This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
No they are not, Sobajic 1996 is not outdated. The sources are clear. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:23, 10.February 2022 (UTC)
Bjelopavlići i Pješivici, plemena u crnogorskim Brdima is an ethnography first published in 1923. It's not a modern source. The sources are not clear about anything and this might not even be a pleme/fis as apparently despite your differences you both agree on. There is in fact little in bibliography which shows that a "tribe" - a term which has seen much abuse since I first reworked the fis/pleme articles 2 years ago - with the name Lužani ever existed. I have tagged Gashi and Hrabrak for verification. Readers have the right to be able to verify that what they read on wiki is what the sources discuss.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be neutral then remove Hrabak and Gashi too, as for Sobajic the book is in my possession, edition from 1996. I saw that you are using Hahn from the 19th Century but that doesn't stop you to use the edition from 2015.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:54, 10.February 2022 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: (edit conflict) I have written many of these articles and I never use old sources as bibliography. Whenever I mention them I do so in the context of the history of the ethnographic record as I do at Hoti (tribe)#Origins. Hahn is not used as a source, but as an ethnographer who recorded a popular history, which historiography has deconstructed. Sobajic shouldn't be a source. You can write that Sobajic discussed in one of the early ethnographic studies about the region that <insert theory>, but there's a difference between that and using him as a source. Side comment: I don't even think that a "people" called "the Lužani" existed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber: But don't you think that leaving an article like this makes an unbalanced version? By your standards then Hrabak is also an old source, I personally never use age matters rule. And if I can cite Sobajic, how would you use it? According to Sobajic early ethnographic discovery ? That is also fine by me.Theonewithreason (talk) 20:12, 10.February 2022 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, I would avoid using sources older than 1950. I have tagged Hrabrak for verification. The much better solution is for you to read this article (2021) about the Lužani in the work of Sobajic and prepare an edit based on Jovanović (2021).--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:32, 10.February 2022 (UTC)
