Talk:Serb uprising of 1596–1597

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSerb uprising of 1596–1597 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 21, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 14, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Serb Uprising of 1596–97 came to an end due to lack of foreign support and defeat at the field of Gacko?

Serb uprising???[edit]

Any RS for such name whatsoever? Sideshow Bob 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideshow Bob: Yes? The revolt was carried out by Serbs, rebels who identified as Serbs led by Serbian Orthodox church leaders. Have you even read the article? Don't try to make this Montenegrin, since none of the tribes identified as Montenegrin, and you're about 200–300 years early for such a designation being the least of applicable. Hint: 1596. This is impossible for you to refute (!!!).--Zoupan 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the name of the rebellion, how is it commonly called in historiography? A source for such name is all I asked for, keep your hair on. As for the 200-300 years comment, try uncyclopedia.com, I think jokes go on that site. Sideshow Bob 07:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section name only indicates that you really question that it was a Serb uprising. This his how you usually go about, so I thought that was what you meant. There is no common name in English, as there are no English works elaborating on the subject. Those that mention it [in passing] are describing it as "Serb" or "Serbian", "revolt" or "rebellion". Many different names and variants could be deducted from Serbo-Croatian sources, those worth having listed are so in the annotation. The use of "Herzegovina" is popular but however problematic, given that it broke out outside what we know as Herzegovina today (but in parts of the Sanjak of Herzegovina).--Zoupan 08:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I asked because I have never heard of this particular term for the uprising, which is very illogical given that what is known in historiography as First Serb Uprising occurred in 1804. This one is commonly called Grdan's Uprising (Grdanova buna/Grdanov ustanak) or , more rarely, the Uprising in Herzegovina, so this choice of title seems quite like an arbitrary decision made by a single editor. Sideshow Bob 10:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Illogical? What difference does the First Serbian Uprising make?--Zoupan 12:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dušan T. Bataković (1 January 1996). The Serbs of Bosnia & Herzegovina: History and Politics. Dialogue. ISBN 978-2-911527-10-4. The Ottoman desecration of so important a symbol provoked a revolt by the Serbs in Herzegovina in 1597
  • Grolier Incorporated (1997). Academic American encyclopedia. Grolier. ISBN 978-0-7172-2068-7. The Serbs unsuccessfully rebelled against the Turks in 1594, 1597-98
  • Saint Louis. Holy Trinity Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church (1976). Serbian almanac: 1976. Holy Trinity Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church. A similar uprising was organized in Pech in 1594 and in 1597 in Hercegovina.
  • Fernand Braudel (1992). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II. HarperCollins. .. Serbian peasants in 1594 in the Banat district of what is today Hungary, in 1595 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and again in 1597 in Herzegovina.
  • Историјски часопис 44 (1997): Historical Review 44. Istorijski institut. 1 January 1998. pp. 85–. GGKEY:9A9KJ15QHZU. from the Serbian Church to Pope Clement VIII at the end of 1597, at the time of the revolt of the Serbs against the Turks.
  • Eugene Lazarovich-Hrebelianovich (1913). The Orient question to-day and to-morrow. Duffield. In that insurrection, the Serbs, in 1597

In English.--Zoupan 12:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sideshow Bob the title should me renamed, it is misleading, as well the article is edited from obvious Serbian propaganda POV. Zoupan, say what you want, but using few sources, some with dubious credibility, and proclaming Herzegovian-Montenegrin clans who have a very complex ethnic origin (a very dominant Vlachian origin, in historical sources from 14-15th century were called as Vlachs and Morlachs) to Serbs is not how Wikipedia is edited. This is not your first time editing from a specific and ignorant POV.--Crovata (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that calling tribes "Vlachian" is as ignorant as it gets. "a very dominant Vlachian origin" according to whom? Stop taking Latin quotes at face value. You are trying to transform historical terms into modern ethnic groups. It is a social category that you have transformed into an ethnic one (retrospectively), refusing any connection to Serbs. This is not the first time you push this.--Zoupan 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vlachs in the 14th and 15th century, during all Middle Ages, were not a social class. We can talk about that secondary meaning only from 16th century with Ottoman invasion, yet even then not completely. I have not transformed anything, it's confirmed by historical sources and neutral reliable scholars. The nationalistic POV of Serbian and Croatian (ie. Yugoslav) scholarship from a certian time, and today only partially, tried to transform them into a social category. Your ignorance of their ethnic identity is simply stupid, and personal POV should not impacts editing of Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing Crovata is trying to push the right-wing nationalist view that Serbs are merely Slavicized Vlachs (because obviously Orthodox = Vlach!?). By that reasoning, Croats are "Latins" and Bosniaks are "Turks". This stinks of early 20th century racialism and anti-Orthodox bigotry of the kind pushed by Ante Starčević and Milan Šufflay about the Dinaric vs. Mediterranean race, mountain vs. coastal Croats, etc. It has far broader implications, however, being that if the tribes of Herzegovina, Old Herzegovina, etc. aren't Serb, then folks like Karadjordje, Karadzic, Njegos (who stem from these tribes) aren't Serbs either. This a) lashes out at the very core of Serb history, culture and identity and b) strives to "amputate" Serbs from the rest of the Slavic world by pushing the thesis that they are "outsiders" who merely speak a Slavic tongue. Did I mention that I also think the user in question has been watching far too many Jakov Sedlar films? 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Yes 16th century Serbs indeed had a complex ethnic origin. Just like everybody else. I searched sources and found that they persistently describe this uprising as uprising of Serbs. I am sorry if sources I found are dubious, but here they are:

Applause, a personal attack and Straw man. If talking about historical facts, without later nationalistic manipulations from both sides, is being "right-wing nationalist" then your reality perception is more *ucked than Jakov Sedlar film, which by the way I didn't saw.--Crovata (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic manipulations? Take it easy. Have you read the article? The folk were described, at that time, and now, as Serbs. Deal with it.--Zoupan 22:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Serbs "Vlachs" isn't much different than Šešelj calling Zadar a "Serbian city". Nationalism is nationalism is nationalism. God, is this exhausting. 23 editor (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serb_uprising_of_1596–1597&oldid=1210313280"