Jump to content

Talk:Serbia in the Middle Ages/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Crazy pictures

Since I saw your maps on this page, i can't help myself and utterly need to ask you, Serbs, which drugs are you using these days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakiša Tomić (talk • contribs)

The name of the drug is historical atlas. If you saw any in your life you probably would not ask this kind of questions. PANONIAN (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"We serbs" are you angry on someone perhaps?Or must I declare that you are a cruel nacionalist.Wisit http://www.rastko.org.yu/ some things will get clearer to you.Maps are craesy they need to be corected.But you came fith to fragmentary information. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13732a.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.121.135 (talk • contribs)

Obviosly, you are the one with problems if you are possessed with correcting foreign maps. Worry about your own country and rather correct on that field. Best wishes in that job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.211.166 (talk • contribs)

I don't see whats wrong with maps? ManiaC 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If I am correct, that map was made by wikipedia user: Hxseek who uploaded it on wikipedia. I could not find it anywhere else. Of course, the user is from Serbia and calls himself Yugoslavian. Yes, very reliable map :)))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.133.246 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So, Serbs are forbidden to talk about their history? Claiming that all Serbs are not reliable to talk about history is clear example of chauvinism. By the way, map is from historical atlas, as said before and not Serbian.95.180.82.17 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Serbia in the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Re-do

Dear fellow editors. It seems this page has been rather neglected, fallen into disuse. I have gone ahead and made some changes, increasign the details . Please feel free to suggest changes or errors. Hxseek (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch this page

I think due to the very strong feelings about the subject of this wiki that it should be watched closely to avoid acts of partisan vandalism and preserve established and objectively sourced facts. James Frankcom (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence

Maybe the last sentence should be revised: This is a period marked by the rise of a new threat: the Ottoman Turk sultanate gradually spreading from Asia to Europe and conquering Byzantium first, and then the other Balkans states. As the Ottomans had taken various territories in the Balkans as much as a century before they took Constantinople. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs)

Maps

Hi there. I found a map(from a German source) showing the serb lands c. 1000 AD. It confirms the map shown here (from DI). I just don;t know how to upload it onto these discsussion pages. If anyone can briefly instruct me i would be happy to upload it.

Image

@Mm.srb: Per this, the image does not have any reference to show it is based on a reliable source. The designated region of Lusatia is larger than the Lusatian region itself, it's highly doubtful to be an accurate depiction of the territory of the Serbian tribes in the 7th century as well as the White Serbia which is not mentioned in any historical source (primarily DAI), and recent scholarship highly doubts the Slavic polities in the Western Balkans correlate with the Serbian ethnic origin of the populations. The image on which is allegledy based, Migration of Serbs.png, is much more informative, accurate and neutral. I do not see any reason for the use of the "new" image instead of the older other than to visually suggest highly dubious claims. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I gave it a second look and indeed the map is not supported by a reliable source. I think that the current (posted by PajaBG) image is okay. I would not be too quick to present this "recent scholarship" as shedding some big new light upon the area - because those works simply don't bring anything revolutionary. And I have read several works, including the one which you quoted. I can only conclude that a solid number of historians adores exploring this area because it gives a big room for "pioneer work" which is unfortunately often used for furthering one nation's claims or views... All in all, that period is quite shady and sources are scarce - and this goes for both Serbs and Croats, plus partially Bulgarians. I can agree with you that we should keep a certain level (as much as possible) of neutrality and not make it in to a sort of docufiction like "Croatian kings" TV series. Mm.srb (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then we agree, but I did not understand the last remark "docufiction like "Croatian kings" TV series" meant as I didn't watch it yet see many national and international notable scientists worked on it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
To each his own, as they say. Cheers, Mm.srb (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Original research

This map from the article [1] although has some sources for confirmation, some part of the map is OR or fringe. According to Serbian historians the boundary of "Serbia" at that time was to the mouth of the river Vrbas (river) from that point to the left(eastward). However on this map, "Serbia" is and on the right side towards(westward). Source which mentions mouth of the river Vrbas as last point is from Tibor Živković in which he mentions and Sima Ćirković with a similar view. From paper[2] (last page): "On the basis of the data from the mentioned writers, there follows a conclusion that the area of Serbia in the early Middle Ages, in the North-West stretched to the place where the river Vrbas flows into the Sava".

It is not disputed, but it's a bit tricky as there are not that many usable sources for that period. The sources used are solid. The basic info. comes from Ćorović and DAI. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Where in DAI is written about northern border of Serbia? Where Vladimir Ćorović writes about the northern border of Serbia? The sources I'm talking about("although has some sources for confirmation") are some kind of maps but I don't know on what those maps are based.[3][4] This maps are from private WordPress.com Blog. Mikola22 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
There's indeed an issue with the boundaries of early medieval Serbia. At the Wikimedia Commons category Maps of the history of Serbia in the Early Middle Ages we can find many contradicting and fringe maps. The difference in interpretation mostly depends on the nationalistic tendencies and not the scientific arguments of national historiographies. The removed map (edit) as well the present map in the article exaggerated the western & southwestern (going over river Vrbas and including whole or part of old Croatian counties Imota, Hlivno, and Pliva), eastern, and northern borders in the 9th and 10th centuries, as well it is based on several unreliable or expired sources. Another issue with the present map is that it states to be 9th-century boundaries, while they were between the 9th and 10th centuries, and another that it represents Serb lands which is a controversial and disputable claim in the scholarship. I support the removal of the previously included map because in this case is better to have only one map and its derivations for the usage in this and other related articles. However, the original map (see this link) the mentioned present map is based upon did have a more correct western and southwestern border until the Vrbas river which is in accordance with the 10th-century map of early medieval Croatia at Croatian Encyclopedia (link). As such, I rather propose the usage of the original map and its derivations per NPOV although again it's not the most neutral map we should have on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an issue on the Early Middle Ages article where the [MAP] shows Serbia spanning very far North and West than what sources usually show it as. I’m not sure why that is. I brought it up on the talk page their in January but no one responded. It conflicts with the mapping on both Duchy of Croatia and Principality of Serbia (early medieval) which both show Croatia having more of a presence over parts of modern day Bosnia than the map I linked first. 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow, it is even worse and based on some 1905 map. It is claimed to be showing the early 9th century borders and without Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunia, and Dioklea. People really don't have a clue about the early medieval period of the Southeastern Europe.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The borders with the Byzantine frontier provinces are also wrong. Stari Ras and Raska which are always firmly placed within the medieval Serbian state in these maps were secured as late as 1127: Catepanate of Ras and before the Byzantine reconquest it was held by the first Bulgarian Empire.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I made an updated version (link), it is good enough, but the WC servers are still processing it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Just two things @Miki Filigranski:, what about the inclusion of the cities of Zagreb (New capital) and Knin (old capital) and was Pagania; Ragusia(Dubrovnik) (Southeast of Split) and Costal Zahumlje really under Servia at the time? This map used in the Middle Ages Croatia and Serbia articles show it as separate [Here] OyMosby (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The city of Zagreb didn't exist at the time while the cities of Zadar and Split were much more significant than Knin as well in the 9th century were controlled by Byzantine Empire and not by Croatia (hence their inclusion). The updated version shows Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia, and Dioclea as separate from Serbia. They were not part of Serbia at the time. The only reason they are of the same color as Serbia i.e. different than Croatia is that they were not under the direct Frankish political influence like Croatia (which was until the end of the 9th century).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: I see though Knin was the Capitol of the Croatian Kingdom so I think should be included and I think serves a good reference point. As for color coding, Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia, and Dioclea, I think, should be their own color to show they are separate. Otherwise the reader will think they are under Serbia. Perhaps the color used for Pruzzi? The light green? OyMosby (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Many other bigger cities and capitals aren't included in the map. Knin wasn't a significant city in the European or Adriatic context. Also, this is a map for 814 AD when the Kingdom of Croatia didn't exist (only since 925) neither Knin was the only capital of both the Duchy and Kingdom of Croatia. I don't think it is necessary to have a different color for these principalities, but it can be done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: I see your point. Thanks for explaining. I still think a different color for the principalities would be better. I appreciate the work you have done on the map. Thank you. By the way what program do you use for editing the map?OyMosby (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Miki Filigranski: not sure you saw my last reply but I agree a different color should be used and also what program do you use? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I used Method Draw SVG Editor. Will change the color for these principalities this days. Do you have any specific color in mind?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: Perhaps the color used for Pruzzi? The light green?OyMosby (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: just checking you saw my reply?OyMosby (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@OyMosby: uploaded new version, but should be seen on Wikipedia in the upcoming days.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@OyMosby: Hi Miki. Thanks! Though maybe the color we should use is the none used for Northsmen? Make it stick out more. Or wouldnit be confused with Italy’s color? OyMosby (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
@OyMosby: Nah, it's fine, used the color of Bohemia. Any other color, including yellowish of Northmen, would make it more confusing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Miki Filigranski: This time pinged you properly. Haha. And yes I agree this is probably the best version. Thanks for time and talent in fixing up the map. Much appreciated! OyMosby (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
It is because maps are make by some anonymous people who obviously don’t use quality sources or multiple sources that confirm these maps. For this reason map(from this article[5]) is OR. We know what to do in this case, delete it until the new map appears with RS as confirmation. As for other maps, any historiography (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian etc) has its own sources on which bases the maps and we have to respect that but there has to be a quality sources for confirmation and not some random person view based in part on some source. I give support to delete any map that has no confirmation in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
The map is really confusing. I hope everyone agrees with my latest change.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
For me, this map is okay. It is important that map has some source as confirmation. Mikola22 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems okay WEBDuB. It’s hard to get good data of territory boundaries from so long ago. Especially since Balkan boundaries we’re constantly shifting. OyMosby (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of sourced info

During the 822 uprising, Serbs supported the rebellion, thus siding against the Frankish Empire and indirectly supporting the Byzantines, but it is unknown to which extent they participated in the skirmished between two empires in the 8th and the 9th century.

  • @Khirurg: please quote me this information from source, and page. I would also ask for additional source for confirmation because I cannot find this fact in Serbian, Croatian or English sources nor in primary historical source which speak about that rebellion. Thank you in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason, Griboski, Sorabino, Sadko, and Amanuensis Balkanicus: Since you are all connected and you all follow Serbian history and sources maybe and one of you knows the answer to previously written question? Mikola22 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Insistence on providing additional, multiple sources to you is hypocritical. You, with few other editors, in bouts and persistently, have been removing/adding data and sources with improper referencing (Ivanišević 2013, p. 450. points to nothing and will be deleted), which serve only one purpose – relativization, hidden behind the alleged POV issues. What is NPOV for you guys? Only when you dilute and relativize information with the opposing claim? When will it be over? When every single information which says “Serbs were” will be slammed with “but maybe they weren’t”? Cause every claim, no matter how well referenced, which states “Serbs are/were” is inherently POV, right? Also, part of the relativization effort is nitpicking regarding maps. Oh, this one is 5 km to the west, or 5 km to the east, it’s horrible, it's agony, let’s delete it. As if any map depicting that period can be correct, they are just approximate illustrations. Actually, the very map you just deleted was returned by me (it wasn’t made by me), when one from your relativists’ group, now blocked, asked for it to be returned, because the one placed instead (also by someone else, not me) wasn’t good.
The most pathetic of all are the attempts at relativizing the DAI itself. Maps and contents were removed and slapped over with explanations that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was clueless what happened two or three centuries before his time, or that when he said “Serbs”, “Serbian lands”, “descendants of unbaptized Serbs”, etc., he wasn’t reeeeeally thinking “Serbs” or “Serbian lands”...so what was he thinking....reptiloids? The emperor probably had some of the best education available on the planet at the time. He was compiling his work to prepare his son to rule and to make him acquainted with historical and political matters, so he decided to fill it with fake and incorrect data? That doesn’t mean he was automatically 100% correct, but he surely had better access to chronicles and knew more what happened before and around his time than modern mind readers and crystal ballers who know for sure that he wasn’t thinking what he was writing.
And you can slam every claim, technically giving an appearance of proper referencing, as today you can find source and reference for everything. Literally. You can source claim that this article is nonsense, cause Serbs are the oldest nation anyway. Or Croats or Albanians, for that matter. Or we can scrap the article altogether, cause some claim the entire Middle Ages never existed and is a complete fabrication.
And yet, other editors barely reacted, allowing you to conduct your agenda, and made no fuss about it, but you are brazen enough to complain? Despite this pretended nitpicking on sources, following your edits on this article and others, almost all you do is relativization of articles regarding Serbs through this phony over-exacting reserved for Serbian articles only. You barely do anything else. Some administrator may tell me to assume good faith, or list me a bunch of guidelines about politeness or world peace or whatever – but you fit the duck test perfectly. You are a man on the Crusade. You are slick at abusing guidelines (like the alleged NPOV), a fact that [foreign] administrators either know nothing about our history, don't want to know anything about it and don’t want to deal with us in general, that other editors fear to intervene and call you what you are cause they will be called nationalists or blocked by the administrators, but also a fact that sources indeed are so scarce. A perfect storm for you, and you abuse the situation to the max. PajaBG (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@PajaBG: I have invited other editors now and I invite you to present the quote and page as well as additional confirmation of this information. When you will ask me for some source, information and page, I will provide it immediately, if I do not find what you or other editor ask i can't go against yours edit. You wrote half a page of your critique and you forgot the most important thing, to present the evidence. We are not here to sell fog but to make articles more accurate and better. As for map and "5 km to the west, or 5 km to the east" fact, if Serbian academic sources say that Serbs or Serbian territory exist in some historical period to the river Vrbas then we cannot draw a map that goes to Banja Luka, Sisak or Zagreb. I guess we will respect the sources and draw the boundary on river Vrbas. As for Serb settlements map we cannot have a map without a source for half of the Balkans where the Serbs arrived. I guess we have some decency to respect rules of Wikipedia but also and decency to respect primary sources which talk about this migration also decency to respect secondary sources. And based on these sources, maps are drawn. If we do not respect it then each editor will have its own map which show migration and setlements of Serbs, Croats, Albanians etc to Balkans. This mean that academic Sima Ćirković drew or transfer maps in the sources for nothing when anonymous people from Wikipedia have some of their own maps without sources for evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Opinions about the DAI have changed a lot in the past 50 years. Contemporary historiography - including historiography in Serbia - doesn't discuss DAI in the manner which you're describing. It has many factual mistakes and the consensus that has emerged in the past 20 years is that it's basically a document which was written in order to further Byzantine claims against medieval Serbian rulers. The DAI places the Serbs in Thessaloniki/Macedonia only because medieval Byzantine politics wanted to establish that Serb presence in the Balkans began as a vassal people within imperial territory. The Serbs, however, had settled across the northern border of actual Byzantine control as all archaeological and historical material indicates today, thus they weren't Byzantine vassals which had to be reintegrated as the narrative of the DAI would have its medieval (wealthy) reader believe. To a medieval Serb reader (a wealthy feudal ruler or merchant) the DAI would look like a document with a strong "anti-Serbian bias". From his perspective, he would be right. The 822 event is the one discussed at Ljudevit_(Lower_Pannonia)#Flight to Serbs and death. A quote from Aleksić will clarify what he is specifically exploring, but Serbian historiography discusses it in a different context than that of a possible Serbian participation in Ljudevit's rebellion. A middle ground would be to mention the event and link to Ljudevit for a full discussion of what it means.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The point of my post weren’t sources at all, but your fake insistence on sources as part of your agenda. And of your group, either organized or ad hoc, some of which jumped right in. Given the activities of the group, which is concerned only with showing that Serbs basically didn’t even exist in the Balkans, as your group buddy posted here (“across the northern border”), I can conclude your intentions are nationalistic, chauvinistic and utterly biased. I am not the one warned and blocked a dozen times because of the disruptive behavior. And I am not falling for your “give me the source” phoniness, cause when they are given, you ask for another source, and for another confirmation, you dismiss the author, and so on. You write about decency of respect for primary sources regarding the settlement of the Serbs, and then you maul the article to disprove and relativize every claim from that source. Your buddy here wants to push Serbs almost completely outside of the Balkans. He also added Fine’s claim that “it is possible that among other tribes existed a tribe or group of small tribes of Serbs”. Can you get more pathetic and chauvinistic at the same time? This will be removed, or moved to the new section of modern revisionist approach which solely focuses on diminishing the mentions and role of the Serbs in the original sources. So much for the respect. Also, the claim "which is said to be holding the large part of Dalmatia", but Dalmatia in the Roman sense, as a region between the Adriatic on the south, the Sava on the north and the Drina (or Ibar) on the east" is probably used as the source for that map. But you deleted the map (which is certainly not correct 100%, but neither outrageous as it is based on the almost contemporary source) and another guy added Fine's funny claim. I don’t think I would collaborate with you anyway, given the uptight attitude of supremeness you display: YOU want to be showed this/that, YOU need to be convinced, YOU invite others to prove something to YOU, YOU as an editor will/won’t...You have no bigger rights than other editors.

Regarding the obsessive nitpicking about the sources, which is just a smoke screen in your case anyway, many have problems with not realizing that Wikipedia is opened for everyone. That doesn’t mean they can write whatever they wish, but it is opened to everyone. The microscopic scrutiny can be invoked when Wikipedia rules that only published medievalists can edit articles like this. Until then, if you have problems with these issues, I suggest you not to waste your precious time (and of others) on Wikipedia. Write a book, be a proper scientist, so one day, in another 20 years we might cite you, and your possible claims that Serbs fell from Mars in...which century wouldn’t be too soon for you guys? Because you claim that Serbs which the DAI talks about aren’t really Serbs, that descendants of those Serbs are not Serbs, that Serbian borders and states weren’t actually Serbian borders and states, and that Serbs didn’t live in the areas they were said to have lived. They must have fell from somewhere at some point. You are also misusing the unfortunate tradition of rotten compromises, identified as one of the major problems on Wikipedia. The truthiness is not important, but the compromise is. You will allow me to publish some true information, if concurrently some of your fake crap is being published, too, or if all your demands for relativization are fulfilled.

With all its flaws, the DAI is in Serbian historiography still considered the most important source for this period. A fact that some others, mostly Croatian historians which you cite and add, completely twist what is written in it “in the past 20 years”, is something different. The late Tibor Živković, the major source on Serbian side embraced by you in this article, is everything but the mainstream of Serbian medievalism in Serbia. You might say he is on the fringes of it...All that disgust with which he talked about the DAI...

Though naturally flawed to a point, Constantine’s mention of Theme of Thessalonica or Belgrade (instead of Singidunum – an „evidence“ cited by Živković), can’t disqualify the DAI. We are doing the same thing. We discuss the settlement of the Serbs in the Balkans (OK, you don’t, as for you Serbs were in small, scattered tribal patches between some others...somewhere). But how someone could settle in the Balkans in the 7th century when the name Balkan Peninsula was coined 12 centuries later? Haven’t they settled the Haemus Peninsula? Why we don’t use this instead of the modern name? Why we discuss Byzantine Empire at all? The name was coined one century after the empire was extinguished. It never existed during the empire’s existence, and yet, we don’t refer to the Byzantines as the Romans. The pope referred to Belgrade under this name in 878, which means the name was well accepted by this time, including the name of the corresponding diocese. 878 is at least 70 years before Constantine began to write the DAI, and much longer since Singidunum fell out of use. So there was no real need [he might have, though] for Constantine to describe to his son the name of the province around Thessaloniki 300 years ago, or Belgrade’s already out of use name. It is amazing that any historian use this kind of “mistakes” to debunk anything. Maybe if we don’t know when the source was written this would raise a red flag, but we know when the DAI was compiled. This addition should be completely removed because it is a revisionist, nationalistic crap. Btw, I think the Byzantines would see it a major bias that we call them this way today.

However, the hypocrisy is overflooding regarding your stand on the DAI. You hug parts of the DAI which suit you, to the point of choking. Constatnine’s exclusion of early Dioclea as the Serbian state is shared as a cemented, God given truth and you are clinging onto it by the claws. However, mentioning of the surrounding tribes/states as Serbian is wrong, political, clueless, invented, propagandistic...whatever. So, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Dudes, you can’t have it both ways. Well, actually you can, but that is a private matter.

You whine around, calling a fringe theory every claim about Serbs outside of your agenda view. And this article makes no outrageous claims. It sticks to the historical sources, but it has been deconstructed by your group nevertheless. The new ideas are attacked by you if they expand or extrapolate on that data (and still no outrageous data has been added), but are OK if they diminish the role of the Serbs from the older sources. You are transparent and obvious. PajaBG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

Most citations have no page number, many are offline and many others don't discuss what mainstream bibliography discusses. I think that each section and citation should be reviewed separately. This is a central article about Serbia and I think that correct use of bibliography should be a priority. Some parts of this article should be trimmed. It stands at 224k and I don't think that a list of all Slavic tribes or other Slavic areas in the Balkans adds anything to it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure that several involved editors would love to hear your suggestions. I tend to disagree with the last part. Please do not make major edits to the stable version before reaching a consensus, which I'm sure is doable. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't have many suggestions: editors should be more careful with bibliography and some parts should be trimmed. I don't think that I should be the one to write this article. I strongly believe in an emic approch, thus I think that Serb(ian) editors should do most of the writing, but it has to be close to what bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the editor Maleschreiber that this should be better checked. We cannot have sources without pages. We can't even check some sources WP:VERIFY and there is a lot of information's from them in the article. In any case, there should be some order and I support every edit which goes in that direction. Mikola22 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The article may be divided in two parts, one for history, another for society. That would trim it in half. But that is not the trimming you guys are thinking about, right? It should be trimmed of Serbs as much as possible. The list of other Slavs is part of the wider context under the appropriate section. Additionally, majority of them settled, and subsequently amalgamated with others, in the areas which later became parts of the medieval Serbian state. Remember, this article deals with the period up to the 16th century, not only with the pre-Nemanjić era, on which you are focused like hawks, an apparently allergic to. PajaBG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Stipčević (1977)

According to the article, Stipčević (1977) writes that Also, the Slavs merged with the native population (Illyrians, Thracians) and assimilated them, forming the base of the ethnogenesis of modern Serbs. He doesn't. Stipčević (1977) writes that: In the course of the centuries the Slavs merged with these people, thus preserving in their own national identity remains of ancient Illyrians. Evidence of this is particularly strong in some of the remote areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dalmatinska Zagora, in Crna Gora, etc. He discusses Croatia, Montenegro and parts of Bosnia, but not Serbia. Side comment: I don't think that national identity is linked to "admixture" or ethnic origin per se. I'm only reviewing what the author has written.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

In this case we need additional source as evidence. I as editor couldn't enter this information in the article because the source does not say so("forming the base of the ethnogenesis of modern Serbs"). For me this is WP:OR but there are probably sources which confirm this. Mikola22 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Slavic settlement

Frankish Chronicle of Fredegar mentions Dervan, chieftain of the Serbs, in c. 631, who may be the first Serb mentioned by name in history. Dervan is considered to be the father or, more likely, brother of the nameless prince who led the White Serbs into the Balkans. [1][2]

  • I can't verify this information in Tibor Živković source, I searched in Serbian language for other sources of Tibor Živković with that connection, but for now I can't find anything. While in article, in source of Curta has no page number for this information, but Dervan is mentioned "Dervanus, duke of the Sorbs" (page 109,115).. "His victory encouraged a certain Dervanus, dux gente Sorbiorum que ex genere Sclavinorum, to declare his independence from the Franks". This information is not in the context of the Balkans and Balkan Serbs while the sources cited here as evidence do not say that Dervan is "chieftain of the Serbs".
  • This is WP:OR for one source. I suggest that information be aligned with the source but this information is in Sorbs context and for that article. My opinion is that with these sources as evidence this information is not appropriate for this article unless Tibor Zivkovic claim that in this source but I can't WP:VERIFY Mikola22 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just as with the other articles, there are entry sections which give some background and perspective. This one includes a theory that Serbs moved to the Balkans after splitting from the Polabi region. This may be historically true or not, but it is a legitimate theory until one of the theories becomes proper history when confirmed. If ever. In this context, the Sorbs are mentioned in the article. So technically, it is about the Serbs, before they split to the south. Especially given the theory that Serbian chieftains are Dervan’s descendants. And year 631 fits the Middle Ages. Nitpicking your style, the article is not titled Balkan Serbs in the Middle Age, anyway.

Dervan as the Serbian chief was specifically mentioned by Aleksić, and referenced. Other two references confirm Dervan’s mentioning as the prince. In time, Sorabino removed certain references by Aleksić, Spasić and all by Aničić, but I didn’t react as he mostly replaced them with other sources, so I thought this is even better (though he removed some references which he should’t have; due to the disruptive agenda by this group, the more sources, the better). However, here he left a gap, which you are clinging on to now. You can’t ask from us to support Aleksic’s claim to you. If it bothers you so much, contact him and ask him that. You can also ask him about his claim of Serbian support in 822 rebellion. He clearly stated that the involvement in fighting is unknown. And “support” can mean a lot of stuff. For example, by harboring Ljudevit, Serbs indirectly “supported” the rebellion. For example.

Speaking of changes in the historiography in the “last 20 years”, the Sorbs/Serbs theory gained a momentum here and became quite popular. In the last couple of years, at least three streets have been named after Dervan in Belgrade and its suburbs as he gained popular acknowledgment as the first Serb known by his name. PajaBG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Important historical fact without confirmation

It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period. A general one, depicting the descendants of the first settlers while the other was a regional one. By the 11th century, most of the regional names disappeared and were replaced by the ethnonym Serbs. In his work Strategikon of Kekaumenos, the 11th century Byzantine general Katakalon Kekaumenos refers to the duke of Duklja Stefan Vojislav as both "Dioclean" and "Travunian Serbian". John Skylitzes, a historian from the same period, calls Stefan Vojislav an "archon of the Serbs" and that he took over the "land of the Serbs"[3][4]

  • As far as I can see this two sources are translation of primary source or history of John Skylitzes and probably refer to the last sentence.

Information that "It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period" is big historical fact and needs confirmation in the secondary sources. So far I have not found English or Serbian sources that confirm this. I only found this, Politika(Serbian portal) "Могуће је да су код Срба у употреби била два имена, једно опште –означавало је потомке првих досељеника на Балкан, представнике нове, шире заједнице – а друго обласно... It is possible that two names were used by Serbs, one common - it meant the descendants of the first immigrants to the Balkans, representatives of the new, wider community - and the other regional." [6] Author is "Градимир Аничић, главни лектор у дневним новинама „Политика”.. Gradimir Aničić, Lecturer in the daily newspaper "Politika". I hear about this thesis for the first time. It is possible that it is some kind of fringe information but in any case we need strong sources which confirming this significant historical fact or claim. Mikola22 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a textbook on spinning. Something that starts with “it is possible that” is by you referred to as the “big/important/historical fact” four times, adding once “claim” next to it, and then you make a fuss about this “fact”. There is a major difference between your neighbor’s statement “It is possible that your wife is cheating on you with the milkman [cause he comes every day when you are at work, and I know you are lactose intolerant]” and “Your wife is cheating on you with the milkman [cause I accidentally spied on them through the bedroom window...and living room window....and bathroom window]. Aničić was referenced when I posted it. The guy is a linguist and he looked it from the language perspective. He gave the sources on which he based his claim and what do you want from us now? The claim is not new. Родословне таблице и грбови српских династија и властеле, 2. допуњено издање - Поглавље Војислављевићи from 1991 claims the same (page 30), concluding this on the same sources as Aničić (I will be bold enough to say that he took the claim from the book), and an analysis of these sources in T.Wasilewski’s Stefan Vojislav de Zahumlje, Srefan Dobroslav de Zeta et Byzance en millieu du XI siecle, published in Зборник радова Византолошког института 13, Београд, 1971, pages 109-126. PajaBG (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Živković, 2002.
  2. ^ Curta, 2001.
  3. ^ Thurn 1973.
  4. ^ Wortley 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbia_in_the_Middle_Ages/Archive_1&oldid=1145400160"