Talk:Unknown Archon
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Requested move 22 November 2024
edit
 | It has been proposed in this section that Unknown Archon be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the name being decided below. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log |  |
Unknown Archon → ? – This "Unknown Archon" sounds like this is a proper name, but it's apparently not, this is just uppercase added to a translation of one of the general descriptions used in historiography about this story.
The article is a bit of a mess - most of it is the lead section that doesn't actually summarize the body; half the body is a verbatim copy from a 20th-century translation of a 10th-century primary source, and then there's a few paragraphs which kind of say yeah none of this stuff in the lead is necessarily true true.
So I don't really know if there's a good name for this topic, or if this small amount of context has potential - should it just be merged into a more general article? Joy (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure what we should do here. @Sorabino: any thoughts? — Sadko (words are wind) 14:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- As a historical personality, and part of Serbian origo gentis, mentioned several times in the primary source, and discussed in secondary sources, deserves its own and Wikipedia needs such an article. I would move the title to "Unnamed Serbian Archon" (DAI literally mentions "archon" which can interpreted in various ways, while "prince" could be misunderstood) because it sounds more specific than "Unknown Archon", he isn't "unknown" per se only "unnamed" (while e.g. Porga of Croatia is named, but his father is "unnamed") and is known to be of the Serbs. Regarding the "unnamed" in favor than "unknown", e.g. Tibor Živković 2010 mentions "unnamed brothers", Danijel Džino 2023 also mentions "unnamed two sons ... unnamed brother who led the Serbs ... legendary unnamed Serb prince who led the Serb migration". As for the body of text in the article, the scope should be only about the archon and origo gentis, anything else is already cited and discussed in other articles (like Serbia in the Middle Ages#De Administrando Imperio on the Serbs). Authors like Florin Curta and D. Džino should be cited with caution because they have a specific viewpoint/opinion which is contrasting traditional scholarship viewpoint, but as they are often dealing with identity of the elite - and the archon in question is representing an elite - should be cited nonetheless with attribution.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)