Jump to content

Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/Archive 1

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, I will have a go at reviewing this, assume that most likely I'll have the full review for you by tomorrow (9th July, 2016). Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. There's a few passages that need a bit of work.
  • "The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, without a name (known conventionally as the "Unknown Archon"), that led the Serbs from the north to the Balkans and received the protection of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion (680)." This should be broken into at least two sentences. Perhaps "The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, who is without a name but conventionally known as the "Unknown Archon" that led the Serbian peoples from the north to the Balkans. This ruler would receive protection by Emperor Heraclus (r. 610-641) and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion of 680. Fixed.
  • "According to DAI, "baptized Serbia" (known erroneously in historiography as Raška[3]), included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon (Δεστινίκον), Tzernabouskeï (Τζερναβουσκέη), Megyretous (Μεγυρέτους), Dresneïk (Δρεσνεήκ), Lesnik (Λεσνήκ), Salines (Σαληνές), while the "small land" (χοριον/chorion) of Bosna (Βοσωνα), part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera (Κατερα) and Desnik (Δέσνηκ)." With this many brackets I'd be amazed to find someone capable of making heads or tails of this sentence. I don't think every name needs its Greek counterpart written in brackets. This leaves "According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia" which is erroneously known is histeriography as Raška, included the "inhabited cities" of Destinikon, Tzernabourskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik, and Salines. The "small land" of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. That said, is there any real necessity for this sentence at all, it doesn't seem to be relevant to the main topic of the article Višeslav. So I think it could be removed entirely.
    • Perhaps only include the number of cities?--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • On re-read, without the Greek, the cities can stay. They make a general point about the area that was under Višeslav's rule and don't take a large amount of space to do it. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This may also apply to the next sentence as well. If necessary outline the principalities and the border between Serbia and the Byzantines, but I don't see how it relates to Višeslav in any meaningful way. Redundant comment.
  • "Prince (archon) of the Serbs" (αρχων Σερβλίας). This there any reason why so many different things that have their Greek name written as well. It's weird to read place names and titles in one language and then have the Greek translation written as well. Removed.
  • a confederation of village communities (roughly the equivalent of a county) -> a confederation of village communities roughly equivalent to a county. Unnecessary brackets in this sentence. Fixed.
  • (a magistrate or governor); the governorship -> (a magistrate or governor). The governorship... No need for a semi-colon just separate the two sentences. Fixed.
  • while Byzantine supreme rule was nominally recognized -> while the Byzantine emperor's supreme rule was nominally recognized. Why supreme rule instead of just rule? Fixed and explained.
  • recognized; domestic -> recognized. Domestic... again, unnecessary semi-colon. Fixed.
  • "Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance, the land was divided between the ruler's brothers, the oldest, as the ruler, had for certain domestic rule in the collective." -> Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance. The land would be divided between the ruler's brothers with the oldest brother becoming ruler and had certain domestic rule in the collective." Redundant.
  • "who with his company seized the entire power in his hands and turned himself into a hereditary ruler" -> who, with his company, seized full control of Serbia and turned himself into a hereditary ruler. I assume the "entire power" is referring to rule of the entirety of Serbia. Redundant.
  • "B. Radojković's work was however discredited by S. Ćirković." a nitpick here, is it necessary to write the initial, why not just Radojkovic or Ćirković. This happens quite a number of times throughout the article. Minor nitpick, not were fussing over :).
    • I thought the norm for writers (including initial) could be used.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • That' fine, just make sure its consistent, e.g. "Einhard" needs an initial added and "Kosta Mandrovic" -> "K. Mandrovic".
  • "Bulgars, whose neighbours they were and with whom they shared a common frontier." -> Bulgars, to whom they were neighboured and with whom they shared a common frontier. Rephrase is good.
  • "The Bulgars, under Telerig, planned to colonize Bulgaria with Slavs from the neighbouring Berziti,[15] as the earlier Bulgar expansion had caused massive Slav migrations and depopulation of Bulgaria — in 762, more than 200,000 people fled to Byzantine territory and were relocated to Asia Minor." I'm not sure what is being said here. Are these two events somehow related, did one cause the other? It seems to me to be saying that "in 762, 200,000 people fled to the Byzantine empire and that because of this Telerig and his people along with the Berziti decided to colonize Bulgaria. Is this right? or are you trying to say something else? Clarification is good.
  • Višeslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav, then grandson Prosigoj,[9] and one of these two most likely ruled during the revolt of Ljudevit of Lower Pannonia against the Franks (819–822);[16] according to Einhard's Royal Frankish Annals, Ljudevit went in 822 from his seat at Sisak to the Serbs (believed to have been somewhere in western Bosnia),[16] with Einhard mentioning "the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia" (ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur). Fixed.
    • Sentence 1; Višeslav was succeeded by his son Radoslav, then grandson Prosigoj,[9] and one of these two most likely ruled during the revolt of Ljudevit of Lower Pannonia against the Franks (819–822). Fixed.
    • Sentence 2; according to Einhard's Royal Frankish Annals, Ljudevit went in 822 from his seat at Sisak to the Serbs (believed to have been somewhere in western Bosnia),[16] with Einhard mentioning "the Serbs, who control the greater part of Dalmatia" (ad Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur). This sentence seems to be a fragment, why did he leave his seat in Sisak? to move it?, to meet with the Serbs? needs a better explanation. Clarified.
  • "The long lasting of this dynasty shows great stability of the monarch and state." -> The longevity of this dynasty shows stability of the monarch and the state. Great is a bit of a weasel word here, what's so great about it? On re-read, great is fine, as is long lasting.
    • Longevity (long life) is the wrong word. Long lasting, as in a dynasty ruling for several centuries. That's how the historian put it.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The names of Serbian rulers through Mutimir (r. 851–891) are Slavic dithematic names, as per Old Slavic tradition, until the 9th century and Christianization after which Christian names appear. -> The names of Serbian rulers through to Mutimir (r. 851-91) are Slavic dithematic names, per the Old Slavic tradition. Around the 9th century after Christianity arrived Christian names began to appear. I didn't realize Christianization was a word, but, good separation of sentences.
  • "a source dating to ca. 1300–10[22] largely discredited in" -> a source dating to ca. 1300–10[22] and largely discredited in historiography Fixed.
  • historiography (events in the Early Middle Ages deemed useless). What do you mean by this? that the CPD is useless when it comes to events in the Early Middle Ages? Clarified.
    • Yes, that is the view held firm by experts.--Zoupan 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. Perhaps "(events in the Early Middle Ages deemed useless)" - > (the CPD is deemed useless for events in the Early Middle Ages). clearer, it read to me as thought the events themselves were useless, rather than the source. Fixed.
  • As a final comment, while there is a commendable amount of work done and I think all the major points have been covered, but I'll take a look and see if I can dig up anything more, there is still quite a bit that needs fixing and structuring. Redundant

A few other questions and fixes as well, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC):

  • "These polities bordered baptized Serbia to the north." Which polities? the Byzantines were to the South and Paganija, Zahumlje, and Travunija are to the West. I assume you refer to Croatia and Pannonia, so perhaps mention them by name. Or are they not specifically referred to in the DAI? Sufficiently clarified.
  • "Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance, the land was divided between the ruler's brothers, the oldest, as the ruler, had for certain domestic rule in the collective." -> Domestic rulers, veliki župani, ruled Serbia by right of inheritance. The land was divided between the ruler's brothers, with the oldest brother having certain domestic rule over the collective. <- I think this would be a clearer phrasing that the oldest brother controls the collective group. Alternatively, replace certain with guaranteed. Fixed.
  • "In this way, the first Serbian state was thus established after 150 years of permanent living in the new homeland and existence of military democracy." -> The first Serbian state was established after 150 years of Serbs permanently living in the new homeland and with the existence of the military democracy. or. The first Serbian state was established after 150 years of Serbs permanently living in the new homeland under the rule of military democracy.
  • "the entire power in his hands", could this be replaced with full control, or absolute control. Entire power, just doesn't sound encyclopaedic at all. E.g. "Višeslav could have been a chief military leader (veliki vojvoda), who with his company, seized the entire power in his hands and turned himself into a hereditary ruler, as veliki župan." -> Višeslav could have been a chief military leader (veliki vojvoda), who with his company, seized absolute control (of ruling power, or, domestic power maybe?) and turned himself into a hereditary ruler, as veliki župan. Fixed.
  • "History and assessment" -> perhaps "History and reign" or "Reign" for the first paragraph and "History" for the second, since Viseslav is only mentioned tangentially in that section. Assessment suggests that Wikipedia did the assessing, which is clearly not the case as that would violate WP:OR. Dealt with. Refer below.

That's all for now, Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Major issue; the article does not have any headings or separated sections. I can suggest a few headings that ought to be incorporated into the article, these are; "Background", "Early Life", "Reign", "Policy (Domestic, Foreign, etc), "Family" and "Legacy". Not all of these must be incorporated, but, there needs to be some division of the sections by subject matter. I assume at the very least that Background and Reign could be made. Has division of subject matter. Will have to re-read the article, see how it stands.
  • Incidentally, because of this, there is also no distinguishable lead, this will need to be either written or parsed from the main body of the article. Whichever is the more suitable.
    • On the topic of the lead, the lead should be a summary of the article. In its current condition, it doesn't suffice, so a few things that could be added into the lead;
      • 1. Relationship with the Byzantine empire (summarized)
      • 2. Relationship with the Bulgar neighbours and Bulgar invasion (summarized)
      • 3. Proximity of Charlemagne to Serbia (summarized)
      • 4. and... Anything else you want to include.
    • Keep in mind, anything cited in the body of the article, doesn't need citing in the lead. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Zoupan This is really the only other thing that needs to be addressed, once the lead is expanded I'll take a final skim through of the article and copy-edit any minor issues. After that, it should be ready for GA. Good work so far. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There is a list of citations that have been correctly formatted. It even separates the primary sources from the secondary sources.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The majority of sources used are published secondary sources, there are a couple of primary sources and what appears to be a tertiary source as well. This is fine.
2c. it contains no original research. Does appear to contain one piece of original research. "A street in the Čukarica neighbourhood in Belgrade is named after him (ulica kneza Višeslava)." The linked site does not explicitly address the claim that the street is named after the ruler. Ulica kneza, kind of does address the claim... sorry, mea culpa. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. There does not appear to be any violation of copyright. A copy-vio check using Earwigs Copyvio Detector rated it unlikely with 18.0% confidence. Not ideal, but sufficient.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I cannot judge this section entirely just yet. It appears that the article covers the rule of Višeslav, though somewhat superficially, this may be due to a lack of available material. So I'll have a look and see if I can dig up more.There is a fair amount on the background, but, parts of it don't seem relevant (per GA1a). The legacy section looks to be the most well fleshed out part of the article so far. The infobox is also good.
  • I've struck most of my original comment, there's little to add in terms of Višeslav himself.
  • I can realistically make two suggestions on how the article could be expanded.
    • What about including in the background a small paragraph or two about the initial invasion of Slavs in the 6th century?
      • Would be relevant, since the Vlastimirovic dynasty is the first to rule in Serbia
    • What about the end of the dynasty, a small paragraph about the dynasty dying out in the 9th century(?) or would that be scope creep?
    • Is there anything about Charlemagne and Serbia? he had conquered Croatia around this time, might he have also had relations with the Serbs? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The article seems to stray a bit off-topic per GA1a, there's a fairly lengthy discussion of the territory of Serbia, while somewhat relevant to the topic, the naming of all places is a bit much. Will have to wait for the time being, I can assess it once the article is just about ready. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. The article is delivered in a mostly neutral manner. there is the rare weasel word but this should be dealt with once GA1a is cleared. It's neutral, great stability was meant to convey that the state was very stable, rather than somehow great for its stability. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The article is indeed in a stable condition. No editor's have been involved with the article at all since the GA/N and there does not appear to be any dispute currently or previously that has not been resolved.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. There are three images on the article, they have been tagged with the appropriate licences, one has an international share-alike attribution 4.0 license and the other two have been released into the public domain by their original owners.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The first image is of the ruler himself, clearly desirable in a biographical article. The second of the territory of Serbia in the following century, while not ideal, an eight century image might be better, it is perfectly suitable for the task. The third and final image is of what is likely the Serbian capital during Višeslav's rule, perfect both for subject matter and aesthetics.
7. Overall assessment. There is a fair amount of work left to be done before this article hits GA. Most can be completed in a timely manner, send me a message after you have you gotten through everything you can or ping me with any enquries. I'll try find some additional sources to try and expand the article regarding his life, though I expect limited success. The article fits the GA criteria and as such I am prepared to pass the article.

Above is my review of the article. As I noted in the Overall section, there is a fair bit that needs doing before this article can get to GA. Most of it shouldn't take to long, if there are any problems please ping me or put a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional Sources; I'll just dump in sources as I come across them that may help you too expand the article, I'll go through them first and see if there is anything worth adding.

  • Here is one secondary source from google books,[1]. I'm not sure how much access you have to sources, it's only one page, but if you could get a copy of the source, it may have something worthwhile in it.
  • if you have access, this source may be useful for the background of the Slavic invasion; "Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought: Fourth Series : The Making of the Slavs : History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c.500–700". If you don't have access to it, I can go through it and make a small couple paragraphs of any useful information I find.
  • That's all for now, I still need to go through and re-read the article in its current state. Will do that soon, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Ulwencreutz does not seem reliable. As for the Slavic settlement, doesn't that push the article further from its subject? There are some sources I could go through but I think that overall this is the best it can get. Thank you, I'll go through the last points in the next days.--Zoupan 03:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Added an annotation on Slavic settlement.--Zoupan 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I was worried about scope creep, so probably for the best not to extend the discussion further from Viseslav. Just ping me when you're ready for my final read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @Mr rnddude: What do you think about it's state now?--Zoupan 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Zoupan, It's very close to GA but the Lede still doesn't cover the main aspects of the article. It does indeed discuss Viseslav and the rule of the Byzantine empire but makes no mention of 1. How Viselsav ascended to rulership and 2. His legacy on Serbia (mostly that his sons continued to rule in his stead). Other than this, the article is quite nicely put together and I can pass it for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


End of Review Comments; The article now fits the requirements of the GA criteria. I'll be going through it later and cleaning up a couple very minor details that don't affect its status as a GA article. The coverage of the subject of the article may appear limited, this is because the subject himself is not generally greatly covered in literature, this has caused the scope to widen somewhat beyond just the subject to also encompass the neighbouring nations and peoples and the history of Serbia as a whole. A significant amount of work has been done to this article to bring it up to par, thanks for the efforts on the article Zoupan. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Višeslav of Serbia. 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) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

DAI

Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive revert. @Sadko: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Try again; this is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased personal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Same issue like at Talk:Narentines#DAI. Nobody WP:OWNs the article and article status does not imply that the article cannot be improved. The old revision was written from a Serbian historiographical POV only using selected sources as references. It was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE). If you don't like how it's done here you have Serbian Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
That is just your point of view. You do not understand what WP:UNDUE means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:STONEWALLING and lack of WP:ETIQUETTE and this style of comments will not change the fact that Budak is not an expert on early Serb medieval history, which Viseslav of Serbia is a part of. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
You're saying that the principalities of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, and even Duklja are not related to early Croatian medieval history? Only because Budak is a historian from Croatia he cannot be an expert on the history of Serbia? That Živković or other Serbian historians who wrote or touched on the history of Croatia by analyzing historical sources, depending on the scope of the individual scientific paper, is not an expert on Croatian history? That medievalist's studies of South Slavs, in general, don't make them an expert on a level of national history? You are completely out of touch with reality and studies on the region of former Yugoslavia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm "not saying" - I claim that he is not. Tibor Živković, on the other hand, was an expert for early Serbian history. I do not need a lecture, thank you, one quick look at Budak's bibliography shows that pretty much all of his titles are about Croats/Croatian etc. In order to be an expert you need to study the field, and he is studying Croatian history which is an entirely different field, regardless of the fact that there is some overlaping.
Another things, Budak has authored this little thing [2] - a work which is claiming that historian Fine (a source you use) is "writing from the position of yugonostalgia to negate Croatian history".
Your latest slur ("out of touch with reality"), which is in a poor taste, just like the intro. comment (and I doubt that any editor would have the courage to use such wording in RL, while I hold the same stance in RL and here), is just not worthy of a comment. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Besides making a WP:POINT revert @Amanuensis Balkanicus: still was not heard a single valid argument that the reliably sourced information cannot be kept and must be removed until is reached a consensus. This is nothing else but nationalistic WP:GAMING.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The part of the "Background" section dealing with Serbian migration and settlement according to DAI is written using only "Moravcsik 1967", which is a primary source (transl. of DAI) and as such obsolete, and "Fine 1991", which is an international secondary source which doesn't question DAI reliability like other international sources, including which was removed by Florin Curta, Neven Budak, Hrvoje Gračanin among others and even Serbian historian Relja Novaković in "Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka: Zaključak i rezime monografije" concluded that the Slavic population of Bosnia, Duklja and Raška was not the same as in DAIs unbaptized Serbia. This whole section is written from an extremely unbiased and Serbian point of view using only a selected few reliable sources. It fails by any NPOV standard of UNDUE and BALANCE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
As modern Croatian historian T. Vedriš wrote in 2015 chapter: In Serbian historiography, it has become customary to speak of Dalmatian sclavinas as parts of Serbia, and on this track newer authors write about the "unique structure of this vast state" (S. Ćirković), assuming the original unity of that area "inhabited by Serbian tribes" which would be only partially disintegrated by the middle of the 10th century. In contrast, Croatian co-historians often attributed to them belonging to the Croatian state. However, unilateral attempts to determine the ethnicity of these sclavinia often did not take into account the complexity and multi-layered identities the consideration which lead to the conclusion that in the early Middle Ages on the eastern Adriatic coast "Slavic population differentiated into more than two ethnogenetic cores" (N Budak) ("U srpskoj se historiografiji uvriježilo o dalmatinskim sklavinijama govoriti kao o dijelovima Srbije te na tome tragu i noviji autori pišu o »jedinstvenoj strukturi te ogromne državine« (S. Ćirković) pretpostavljajući izvorno jedinstvo tog prostora »naseljenog srpskim plemenom«koje bi se tek djelomično dezintegriralo do sredine 10. st. Nasuprot tome hrvatski supovjesničari često istima pripisivali pripadnost hrvatskoj državi. No pri jednostranim pokušajima da se utvrdi etnička pripadnost tih sklavinija, često se nije uzimalau obzir sva složenost i višeslojnost identiteta razmatranje kojih upućuje na zaključakda se u ranome srednjem vijeku na istočnoj jadranskoj obali »slavensko pučanstvodiferenciralo u više nego dvije etnogenetske jezgre« (N. Budak)").--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Textbook WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and last but not least WP:CHERRYPICKING.
What is this alleged "Serbian POV"? It seems like yet another unfounded labelling based on people's origin. According to the thinking laied out above, Serbian sources are "biased", but, oh wait, there are sources from Croatia (published by Matica Hrvatska) which are supposed to bring balance? Nice try.
What else is Relja Novakovic saying? Tha can't be all.
Moravcsik can't be a primary source, please read WP:PRIMARY.
You have just confirmed that one excellent historian and academic Sima Ćirković is claiming that those lands were Serbian. Excellent addition, thank you. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You're intentionally twisting what I said and quoted. Reliable sources mention Serbian POV. Every source is WP:BIASED but according to UNDUE is built BALANCE. Doesn't matter whether the reliable sources are Croatian, Serbian, English or else - all of them are used to bring balance. The old revision, and yourself, obviously don't want balance according to the Wikipedian editing policy. If you don't like it here go to Serbian Wikipedia. You're mistaking Moravcsik's translation of a primary source for a secondary source which would be this with Francis Dvornik's commentary. There's no Moravcsik's commentary and as such, it is not a secondary source (see other articles where's the source is even listed among primary and not secondary sources). Indeed, there's no point of citing old historian like Ćorović if newer like Ćirković are saying the same or similar thing. Novaković is arguing that the core of Serbian lands were principalities of Raška (more or less), Pagania, Zachlumia, and Travunia, but not Bosnia and Duklja.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. Dvornik, with whom agrees on Curta and the Croatian historiography, pg. 138–139: Even if we reject Gruber's theory, supported by Manojlović (ibid., XLIX), that Zachlumje actually became a part of Croatia, it should be emphasized that the Zachlumians had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not, as C. says (33/8-9), with the Serbs, but with the Croats; see below, on 33/18-19 ... This emendation throws new light on the origin of the Zachlumian dynasty and of the Zachlumi themselves. C.’s informant derived what he says about the country of Michael’s ancestors from a native source, probably from a member of the prince’s family; and the information is reliable. If this is so, we must regard the dynasty ofZachlumje and at any rate part of its people as neither Croat nor Serb, It seems more probable that Michael’s ancestor, together with his tribe, joined the Croats when they moved south; and settled on the Adriatic coast and the Narenta, leaving the Croats to push on into Dalmatia proper. It is true that our text says that the Zachlumi ‘have been Serbs since the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius’ (33/9-10); but it does not say that Michael’s family were Serbs, only that they ‘came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Visla, and are called (reading Litziki) “Poles’”. Michael’s own hostility to Serbia (cf. 32/86-90) suggests that his family was in fact not Serb; and that the Serbs had direct control only over Trebinje (see on 32/30). C.’s general claim that the Zachlumians were Serbs is, therefore, inaccurate; and indeed his later statements that the Terbouniotes (34/4—5), and even the Narentans (36/5-7), were Serbs and came with the Serbs, seem to conflict with what he has said earlier (32/18-20) on the Serb migration, which reached the new Serbia from the direction of Belgrade. He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day. But in fact, as has been shown in the case of the Zachlumians, these tribes were not properly speaking Serbs, and seem to have migrated not with the Serbs but with the Croats. The Serbs at an early date succeeded in extending their sovereignty over the Terbouniotes and, under prince Peter, for a short time over the Narentans (see on 32/67). The Diocleans, whom C. does not claim as Serbs, were too near to the Byzantine thema of Dyrrhachion for the Serbs to attempt their subjugation before C.’s time.
  2. Dvornik, pg. 141–142: The Narentan Slavs differed in many respects from the other Slavs of Dalmatia ... The Narentan system seems thus to have been similar to that of the Polabian Slavs. The Narentans were scarcely influenced by Croats or Serbs, and seem to have been settled on the coast before the latter entered Illyricum. For C.’s statement that the Pagani are ‘descended from the unbaptized Serbs’ (36/5-6), see on 33/18-19. It is obvious that the small retinue of the Serbian prince could not have populated Serbia, Zachlumia, Terbounia and Narenta.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Spamming the TP will not do anything well for the article nor your POV. We can conclude: 1) Serbian historians have a different POV then Croatian (Novakovic, Cirkovic, Corovic, Deretic etc). 2) You are ignoring Serbian historians completely. 3.1) You are using Croatian historians with controversial works (such as Budak) for the topic of Serbian history, which is not their area of expertise. 4) Only a small number of modern sources is discussing this issue. 5) This is major WP:SYNTH and mostly WP:CHERRYPICKING, while making a point on other articles, which will all be removed at one point, because you do need to work with other editor, whether do you like it or not. Other slurs "you can go to Serbian Wikipedia" are irrelevant, even less so, because Serbian Wikipedia is the most sucessfull Wiki on the Balkans, all in all, very poor manners fellow EU citizen, which is not how things should be on Wiki. 12:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
That reply was not constructive neither in good faith. Providing relevant quotes from reliable sources, with which you're obviously unfamiliar, is never spamming. It's common practice in disputes. I'm not ignoring the view of Serbian historians. There's nothing controverislal with cited Croatian historian's work and you're patronizing common history. There's no small number of reliable sources which are discussing the topic, as we are already having at least ten of them International (Dvornik, Curta, Fine), Croatian (Budak, Gračanin, Bilogrivić, Vedriš and so on), Serbian (Ćorović/Ćirković, Novaković, Komatina, Živković). All of them are experts in their field of work and highly reliable as authors. You're primarily dividing the authors inventing controversy where's none and dividing them by nationality rather than reputation or age. The only thing which has a SYNTH and CHERRYPICKING violation is an article written from this Serbian historiographical POV using a selected few sources and even Serbian sources contradict. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Other international scholars also consider them separate Slavic tribes and that DAI is a political document, which implies that it is the majority point of view alongside Croatian and partial Serbian historiography. The viewpoint of most of the Serbian historiography and very few of Croatian historiography (not cited or quoted because is not part of mainstream or modern Croatian scholarship POV) is a minority viewpoint. This article is clearly written by violating UNDUE, BALASP, FALSEBALANCE, BALANCE, SYNTH, and CHERRYPICKING - in short, multiple violations of the NPOV, OR and GAMING:

  1. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren Ein Steppenvolk In Mitteleuropa 567-822 N. Chr (2002), pg. 267: Die kroatische Ethongenese 267 auch im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert sehr darauf, die gewandelten Verhältnisse in den Balkanprovinzen wenigstens rechtlich zu ,normalisieren'." In den Grundzügen sehr ähnlich ist es, was Konstantin über die Ansiedlung einer Reihe weiterer slawischer Gentes auf dem westlichen Balkan mitteilt: Ser-ben, Zachlumi, Terbunioten, und Pagani." Wieder wird festgestellt, was für By-zanz wesentlich war: Es handelte sich um ursprünglich römische Provinzen; sie wurden von den awarischen Angriffen entvölkert; unter Herakleios teilten sich von den ungetauften Serben jenseits der Ungarn (oder, wie im Fall der Zachlumi, von den, Litzikil an der Visla/Weichsel) Gruppen ab, unterstellten sich dem Kaiser Herakleios und wurden von ihm in der verlassenen Provinz angesiedelt ... Was Konstantin sonst über die Ansiedlung der Serben berichtet, ist eher aus byzantinischer Perspektive geschildert ... Diese teleologisch-staatspolitische Deutung der Ansiedlung von Kronen, Serben und anderen auf Reichsboden steht in der Schilderung Konstantins im Vordergrund — ,De administrando imperio' ist eben keine bloß aus der Liebe zur Gelehrsamkeit entstandene Chronik, sondern hat vor allem eine praktisch-politi-...
  2. Henrik Birnbaum, Aspects of the Slavic Middle Ages and Slavic Renaissance Culture (1991), pg. 10: writing in the mid-tenth century, in his famous work, De administrando imperio, still singles out a number of individual Slavic tribes in addition to the ethnically controversial Serbs and Croats ... but, in addition, he also singles out the Croats, the Serbs, and further the Zachlumites or Zachlumi, the Terbouniotes, the Kanalites, Diocletians, as well as the Arentani or Pagani ... in all likelihood did not actually emerge, as previously indicated until the various smaller Slavic entities had arrived and at least temporarily settled in the the Balkans
  3. Danijel Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (2010), pg. 115: This chapter was a master-narrative for the following chapters 32-36 as it repeated two basic facts: Dalmatia, and in wider sense Illyricum, was Byzantine land where the Croats and Serbs, and all other Slavic peoples in the region related or unrelated to them (Zachlumi, Terbounites, Kanalites, Diocleans and Arentani), settled with the permission of the Byzantine emperor, and acknowledged his power. It was a diplomatic blueprint for Byzantine diplomacy in the region, as Margetić saw it.
  4. Georgios Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 6th-9th Century AD (2018), pg. 96: The Serbs... Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani), who occupied portions close to the Adriatic coast, particularly in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro.54 Except the Diocletians, all these tribes are said to be Serbian, which implies that the actual area of Serbian settlement was even larger.55 ... *55 Ferluga 1984, 50; Ferjancić 1995, 153-154; Živković 2010a, 22-23; idem 2010b, 121; Reservations on this view; Jenkins 1962, 139, 142; Pohl 1988a, 268; Budak 1990, 131-133 ... The dependence upon Constantinople of the two peoples and the other mentioned tribes in the Balkans59 has been rightly dispute, mainly because of the ideological background and the political purpose of the information recorded by the Byzantine Empire... *59 DAI, 29, 124: Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concering the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Arentani, who are also called Pagani [they were subject to the emperor of the Romans]; ibidem, 30-36, 138-164; Belke and Soustal 1995, 145, 168, 173, 178-182.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History (1994), pg. 12: As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats – or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule – in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. The article's section is complete SYNTH and CHERRYPICKING as is misinterpreting even John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (1983/1991), which cannot be considered as a source advocating the point of view of the Serbian historiography, per pg. 53, 57: They were then given land to settle on in what is now Serbia (i.e., the region of the Lim and Piva rivers), Pagania (the lower Neretva), Zahumlje, Trebinje, and Konavli, regions which had been made desolate by the Avars. Constantine makes no mention of Serbs fighting the Avars and there is no evidence that the Serbs did fight them, even though the Avars had previously directly controlled at least part of this territory. In these territories listed as Serbian Constantine informs us that the emperor settled the Serbs here and they were subject to the emperor and thus imperial power was restored here. This last remark can be taken as a convenient fiction ... Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia, Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli. This situates some of them in the southern part of the Dalmatian coast. The Croats were settled in Croatia, Dalmatia, and western Bosnia. The rest of Bosnia seems to have been a territory between Serb and Croatian rule. In time, though, Bosnia came to form a unit under a ruler calling himself Bosnian. Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may be an artificial issue ... The Croats and Serbs seem to have been relatively few in number, but as warrior horsemen fighting against disunited small tribal groups of Slavs on foot, they were greatly superior militarily. They arrived, expelled the Avars, and then, as tough, tightly knit groups of warriors, were able to dominate the disorganized Slavic tribes. They were able to provide a ruling class and be a source of unity for the different Slavic groups. Soon the newcomers came to provide a general name for all the people (the majority of whom were Slavs) under them. But they did not establish a single Serbian or a single Croatian state but several different smaller states (e.g., Zahumlje, Trebinje, Konavli, etc.)
  7. And in similar fashion Peter Heather in Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (2009), pg. 404–406, 424–425 states: According to one source, the north-west Balkans saw a further distinct wave of Slavic settlement. The Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porpyryogenitus records that a first wave of undifferentiated Slavs originally settled in the lands now largely divided between Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia as Avar subjects, at the time when Avar rule was establishing itself in central Europe (from c.560 onwards). They were followed somewhat later, but still in the time of Herclius (610-41), by two, more-organized, Slavic groupings - the Serbs and Croats - who arrived from the north to expel most of the Avars from the region (causing the others to submit) and establish their own rule instead, over Serbia and Dalmatia respectively ... The stories are famous, but it is difficult to know what to make of them. Serb and Croat nationalists have long cherished them as the origin stories of their 'peoples', arriving as fully formed units in the Balkans landscape. The problems they pose, however, are obvious. By virtue of being unique, they lack corroboration. They also occur in a comparatively late source, the De Administrando being a mid-tentch-century text, and their telling has a distinctly legendary tone: the Croats are led south by a family of five brothers. Not surprisingly, they have often been rejected outright ... But if this much is plausible, the seventh-century Serbs and Croats were not whole peoples responsible for the complete repopulation of these parts of the Balkans ... It is also unclear whether their [Serbs and Croats] arrival represented a further major wave of Slavic immigration into the north-western Balkans, or whether they functioned essentially as an organizing element for Slavic groups already present there but formerly subject to Avar domination. If the latter, this would make them not unlike the Bulgars of the Eastern Balkans ... Serbs and Croats might represent yet a third type of migrant group caught up in the Slavic diaspora of the sixth and seventh centuries. There is obviously a huge margin for error built into the tenth-century traditions retold by Constantine Porphyryogenitus, but it there is any truth to them at all, the Serbs and Croats were breakaways from the Avar Empire.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Original research, out of context and information for Duklja article

  • According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosnia, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja which was held by the Byzantine empire though it was presumably settled with Serbs as well.
  • Bold information do not exist in the John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. source, in DAI context (see source page 53) ("Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia, Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli.") And this information is according to DAI. Comment or observation of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. for Duklja is not from DAI, it is his personal view ("Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may be an artificial issue.")
  • Given that this information is disputed in historiography we cannot use this article to present all information's about Duklja for NPOV because there is no consensus here(Duklja issue). Serbian Historian Relja Novaković ("Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja".)
  • @Theonewithreason: In any case this is OR information, and as such in the context of DAI cannot be in the article. Everything is clearly explained. Mikola22 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree this information exists in Fine on page 202. chapter on Duklja where Fine in details writes on Duklja and says : "The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro ..." after that he goes about history of Duklja. therefore it cannot be just an opinion but a information which Fine confirms. Since this is a GA article I wish an opinion from senior neutral editors and admins. And consensus. Theonewithreason (talk). 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Fully agreed with fellow editor Theonewithreason. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Guys, I know you'd love that Duklja is according to DAI setled by Serbs. But DAI do not talk about that. John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. "Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja" . This information which you want to include in the article is his view as a historian and this view of his did not replace historical document from the 10th century. The fact remains that according to DAI Serbs do not setled Duklja and in article writes "According to the DAI...The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included.."land" of Duklja" fact. This information is WP:OR but also WP:FRINGE because there is no information in the sources which say that "According to the DAI Serb-inhabited land is and Duklja". Please start working as editors in good faith and not give yourself support in supporting FRINGE information. Mikola22 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Mikola22, Sadko can you tell me what chapter (page number and edition) of the DAI is being referred to and I can look it up in the text and we can see what exactly the emperor says, unfiltered by these layers of translated historiographical Balkanization. GPinkerton (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Gyula Moravcsik, (1967) "Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio", page 163.[3] Mikola22 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sadko: this information that Mikola22 tried to remove today is from Fine and Novakovic not from DAI, Fine confirms it on pg. 202 and 225 (early medieval Balkan)Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: Quote information "that according to DAI Serb setled Duklja". This information does not exist in DAI nor in the sources which you mention. It is [WP:OR]] and WP:FRINGE. If you do not provide evidence this information goes out of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I provided it above, you need only to read it. "The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro ..." there is also another quote on pg 225, I even wrote in which book from Fine. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: I didn't ask you for that information, but this information "According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned included..Duklja". Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop gaming the system since the quote in article is connected with Fine. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I ask you to quote me information from the article which is allegedly in the source. "According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned included..Duklja". First it is WP:OR because it is not mentioned in the source, second it is WP:FRINGE information because that information does not exist in any source including primary source DAI. Fring information is also confirmed by a neutral editor on FTN. Please stop promoting fringe information. Delete fringe information from the article or I'll have to do it for you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If you remove this information I will post the one from Fine also the same information is in Curta, since it is obvious that you do not understand what WP:OR is and I know that you only interest is to delete information, also you do not have concensus -it means you are again WP:BLUDGEON the system. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Therefore there is no such evidence in any book nor you have quoted any information from any book as prove. The point is clear. You must not promote fringe information. Mikola22 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I provided 2 times already and here is another one from Fine (Early Medieval Balkan pg.225) "In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia" so what is the point of further discussing, information exists.Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Major WP:BLUDGEON and stonewalling here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadko, I agree. The section above provides ample evidence that the assumption that these areas or polities were "Serbian" is fringe and not mainstream academic consensus (outside Serbia). A simple look at the primary and secondary sources quickly verifies this. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I see no evidence for that, only a general comment, which is of course okay, as it seems that we have no consensus here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadko, I'm saying that I think the litany of sources by the Miki Filigranski account in the section above unassailable in their unanimity that: 1.) there is no evidence the "Diocletians" mentioned by Constantine VII were Serbs/Serbian 2.) there is/was/has been a tendency among Serbian historians to inflate the size and relevance of Serbs/Serbia in the mediaeval western Balkans. I concur with Mikola22 that Fine does not justify this view. I have already fixed some errors in the references (the standard translation is not Moravcsik; that was the editor of the Greek text and Romilly Jenkins was responsible for the translation and several others for the Commentary which goes with it and which is still the standard work and not to be dismissed on the basis of less well recognized, non-English language sources susceptible to national biases. GPinkerton (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sadko: and @GPinkerton: Fine is international historical expert on Balkan history, I provided 2 quotes from his book so I disagree that this is only a Serbian point of view, agree with Sadko that we dont have a consensus now, also Miki Filigranski is indefinitely blocked. One view from Fine other from Novakovic since the population of Dioclea is matter of different view among historians, we have now a balanced view in article, in a way I can also agree with GPinkerton with their edits and that the text in article should not be dismissed Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Theonewithreason, I am saying that the original text in the article should be dismissed and replaced with text that closer follows the sources. The pagination in the reference to the DAI is incorrect and needs rectifying. GPinkerton (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton and Sadko We can replace with Fine and Curta both are international medieval historians and keep Novakovic for balancing. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Theonewithreason, I am afraid the Fine source is being misused; Fine is not stating that the Diocletians were Serbian or Serbs, and the best sources say that such a an identification is unsubstantiated, at best. GPinkerton (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I cannot agree on that, if you wish I can give you the book, he actually says that, even Novakovic as can been seen doesn't specifically negates that. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Theonewithreason I have the book. No part of it quoted so far supports the view as far as I can see; rather Fine says that the inhabitants and immigrants were, as in the rest of the western Balkans, "Slavs", and in some parts the ruling elite were Croats and in others Serbs. GPinkerton (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In Early medieval Balkans from Fine he says: ""The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro" pg 202 and on page 225. ""In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia" Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Theonewithreason, that's what I mean. Fine doesn't say Constantine VII is correct (about anything) and doesn't equate the "Diocletians" with Serbs (or Croats) and doesn't say Constantine does so either. Serbs living in a place does not make the country or its "Diocletian" inhabitants Serbian. A place having a Serbian ruler in the 10th century does not make it or its inhabitants Serbian in the 7th century (a time Constantine is writing about and for which he had little evidence, often using "the country was uninhabited" and "in the time of emperor Heraclius" to describe anachronistic events or conjectures invented to fill gaps in the then-available Byzantine records), or in the 10th century (when Constantine himself is writing and when for reasons of political control it was convenient to describe Dioclea as under Serbian influence). GPinkerton (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
There is much of discussion among historians which parts of Balkans did Serbs inhabited after being send of from Byzantine emperor, he did send them to desolate parts among them Dioclea, Fine doesnt negates that, there are also Frankish annales that speak that Serbs inhabited a large part of (Roman province of Dalmatia) which Dioclea would be also a part, the history of Dioclea was always narrowly connected with Serbia, being also mentioned by some authors like Christopher Boehm mentioning that the earliest settlers were Serbs meaning when Slavs came to Balkan Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Theonewithreason, No, the consensus is that the stories which follow the format of "in the time of Heraclius x people was settled in y land, which for z many years had been uninhabited" are fictions concocted to explain 10th-century political realities in anachronistic terms used by all the urbane Greek historians following Thucydides but without Constantine VII having a very accurate idea of anything that actually happened in the remote past. This is why the Croats and Serbs are called "Scythians" and so on. Peter Heather says as much in relation to the Avars in the source quoted on this page. GPinkerton (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus.@Sadko, Theonewithreason, and GPinkerton: There can be no consensus because it is fringe and OR information. Then we could promote in every article that Serbs acording to DAI setled Duklja, if we have a consensus. None of the RS speak about that(therefore it is fringe information). When John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. speak about Duklja he says personally who lives in Duklja according to him and 11th century information but not in the context of DAI("Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea"), In the article can be no information according to DAI because this information does not even exist in his source. Serbian historian Relja Novaković: ("For the period after the tenth century, mostly everyone calls them Dukljani and Serbs, but for Dukljani in the time of Porphyrogenitus, we cannot categorically claim that they belonged to the Serbs ethnic group, but we also cannot claim that they are not. Simply about them at the time we know nothing reliable" (1981, page 63, book "Где се налазила Србија од VII до XII века..Where Serbia was from the 7th to the 12th century"). Even if exist historical evidence that Serbs lived in Duklja in the 9th or 10th century this still has nothing to do with the historical record DAI and fact "according to DAI" because DAI doesn’t say that. Information of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. may be part of Duklja article but also not in the DAI context. Mikola22 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Duklja in article is not mentioned "according to DAI" but separate with sources connected with Fine and Novakovic.Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included.."land" of Duklja". Where, in which historical source are mentioned other Serb-inhabited lands ( Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and Duklja)? Mikola22 (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Mikola22, all these "nations" are mentioned in the DAI; they are not described as "Serbian" in that source, but as "Slavs". GPinkerton (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija are mentioned in DAI with information that they are of Serbian origin. Part of historiography uses this information for claim that they are originally Serbian tribes. But in DAI for Duklja it is not said that. Mikola22 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Mikola22, exactly. It is known that in the 8th century, Peter of Diokleia existed and issued Greek seals in the Byzantine tradition describing himself as archon. The "evidence" provided by the DAI is anachronistic and internally contradictory, and it cannot be argued that it proves anything about who these people really were or where they came from (if anyone actually knew), even if Constantine really did say the Diocletians were Serbians, which he does not. GPinkerton (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton This is why the fact "according to DAI" is used because only in DAI for Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija Constantine VII say that they are of Serbian origin. Some want include Duklja in this fact with OR claim and with POV pushing make that and Duklja is settled by Serbs according to DAI. But it has nothing to do with DAI. What you are talking about is the material for Duklja's article and the opinion of various historians on the subject, this also applies to John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. claims. I also agree with you that it is anachronistic and internally contradictory also and for Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija tribes and this is also stated(historians) in articles obouth them. Mikola22 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That is why we have both of the spectrum covered per NPOV there historians who say there are part the other one not. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion reload

  • The discussion has become inaccessible for editors who aren't already involved. @GPinkerton: has put forward some solid arguments. De Administrando Imperio is a 10th century work. It shouldn't be cited directly (WP:PRIMARY) and its translator Moravcsik (1949) shouldn't be cited as an author. WP:PRIMARY is not an arbitrary policy made up by wikipedia. Its a reflection of the fact that medieval works are inherently unreliable because they are written in a specific historical-political context, for a specific audience and purpose. This doesn't minimize their value, but it means that they have to be accessed via reliable, secondary sources which contextualize their content.
  • The first contested section is According to DAI (..) The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija.[1] I think that this part has to be removed, because it directly cites DAI. Contemporary historiography has evaluated DAI in a very different manner (Narentines#Historiography) As a community we have discussed the many problems which direct use of DAI presents (Talk:Serbia#De Administrando Imperio - use of DAI for the support of a fringe theory that Serbs first settled around modern Thessaloniki, Greece) and have collectively decided every time that it has to be accessed via secondary sources.
  • @Theonewithreason: has written that Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja. which he links to Fine. The citation is Novaković (2010)[1981]. Fine (1991) writes: Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its border, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may an artificial issue. The mass of Slavs who had settled over most of what is now Yugoslavia during the preceding decades were one people. The Serbs and Croats whom Constantine mentions were a second migration of a different people who do not seem to have been particularly numerous. In his discussion, Constantine describes which element emerged as the ruling one over which particular territories. Thus by the end of the seventh century (..) some of these Slaveni were ruled by a Croatian military aristocracy and some by a Serbian one. Thus, in this time period a discussion about separate ethnic identities and the "origins" of the Slavs of Duklja predates the emergence of ethnic/national identities and should be removed. The article probably shouldn't discuss these subjects at all as they are out of its scope.

References

  1. ^ Moravcsik 1967, pp. 153–155.
Since you pinged me, I must write that your suggestion are not in good faith because you are removing a lots what made GA article, your suggestion to remove the part about Paganija, Zahumlje and Travunija just because is mentioned by Moravscik therefore WP:Primary can be replaced with other RS like Zivkovic, the quotes about Dioklea are cherrypicked but not all what Fine says, I already posted 2 other quotes from his book Early Medieval Balkan The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro pg 202 and on page 225. In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia [[4]] not to mention that this article was long time WP:STABLE and has GA article removing so much will disrupt its balance, please offer another solution. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Maleschreiber, Gyula Moravcsik is not the translator but the editor of the Greek text, and it is the standard edition. The translator was Romilly Jenkins. Neither is the most recent edition 1949, but rather the 1967 edition. No work has superseded the commentary, which is secondary and not primary. I agree that much of the arguments over ethnicity and are irrelevant, or only relevant to those that believe it important that modern Montenegro was long inhabited by Serbians ...
    I have not said the DAI should not be cited, though I think that it should only be used (and quoted from) specifically and only when reference is made to it by secondary sources. In this case, almost the entirety of what the text says about Višeslav, could be quoted, not least because it is the only source to mention him and mentions him only briefly. GPinkerton (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • GPinkerton Agreed, and thanks for clarifying the editor/translator roles. Much of the debate about "national narratives" seems to be generated by the background section. We could trim that to a section that provides context about the article's subject without discussing contemporary talking points. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Khirurg: if they have time for a comment.Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro. You see there is no mention of the DAI anywhere, he himself says that in the source. He as historian has to right make own conclusion, but that conclusion is for the article about Duklja where various opinions and historians have conclusions and theses. What we do know is that before 10th century we have no mentions of Serbs in Duklja. And what is most important Serbs do not setled Duklja according to DAI. Mikola22 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This quote from a recent work (2014) of Serbian historian Predrag Komatina might provide some additional context for further discussion on the subject: The fact is that the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus does not point out that Diocletians were Serbs in the 35th chapter of the De administrando imperio, contrary to what he says concerning other tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast – Zachlumi, Trebouniotes and Kanalites and Pagani (Arentani), as well as that he does not mention Diocleia in the 32nd chapter among the countries settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, but only „what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites.“ Because of that it remained unclear whether he considered them Serbs or not. Based on the analysis of different segments of his narrative on South Slavs of Dalmatia in the chapters 29–36 of the DAI, we could reach the answer to that question. At first, Porphyrogenitus divides South Slav Dalmatia primarily into Croatia and Serbia. Regarding that division, Diocleia was part of Serbia. When he relates the earliest history of the South Slavs of Dalmatia, he knows only of Croats and Serbs. Even when he emphasises their division into Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes and Kanalites, Diocletians and Pagani, the division into Croats and Serbs was primary to him. In that context also Diocletians belonged to the Serbs. Porphyrogenitus does not record Serb origin of Diocletians in the 35th chapter because he did not mention Diocleia among the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled Serbs in the 32ndchapter. However, the omission of Diocleia in the list of the countries settled by the Serbs at that point is not a prove that he was aware that they were not Serbs. At that point he just failed to follow strictly to his principle of listing countries and peoples in detail, to which he usually follows at other places in his works. Finally, even though he does not mention Diocleia by name listing the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled the Serbs in the 32nd chapter, he nevertheless bears it in mind at that place also. That is attested by the information that those were the countries from which the Avars had previously expelled the Romani, who in Porphyrogenitus’ times lived in the theme of Dalmatia and the theme of Dyrrachium. That is the only place in the whole of the DAI that the emperor-author mentions the Romani in the theme of Dyrrachium and he does that exactly because he believed that they originated from the territories settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, the territories which in every sense must have encompassed Diocleia, which lied in the immediate vicinity. Sorabino (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sorabino: You cannot add sources of various historians which express an opinion obouth Duklja issue for suporting fringe information that "according to DAI Serbs setled Duklja". Where Predrag Komatina says that "according to DAI serbs setled Duklja" show me. These are all information's for the article about Duklja. What does some opinion about Duklja have to do with DAI or Višeslav of Serbia article? There is no point in discussing this at all, because those are information's for article about Duklja but historian Relja Novaković say this ("For the period after the tenth century, mostly everyone calls them Dukljani and Serbs, but for Dukljans in the time of Porphyrogenitus, we cannot categorically claim that they belonged to the Serbs ethnic group, but we also cannot claim that they are not. Simply about them at the time we know nothing reliable". page 61), John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. "Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja", Predrag Komatina: ("The article discusses the issue of ethnic identity of the Diocletians referred to by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his work De administrando imperio. Of all the tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, only for them the emperor fails to point out that they belonged to the Serbs"). Mikola22 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: a year passed and NPOV & BALANCE is lost. With recent edits, without valid substantiation, were removed historiographical sources and replaced only with those arguing pro-Serbian national narrative, Kardaras at least mentions opposing viewpoint in the notes, Fine is still misused, source by Morozova is not historiographical nor relevant anyhow, was also reinstated the old erroneous map for 814 AD for which we have an updated version and so on. I agree with Maleschreiber, we should trim the contested part from the Background section. Same thing happened at article about Vlastimir. Do you agree to start a RfC or dispute resolution so we can reach a clear consensus which will be implemented on all articles? Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Hey, hope you're well. I'm well aware that sources which I've used many times have been misused. I really don't have the required free time to be fully engaged in any discussion, but you should start a discussion at RfC and notify one of the relevant wikiprojects about medieval history because the article should go through a GA review.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Maleschreiber: I had Covid this month, but I'm fine now, thanks. How are you? Will do it today. Indeed, this section wouldn't pass the GA review. Due to recent dealing with Theonewithreason on Zachlumia (and report) because of the same issues, am also pinging @Santasa99:.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Little time, lots of wiki-issues at the moment. Yes, editor in question tend to misinterpret sources or cherry-pick those in support of their stance. I was unable to resolve that issue, as you noticed. No idea how to approach, but if you have something on your mind, I would be able to chip in some thoughts, few words at the time, closely following developments.--౪ Santa ౪99° 20:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on DAI and NPOV

Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Is there any and what valid reason per WP:NPOV to exclude from citation Croatian and other international sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This and related articles have experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove certain sources and scholarly viewpoints which exhibit more or less critical evaluation of information and reliability of De Administrando Imperio (DAI) as a historical source - specifically on chapters 30-36 about the Croats, Serbs, Zachlumians, Travunijans and Kanalites, Dukljans, Narentines. The one scholarly viewpoint, represented mainly by some modern Serbian historians, repeats and takes for granted as factual the information that the people of Zachlumians, Travunijans-Kanalites, and Narentines are of Serb ethnic origin since the 7th century, adding to them even Dukljans for which there's no information on Serb origin in DAI. The other scholarly viewpoint, represented mainly by some modern international and Croatian historians, rejects such claims because modern ethnic and national identities don't correspond to those in the early medieval period, don't refer to the ethnicity but political identity and context, not of the 7th but 10th century, not of the common people but the elite and so on.

There have been numerous discussions, usually long and tiring, with some consensus. It would be helpful to have a solid consensus on the scholarly viewpoint on DAI's reliability and information (WP:WEIGHT) to point to when editors edit information related to DAI chapters on Croats, Serbs, and others. To make such an assessment easier and possible below is a list of historiographical references with quotes and those in Serbo-Croatian translated to English. Before commenting it is expected to read them and be familiar with WP:RFC, WP:VOICE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:ETHNO among other policies and essays.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC ended and restarted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

International historiography

  1. Francis Dvornik, De Administrando Imperio: Volume II. Commentary (1962), pg. 138–139: Even if we reject Gruber's theory, supported by Manojlović (ibid., XLIX), that Zachlumje actually became a part of Croatia, it should be emphasized that the Zachlumians had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not, as C. says (33/8-9), with the Serbs, but with the Croats; see below, on 33/18-19 ... This emendation throws new light on the origin of the Zachlumian dynasty and of the Zachlumi themselves. C.’s informant derived what he says about the country of Michael’s ancestors from a native source, probably from a member of the prince’s family; and the information is reliable. If this is so, we must regard the dynasty ofZachlumje and at any rate part of its people as neither Croat nor Serb, It seems more probable that Michael’s ancestor, together with his tribe, joined the Croats when they moved south; and settled on the Adriatic coast and the Narenta, leaving the Croats to push on into Dalmatia proper. It is true that our text says that the Zachlumi ‘have been Serbs since the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius’ (33/9-10); but it does not say that Michael’s family were Serbs, only that they ‘came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Visla, and are called (reading Litziki) “Poles’”. Michael’s own hostility to Serbia (cf. 32/86-90) suggests that his family was in fact not Serb; and that the Serbs had direct control only over Trebinje (see on 32/30). C.’s general claim that the Zachlumians were Serbs is, therefore, inaccurate; and indeed his later statements that the Terbouniotes (34/4—5), and even the Narentans (36/5-7), were Serbs and came with the Serbs, seem to conflict with what he has said earlier (32/18-20) on the Serb migration, which reached the new Serbia from the direction of Belgrade. He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day. But in fact, as has been shown in the case of the Zachlumians, these tribes were not properly speaking Serbs, and seem to have migrated not with the Serbs but with the Croats. The Serbs at an early date succeeded in extending their sovereignty over the Terbouniotes and, under prince Peter, for a short time over the Narentans (see on 32/67). The Diocleans, whom C. does not claim as Serbs, were too near to the Byzantine thema of Dyrrhachion for the Serbs to attempt their subjugation before C.’s time. pg. 141–142: The Narentan Slavs differed in many respects from the other Slavs of Dalmatia ... The Narentan system seems thus to have been similar to that of the Polabian Slavs. The Narentans were scarcely influenced by Croats or Serbs, and seem to have been settled on the coast before the latter entered Illyricum. For C.’s statement that the Pagani are ‘descended from the unbaptized Serbs’ (36/5-6), see on 33/18-19. It is obvious that the small retinue of the Serbian prince could not have populated Serbia, Zachlumia, Terbounia and Narenta. – Although published 60 years ago it is "Still valuable introductory study and extensive comments (written by the then very prominent Byzantologists, F. Dvornik, R. J. H Jenkin, G. Moravcsik, D. Obolenski and S. Runciman and Orientalist B. Lewis) that facilitate the use of the text are provided by the publication" (Ančić 2011).
  2. Dvornik, Byzantine missions among the Slavs (1970), p. 26: Constantine regards all Slavic tribes in ancient Praevalis and Epirus—the Zachlumians, Tribunians, Diodetians, Narentans— as Serbs. This is not exact. Even these tribes were liberated from the Avars by the Croats who lived among them. Only later, thanks to the expansion of the Serbs, did they recognize their supremacy and come to be called Serbians.
  3. Henrik Birnbaum, Aspects of the Slavic Middle Ages and Slavic Renaissance Culture (1991), pg. 10: writing in the mid-tenth century, in his famous work, De administrando imperio, still singles out a number of individual Slavic tribes in addition to the ethnically controversial Serbs and Croats ... but, in addition, he also singles out the Croats, the Serbs, and further the Zachlumites or Zachlumi, the Terbouniotes, the Kanalites, Diocletians, as well as the Arentani or Pagani ... in all likelihood did not actually emerge, as previously indicated until the various smaller Slavic entities had arrived and at least temporarily settled in the the Balkans
  4. Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History (1994), pg. 12: As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats – or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule – in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia
  5. John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (1983/1991), pg. 53, 57: They were then given land to settle on in what is now Serbia (i.e., the region of the Lim and Piva rivers), Pagania (the lower Neretva), Zahumlje, Trebinje, and Konavli, regions which had been made desolate by the Avars. Constantine makes no mention of Serbs fighting the Avars and there is no evidence that the Serbs did fight them, even though the Avars had previously directly controlled at least part of this territory. In these territories listed as Serbian Constantine informs us that the emperor settled the Serbs here and they were subject to the emperor and thus imperial power was restored here. This last remark can be taken as a convenient fiction ... Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia, Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli. This situates some of them in the southern part of the Dalmatian coast. The Croats were settled in Croatia, Dalmatia, and western Bosnia. The rest of Bosnia seems to have been a territory between Serb and Croatian rule. In time, though, Bosnia came to form a unit under a ruler calling himself Bosnian. Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may be an artificial issue ... The Croats and Serbs seem to have been relatively few in number, but as warrior horsemen fighting against disunited small tribal groups of Slavs on foot, they were greatly superior militarily. They arrived, expelled the Avars, and then, as tough, tightly knit groups of warriors, were able to dominate the disorganized Slavic tribes. They were able to provide a ruling class and be a source of unity for the different Slavic groups. Soon the newcomers came to provide a general name for all the people (the majority of whom were Slavs) under them. But they did not establish a single Serbian or a single Croatian state but several different smaller states (e.g., Zahumlje, Trebinje, Konavli, etc.)
  6. Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025 (1993), p. 263 "The Croats and Serbs have also been seen as rebels who broke away from the Avars to set up their own states in the 620s with the blessing of Emperor Heraklios. But the only evidence is an anachronistic story preserved in De Administrando Imperio which seems to have been invented in the late 9th or early 10th century to give historical precedent to current Byzantine policies."
  7. Walter Pohl, Die Awaren Ein Steppenvolk In Mitteleuropa 567-822 N. Chr (2002), pg. 267: Die kroatische Ethongenese 267 auch im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert sehr darauf, die gewandelten Verhältnisse in den Balkanprovinzen wenigstens rechtlich zu ,normalisieren'." In den Grundzügen sehr ähnlich ist es, was Konstantin über die Ansiedlung einer Reihe weiterer slawischer Gentes auf dem westlichen Balkan mitteilt: Ser-ben, Zachlumi, Terbunioten, und Pagani." Wieder wird festgestellt, was für By-zanz wesentlich war: Es handelte sich um ursprünglich römische Provinzen; sie wurden von den awarischen Angriffen entvölkert; unter Herakleios teilten sich von den ungetauften Serben jenseits der Ungarn (oder, wie im Fall der Zachlumi, von den, Litzikil an der Visla/Weichsel) Gruppen ab, unterstellten sich dem Kaiser Herakleios und wurden von ihm in der verlassenen Provinz angesiedelt ... Was Konstantin sonst über die Ansiedlung der Serben berichtet, ist eher aus byzantinischer Perspektive geschildert ... Diese teleologisch-staatspolitische Deutung der Ansiedlung von Kronen, Serben und anderen auf Reichsboden steht in der Schilderung Konstantins im Vordergrund — ,De administrando imperio' ist eben keine bloß aus der Liebe zur Gelehrsamkeit entstandene Chronik, sondern hat vor allem eine praktisch-politische dimension...
  8. Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250, p. 210: According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast.
  9. Peter Heather, Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (2009), pg. 404–406, 424–425 states: According to one source, the north-west Balkans saw a further distinct wave of Slavic settlement. The Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porpyryogenitus records that a first wave of undifferentiated Slavs originally settled in the lands now largely divided between Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia as Avar subjects, at the time when Avar rule was establishing itself in central Europe (from c.560 onwards). They were followed somewhat later, but still in the time of Herclius (610-41), by two, more-organized, Slavic groupings - the Serbs and Croats - who arrived from the north to expel most of the Avars from the region (causing the others to submit) and establish their own rule instead, over Serbia and Dalmatia respectively ... The stories are famous, but it is difficult to know what to make of them. Serb and Croat nationalists have long cherished them as the origin stories of their 'peoples', arriving as fully formed units in the Balkans landscape. The problems they pose, however, are obvious. By virtue of being unique, they lack corroboration. They also occur in a comparatively late source, the De Administrando being a mid-tentch-century text, and their telling has a distinctly legendary tone: the Croats are led south by a family of five brothers. Not surprisingly, they have often been rejected outright ... But if this much is plausible, the seventh-century Serbs and Croats were not whole peoples responsible for the complete repopulation of these parts of the Balkans ... It is also unclear whether their [Serbs and Croats] arrival represented a further major wave of Slavic immigration into the north-western Balkans, or whether they functioned essentially as an organizing element for Slavic groups already present there but formerly subject to Avar domination. If the latter, this would make them not unlike the Bulgars of the Eastern Balkans ... Serbs and Croats might represent yet a third type of migrant group caught up in the Slavic diaspora of the sixth and seventh centuries. There is obviously a huge margin for error built into the tenth-century traditions retold by Constantine Porphyryogenitus, but it there is any truth to them at all, the Serbs and Croats were breakaways from the Avar Empire.
  10. Danijel Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (2010), pg. 115: This chapter was a master-narrative for the following chapters 32-36 as it repeated two basic facts: Dalmatia, and in wider sense Illyricum, was Byzantine land where the Croats and Serbs, and all other Slavic peoples in the region related or unrelated to them (Zachlumi, Terbounites, Kanalites, Diocleans and Arentani), settled with the permission of the Byzantine emperor, and acknowledged his power. It was a diplomatic blueprint for Byzantine diplomacy in the region, as Margetić saw it.
  11. Georgios Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 6th-9th Century AD (2018), pg. 96: The Serbs... Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani), who occupied portions close to the Adriatic coast, particularly in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro.54 Except the Diocletians, all these tribes are said to be Serbian, which implies that the actual area of Serbian settlement was even larger.55 ... *55 Ferluga 1984, 50; Ferjancić 1995, 153-154; Živković 2010a, 22-23; idem 2010b, 121; Reservations on this view; Jenkins 1962, 139, 142; Pohl 1988a, 268; Budak 1990, 131-133 ... The dependence upon Constantinople of the two peoples and the other mentioned tribes in the Balkans59 has been rightly dispute, mainly because of the ideological background and the political purpose of the information recorded by the Byzantine Empire... *59 DAI, 29, 124: Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concering the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Arentani, who are also called Pagani [they were subject to the emperor of the Romans]; ibidem, 30-36, 138-164; Belke and Soustal 1995, 145, 168, 173, 178-182.

Croatian historiography

  1. Neven Budak, Prva stoljeća Hrvatske (1994), pp. 58–61: The main difficulty in noticing the ethnic diversity of the Slavs along the Adriatic coast was the interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, according to whom the Neretvans (Pagans), Zahumljani, Travunjani and Konavljani were by origin Serbs. At the same time, the emperor consistently left out the people of Duklja from this Serbian community of peoples. However, it seems obvious that the emperor does not want to talk about the real ethnic connection, but that he has before his eyes political relations at the time when he wrote the work, ie from the time when data were collected for him in Dalmatia. The description certainly refers to the time when the Serbian prince Časlav extended his power to the neighboring Slavs, in addition to the above, also to Bosnia. Along with the spread of political supremacy, the ethnic name also spread, which fully corresponds to our notions of the coincidence of ethnic and political terminology. Precisely because of that, the emperor does not include Duklja among the Serbs, nor did the Serbian name in Duklja / Zeta take root before the 12th century. Historians who attributed Dukljans to Serbs without any hesitation referred to Constantine, although he did not give them any arguments for such theses, citing Dukljans exclusively under their own ethnonym.
  2. Budak, Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100 (2018), pp. 51, 177: Disputes between Croatian and Serbian historiography over the ethnic character of the Slavs between Cetina and Durres are pointless, as they transpose contemporary categories of ethnicity into the early Middle Ages, in which identity was understood differently. In addition, the survival of most Slavs, and especially Duklja (Zeta) speaks in favor of insisting on their own identity by which their elites differed from those of their neighbors ... However, after some time (perhaps after the internal conflicts in Croatia) he changed his position and accepted the supremacy of the Serbian ruler because Constantine claims that the Zahumljani (as well as the Neretvans and Travunjans) were Serbs from the time of the archon who brought the Serbs to their new homeland during the time of Heraclius. This claim, of course, has nothing to do with the reality of the 7th century, but it speaks of political relations in Constantine's time.
  3. Ivo Goldstein, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek (1995), p. 196: could not be regarder neither Serbs nor Croats
  4. Hrvoje Gračanin, "Od Hrvata pak koji su stigli u Dalmaciju odvojio se jedan dio i zavladao Ilirikom i Panonijom: Razmatranja uz DAI c. 30, 75-78" (2008), p. 67–76: The findings suggest that Croats did not settle in Lower Pannonia during the original migration from north to south, although it is possible that some smaller groups lagged behind in the area, eventually drowning in the vast majority of other Slavic settlers. The expansion of the old Croatian populations from the south to the north belongs to the period from the 10th century onwards and is connected with the changed political circumstances, the strengthening and expansion of the early Croatian state. Based on all this, it is much more likely that the ethnonym "Croats" and migration hide the fact of the transfer of political power, which means that the emperor equated political supremacy with ethnic presence. This is exactly the approach he applied, turning Zahumljani, Travunjani and Neretljani into Serbs (DAI, c. 33, 8-9, 34, 4-7, 36, 5-7).
  5. Mladen Ančić, "The Early Medieval Narentines or Chulmians: Tracing the confusion caused by De administrando Imperio" (2011), p. 223-224: Thus, as part of the development of the skill of interpretation De administrando… in particular (in Croatian and Serbian historiography), careful efforts were made to exclude from the narratives of unknown authors whose texts were incorporated into the whole work what was acceptable for a particular national ideology, yet not call into question the credibility of the very basic narrative set and (as will be seen misunderstood) information it brings. Serbian historians accepted one after the other both the chronological elements of the narration of one part of the text (which speaks of the "Serbian" arrival in the 7th century) and what was the foundation of their entire national ideology of the 19th and 20th century p. 225-226 In the practical interpretation by historians from the end of the 20th century, this whole narrative set, which otherwise relates to the realities of the beginning of the 7th century proved to be rather absurd and meaningless, it looks like this [Siniša Mišić 1996 quote] ... That is why the author, without the need to comment on such a procedure, throws out everything that hinders the making up of such a simple conclusion, and by denying the role of the emperor, he turns the people into actors, ie subjects of history. To not be any confusion - a procedure of this kind is not [only] a feature of Serbian historiography, it is a fundamental feature of the mental structure from which the concept of "national history" originates. p. 234–244 Therefore, the political history written by the collaborators of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus under his supervision is a real narrative of events in a very limited circle of the population, that is, as Patricia Crone puts it, relying precisely on the results obtained by J. Kautsky: "Politics in pre-industrial societies was elite politics, or in other words is only one to two percent of the population".54 In this context, the eventual ethnic identity or difference between the ruling class and the subjects was essentially insignificant for the authors of the texts we use today as a source of knowledge of the time, for the subjects were not the focus of their attention anyway, except in situations where the existing distribution of social power would be called into question p. 276-277 it is very likely that it is the work of several authors, who wrote referring to each other; the task facing these authors was not to give an "objective view" (even for them) of the distant past; therefore the text is full of material errors, confusions and delusions; as such it is practically almost useless in terms of a serious historical source ... This analysis leads to the conclusion that the categorical apparatus of this "ethnic discourse," and particularly the terms for ethnic communities such as "Croats," "Serbs," etc., cannot in any way whatsoever be equated with the later, and especially modern uses of these same ethnic designations. The author warns that the ethnic designations used in the texts of the "Dalmatian dossier" actually conceal relatively stable, although ethnically diverse and socially stratified, political formations of the first half of the tenth century. One may discern that in some cases these formations (primarily where this concerns "Croats" and "Serbs") emerged under the wing of specific ethnic communities, but the author notes that the populations of these political formations must not be limited in any way to only the members of these eponymous communities.
  6. Goran Bilogrivić, "Bosnia i Hum/Hercegovina" (2015), p. 486: Porphyrogenitus writes that the inhabitants of all three Sclavinias are descended from Serbs, but it is more likely the interpret of this statement in terms of their subordination to Serbia, under which rule they fell most likely during the first half of the 10th century, during the time of Serbian Prince Peter or Časlav. In favor of a separate ethnicity speaks the account that the Travunian people were Serbs only from the time of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius until the Serbian prince Vlastimir, when they gained some independence under the župan Krajina, as well as mentioning of a clear and separate local tradition of the ruling Zahumljan family about the origin of their ancestors from the area of Vistula.
  7. Trpimir Vedriš (2015), "Balkanske sklavinije i Bugarska – Hrvatska u međunarodnom kontekstu", pp. 581–608: In Serbian historiography it has become customary to speak of Dalmatian Sclavinias as parts of Serbia and on such note also newer authors write about the "unique structure of this vast state" (S. Ćirković), assuming the original unity of this area "inhabited by Serbian tribes" which would only partially disintegrate by the middle of the 10th century. In contrast, Croatian co-historians often attributed to them belonging to the Croatian state. However, one-sided attempts to determine the ethnicity of these Slavs often did not take into account all the complexity and multilayered identities, which lead to the conclusion that in the early Middle Ages on the eastern Adriatic coast "Slavic populations differentiated into more than two ethnogenetic cores" (N. Budak ) ... That is how Skylitzes calls Dukljane as Serbs, and Kekaumenos writes about the Duklja ruler Vojislav that "Travunian is a Serb". Skylitzes and Joannes Zonaras are obviously confusing or equating Serbs and Croats in Dukla. Mihajlo Devolski calls the inhabitants of Duklja Croats. Writing about the anti-Byzantine uprising of 1072, Nicifor Brijenije clearly distinguishes Croats and Dukljani from the Macedonian Slavs. Finally, Anna Komnene calls the subjects of the Dukljan rulers Mihajlo, Bodin and Vukan as Dalmatians. Based on this, it can be concluded that "the allegations of Byzantine writers do not allow the equating of the inhabitants of Duklja in the 11th and 12th centuries with either Serbs or Croats".
Serbian historiography

  1. Relja Novaković, "Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka: Zaključak i rezime monografije" (1981): The author of this book already believes that there are certain signs from which it can be inferred that the original Slavic population of Duklja (Zeta), Bosnia and Raška was not of the same origin as the Slavic population in Porphyrogenitus' "present" or "baptized Serbia". It could have been very similar, but not identical. The fact is that the earliest and most authoritative source does not say anything about the origin of the inhabitants of Duklja, Bosnia and Raška, although it writes about them four centuries after the immigration of those Slavs to their then lands. The fact that Serbs are mentioned in later history in these areas does not necessarily mean that their original Slavic inhabitants are of the same origin as those in coastal Serbian lands and in "present-day Serbia ("baptized Serbia"). The name of Serbia and Serbs could have expanded. Therefore, we must remain reserved until we find out something more reliable.
  2. Tibor Živković, "On the northern borders of Serbia in the early middle ages" (2001), p. 11: Porphyrogenitus calls the tribes in Zahumlje, Pagania, Travunija and Konavle as Serbs,28 separating in the process their political from ethnic identity.29 This interpretation is probably not the happiest because for Mihailo Višević, prince of Zahumlje, he says that he is originally from the Vistula of the Liciki family,30 and that river is too far away from the area of White Serbs and where should be expected first White Croats. This is the first indication that the Serbian tribe may have been at the head of a larger alliance of Slavic tribes that came to the Balkan Peninsula with them and under their supreme leadership of the Serbian Unknown Archon.
  3. Živković, Portraits of Serbian Rulers: IX-XII Century (2006), p. 60: Data on the family origin of Mihailo Višević indicate that his family did not belong to a Serbian or Croatian tribe, but to another Slavic tribe who lived along the Vistula River and who joined the Serbs during the migration during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The introduction of Mihajlo Višević and his family by Porphyrogenitus suggests that the rulers of Zahumlje until his time belonged to this ruling family, so that, both in Serbia and Croatia, and in Zahumlje, there would be a very early established principle of inheriting power by members of one family. Constantine Porphyrogenitus explicitly calls the inhabitants of Zahumlje Serbs who have settled there since the time of Emperor Heraclius, but we cannot be certain that the Travunians, Zachlumians and Narentines in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans. The emperor-writer says that all these principalities are inhabited by Serbs, but this is a view from his time, when the process of ethnogenesis had already reached such a stage that the Serbian name became widespread and generally accepted throughout the land due to Serbia's political domination. Therefore, it could be concluded that in the middle of the 10th century the process of ethnogenesis in Zahumlje, Travunija and Paganija was probably completed, because the emperor's informant collected data from his surroundings and transferred to Constantinople the tribal sense of belonging of the inhabitants of these archons. p. 61 The Byzantine writings on the De Ceremoniis, which were also written under the patronage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, listed the imperial orders to the surrounding peoples. The writings cite orders from the archons of Croats, Serbs, Zahumljani, Kanalites, Travunians, Duklja and Moravia. The above-mentioned orders may have originated at the earliest during the reign of Emperor Theophilus (829 - 842) and represent the earliest evidence of the political fragmentation of the South Slavic principalities, that is, they confirm their very early formation. It is not known when Zahumlje was formed as a separate principality. All the news that Constantine Porphyrogenitus provides about this area agrees that it has always been so - that is, since the seventh-century settlement in the time of Emperor Heraclius. It is most probable that the prefects in the coastal principalities recognized the supreme authority of the Serbian ruler from the very beginning, but that they aspired to become independent, which took place according to the list of orders preserved in the book De Ceremoniis, no later than the first half of the 9th century. A falsified and highly controversial papal charter from 743 also mentions Zahumlje and Travunija as separate areas. If the basic information about these countries were correct, it would mean that they formed as very early principalities that were practically independent of the archon of Serbia.
  4. Živković, De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source (2012), p. 195: it was stated in the DAI that the Serbs had been baptized much earlier, and therefore, the Pagans could not have belonged to the Serb tribe. There is information in chapter 32, that the Serbs controlled Pagania in ca. 895, during the rule of the Archon Peter, and from this political situation Constantine would have been able to write that the Pagans belonged to the Serbian tribe. [and other pages]
  5. Živković, "Arentani - an Example of Identity Examination in the Early Middle Ages" (2012), p. 12–13: The geographical position of the Neretvans, ie Paganians, often imposed the opinion in science that they were Croats, which was especially used to deny their affiliation with the Serbian tribe - which is explicitly stated by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.7 In this case, there can be no question of the existence of any Serbian or Croatian identity outside the political framework of their principalities. In fact, the ethnic moment is completely subordinated to the political one, so the formation of the tribal states of the South Slavs is a consequence of political development, not some independent development of ethnic / tribal consciousness.8 In other words, when discussing the principality of Neretva, its territory, and the tribal affiliation of its inhabitants, one should first of all examine how the formation of these principalities as political beings came about.9
  6. Živković, "New Interpretations of Data about South Slavic Gentes from the De Administrando Imperio of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 944-959" (2012), p. 204: Thus, the phase of DAI research after the Second World War was directed, as far as the Belgrade Byzantine school is concerned, by persistently defending the credibility of Porphyrogenitus' story about the migration of Serbs and Croats (Ferjančić, Maksimović, along with Croatian authors - Katičić, Suić). Novaković, Ćirković),45 and the least to the criticism of the news from DAI, with complete denial, but also ignorance/lack of knowledge of the entire DAI. To this day, this concept has remained as a trademark of Serbian Byzantine studies, at least in the part in which it deals with Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his work.46 [46 Komatina 2010 ... as if time had stopped, more than 150 years ago. In the same plane, repetition, without research, remains the youngest representative of the Belgrade Byzantine school, Babić 2011] p. 204 The end of an era in the study of DAI was also marked at the beginning of the new millennium. This area is not only calendar-friendly for historians, but, due to circumstances, a new methodological approach opens up space for new interpretations. New authors appear, with new perceptions of the identity model in the early Middle Ages, as well as openness to the intersection of related disciplines - archeology and ethnology with history and classical philology. First of all, we should keep in mind three authors: Florin Curta, Danijel Džino and Mladen Ančić p. 206-207 How can historians who deal with the early Middle Ages in Dalmatia or Illyricum be sure of their interpretations today, and how much can they be? I leave this question undecided, with the caveat that I can point out the choice of some authors who, in my opinion, are more reliable, more willing, more open to new approaches, new methodologies. Among archaeologists, Maja Petrinec and her important book on early medieval cemeteries in Croatia should be singled out;70 but also a young assistant from the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, Goran Bilogrivić.71 There is another young force in the field of art history, Ivan Basić, who has already shown great ability to critically analyze sources.72 From Russia is the young Denis Alimov who also deals with Dalmatia in the early Middle Ages, as well as issues of ethnogenesis in a meticulous way.73 So from Croatia, as it seems, first and foremost should be expected new advances in Porphyrogenitology. Finally, those who are less inclined to adopt new ideas, hypotheses, and analyses always have solid authors to rely on for many years to come - Neven Budak,74 the well-known John Fine,75 Hervig Wolfram,76 Walter Pohl,77 and Ivo Goldstein.78
  7. Sima Ćirković, The Serbs (2004), p. 12–13: The regions occupied by the Serbian tribe in karst basins suitable for agriculture between the Dinaric Alps and the Adriatic coast gave rise to the principalities of the Neretljani (between the Cetina and Neretva rivers), Zahumljani (from the Neretva River and the Dubrovnik hinterland), and Travunians (from the Dubrovnik hinterland to the Gulf of Kotor). In their immediate vicinity was the principality of Dukljani in the valleys of the Zeta and Morača rivers, from the Gulf of Kotor to Bojana River. The continental side of the principality bordered on the vast territory where the name of the Serbian tribe was preserved ... The single structure of this vast principality did not last long. By the middle of the tenth century the shape of the land of Bosnia was clearly evident within it, in the area of the river of the same name. It was later to expand and develop independently.
  8. Predrag Komatina, "Идентитет Дукљана према De administrando imperio" (2014), p. 33: Of all the tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, only for them the emperor fails to point out that they belonged to the Serbs. Based on the analysis of various segments of the emperor’s narrative on the South Slavs, we come to the conclusion that he considered Diocletians to be Serbs also, although he nowhere explicitly recorded that. p. 43 The fact is that the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus does not point out that Diocletians were Serbs in the 35th chapter of the De administrando imperio, contrary to what he says concerning other tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast – Zachlumi, Trebouniotes and Kanalites and Pagani (Arentani), as well as that he does not mention Diocleia in the 32nd chapter among the countries settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, but only „what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites.“ Because of that it remained unclear whether he considered them Serbs or not. Based on the analysis of different segments of his narrative on South Slavs of Dalmatia in the chapters 29–36 of the DAI, we could reach the answer to that question. At first, Porphyrogenitus divides South Slav Dalmatia primarily into Croatia and Serbia. Regarding that division, Diocleia was part of Serbia. When he relates the earliest history of the South Slavs of Dalmatia, he knows only of Croats and Serbs. Even when he emphasises their division into Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes and Kanalites, Diocletians and Pagani, the division into Croats and Serbs was primary to him. In that context also Diocletians belonged to the Serbs. Porphyrogenitus does not record Serb origin of Diocletians in the 35th chapter because he did not mention Diocleia among the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled Serbs in the 32ndchapter. However, the omission of Diocleia in the list of the countries settled by the Serbs at that point is not a prove that he was aware that they were not Serbs. At that point he just failed to follow strictly to his principle of listing countries and peoples in detail, to which he usually follows at other places in his works. Finally, even though he does not mention Diocleia by name listing the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled the Serbs in the 32nd chapter, he nevertheless bears it in mind at that place also. That is attested by the information that those were the countries from which the Avars had previously expelled the Romani, who in Porphyrogenitus’ times lived in the theme of Dalmatia and the theme of Dyrrachium. That is the only place in the whole of the DAI that the emperor-author mentions the Romani in the theme of Dyrrachium and he does that exactly because he believed that they originated from the territories settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, the territories which in every sense must have encompassed Diocleia, which lied in the immediate vicinity.
  9. [etc. viewpoint already described above but feel free to add]

Survey

  • We have an obligation to represent major views, regardless of national origin. The views of international scholars are not necessarily authoritative based on their diversity of origin alone. Likewise, those views that are prominent in Serbian and Croatian scholarship are not necessarily authoritative either. I recognize that this is an area in which we often see disruption, particularly in the form of ethnonationalism. We should therefore attribute views to specific sources where they conflict with those from other sources. So as to not create a false balance, we should also grant more weight to those views that are shared among the largest numbers of reliable sources. For example, if there is a significant minority viewpoint that the people of Zachlumia are or were ethnic Serbs, then we should attribute that viewpoint to the scholars that agree with it; if the majority view is different, then we should write more about the majority view before mentioning the minority viewpoint. I hope that answers the question in the RfC. If you have something more specific to ask, then please ask that directly. AlexEng(TALK) 00:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This seems to have started when Theonewithreason reverted Miki Filigranski (previously known as Crovata I believe?) with [5], and MF is restricted to no reversions because of some previous abuse. The revert seems to be largely non-sensical because De Administrando Imperio is a primary source for which there's been plenty of secondary sources trying to analyze it and make sense of it all. I don't know if MF's grasp of secondary sources is entirely accurate or inclusive enough, but it certainly seems more plausible than harping on a phrasing from the primary source. I had a quick look at [6] and it's a mess already, and I seem to recall at least one discussion where I interacted with them and they were breaking WP:ARBMAC in some form, but I can't recall right now where it was, will have to look into it. It's not exactly my first choice to have controversial points of articles addressed primarily by two users with a very problematic history of editing, so let's leave this discussion open to see if anything fruitful comes from it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Many articles managed to reach a certain good point of neutrality (for example Duklja, Narentines, Zachlumia, Travunija, Kanalites, Serbia in the Middle Ages). However, few articles on Serbian rulers like this or Vlastimir remain for some reason a battleground for some editors pushing a viewpoint mostly held by Serbian historiography by ignoring/removing viewpoints found in both Serbian and other international scientific literature - specifically regarding the ethnic identity and origin of people of mentioned South Slavic principalities for some of which in DAI is stated to be Serbian.

In short, as asserted by the Croatian historians Aničić, Vedriš, and others in the same fashion the most notable modern Serbian historian and Byzantinist, Tibor Živković, who a great portion of his career studied DAI and wrote many papers and books on it, emphasized that the Serbian historiography and modern representatives like Komatina, extensively cited on Serbian-related articles, are uncritically stuck in the nationalist 19th-mid 20th century framework. He highly regarded modern Croatian historiography and historians on the topic of DAI, considering them reliable for a long period of time, including those which were cited in the article or here (Budak, Bilogrivić, Goldstein, Pohl, Fine). In comparison to part of Serbian historians, those representing Croatian historiography share long-held critical viewpoints with older (Dvornik) and newer (Whittow, Heather, Curta) international historians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This is an extremely verbose and unclear RfC. I appreciate the effort that you put into formulating it, but I ask that you please reword the RfC statement to a brief, neutral question or statement about the issue per WP:RFCBRIEF. You asked Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Therefore, please also include a neutrally worded summary of each viewpoint that you are seeking consensus on below the RfC statement. AlexEng(TALK) 09:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@AlexEng: thanks for the input, will make a change. Basically, the quotes are provided so the editors can read them and by reading them reach a conclusion on which of the viewpoints is in the majority, has more weight, is scientifically more modern and what valid reason we have to ignore/remove from citing Croatian and other international sources which interpret DAI critically with scientific methods. It is a complex issue so it's a bit difficult to make it very brief but hope it is more clear now --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@AlexEng: yes, thank you very much for your survey comment. All quoted historians and scholars are authorative and very reliable as sources for the topic in question. If possible can you read all the provided quotes and add to your comment your opinion what's the most recurring theme on specific issues about ethnic and political identity, origin, migration, capacity to settle all these lands, whether the identity events refer to the 7th or 10th century and so on? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I would choose not to use either Komatina nor Ančić, but would use Serbian: T.Živković, Croatia: N.Budak-Danijel Džino-Snježana Gregurović-Dubravka Mlinarić-Goldstein, international: Curta-Fine.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Santasa99: all quoted scholars and sources are reliable, can be used especially as a reference for a minority/majority viewpoint. I wouldn't exclude anyone Živković mentioned (Komatina and Ančić included). Can you cite titles and possibly quotes by Gregurović and Mlinarić? Are they any different from other cited Croatian historians? Anyway, it would be welcome to have your opinion in the Survey section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it was just a suggestion, they can all be used with a certain amount of care, as it is always the case with historians and historiography (no empirical evidence :-) unfortunately). Maybe later, I am momentarily preoccupied with writing something (a report, which needs diffs, time, etc.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
No problem, have a pleasant writing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: for clarification, this is not a dispute resolution between two editors as the RfC is connected to the discussions above ("DAI" and "Original research, out of context and information for Duklja article") from a year ago, as well as those from other linked article talk pages, but a good part of the editors became blocked or sanctioned in the process and over the years. See also Talk:Narentines/Archive 4#Re: Porphyrogenitos- You'll have to get another consensus happening on the talk page. discussion from 2008. I wish this RfC consensus is a recent upgrade to that. Yes and I am restricted to 1RR. The only way to resolve this issue isn't edit-warring and endless ethnotionalist discussions. They are bringing us nowhere. The only way is with a solid consensus which would apply for all linked articles and of course to be based on verifiable and reliable sources and not our personal, unprofessional and especially not nationalist opinions. The editor Theonewithreason, who previously participated and now is seemingly doing anything but constructively participating, continued what was started a year ago by other Serbian editors (see for example your reply to Sadko at Narentines talk page and AN report about this article, this and other talk pages of linked articles). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's that whole kerfuffle. OK, so I would lose the excess aspersions against Theonewithreason because it's only been 10 days and you didn't actually ping them here on Talk to notify them, so it's not entirely unreasonable that they just missed it after the earlier revert. At the same time, I now checked, and saw that they actually three days ago filed a new SPI report against you and Croatian Telecom IP address and invoking diffs back to 2016, so this is shaping up to be a wonderful little flamewar... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
They are following the article and talk page. I've made an edit on 6 February, Theonewithreason made a revert the same day. I've made a comment the same day on this talk page where announced starting an RfC or dispute resolution. Ten days since then, three days since the report fail, and two days since the start of RfC we still don't have a single word here by Theonewithreason. Instead of constructively participating, explaining their revert and else they were doing what? No, this RfC isn't a flamewar but exactly the opposite - an attempt and only possible way that we finish once and for all with these tireless discussions and flamewars. We desperately need a solid NPOV consensus. Some editors don't want us to have a consensus. Thankfully, almost all of the ethnonationalistic editors involved before in such discussions have been blocked and sanctioned. It's a perfect time we finally have a focused and constructive RfC consensus without it becoming a flamewar battleground. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Joy: Although pinging Theonewithreason was necessary, that SPI is closed as evidence lacking, as far as I can tell, but it looks to me more as an attempt to shortcut through this new round of dispute-resolution discussion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment What we have here is a case of not using the RfC process properly. We do not "choose" and label a number of fine and reliable sources or authors as "nationalistic" because they do not agree with some other authors. We should contrast and compare. All of the quotes Serbian authors are usable. We could make different sections for various views... I would also like to say that I am very disappointed that somebody on en.wiki can start his very based RfC as if it was something normal or regular, which was already explained by another uninvolved editor. Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

User:Griboski, RfC achieved exactly consensus in the survey like other similar discussions, seems you didn't understand the point of the RfC at all. Explain how your removal of reliably sourced majority opinion, important statement regarding the topic, was substantiated by UNDUE and OVERCITE rather than other way around? How "no one is making the claim that these territories were inhabited only by ethnic Serbs" when some, mainly Serbian, historians (and even editors on Wikipedia) are using DAI (primary source) exactly to claim these territories were inhabited only by Slavs who were ethnic Serbs? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you pinged me both here and on the Early medieval Principality of Serbia talk page, I'll respond here only to avoid discussing the same issue on multiple pages. You can read the RFC as clearly as I can, right? Your proposal achieved no consensus, which means you don't have the authority to impose your edit into articles, especially since they were challenged before and you're on a one-revert rule. So, please don't make accusations that I am the one being disruptive. Also condescending posts like this on other editors' talk pages are inappropriate and can be considered WP:CANVASSING.
I removed your addition because yes, I felt it was undue. The text in the article states that these areas were inhabited by Serbs. It doesn't say they were exclusively inhabited by Serbs. What some Serbian editors or historians think, who aren't cited in the article, is irrelevant. In fact, I kept the previous paragraph you added which mentions that the Serbs arrived and assimilated the larger indigenous Slavic population. That makes it clear that the populations living in these territories at this time were mostly not ethnically Serb but were ruled by Serb tribes. Griboski (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
No, the edits forcing pro-Serbian viewpoint are constantly challenged and have no consensus. Wow, you "felt it was undue" (WP:GAMING), ignoring that the edit was fixing the mess Theonewithreason edited five months ago. Your reasoning implies as if we don't know what's written in DAI - what a joke. Now you removed the part about Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia etc., implying that there's no need anymore for inclusion of the important scholarship viewpoint although it is directly related to it and you still talk about "these territories". Which territories, can you answer please? Interesting change of approach which is still doing the same bloody thing - forcing to not mention anything regarding the controversy of ethnic origin in DAI. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Challenging an edit is gaming the system? More bad-faith accusations aren't a good look. "Pro-Serbian viewpoint" and "mess" are your personal opinions. The second paragraph of the background section which discusses the "inhabited cities" of Serbia say nothing about ethnicity. You are the one who is looking to include a discussion on the ethnic origin of the inhabitants of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia when the previous paragraph already states that the Serb rulers assimilated the previous Slavic settlers. Interestingly, it's established that both Serbs and Croats ruled over Slavs who assimilated and only later came to identify as those ethnic labels in the modern sense, but you are only adding this "ethnic controversy" about the DIA to Serbia-related pages. It would be nice if you could explain how this is due and also be civil and respect consensus. Griboski (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
You call this "challenging"? You still didn't provide a single valid reasoning (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). You claim that the second paragraph said nothing about ethnicity and I am the one who is looking to include a discussion on the ethnic origin of the inhabitants, although secondary sources know and state very well that the claim these territories were inhabited by Serbs is based on scientifically controversial "ethnic information" from DAI? Where is the sentence in previous paragraph that the Serb rulers assimilated the previous Slavic settlers? Please, show me in the old revision prior to my edits:
The history of the early medieval Serbian Principality and the Vlastimirović dynasty is recorded in the work De Administrando Imperio ("On the Governance of the Empire", DAI), compiled by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913–959). The DAI drew information on the Serbs from, among others, a Serbian source.[1] The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, who is without a name but known conventionally as the "Unknown Archon", who led the Serbs from the north to the Balkans. He received the protection of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion of 680.[2] Slavs invaded and settled the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries.[3][c] Porphyrogenitus stressed that the Serbs had always been under Imperial rule.[4] His account on the first Christianization of the Serbs can be dated to 632–638; this might have been Porphyrogenitus' invention, or may have really taken place, encompassing a limited group of chiefs and then very poorly received by the wider layers of the tribe.[5]
According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška (Latin: Rascia),[6] included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik.[7][failed verification] The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija.[7][8][9][10] and the "land" of Duklja which was held by the Byzantine empire though it was presumably settled with Serbs as well.[11][12][13][14] Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja.[6][15] These were all situated by the Adriatic and shared their northern borders (in the hinterland) with baptized Serbia.[7] The exact borders of the early Serbian state are unclear.[6] The Serbian ruler was titled "archon of Serbia".[d] The DAI mentions that the Serbian throne is inherited by the son, i.e., the first-born; his descendants succeeded him, though their names are unknown until the coming of Višeslav.[16]
Your claim about "...the Serbs arrived and assimilated the larger indigenous Slavic population. That makes it clear that the populations living in these territories at this time were mostly not ethnically Serb but were ruled by Serb tribes" is your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Both ethnic origin and ethnic identity in 7th and 10th century mentioned in DAI are related but separate controversial issues. We cannot deal with both of them in a single manner as you did by avoiding to mention major mainstream opinion. Regarding the "ethnic controversy", to remind you, I majorly edited the article on Slavs in Lower Pannonia which neutrally dealt with pro-Croatian ethnic identity of the Lower Pannonian principality and Slavic population (merging the "Duchy of Pannonian Croatia"). I already explained how this is DUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The burden rests on those wishing to add content, on a GA no-less, and it's not original research. I was referring to the additions you made here and here which I retained but edited and is now in the first paragraph. Which goes with the annotation C in the article about the 7th century: "The numerous Slavs mixed with and assimilated the descendants of the indigenous population." Also corroborated by Fine p.37: ..The second of the two Slavic groups settling in the Balkans was the Serbo-Croatian Slavs.. [who] came to be dominated by two different but similar tribal peoples, called Serbs and Croats in the second quarter of the seventh century. But though subjected by a smaller military elite of true Serbs and Croats, who gave to the larger number of Slavs these new names, the masses who made up these people go back to a single group of Slavs (probably Slaveni) who settled in the Balkans during the sixth and early seventh centuries. --Griboski (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The burden is also on those who are challenging to bring forth valid arguments & editing policies which you didn't bring none. I fixed section which wasn't GA. Yes, it is original research and synthesis on your side because you fail to understand that the information in DAI about both ethnic origin and identity and both 7th and 10th century are separate, but related controversial topics, while the migration and whether arrived as military elite another topic. What is said by Fine, although can be rightly cited, doesn't counter argue nor explain the issue of ethnic origin and identity mentioned in DAI, on what is based sentence "Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast.[10]", "Serb-inhabited" and so on. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The same, but even worse, goes for the section at the article "Principality of Serbia (early medieval)" which still includes sentence "The other Serb-inhabited lands (or principalities) that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje and Travunija,[19][21] while the "land" of Duklja was held by the Byzantines (it was presumably settled with Serbs as well).", without major secondary explanation which yours isn't because it is advancing, implying, a pro-Serbian viewpoint against NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is the argument about the content removed here? Sorry, it's a bit hard to understand from the discussion. Alaexis¿question? 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: yes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm copy-pasting the sentence in question with the removed part in bold.
I think that saying "but a closer reading suggests" might be WP:SYNTH as it makes it look like the preceding sourced statement is inaccurate. On the other hand, it does seem relevant that some scholars believe that the account in DAI reflects the situation in the 10th rather than 8th century. Maybe something like this would work:
Two good sources should be enough - there is no reason to have six. ¿question? 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources question the accuracy of the primary source and make the exact conclusion so there's no SYNTH, but agree with your viewpoint and wording, except would add at the end "...and does not indicate ethnic origin" because that's central issue - the ethnic identity in the primary source is claimed on basis of supposed ethnic origin since 7th century and not political background, while academic secondary sources conclude exactly the opposite that the ethnic identity and origin claims for 7-10th century are actually based on political circumstances of 10th century when was written the primary source (DAI). I would keep six or more sources so editors don't question its WEIGHT but grouped in a single reference for easier readability. Thanks for your input. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
What do you think about the following version? @Griboski:
Alaexis¿question? 06:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Since you think it's due, I think it's ok but we should make it clear it's based on their interpretation of the DAI. Something like "Based on their reading of the DIA, some historians regard Constantine VII's consideration about the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia as reflecting Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century and not an indication of ethnic origin". This seems to be what the sources are saying. I also think 8 citations is overkill, 3 or 4 should be enough. --Griboski (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no objections to the content, I think that I would write it a bit differently
As far as I can see there is no major disagreement regarding the content so I think you can take it from here. Alaexis¿question? 18:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Višeslav_of_Serbia/Archive_1&oldid=1254434257"