Talk:Bihor (region)

Bihor

2A02:678:6CD:2700:987E:3BB5:B602:3376 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Džogović (2020)

Džogović (2020) in the intro to the translated documents discusses his own interpretation which is part of the historiographical debate, but this necessarily means as @Alltan: argued that it is a separate topic from what the archives themselves discuss. Džogović believes that the people mentioned in archival sources should be classified in the context of the modern Bosniak identity, but this identity certainly didn't exist in pre-WWII Montenegro. @Krisitor: when you are pursuing certain changes, you need to find consensus for them. IMO the current version represents a "middle path" which allows the reader to understand both the historical context and its modern interpretation from a Bosniak historiographical perspective.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: In Bihor i Korita (Lutovac 1957), a work which is generally treated negatively in Albanian historiography, it is self-evident to Lutovac that a part of the families of Bihor are of northern Albanian origin and didn't live there before the 18th century. If this is common knowledge for Lutovac in 1957, I think that in 2023 we should have no problem with recognizing something which is acceptable to Yugoslav Serbian historiography even in the 1950s.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Maleschreiber, it's been some time. Classifying the Slavic-speaking Muslims of Bihor during WWII as present-day Bosniaks might be debatable, but it is even more wrong to consider all of them as Albanians. As you said yourself by citing Lutovac, only part of the families of Bihor might have Albanian ancestry, like, by the way, a lot of people from the Brda tribes (see our other discussion on the TP of the Vasojevići tribe), Montenegro in general and even parts of Dalmatia and Bosnia. Anyway here, you and @Alltan are exposing a raw primary source, taking its information as completely true, instead of taking into account the required analysis of an expert. Because taking the content of a primary source as the truth is definitely not the right thing to do not only in scholarship (and believe me I know what I'm saying), but also on Wikipedia. Here the rules clearly state that a primary source should be used with caution, see WP:USEPRIMARY. Even if Džogović's analysis is limited to the introduction, it should be taken into account in the development of the passage that refers to his article, not only at the end. And FYI, he has written with Šerbo Rastoder, who is himself quite a respectable historian from Bihor, a detailed history of the Sandžak during WWII, which you should really check out: Bijela knjiga žrtava Sandžaka: 1941-1945.

Regarding your advice of seeking consensus: if this had come from someone who always seeks consensus, I would gladly accept it. But considering your past reverts of my changes without any discussion, or your recent edits to the Upper Reka page, coming from you, I can't hardly take it seriously, sorry. Krisitor (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any claim that all Muslims of Bihor have an Albanian origin. The original document speaks of Muslim Albanians in Bihor, it doesn't claim that all Muslims of Bihor were Albanians. On the other hand, Džogović claims that all Muslims of Bihor should be viewed as Bosniaks, a term which they never used for themselves until very recently.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]