Talk:Andrija Zmajević

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

1. 6 Add the appropriate categories.

You may also be able to find suitable categories by looking at related articles, particularly articles about similar people. Failing that, visit the appropriate work groups (which have them listed) or start browsing at Category:People.GarbledLecture933 (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Started the process with a History sectionGarbledLecture933 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

regarding ethnicity and language

It should be written Venetian slavic writer. He never said he wrote in Serbian language, he said he wrote in Slavic language and letters (cyrillic) were called Serbian back then. Bunch of educated people from that time who weren't serbs used it and called it serbian (since it was made by serbs) and language was called "slavic" and occasionally "illyric", "bosnian" or "serbian"."nation" didn't exist back then, at least not in sense as it is today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.180.106.198 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

He said he started writing in "Serbian letters" (meant Cyrillic from Serbian Language) because most of his people is using them. Who are then his people? Nation as a political term didn't existed because these areas were occupied by Venice and Ottoman empire. Ethnicity however, for sure, existed. And, also, I am little confused by what you have meant: " He never said he wrote in Serbian language, he said he wrote in Slavic language and letters (Cyrillic) were called Serbian back then." "Bunch of educated people from that time... called it serbian (since it was made by serbs)" - So, he didn't wrote in Serbian, but people called that langue he wrote as "Serbian"? No need to say anything...James Jim Moriarty (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Identity and overall article quality

This is not WP:VANDAL. I see the issue as "Croatian" identity was not sourced, however, it is also problematic to consider him as Serbian instead of Montenegrin as well. The article is not written very well, it lacks citations, reference style, while other Wikipedian articles are not reliable sources for citation/adaptation especially if are from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias which do not follow basic editing principles and are extremely biased. It does not matter if there is "no doubt" on his identity according to some RS, we follow NPOV, WEIGHT and BALANCE. Very reliable sources, like Croatian encyclopedia ([1], [2]), Hrvatska revija ([3]) among others consider him as a Croatian and as such this information should be included in the article, stating something like he is considered as a Croat in Croatia or Croatian historiography or else. I will rewrite the article.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski will you please be so kind to present a quote from Hrvatska revija ([4]) which supports your statement that this source consider him as a Croatian?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The source does not directly state he is Croatian because it is related to the general idea of Zaljev hrvatskih svetaca – Boka kotorska, with the common perception about Catholicism and Orthodoxy related to Croatian or Serbian nation in the nation-building period, nevertheless the actual reality. It is about the context, and it is problematic to consider that individual members of a family had the same ethnonational identity in different time and place. The same author in "Prilog životopisu barskog nadbiskupa Andrije Zmajevića (1671.-1694.)" does note on pg. 238 and 246 Njegovi su se preci doselili početkom XVI. stoljeća s Njeguša, iz sela Vrbe, u grad Kotor. Predanje o podrijetlu iz Crne Gore iznosi i sam Zmajević ... Odvjetak roda crnogorskoga podrijetla, rođenjem Peraštanin, pripadnik obitelji koja je dala cijeli niz zaslužnika, Andrija je Zmajević imao posebno zapaženu ulogu u iznimno teško vrijeme za opstanak kršćanstva i Katoličke crkve na području Barske nadbiskupije, except that it is difficult to understand whether the Montenegrin origin is mentioned in the meaning of a country or ethnonational identity. In short, these Croatian sources do not consider him and his family of Serbian origin, but as Montenegrin and Croatian, with Croatian obviously related to Catholic faith and activity (Osnovna saznanja, ponajprije vezana uz vrijeme Zmajevićeva obnašanja nadbiskupske časti, kao i sažeto sročene podatke iz njegova životopisa, bilježimo u djelima enciklopedijsko-leksikonske naravi, kao i u nekoliko općih pregleda povijesti Katoličke crkve u Hrvata). To make it clear, I don't care what are the Croatian and Serbian claims of the Montenegrin history, we follow and cite what's said in RS per NPOV and WEIGHT. What is the evidence and argumentation his family, and particularly Andrija, are of Serbian origin?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

After checking, it is very similar to the case of Roger Joseph Boscovich. As Bay of Kotor was not independent like the Republic of Ragusa, most suitable is to refer to him as a Montenegrin because both him and his family originate from the territory of contemporary and historical Montenegro, while in a separate section for e.g. "Competing claims for nationality" or simply "Nationality" to be cited and explained the issue in details.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski I caught you red handed. Instead to acknowledge the issue with your edits, you continue to push your POV. The source you misinterpreted does not assert that AZ is Croatian directly nor indirectly. That is not constructive behavior. Please do not repeat it in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not like your tone. Comment on the content and not the editor, who in this case more than acknowledged it, explained and provided RS. I provided three RS, two of them you decided to interpret from a specific POV which neglects Croatian nationalistic context. There is no my POV neither I am pushing it. Are you saying that Croatian scholarship POV about AZ and his family identity (Montenegrin and Croatian) should not be cited in the article?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Selective editing

@Sadko: Taking our previous encounters into accout how do you explain defending this type of source? You constantly preach against this. Show some consistency. SerVasi (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Translation of one of the sources used for the claim that "Zmajević was born to a Serbian family", just to show what kind of sources are used here. It is from the Večernje novosti tabloid [5]:

"MEETING HISTORY

Croats are hijacking our heritage

Based on a "take what you like" principle, Zagreb is claiming a part of the Serbian past. There is no doubt for their public when referring to Nikola Tesla or Milutin Milanković"

Textbook example of a RS? The other source is, of course, yet another interview in yet another daily newspaper. Tzowu (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If it's okay and neutral for Vladimir Beara (Beara declared himself as a Croat in the state censuses), it should be fine here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't remembre that article having such poor taste and a hidden agenda of starting conflict. There is a clear difference between an educational article and whatever u want to call this rant but it is definitely not RS.Also the credibility of the Beara article was verified by GregorB. I wonder what bozo would vouch for this. SerVasi (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, sources or pamphlets who talk about abducting someone's origin with a political discourse are not RS. If we prove someone's origin etc with pamphlets then only the sky above the Balkans is our limit. Sources do not even say that Andrija Zmajević is from Serbian family, so the thing is very clear, deletion. Mikola22 (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring and causing the article to be fully protected, it just might have been a better idea to take the discussion to WP:RSN. Since the article now is locked for a week, there should be ample time to decide if these two references are reliable sources for the claim (which I rather doubt, by the way). Just a thought... --T*U (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This sort of bickering is waste of my time. Not worth it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: The bickering happens to be about the sources you added to support the claim that he was from a Serbian family. Since WP:RS is a central guideline of Wikipedia, it would be nice if you would spare some time to quote the relevant passages of the sources and per WP:NONENG give an English translation for the benefit of those of us who do not read the language. --T*U (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)