Talk:Ivan Crnojević/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

This article is POV. Ivan Crnojevic was one of the greatest Serb heroes in the world. He continued the life of the Serbian Empire in one of its tiny parts. How could one read that from the article? --PPNjegos (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha sure he was, he was one of biggest Montenegrins of that time and he didn't have anything to do with serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.4.197 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Serbia or Montenegro

There appears to be an edit war going on on this article, can whether this guy is a Serbian or a Montenegrin please be discussed? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if some reliable sources could be found to back some of this stuff up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK for the time being I'm going with the compromise solution of adding both Serbian and Montenegrin categories to the article.

If any changes are to be made can they be discussed here first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to Ivan I Crnojević

Hey I've reverted it as its definitely going to be controversial. If you have a source great. Otherwise can you discuss it on the talk page first? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I agree it is controversial (like many things related with Bosnia). Here is one source: Viator, page 388, from Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies / University of California. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

— My talkpage

That looks like a very reliable source, but I can't see the exact quote from the book which shows it. Can you point it out? Thanks. PS I'd rather discuss this here so its all in one place, your talk page is on my watchlist :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in a fourth sentence from the end of page 388. It is written ...Bosnian regional lord Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosaca...Kebeta (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's clear, I think it'll need to be discussed on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well! Kebeta (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbian lord of Zeta

Nowhere does Britannica define Ivan Crnojević as "Serbian lord of Zeta". It seems the phrase does not exist outside Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not bound to copy Britannica; both are tertiary sources. To say that someone was the Serbian lord of Zeta implies that there was at least one other lord of Zeta at the same time, who was not Serbian, and this is not true. Wikipedia should not be misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually Britannica is very much used as a reliable source and it describes him just like that a "Serbian leader" see here [[1]] it also describes him as a leader of rebelled Serbs. It also says that "the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Žabljak (not far from Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojević set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan Crnojević (Ivan the Black)User:Theonewithreason (talk) 22. November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but it does not say "Serbian lord of Zeta", does it? Have I not explained how that can be misleading? There was no Serbian and non-Serbian Zeta. There was only one Zeta with only one lord at a time. Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay should we than post a "Serbian leader" or "leader of Serbs" instead ? The source describes him like that.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 22. November 2020 (UTC)

He was not the leader of all Serbs, and we are not obligated to mimic Britannica's wording. Britannica, like Wikipedia, is a tertiary source. Readers are better served with a few more sentences. Surtsicna (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

But why are you completely removing sentence and source, he was leader of the Serbs in Zeta, it should be mentioned and please It was already established by many administrators on Wikipedia that Britannica is reliable source, we cannot invent rules as we please. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: and @WEBDuB: I apologise for bothering you but it appears we cannot reach agreement, what are your opinions? Should this sentence from Britannica be included or not? User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

I am completely removing it because Britannica does not say what you claim it says and because we do not need to mimic its subheader in our lead sentence anyway. First you claimed that Britannica defined him as "Serbian lord of Zeta" but it does not; then you claimed that it defined him as "Serb rebel leader" but it does not. What kind of rebellion are you even referring to? Wikipedia articles do not have subheaders like Britannica does, and so we can afford to be much more precise in our definitions of article subjects. Precision is what we should aim for. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude read the article it is not long and I already posted you a sentence from Britannica where it describers him like that and explains why, if you want I will put Serbian leader because it describe it exactly like that, second rebellion was against Ottomans and he and his family were ahead of it, if you want you can put the sentence´ce in article but do not remove reliable source, not very cooperative User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

I have read the article and nowhere does it mention a rebellion (nor should it, because there was not any). Contrary to your claims, Britannica does not describe Ivan Crnojević as "leader of rebelled Serbs" anywhere. Why do you insist over and over again that it says what it evidently does not say? Either way, do take a look at WP:BRITANNICA. Surtsicna (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

"Contrary to my claims" lets see in the title it says that he was a "Serbian leader" again here: [[2]] then you claim that there was no resistance, there is even a description in the this article that he fought Ottomans in Zabljak and also a description in Britannica that the "the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Žabljak (not far from Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojević set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan Crnojević (Ivan the Black)" - here is extended description of the text: After the Balšić dynasty died out in 1421, the focus of Serb resistance shifted northward to Žabljak (not far from Podgorica). There a chieftain named Stefan Crnojević set up his capital. Stefan was succeeded by Ivan Crnojević (Ivan the Black), who, in the unlikely setting of this barren and broken landscape and pressed by advancing Ottoman armies, created in his court a remarkable, if fragile, centre of civilization. Ivan’s son Djuradj Crnojević built a monastery at Cetinje, founding there the see of a bishopric, and imported from Venice a printing press that produced after 1493 some of the earliest books in the Cyrillic script. During the reign of Djuradj, Zeta came to be more widely known as Montenegro." Same question goes to you,why are you so against RS? I have already wrote I am willing to cooperate but not like this, you are not acknowledging reliable source you erasing everything what you dont like. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

And nowhere does that text mention a rebellion. Nowhere. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting about Britannica. It can be seen that a lot of editors like to use it because of "strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" , your second point ok no rebelion but it mentions resistance does it, so we can either post that he was a "Serbian leader" like written on RS or to form "chieftain of Serb resistance against the Ottomans" or we can put rephrased sentence in article User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

And I am not obtuse, keep your arrogance to yourself. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

Five times I asked about the supposed rebellion, five times you claimed it was in Britannica's article, so forgive me for suspecting obtusion at one point. Judging by the complete disregard for basic accuracy, your sole motivation here seems to be to emphasize the subject's Serbdom. I mean, a rebellion? I do not see ethnicity mentioned in the lead in articles about Philip III of Navarre, Charlemagne, Joan I of Naples, Manuel I Komnenos, etc. What is up with this obsession of Western Balkans editors with highlighting people's ethnic background? That sort of stuff normally goes into articles about families, not into lead sentences of individual biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No you are wrong, my point here is to establish some basic rules, meaning if the source like Britannica is recognised by many editors on Wikipedia as reliable source it means then that it can be used as such and to avoid WP:GAMING by others, I dont have to prove any Serbdom here because Zeta was under the rule of Nemanjic dynasty for a long time, everybody who knows something about history of that region knows that Serbs were a large part of it. But it is not the point. Otherwise I would go to i.e Crnojevic family article and put the same thing, but as you can see I am not doing that, I am posting his title that is written and given to him from the source Britannica and you are erasing it without any cooperation. A typical behaviour of a Western Balkan editor who is bothered with a title "Serbian leader" who knows why. You should ask yourself why did Britannica selected to post that he was a Serbian leader and not a lord of Zeta i.e User:Theonewithreason (talk) 23. November 2020 (UTC)

Britannica defines him as Serbian leader because that is all it writes about him; two words. We are not discussing a full-fledged article by Britannica. Similarly, all they write about his father is "Balkan ruler". Please, tell me, must Wikipedia define him as "lord of Zeta and Balkan ruler"? Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, It should define him as written per WP:RS what Britannica is, you should also stop supporting one purpose IP. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. May 2021 (UTC)

The two words Britannica writes about Stefan Crnojević is "Balkan ruler". Why should Wikipedia not define Stefan Crnojević as Balkan ruler? Surtsicna (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

He was one of Balkan rulers at the time, no matter how large his territory was. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. May 2021 (UTC)

So do you think that Wikipedia should follow Britannica in defining Stefan Crnojević as "Balkan ruler"? Surtsicna (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that this is TP of Ivan Crnojevic. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I am trying to understand your position here. Why is Britannica indispensable in this article but not in the article about the father? Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problems with info about his father from Britannica too, if you wish to discuss it go there. But this TP is about Ivan Crnojevic.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 30. May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Now, is it possible to define Ivan Crnojević the way he is defined in sources that write a bit more than two words about him? Surtsicna (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Surti, what is the exact problem here>? Please address other editors with respect. Thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you can read, Sadky. I hope you too shall treat other editors likewise. Thank you, too. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)