Jump to content

Talk:Unknown Archon

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

Requested move 22 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Closing without prejudice. With this RM being open for over a month with several relistings, I’m not seeing a clear consensus on the new title for this page. I encourage editors to continue attempting to reach a consensus, and re-propose the page move at that time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely sure what we should do here. @Sorabino: any thoughts? — Sadko (words are wind) 14:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, why uppercase "archon" there, when the sources don't? --Joy (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise when these sources you mention use plural, using singular doesn't appear to make sense...? --Joy (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the main characteristic of this unnamed historical person was him being the first Serbian ruler in regions that became Serbia after the 7th century migrations, and thus we should consider some new titles that would be more precise than the present one. New solutions, that would enable readers to recognize the subject of this article by the very title, could be formulated in a descriptive manner, for example: "First Serbian ruler (unnamed)" or "First ruler of Serbia (unnamed)". Terms ruler or monarch would be more recognizable then archon, with emphasis on this person being the first one. Sorabino (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and in that case we might as well drop the parenthetical part because it doesn't disambiguate anything, and the lack of known names is explained by the lead section. --Joy (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should stick to the primary ("Serbian archon") and secondary sources adjective ("anonymous Serbian prince", "unnamed Serb prince", "unnamed Serbian archon"). We should not invent new titles, see also WP:COMMONNAME "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.[e] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly". The only solution is Unnamed Serbian archon, with the "archon" recognizably alluding to the only (Greek) historical source he is mentioned, Byzantine-Slavic historical context and specific time period as "prince/ruler" is too general and could be used for articles in later historical period (if needed). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, and WikiProject Middle Ages have been notified of this discussion. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the discussion seems to have died down, let's recap the best proposals - First Serbian ruler or First Serbian archon? --Joy (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good at all, the First Serbian ruler/archon/prince would be and/or primarily reminds of Dervan, not this person. Should be Unnamed Serbian archon.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dervan seems to be primarily described as Sorbian, so I'm not sure about that.
Likewise, I don't see why we would have to use the term archon when secondary sources don't have a consensus on this, and often use knez which is more commonly translated as duke, just like dux which applied to Dervan - flip-flopping between these translations will hardly help readers, and "ruler" is already a compromise, but at least an easily readable one.
How about just 7th-century Serbian ruler? --Joy (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dervan isn't primarily described as Sorbian in the sense of being any different than being described as (White) Serbian, it's the same ethnonym for the same people/tribe from the same location with variation in writing the ethnonym depending on foreign sources (with other variations as Surbi, Sirbi...). Secondary sources are using both primary title (archon), and translations of the title itself depending on (modern) language in question, but often being anachronism (e.g. the title of knez is still scholarly debated as being incorrect translation of Latin/Greek titles). Having in the article title "archon" is far more recognizable than "ruler". We should stick to the primary and secondary sources as per WP:COMMONNAME, as an intermediate solution, maybe Unnamed Serbian ruler could be fine as well.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal no. 3 - Fist ruler of Serbia (unnamed). — Sadko (words are wind) 23:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 7th-century Serbian ruler. I think Joy's most recent proposal is the best one. Given we don't have agreement from scholars on what his (or her?) title was, and no name either, there isn't that much to go on. But I think simply indicating when he lived is preferable to bigging up the "unnamed" aspect in the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.