

From main article

[1] - Theonewithreason 18:03, 02 September 2020 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Most claims about parts of Vojvodina and Slavonia being called Rascia are spurious. The maps provided are outright wrong. "Approximate territory, according to various sources, ethnographically identified as new "Rascia" between the 16th and 18th centuries" Which various sources? The map is obviousły made by a Serb nationalist, and the sources mentioned are by authors who are known to have had expansionist aspirations. The historiographical data by Jovan Cvijić and Dušan Popović were designed to support Serbian expansionism and the idea of Velika Srbija. Save from the etymology, most of the article should be rewritten in an objective and accurate manner. Calqued (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)