Talk:Bajo Pivljanin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBajo Pivljanin 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
October 15, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 2, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the head of hajduk commander Bajo Pivljanin was sent to the Ottoman sultan as a war trophy?
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 7, 2018.

Ethnicity[edit]

According to what evidence he was an ethnic Serb?--Crovata (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense? Could you refute any Serbness of Bajo? Piva was a medieval Serbian county and the Serbian Church has a core eparchy in the region. Pivljanin himself is described as Serb in epic poetry and Serbian historiography. Béla K. Király; Gunther Erich Rothenberg (1979). Special Topics and Generalizations on the 18th and 19th Centuries. Brooklyn College Press. ISBN 978-0-930888-04-6. The Serb subjects of the Ottoman empire looked upon Venice as an ally, but they resented Dubrovnik's collaboration with the Turks ... Some, like Bajo Pivljanin, reappeared as hayduks in the Morean war --Zoupan 22:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense" is not a source or an argument, that's WP:OR. How can I refute Serbness of Bajo if we do not even know if he was a Serb. If we asked him then would he declare as a Serb? Why in the primary sources he is not mentioned as a Serb? What made someone in that period an ethnic Serb? Because he was Orthodox - that's not even 1/2 argument for being a Serb. If anything else, then appropriately edit the article be citing something in the line "although not considered in the primary sources, some historians, epic poetry, consider he was a Serb".--Crovata (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:OR would be stating that he wasn't Serb.--Zoupan 20:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how neutrality and Wikipedia work.--Crovata (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have problems with how WP actually works. If you can't refute it, don't force your OR/POV.--Zoupan 23:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're the who has problems with neutrality on the specific period of time and people.--Crovata (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"According to T. P. Lješević, Bajo was the son of Jovan Ivanović and a mother of the Tadić brotherhood (from which the former President of Serbia, Boris Tadić, descends[3])" - Who is T. P. Lješević? Why is the info contradicting? Why is cited source from "blic.rs"? Is it reliable? Why the info about the President relevant anyhow to the article?--Crovata (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomo P. Lješević seems to have been a historian from Piva, who wrote Iz Pive u Gacko and Život i djelo Baje Pivljanina (1897). Tradition and Lješević are two separate stories? Why wouldn't it be contradicting? I will expand with other claims (there are several).--Zoupan 20:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "seems" - he was or was not a historian? What you intended, he was an amateur historian?--Crovata (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was a priest, so yes, an amateur historian. He is cited by reliable sources, though.--Zoupan 20:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until now I did not see any primary source in which he is mentioned as a Serb. The epic poetry is not a reliable evidence, while historiographies of specific Balkan nations are influenced by specific national-political ideology, and their neutrality is often questionable on previous events and people. The article lead should not mention that he was an ethnical Serb, from modern-day perspective, and thus should be noted somewhere else in the article, perhaps in notes, that in Serbian epic poetry and historiography is considered a Serb.--Crovata (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

What was Bajo's religion?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox.--Zoupan 23:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking in consideration that religion and patriarch of Church he adhered had very important role in his life, maybe it would be good to mention it in the lede.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, religious adherence is excessive for mention in lede. I have added his connection to Metropolitan Vasilije, however.--Zoupan 00:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

Per WP:NICKNAME, the title of the article is appropriate, but the first sentence should probably begin with "Dragojlo Nikolić (c. 1630 – May 1685) known as Bajo Pivljanin (Serbian Cyrillic: Бајо Пивљанин)"? See Lady Gaga, MC Hammer, 50 Cent, Samantha Fox, Sabrina Salerno, .... Any thoughts? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the two annotations in the infobox and first section are adequate. His full name is scarcely found in references.--Zoupan 08:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bajo Pivljanin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

General

  • This is going to take a while to get through.
  • After introduction in full, Pivljanin should be referred to as Pivljanin, per MOS:LASTNAME

*There are some enormous paragraphs, I'm breaking them up as I go.

  • the grammar is clunky in parts, I'll go through and do a light c/e, feel free to revert it if you think I've not got your intended meaning right
  • the use of extensive notes detracts from the flow. I believe the various versions of his origins should be included in the text of the Early life section, rather than in Notes.

*there is a bit of unexplained jargon such as "slava" which would benefit from a brief note.

    • added parenthesis.--Zoupan 23:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life *According to what "tradition" was he born in Rudinice? It would be better to attribute the source in-line ie "According to the historian X Y, Pivljanin was born in Rudinice..." Although there appears to be a number of different versions of what year he was born, and they should all be mentioned in the text rather than in a Note

    • According to oral tradition. The recorders are mentioned, and cited. I'll review the birth years and move them.--Zoupan 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what the different sources say about his family background, and attribute them in-line to the sources rather than in a Note
  • Who wrote the epic poem Sa šta Pivljanin Bajo ode u uskoke? Is it known? If so, their name and title (poet etc) should be stated in the text.
    • That remains unknown, it was recorded by Vuk Karadžić though.--Zoupan 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • who was Asan-aga Kopčić? I assume an Ottoman-appointed noble or similar? Was he also a Montenegrin?
  • I've made an assumption that he was assaulted by Kopčić, but perhaps the violence was against his possessions or a family member? What does the source say about the specifics?
    • The poem says that Kopčić, the leader in Piva, assaulted him, and that Pivljanin then slit his throat and fled his home.--Zoupan 01:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Cretan War *I've made a few assumptions in the c/e, that the Venetians were defeated at Moraca, and that the Ottomans built the fortress at Kolasin.

  • Who was Amza-kapetan? This whole sentence needs to be broken up into smaller sentences, I can't understand what happened.
    • Some Ottoman captain, tormentor. The story is a change-of-events. Pivljanin's accomplice Lješević is first accused and forced to Istanbul, where instead of being punished/executed he managed to receive rights for Piva to not pay extortion money to local Ottomans.--Zoupan 03:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romanija? That is a long way from Dalmatia, or even Herzegovina. Can you verify this?
    • Romanija is a mountain in eastern Bosnia.--Zoupan 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was a buljubaša?
    • a Hajduk captain.--Zoupan 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • then it should be in parentheses after it. Otherwise, you are assuming knowledge ppl just aren't going to have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added parenthesis.--Zoupan 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*I changed 62,5 to 62.5 per MOS:DECIMAL Inter-war period *This section is particularly hard to follow. The grammar and chronology is a bit out, especially at the beginning, it should probably start with the decision of the provveditore, then the visit to Venice, and the result of the request for land for the hajduks to settle.

  • The Priuli linked was dead at that time, and his name was Giovanni, not Antonio.
    • I linked to the surname, which I thought was redirected to House of Priuli (req. unc. move, though).--Zoupan 03:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what "termination" means in this context.
    • Termination of duty.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the information about Ana's other possible names in a Note.
    • Simplified parenthesis.--Zoupan 01:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy *Who was/is Vukašin Gagović?

    • A poet included in the Bosanska vila magazine, added.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The street naming etc needs citation/s
  • It is unclear why the Bajovići para is bulleted
    • Now unbulleted.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The meaning of slava needs to be clarified here, as it is used to delineate relationships, things which aren't apparent to the casual reader with no knowledge of the role of patron saints in family ties.

I have passed this criteria, but the prose remains a bit clunky in parts. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • There is a bulleted para without explanation
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • all sources in languages other than English should be translated and provided using the trans-title field
    • Not stated at WP:CS, though.--Zoupan 16:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not explicitly there, but it has a link to {{cite book}}, which does. In any case, this is English WP, so of course foreign language sources should be translated. It is sheer common sense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Failure to translate the titles of the foreign language sources in the cite book template flies in the face of the fact that this is en WP. All you have to do is use the trans-title field. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • There are a number of sentences at the end of paragraphs that are currently uncited. I'm tagging them, but usually that would be a quick fail for a GAN
    • The uncited paras are still a problem here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.--Zoupan 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. Listing sources on the talk page is not the same as citing them in the article. I suggested a note be used to avoid citation bombing, but that doesn't dismiss the need to cite a source for these claims. Alternatively, you could remove the geographical etc claims. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • So Annotation D does not suffice?--Zoupan 08:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*What makes Project Rastko a reliable source?

    • Rastko is not a source itself, it is a database.--Zoupan 23:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
      • So how do we know that the version of the poem there is even accurate? Surely it appears in books? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
        • It is a copy of Karadžić's 7th epic poetry collection, added inline.--Zoupan 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • The video appears to be copyrighted. Linking to a copyrighted video is a copyright violation, see WP:YOUTUBE.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • The lack of Ottoman accounts tends to indicate that one of the aspects of the topic isn't covered.
    • Are there any Ottoman accounts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Bojović (2008), p. 143 for instance says that the famous hajduk leaders of this period, including Bajo, were mentioned in numerous lawsuits, including Ottoman ones. There are other sources that state likewise (i.e "Bajo ... known from Venetian, Ottoman, Ragusan sources").--Zoupan 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm passing this criteria as marginally met, but it would need balancing viewpoints from the Ottoman side to definitely have coverage of the main aspects
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • This is hard to establish. Surely there are Ottoman accounts of his activities which might be less positive?
  • I have removed a few "puffery" adjectives here and there.
    • I'm passing this criteria as marginally met, but the lack of Ottoman accounts tends to indicate lack of balance and that this is largely hagiography. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:Bajo Pivljanin, head shot.jpg should be {{PD-art-100}}
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. On hold for seven days for various criteria to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Passing. If it is intended to take this further (ie Milhist ACR or FAC, I suggest putting it through peer review and a GOCE copy edit beforehand, as there are still some clunky aspects to the prose. Given his head was taken to the capital, there must also be Ottoman accounts of the subject that are not quite as hagiographical. To really address the comprehensiveness criteria, I would expect to see some of that. This has been a long process, I hope it hasn't been too frustrating. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review was open for more than a month, I ping the reviewer (Peacemaker67) and the nominator (Zoupan) to have a look at it. The article has no edits since 10 September 2016 though the nominator is active. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if passed points be struck.--Zoupan 20:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have passed a couple of criteria that have been marginally met. The remaining key ones are the uncited sentences (a major problem) and the untranslated source titles (a minor problem). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locations and organizations named after him[edit]

list

I would like to avoid ref-bombing the article with locations and organizations named after him, thus I present them here so that there is no questioning.--Zoupan 04:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streets
Companies
  • Company in Montenegro[9]
Organizations
  • Hunting and fishing association in Plužine[10]
  • Diaspora association[11]
Schools

References

  1. ^ "Ulica: Pivljanina Baje - Savski venac, Beograd". mapa.in.rs.
  2. ^ "Ulica Baja Pivljanina, Novi Sad". planplus.rs.
  3. ^ "Baje Pivljanina, Banja Luka 78000". Google maps.
  4. ^ "Ulica Baje Pivljanina, Podgorica". planplus.rs.
  5. ^ "Ulica: Baja Pivljanina, Nikšić". mapa.in.rs.
  6. ^ "Ulica: Baja Pivljanina, Cetinje". mapa.in.rs.
  7. ^ "Ulica Baja Pivljanina, Subotica". planplus.rs.
  8. ^ "Lokacija - Ulica Baje Pivljanina bb, 76300 Bijeljina RS BiH". Bijeljinaput.
  9. ^ "AD „ BAJO PIVLJANIN"" (PDF). SCMN.
  10. ^ "članice". Lovački savez Crne Gore.
  11. ^ "Zavičajno udruženje Pivljana "Bajo Pivljanin"". Uprava za dijasporu Crne Gore.
  12. ^ "Osnovna Škola Bajo Pivljanin, Plužine". Obrazovanje.

Depopulation of Hercegovina caused by crimes[edit]

I added a section to describe the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by hajduks from Montenegro, including Bajo Pivljanin: Bajo Pivljanin and his fellow Montenegrin hajduks acted with a great deal of cruelty towards the agricultural inhabitants of Hercegovina (specifically, but not exclusively Muslims). Their actions caused the total destruction of Muslim heritage in the Sanjak of Hercegovina. The evidence for this comes from records from the year 1701 which state that that some twenty villages in the districts of Zupci, Dvrsna, Riđan, Rudine, Korjenić, Grahovo and Gacko have been depopulated over the last forty years due to the actions of Montenegrin bandits, because they lie on the path of their regular raiding campaigns. The source for this is an academic article published in 2016 by Fazileta Hafizović from the University of Sarajevo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.106.183 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bajo Pivljanin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity vs. geography[edit]

In the beginning of the article it is stated that Bajo Pivljanin was a "Serbian hajduk". This might come as slightly strange to someone who is not informed, as it could cause confusion in regards to location. Serbian is often used as an association with Serbia (the country) itself.

Seeing from the linked map - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bajo_Pivljanin/map - Bajo Pivljanin never set foot on the territory of modern-day Serbia, as such the use of the adjective could be misleading.

By no means am I denying the Serbdom of Bajo Pivljanin or his ethnicity, as quite logically all Serb hajduks were Serbs ethnically. He was obviously not Montenegrin by ethnicity, as that didn't exist back in the day, but he was a Montenegrin by birth (just how there are Herzegovinian, Bosnian, Macedonians hajduks as well). The question here isn't ethnicity, but geography and the area in which they operated. Similar practices were utilized on other pages - e.g. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdan , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golub_Babi%C4%87 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikac_Tomanovi%C4%87)

As such, I propose that "Serbian hajduk" at the top gets changed into "Montenegrin hajduk", for he was a member of the Piva tribe, one of the many traditional Montenegrin tribes (nearly all of whom even today are Serbs ethnically, but Montenegrins geographically), while he was not associated with Serbia proper. Dragonrykr (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing you opinion on talk page, for any other changes that you want to input in the article you need to provide a source that clearly states the change you want to make. You did not provide any of the sources that are mentioning Bajo Pivljanin, wikipedia does not work on presenting other examples on other articles, please read WP:RS. You need to present a source that states that "he was a Montenegrin Hajduk" also you can read what WP:SYNTHESIS meanTheonewithreason (talk) 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I have read it, thank you. The source is in the article about Bajo Pivljanin itself. The article states (below the image) that he was born in Piva. Piva is located in the northwestern portion of Montenegro. As such, he is a Montenegrin hajduk, in a geographical sense. Meanwhile, can you provide a source that states that he is a Serbian hajduk (from Serbia proper), since that piece of information isn't sourced either? Dragonrykr (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you are making a conclusion based on WP:synthesis meaning he was from Piva, Piva is in Montenegro therefore he is Montenegrin, wikipedia does not work that way, you need to provide a source that clearly states that he was a Montenegrin Hajduk, meaning a book with a quote, we don′t do our own conclusions. Theonewithreason (talk) 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Very well, but can you provide a valid source that states that he is a "Serbian hajduk", since as I mentioned, that fact is unsourced as well. Dragonrykr (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources mentioned here in the article, Usually when article reaches a GA status it means that such things were checked, meanwhile you are free to look at references used for this article i.e. Corovic, Jačov, Marko (1990). Srbi u mletačko-turskim ratovima u XVII veku [Serbs in Venetian-Ottoman Wars in the 17th century, Samardžić, Radovan; Veselinović, Rajko L.; Popović, Toma (1993). Radovan Samardžić (ed.). Istorija srpskog naroda: Srbi pod tuđinskom vlašću 1537–1699 [History of the Serb people: Serbs under foreign rule 1537–1699]. Belgrade: Srpska književna zadruga etc. Theonewithreason (talk) 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Everything that you just sent mentioned "Serb" and "Serbs", not "Serbian". By which source is Bajo Pivljanin a "Serbian hajduk" when he never set foot in Serbia? Is there a source that proves that he had some relation with Serbia proper? Dragonrykr (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to check the sources not just read the titles of the sources. Theonewithreason (talk) 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bajo_Pivljanin&oldid=1209773515"