File talk:Serb lands04.png

Something is wrong with this map!

Please compare to the Croation and Bosnian Kingdoms!

...according MOSTLY? to the De Administrando?

Please check historicaly more reliable maps than this one above!

It´s a FAKE!

http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/800s.jpg

http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/tomislav.jpg

There was already a discussion about this map among several users on Wikipedia. This map is based on the one from my historical atlas (Istorijski atlas, Beograd, 1999), made by several history professors. As for these two maps from your external links, it has been discussed that they are not from the same time period as this one, since Bosnia in various time periods belonged to Serbia or Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The names

This is a Mix-Mape the names are mixed from the past and today

No, it is not. The names are those from the 9th century. Find some historical atlas and you will see. PANONIAN (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Term "Serbia"

Serbia is modern term. In the Middle Ages the Serbian state was called Raška. Did Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos originally uses the term "Serbia"? If yes, what the term meant at that time: Serbian tribes, Serbian state (kingdom, duchy, etc.) or land inhabited by Serbs? --Mladifilozof (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Serblia" (Serbia) was used by Byzantines in the beginning only when all or the most of Serbian principalities were unified. ex: Principality of Časlav Klonimirović (Unified Serbia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.33.212 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, did Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos originally uses the term "Serbia"? --Mladifilozof (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did: http://www.politika.rs/ilustro/2161/4.htm - Quote: "Car Konstantin Sedmi Porfirogenit opisao je doseljavanje Srba i to je ono predanje o kojem još nisu usaglašena mišljenja. On piše da je deo Srba prebegao caru Irakliju i "car Iraklije ga primi i kao mesto naseljavanja dade mu u solunskoj temi Serviju koja otada taj naziv novi. Posle izvesnog vremena isti Srbi odluče da se vrate u svoje zemlje i car ih otpusti. Kada su prešli reku Dunav, pokaju se, i preko stratega koji je tada upravljao Beogradom jave caru Irakliju da im dodeli drugu zemlju za naseljavanje. I pošto sadašnja Srbija i Paganija i zemlja Zahumljana i Travunija i zemlja Konovljana behu pod vlašću cara Romeja, a te zemlje opuste od Avara, to car u ovim zemljama naseli iste Srbe i behu oni potčinjeni caru Romeja." - in another words "Serbs" was an original name of the Serb people and land where they lived was called Serbia. Terms "Rascia" and "Rascians" emanated later to designate one part of the Serb people that lived in region whose center was city of Ras. PANONIAN 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see entire text: http://sr.wikisource.org/sr-el/32._О_Србима_и_земљи_у_којој_сада_станују - Quote: "Treba znati da su Srbi potomci nekrštenih Srba, koji se još zovu i Beli, koji žive sa one strane Turske (Mađarske) na mestu koje se kod njih naziva Bojki (Bojka), gde im je susedna Franačka, kao i velika Hrvatska, ona nekrštena, koja se još zove i Bela. Tamo su, dakle, ovi Srbi živeli od početka. Pošto su dva brata nasledili na vlasti svoga oca u Srbiji, jedan od njih je uzeo polovinu naroda i prebegao Irakliju, caru Romeja (Vizantinaca), i taj isti car Iraklije ga je primio i za naseljavanje mu je dao mesto u Solunskoj temi Serviju(Srbica), koja od tada nosi taj naziv. Posle nekog vremena, su ti isti Srbi odlučili da se vrate u svoje zemlje i car ih je pustio. Kada su prešli reku Dunav, oni se pokaju i preko stratega koji je tada bio u Beogradu, jave caru Irakliju, da im on da drugu zemlju za naselje. I pošto sadašnja Srbija i Paganija i zemlja Zahumljana i Travunija i zemlja Konavljana, beše pod vlašću cara Romeja, a pošto su te zemlje bile opustošene od Avara (jer su iz tih zemalja oni isterali Romane koji sada žive u Dalmaciji i Draču), to car u ovim zemljama naseli iste Srbe i oni behu potčinjeni caru Romeja, a car ih pokrsti dovevši sveštenike iz Rima i, naučivši ih da pravilno vrhe dela pobožnosti, izloži im hrišćansko učenje." - so, it is not only that land in former Roman Dalmatia had name Serbia, but that name also designated area near Solun where Serbs settled and old Serb homeland in modern-day Germany and Poland. PANONIAN 09:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy

It is a fake. Croatian and Serbian border in BiH were never on Vrbas. The most western border of Serbia (under the Časlav, and that for only 30 years) was on river Bosnia (which can be seen on old Yugoslav history atlases). Also as that map (with much smaller Serbia than this) shows only temporary (30 years) status and that most of Bosnia was at that period part of Croatia this map is compeate fraud! --Čeha (razgovor) 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what Croatian historians claim about Serbian-Croatian border from that time, but this map represent data from Serbian sources. As for older Yugoslav sources, I have an atlas from 1970 where western Serbian border is river Bosnia, but I also have book "Srbi i Albanci kroz vekove" written by Petrit Imami (and published in Belgrade in year 2000), where he republished a map from a book "Istorija Jugoslavije" (Belgrade, 1972) in which western Serbian border is Vrbas. In another words, there is no general agreement in older Yugoslav sources about location of this border. PANONIAN 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Allegedly, the source for this map is "De Administrando Imperio" but in fact map relied on secondary sources, more precisely on Serbian historical atlas. We need some more neutral and reliable sources.--Mladifilozof (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, it is made according to "Geokarta" historical atlas published in Belgrade in 1999, and original description on the map in that atlas is "Serbian lands in 9th-10th century", while western border of Serbia on Vrbas river is described as border of Serb lands in the 9th century and border in the time of prince Petar (892-917) and prince Časlav (928-950). There are also other sources with similar maps, for example ethnic Albanian author from Belgrade Petrit Imami published in his book "Srbi i Albanci kroz vekove" map of South Slavic lands in the 9th century with western Serbian border located on Vrbas, and there are other sources as well. When I find more free time, I will make an improved version of this map and I will also expand reference list. PANONIAN 19:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian, there is much more literature about borders which where more east. I think that you can not draw a conclusions on one work, or nationalistic era of the 90-ies. These is a nationalistic map (no matter of the author ethnicity).--Čeha (razgovor) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used several sources, which is stated in my reference list. And how exactly this map could be nationalistic? It show historical Serbia which included territories of modern Serbian states, Serbia and Republika Srpska and it is part of the history of Serb people who live in these territories. It certainly does not reflect any nationalistic pretension towards ethnic territories of other nations. PANONIAN 21:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This new version is even worst. As for sources, please do tell me what this maps [1], [2] have to do with yours? Unfortunately, your borders are questionable at best. And for the second part, you are mixing nationalistic with iridentistic. This map claims a lot of territories of today's Federation of BiH, but that's besides the point, as the map is obviously not true, and goes beyond maximalistic area of control of serbian states at the time. It is maximalistic claim onto territories inhabited with other people besides Serbs and it does not have valid sources. That alone is a valid reason to be deleted. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst? In which way? As for sources, my main sources are published sources, mainly from historical atlas from 1999 - border in my first map version was not very precise, but now I scaned page from that atlas and made western border of Serbia exactly same as in that atlas. As for maps from external links, they are simply illustration of different points of view about Serbian-Croatian border, but they are also additional references for 4 Dalmatian principalities - every credible author will examine different points of view before forming an definite opinion. Also, map include parts of modern BIH Federation, but it is only a historical map, mainly related to the history of Serbia and RS and as such does not represent modern territorial claims. Many historical maps show that some modern states were part of other states during history (for example, will you also propose that this map of the Kingdom of Hungary should be deleted because it show territory of Croatia as part of Hungary?). I think there is another problem here: after examination of your own work and maps of Bosnia created by you, man cannot avoid an impression that you made these maps as a form of propaganda for creation of ethnic Croatian political entity in BIH and therefore you trying to "prove" that Bosnia was "always" Croatian. Obviously, my map does not fit into your POV about this subject and therefore you attacking its accuracy - it is certainly not me who propagating in favour of any modern political solution here. I will give only few examples of your work: 1. In this map you showed "speculative borders of 3rd BiH entity" - clear original research with clear political motive, 2. in this map you presented that north-western Bosnia was part of Croatia, while it was in fact part of the Kingdom of Hungary, 3. this map has similar problem as number 2, 4. in this map you "forgot" to mention that it was Serbian state of Časlav, not only "State of Časlav" (or did you forgot that?). Should I continue? PANONIAN 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sources that back up this map. This is original research by synthesis. Which sources do you think do this? Polargeo (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also [3] is a completely unreliable source anyway. Polargeo (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my main source is history atlas from 1999 (first source in my reference list). Other sources from the list are additional references that entirelly (or partially) are confirming data from the first source. PANONIAN 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go again. This [4] and this [5] are very different maps. How can something be source for something if it borders differ by 100 km or more ? Secondly, I'll will gladly answer any of your ad persona attacks onto the pages of those maps (you can see their sources, unlike yours), but this is a disscoussion talk about this map [6], so please stick to the subject! To make the matter worse you are sistematicly moving the historical border to the west (and to the south). Unfortunately, unsourced as it is, map has more to do with [[7]] than historical lines... --Čeha (razgovor) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I already posted link to the map with same western border of Serbia but you obviously did not opened it, so here is the link again: http://www.rgz.gov.rs/kart-proizvodi/korpa_edit.asp?ArtikalID=1000315&LanguageID=2&MenuID=0020010 As for other sources, I already explained: they confirm entirelly or partially data from my map - word "partially" means that some differences might be present. As for your maps, I have no time to discuss their accuracy on their talk pages - I only showed them here to illustrate POV nature of your work (if somebody accusing you for something, personal motives of that person are very important issue). Also, why you now claim that "one cannot see sources for my map" or that it is "unsourced" when you saw these sources by yourself and you discussing about them right now? (that is simply not an intelligent way to have conversation with somebody, you know). And please explan what exactly you meant with claim that I "sistematicly moving the historical border to the west and to the south"? As I explained, first version of my map had only approximativelly drawn border and now I only made that border more precise, reflecting exact border from the sources (see one of the sources here: http://www.rgz.gov.rs/kart-proizvodi/korpa_edit.asp?ArtikalID=1000315&LanguageID=2&MenuID=0020010 Finally, you have no single proof that I am adherent of Greater Serbia idea (in fact, some users recently accused me that I am pro-Albanian), while I presented a proof that you are an adherent of idea about "Croatian entity in BIH" (Or you will say that you are not adherent of such idea?). PANONIAN 11:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let us go through this again; you puted a lot of contradictory sources on one page, and chosed one of them? First two maps which you've given have nothing with this one [8]. Or they indicate a private resarch?

Secondly; you claim that this [9] is your source? The one with the lowest credibily of the whole page? DAI is by itself a very controversialy source, and this goes far beyond it.

Thirdly, please refrain from ad hominem atacks [10], what do they have to do whith validity of your sources?

And the last one; if you are still "exploring" where the border was I suggest that you try to look at the more reliable data, for example euroatlas [11]. In this map serb tribes are settled in the area of today's sandjak....

--Čeha (razgovor) 16:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What attacks you speak about? We both very well know that somebody from China or Great Britain will not say a word about accuracy of my work - your political motives to discredit my work are clear and obvious. As for the sources, I did not "chosed one of them" - all of them, except the last two are showing western Serbian border on Vrbas. As for the source from Serbian government web site, that is the only one that I found on Internet, but being a government web site it is a reliable source. Also, I already said that I am aware of other opinions where Serbian border was in that time, but I made map according to these Serbian sources. Nobody stoping you to make your own map which would reflect data from your sources. I made this map for the articles related to the Serbian history and I will not object if you draw a map based on Croatian POV and post it into articles related to Croatian history. I really do not understand your campain against my work. PANONIAN 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have 5 internet links. First [12] and second [13] link go to the same page, so it is just 4 sources. Second source[14] doesn't shows borders of the serbian state, but just Croatian and they are slightly eastern than your map. And as you've seen in Euratlas, eastern Croatian border isn't by default Serbian western one. [15] and [16] have nothing to do with your map. So you have just one internet source [17] which is higly debatable. Are you seriously telling me that a person which made euroatlas map, or anybody objective would aprove your maps? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained which source I used for which purpose - if you did not noticed, this map do not show only borders of Serbia but some other territories in the neighborhood as well and each of the references that I listed is a confirmation for at least some parts of the map. As for Euratlas, it show only situation in every 100 years (i.e. in 800 AD, 900 AD, etc), while historical atlas that I used claim that these are borders of Serbia in the middle of the 9th century (i.e. around 850 AD, and that year was not a subject of Euratlas maps, so we certainly cannot know what authors of Euratlas would say about my map). Regarding Internet source from Serbian government web site, what exactly is debatable about it? PANONIAN 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online source

And if there is still question about sources for this map, here is website of the Serbian government, where map with exactly same western border of 9th century Serbia could be found: http://www.rgz.gov.rs/kart-proizvodi/korpa_edit.asp?ArtikalID=1000315&LanguageID=2&MenuID=0020010 (just click on a map to enlarge it). PANONIAN 15:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again another map that is not the same as you map. Therefore your map is original research by synthesis and should not be put into multiple articles. Wikipedia is not for original research. Polargeo (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this map from internet link show situation in 4 different centuries (situation from 9th to 12th century), while my map show situation in 9th century only. That is the only map of that kind that I found on Internet, but in published sources that I used there are maps that show 9th century only. So, if you think that my map is an original research then please explain for which part of the map you believe that it is example of my original research and because of what reason? PANONIAN 23:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your map is original research by WP:SYNTHESIS you cannot just cite a long list of maps and then somehow stick them together to make your own new map which is not really supported by any of the originals. Therefore this is original research by synthesis. Polargeo (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis of what? Did you read at all my explanation above? In published sources that I used there are maps showing 9th century only, but the one that I found on Internet is itself an synthesis of situations in 4 different centuries. Perhaps you are not well informed about Balkanic history, but you can notice that only thing that some users claimed to be disputed in this map is western border of Serbia - that is the main point of dispute between Serbian and Croatian historians regarding this issue, but nobody ever said anything against accuracy of any other part of the map, since it reflect generally accepted historical situation in the region in the 9th century. PANONIAN 10:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I cannot be convinced by some claim of published sources that I cannot see. Particularly with a map that is not directly taken from any one source. There are also issues of copyright. Could you please make these available so I can be sure. Polargeo (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would cost me some money to scan maps from these books, so I would rather avoid it - all data in my map can be confirmed by maps from external links listed in map references and it is enough for anybody who would search for such confirmation. I would suggest that you follow 4 simple steps here: 1. see this source where you can see cyrillic title "СРПСКЕ ЗЕМЉЕ ОД IX ДО XII ВЕКА", then 2. use google translate to translate this title into English and you will read "SERBIAN LAND OF THE XII CENTURY IX" (actually, the correct translation would be "Serbian lands from 9th to 12th century", but you can see that both centuries are mentioned here menaning that this map does not reflect only situation in 9th century, especially when states in the Serbian neighborhood are in question), 3. now see this source whose title 800s clearly refer that this source show 9th century and the only difference between that source and my map is Serbian-Croatian border (and both maps are reflecting different views among Serbian and Croatian historians about the subject). In another words, it is clear that all data in my map is confirmed by these external links and that it therefore cannot be an original research (even if I made a compilation of several sources as you claim that still cannot be my own original research since in that case I have to invent borders by myself, not to use same borders from maps in external links). It is obvious that you have negative attitude towards me and my work in general (you even managed to dispute accuracy of my map of Federal Republic Yugoslavia, which is really ridiculous since that map show undisputed borders from very recent history) and I would suggest that you rather do something useful instead to track my edits and to spread negativity against me in various pages. If you have any source that contradict to some of the data from my map, please present claims from that source here and we can discuss about such sources on scientific basis, but if you only use various talk pages to accuse me for nationalism, POV pushing, original reasearch (or whatever) then I am not problem here, but you are. Few days ago I made historical map of Caucasus and I was immediately accused that I push anti-Georgian POV. Recently, I made some maps related to Albanian history and I was accused for pro-Albanian propaganda. I really do not know is a good faith work still possible here in English Wikipedia or is it now only a Forum-type place for nationalistic propaganda wars. PANONIAN 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding "issues of copyright" that you mentioned, I draw my maps on empty Photoshop layer and therefore they are 100% my own work and 100% free of any copyright (and that certainly cannot be said for many Wikipedia maps that were created by some other users), so please stop trying to disrupt and discredit my work in this way. PANONIAN 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2023

Considering the previous discussion, it is evident that the file and derivative files with the same author's file/idea (!) about historical borders about the 9th century (for which there's no basis in historical sources and international scientific literature; for both western border, and especially not of Stari Ras/Rascia which became Serbian only centuries later) is - author's WP:OR, heavily based on WP:SYNTH of various different yet selective maps/sources not supporting such borders, also misciting the references/links. This and derivative files due to such and other issues are inadequate for use on Wikipedia, being good candidates for deletion request. Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]