This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Everything is clear, Cirkovic on page 131. mentions them as Serbian tribe, what is Serbia, Katedra is a relible source posted by Filoloski university of Belgrade. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 22:32 04. April 2022 (UTC)
Sima Cirkovic doesn't call them Serbs. Inferring what 2 monks said in the 1500s to be "Serbia" is misuse of Bibliography. Prilozi in itself is not the problem, the author under whom this is published is Pavle Ivic, a Greater Serbia ideologue and member of the commission which published the SANU memorandum, a conspiracy theory which claimed systematic discrimination against Serbs and Serbia culminating with the allegation that the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija were being subjected to genocide. We are not using these sources in this way.Alltan (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see that Katedra does not pass anything on reliable source noticeboard, Cirkovic mentions them as a Serbian tribe, in fact the whole book is about Serbs, there is also a Serbian orthodox priest Radul as a leader among them. So obvious there were Serbs among them. What is misuse is eliminating sources that mentions them as a Serbs but puting another ones that mentions them as Albanians obvious WP:UNDUEUser:Theonewithreason (talk) 22:38 04. April 2022 (UTC)
I've already explained to you the issue of using Ivic. Now I checked the entire book and he does not call them Serbs at all. He also mentions Bjelopavlici and Piperi right after, but again, doesn't say they are Serbs. Having a Serbian Orthodox Priest among them just means they were of Serbian orthodox faith, just like the Mataguzi and Maine. Now please provide the quote where Cirkovic calls Riđani Serbs.Alltan (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted that qoute which is even hard to check per WP:V, Cirkovic mentions them as Sebrs since the whole book is about Serbs, there were several Serbian leaders among them not just Radul,which again aplies that they were Serbs among them, like in almost every tribe in Montenegro, Serbs were present, puting just tehories about romanized people in 15 centzury being Vlachs is misuse of sources since in that time that word had lots of meanings. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 22:52 04. April 2022 (UTC)
I have not added to the article that they were Vlachs either. Serbs being present in Riđani is off topic to this discussion. Again, please provide the quote where Cirkovic calls them Serbs or even of Serb origin. Both books are available online so we can easily check sources and the accuracy of their interpretation. Here is my quote: "Ипак, не може се оспоравати бар романско порекло основне масе будућег племена. Нека имена у Риђана су несумњиво арбанашка, као Шимрак,како се звао катунар једног катуна." pg 102. Alltan (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your edit goes like this; The Riđani appear to have been predominantly a romanized people, although Albanian names also appear among them, as was the case with one of their leaders, katunar Šimra. So not only that they are not romanised since the qoute does not says that, it says it has romanised origin of their basic mass, and you completely ignored a Serbian names like Radivoj Sladojevic who was also a leader, so this goes per WP:FRINGE, Cirkovic mentons them as a Serbian tribe, the qoute you erased, clearly mentions that. btw you erased a relaible source.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23:03 04. April 2022 (UTC)
You could have send over the quote at this point. But no matter, in the future I would kindly suggest not using Serbian nationalist authors for your edits, they will most likely be removed. Also, I'm not sure what change you would have made to my edit, I used Romanised because the direct translation to English of "романско" could be Roman, Romanesque or Romance (languages). I personally think Hrabak meant the latter. Alltan (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait are you calling Cirkovic a nationalistic editor ??? And what are your references about that ? And they are not going to be removed, because they are Reliable sources, a please restrain yourself of any threats toward any editor including myself here. As for quote I did post it and you erased it. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23:24 04. April 2022 (UTC)
Umm no. I was talking about Ivic, not Cirkovic. I didnt remove Cirkovic because he wasn't RS, he'd just been used in a wrong way. If you had actually used Cirkovic in a different way the edits maybe could have stayed in the article somewhere in the history section. The quote you posted says nothing about their anthropology/origins.Alltan (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha so what you are saying he is a RS and you removed him even so, because why? Rhetorical question. I would kindly suggest you that you restore him then, because you are now breaking several wikipedia rules.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23:41 04. April 2022 (UTC)
Sigh I already told you, I removed him because he never called Riđani Serbs, yet was put in the origins section. By that logic you can make Kuci, Piperi, Mataruge etc all Serb too. It would be equivalent to me using Cirkovic to support an Albanian origin of say Pastrovici, even though he makes no such claim. Wouldnt you revert me too in that case?Alltan (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is quite obvious what are you doing, and yet you do not understand how wikipedia works, for instance unlike your quote mine passes verifiability yours does not, so it could be also erased, as for Cirkovic if the book is called Serbs, and the passage mentions 2 monks who are describing where is Serbia, mentioning Ridjani tribe among them, and after that in further passage mentons that those clans and I quote "Old institutions and practices were re-established,such as the secret witness ( sok), the ordeal ( mazija), proof of origin (svod), and the jury ( porota). The attitude toward the legal heritage of the Serbian state is characteristic." that would also mean that Ridjani were a Serbian tribe. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23:57 04. April 2022 (UTC)
No wp:or is an original research meaning unsourced, this is sourced, Cirkovic, the author, historian, you do realise that. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23:10 04. April 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes indeed, the author who somehow skipped saying the Riđani were a Serb clan/tribe, obviously leaving it to us fellow wiki editors to finish his thoughts for him. How kind.Alltan (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or to other editors to completely remove him claiming he is a nationalist, probably because he is a Serb. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 00:21 04. April 2022 (UTC)
Truly dreadful how some people would do that, especially considering Cirković was a pretty great author and historian. I can't even.Alltan (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
