Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Common name and official contemporary name

The discussion is almost impossible to follow, so why not simply look for a more common name in English (usually this is determined by searching on Google Books and Google Scholar, and counting the results).

If you search "Duchy of st Sava" for 21st century sources on Google Books [1], there are only two reprints of 19th century sources and a source from Ivo Vukcevich (who, according to this discussion, is not a RS). "Duchy of Saint Sava" gives one source that is not a reprint, and that is "Dušan T. Bataković: The Foreign Policy of Serbia (1844-1867): IIija Garašanin's Načertanije".

"Duchy of Herzegovina" gives three results that are not reprints (four if "South Slavs in Michigan" is included): [2] "Duchy of Hercegovina" gives three (perhaps four if "Ottoman-Polish Diplomatic Relations" is valid). Google Scholar also gives a bit more results for Duchy of Herzegovina (restricted to this century) [3].

Does someone have a better proposal for this?

The second point is the official contemporary name - that is, is there a contemporary source that contains a name (not a title) for the realm of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača? Btw, "realm of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača" isn't a bad idea either. There is an example of such naming in Realm of Stefan Dragutin. Tezwoo (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tezwoo:, zemlja is feudal unit or region (feudalna oblast, Pavao Anđelić "Studija o političko-teritorijalnoj organizaciji srednjevjekovne bosanske države") in all medieval Servo-Croatian states, and all these mainstream researchers, from 1950's onward, call these units zemlja. Stjepan Vukčić, although he was overlord of more then just Humska zemlja is actually always related to it. (I intend to create article zemlja in analogue to Župa for instance. Back to Stjepan, he was, for instance, knyaz of Drina zemlja in title, however, that zemlja was property of his vassal, meanwhile, Primorije and Travunija were absorbed by Hum/Humska zemlja. And this is only nomenclature which exists in research by mainstream medievalist historians regardless of epoch. I can't tell from the top of my head, but I think that John A Fine refers to all these top magnates land proper's as either "land" or "province". So, if no one editor is for Humska zemlja, how about, say, "Hum (feudal proper)", "Hum (feudal county)", or maybe the best would be "Hum (1326-1481)" Ту посебну област херцег је само сачувао, он је није осноао. Темеље јој је ударио Влатко Вуковић, а проширио је и учврстио Сандаљ Хранић. - S.Ćirković, "Herceg Stefan i njegovo doba", p.271 - or something of that sort, which we can actually ref. What say you?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tezwoo, you already made similar proposals earlier in the discussion, and those proposals were addressed (above). Maybe you overlooked the response, but there are serious issues regarding those proposals, in relation to the terminology of English Wikipedia:

1. "Duchy of Herzegovina": Primary meaning of the term Herzegovina on EW is related to a specific region in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the historical Duchy of Saint Sava was encompassing more than twice larger area, including several regions of modern states of Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. Besides that, while the title "Duke of Saint Sava" is well attested in historical sources (that fact is not disputed by anyone here), no Duke of Saint Sava ever used the title "Duke of Herzegovina" thus revealing the proposed title "Duchy of Herzegovina" as unfounded in primary sources and somewhat artificial.

2. "Realm of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača": Regarding this, purely descriptive and unusual title you are proposing, it fails to satisfy the common-name principle, and it also fails the basic Google Books search, since there are no hits for the term Realm of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. Not to mention the fact that his reign (d. 1466) does not cover the entire spam of existence of the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482).

3. Regarding the territorial scope and regional names, the present title (Duchy of Saint Sava) is the only title that fully covers the changing territorial scope of that feudal polity during the entire spam of its existence (1448-1482), while some other proposals (above), like those that are advocating the term Hum (Humska zemlja) are in fact referring to just one of several regions within the DoSS, thus failing to cover the full territorial scope of the polity, that also included regions such as Primorje, Travunija, Podrinje, Polimlje. It should be also noted that the region of Hum (Humska zemlja) was not even a part of this feudal polity in the final stages of its existence, since it was conquered by the Turks.

4. As stated above, the present title (Duchy of Saint Sava) remains the most accurate, historically founded, precise and recognizable title, that is backed up by sources and scholarly references already used in the article, and also by additional sources and references mentioned in these discussions (above), while other proposals are either reductive (such as those favoring names of some narrow regions) or artificial (they do not appear in sources or even in Google Search results). Sorabino (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino, now, first give us both time to reply before you jump-in, OK?; @Tezwoo, feel free to reply to Sorabino above or bellow mine - I will try to keep mine as brief as humanly possible in response to three falsehoods emerging within the two separate issues in Sorabino's POV, which are, actually, very much related, and also injected into current article text and infobox:

• the first is feudal polity during the entire spam of its existence (1448-1482), which is obviously complete WP:OR, and in contradiction with Stjepan Vukčić historical biography by Sime Ćirković, who explicitly, as if he new that one day someone may try to revise history and tell people fables on this issue, says that the land of Kosače family was Humska zemlja, that modern name emerged from their last powerful chieftain's name in 1454 (title which became his second name during his lifetime - Herceg-Stjepan), that Vlatko Vuković received the land from Tvrtko I and founded it as almost exclusively Kosača's, Sandalj expended it, and Herceg-Stjepan preserved it, sort of, as long as he lived and as much as he could (Sanković and Pavlović will share the land for a long time, but Sanković will be removed by Vlatko, and Pavlović reduced to Trebinja and parts of Konavle, and eventually banished by Sandfalj); so "existence (1448-1482)" is falsehood based on WP:OR, but Sorabino knows that so they associate this false "existence" to Stjepan acquiring of new noble title, which Ćirković, again as if he predicted what will we need, also elaborate in details (see some of it in my discussion with quote in Cyrillic above);
• the second is nature of this entity (which Sorabino calls "polity") - it is obvious intention to describe it as separate and independent from Kingdom of Bosnia, but literally as a new full-fledged state, which can be seen also in infobox, where the "date" point to specific time-frame and "succession" points to state-before (Bosnia), and state-after (Sanjak of Herzegovina) - again Ćirković is the author, who explicitly describes surrender of Novi by Herceg-Vlatko on 15 December 1481 and Hum's annihilation in following words: "Тиме је сам својом вољом прекратио живот последње слободне и самосталне тачке која је остала од босанске државе.";
• and the third is fully covers the changing territorial scope of that feudal polity during the entire spam of its existence (1448-1482), which is more irrelevant than falsehood, because Kosače feudal demesne, despite its lord's ability to function independently from central authority is still vassalage and not a vassal state - even at its greatest heights Serbia's and Bosnia's most powerful vassals had obligatory contracts with other sovereigns - while his land/demesne borders fluctuated, just like all other medieval borders across Balkan and Europe; already in time of taking the title of "herzog", Ottomans were in Drina, and most of Zagorje, in Nevesinje and Gacko, etc., while already in 1470 Sanjak of Herzegovina covered three quarters of Kosača proper.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Santasa99, are you still trying to deny the very existence of this feudal polity? As stated above on several occasions during these discussions, such claim would be in full contradiction both with historical sources and the established historiographical consensus. Are you still claiming that all of those scholars, who wrote about the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482) are somehow in error? So far, your denial of the very existence of this feudal polity did not receive support from any user who is involved in these discussions. Sorabino (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

These questions are unproductive and unnecessary, they just smother productive argument-based discussion - I asked if you can restrain from replying specifically to me, until we get Tezwoo response to you, and you simply disregarded my plea with this unproductive smothering. I can only hope that Tezwoo will decide to continue with their discussion in face of this, instead of giving up.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, did you just admit here that the questions you are raising here are (as you say) "unproductive and unnecessary"? Please, could you tell us why are you still avoiding to produce any source that would support your basic claim that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist. Many scholars wrote about the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482), but is there a single one who raised the question of its non-existence? How did you come to hold the non-existence view? Did you read it somewhere, or you came to that conclusion by yourself? It would be interesting to hear your responses to those questions. Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I could choose not to respond, but I feel that following needs to be registered, and I won't be responding anymore to unproductive, non-argument discussion - we should start following WP:SATISFY that says:

Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't overly demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not. Do not badger editors to restate something just because you would have worded it differently. No one should try to police others' viewpoints. It may be taken as especially disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process with repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained, as if incapable of "getting it". This "sealioning" behavior pattern has sometimes resulted in topic-bans and even indefinite blocks.

This concerns some specific instances in WP:FILIBUSTERS (including your requests directed at me to prove negative), WP:IDHT for my plea not to divert this attempt made by Tezwoo, while the same policy applies to your refusal to hear that I clearly said, and Joy, Mikola and Tezwoo implied, that you will always be able to find this title as a key-phrases, "Herzog of Saint Sava" and "Ducatus Saint Sava", allover the Internet even in some scholarship and Google Books, but mentioned in passing or as a secondary information and without any considerable and very clear, precise study and elaboration on the subject matter or topic, and that there is no need to bury TP with more of the same - academic or any other kind of work found online and written by people who are not renown medievalists of the Balkans and/or specialists on the subject matter, without substantial explanations on the matter, is simply not adequate - this is requirement of WP:REDFLAG policy! We all objected your re-titling and reverts per WP:DRN, we all pointed to the fact that you need better sources per WP:REDFLAG from those you are providing by scraping the key-words and key-phrases but you turned a deaf ear to everyone (WP:IDHT). At this point we can also relate to WP:GASLIGHT (repetition and misdirection). If your intention is to repel Tezwoo, I can only hope it won't work.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, you are the only user who is challenging the very existence of this 15th century feudal polity. Since the existence of the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482) is well attested in historical sources and also accepted in historiography, as demonstrated by many references (above), it is up to you to provide some references for your challenging claims. You are not exempt from obligation to present sources that would support your views in these discussions. Unfortunately, you are still avoiding to back up your claims with some sources that would demonstrate the occurrence of any scholarly debate regarding the existence of this feudal polity, that was created in 1448, and lasted until 1482, thus significantly outliving the demise of the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia (1463). Sorabino (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock-master Great Khaan large posts (some containing defamatory claims, some containing sources links) collapsed to make TP more navigable

Santasa99 You will not pass with your falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position. I continue to publish the source above (in the chapter Discussion re-start). Great Khaan (talk) 16:55, 02 April 2021 (UTC) Tezwoo I have set an abundance of historical sources and literature (in the chapter Discussion re-start). In addition, I have explained all the details in the following chapters. P.S. The title of the article "Realm of King Stefan Dragutin" is also not a well-chosen title. But that is another topic. In historical sources, King Milutin is called "King of Raska" and Dragutin is "King of Serbia". In Dubrovnik sources, the king of Raška is often called the king of Slavonia (rec Sclavoniae). For example - Emperor Dušan is the emperor of Slavonia (imperator Sclavoniae). Great Khaan (talk) 17:32, 02 April 2021 (UTC) Continuation of publishing historical sources and scientific papers / studies in the chapter - Discussion re-start Great Khaan (talk) 22:03, 03 April 2021 (UTC)

• Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. it’s almost entirely about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača with a little on Vladislav Hercegović both of which already have articles. As it is currently written, this could easily be a re-direct to Stjepan Vukčić Kosača or Kosača noble family. Is that because there is really nothing else to be said about it (in which case it definitely should be a re-direct) or because the editors on this page have put all their energies into arguing about the title rather than improving it? DeCausa (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, because of several disputed issues, we were advised by administrator EdJohnston to reach some consensus here at TP before making any further changes in the article. That is why additional referenced content, that is mentioned in these discussions, is not yet added to the article. As you can see (above), this article also exist on 13 other Wikipedia projects. Since the very beginning of these discussions, historicity of the title "Duke of Saint Sava" was not challenged by anybody, since that title is well attested in historical sources, and also accepted in historiography. These debates here are focused on the title and scope of the article, but its very existence was not challenged. Sorabino (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

But I am challenging it. At the moment the content doesn’t warrant an article. Do you have additional content to add that’s specifically about the Duchy which wouldn’t be in the other articles I suggested it could be a re-direct to? (The fact that it is an articles is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, of course there are additional contents, from many scholarly works, that can be added to this article, particularly in reference to the later stages of the history of this feudal polity, from the fall of Bosnia (1463) to the final demise of the Duchy of Saint Sava (1482). Entire sections can be added on changes of its territorial scope, its diplomatic ties with other states (Venice, Hungary, Naples) and also on the aftermath, relating (for example) to the use of the term "Duchy of Saint Sava" (Latin: Ducatus Sancti Sabbae) in early modern cartography and diplomatics, from the 16th to the 18th century. The fact that the present state of this article needs improvements should not be used as an excuse for the negation of the notability of its subject. I hope that your remarks are focused just on the present state of the article, without questioning the historicity of this 15th century feudal polity? Sorabino (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, DeCausa. Surtsicna and Joy, actually, asked somewhat similar question(s) back in 2010/2011, when Zoupan moved it without consensus. It was not known if it's about "noble title" or "name for the land", and that ambiguity was/is heavily exploited by POV pushers. I tried to alleviate the situation by moving it and changing its scope to a specific, which we could ref, time-frame in the history of specific territory - Hrezegovina, and its epoch as Hum zemlja / Humska zemlja (transl. Hum land) - and for two months no body contested it, but then certain IP and Sorabino reverted it back to this. So, you are right in your assessment.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, the term Hum (Humska zemlja, or Zahumlje) refers to a specific region that has its own general article Zachlumia, and that article is covering the entire medieval history of that region. That region was just one of several historical regions that in 1448 became part of the newly created Duchy, that also included several other historical regions (such as Primorje, Travunija, Podrinje, Polimlje). Therefore, Hum (Humska zemlja) and the Duchy of Saint Sava are two distinctive subjects. Sorabino (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't gotten an answer to my likewise very basic query posted on March 22. EdJohnston please humor me and lift this purported ban on adding article content here so that we can see what useful, properly referenced content about this topic Sorabino can actually contribute, as opposed to what we have now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino, regarding the name for the land and epoch(s) (time-frames), following two papers are short and insigntful:

• Review > Siniša Mišić, Humska zemlja u srednjem veku, only 6 pages: "U uvodu su date ocjene ranijih proučavanja i pregled izvorne baze koja omogućavaju novi izraz, prikazuju se odlike podneblja i historijski razvoj njegova naziva (Zahumlje, Hum, Humska zemlja, Hercegovina)."
• Rethinking the Territorial Development of the Medieval Bosnian State by Mrgić, only 22 pages: "The historical province of Hercegovina, the second most important part of the Bosnian state, was demarcated in the work of M. Dinić The lands of the Duke of St. Sava (1940). It has the same scientific significance as Ćorović’s work on Bosnia. Due to the further thorough and extensive research work of S. Ćirković (1964) and S. Mišić (1996, 2002), the activity of Stefan Vukčić-Kosača was more precisely established. In 1448 he took the title of “herceg (duke) of Hum and the Littoral“, then briefly after that the title of “herceg of St. Sava, Hum and the Littoral“. His rule, between 1435 and 1466, stretched over a huge territory between the river Cetina and the Gulf of Boka kotorska, and in the hinterland it almost reached up to the town of Višegrad on the river Drina. The name Hercegovina thus denoted the whole territory ruled by the Herceg. The establishing of the Turkish administrative unit – the “sandžak“ of Hercegovina (1470), also helped preserve this name. The present day region of Hercegovina is substantially smaller than it was in the Middle Ages".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, non of those sources supports your claim that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist. On the contrary! And also, non of those sources supports a claim that any Duke of Saint Sava ever used the term "Herzegovina" as designation for their polity. In historical reality, non of them ever used the title "Duke of Herzegovina", since their historically indisputable title was "Duke of Saint Sava", and that was the only title that designated their entire polity. Sorabino (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sorabino: You asked me earlier “I hope that your remarks are focused just on the present state of the article, without questioning the historicity of this 15th century feudal polity?” That’s an irrelevant question. Just because it existed doesn’t automatically mean there should be an article on it. If there is sparse information in reliable sources about it and which could be best covered in other articles anyway then the best way to handle it is through a re-direct. I note that experienced editors such as Joy and Surtsicna have previously raised a similar point - which remains unanswered. I know little about this topic (although I read a lot of European medieval history) and until a couple of days ago I had never heard of the “Duchy of St Sava“. Some initial research has not provided me with much further information. Sorabino, do you have a sandbox with a draft of the additional material and sources you intend to expand this article with? DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, thanks for clarifying your position, and also for being honest about your knowledge of the subject. As you know, here on English Wikipedia we have hundreds of articles on various medieval feudal titles and adjacent feudal polities, from those of the highest rank, like princely or ducal, down to various minor ranks. Those are notable historical subjects, and even a glance on sources and historiography (via basic Google Books search) can show that this title (Duke of Saint Sava) and the adjacent polity (1448-1482) is notable enough to have an article. Regarding additional sources and scholarly works, that can be added to this article, some are already mentioned in the discussions above, please take a look. Since user Joy already made an appeal to administrator EdJohnston, it seems that we should wait for some recommendations on further steps. Sorabino (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. There are indeed multiple articles on feudal titles - but there has to be something to say about them that doesn’t fit into another article. Where there isn’t, a redirect to a relevant article is used e.g. Principality of Gjirokastër. I haven’t seen anything in Google books that warrants an article. So I’ll be interested to see the material and sources you propose adding to this article. Joy has suggested to HJ Mitchell EdJohnston that editing of the article can commence to test this. An alternative is for you to put it into a sandbox. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, please take another look at the additional sources that are so far presented in discussions above. There is no point in repeating all that again here. Your statement on the alleged lack of coverage of this subject in literature is quite surprising, since this feudal polity and the ducal title of its rulers is discussed in every scholarly work that covers history of those regions in the second half of the 15th century. It is also surprising that you are taking such a negative attitude towards a subject on which you have, by you own admission, no interest or knowledge. Please, take some time and look at the sources already presented in the article, and also those mentioned above in discussions. Sorabino (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve looked at them. There’s little there, which is why I went to Google books expecting more but finding not much. This is the point. I’m not talking about name checks in passing - the article title is of no interest to me - I’m looking for substantive material to build an article on. DeCausa (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, are you actually claiming that in scholarly literature there is not enough data on this subject? That would be quite an unusual claim to make, particularly because you also claimed (above) to have no prior interest or knowledge on the subject. If your impressions are based only on yesterdays glances, made on the internet, than you are quick in making radical and quite premature conclusions. Also, are you able to asses scholarly literature in native languages of the region, and other relevant languages? I am asking you all this because among all claims, made by various users in these discussion, nobody ever claimed that there is an alleged lack of coverage of these subjects in scholarly literature. Sorabino (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ll repeat what I said earlier as you seem to have missed it: “So I’ll be interested to see the material and sources you propose adding to this article. Joy has suggested to HJ Mitchell EdJohnston that editing of the article can commence to test this. An alternative is for you to put it into a sandbox.” DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, it seems that you are the one who missed the fact that user Joy was actually suggesting that to administrator EdJohnston, not to administrator HJ Mitchell. We are still waiting for some advice from EdJohnston on that issue, since he gave us serious warnings and clear recommendations, back in March, advising us not to make any substantial changes without previously reaching some consensus here on the talk page. Sorabino (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to the sources. Prominent Croatian historian from Bosnia and university professor Mladen Ančić, who is an expert on medieval history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, made several observations on distinctions between the historical region of Hum (Humska zemlja) and the newly created ducal polity of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, and noted in 2005 that (p. 107-108): "Svoju oblast ni sam herceg nije izjednačavao s Humskom zemljom, pa je i kod stvaranja svoje herceške titule vrlo znakovito dvojio koji će teritorijalni sadržaj toj tituli dati" (English translation: The duke himself did not equate his domain with the land of Hum, so even when creating his ducal title, he very prominently weighed what territorial content he would give to that title). In the conclusion of the same work, Ančić also stated, in English (p. 128): "Analyzing the historic roots of the geographic and political term Herzegovina, the author places its origin in the historic Otoman social stratum, with no direct or organic relation with medieval traditions of Hum, that were extinguished after the Otoman conquests". In the light of these and other scholarly views, the entire two-month "exercise" of user Santasa99, who advocated the reduction of this article to the region of Hum (Humska zemlja), is proving to be both unfounded and also contrary to scholarly consensus, since the term Hum (Humska zemlja, Zahumlje) refers to a medieval region that is properly covered by the article Zachlumia. As stated earlier (above), that region was just one of several historical regions that belonged to the Duchy of Saint Sava (others being: Primorje, Travunija, Podrinje, Polimlje). Therefore, redirect Humska zemlja should be retargeted back to Zachlumia, where it belongs. Sorabino (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a different view on the Mladen Ančić source. There is an English translation of it here: Can Bosnia do Without Herzegovina? (2015)

First, from it we kind of have an answer to my second point, how was this entity referred to in contemporary sources. It was the "Principality of Herzog Stjepan" (comitatus duce Stephani), although a reference to the "Land of Hum" was more common:

• "Even when Vladić Ratković identified himself in 1454 as a person who comes from the Herzog’s ‘state’, this formulation (‘the Principality of Herzog Stjepan’ – comitatus duce Stephani), which apparently fairly precisely mirrors what Vladić actually uttered, was far from any idea of the ‘Herzog’s land – Herzegovina’" (p. 56)
• "during the 14th and 15th centuries, all migrants from the land of Hum in the Dalmatian cities (Split, Trogir, Šibenik, Zadar) identified themselves as such for all occasions, regardless of their status and position – by their origin they were, or they came from, the land of Hum (Comsqua semia). On the other hand, in only one case, recorded in Split in 1454, did an individual identify as someone coming from the ‘Principality of the Herzog Stjepan [the] Bosnian’." (de comitatu Duche Stephani bossinensis)

Ančić himself uses the terms "Herzog’s province" (p. 53) and "estates of Herzog Stjepan" (p. 57), rather than "Duchy of st Sava", or "Duchy of Herzegovina" (which was my original proposal). It is obvious that Kosača's realm surpassed the Land of Hum, but he did not give a new name to his realm. Ančić p. 55 writes that with the title "Herzog of St. Sabba", Kosača was "referring, in his communication with the outside world, to the fact that this was a ‘saint who performed great miracles’, and whose grave, in the monastery of Mileševo, was found in an area he ruled and administered."

Regarding the decline of the term Hum and the emergence of the term Herzegovina, Ančić says that it was the consequence of Ottoman conquest, rather than Kosača's lands/province/principality:

• "Summarizing what has been written about the land of Hum and Herzegovina in the preceding lines, it is certainly worth emphasising that an organic connection does not exist between the two terms, in other words, the creation of Ottoman Herzegovina meant the natural decline of the older identity of Hum, which, in simple terms, remained a social ‘dry branch’" (p. 62)

With everything written here, I'd say that it is best to expand the articles about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača and his successors rather than have a separate article about a land of a noble house that simply had a higher level of autonomy. For example, we don't have an article about the land of Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić. According to Ančić (citing Ćirković), "Stjepan Vukčić Kosača ‘awarded’ himself the title Herzog, looking, in the first instance, to the example of the ‘Herzog of Split’, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić" (p. 54). Either that or something like realm/lands/province of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. There is no clear common English name anyway. Tezwoo (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Sorabino, what Ančić says has nothing to do with your "Duchy of Saint Sava" (article as a whole, with this title and the scope), and what he says is not disputed on this TP;

• your "scholarly consensus" on your "Duchy" does not exists, repeat: "such a thing as consensus on "Duchy of Saint Sava does not exists!";

• only individual zemlja's (trans. counties/provinces/lands) are the subjest of any medievalists' research, so is Humska zemlja/Hum, Donji Kraji, Drina, etc., and on Humska zemlja I have mentioned several most important ones, all in form of books - monograph(ie)s and historical biographies, where almost all of them has "Humska zemlja" in their titles or whole chapters devoted to it with the chapters' titles always explicitly name Humska zemlja in them, not Duchy of any sort, and these books can be used to create article on their research subject;

• yes, "region Hum/Humska zemlja" is one of the zemlja's/counties/lands in one person's noble title, other being Drina, and your claim how several particular historical regions (that) belonged to the Duchy of Saint Sava is fallacy that can't be sourced without WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - these zemlje/lands belonged to "Stjepan, Duke of Saint Sava", they did not belonged to some "country" called "Duchy of Saint Sava";

• the only subject or topic that has enough both WP:NOTA and WP:RS is Humska zemlja or Hum as part of Duke Stjepan demesne (in Serbo-Croatian, "feudalna oblast"), regardless of how many other zemlja's/lands were under this person lordship;

• you are taking advantage of the enormity of this bludgeoned to death discussion and taking words and claims buried in this TP out of context, and without diff's.

@DeCausa:, I fully support your arguments, and agree to redirect this article to Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, which is now expanded and, I believe, well written and well referenced (I intend to nominate it for GA as soon as few additional tweaks are done, and maybe few additional paragraphs included, namely on that historical person's feudal proper).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Bingo, Tezwoo, that's one absolutely correct reading. On decline of Hum name, and emergence of Herzegovina name, all medievalist agree, almost to the last word Ančić reiterate Vego and Ćirković.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And, yes, Ćirković actually take this Hrvoje issue a step further and says that not only Stjepan came to this idea to title himself herzog by looking at Hrvoje Vukčić, he wanted to title himself actual "Herzog of Split", but town's knyaz pressured Venetians to help him repel this Stjepan's ambition at any cost.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tezwoo, thanks for pointing us to work of Mladen Ančić from 2015 (here), but you somehow missed to notice that in that very work he repeated his views on distinctions between the historical region of Hum (Humska zemlja) and the newly created ducal polity of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, and stated (p. 54): "The Herzog himself did not equate his province with the land of Hum, and it is very significant that, when creating his title of Herzog, he had doubts as to what territorial content to give to that title". In the same work, Ančić also states (p. 53): "In a territorial sense, the Herzog’s province far surpassed - in the mid-15th century when it was completely built as the administrative cradle of the future Herzegovina - the land of Hum and included, at certain moments, the territory from Omiš in the west, to the upper and middle Drina Valley, and even parts of Zeta in the east". Therefore, it is quite obvious that Ančić explicitly distinguishes the ducal polity created by Stjepan Vukčić Kosača both from the much narrower historical region of Hum (Humska zemlja) and also from, as he states "future" Herzegovina. On that point, he also states in the same work (p. 56): "This completely new form of a geographical name – Herzegovina – has its roots in the system of territorial-administrative and military organization of the Ottoman Empire". Ančić also states (p. 53) that under duke Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, his domain "will begin to function more and more as an almost independent political organism". These views of Mladen Ančić, who is a prominent Croatian historian from Bosnia, and a medievist, are very important for our discussions here, since they are helping us to understand the importance and notability of this article and its subject: the ducal polity that existed from 1448 to 1482. The same views of Mladen Ančić are also helping us to reject various claims of user Santasa99, who stands alone in his denialism of the very existence of this 15th century feudal polity. Sorabino (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Here we go again, repetition and misdirection. Sorabino avoided crucial questions asked specifically by @Joy: and @DeCausa:, with everything else that they could think of in relation to some bits and pieces of cursory mentions of Duchy of St Sava, extending discussion onto sources that discuss something completely different by polemicizing with Tezwoo arguments, and now they created new subsection that has nothing to do with a questions raised by Joy, DeSousa, Tezwoo and myself.

This concerns WP:FILIBUSTERS and WP:IDHT. Requirement for extraordinary sources per WP:REDFLAG policy is avoided constantly. They are now on deep into WP:GASLIGHT terrain - you can dismiss all my claims and you still have the same problem, so your misdirection of this toward my "claims" and if I am correct or not is still just that, misdirection. Burden is on you, I have no stakes in this article version.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't miss that, it is clear that Kosača wanted to emphasize that he rules over a larger land than Hum and that he was a semi-independent ruler there. This land was in contemporary sources called "comitatus duce Stephani". Tezwoo (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Tezwoo, thanks for emphasizing those distinctions, betwen the region of Hum (Humska zemlja) and quite larger territorial scope of the land ruled by Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, who indeed tried to persue more independent policies, particularly after 1448. But when it comes to the name of that feudal polity, the most common term stil remains the Duchy of Saint Sava (Latin: Ducatus Sancti Sabbae), that is confirmed both by contemporary and later sources, and also accepted as such in historiography. For example, in his work on 15th century millitary in the region, Sima Ćirković noted in 1989 that a source (list of military contingents) from c. 1454-1459 (written in Latin) mentions the Duchy of Saint Sava (p. 17): "Попис је настао после 1448. јер спомиње "ducatus sancti Sabae" а пре 1459. јер рачуна са одредом деспота од 8.000 коњаника" (English translation: "The list was created after 1448, since it mentions "ducatus sancti Sabae", but before 1459, since it mentions despot's contingent of 8.000 horsemen"). Such mentions of the Duchy of Saint Sava, in Latin and Italian sources from later periods, are even more common. Sorabino (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

So, what? What else Ćirković says? Are we going to take that bit of info, and than fill in the rest ourselves? Just as a remark, a trivia - there is this title, "King of Rama", that existed from 11th century to 1918, almost a one thousand years, and we still call Bosnia Bosnia on en.wiki, whether as banate, kingdom, sanjak, and what's not, while the title itself is well known and thoroughly researched as a phenomenon of its own.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

On the redirect "Humska zemlja" and its proper targeting

Since the endonymic term "Humska zemlja" (English: Land of Hum) refers to the historical region of Hum (Zahumlje) that is covered in the article Zachlumia, it would be proper that the redirect Humska zemlja should also point to that article. For some reason, user Santasa99 insists that redirect Humska zemlja should point to article on the Duchy of Saint Sava, a 15th century feudal polity whose territorial scope was much wider, and included not only Hum (Humska zemlja), but also several other historical regions (such as: Primorje, Travunija, Podrinje, Polimlje). Since the region of Hum (Humska zemlja) or Zahumlje has its own article (Zachlumia) that covers the entire history of that medieval region, there is no justification for the present targeting of Humska zemlja to this article here (Duchy of Saint Sava). It would be interesting to hear the views of other users on this problem, particularly in light of the recent disruption on Wikidata by the same user. Those problems can also be resolved by initiation of RfD procedures. Sorabino (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Should “Duchy of St Sava” be an article or a redirect?

Joy and I have asked very similar questions: here, here, here, and here. To re-cap:

• The current content has little about this Duchy and is primarily about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača.
• The modern secondary sources linked to on this page and in Google books have sparse cursory references to it. It doesn’t appear to have a substantive historiography. (Per WP:PRIMARY can we stop referring to primary sources and also sources from the 1920s or the 19th century are of little interest.)
• I’ve asked several times what is the sourced content that’s to be added to turn it into a proper article and not yet got a credible answer.
• I fully understand EdJohnston’s position on halting editing on the article until editors on this page can engage in a constructive way. In the meantime, I would suggest that any editor who thinks this should be more than a redirect should create a sandbox of what a “proper” version of this article should look like so that a genuine assessment can be made. If they’re not able to do that, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t become a redirect.

Oh, and I hope I don’t get another Wall of Text with the same links which I’ve already opened earlier on in this talk page. I’m only enquiring whether anyone is willing to set out their proposed text with sources (and avoiding WP:SYNTH) in a sandbox. DeCausa (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - I agree with DeCausa. Circling around the "Duchy" - beating around the bush, if you prefer - with sources that have only cursory mentions in all of them provided by editors who advocate for it, only wastes everybody's time and energy, and no matter for how long they were argued and how many time repeated, or how hard advocated, nothing will ever make those sources an adequate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: User DeCausa, thanks for creating this section, and emphasizing the need for further and substantial improvements of this article, as a necessary requirement for its very survival. Fortunately, now when user Santasa99 has finally expressed his strong preference for the abolition of this article, a clearer assessment can be made on all those moves from title to title and removals of referenced contents that occurred during past two or three months. If administrator EdJohnston would agree, we could start to improve this article, by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. Sorabino (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorabino, stop policing editors viewpoints and arguments, and stop reinventing new ways of diversion with new sections (WP:SATISFY), just try to respond to these questions by Joy an DeCausa, and try to respect deCausa's query.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Three-layered subject of the article

The subject of this article, as defined by its title (Duchy of Saint Sava) has three distinctive layers, well founded in historical sources, and covered in historiography, both older and modern:

1. First layer encompasses the origin, creation and use of late medieval and early modern feudal title “Duke of Saint Sava” (Latin: Dux Sancti Sabbae), first by early rulers of this 15th century feudal polity, and then by exiled members of the Kosača dynasty and their descendants, that were recognized under that title both in the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Republic of Venice.

2. Second layer encompasses the creation and development of the Duchy of Saint Sava, as a late medieval feudal polity that existed from 1448 to 1482, including the development of its territorial scope, and its relations with the Kingdom of Bosnia, and several neighbouring countries, such as: Republic of Venice, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Naples, Ottoman Empire, Serbian Despotate , Principality of Zeta, and the Habsburg Monarchy.

3. Third layer encompasses the legacy of this ducal polity, particularly during the early modern period, from the 16th to 18th centuries, within geopolitical rivalries and relations between the Republic of Venice and the Habsburg Monarchy, including specific forms of cultural legacy as reflected in the early modern diplomatics and cartography of the region.

At this point, there is at least a hundred (if not more) scholarly works that can be used for the creation of additional contents on all three subjects, as mentioned above. Most of those articles are written by contemporary Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin authors, but also by various foreign experts for the late medieval and early modern history of the region. Sorabino (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop with these diatribes and simply provide sources for your WP:Extraordinary claims. All of this here right now amounts to egregious WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Gaming the system. I have been very tolerant, literally for a decade now, as evidenced by this very talk page top. The parallel 'Great Khaan' abuser has pushed us to protect more and more, but this whole pointless conflict has started to become just a meaningless drain on our collective resources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Joy, as stated above, I am working on creating additional content, in order to improve this article, and cover all relevant questions within its thematic scope. Also, I am hoping that administrator EdJohnston would continue to advise us on procedural issues, since it seems that we are currently stuck in these discussions. Regarding your mention of WP:Extraordinary claims, I guess that such qualification would be quite proper for several claims of user Santasa99, who insists that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist, and also claims that this ducal title is not relevant enough to have an article, not to mention his theory that "Humska zemlja" is something else than historical region of Hum (Zahumlje), that is properly covered in general article on the region in question (Zachlumia). Do you agree with user Santasa99 on those points? Sorabino (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Good job. On experienced administrator's harsh criticism, who also perceives WP:Gaming the system, you ping me with an obvious attempt to suck me into another round of already argued-to-death matter. Well done.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, you are right in observing that these discussions are very long, but here are two very clear conclusions that resulted from them, so far:

1. Not a single participant in these discussions supported your first claim that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist.

2. Not a single participant in these discussions supported your second claim that "Humska zemlja" is something else than historical region of Hum (Zahumlje). Here on English Wikipedia, that subject is quite properly covered in the general article on Zachlumia.

Unfortunately, those Wikipedia:Fringe theories of yours are the main cause of problems related to this article during past three months, not to mention the fact that on several occasions you explicitelly refused to provide any scholarly sources for those claims. Since you recently reviled, after all those moves and removals of referenced contents, that your true position is to abolish this article (above), it seems that administrators should allow users who are interested in improving this article to continue with adding new and scholarly referenced content, as suggested by several participants in these discussions. Sorabino (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So, are we done here by now? In the meantime I remembered we actually have another similar article - King of Rama - but there we don't beat around the bush and pretend that apples are oranges, and instead just state the simple facts, and leave any further elaboration of any related minutiae for the linked articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joy:, I am with User:DeCausa on this issue, I fully agree with their assessment from the above post. As a solution DeCausa proposed a redirect to the article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, which I significantly expanded and proposed for GA (pending review), however, the article Herzegovina is another suitable candidate for redirect. On the other hand, any changes to the article as it is, which might or might not, perhaps improve it (I still don't see how, and Stjepan's article is good place to look up why) into something coherent (including the title and context), are beyond my reach despite my interest into this topic, as Sorabino and I agreed with EdJohnston, as result of the last “ANI”, not to edit.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we restarting those discussions again? Since no consensus was reached here in previous discussions, it would be quite unfortunate to restart those disputes again, in the same manner. I was also hoping that we might get some advice from administrator EdJohnston on further steps, particularly in relation to further edits and additions. During past few weeks, I gathered many additional sources, that can be used to expand and improve this article, but I don′t want to make any unilateral changes. Sorabino (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So, Sorabino, it's okay for you that the title remain Duchy of St Sava? As is? That was a dirty trick, not gonna lie. --Mhare (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea is to use Sandbox, and when you are finished ping us so that we can see the result.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Creation of additional content, that would expand and improve this article, is not the main problem here. The lack of consensus on several major issues is the main obstacle, that remains unresolved. Some advice from administrators that are monitoring this talk page would be more than welcome at this point, in order to avoid circular recurrence of old disputes. Sorabino (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

reference to Miller 1923

I noticed today how the first reference in the article is to a book that says:

The "Duchy of St. Sava"

hence with scary quotes in the source. This is a bit of a travesty of WP:V - if the purportedly best sources themselves don't treat this as a proper name but as something that needs to be quoted, this article should describe that, as opposed to use it in some sort of a WP:SOAPBOX manner. --Joy (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What can we do about it? There are fewer and fewer editors interested in these topics (Bosnia and its history in particular) - even my reply to your latest post here is two months belated, and most of my focus is directed to the mentioned topic area. You probably already know my stance on this article, and that I would prefer it fixed or merged, or whatever you had or have in mind, under condition that you are still interested - it doesn't have to be dealt with straight away, anyway. The article is almost entirely based on feeble if not entirely flawed argument; it was/is grounded in really feeble sources too, like the one you pointed out; it was moved and rewritten without consensus, while rejecting real sources and historiography completely (the fact that ex-YU historians, of both YU and post-YU era, never mentioned this construct, had no relevance in decision to retitle and rewrite article giving it, for all intents and purposes, a new (baseless) scope); also, a whole mess is created of up to dozens, if not more redirect pages, just to prevent any move from this figment of imagination and a soapbox to more reality-based title and scope. If you are now or whenever you get interested to give it a try, please ping me as I am open for suggestions and eager to fix it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which sources are relevant for you? You have Britannica up there, as well as Vatican sources and many others. In this regard, I am interested - which sources carry weight for you if you do not find the aforementioned ones satisfactory. 188.124.192.19 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sima Ćirković, Ljubomir Jovanović, Vladimir Ćorović, Marko Vego, etc, etc. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Marco Vego is relevant to you, let's start with him: https://books.google.ba/books?id=yoPRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Slu%C5%BEbeno+se+zemlja+zvala+Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&redir_esc=y Quote 1: "Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" English translation: "Officially, the land was called the Duchy of Saint Sava." https://books.google.ba/books?id=7sFpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22umjesto+Hercegovina%22&redir_esc=y Quote 2: " Tako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo svetog Save Ducatus s. Sabbe ili Save umjesto Hercegovina" English translation: "Thus also in the foreign world, the Duchy of Saint Sava (Ducatus s. Sabbe or Sava) is often mentioned instead of Herzegovina)." By the way, if I'm not mistaken, this is the author and book you're referring to, thus confirming the title. If anything else is unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. I would be delighted to share my knowledge with you. I hope I helped you. Sincerely, 31.223.145.207 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You really think I didn't know about the fact that Marko Vego used Stojanović's 133 years old claim (1890) that one(!) time in the "Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne države" (I had discussed this book of his long before you appeared under this IP), and he never again repeated it. Infact Vego repeats another Stojanović's blunder and says that title existed much earlier, even before Stjepan Kosača. Marko Vego is good source of references, and just like any other author on history, he will always be useful, until editors like you dig something out that neither he nor anyone else repeated it ever again ! (I assume that you have been digging through all these authors which I mentioned but you could only find that small remark in Vego's book which needs another proper research for confirmation, for reasons I explained. You probably don't know but Vego also claimed that Slavic tribe called Bosna probably existed and inhabited Bosnia, but you won't see me going around making that same claim in wiki voice while using him for reference. Vego is good, he is useful, until he's not, and that claim is never repeated by him nor anyone else ever again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you maybe not have read the books you referenced. It's possible that those outside of this scientific field may not be familiar with the terminology in historical sources and historiography. However, just because something is unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For instance, have you heard of the butterfly species Graphium Agraulis vanillae? While not part of your field, it is a very real and vibrant species. Regarding the "Stojanović blunder" you mentioned, could you provide the exact citation and page numbers, as well as the author's full name? I would appreciate further clarification on this matter. 31.223.145.207 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't provide anything, and I am not interested in your assessment of my abilities and knowledge - keep your opinion of me to yourself. You have been blocked twice from editing English Wikipedia over this same issue, and you have returned again to make same futile arguments you have made sometime just over a year ago. Vego is not enough in this case, and that's a simple matter of following verifiability guidelines, which you did not bothered to read back then, and I do not expect that you are going to read it now. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to draw attention to the fact that the user "Santa" is, to say the least, telling untruths. Santa Says: "You really think I didn't know about the fact that Marko Vego used Stojanović's 133 years old claim (1890) that one(!) time in the "Settlements of Bosnian medieval states"....and he never again repeated it." This is not true. Marco Vego also mentions "Ducatus Sancti Sabae" in his other works. I am listing here only what I can think of at the moment. One study is from 1957 and another from 1982 (in other words, his last book). So he had enough time to change his mind, but he didn't. Naselja srednjovekovne bosanske države, Sarajevo 1957. (Settlements of the medieval Bosnian state, Sarajevo in 1957.) Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske države, Sarajevo 1982. (The emergence of the medieval Bosnian state, Sarajevo 1982.) 79.143.161.75 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The first priority for you would be to stop socking in block evasion, that's a rather serious impediment for anyone who wishes to press on matter of ethical editing. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Duchy of St. Sava is referred to as such in Il Regno dei Slavi (The Reign of the Slavs), by the widely cited Dubrovnik chronicler, Mavro Orbini. A Croatian translation of the work can be found here. see page 440. I somewhat agree that this article should perhaps be part of the Hum or Herzegovina articles, but then again the [Banovina of Croatia], which existed in history for all of 1 year and 8 months, also got its own article, probably for similar Balkan nationalistic reasons.Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Each of the administrative banovinas in Yugoslavia got their own article, but none of them should pretend they're anything other than subdivisions. The issue here has largely been the fact that we don't have similar level of standalone articles on the realms of other medieval lords like this one. A comparable example might be Hrvoje Vukčić who claimed the titles of Duke of Split, Herzog of Split yet nobody tries to make it into a WP:SOAPBOX like this. --Joy (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss, @Joy; problem with this article is in cherry picked sources, which are unacceptably weak to the point of irrelevance. This (bogus) name (and all the connotations such usage infer) for the land is complete invention by few laymen interpreter of medieval history of Hum. References used in article span from one primary Latin source (exonym) to few centuries' old secondary one like this Orbini's; there is one Stojanović's. The point is - no modern scholarship uses this name for the Land of Hum nor does it infer some special status on whatever basis; it can't be found in Jovanović's work on Stjepan Vukčić and his realm, nor in Stjepan Vukčić's biography by Sima Ćirković, which is most important one on the subject. Not to mention inflated significance of the title Herceg of St. Sava by laymen and nationalist interpreter, all of which is not only absent from Ćirković's "Stjepan Vukčić's" bio but is dismissed by the author as "hardly significant" (pg.272). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's true that a quick google revealed few recent sources referencing the Duchy. Yet the Dubrovnik chronicler, Orbini, uses it in his first sentence on Stjepan's domain, which bordered Dubrovnik and made Stjepan a Dubrovnik nobleman. Given the importance of titles in those days, Orbini no doubt was careful in his nomenclature. Herzog of St. Sava is mentioned by John A. Fine, in The Late Medieval Balkans. I found this, indicating Stjepan and his son's signed with the title (p.18-20) What makes it more significant than some other titles, is that is how Hercegovina got its name. On the other hand, there is no indication Stjepan considered himself an ethnic Serb. He belonged to the Bosnian Church but had an Orthodox and Catholic priest in his court. Fine says he took on the title because the grave of St. Sava was on his lands, and the latter was considered a miracle worker by people of other faiths as well. Unlike today's nationalists, Stjepan was very tolerant (in When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, Fine notes that before the advent of nationalism in the 19th century, many prominent citizens of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia considered themselves to be primarily Slavs, Illyrians, Dalmatians or citizens of their towns, while concepts like Croat or Serb were associated with geographical/political entities, not ethnicity)Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Orbini lived 400 years ago and is documented to have advocated for various mythological positions. It's not a secondary source comparable to the works of numerous trained historians who've lived and died since... Likewise for the link to the Diplomski rad from 2020, meaning it was made by a university student. If John V.A. Fine doesn't actually talk about the polity as the Duchy of Saint Sava, and I don't think anyone's claimed that he does, then that source also doesn't support this as a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Santasa99 can you just merge the remaining few relevant paragraphs from this article into Herzegovina#Medieval period, and redirect this there? Nothing of substance seems to have happened since the 2021 discussion where Sorabino was promising a rewrite, and it's 2024 now. --Joy (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good idea @Joy, it is about time that something is done. I will try my best and as soon as possible, maybe even today. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joy, is this what you had in mind; please check it out Redirect and prose over there in Herzegovina. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Improper merge

This long standing article was reduced to redirect as a result of an improper merge. That was done without consensus, on 26 April 2024, by these actions: selective merge of merely a quarter of this article into another article, followed by the removal of the complete content of this article. Such "merge" was conducted without proper discussion or notification to opposing users who took part in previous talks, and thus no proper consensus was reached on the subject of merge, as can be seen in the talk page history. Now, a proposal was made (here) to delete the "Duchy of Saint Sava" even as a redirect, that would also result in a complete deletion of the entire history of these disputes and consequent improper actions. This entire case should be reexamined, and article restored. Sorabino (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Arguing for the preservation of article talk history while ignoring what that talk history actually says at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2 is blatant wiki-lawyering. If you wish to keep posting here, please go directly to WP:AE instead, because this is where we're heading next anyway. --Joy (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This redirect should have never been proposed for deletion in the first place, nor it was proper to reduce the long standing article to a redirect without discussion and consensus. Regarding the talk page history, it is quite clear that after a long pause discussions were renewed there on 25 April 2024, and "merge" was conducted already on 26 April 2024, only a day later. Do you really think that those changes were made in a proper way? Sorabino (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. I'm going to quote what I posted in 2021 advocating it becoming a redirect (see Archive 2):

• The current content has little about this Duchy and is primarily about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača.
• The modern secondary sources linked to on this page and in Google books have sparse cursory references to it. It doesn’t appear to have a substantive historiography. (Per WP:PRIMARY can we stop referring to primary sources and also sources from the 1920s or the 19th century are of little interest.
• I’ve asked several times what is the sourced content that’s to be added to turn it into a proper article and not yet got a credible answer.
• I fully understand EdJohnston’s position on halting editing on the article until editors on this page can engage in a constructive way. In the meantime, I would suggest that any editor who thinks this should be more than a redirect should create a sandbox of what a “proper” version of this article should look like so that a genuine assessment can be made. If they’re not able to do that, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t become a redirect.

You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You failed to mention that during those disputes the article was protected by one of administrators who was supervising those discussions, and because of that editors were reluctant to make any substantial changes, while the discussion was going on. Unfortunately, main issues were left unresolved at the talk page. Because of that, I didn't want to make any unilateral changes. There are many historical and scholarly references that could be added in order to improve the article. In any case, the article should be restored, since it was abolished without proper discussion or consesnsus. Sorabino (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I very rarely use caps on Wikipedia, but your response drives me to shouting. I had said to you: "SORABINO, JUST DO IT IN A SANDBOX AND POST THE LINK HERE." DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for shouting, since historical sources and scholarly literature on the subject are abundant. Please take a look at recent paper (2019) by Croatian historian dr Luka Špoljarić from the History department of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Writing on the first duke of Saint Sava (Stjepan Vukčić Kosača), Špoljarić stated (page 156): In 1449, in order to emphasize his independence from the Bosnian king and cater to the sensibilities of his Orthodox subjects, he took the title of Duke of St Sava, in honour of the Serbian saint whose relics were held in the Mileševa monastery located in the easternmost parts of his duchy. While this large and powerful Duchy thus remained outside of papal influence, the Catholicization in the king’s land continued. In the same paper, Špoljarić included a historical map (page 158), presenting geopolitical situation in 1460, with the Duchy of St Sava. That is just one of many possible additions to the long list of sources that were already mentioned in previous discussions. Continuous attempts of some users here, who are trying to discredit a legitimate historical subject, will be inevitably revealed as a waste of everybody's time. Sorabino (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, more of the same. Špoljarić is not medievalist, his research field and area of expertise are religion and the intellectualism of Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, and that's why his paper is on the subject of religious conversion in which he cursory mention in passing situation surrounding Stjepan Vukčić (and entirely superficially, actually, in utter conflict with how medievalist see the situation). Špoljarić does not deals with territorial-political, feudal nor military developments, he does not research titles, feudalism, nor status of the feudal holdings or their relations to each other or to political and military centers. It's another scraping the google for papers where certain phrase or words are mentioned in passing. (His cursory mentioning of "independence" is just that, he doesn't delve into meaning, extent and consequences of that claim and any medievalist from Zagreb, Belgrade and Sarajevo, and faculties and institutes in between, would discard that claim as superficial mention of historian from another field.) Here's suggestion, go and read that paper by Špoljarić and come here and explain to me what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna oblast-entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context. Only if Špoljarić paper gives answers to these questions, I don't need what you may deduce or believe. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? Luka Špoljarić is a medievalist. Did you even check before posting? These are his faculty pages: scholarly qualifications and teaching subjects. For some reason, you are continuing to embarrass yourself here. Please, reconsider your positions on the subject in question (Duchy of Saint Sava). Nobody in scholarly world disputes the existence of that late medieval feudal polity. Sorabino (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am dead serious! Why don't you find those same claims by listing proper medievalist? You can find them hundreds in former Yugoslavia. How about Serbian medievalist Sima Ćirković who wrote a full biography of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača? How is late poor Sima so stupid to miss something so obvious?. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet somehow you still can't produce anything of substance, except these Internet scraps and cursory mentioning in passings ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody dispute existence of Humska Zemlja, Stjepan Vukčić taking a title Herceg Svetog Save - nobody ever said it was called Duchy of Saint Sava; nobody ever used that name in their research and books; and nobody ever claimed it was full-fledged independent state! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You are so wrong, as shown in previous discussions, where various sources were already cited, including Sima Ćirković. Why are you ignoring those sources, it is hard to say. But let me add some more. Another prominent medievalist, Hungarian historian Tamás Pálosfalvi recently (2016) wrote a scholarly article dedicated specifically to this subject. In the first part of the article, he elaborated on the history of that feudal polity and its dukes in the second half of the 15th century, while in the second part he elaborated on the later migration of the senior branch of the ducal family to Hungary. The article is titled: The Dukes of Saint Sava in Hungary (Hungarian: A szentszávai hercegek Magyarországon). Regarding the historical region of Zahumlje/Hum/Humska zemlja, it was just one of several territories within the Duchy of Saint Sava, that also included regions of Travunija, Drina, Dabar and others. Sorabino (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Translation is Dukes not Duchy - @Joy this amounts of utterly bad faith discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now it seems that you are not denying historicity of the title (Duke of Saint Sava / Herceg Svetog Save)? If that is so, why did you propose for deletion all those redirects that are based on that very title (here)? Would you consider revoking those proposals? Sorabino (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You never understood what the problem is. Nobody denied his ducal title, actually his vojvoda and herceg titles. I denied existence of systemically formalized peerage among all south Slavic states - there was no duchy among South Slavs. The only two kingdoms in developed high Middle Ages among South Slavs were Serbia and Bosnia, but nothing was developed nor high with those two states, they had underdeveloped state aparatus based on underdeveloped feudal system, with few chancelleries borrowed from more developed states in neighborhood (Byzant, Hungary) and some underdeveloped customary, traditional posts and social stratification - knez to manage village, at most općina or župa, ban/župan, and vojvoda as a military rank. Stjepan was vojvoda whose vassals were vojvodas too! In his realm there was a vojvoda at every turn. The reason historians translate vojvoda to duke is convenience only - those two have little in common. South Slavic titles were little more than decorative labels for the ruling "elite", and nobility was a little more than rich redneck bullies (seljačke kabadahije) with few generations at best, incomparable to aristocracy in Hungary, Spain, France or England, just as the level of state development was incomparable. There was no peerage system within state to formalize titles, nobody cared if Hrvoje got herceg title from Naples or if Stjepan took it for himself by, literally, inventing it. The only real duchy was Vojvodina because it was part of Hungary, developed high Middle Ages state that formalized its status as duchy. If my explanation is insufficient or even irrelevant to you, well, read the whole book Herceg Stjepan i njegovo doba, you can find it online in pdf - it's an exciting reading, who likes to read. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you finally point to a scholarly source that would support your claims? Historical and scholarly sources clearly indicate that the title (Duke of Saint Sava) and the feudal polity in question (Duchy of Saint Sava) are indisputably historical, and those terms are widely used by scholars, as indicated in many sources that are already mentioned in this discussion. Here is an additional example, from recent German historiography. While writing on the relations between the Venetian Republic and Balkan feudal polities during the late middle ages, German historians Christof Paulus and Albert Weber (2020) included among those polities the Duchy of Saint Sava (Herzogtum des heiligen Sava or Herzogtum des Hl. Sava). Their paper can be seen here. Sorabino (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, what a fool I am. Burden is on you, so stop scraping papers for phrases (your paper also says on p.218 "the Albanian noble families Balšići and Thopia gave them Valona , Durazzo, Alessio, Skutari and Drivasto" - shell we go and fix our article on Balšić's?!) and from now on go and bother someone else. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, you can say whatever you want, I will not reply to your posts anymore. I will say this, though: I never ignore reliable sources because I am not motivated by ethnomania, I don't root for Team-Croat(ia), Team-Bosnia(n), Team-Serb(ia); I would like to think that I could fit into some kind of Croat collective identity but only in a modern sense of that word and reduced to label, but you won't see me going around attempting to Croatized bits and pieces of Bosnia-Herzegovina history, quite the contrary, I have always fought tooth and nails in preventing Croatian editors who wanted to squeeze in obviously nationalistic parallel history from Croatian POV. They ended being banished from the topic or the project by the community because of those cases. I will certainly do my best to prevent squeezing in nationalistic parallel history that is coming from the other two sides, Serbian and Bosniak POV. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Sorabino, redirect "Duchy of Saint Sava" is excluded from the nom after User:Srnec remark about page's long edit and talk history, but, as Joy suggested, you should at least be fair and acknowledge and respect everything that was said there, the amount of time you had to convince community that your position is correct (at least by providing necessary reliable sources), and eventual consensus that was reached between parties involved in those long discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What was your motivation for proposing the present redirect "Duchy of Saint Sava" for deletion, and making all those changes on 26 April 2024, without proper discussion or consensus? Sorabino (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I ask you what your motivation was to move earlier article, on 18 March 2021 without proper discussion or consensus, and change its scope to unsourced, factually and historically inaccurate article, whose title and scope lead readers to infer something that amounts to parallel history and historiography, or even more than article says in its content; whose existence is one open allusion of some parallel history of the region? I am not your average nationalist editor, I actually like medieval history and I actually read whole books not just titles and cherry-picked useful phrases - I actually know medieval history of Western Balkan, and Hum and Bosnia in particular, and I think I know what your article was supposed to lead readers to believe versus what was factual history of the region. Historiography knows nothing about the article title and a scope you created and knows nothing about a parallel history your creation implied. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It was you who made unilateral changes on 8 February 2021 and 3 March 2021, but your actions were reverted, and during the 2021 discussions you failed to gain support for your views. Now, in 2024, you tried again, but this time you attempted to abolish the entire article, by reducing it to a redirect without discussion or consensus. Please, would you consider reverting your own recent actions? Your attempt to abolish the same article on Bosnian Wikipedia failed in 2021, and it should be expected that similar outcome will occur here. Sorabino (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I failed to gain support? Are you serious? Tell that to Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, and DeCausa. Who supported your arguments ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And my page moves were not unilateral, because, unlike you, Ajdebre/Zoupan and AVNOJist, I first started the TP discussion and then waited for an answer for a month - quite enough to do what my discussion argued. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

JFTR I brought this up at WP:AE#Sorabino. I'm not at all amused at how this discussion has devolved into "your response drives me to shouting". --Joy (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(coming here from AE) I have reverted the improper conversion of this article to a redirect. It's clear from the talk page archives that there is not consensus for this change; several editors objected, and -- contrary to the assertions of some editors in favor of redirecting -- those editors absolutely brought WP:RS in favor of their position. Maybe this should be a redirect, maybe it shouldn't, but that needs to be discussed and decided in accordance with the global consensus documented at WP:MERGE or WP:AFD. Meaning: if you want to redirect it and you know where you want to redirect it to, start a WP:MERGE discussion at the target page; if you want to redirect it but aren't sure where, nominate it at AFD and vote "redirect." (Also, I should not have to be explaining this to editors who have more experience than I do, especially not to an admin. I will address conduct issues at AE shortly.) Levivich (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

They absolutely brought WP:RS that don't matter in favor of their position. Please, let's not pretend that WP:GNG doesn't exist - this level of significant coverage of the term "Duchy of Saint Sava", even the term "Duke of Saint Sava", is absolutely ludicrously small. Literally all the reliable sources brought forward by Sorabino over a period of several years are cursory mentions, I can't remember seeing a single one that spent more than a sentence at a time on it, and most of them are footnotes and uses of scary quotes. Also, I should not have to be explaining this over and over and over again. --Joy (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time explaining to someone who's been an admin for 20 years what WP:MERGE and WP:AFD say. You know what to do if you think this article doesn't meet GNG and should be merged or deleted and someone disagrees. Boldly redirecting, and then nominating the redirects for deletion, is not the proper approach. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there's no demonstrated WP:CONS-based opposition to the merge, only a single intransigent editor who has obstructed progress in these discussions for years now for reasons that have been based in a gross misinterpretation of policy.

Mind, I never nominated the redirects for deletion, and indeed I said already at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Redirects to Herzegovina#Medieval period in no uncertain terms that the redirects which are plausible should stay. --Joy (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone had started a WP:MERGE or WP:AFD at some point in the last 13 years, it'd probably be over by now. Levivich (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but for my part I assumed good faith for most of that period, and in the latest iteration I assumed we are not a bureaucracy, but hey. --Joy (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Da Causa started specifically the section Should “Duchy of St Sava” be an article or a redirect? as "informal" discussion on merge/move, which Sorabino bludgeoned the same day with a section of his own, Three-layered subject of the article . ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You two have seriously been complaining about Sorabino for 14 years and neither one of you wants to go start a WP:MERGE discussion instead of complaining? Don't you feel stupid? Because this is crazy. Go start a merge discussion and stop talking shit about another editor. Levivich (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you feel stupid? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I do, yes, on this website, pretty regularly. I wonder why I bother, why do I care? Go ahead, erase "Duchy of St Sava" from Wikipedia, since you insist it was an invention and not a real place. You couldn't leave it alone at having the merger performed, you had to also try and delete all the redirects. But why do I care? Why do I care that a couple people on the internet are bullying someone else on the internet? There's this step-by-step instructions for what to do when you want to redirect something and someone reverts you, it's at WP:MERGE, but why do I care that you follow it? I don't know, I must be stupid, indeed. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we tone down the aggression here?

With regard to starting a new formal discussion, let's simply acknowledge the fact that the new discussion proposal is going to require some preparation work to make sure it passes - for example, someone now has to go through the list of mentions posted by Amanuensis in the RFD and summarize the context in which they appear in order to demonstrate that it's still all cursory mentions that don't add up to significant coverage. --Joy (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Toning down the aggression here is a great idea, as is going through the sources to see if they have enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. If someone starts a WP:MERGE discussion (or an WP:AFD if someone thinks the various titles should be deleted instead of becoming redirects), it'll be up to the person(s) opposing the merge/deletion to post the examples of WP:SIGCOV that merit a separate article. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I will AfD it because I am assured that those are the same superficial mentions. However, everyone should check sources every time for themselves, and not only depth and scope but also who utilize the phrase, because it is not the same if, say historian of Catholic church and Renaissance intellectualism utilize it, or geographer utilize it, as when proper medievalists does not use it at all. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should inform yourself first, and finally acknowledge the very existence of this feudal polity (1448-1482), and also the historicity of the title (Duke of Saint Sava). Those are well known facts in historiography, and we are still waiting for you to produce any, literally any scholarly source that would support your claims. And please, stop being so disrespectful towards prominent scholars (some of your remarks on Croatian medievalist Luka Špoljarić were quite inappropriate). Also, you should check your claims on Sima Ćirković, who was an expert on the subject and explicitly mentioned "Stefan Vukčić Kosača, who had grown completely independent of the Bosnian king, pronounced himself herzeg (“Herzeg of St. Sava”)" (here). Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You do realise, Sorabino, the reference you linked to would, in any AfD, be provided as evidence of why this shouldn't be an article. That is the only mention of St Sava in that book (excluding references to the saint himself). The mention is in brackets in scare quotes. WP:SIGCOV requires that it is "more than a trivial mention". That is a trivial mention: there's nothing more about the "Duchy" in that chapter. All the refderences you've put forward are like that. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

DeCausa, would you provide, please, any scholarly source that would dispute the historicity of this feudal polity and the ducal title in question? Stating your personal opinion is all right, even when it is quite repetitive, but some references are also needed here. The question is quite simple, for all those who want to abolish this article: What are your scholarly sources, that would support your denialist claims? Sorabino (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You want me to provide a source that says it doesn't exist? That's not the issue, or even how it works. Obviously, there was a title - you just linked to a source that references it. That's not the Wikipedia issue. The Wikipedia issue is whether there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV to meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. If there isn't the article will be deleted at AfD. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This was unnecessary. @DeCausa If my posting bothers you, from now on I am excluding myself from any further discussion (including replies) here on TP. The only thing that I will do is to nominate AfD in the next several days, but I will not participate in its discussion either. I hope you believe me and will help others who invested their time and energy to resolve this matter in whatever direction. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have singlehandedly written an article BIO on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača (it's a GA currently being in preparations for FA nom) by using Ćirković monograph and biography "Herceg Stefan Vukčić i njegovo doba" ("Herceg Stefan Vukčić and his age") - I read the book cover-to-cover at least twice in the last two years and I have it in my hands and my laptop; I know everything that Ćirković wrote and in what (proper) context (what and how he meant it). I won't use this discussion to extract every quote from that biography that gives actual facts and context, but our article does exactly that - Ćirković in his book gives many statements and interpretations of primary sources which disproves your arguments based on cursory mention sources. And before you ever again ask something like you asked DeCausa above, and me dozens of times during this discussion, read the "Russell's teapot" first! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Toning down the aggression here is a great idea. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, it is quite proper that you are acknowledging Serbian medievalist Sima Ćirković as an authority on the subject, but please, lets stick to what that prominent historian has actually stated. Writing on early cartography of the region, Ćirković noted (here): "For decades, even centuries after the Ottomans conquered the Balkan states and introduced their administrative system, Serbia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, or the Duchy of Saint Sava, remained on the maps." (that was a Google translation, from Serbian: Деценијама, чак и столећима пошто су Османлије освојиле балканске државе и увеле свој административни систем, на картама су остајале Србија, Босна, Бугарска или Херцештво светог Саве). There you have an example of Ćirković using the term in question, as many other scholars are doing for centuries now, without any dispute. Sorabino (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)