Talk:Old Serbia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry

@Jingiby and Sadko:, that content is related to the Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry over parts of what is called "Old Serbia". The term was widely used at the time to support Serbia's claims with what were considered by Serbian elites to be historical rights. Hence "old Serbia". So should not the article have such content? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moreover the name Macedonia was forbidden in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by political reasons. Most of that territory was ceded to medieval Serbia in the 12th century for the first time and was in fact New Serbia. Most of the Slavic-speakers into the whole area were described until the 20th century mainly as Bulgarians, not as Old Serbs. Because of that I agree with Ktrimi991. Jingiby (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Not most of the territory. Slavic and Serb presence (per DAI and other sources) came before the Bulgar migration. That is not the most important here, the facts is that territories of Raška (a different territory compared to the future sanjak) and parts of modern-day disputed territory of Kosovo were settled by Serbs and were a part of early proto-states and later state formations. Those are just the basic facts. Macedonianism, Bulgarization and Serbianisation are not that relevant for this article and have articles of their own. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I added content sourced to Motta who elaborates on how southern Old Serbia and Macedonia became subject of the Serbian-Bulgarian rivalry at the time of the Macedonian Question. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

1) You are yet again being disruptive (but with good intentions). The info is not important for the article and should be (and is) a part of other articles. Plus, the information is just obvious and logical. 2) A discussion has began and we are discussing what to with the content and therefore - how the heck do you think that it is okay to push another undo? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Motta and Rossos have done good studies on the Serbian-Bulgarian conflict over the area, and its legacy. Thus, the content is very relevant to the article. If you are concerned that way, do not remove content without consensus....and do not keep making assumptions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The main point is relevant and I agree with it. The second - is not. It's not notable and borders with propagandistic spam. And you do not have consensus on that and do not get to walk over other users, per basic Wiki rules and culture of democracy. I see no answer to the second question. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, we indeed have no consensus for this part of text to be included, as I think that it is not notable and not about the article. I will remove it as soon as tomorrow. This way of behaviour is insultive and disrespectful for other editors (and pseudo-arguments like "it has been there for a long time" mean nothing). Stop manipulating with "conensus" as a way to push your POV. Wikipedia is not a political arena. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Consult the sources, try to do some further research, and enrich the article with anything relevant you might find. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

RS sources point to this term having originated in the 19th century and used for nationalist purposes to claim territory (i.e Atanasovski 2019 [1]; Boskovska 2017 [2]; Rama 2019 [3]; Madgearu & Gordon 2008 [4]). Hardly anything of the sort is referred to in the article which presents this term as a generic word used by Serbs from back in the day. I'm thinking about covering that aspect. Jingiby, Sadko and Ktrimi991, thoughts?Resnjari (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind, Resnjari. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources and included text that it was coined that is promoted in the 19th century. That is nothing new. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, its common knowledge for us, but the article lacks what i outlined in the previous comment. Plus, these RS sources are solid too and can provide information about the term that readers are not familiar with.Resnjari (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit-war Sadko. You do not gain a consensus for removing this passage here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Every opinion matters, some people are failing to realise that. Therefore, there is no consensus. I disagree with this entry as it is not notable or on-topic. The content was added for purposes which are not that noble. "It has been there for a long time" is no argument and you know it. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jingiby and Ktrimi and Resn here. When there is Turkification, wiki covers it. Same for Hellenization, ditto Romanianization, etc. Same for Germanization, Polonization, Sinification, Russification... The only reason we don't have Bosniakization/Slovenization/Lazification/etc is that some nations never got the chance, very few countries were actually like Switzerland and actually respected people's identities. Serbia has not been singled out. So don't muse about people's motives. Furthermore, even if some material was added as part of a plot to annex Sumadina to Greater Mars, if the result is material that is backed by RS, written in NPOV, and valuable for comprehending the topic, what's the issue?--Calthinus (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It is neither valuable/notable nor on-topic. Do you care to give some examples of "wiki covers it"? The logic here is to add as much content as possible and this particular content is sweet to some editors, and indeed it is a fact and with sources (there is no doubt about that), but it's something of a spam. The same would be if the article on karst was spamed with info that Jovan Cvijić made some controversial claims and maps. And yes, I am completely free to make that claim because it is not based just on this isolated case bur rather a number of edits. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby, Sadko, Ktrimi991 and Calthinus, ok, i think we need to clarify some things here guys as we are all going around in circles and no one has referred directly to what the pages themselves state and how that aligns or does not with the sentence. Djokić, on page 123 [5] does not mention persecution of Bulgarian activists nor of "Old Serbia" (Stara Serbia), only of Serbianisation. So content based on page 123 belongs in the Serbianisation article, not here. However, page 59 [6] does mention "old Serbia" and its in reference to the Serb Black Hand organisation and nationalism. That does belong in the article. Crampton, p. 20. [7] also talks of Serbianisation, but not of Old Serbia. This also belongs in the Serbianisation article. Nonetheless, pages 6 and 15 by Crampton do refer to "Old Serbia" regarding different issues [8]. This should be in the article. So the bit about Bulgarian activists or Serbianisation in the sentence does not suffice especially if both sources do not show it to be the case. There may be sources that do state the persecution part and Old Serbia in the same context, until such time as that can be produced, its best left out. Regardless, I plan on adding content and expanding this article in coming days. As i outlined in the talkpage, there is adequate sources on this topic.Resnjari (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good point @Resnjari:. That sentence of the article should be replaced with relevant content from Djokic and Crampton. And I agree that the article needs some additions in order to clearly reflect the meaning and legacy of the subject. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sadko, please don't remove Ktrimi991's additions. They deal directly with the topic and are RS. I double checked and added the relevant weblinks so anyone can also do the same.Resnjari (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Resnjari and Jingiby: regardless of what sources currently on the page say, there are at least 42 scholarly papers discussing Serbianization in the context of "Old Serbia" [9], and then 22 when it's Serbianisation [10] -- as is to be expected for a term that emerged as propaganda to emphasize some two centuries of medieval Serbian rule in "Old Serbia" while erasing its Albanian population and its deep Bulgarian heritage (and population). Example of a paper explicitly discussing the two in conjunction [11].--Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, nice find. Thank you. Looks like i got a lot of reading to do over coming days. This article is in for a major revamp. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You added a bunch of content which is not notable for the article and only gives broader information which are only loosely connected to Old Serbia and could be placed on more appropriate articles. Adding Načertanije is a nice touch. It reads like original research and, no Rama is not that notable scholar. Nothing more than Carl Savich for that matter. Plus, his info is plain wrong and it is his research. Did you read anything by Petar II Petrović-Njegoš and Petar I Petrović-Njegoš (correspondence and literary works as well)? I guess that he didn't. I don't see the proposal to discuss the added content with other editors (which is altering the article quite a bit), while I have seen tha cases of the same editors pushing undos on edits with the same diff ("talk to the talk page", "discuss first" and such). It makes me wonder... I will do a major clean-up of the article once you add your content. And no, I don't care for the fact that Old Serbia was used in propagandistic purposes from time to time. Plus, the fact that Serbian state ruled some 2 and half centuries over the area is nothing compared to the fact that Serbs lived in the greater part of that area for ~1500 years (parts of Macedonia included). I will kindly advise you to make tweaks regarding the tone and style of the new info and stop cherry-picking and utterly politicising the article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rama is RS. Slavs lived in Rashka, Kosovo, Macedonia for awhile, but Serbian and Bulgarian state identities came later and spread through a top-down process. Except in purely Serbian Rashka, both identities had plenty of history, so Old Serbia could just as easily be "Old Bulgaria plus Rashka" (yes, Kosovo too was Bulgarian before it was Serbian; even Serbian authors ″recognize this). Don't take it from me though. Better just leave it to the provided RS.--Calthinus (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

His info is not correct and I explained why. If I was to provide a ref. which would give a claim different to the info. given by Rama, what would be your suggestion that we do next? Rama's work is indeed original reserach and it is pretty much copied to this article! Serbs and other Slavs lived and live in Raska, Kosovo and Macedonia for about 1500 years (give or take), that is not "for a while". White American citizens and their ancestors live in USA for a while. Of course that it was Bulgarian, most of the Balkans was Bulgarian at some point, because their state was a conquering warrior empire, which came from the east and later got slavicized. Bulgarian identity was not present in all parts of Macedonia. That is just wishful thinking.Things are more complicated. I can claim that Serb identity was present in the west, north and north-west of modern day North Macedonia. If that was not the case, there would be no struggle for Macedonia. And their identity was not only "forced" by the Serbian state like some people fantasize, but it was a part of common heritage (epic poems on king Marko, influence by the SOC, Kosovo myth and the whole lot). Once again: Wikipedia is not an essay, NO original research allowed, most of the info is broader, spam and has nothing to do with the main line of the article but it only scrams "Bad, bad Serbian state assimilating and attacking all of it's poor neighbours" (which steems from personal feelings and is biased). That is the gist of it. The added content is also a sneaky way of pushhing the POV that only in the 19th century Serbs "decided" that Kosovo is "the heart of Serbia". That is both ironic and moronic. It is ironic because it was only in the late 19th century that Albanians became the majority in modern-day territory of Kosovo and it is funny because Great Migrations of the Serbs made sure that the idea that Kosovo was "a holy place" was spread out to most areas where Serbs lived. It was also very much alive in the 18th century Montenegro (check it, be my guest) and lastly it was updated in the 19th century with the Serbian Revival. Therefore, the idea pushed here, that Old Serbia was/is nothing but a propagandistic term which was made up in order to conquer Kosovo (something which would be "repeated" in the 1990s), simply holds no water. I see the ideas pushed here, it's simply weak and not per history but one side's view. ty Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than the colorful and highly spicy soup above, why not just post such a source that gives a different POV, and then we can discuss that, rather than your opinion of your colleagues?--Calthinus (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus "Spicy soup" (I can mostly agree with the description) is only per the current mess, that is this essay-like text which has been pushed in the article. It is just ridiculous, in poor style, connecting dots all over the place, making mistakes with Serbian names (Naćertanije), quoting Rama who is doing his own thing (original research), formulating and accentuates content from a clear Kosovar POV (regardless if you realise it or not). I will not fight windmills, but this TP will be present and available for the next generation of editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

New information and so on

I am pinging editors who recently edited the page: @Calthinus: @Jingiby: @Resnjari: @Ktrimi991: @Baffle gab1978: @Jonesey95: @Khoshhat: The article contains a sentence backed up by a book by Predrag Ejdus (Serbian rebels of the First Serbian Uprising and Second Serbian Uprising had no territorial ambitions over Kosovo). Other sources are saying a quite different thing. The academic work by professor sr:Bogumil Hrabak states - The First Rebellion of the Serbs was spread beyond the bonndenes of the Belgrade pashaluc and acquired the character of the fight of all Serbs. It had a great influence on Kosovo and Metohia especially after the rebels from Šumadija and Pomoravlje (the basin of the river Morava) had penetrated into Old Serbia. While the Serbs from the northern parts of Kosovo were preparing to organize a rebellion, the Albanians led by Turkish pashas were organizing and preparing themselves to crush - terroristically and at the very beginning - every attempt of the Serbs to start a rebellion. On the other hand, this terror caused many Serbs from Kosovo and Metohia to go to Serbia and join the rebels. Another source, a letter by local Ottoman officials who witnessed the events is confirming this. The direct quote on the matter is: "Kao što je nekada kralj (knez) Lazar izašao na Kosovo, svi će na Kosovo izaći. Oni stalno drže u rukama knjige o istoriji spomenutog kralja i ona je veliki podstrekač bune u njihovom razumu." In Serbian language the quote tells pretty much tells us that the Serbian rebels are going to go to Kosovo. They are reading a book on the history of the same king and it is a great instigator (on their way of thinking).

2) This book by the diplomat and historian Terzić is covering our subject on more than 600 pages. It can be used for references or at least added under further reading. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

@User:Sadko, I am answering the post you recently made at WikiProject History. The first source you mention (the one currently supporting the claim in the article) appears to be a work of social science, not straight-up history, and it looks like it gets pretty theoretical. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means that if there are scholarly history sources that disagree with it on this point, I would be inclined to go with the latter ones. Unfortunately, I am unable to assess the credibility of the last two sources you provide because I can't read Serbian. I have requested two additional scholarly sources not yet cited in the article, but I do not yet have access to them--It may take up to two weeks before I can actually weigh in on the question you ask. The claim will likely remain in the article until then ... unless others join in the discussion with more sources, etc. I have never edited this page before, so I am definitely not inclined to overturn the consensus of regular editors based only on the info in your comment above. However, I can add to the discussion ("fresh perspective" as you put it) once my sources arrive and then respond based on what they say.--MattMauler (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Bogumil Hrabak is a respected historian and uni. professor who authored more than 700 works, including ~40 books. Thank you Matt, that would be great. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

An update: Two of the three sources I read from say that fighting took place in northern Kosovo but do not comment on "ambitions" or plans of the First Serbian Uprising. The third, Serbia: History of an Idea states, "Karageorge had referred to the need to remove the yoke that Serbia had borne since the battle of Kosovo, and for freedom to extend to Kosovo" (Stevan K. Pavlowitch, Serbia: History of an Idea (New York: New York University Press, 2002), p. 31). Judging by this source, it appears that the intention by at least one leader involved was to wrest Kosovo from Ottoman control, but it is unclear whether his intentions were in accordance with the majority or with others involved. In this source, this is one of very few sentences about the specific territorial designs of the uprising, so I would call it inconclusive for the purposes of deciding whether or not to remove the claim you mention.
I would be inclined to trust the more detailed source you provide above (Bogumil Hrabak), which if it's the one I believe it is, from 1996, focuses very specifically on the uprising itself. However, I note that in the quote you provide from that source, it states that the uprising had an "impact" on Kosovo and that many went from Kosovo to Serbia to fight in the uprising. This is not the same as aiming to claim parts of Kosovo. Again, I am not able to interpret Hrabak's source outside of the quotation you provide because it is not available in English (or Spanish) to my knowledge.
As I have written before, the source supporting the claim within the article right now is from a work of social science that gets very conceptual, taking it out of the area of history, so while the author is an expert in something, the central thesis of the book is not a purely historical one, nor is it directly focused on the territorial ambitions of the Serbian uprising. For this reason, I have placed a tag next to the claim asking for a better source to support it. Nothing I have found contradicts it sufficiently strongly for me to remove it, but surely a better source should be provided (by an editor who can read Serbian!). Ejdus cites Ljusic, Nedeljkovic, and others in his text ... Are these actual historians? If so, they should be cited rather than a work of theoretical PoliSci (particularly because the claim is apparently challenged in other sources).--MattMauler (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

MattMauler, regarding Ejdus, as the academic is part of the social sciences and was published by a reputable publishing house, i.e Springer, I am a bit confounded as to by he would be considered less (i.e needed to be replaced with a better source) when compared to historians? I have not seen anywhere in the WP:RS policy that privileges historians above all other humanities disciplines and their academics/experts like anthropologists, sociologists etc. Ejdus' work is a more recent analysis of past data on the topic and one of more contemporary studies that meet RS and WP:SECONDARY. Some of the Serb historians that he analyses like Bogdanovic have issues with nationalism etc, as do many past Serb historians (see: Serb historiography). If we cite those sources directly then there might be a demand by some editors to have further problematic data from those sources in this article. In the end, isn’t it important that the data in this article comes from reputable scholarship? Ejdus has done an analysis and comes from the same larger humanities family that historians belong, unless there is something in wiki policy that has been missed that privileges historians above others, going by the policy of RS, Ejdus should be ok for here.Resnjari (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand. Let me say first that I will happily abide by whatever consensus is reached by regular editors of the page. I see my part here as merely offering an opinion when it was requested. Nothing privileges historians above others in the humanities and social sciences in every case, but my reasoning was that the claim in the article is a historical claim, and that it should thus be supported by historical scholarship. The reason why I added the tag instead of seeing the RS and leaving it alone was because of Sadko's claim about contradictions above and because of what I saw in Pavlowitch that partially contradicted it.
Ejdus is RS, but his book is concerned with how Kosovo became an "ontic space" important to Serbia's collective identity--so important that people are driven to maintenance of a certain narrative with political implications for Kosovo's status, even if that narrative does not line up with the historical record. For the historical record itself, Ejdus relies on historical scholarship, so when I saw his claim partially contradicted in another source, I was curious about the secondary sources on which Ejdus relies--sources to which I do not have access, but which I assumed could and should perhaps be appended to reinforce the sentence now in the article. I am not well versed in the nationalistic problem regarding Serbian historians, so, again, I will leave it up to others to decide whether or not the tag should stay.--MattMauler (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Old Serbia, as a concept is also political, in addition to being historical. It was used to claim territory in the latter stages of the 19th and the early 20th century. Ejdus (2019) is more recent scholarship then Pavlowitch (2003), the topic is attracting more detailed attention by RS from other areas of the humanities. Anyway this topic needs to be expanded upon. Possibly these issuses can be ironed out and both matters resolved when there is more content in the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The two Serbian revolts took place with great difficulty in a small area, the Sanjak of Smederevo. Hence while the leaders certainly wanted to have in the future a Serbia including Kosovo, it was not the immediate goal. Create a Serbian principality around Smeredevo, then expand it. I do not see any RS that rejects what the article's source says. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, in 1809, the First Serbian Uprising extended to what would now be considered North Kosovo (see Kosovo: A Short History). The goal of the rebels was to reestablish Dusan the Mighty's Serbian Empire, which as everyone knows included Kosovo (see The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia). Ottoman troops, many of whom were Kosovo Albanians, subsequently committed atrocities in Belgrade after the city's fall in 1813 (see Serbia: The History of an Idea). Hence, I'm inclined to agree with MattMauler that the Kosovo sentence doesn't make much sense. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Amanuensis Balkanicus, MattMauler, actually i had a look at the passages and neither Ejdus nor Pavlowitch contradict each other. Pavlowitch, p. 31 [12]

"There had been no far-reaching intellectual background or political project behind the rising, it did give new impetus both to the memory of medieval Serbia and to the tradition of defiance and defeat. Karageorge had referred to the need to remove the yoke that Serbia had borne since the battle of Kosovo, and for freedom to extend to Kosovo. He had seen the need to legitimize his authority through symbols such as the relics of the First-Crowned Holy King Stephen, or old heraldic bearings on flags and seals. However, the idea that to restore a Serbian state would be the best way to avoid future suffering was in Karageorge's mind no 'great idea' to restore Dušan's empire." Ejdus, p. 46 [13] "None of the plans included Kosovo and the Old Serbia in this revived Serbian Empire." In the end, Karageorge had thoughts about Kosovo (Pavlowitch), but it never was official policy of a then emerging Serbia to expand southward (Ejdus) until later.Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Atanasovski is not WP:RS when it comes to historical data and analysis. He is a musicologist and original reseracher, his own words. Therefore, he is not notable for the lead, or strong unsopported claims like the one in which he concludes that Albanians were considered to be unhygienic, etc. With the exception of information about music/folk songs in connection to Old Serbia, his work is largely a partisan source. Why? The same way we would not use extreme nationalistic historian, we can not use an extreme anti-nationalist. The guy pretty much wages a crusade against anyone he deems to be nationalistic; he is a supporter of independence Kosovo and propagates currently popular discourse/narrative of "imperial colonizators and their victims" which is nothing more or less then a POV and interpretation which is there to give "arguments" for daily politics/claims. 2) I have preiovusly posted 2 RS which clearly state that Karađorđe and his men had ambitions to reclaim the territory of Kosovo. Current formulation is completely misleading and incorrect. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Ambitions is not official policy. It was just thoughts and aims. As i said previously, the sources do not contradict when they are compared. On Srđan Atanasovski, he has a PHD in Musicology, which means he is an academic, not some graduate student, or something not serious [14]. Musicology is an academic discipline, part of the humanities. Not sure if your familiar with how scholarship is done in the humanities. In the humanities, you as a researcher (graduate student/PHD candidate) are expected to do original research (otherwise a PHD will not be recognised and only be accepted as a Masters -which would be a waste of 4 years, Masters is 2 years and does not require, but can have original research), especially when you do a PHD or become an academic thereafter. That entails going into the archive or where documents are etc (which constitute as primary research) and analyse them, followed by writing information up and publishing the research (which then becomes WP:SECONDARY). Wikpedia says that, WE the editor can not do original research on this platform and instead to use secondary sources that meet RS criteria for article content. Atanasovski also has done work with Bern University, published in RS journals. On his biography on the Center for Comparative Conflict Studies (based in Belgrade) website, they stated that he worked on two "international scientific projects" and the scholarly work used for this wiki article was part of one of them. Atanasovski's research interests include affect theory, soundscape studies and issues of religious nationalism. The Center for Comparative Conflict Studies is a research and educational center at the Faculty of Media and Communications (FMK), Belgrade Singidunum University [15]. Its a university that is run on high academic standards, as those in Western Europe. If they thought that Atanasovski wasn't a real academic, i doubt they would be collaborating with or hiring him to do scholarship, neither would his work be published internationally.Resnjari (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

1) Nope, RS clearly says that they were starting a rebellion which was crushed by Ottoman-Albanian coalition. Therefore it was a real event and serious intentions, not just theory. The sentence is still misleading. 2) Thank you for the little "lecture", for whoever it was intended. I will not even mention various facts which you got wrong, like that Masters is not 2 years in a number of countries in Eastern and Southeast Europe and various other inaccuracies. 3) Gestalt psychology is also part of humanities, but I would not use psychologist for historical information about complicated events and concepts. That is - epic fail, if I ever saw one. 4) Atanosvski holds a minor position within the organisation. In that interview he styles himself as a researcher. The interview took place 2 years after he got his PhD, so there is no space for creative interpretations. WP:No original research. 5) The notion that it is "okay" to use work by a musicologist because allegedly other sources do not dispute him is classical WP:SYNTH. 6) Atanaskovski's ideology and personal views can be very much seen and felt in his academic works (Marxist, anti-colonial, anti-NATO, socialist, advocate of a Balkan Federation etc.) Therefore, once again - not WP:RS Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

ok, Sadko. Masters in the Humanities in Australia is 2 years full time, 4 years part time, PHD is 4 years full time, 8 years part time (if one excludes extensions). Might be different in other places, so i take your point. ok, lets go through what you said here. You called Singidunum University an "organisation", that is not the case. In addition it runs itself on principles based on Bologna Process, that many other Western European universities function on. If you think that the university is not proper, find credible sources and rewrite the wiki article. Second within its university structure it has created The Center for Comparative Conflict Studies and had a project called Rethinking Serbian-Albanian Relations: Figuring out the Enemy. The chapter that Atanasovski wrote [16] was published in a book called Rethinking Serbian-Albanian Relations: Figuring out the Enemy which was the result of that university's project of the same name.[17],[18]. Atanasovski's chapter also had oversight by 3 over academics, who were the editors of that book. In terms of RS it meets criteria. And of course Atanasovski is going call himself a researcher, when a person gets a PHD that's one of the things they become, if they are working in a researching capacity. I don't get what you mean about the interview. He got his PHD in 2015 and gave that interview in 2017 and he is listed interestingly as an associate professor -and it notes that he published in multiple journals etc. The chapter used as a source for this wiki article was in 2019. Also if he is against Serb irredentism and Nato imperialism, so he does not support those things. Is he supposed to support them Sadko? There is one thing i forgot to address above. You say "The same way we would not use extreme nationalistic historian, we can not use an extreme anti-nationalist." Extreme anti-nationalist isn't a thing to disbar someone's research, if anything that's preferable to the usual dribble from the Balkans. I am curious though, is the position your looking for something like slightly soft on nationalism as a middle ground?Resnjari (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly think that wikipedia should be overhauled and editors should write under their real names. That way, everybody would have full responsibility of what they're saying. An author is a reliable source if his publication meets the criteria. Atanasovski's work meets those criteria. Questions about his competence were discussed by his supervisors and colleagues in a peer review context. Anonymous users on wikipedia don't get to decide any academic's competence and review their participation in any research project.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A person can use their real name on wiki, though its not encouraged on the platform, due to all the bs that happens at times. Besides that, Atanasovski does meet the criteria. Is he affiliated with a institution of higher learning? Yes. Was that work published by the institution? Yes. Did that work (i.e the book chapter by him used in this article) have scrutiny from other academics? Yes, they had oversight for that edit book (3 in fact). Has any source been produced from credible sources (like from his academic peers criticising him and his work) that states Atanasovski is problematic like a nationalist, or that his works are imbued in that way? No.Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

When did this term appear and what is its scope?

• The article's bibliography says that по свoј прилии таj нaзив пoctojao дуже врeмe у народу. претпосtaвљa ce da je у narodnoj комуниkаdији... nastao од времепа velike сеобе Ср6а 1690. (my keyboard doesn't use cyrillic so I've "mixed up" the alphabet in some places). So, when did this term came to be use?

• What is the scope of the term? All I could read on Atanasovski is that at some point Cvijic used it to include most of northern Macedonia. What was it used for before Cvijic in particular?

• The section bibliography has nothing that is used as bibliography. Instead, it has old 19th-20th century books by chetniks like Jovan Hadži-Vasiljević. These books are not used in the sources, will not be used as sources in the future because of their content and they are useless to almost all reades because they're in Serbian. Shouldn't this section be removed?--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber:, i added much content to the article. I hope its what you had in mind to addressing shortcomings. On the bibliography not sure how much is really applicable to the article. If you see the history revision page, a lot of it was placed by the sock Ajdebre (Zoupan). The bibliography might need a look through to see what's relevant, but for now it was the body that needed to be done. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)