Talk:Radoje Pajović/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV and UNDUE

I reverted removal diff of well cited assertion. This assertion points to the fact that Pajović was member of group of Communist party historians who more than any other member of this group emphasized in his works that Chetniks were treacherous counter-revolutionaries, without explaining the causes of civil war in Montenegro and without presenting information about the communist massacres. In the same edit the initial text is reworded to misinterpret sources authored by his fellow historians in order to hide the fact that thy actually glorify Pajović for using his works to promote communist ideology against Chetniks. This misinterpretatkon makes POV and UNDUE tags justified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

One more comment

Novak Adžić is absolutely NOT relaible author. Adžić is not a historian. He has a law degree and an interest in history, in other words he is a publicist. And considering that I am familiar with his work he has an exe to grind and writes from Montenegrin nationalistic POV. Not only is he not a historian but he went so far to falsely present himself to have a PhD, as described here. He was sued for slander and offences several times, this one being most recent. Did I mention that he is a politician? Even the formerely ruling DPS claims that he has an axe to grind (see here).

It seems to me that his views and comments about the SOC and other matters have little merit. If kept, such material should be copied in a separate paragraph.

Portal AntenaM is not a reliable source. Please bear that in mind. It is not consdered reliable in Montenegro and anywhere else. My guess it that you are not that familiar with reliable sources for and from Montenegro and the region, but please double check again. Thank you very much. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with what a reliable source looks like in Montenegro, thanks. What you have claimed above is truly ludicrous. On what basis are you arguing that Novak Adžić is not a reliable source? Yes, he has a degree in law, but his masters and doctorate are in history, and he defended his doctoral thesis before a panel that included Šerbo Rastoder and Ivo Banac. Your claims about him making false claims must not have much credence in academic circles given he is a current member of the faculty of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Montenegro at Nikšić and teaches history subjects there. He also co-authored a three volume series with Rastoder on modern Montenegrin history, published only two years ago. What he has said about Pajović is broadly similar to what Miljić and Perošević have said about him. Similarly, AntenaM is fine. Darko Šuković, who is the owner and editor of AntenaM is a journalist who has worked at a range of reputable outlets, including RTCG and Monitor. I fail to see anything about either Adžić or AntenaM as sources that indicates they are unreliable, and I have provided sufficient material to indicate that they should be accepted as reliable. The onus is therefore on you to establish the basis for their supposed unreliability. If you wish to prosecute either or both cases, feel free to do so in a community forum like WP:RSN and ping me to let me know you have done so, so I can raise the issue above and provide the context of Montenegrin historiography to those who don't have a working knowledge of it. In the meantime, I will not be removing or separating them out in the article. BTW, the sr WP on Adžić (which I see you have edited) is an absolute disgrace. I have no idea why the admins over there haven't sanctioned the editor's responsible for that hatchet job given it is a BLP. If that was done here on en WP, the responsible editors would certainly get sanctioned. All the best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Good day. I was busy offline and dealing with a pile of work on my home project. Please feel free to ping me in the future.

Let us examine your comments and claims. First of all, are you a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian or do you use tools like Google translate to get the gist of it?

It is somewhat strange that you would even start to imagine that Novak Adžić and AntenaM are "fine" in any way of form. Let's talk about that

  • As I have claimed before, Adžić is NOT a trained historian. And no, he does not hold a PhD as you have claimed, he has a masters degree in history, which in Europe at least, you can get after finishing your elementary studies, regardless of the degree, as long as it is the social sciences. The very same page, clearly claims that he is studying for his PhD and that he does not have one.
  • He is not a university professor but a teaching assistant, and he is not even on payroll. In a country as small and divided as Montenegro, there are very few serious scientists and academics. I could explain to you why he is teaching in the first place, and no, that has little to do with knowledge or skills. It is a phenomenon which is poisoning academia in the Balkans...

And another thing, his very first book (almost 300 pages long) was published when he was 19 or 20 and in the middle of his studies. And let me tell you, getting a law degree in Europe is no picnic even for bright students. Is he a genius? Not really. Everyone informed enough in Montenegro knows that he and several other individuals were part of a broader project, created by certain agencies in order to promote their narratives, for starters. That has been done in ex Yugoslavia for decades and is nothing new here. And that is not my original claim, but it was brought forward by this man. I'm writing that just for your information, and it will not be proven for decades to come. Šerbo Rastoder did most of the hard lifting in that /joint/ project.

  • Moving on, I have already linked to a solid web portal which clearly shows that Mr Adžić falsely presenting himself when it comes to his degree. The dates and facts paint a clear picture. The last I checked, that is a deal breaker when it comes to someone's credibility.
  • A quick look at one of his articles can show you weak use of literature, little references, poor style and way of reasoning. link
  • Once again, Mr. Adzic operates as a publicist writing from a Montenegrin nationalistic perspective and narratives. People like him do not approach history like science, but as a tool to promote their nationalistic narratives. For example, he labels one of the greatest commanders of the Montengrin army serdar Janko Vukotić as a "traitor".

And he frequently makes wild pseudohistorical claims that a feud between the Karađorđević and Petrović dynasties, typical for European history, was a "Greater Serbian occupation". How moronic is that? There are more than ten such articles authored by him.

  • Not only is he a toxic publicist, but he often uses false data. For example, in 2010 he claimed (while referring to the Greens of Montenegro) that "9.000 Montenegrins died from the Serb hand", but in 2016 he had a sudden change of heart and claimed that a total of 257 people who were enemies of the royalistic regime, were in fact, killed, including civilans. Read more here.

Another shining example of his work is another insane claim that the members of the medieval Nemanjić dynasty, who were born and raised in modern-day Montenegro were the people same people who "destoyed Montenegrin statehood". Not to mention that the sovereign state of Montenegro did not exist in that historical period.

  • In his text Opskurna hajka na dr Sekulu Drljevića Mr. Adzic defends Sekula Drljević and his legacy. Do check it, be my guest.
  • Moving on, a proper Montenegrin historian, Dragutin Papović more or less, claims that Adžić is completely ignorant of part of Montenegrin history and in the end of his article (screenshots of his work are uploaded on the page) gives him a "friendly advice" not to negate historical facts and to stop attempting to change history.
  • Not enough about this "credible academic"? Check this video please. Go to 02:45. There you can hear a funny thing, Adžić claims that "Yugoslavia was founded by French free masons in order to make Serbia the dominant force in the Balkans". Haha. His source? An obscure article published in 1940 in Zagreb.
  • Now that we have established that this so-called "credible author" is publishing garbage pseudoscience, falsely uses historical data, claims to have a PhD when he does not have one, is weaponizing controversial historical events, it can not come as a surprise that he has the habit of falsiphing even poems. In the end of this video you can see, that he uses parts of a poem no less, in order to make a case for his interpretation of who "the good guys" are in one historical event. The source material is available online and is present at the end of the video as well. He lied to the public.
  • Last but not least, you claimed that AntenaM is "reliable". Let's see about that.
  • We have this portal called "Raskrinkavanje". It operates in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. We use it for fact-checking etc. and it is one of the best tools for such actions in the country.

A) AntenaM introduced false information and "manipulated facts" in order to present the impression to their liking. Link 1

B) AntenaM is listed amongst the tabloids, like "Alo", who introduced false information stating that Sweden has removed elderly people from their welfare system. Link 2


C) AntenaM posted, alongside other tabloids, false and pseudoscientific claims that golden [sponge]] found in Montenegrin sea has a potential to create a great "anti-COVID medicine". This article and others in line with are spreading false information to the public.

There is more where that came from.

D) Inded, they use history as a weapon, just like I said. For example here thay claim that the Serbian Orthodox church is not an institution which is 800+ years old.

And their "twin portal" operated by the same Darko Sukovic, who also often uses slurs and insults against indivuals who do not think like him, has the habit of publishing chauvinistic "funny articles" like this one, which attempts to portrait Serbs as "Turkish bastards".

I hope that my response gives you a better perspective on this question.

P.S: We have only 10 to 15 active admins on sr.wiki with a total of 663.000 published articles and numerous IP edits every day. I have edited almost 100.000 pages myself, that one included. I agree with your main point. The article is on my list for cleanup, as soon as I get the time to deal with it properly, hopefully very soon. Best. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

It does not. It gives me your perspective, not a better one. Most of what you have written above is very poorly sourced, original research, catastrophises minor errors, or uses other stuff exists arguments. For example, your claims about Dragutin Papović being a "proper Montenegrin historian". By what measure? Because you agree with his interpretation of Montenegrin history? He is himself a politician and was a teaching assistant for ten years before a year as a part-time lecturer in history at the university in Nikšić. He then joined the government for a couple of years as a public servant then became a politician. Hardly a stellar academic career as a historian. Stipe Kljaić's review of his book Intelektualci i vlast u Crnoj Gori 1945-1990 in Časopis za suvremenu povijest isn't exactly glowing, it seems pretty muted to me, stating that its main thesis is something that seems obvious, that historians during the communist period were restricted in what they could say or write by the dominant ideology. On the other hand, Nada Tomović's review of Rastoder and Adžić's 2020 three-volume series Moderna istorija Crne Gore 1988-2017. od prevrata do NATO pakta in Historijski pogledi is very positive. If Adžić is as bad as you say, what on earth is a respected professor like Rastoder doing co-authoring a book with him? And why did that book get a great review? You haven't even addressed that important point. Are you saying that Moderna istorija Crne Gore 1988-2017. od prevrata do NATO pakta is unreliable as well? Good grief. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

Radoje Pajović was a respected historian of the anti-fascist struggle in Montenegro with countless citations worldwide. When he died even the government paid tribute [1] (the same government that has tried to repeatedly remake Krsto Popović as "freedom fighter") . In wikipedia, bibliography has been used in order to make it seem as if him writing about the collaboration and crimes of the Chetniks in Montenegro was a biased endeavor fueled by his Communist resentment of Chetniks and not wanting them to be "recognized as freedom fighters". @Peacemaker67: can I get your opinion about this?--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pajović was a reputable historian and is well-cited across neutral academic sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikivoice

There's a few fragments that might benefit from being turned into quotes or at least attributed in prose:

  • which have stood the test of time
  • The first two works were especially appreciated in scientific circles.
  • He has been praised for...
  • Internationally, Pajović has been acknowledged as the most prominent historian of the events of World War II in Montenegro

None of these alone is a big deal, but together they form a not-insignificant part of the prose. As a query regarding the last one, does the citation in the ref count as "international praise" if the person writing the praise is Montenegrin (based on a total of 3 seconds on Google, so I might be mistaken)? Ljleppan (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I'm mostly after is whether e.g. the praise referred to in He has been praised for... is from the cited author, or whether that author is summarizing a broader thing. I.e. whether it expands as So-and-so praised him for... or According to So-and-so, he has been praised for... Ljleppan (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree that everything will need to be examined as I work through getting it to GA, particularly quotes about praise and criticism of his work and his status. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Where the info is cited to two or more, I haven't attributed in-text. Otherwise I have. Please let me know if you see anything that isn't. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

All looks pretty good.

  • "figures, who" Delete the comma
  • "a politically motivated, popular trend in historiography" -> "a politically-motivated popular trend in historiography"
  • "He accused the same groups of historical revisionism against the anti-fascist struggle in Montenegro and its legacy." It is unclear who is referred to, and what are the "same groups"? There is an ambiguity between Amfilohije and Pajović.

I made a change to suppress a warning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Hawkeye! All done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Looks good
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Peacemaker67 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Peacemaker67: Good article. Personally I prefer alt1 as alt0 is kind of vague and seems a bit wordy. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I think alt0 might be better suited as it seems to be a specific attribute noted in the lead of the article. Could combine both alto0 and alt1 and wouldn’t seem too long? OyMosby (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I certainly think ALT0 would be better, but it is already at 187 characters, so not really expandable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radoje_Pajović/Archive_1&oldid=1141484704"