Talk:Serb uprising of 1596–1597

Serb uprising???
Any RS for such name whatsoever? Sideshow Bob 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 (!!!).--Z oupan 20:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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).--Z oupan 08:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Illogical? What difference does the First Serbian Uprising make?--Z oupan 12:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In English.--Z oupan 12:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * 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.--Z oupan 19:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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:
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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)