Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ottoman Serbia

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 1 April 2012 (→Renaming from "History of Ottoman Serbia" to "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:07, 1 April 2012 by WikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs) (→Renaming from "History of Ottoman Serbia" to "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconSerbia C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article seems to be glorifying Serbia. - 208.42.198.62

"The Turks defeated the Serbian army in two crucial battles..." Indeed it does
In my opinion it glorifies more Austria, Hungary and Turkey... serbs are presented "as piggy in between" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.68.189 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming from "History of Ottoman Serbia" to "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration"

FocalPoint, since you renamed article to title "History of Ottoman Serbia", please provide and source/evidence that says that there was an territory known as "Ottoman Serbia". Title to which I renamed article ("History of Serbia during Ottoman administration") does not imply the existence of non-existing territory named "Ottoman Serbia", but refers to "history of territory of present-day Serbia during Ottoman administration". PANONIAN 16:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was renamed by PANONIAN on the 17th of March, therefore, I only reverted that renaming. I will write more later. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As the issue is under discussion, I find the second move on your part, really unnecessary. --FocalPoint (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And your own move was necessary? By the way, I asked you about sources that would support existence of "Ottoman Serbia"? You have such sources to present or not? PANONIAN 18:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Support "History of Serbia during Ottoman administration" instead of "History of Ottoman Serbia" or "Ottoman Serbia" (same with all categories in Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country).--Zoupan 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ottoman Serbia: Budin Province, Ottoman Empire: A book called Ottoman Serbia, is it enough or you want me to continue? --FocalPoint (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That is Misplaced Pages-based book (book that used data from Misplaced Pages), not reliable source. Please continue. PANONIAN 18:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

ISBN-13: 9781155717630, Publisher: General Books LLC, Publication date: 5/6/2010, Pages: 56
A published book not a reliable source? Is this a joke? --FocalPoint (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Books LLC--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not question the information that this could be Misplaced Pages based. My question is whether a book (in this case supposedly a derivative work of Misplaced Pages) is or is not a reliable source. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. My comment does not mean that I disagree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I do appreciate your assistance. Misplaced Pages accepts that articles or mirrors of Misplaced Pages are not reliable sources, however, in this case we have a derivative work, the editor of which could choose another title. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ottomans and the Balkans: a discussion of historiography, Fikret Adanir, Suraiya Faroqhi, page 40, BRILL, 2002 "The liberation struggles in Ottoman Serbia, Greece or Bulgaria..."

Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: F-O Tony Jaques, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, page 773 "A patriot army ... advanced into Ottoman Serbia"

--FocalPoint (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but main problem is that there was no historical territory that was officially named "Ottoman Serbia". I do not deny that name is used in certain sources, but term have purely geographical meaning and various sources are using the term for different areas in different time periods. It would be impossible to have one generally accepted definition what term "Ottoman Serbia" might mean. This article should be a part of the series of the articles about history of Serbia and therefore it should describe "period of Ottoman administration in the history of Serbia" and not some officially non-existing territory named "Ottoman Serbia". PANONIAN 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The name under which this article was developed was "History of Ottoman Serbia". The name "Ottoman Serbia" is widely used as you can see not only from the two books shown above but also many from other sources:

You have changed the name of the articles (for other parts of the Ottoman territories as well) and the categorization, for something you think is right, while there is wide bibliographical evidence the the term "Ottoman Serbia" is in use. This is completely unacceptable practice in Misplaced Pages. We do not record my opinion or your opinion. We record what the sources are writing. The sources are clearly writing about Ottoman Serbia. So I am asking you and I expect you to follow Misplaced Pages rules and practices and refrain from such changes. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Following the conclusive proof presented above, I moved the article back. --FocalPoint (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FocalPoint, you did not had need to engage yourself in revert warring. As I explained to you, term "Ottoman Serbia" is too undefined to be used for Misplaced Pages article. Can you define this term? To which territory and in which time period would term "Ottoman Serbia" refer to? Can you answer these questions? It is not enough that you find some term in some sources but you have to be able to say what that term mean and to what exactly it referring. PANONIAN 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Ottoman Serbia Add topic