Talk:Stefan Dečanski

Latest comment: 16 days ago by FropFrop in topic Explanation for POV tag

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Explanation for POV tag edit

Many points made in the article come across as uncritically accepting mediaeval propaganda. For example, the assertion that the people rallied behind Stefan because of a seen miracle, which I'd expect to be a gross simplification of the political situation. Another would be the use of 'pretenders' when referring to his two rivals, thus lending credence to his claim to the throne, which imo isn't a NPOV. A lot/most of similar points rely on the same source, which leads me to expect that it's a source with a biased POV. FropFrop (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine is one of the leading specialists in the history of the Balkans in the Middle Ages and has no interest in promoting any POV. His book, which is used in this article, although a little old, remains a major reference and a must read for any graduate student in History who wants to do research on the medieval history of the area. The problem here is that the article does not use the source correctly. For example, the article indeed says that the people rallied behind Stefan because of a seen miracle, while Fine says that this was the case according to Church sources. That's a major difference. Krisitor (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with Kristor on this one, the POV tag should be removed since Fine is leading expert in Balkan medieval history, if there are mistakes in the article they could be easily removedTheonewithreason (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that the POV tag should be removed atm. Even though the source is of good quality, the article still doesn't describe the history in an unbiased manner. FropFrop (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough about Fine being a good source. I didn't have time at the time to investigate. Seems like the article needs some tidying up then, rather than a different source. I'll start some tidying up now.
FropFrop (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply