Talk:Smiljan, Croatia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tesla mention[edit]

I'm not sure characterizing Nikola Tesla as "Croatian" is backed by any reference. As far as I know he was "Serbian" by birth, in that his father was an Orthodox priest, and he himself had no strong religious views (Atheist being the closest). Since Smiljan is in Croatia, there is no need to emphasize Tesla's nationality at all. cerniagigante (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a newbie edit to the lead that was also misplaced, I've cleaned it up now. In the future please be bold and edit yourself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Just stop to edit war - I read very well the sources, even years before, and especially before You. In the census ie. sources there is no listed Serbian Orthodox "Vlachs", nor "Vlachs", yet only Vlachs. Their confession, which is Serbian Orthodox, is later listed in the article's paragraph.--Crovata (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted with the comment "Stop to WP:EDITWAR, last warning before report - ethnically by term-name there is no listed "Vlachs" or Serbian Orthodox "Vlachs" in census, only Vlachs". Could you answer me: What does "ethnically by term-name" mean? Is the Demography section including or meant to include the over 300 years old original register and/or the study? Where is it made clear which one, or if both, is meant? Why do you cherry-pick? Does the average reader know what "Vlachs" is meant by (elaborated on in the sources cited by yourself) in this sentence? Why is Šarić's view on Serb-Vlach ethnicity neglected? And lastly: Do you think the current sentence in the article, "Most of them were Bunjevci (1.312), then Vlachs (208), and Carniolians (16)", is adequate? Wow, you read a source before me, congratulations.--Zoupan 03:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and that's the difference - I cite the modern scholars considerations, you cite Serbian Orthodox Church and own subjective POV. The POV of the source is against the initial POV of edits and comments you done year(s) ago on the topic of Vlachs/Morlachs. In the census list in Smiljan are listed Bunjevci, Vlachs and Carniolians, not Roman Catholic "Bunjevci" etc. It's like to write that in the recent census in Serbia were listed "Serbs", Roman Catholic "Croats", Bosniaks (without "")... What Vlachs mean? They have corresponding article Vlachs of Croatia which is linked as well, and where source is cited. I don't cherry-pick, neither the ethnicity is neglected (you're accusing me for something I don't do), yet you twist census and source data.--Crovata (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crovata: "modern scholars considerations"? Your use of words are confusing. Why don't you cite/interpret/present them in this "modern scholarly consideration"? Am I subjectively POVing by citing the source you yourself added? Are you serious in comparing with a recent census? The source is not a census. Stop it, it is getting bizarre. I take this as your inability to properly answer.--Zoupan 04:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bunjevci[edit]

Can somebody explain to me, Bunjevac from Lika, how can we be considered to be Roman-Catholic Vlachs from Western Herzegovina, if term "Vlach" is coming from "Walachian", refering to people from Walachia, Romania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.158.162 (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by Mikola22[edit]

Mikola22, explain, please, your stubborn reverting. "We must respect sources" is not an explanation for actions like this: [1]. If I am mistaken, show the source, where it says "Mykola, remove the footnote!". On the contrary, I have shown that the word "minority" is used in the source, but you have deleted it without any "respect".--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we don’t agree, I will be forced to roll back to the last stable version [2] (I can’t say that I like it, but these are the rules).--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus Word "minority" is used for place of Lovinac. I don't mind adding the same word to the this part of the article. However everything else you added behind that word is outside the sources, and we must respect sources.Mikola22 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the full sentence is: "Tako je na području Perušića srpskopravoslavna manjina bila koncentrirana u Klenovcu i Studencima,78 a na području Smiljana u Selištu, Ljutači i Bogdaniću (Thus, in the Perusic area, the Serbian Orthodox minority was concentrated in Klenovac and Studenci, and in the Smiljan area in Selište, Ljutaca and Bogdanic.) Obviously, the word "minority" also refers to Smiljan. In other words, I don’t see anything than cheating in your answer.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I skipped that part, but I don't see the point of that word. In any case that word may be added. Everything else is outside the source.Mikola22 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don’t see something, this does not mean that you need to start a war of edits. Explanations that there is "actually" written in German language in the primary source should be moved into a footnote, otherwise it ruines the coherence of the Wikipedian text.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must respect sources.Mikola22 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Someone claim the opposite? This is when you do not like something in the sources, you treat them without any "respect".--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have talk page and every part of the article, word, etc you can put here for discussion. My edits are in accordance with the sources which exist and which we must respect. This is the history of one place or village in Croatia and all important things concerning of that village we have to present according to the sources which we have (book, historian etc).Mikola22 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Mikola22[edit]

  • At that time there were eight Catholic parishes in the Lika-Krbava area, one of them existed in Smiljan.[1]

Source information.

  • Villages and hamlets in Lika and Krbava were divided according to religious confession, which was aligned with ethnicity; in Smiljan the Serbian Orthodox Vlachs in the census of Lika from 1712 known as Schismatische Wallachen lived in the hamlets of Selište, Ljutača and Bogdanić at that time.[2]

I added here "Vlachs in the census of Lika from 1712 known as Schismatische Wallachen"

U popisu iz 1712 prvi i najvažniji kriterij jest podjela prema konfesionalnoj pripadnosti. Stanovništvo se dijelilo na katolike (Chatolici, Catholiken, Römisch Catholischen) i pravoslavce (Schismatische Wallachen, Walachi, Wolochi). "In the census of 1712, the first and most important criterion is the division by confessional affiliation. The population was divided into Catholics (Chatolici, Catholiken, Römisch Catholischen) and Orthodox (Schismatische Wallachen, Walachi, Woloch)"

Etničke atribucije.. Najčešće se pojavljuje vlaško ime ali primarno kao etnokonfesionalna oznaka (Walachi, Wolochi, Wallachen) Riječ je o istoznačnici za šizmatike, tj. pravoslavni kršćanin. "Ethnic attributions.. The Vlach name most often appears, but primarily as ethno-confessional designation (Walachi, Wolochi, Wallachen) This is a synonym for schismatics, i.e. Orthodox Christian." Paper of Marko Šarić, page 360.

And information from the book of Austrian historian Karl Kaser. Naziv "Vlasi" upotrebljava se u popisu iz 1712. u dva značenja. Većinom se koristio za označavanje pripadnosti grčko-pravoslavnoj vjerskoj zajednici. Tako se često primjenjivao oprečni par katolici-Vlasi ili naziv "vlaške vjere". Rjeđe se susreće naziv "Šizmatici" ili "Šizmatičke vjeroispovijesti". Uporaba termina Vlah ipak nije konstantna, jer se on ponekad upotrebljava i za označavanje Vlaha kao etničke skupine.

The name "Vlachs" is used in the census of 1712 with two meanings. It was mostly used to indicate affiliation(belonging) to the Greek Orthodox community. Thus, the opposing Catholic-Vlach pair or the name of the "Vlach faith" was often used. The less common name is "Schizmatics" or "Schismatic religion." However, used of the term Vlach is not constant, because it is sometimes used to refer Vlach as an ethnic group (page 174,175).


I'm deleting this information because it's from a time of ww2 so it can't be RS for Wikipedia, the whole book is about the historical right of the Serbians to parts of Croatia, consensus required.Mikola22 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Marko Šarić, 2007, Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. godine,https://www.pilar.hr/wp-content/images/stories/dokumenti/lika/lika_1_mail_r_325.pdf#page=363
  2. ^ Šarić 2009, p. 360-363.
  3. ^ Sinđel Dimitrije Dušan Balać (1943). Istorijska prava srpskog naroda na krajeve: Dalmaciju, Krbavu, Liku, Gorski Kotar, Žemberak, Kordun, Baniju i Slavoniju. Srpski narodni savez. pp. 18–19.

Formal discussion[edit]

Howdy hello! This was recently at ANI, but seemed to be a content dispute, so we're back here. Nicoljaus, Mikola22, could you summarize the current debate please? Keep it short, under 250 words, and provide links if possible. With luck we'll get to the bottom of this, and come to a pleasant agreement. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by Mikola22[edit]

I already explained my edits. The book of Austrian historian Karl Kaser (Karl Kaser, Slobodan seljak i vojnik: povojačenje agrarnog društva u Hrvatsko-slavonskoj Vojnoj krajini (1535-1881) 1997, page 174,175[1] and in book [2] in which he talking about Vlachs from Lika who are Schizmatics and belong to Greek Church and Catholic Vlach Bunjevci who make the majority of the population in Smiljan. In that book Serbian Orthodox Vlach are not mentioned. Marko Šarić in paper mentione Schizmatics Vlachs etc but he calls them Serbian Orthodox Vlach. Considering that census from 1714 mentione Schizmatics Vlachs, as well as the book(of Karl Kaser) itself and given that it is historical information and important for the population of that village I next to Serbian Orthodox put Vlachs and that they known in census as {{lang|de|Schismatische Wallachen}. As for the others edits everything is explained so it can be discussed later.Mikola22 (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Vlach/s holds multiple meanings. A number of sources used Vlach for Serbs as well, which is explained on Vlachs in the history of Croatia. I think that you did not provide enough context and RS. Wikipedia:Verifiability is also what bugs me about this addition. The article also states - Bunjevci (Roman Catholic Vlachs who spoke Western Herzegovinian subdialect of Neo-Shtokavian with Ikavian accent). This is incorrect information. Bunjevci are not Vlachs. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by Nicoljaus[edit]

The confessional composition of the population of Smiljan is described in a secondary source - an article by Marko Šarić[3]. In it, it is divided into Roman Catholics and Serbian Orthodox. There is no sensation in this, at that time there was a Ličko-Krbavska and Zrinopoljska Eparchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church on the territory of Lika. Other names are used in the primary source, such as "Schismatische Wallachen", but, in my opinion, this discussion is irrelevant for an article about the village and should be moved into footnotes.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from CaptainEek[edit]

@Nicoljaus: @Sadko: @Mikola22: You all forget that I am not a party to this dispute and am not familiar with it. Please help me and provide a concise explanation, assuming I have no clue whats going on and am totally unfamiliar with the subject. Could you point out exactly the sentences at issue, and what you want done with them...i.e. kept, removed, altered and in what way. Also, since the sources don't appear in English, could you provide a translation of the relevant sections of them? Afraid I don't speak Croatian. Thanks! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First reply by Mikola22[edit]

  • Villages and hamlets in Lika and Krbava were divided according to religious confession, which was aligned with ethnicity; in Smiljan the Serbian Orthodox I added here Vlachs ie "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs" and "in the census of Lika from 1712 known as Schismatische Wallachen" This is data from two sources. Explained here[4]
  • A 1700 church register listed 17 Serbian Orthodox families in the village, who had settled during the Great Turkish War I deleted this quote because it is from a WW2 book which talks about Serbian rights to parts of Croatian territory and it cannot be RS.
  • The Serbian Orthodox church of St. Peter and Paul was built in 1765; it is now a branch of a parish in Gospić. In source is not mentioned Serbian Orthodox church but only Orthodox church and I edit that part of citation according to source.

CaptainEek My editing is adjusted with the sources. We must respect the fact that sources mention Vlachs as well as being referred at that time and census as Schismatische Wallachen. This is important information for the history of this settlement and the area as well as Croatia itself at that time. Otherwise Serbian Orthodox are mentioned in a scientific article of Marko Šarić not in the sources he cites and they exist there as "Serbian Orthodox" until 1766, but in a book of Austrian historian Karl Kaser for same peoples he mentione Greek Orthodox. Both sources mentione Vlachs and Schismatische Wallachen as well as census of Lika from 1712 and we should respect and this facts. Mikola22 (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22, Thank you for the detailed and well delineated response! Let me clarify a few points:
  1. Why would the WW2 book not be reliable?
  2. Sarics article says Serbian Orthodox, correct? Saric is an academic, which would make it a reliable source?
  3. Whats the difference between Orthodox and Serbian Orthodox? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why would the WW2 book not be reliable? Source discusses Serbian rights to parts of the Croatian territory? It is a time of war so I guess it's not RS?
  2. Sarics article says Serbian Orthodox, correct? Saric is an academic, which would make it a reliable source? Sarić is not academic, editor Slatersteven asked for comment about that source which takes a good part of the article "Vlachs in the history of Croatia". Fringe theories/Noticeboard[5] Otherwise the book of the Austrian historian is also reliable source. I did not delete data from Sarić but I added data from the Austrian historian as well information from Šarić scientific article.
  3. Whats the difference between Orthodox and Serbian Orthodox? I didn't really notice that in Croatian historiography use term "Serbian Orthodox" they use "Orthodox" so to me it was a bit strange. Austrian historian use term Greek Orthodox. Serbian Orthodox is like Roman Catholic however that term is changeable. After 1766 ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople is responsible for Orthodox population, and earlier in the period 1463-1557. CaptainEek atherwise Austrian history sources mostly mention Orthodox but for them they are Greek Orthodox or Schismatics and probably because of that Austrian historian used this term.Mikola22 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First reply by Nicoljaus[edit]

The article of Marko Šarić "Pre-modern ethnicities in Lika and Krbava according to the census of 1712/14." (in Croatian) says:[6]

Krbava was almost all Serbian Orthodox, except for three smaller Catholic enclaves on Udbina, in Mutilić and Podlapac.[77]

The footnote 77 says:

Homogeneous Serbian Orthodox settlements were: [list of villages]

[...]

The mixed, majority Catholic settlements were: [...] Smiljan (103 Roman Catholics (rkt. - rimokatolici) and 17 Serbian Orthodox (spr. - srpskopravoslavni) houses)

Later, on the same page:

Thus, in the Perusic area, the Serbian Orthodox minority was concentrated in Klenovac and Studenci, [78] and in the Smiljan area in Seliste, Ljutaca and Bogdanic. [79]

I believe this source determines the confessional composition of the residents of Smiljan quite clearly. All attempts to expand the discussion about census terminology can be put in a footnote - this does not correspond to the weight of this information in the article about the village. Any questions?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, Appreciate the response! My main clarifying question: what would you like the end result to look like? Keep the current wording? Or something else? Could you suggest wording for a footnote? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, CaptainEek! I would prefer the following wording. In the section “History”, I would delete the paragraph beginning with the words “After the defeat of the Ottomans in Lika...” and replace it with the sentence “After the defeat of the Ottomans, the territory of Lika, including Smiljan, passed to the Austrian Empire, and from 1713 was included in the Croatian Military border." Now a lot of information is duplicated in two sections, and some are poorly supplied with sources. Further, in the section "Demography" I would leave the current wording: " There were 103 Roman Catholic, and 17 Serbian Orthodox (Vlachian) families.". But I would prefer to extend this phrase to: Villages and hamlets in Lika and Krbava were divided according to religious confession, which was aligned with ethnicity. Western Lika was predominantly Catholic with two major Serbian Orthodox enclaves near Perušić and Smiljan. There were 103 Roman Catholic, and 17 Serbian Orthodox (Vlachian) families in Smiljan itself. Also, in the Smiljan area Serbian Orthodox minority was concentrated in Seliste, Ljutaca and Bogdanic.
  • As for the footnote, I would have done without it. But, as a compromise, I would suggest the following wording: "In the mentioned census they were designated as Vlachs, namely Schismatische Wallachen. "Schismatics" is a derogatory term for all Eastern Orthodox after the Great schism 1054."--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: This version is neutral and overall okay. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First reply by Sadko[edit]

Second reply by CaptainEek[edit]

pending

Threaded discussion[edit]

References

  1. ^ https://www.worldcat.org/title/slobodan-seljak-i-vojnik-povojacenje-agrarnog-drustva-u-hrvatsko-slavonskoj-vojnoj-krajini-1535-1881/oclc/43184718
  2. ^ POPIS Like i Krbave 1712. godine, 2003, http://www.skdprosvjeta.com/pdf/9.pdf #page=21
  3. ^ Marko Šarić, 2007, Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. godine,https://www.pilar.hr/wp-content/images/stories/dokumenti/lika/lika_1_mail_r_325.pdf
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Smiljan#Edit_of_Mikola22
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_68#Vlachs_in_the_history_of_Croatia
  6. ^ Marko Šarić, Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. godine,https://www.pilar.hr/wp-content/images/stories/dokumenti/lika/lika_1_mail_r_325.pdf

"A source from Serbian books is not reliable"[edit]

Hello, 93.119.104.41. Explain, please, your summary "A source from Serbian books is not reliable, there are others who say it is a fabrication". Why all this books are "unreliable"? And who is those "others" who say it is a "fabrication"? I mean this edit: [3]--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yannkemper, Amanuensis Balkanicus, Sadko, and Nicoljaus: It's good that this discussion has been started, but actually, the anon might have a point. You are currently restoring at least one unreliable source, so it is a good thing the IP is removing it. Please do not restore it. And your collective editing looks very much like tag-teaming to the trained eye, be mindful. ——SN54129 15:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If anon has a point, they have full freedom to express it. So far I have just heard "the source is unreliable because it is Serbian." Anon did not delete “one source”, but everything in a row, which is definitely not a “good thing”.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had (incorrectly) assumed it was article blanking. Yannkemper (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is unreliable? Be specific. There is no such thing taking place. This is a clear case of POV pushing and aggressive vandalism + Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko: Lulu.com is a self-publisher, and these are almost always unrelable. ——SN54129 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: It was first published by a Merriam Press, see frontpage [4]--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: Please do something with this: I know Russians like you support Serbs [5] Because of your comments, protection will not be put on the page.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this sort of removal of information about the victims is mot alarming. If the IP does not answer, the content should be restored and even more references added. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: What's going on here, I edit article according to sources and we now have an article without confirmation in the sources. "A 1700 church register listed 17 Serbian Orthodox families in the village, who had settled during the Great Turkish War" WW2 source on Serbian rights to Croatian territory, what he does in the article? "in Smiljan the Orthodox" In source is Orthodox Vlachs. "who were ethnic Serbs" this information does not exist in the source. Since I started editing, various acrobatics began to bypass data from sources. The article is full of inaccuracies. Can I continue with editing or I have to wait CaptainEek? Mikola22 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please present proper arguments and explanation for your claims. I do not understand you. Try better. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A 1700 church register listed 17 Serbian Orthodox families in the village, who had settled during the Great Turkish War" Information from the WW2 book on Serbian rights to Croatian territory. It's not RS. "in Smiljan the Orthodox" Source talks about Orthodox Vlachs. "who were ethnic Serbs" the source does not say that. "The Serbian Orthodox church of St. Peter and Paul was built in 1765" the source does not say that. Did you understand better now?Mikola22 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikola22: Due to the fact that you are writing in another topic and are addressing another person, nothing is clear. Watch the indentation. The revert to the version with "ethnic Serbs" phrase has been done by IP-user: [6]. I propose to return the text to this version: [7], where there is no statement about the "ethnic Serbs", and the discussion about the "Vlachs-Schismatics" is put out in a note. If everyone agrees with this version, there will be no need to wait for CaptainEek. If you do not agree, we are waiting for what CaptainEek will say in the topic above ("Formal discussion"). --Nicoljaus (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicoljaus: We'll wait CaptainEek. Vlachs-Schismatics are mentioned both in the book, paper and in the census and it is valuable information of that time. In footnote we could put the information on Serbian Orthodox considering that Serbian Orthodox exist from 1557-1766 and possibly because of this the Austrian historian uses term Greek Orthodox since Vlachs occur before and after jurisdiction of Serbian Orthodox Church in any case he does not use term Serbian Orthodox and that RS we also must respect.Mikola22 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smiljan,_Croatia&oldid=1222579423"