Talk:Ivan Crnojević

Obvious vandalism

So this is some obvious removal of long standing version, first an ip started with the vandalism the directly supported by a user. I am politely asking to stop this. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a removal, but an addition with a citation that the historical figure of the article is referred to also as a Montenegrin leader. Critikal1 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope you made your own wp:undue addition with your own personal analysis. Not to mention obvious editing while log out. This is some serious breaking of Wikipedia rules. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot reject and delete a legitimate source without reason, this is a breaking of wikipedia rules. Critikal1 (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source you are posting is from 1680 and very questionable, please stop this. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from a renown french historian Charles Dufresne sieur du Cange who is one of the leading authorities for the byzantine and middle age period. This source is completely legitimate, if not more legitimate than a questionable quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. Critikal1 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is from 1680. WP:AGEMATTERS. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources from 1680 and even earlier are very allowed and welcomed on Wikipedia, especially for historical topics and figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(history) Critikal1 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope and also your own personal interpretation of wp:undue where you completely ignore 3 other sources. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignoring 3 other sources, however adding more sources where Ivan Crnojevic is mentioned as a Montenegrin leader, since that is the case. He can be mentioned as a Montenegrin and to some, Serbian leader. Critikal1 (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot write that he is to Serbian historians Serbian leader this is obvious wp:undue nad wp:point example. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry, but this is incorrect. Ivan Crnojević being a Montenegrin ruler is not a minority view, but a prominent one, as per wp:undue.
This is fairly easy to prove with WP:RS. The sources in the article claiming he is Serbian are weak and heavily biased: one is an art history book, the other has falsified a Byzantian source (see Constantine Bodin wiki page edits, the book authors claimed Bodin was called "Exarch of Serbia", instead it was "Exarch of Dalmatia", by Anna Comnene) with a clear revisionist political motive, and the third is a tertiary source as per wiki rules (Britannica). Claiming these are more reliable sources (WP:RS) than the ones recently added regarding this topic is dishonest and clearly biased. And so is claiming "obvious vandalism".
The land Ivan ruled was called Zeta, then Montenegro. It was never called Serbia during the independent reign of his house. The people living there are descended from Docleans (which are not the same as Serbs). Serbia and Serbs were the neighboring land and people. In fact, both Doclea and Zeta fought hard to stay independent from Serbia. Just because the land was previously held by Serbia for some time (Nemanjic dynasty) doesnt mean everyone there is Serbian forever after. Same with their religion (Orthodox Christianity). By that logic, Turkish ultranationalists could claim every muslim in the Balkans is Turkish.
Locally, this is undisputed among most Montenegrin historians (as well as Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian historians etc.) and contested mostly by revisionist historians with a Serbian ultranationalist political bias (imperialism and irredentism). In fact, similar claims were made in the past that Bosniacs and Croats are Serbians too.

Erasmus2001 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing the contributions of multiple authors by labeling them and misrepresenting their work (or alleged actions) is not justified, particularly when their work is supported by reliable sources or published by reputable outlets. This appears to reflect some kind of WP:IDONTLIKE. I encourage a more constructive and policy-based approach. Best regards. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I am coming across as a bit negative. Allow me to explain myself.
I havent done any edits to the article regarding this recent talk topic, i have just presented certain observations and facts regarding the matter discussed here.
Namely, I am questioning why are reliable sources being deleted when they are clearly better in quality than existing ones (one of which straight out falsified a primary historical source and the other is an art history book on a topic not directly relevant to the matter being discussed). In addition, the user is being wrongfully accused of "obvious vandalism".
I am also questioning why are some users against allowing others to state that a historical figure that ruled Montenegro be named a Montenegrin leader. Especially when adding the appropriate reliable sources.Erasmus2001 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivan_Crnojevi%C4%87