![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Didn't mean to offend, just thought in the context of the article Raci it'd be ok to use the word. Adam Mathias 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
RACI is also used to mean: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed. This indicates for a given task, the participants roles. 194.60.85.4 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) BBurrell
Of course! in any case it would be interesting to point out that Raci can have a peyorative usage when refering to the Serbs; or at least that it had a peyorative meaning in the past.
-- 83.33.247.125 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For links, should we have some appropriate redirect such as Raci (ethnonym)? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It was available, so I created it. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In the same vein, I'll also create Raci (exonym). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Rascia in Turkish empire near Virovitica ? -- Čeha ( razgovor) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Maps are hilarious examples of Serbian myths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.232.49 ( talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is the coat of arms (a historic point) moved to the bottom of the article and the map (historical nonsense) moved to the top? It even says "Approximate" in its caption. What does approximate means scientifically? Maps of this sort need to be backed up with lot of references, namely anyone can draw a map like this, and "redraw" history... The references for this map were carefully selected, even though hundreds of other maps from the same period show slightly different arrangement. Wide objective scientific approach for this encyclopedia, or pursuit to prove a POV?
According to references used for proof of the blue shading, Rascia – whatever it meant to the mappers, and whatever it meant literally in real history – the north border of Rascia is about at the half of the blue shaded territory. Even compared to the given references the map is evidently exaggerated. Same is true for the map below it. Who knows what the point made here meant... Should someone correct those maps, or else they need to be replaced with something more scientific? Jozefsu ( talk) 17:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rascians. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four years This information is a forgery, everything is explained here [1] [2]. I suggest deleting this information from the article. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
References
[1] - Theonewithreason 18:03, 02 September 2020 (UTC)
Most claims about parts of Vojvodina and Slavonia being called Rascia are spurious. The maps provided are outright wrong. "Approximate territory, according to various sources, ethnographically identified as new "Rascia" between the 16th and 18th centuries" Which various sources? The map is obviousły made by a Serb nationalist, and the sources mentioned are by authors who are known to have had expansionist aspirations. The historiographical data by Jovan Cvijić and Dušan Popović were designed to support Serbian expansionism and the idea of Velika Srbija. Save from the etymology, most of the article should be rewritten in an objective and accurate manner. Calqued ( talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Didn't mean to offend, just thought in the context of the article Raci it'd be ok to use the word. Adam Mathias 01:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
RACI is also used to mean: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed. This indicates for a given task, the participants roles. 194.60.85.4 09:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) BBurrell
Of course! in any case it would be interesting to point out that Raci can have a peyorative usage when refering to the Serbs; or at least that it had a peyorative meaning in the past.
-- 83.33.247.125 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
For links, should we have some appropriate redirect such as Raci (ethnonym)? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It was available, so I created it. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In the same vein, I'll also create Raci (exonym). -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Rascia in Turkish empire near Virovitica ? -- Čeha ( razgovor) 19:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Maps are hilarious examples of Serbian myths — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.232.49 ( talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is the coat of arms (a historic point) moved to the bottom of the article and the map (historical nonsense) moved to the top? It even says "Approximate" in its caption. What does approximate means scientifically? Maps of this sort need to be backed up with lot of references, namely anyone can draw a map like this, and "redraw" history... The references for this map were carefully selected, even though hundreds of other maps from the same period show slightly different arrangement. Wide objective scientific approach for this encyclopedia, or pursuit to prove a POV?
According to references used for proof of the blue shading, Rascia – whatever it meant to the mappers, and whatever it meant literally in real history – the north border of Rascia is about at the half of the blue shaded territory. Even compared to the given references the map is evidently exaggerated. Same is true for the map below it. Who knows what the point made here meant... Should someone correct those maps, or else they need to be replaced with something more scientific? Jozefsu ( talk) 17:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rascians. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A letter of King Matthias from 12 January 1483 mentions that 200,000 Serbs had settled the Hungarian kingdom in the last four years This information is a forgery, everything is explained here [1] [2]. I suggest deleting this information from the article. Mikola22 ( talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
References
[1] - Theonewithreason 18:03, 02 September 2020 (UTC)
Most claims about parts of Vojvodina and Slavonia being called Rascia are spurious. The maps provided are outright wrong. "Approximate territory, according to various sources, ethnographically identified as new "Rascia" between the 16th and 18th centuries" Which various sources? The map is obviousły made by a Serb nationalist, and the sources mentioned are by authors who are known to have had expansionist aspirations. The historiographical data by Jovan Cvijić and Dušan Popović were designed to support Serbian expansionism and the idea of Velika Srbija. Save from the etymology, most of the article should be rewritten in an objective and accurate manner. Calqued ( talk) 15:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)