Talk:Jovan Sterija Popović/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent edits - Aromanian origin

• I don`t see why it is this source "suspicious" ? It is beign used in other articles too, and I can`t find anything strange with this web page.
• The source says " here are also a certain number of Arumanians or Tzintzars " - Tzintzars is a popular name, Aromanians the official one. Please read this [1].

Sterija being of Aromanian origin isn`t any secret, it is a well-known fact and if you visit his theater in Vrsac you can see for yourself. If you have any more questions about this, please ask. Just in case, I have added a couple more references about this. Here are some that I did`t added to the article 1; 2. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

First source is IMO dubious for two reasons:

• it is used on only one other article and that for info on Banat population
• the page of the source discusses a different topic ("STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF RUMANIANS AND VLACHS IN SERBIA") than this article, which raises suspicion about the author's(s') competence on this issue

As for other refs - the first one states that his father was Grk-Cincarin and that would already be enough to claim that his family wasn't Aromanian - if we can trust this source. When taken into account the second claim from this site (which is that through his mother's side his was a grandson of a prominent Serbian painter), the claim that his family was Aromanian is even more dubious. Second ref refers to Wikipedia when claims his Cincar ancestry (WP:Self reference - matter to avoid. Only the third ref claims that he was of Cincar ancestry, but that is the site of Serbian-Aromanian society and their claims are subject to bias due to conflict of interest.(edit conflict) As for your other links provided I read only the first two since the third is pdf and I don't feel like conveying through another one if you don't provide some summary. Because for the two I read I don't exactly follow what other significant contribution they add up to. The second even suggests that his father was a comer and his homeland is unknown. All in all, everything discussed here sums up to the fact that Sterija's ancestry is disputed and that the current wording should be excluded. All the best, Biblbroks (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don`t see the problem if it is used for info about Banat population, I don`t think this is the issue as for the "author" of this web page, it looks like it is some kind of cooperation between Serbia and Romania as it is the sign of the town Vrsac inscribed, I doubt that this is something unreliable.

• About the source that states his fathers origin (Grk-Cincar - Eng: Greek-Aromanian) suggests the possibility of a mixed origin (Greek included).
• About the second source, you are right, I did`t saw it, I`l remove it now. It is self-reference.
• The Serbian-Aromanian society could be in conflict of interest, but if we take reference by that, we should remove more than 50% of references on wikipedia, if the Aromanian society doesnt write about their history, who will. Based on the same logic, should we discard all Serbian sources about Serbian history because it is, in that sense, in conflict of interest? I don`t think so..
• The first link 1 It is strange that doesn`t work, when you open this page, please type in the search field "Jovan Sterija Popovic" and click on the author to see the info about it. I will change the self-referencing link with this one.

I agree his origin is not crystal clear but in every Serbian book about him, even in his theater in Vrsac (his biography) it says that he was of Aromanian origin. I don`t agree that his origin should be excluded since there are many references (the majority of them) pointing to his Aromanian origin. Adrian (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another reference - [2]. Adrian (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is with the information from the sources provided - they infer disputed origin. That's the case with first source (Grk-Cincar) and somewhat with second mentioned (ikzs.com: Otac mu je bio došljak. Sterija nije zabeležio odakle mu se otac doselio u Vršac.). So then anyone can conclude that his ancestry is questionable. The wording in the article is what is wrong in such case: Born in Versec (Present day Vršac, Serbia) to an Aromanian family. If we take even the last source you provided (narodnopozoriste.co.rs: His father was a merchant, Tzintzar by nationality and his mother was very educated women from an artistic family, Serb by nationality.) we can't talk about his Aromanian family. Family constitutes father and mother. If father=A, and mother=B, it's not necessary that child=A (or B to the fact). That's my point. I don't understand how can you agree with the fact of his origin not being crystal clear and yet allow a conclusion that his origin should be included. I will be bold to end this illogicality and conclude the discussion with an assertion that his origin is disputed and therefore should be excluded from the article. So I will exclude it from article. Greetings, --Biblbroks (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don`t understand your attitude here, ignoring the references and taking into consideration only a few(1) that implies otherwise (over the majority of sources). It is clear that his origin is not crystal but since the great majority of sources (and his every book published in Serbia or abroad) states this - we should include it too (consider this info as the correct one). I don`t intend to take this "illogical" dispute any further but we can`t totally remove his origin because since he was a Serbian playwrighter (which implies Serbian ethnicity) and he was of Aromanian origin. Since "family" isn`t correct, then we could proceed as in most cases, since his father was Aromanian simply write " of Aromanian origin". Just to state that you are removing data that is written in his biography and in his every book (if you have a book of his - almost every house in Serbia does) you can check these facts. I will add the 1st version to the article. PS: His origin is not disputed. In every instance where it is written it is simply stated as Aromanian. Adrian (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We should`t ignore this many sources ([3] this one too) and simply exclude this info. Adrian (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I made a mistake by not mentioning the issue of the wording was a Serbian playwright where Serbian points only to Serbia instead of Serbian or Serbs. I thought it was obvious because I was making edits of excluding his origin and nationality, but maybe it wasn't. Sorry if that was the case. I must say that current revision again isn't acceptable by me, for one because it should definitely exclude nationality - membership of a nation or sovereign state). The term Aromanian can not accomodate it by this definition, for as far as I understand: Aromanian could be ethnicity but not nationality. For now I will refrain from discussing the inclusion of mentioning his Aromanian origin until we resolve the problem with was a [[Serbia]]n playwright - whether it'll be Serbian or Serbian or some different phrasing. And of course until we agree on nationality designation. Regards, Biblbroks (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, In the info box you are right, we should exclude his nationality(as such) since he didn`t lived in a sovereign state established by Aromanians, but the origin should be mentioned because we have 5 solid references about it - we can`t just remove it. If I can find a scanner(and this discussion continues) I`l even scan some of his books with this info and add it as a source. In cases like this it is usually something like " of xxxx descent" or " of xxxx origin". I think we could find some solution based on this form that is supported by references. We could also include the info from that one reference that suggests a mixed origin (Greek-Aromanian). Maybe this would look something like this " is a Serbian playwrighter of Aromanian descent - origin - ancestry (here we should choose which word is more appropriate). There are also references suggesting his mixed Greek-Aromanian origin." - we could work on this, but the core would be this info.

• As I see it, the main problem is - you want to totally exclude information about his origin but this info now has 5 solid references. These new references also : 1; 2;3; 4; 5; 6; 7. Maybe I misunderstood you in the begging of the conversation, but can you please explain on what bases you want to exclude this referenced info ? Adrian (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to remove the mention of his origin (nor it's refs for that matter) - if we only word it right. First problem to be resolved is (as I already pointed out): the wording "Jovan Sterija Popović ... was a Serbian playwright". Since currently this <nowikiki>Serbian</nowikiki> points to Serbia article, and this is ambiguous. Why, as it is now it could mean several things: that he was a playwright from or of Serbia, or that he was a Serb, or it can refer to any of the entries from the article Serbian. The question is to what article should this term "Serbian" point. It is the first mention of his ethnicity, nationality, origin - and thus important. Also, we should discuss this issue first since it was thus in the article's lede in the first place and because in the current revision it comes in the sentence before the mention of Aromanian origin. And afterwards we decide where and how to mention his Aromanian or whatever ancestry. I hope I was clear this time. --Biblbroks (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. One by one then :-). I don`t see any problem in the lead since he contributed a great deal to the Serbian culture and society - therefore a Serbian playwright. The "Serbian" in this sentence points to the Serbia article, I don`t think there is a problem if we write the origin(to point that beign a Serbian playwright he wasn`t of Serbian origin) than there isn`t anything confusing - my opinion. I don`t see a better article to point to in this case, and haven a look at other examples, they follow the same pattern (eg Romanian - Romania, Greek - Greece , English - England..etc). I don`t know, do you have a suggestion to which article to point ? Adrian (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and edited without reaching consensus first in order to finally illustrate the issue and try to resolve it at the same time. Regards, Biblbroks (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Np. I agree with these changes. I will just remove one reference from the article since 4 is too much, 3 is the standard maximum and I will list the others here if they are needed. Adrian (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Other references can be found here : 0;1; 2;3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8 Adrian (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The truth about 'Aromanian origin'

The truth is that in recent times many found that his father's name or nickname 'Sterija' doesn't sound Serbian enough, and since many Aromanians were integrated into Serbian society at that time, he just ought to have been an Aromanian. A very non-scientific approach since there is absolutely no data about his father's ethnic origin. He was either a Serb or a naturalized Serb, and if the latter was true, his ethnic origin might have been not only Aromanian, but as well Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian and even Albanian (orthodox Albanians). But again, there is no data on that matter.

The link to scd-lunjina.org website as a reference to that is not valid and I dispute it, and here are the reasons. That website is maintained by descendants of numerous Aromanian community that used to exist and it refers to a book 'Famous Aromanians in Serbia' which is a belletristic literature and not historic or ethnographic one. That book is filled with fallacies and romantic misinterpretations where even persons who married Aromanians or had Aromanian step-father or step-mother were listed as Aromanians (e.g. Serbian prime-minister Pašić, whose mother remarried to a Aromanian merchant when he was 8) and persons who had ancestors whose names 'sounded Aromanian', according to author's subjective views. That way, even Mihajlo Pupin was proclaimed as 'Aromanian' for the first time more than 60 years after he passed away, because the author found that his paternal grandmother lived in a village that at the time had a significant Aromanian minority. That was the only argument and only reference.

Hence, I will remove the Aromanian reference from this article until someone presents a valid proof for this information. There are many persons that indeed are of Aromanian origin, but Sterija just isn' one of them. He might be, but only in the matter that any of us can be as well. 109.93.135.175 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but your POV on this matter is invalid - Wikipedia is not a blog to talk in this form about our opinions about some references (please read WP:ISNOT ). References exist (many for that matter - check the section above) and the data is more than valid. If you have problems with some references you are free to challenge them at WP:RSN - and not to remove a well-referenced data, but again if some of the references are "invalid" there are many other to confirm this. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference is not valid, and that's the point. You cannot use, e.g. pseudo-historical literature as reference to historical entries on Wikipedia. What's next, that someone should use 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' or 'Mein Kampf' as valid references in entries concerning Jewish people? The only reference concerning supposed Sterija's Aromanian origin on his father's side is based on an ethnic website that cites a fallacious book. It's not a POV, mind you. I will keep reverting back for as long as I don't use up my bonus (3 times?) or until a valid source for this claim is provided. Other than a book which proclaims people as Aromanians if they only shook hands with them or dined at the same table. Any data that concerns Sterija's father's ethnic background is not 100% accurate. As a matter of fact, in Serbian public, Sterija's father figured as a possible Greek for 150 years. Absolutely no one proclaimed him an Aromanian until a journalist Marinković concluded in his popular and fun book 'Famous Aromanians' that he ought to be Aromanian because his name sounds Aromanian. A pretty silly argument, even for you, don't you think? 91.150.98.251 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think this version might be the best. Since the three references refer to his possible Greek or Aromanian origin and not confirmed one, and as Serbian ethnicity of his father is not confirmed also, it is best to say that his origin is believed or presumed to be most likely Greek or Aromanian, since this is not a reliable fact, as with Branislav Nušić and other Serbs who were reportedly of Aromanian ethnic background. 91.150.98.251 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but you can`t judge if a reference is valid or not, as I said in my first comment, (please read WP:ISNOT ). References exist with clear data about his origin(many for that matter - check the section above) and the data is more than valid. Please stop vandalizing this article. If you have problems with some references you are free to challenge them at WP:RSN - and not to remove a well-referenced data. Adrian (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you read? Are you literate and/or intelligent? Can you tell an argument from an empty phrase? Have you read these 'references'? Have you, pray, notice that these origins are supposed and not confirmed? What's the problem with stating that? I repeat: There is no confirmed data on supposed Sterija's father's Aromanian background. If you like to treat truthful edits of fallacious data as 'vandalism', please do so. At least I am not spreading lies and non-confirmed data throughout the world as some encyclopedic facts, as you do. I am from Serbia and happen to know something about history of Serbian literature and Serbian writers and happen to know something about Serbian websites and books printed in Serbia. Marinković's book 'Famous Aromanians' is not considered as valid historic and/or ethnographic literature because of numerous false data presented and non-scientific methodological approach, and administrators of Aromanian website scd-lunjina.org are noticed about that. As repeated – and this time please turn on your brain and read & think – Marinković lists people to be Aromanians by the criteria of their in-laws, step-cousins and subjective idea that someone just might be Aromanian without any specified reason. One of those examples is Sterija. Okay, you found reference that someone THINK that his father MIGHT be Aromanian, but THERE IS NO DATA ON THAT MATTER anywhere in the world. Just people who after 200 years THINK that it might be possible, and publish that in their books. Reverting back to the version that this Greek and/or Aromanian origin is supposed, as stated in the reference, and if you want an edit-war, you've got one. 109.93.236.6 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see you locked up the article, so it cannot be edited. Very decent and very scientific, I applaud you. First you cite literature that borders with pure SF to support claims about someone's supposed ancestry, and then prevent edits so that true facts about this writer can be presented. Good riddance, and I hope Jimmy Wales won't collect the money needed, if it is used to write such laughable entries and present them as 'encyclopedic' and 'verifiable'. And if you are a Cincar yourself, shame on you for lying and deceiving people like this. 109.93.236.6 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What is problem in here?

I just want to say that this edit mustn't be regarded as vandalism, as it is not. I don't see almost nothing problematic in here, and i would love to understand what is the reason for the revert. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jovan Sterija Popović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080502134545/http://www.to.vrsac.com:80/en_licnosti.asp to http://www.to.vrsac.com/en_licnosti.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jovan Sterija Popović. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419140503/http://www.rastko.org.rs/drama/sterija-kirjanja.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/drama/sterija-kirjanja.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)