Talk:Špiro Kulišić

Very bad
Poorly written, no sources and far from neutral. 幾何學家 (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. WP:SYNTH problems too. GregorB (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New edit
Equally bad as the previous one. POV in the opposite direction. See, for example

Ethnogenesis and Socialist Nation: Polemics on O etnogenezi Crnogoraca in 1980s Yugoslavia by Takuya Nakazawa Paper presented at ICCEES IX World Congress 7th August 2015, Makuhari, Japan

Veselin Đuretić criticized that nation is production of modernity, therefore Kulišić’s theory was “ideological fetishization of this concept.”  Historian Branislav Đurđev recognized that the ethnogenetic process needed a long times, so nation isn’t only the production of modernity. But he criticized Kulišić because one of the origins of Montenegrins which Kulišić insisted wasn’t live only in Montenegro.

Out of this conference, ethnologist Mirko Barjaktarović pointed that modern Montenegrin rulers and intellectuals thought themselves as Serbs

http://www.njegos.org/past/vid.htm Dordje Vid Tomasevic Retired professor of Anthropology at the Buffalo University in New York and member of Crown Council Montenegrins and other Serbs

Ethnologist Spiro Kulisic and his school unconvincingly "prove" that Byzantine and local sources from the eleventh century saw in Dukljans a separate ethnical group, so-called different either from Serbs or Croats --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 07:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not equally bad nor POV in the opposite direction. If those sources are reliable then don't lament and edit the article, but it is not reliable. Actually, it supports the outdated research of the older scholars mentioned in the article. Modern contemporary scholarship is more and more accepting the "unconvincing" considerations by Kulišić as in the case of Montenegrins, that the previous historians ideologisation of "mixture of Romanized natives and outnumbering Slav invaders" is false as paleo-anthropological and anthropological research on the Montenegrins shown the continuity of the indigenous population, while genetic studies only 7.5% of Y-haplogroup R1a which represents the Slavic substrata brought during the Middle Ages.--Crovata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)