Talk:Pavle Radinović

Engaging in edit war, deleting contributions without using talk page

Since User:Zoupan engaging in WP:EDITWAR with me, deleting written and media files contributions without using talk page, and then reverts my edits three times in row, I will try to draw some attention and help, third opinion and request for comments--Santasa99 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw your edit as redundant, and I explained myself, starting a discussion, which you seem to have neglected wholly.--Zoupan 23:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This section does not comply with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.--Zoupan 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Before even starting, one can use WP:ROWN, which prevents interested parties in breaking WP:3RR, as User: Zoupan already did. Also, instead using user own talk page, making threats (last warning, etc), one should use article talk page in attempt to resolve problem--Santasa99 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit with the comment Instead of ref-bombing, edit the Pavlović article with the section "Coat of arms" (20:18, 9 May 2015), and then initiated a conversation (20:48, 9 May 2015), then an edit-war ensued. I wanted to discuss the matter (composition of coat of arms), he didn't. My last edit was diplomatic, removing the image altogether, explaining myself again, then informed him that I thought that it would be best to use the actual seal of the person in question (and not a new composition of various heraldic elements of that family).--Zoupan 23:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You see, I somehow knew that someone like you, with ethnic, cultural or political prejudices toward certain other narratives around Balkans, will eventually come along and get very bothered with new shield coloration (and "golden" fleur de lis motives) - old one is dark red, which is false coloration, and it belongs to "Illirian Armoury", fabricated, although not entirely falsified, 19th century product - but will refuse be bothered to look at media file Summery section, where all the proper attributions and references were placed, so I did it again next to image file in proper manner within Infobox. You call that "ref-bombing", I call it unfortunate necessity, but Wikipedia rules demands it - ref-bombing looks like this WP:CITEOVERKILL, and not in case where article have one ref. just before I added three more ! Do you trying to exploit the complex web of Wikipedia rules, or you really think that three ref's on article with only one existing ref. constitute "ref-bombing" ? By the way, three references which I placed next to the coat of arms are primary, secondary and tertiary sources, all properly placed and used to corroborate design of that particular coat of arms of the person in its biographical article - so, that's the significance of these ref's.

Further, you have discussion with me directly, but on the issue of media file, which I placed on certain articles which you removed more then once before even beginning any discussion at all. Only when I objected and undid your deletion you accepted proper discussion, but on my own talk page instead article talk page - all this is the reason discussion should be made on article talk page, and not user talk page.

And then you declare that I am the one who "instead of discussing changing the image, when (you) commented that (I) should elaborate at Pavlović noble family", and then came truly bewildering declaration that "(you) did a favour, and moved the references to where they belong, in their own section about the coat of arms." You did favor to me ? I thought that you are engaging into prolonged edit war with me in favor of truth and encyclopedia accuracy, not to correct me.

Which brings me to the issue of Pavlovic coat of arms, and you being irritated with it. You have no problem with so called "Illirian Armoury" and Pavlovic red and yellow shield, yet this blue-yellow is problematic, despite the fact that experts suggests vice-versa. I will always accept and acknowledge that entire heraldry of Balkan is somewhat problematic, and that particular family isn't exception, but this is the best representation of Pavlovic family emblem, depicted to best of our knowledge, yet, seems to me, you made it your mission to remove it from Wikipedia.

I made my case with three references, which I thought are best to prove authenticity, while you haven't provide one explanation but asked for more elaborations from me, and that only when you concluded that I refuse to give up after you made several reversions.

Having in mind all this, and since you are asking for clarifications, with inline message templates, despite clear references, I hope you don't, actually, asking me to elaborate and explain myself specifically to you, so that media file be allowed to remain ?--Santasa99 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is whether to ref-bomb, and whether to have the Pavlović coat of arms based on the Illyrian Armorials, or this new composition, in the article of Pavle Radenović. I do not dispute having the new composition in the Pavlović article, minus the fleurs (though the file description must state how it was customized, which I did for you), besides the traditional red one. The red version is the most (only?) used version of the coat of arms for this family, with or without fleurs (this is Palavestra's version) – should we follow the tradition, or not? My opinion for Radenović's article is a red shield, with the fort in yellow, based on the design of his seal, without the fleurs. I do not think Truhelka's claim of "ideological-propagandic message" in the use of red is the least reliable, judging by the coats of arms found in the Armorials. Interestingly though, the Illyrian Armorials used the fleurs (a "Bosnian" symbol) when none of the family member's seals had them (according to your own sources). I will upload the rest of the Illyrian versions, and scanned seals, so we can discuss further. --Zoupan 03:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am compelled to elaborate just a bit on point of symbols and color for the sake of all those unsuspecting readers, that may or may not take these issues to heart. Fleur de lis is not, as Zoupan put it under quotation marks, a "Bosnian" symbol, it's a Bosnian symbol if at all - rather it is a motif considered in several different eras to be Bosnian symbol, taken as such from medieval Bosnian king Tvrtko's and, from that point onward, Kotromanic's dynastic "coat of arms" (CoA), while Tvrtko himself received it as a token of alliance between him and Louis I of House of Anjou - so basically it is an Anjou motif used on dynastic CoA, turned into modern-days (official and unofficial, depending on circumstances) symbol of both medieval state and contemporary Bosnian nation-state. Also, bare in mind that all of medieval Balkan Christian nobility literally disappeared from historical scene with Ottoman conquest, and that all subsequent "armorials" compilations were fabricated with specific ideological undertones of the time and specific intent, or at least most of them are, especially with regard to its coloration. If any of major South-Slavic Balkan medieval noble families, beside ruling dynasties, whether Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin or Serbian, ever compiled some sort of CoA of their own they probably followed trend and normatives set by their overlords. Similarly, if any of numerous Bosnian medieval noble families compiled one of their own they probably did it after Tvrtko turned his state into full-fledged kingdom with profound consequences for the state and feudal social fabric, with king subduing all of his previously rebelled vassals and granting numerous estates to loyal subjects. Under these new circumstances it is posible to imagine that families like Radinovic-Pavlovic, Vukcic-Hranic-kosaca, Vukcic-Hrvatinic, conceived some kind of CoA of their own, even rudimentary ones, and that king's CoA was likely used as a trend setting, and to certain extent as a model, with some normatives. like coloration, used to established allegiance and indicator from which loyalty could be attributed and proven. Not to mention that red pigment wasn't exactly bought-and-sold around every corner in medieval times Balkan. So, where this idea that, if existed, majority of South-Slavic medieval CoA used red color almost uniformly stemmed from? Red color is so prevalent in these fabricated "armorials", in which even possibly authentic CoA are heavily editorialized. Compiled between 15th to 20th century, these albums were based on Serbian and Croatian modern presumption that "red" was their respective nations "national colors" from time immemorial, followed by its adoption as an indication of commonality as well as colors of modern and contemporary nationhood and states. These circumstances, in period when Serbian and Croatian modern identities were forged, lead to usage and appearance of "red" so prevalent in attempted recreation of CoA, as in Serbian and Croatian so in medieval Bosnian noble families. At this point it is no secret that inhabitants of Bosnia, Bosnians, were considered either Croats or Serbs by 19th and 20th century Croatian and Serbian historiography, presumption held by many Serbian and Croatian historians even to this day. It's a common knowledge, at least among neutral observers as well as western academics, that Bosnian identity (ethnicity and language), still denied today, was suppressed and obscured to the point of almost being sent to oblivion. In short, idea of red color in medieval CoA was injected subsequently into fabricated albums, following pattern of supposition, plagiarism and appropriation, ascribing to each family preconceived ethnic belonging each respective nation's ideologues of modern identity imagined is appropriate.

Important thing is that entire issue of "ideological" misuse of whole bunch of these often mysteriously (re)appearing, literally from tin air, "armorials" all around Serbo-Croatian speaking world, is matter of point of view - bottom line is that nobody can prove or disprove with absolute certainty such thesis. But this have nothing to do with my inclusion of redesigned emblem. By the way, it's not just Truhelka who made such notion, many experts on history and/or vexillology afterwards accepted it as realistic possibility, especially those who researched Illirian movement of 19th century.

But let's be clear, I'm not interested and I don't care for such claims in this particular case, I base my design solely on the sources which I gave, and one of them is primary source - report from DAD (DAD stands for Drzavni Arhiv Dubrovnik) ! I prefer first hand report over manufactured fantasy book, also known as "Fojnicki grbovnik" or "Illirian Armorial". But let's be honest, no doubt some number of emblems from that book are accurate representation, but even then it is coloration which is dubious, to say the least, rest of it is pure fantasy. When we compare armorials produced in Europe at the alleged time of creation of "Illirian Armorial" (14th century) to "Illirian Armorial" itself, we see that "Illiran" is done a) with color not inc, which is hard to swallow having in mind it's unlikely they had color pigments available around Balkans at the time for such purpose, and b) it is far superior in every aspect of craftsmanship to anything we find in Europe, which again is unlikely to be even remotely possible.

As for motif of fleur de lis, which we also find in red & yellow version in "Illirian Armorial", that doesn't prove or disprove anything - but, as I said I don't care for claims for propaganda nonetheless.

If your internal motivation not to accept "blue" design is induced with Truhelka claims that "Illirian Armorial" raison d'être was propaganda, hence the producer(s) color choice, then you are loosing perspective, and allowing ideology and bias to guide your "mouse" (or touchpad).

Bottom line is that you have massive body of work in current research of vexillology and Serbian, Montenegrin, Bosnian and Croatian medieval noble families heraldry in all four countries and their respective research institutions, many of it available online.

Anyone who want accurately to depict or chose from many collections and online galleries should use that work as guidance.--Santasa99 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues: Something else - Name

Something else - in charters his father calls himself Radin not Raden, which makes Radinovic not Radenovic. Almost every scholarly work takes only Radin-ovic into account. Should I move article under Pavle Radinovic from Pavle Radenovic, I could face another yet edit war ?--Santasa99 (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Gbook hits:

• "Pavle Radenović" (54) vs. "Pavle Radinović" (26)
• "Павле Раденовић" (67) vs. "Павле Радиновић" (11)

Gscholar hits:

• "Pavle Radenović" (7) vs. "Pavle Radinović" (12)
• "Павле Раденовић" (7) vs. "Павле Радиновић" (1)

Sum: Radenović (135) vs. Radinović (40). Your conclusion is false. As for the charters, if you have a primary source, present it here, so we can discuss if phonology supports it. You should not move the page.--Zoupan 07:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Gee, I'm not an archive nor library, I don't have any primary source, i.e. medieval charter, in my possession. However, most secondary sources, probably most of those you googled have facsimiles of these documents, why on earth you didn't checked yourself ?!

Only this guy of all his family on Wikipedia bear this "version" of their name.

I will try to find good source, but before I do, also:

Gbook hits -

• Raden Jablanić (0) v Radin Jablanić (16)
• Раден Јабланић (3) v Радин Јабланић (15)

How nonsensical this can be we can observe here:

• "Кнез Павле Раденовић био је син Радина Јабланића (...)" says Jovan Radonic in his 1901 work "O knezu Pavlu Radenoviću".

Actually it is almost impossible to find reliable source for name Raden Jablanic, it is always Radin ! This Wikipedia article also explains roots of person's name, which makes it obvious that rely heavily on that correlation.

--Santasa99 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Seal is OK, but

Seal is OK, but do you know how many seals belonged to the family, and that we have clear representations and reprints of many of them ? Are you checked which one belongs to Pavle, exactly ?

More importantly, I believe this combination is fit to be included on family article as well, go ahead if you want, but take other seal into consideration too ? I will help on Family Armorial section of family article some more. Although, don't mind me if I say so, somehow I don't believe accuracy is your primary drive on this.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)