Talk:Zachlumia/Archive 1

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

Untitled

I am sorry to object, but the maps on the right side of the page are clearly false. They both use the same sorce, but size of the raska (in the maps it's name is serbia) is two time bigger on the second. This page looks like just another greater-serbian propaganda page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.241 (talk • contribs) 6 June 2005

Yes, but that is just a minor detail and the article's conclusions rest most heavily on Constantine VII: "The Zahumljani (Zachlumoi) that now live there are Serbs". There is a Wikisource link, as well as a regular Wikipedia link where this can be checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierdog (talk • contribs) 18 June 2005

From Wikipedia (Dalmatia)...The southern duchies of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja, whose territories spread much further inland and southward than the current Dalmatia does, were self-ruled by their Slavic population that was mixed pagan and Christian, and also quite likely mixed Croat and Serb. They were not central to the formation of these two Slavic nations (the main part of medieval Croatia was to their northwest and the main part of medieval Serbia was to their northeast), but they did more often than not fall under their respective influences.

Oh and since there is 'great' emphasis on Constantine VII...this too from Wikipedia (De Administrando Imperio)

Although in 53 chapters it covers many topics and describes various peoples and regions (for instance, Moravia, Iberians and Slavs in different parts of contemporary Greece and Turkey), as well as bizarre genealogies (one example is prophet Mohammad's in chapter 14),only a few chapters have become controversial due to conflicting political aspirations, chiefly of Croats and Serbs. Namely, the dispute is centered about the following chapters:

30, "Story on the province of Dalmatia" 31 "Of the Croats and of the country they now dwell in" 32 "Of the Serbs and of the country they now dwell in" as well as

33 "Of the Zachlumi and of the country they now dwell in" 34 "Of the Terbounites and Kanalites and of the country they now dwell in" 35 "Of the Diocletians and of the country they now dwell in" 36 "Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in" Briefly: Constantine's description has become a weapon in colliding Croatian and Serbian national ideologies from mid-19th century onwards, since the emperor had given early distribution of Croats and Serbs upon their arrival, and by reading historical records and interpretations into contemporary situation, it was used (or misused) as a tool in arming current national geopolitical claims with a sort of "historical legitimacy". Although such misuse may seem grotesque, it is still a standard weapon in nationalist arsenals, especially with regard to the supposedly contended lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and southern Croatia, Dalmatia in particular.

Although historians differ in their assessment of the credibility of these passages, certain conclusions seem to have become, more or less, generally accepted:

there is not one author of the whole work; De Administrando Imperio is a collection of articles written by a few authors and ascribed to Constantine, who probably wrote only a part of it and/or edited or compiled the rest (or had imperial scribes do the same) the most politically controversial chapters, 30, 31 and 32 are mutually contradictory. Chapters 30 and 31 tell two different versions on the arrival of Croats, and chapter 32, about the arrival of Serbs, shows striking similarity to the chapter 31, which is probably the emperor's story on the Croats. Many historians have deduced that chapter 32 is just a retelling of the migration pattern found in chapter 31. As far as chapter 30 is concerned, it is accepted that it was written by an anonymous author who had conveyed genuine Croatian mythic story on their origin. The chapters 31 and 32 tell essentially the same story of a people who came upon invitation of Byzantine emperor Heraclius, with virtually exact scheme appearing in both cases-Croat and Serb. On the other hand, anonymous who composed chapter 30, portrays the mythic Croatian origo gentis: a narrative on 5 brothers and 2 sisters as leaders of Croatian tribe- something entirely different from chapter 31. Also, one must bear in mind that the described events took place some 300 years before this work, and that "De Administrando Imperio" is the first description of arrival of the mentioned peoples, hence greatly reducing the credibility of the narrative. other dubious chapters (33, 34, 35,36) are devoted, essentially, to lands that are now parts of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro. They claim that Serbs, or tribes close to them, or descended from them, inhabit these lands. Understandably, Serbian historians accept these claims, while others (especially Croatian and Bosniak) consider that the chapters 33-36 are emperor's concoction, stemming from the fact that he tried to extend the region of Serbian ethnicity-motivated by the fact that Serbs, unlike Croats, accepted Byzantine suzerainty. nevertheless De Administrando Imperio remains the only surviving authoritative text of its kind about the region and era; is the direct or indirect work of an advanced diplomatic bureaucracy; and is attributed to the famously most erudite of Byzantine Emperors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.70.65.91 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2005‎

Yes. A well-summarized comment on the issues pertaining to D.A.I Hxseek (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

POV, putting accuracy tag

Looking into medieval Dalmatian principalities I came upon huge POV in these articles. They are one-sided and are based on contradictory and dismissed data. Until a new neutral version can be achieved accuracy tag should be up there. --Factanista 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss. I'm all ears. --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, one thing for example "...Zachlumia's hereditary dynasty, the House of Višević, is a tribe from the Serbian tribes populating the upper streams of Visla in Greater White Croatia.". how come that they are serbian tribes if they are coming from White Croatia. Shouldn't they be Croats then?

That's an error. Geographically, it's close to Greater White Croatia - but not in it. Also the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Zachumlians, according their local tradition, considered themselves as descendents of the Litziki (Slavs) from the Vistula (Vislas) river in Poland (upper Vistula). Only Constantine VII noted Zachlumians as "Serbs" (obviously because of politics), but in the same time he noted M. Višević as the ruler of the "Slavs" or "Zachlumians". There's also Constantine's information about ancestry of the Zachlumian rulling family, which corresponded to previously mentioned local tradition. But this tradition was not connected in any way to another Constantine's story about the coming of Serbs to the Balkans. It's obvious that the Zachlumians simply didn't relate their ancestry to Serbian one. Finally, in 12th century their name was still "Slavs" and none else. They were neither "Croats" neither "Serbs", they were simply "Slavs". The same goes for other duchies between Croatia and Serbia. BTW there was White Croatia around the Upper Vistula basin area with Krakow as the main settlement.
BTW among many Polish sites about Litziki there is not even one where they were reffered to as Serbian tribe. They were Slavic tribe.
It seems this is just one of the Serbian historical myths, produced in the same way - substituting Slavs with Serbs, Slavic with Serbian, without any reference or historical basis.
Pax you wrote this: the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river! According to...? What? Whom? Where? On what basis? Referenced with...? Can you explain it please. Zenanarh (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean because of politics?
I don't think that Ferdo Sisic and normal Croatian historiography is poised by Serbian mythological myths, or standard scholarship (including both Fine and Curta). It's standard point to consider the Zachlumians a Serbianized tribe. Throughout the 8th century Serbs and Croats expanded from their centers in Rascia and the upper Dalmatian hinterland. Croats expanded to Lika, Banija, Kordun, Savia; Serbs to Bosnia and the coastal principalities (including Zachlumia, Travunia with Konavle and Pagania); Croats to Bosnia and Pagania; Serbs to Doclea, Morava, etc....
It is also true that Zachlumia became one of three component parts when the Serbian realm (re)united itself and reached full unity in the late 12th century. There is no or little reason to consider the Timokians a Serb tribe, but we do that because they have been incorporated into the Serbs. The Bulgarians also claim them - with indeed right (similar with the Croats and the Narentines). We consider the Savian Principality Continental Croatia, and normal historiography takes that standardly; we should observe the entire historiography and the courses of events that followed afterwards. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Gudušćani/Gačani and countless more were Croat tribes in the same manner. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


You didn't answer my question. No need to wander around. There's no doubt that F.Šišić's "Povijest Hrvata u doba narodnih vladara" (Zagreb 1925, 21990) is more than worth as history book, but his work is superannuated, in conception, it gave a historical view which was already 70 years ago a little bit out of the main scientific stream. Your expressions like "we consider", "standard point" and similar are not science, which history should be. And BTW who are those "we"? You say: we should observe the entire historiography and the courses of events that followed afterwards and then you move retrogardly to the past, so according to you, Litziki were Serbs in 6th century in the Upper Vistula just because It's standard point to consider the Zachlumians a Serbianized tribe in 12th century in Zachlumia. And BTW it's far away from the standard point in modern normal scientific circles.
But let's just stick to agenda: the Liciki are a Serb tribe from the Vistula river?!?!?
We is, me, you and the rest of us here, if we want to pertain neutrality. ;) This is not a historical view, but a translation of the original document. His view is also supported bz Nada Klaić, which is modern and not old historiography.
You are right. Since I was doing copy-paste from articles across my hard drive, I should've most definitely not used that phrasing. Corrected now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Name

quote> "Zachlumia (Croatian: Zahumlje Serbian: Захумље)"

since serbian language uses both latin AND cyrillic script, this line shoul be: Zachlumia (Croatian: Zahumlje, Serbian cyrrilic: Захумље, Serbian latin: Zahumlje) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.201.67 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

eh. waste of time. We could write serbo-croatian latin "Zahumlje, serbo-croatian cyrillic Захумље. Oh, that's right, there's no such thing as Serbo-Croatian :) Hxseek (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

The minute we allow nationalists to rewrite history and translate such a credable document such as the DAI is the minute we will start beleiving in fairies and unicorns. For me it is enough that the major Croatian historians such as Franjo Racki, Ferdo Sisic, Tadija Smiciklas, Nada Klaic and Vjekoslav Klaic considered the document mostly authentic these are the Croatian historians that are the ones not clouded or binded by unrealistic nationalist expectations and this is not including the magority of international historians with no vested interest that support the magority of this document. On the flipside you have extremist Croat nationalists such as Dominik Mandic and Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović both with dubious ties to the extremist WW2 Ustasa organisation calling the document false. For me as an individual that is enough to make up my mind on who is who and what. Everyone is quick to point the finger at Greater Serbian ideology(can something be greater than it already is)while at the same time Greater Croatian ideology seems to slip under the radar. It is time to bite the bullet on this one and accept there is to much evidence both in modern and middle aged history from different sources supporting the claims that it is Serbs that settled and lived throughout the ages in Zachlumia. Many websites advertising Dubrovnik actually attest to the fact that after the purchase of Konvale and Ston that the Catholisation process of Serbs and some Bogomils took place in massive numbers, so I cannot see why this article would be disputed by anyone but people with an unrealistic Croatian nationist ideology. Pratilja (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


Edits

Zoupan edit:

  • Adding infobox
  • Zahumlje is the "Serbo-Croatian" rendering, Bosnian Cyrillic does not exist and thus should not be in the article.
  • Removing "History of Croatia", as Zahumlje refers only to the Serbian administrative unit, with the "Qui (Petrus) dum C h r o a t o r u m fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus..." being removed as well: Nowhere can it be found that this refers to Zahumlje as part of Croatia, in reality, this refers to the meeting with Pope John X, which Tomislav and Mihailo was part of. Zahumlje in this time is recognized as a Archonty through its relations with both the Pope and Bulgaria. If POV is the case, it is certainly in making Zahumlje part of Croatian history, as it was first "studied" with the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts (dissidents from the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts), which in turn is a very controversial academy, with Greater Croatia aspirations, the founder for example, was first a Serb nationalist, then became a Croat nationalist, the members have been largely called anti-Serbs. --Zoupan (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, your edits are:

  1. - removing of Bosnian and Croatian language from lead, although both countries were in the past related with the Zahumlje, and are today part of what was Zahumlje.
  2. - removing templetes, like template History of Croatia
  3. - removing image showing Zahumlje in 800, and having two same images in the article, one in the Infobox and other in template
  4. - removing sourced text and everything which is not connected with Serbia

This is vandalism, not constructive edit. Please note that Zahumlje also had a Croatian and Catholic character. You can't refer to Zahumlje only at the times when it was in some way related with Serbia or Serbs (which nobody dispute). The imperial annalist said, that parts of Red Croatia, notably Zahumlje were part of Croatia lands also (the term was used in one version of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea).

"Post haec secundum continentiam priuiligiorum, quae lecta coram populo fuerant, scripsit priuilegia, diisit prouincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos et fines earum hoc modo: secundum cursum aquarum, quae a montanis fluunt et intrant in mare contra meridianam plagam, Maritima uocauit ; aquas uero, quae a montanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant in magnum flumen Donaui, uocauit Surbia. Deinde Maritima in duas diuisit prouincias: a loco Dalmae, ubi rex tunc manebat et synodus tunc facta est, usque ad Ualdeuino uocauit Croatium Album, quae et inferior Dalmatia dicitur.....Item ab eodem loco Dalmae usque Bambalonam ciuitatem, quae nunc dicitur Dyrachium, Croatiam Rubeam...." or translated: "And from the field of Dalmae (Duvno) to the city of Dyrrachium (Durrës) is Red Croatia"

The fact is that the dioceses of Bosnia, Zahumlje (Ston), and Trebinje had belonged from the 7th to the 11th century to the archdiocese of Split, which was the metropolis of the state of Croatia. Zahumlje was ruled by Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian nobles, and sometimes was totally independent slavic entity. Please when adding facts related to Serbia, do not delete facts related to Bosnia or Croatia. Kebeta (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not deleting anything, you, however, undo every add i make, the thing is that "Red Croatia" is a very controversial nationalistic term, it has its origin in national aspirations of the Šubić family after 1300, and as such, it cant be seen as a NPOV, it simply isn't! the history of Hum prior to the writing of "Priest of Doclea" clearly show continuing Serb rule, although i dont deny a semi-independent status during the rule of Mihajlo. Your edits are evidence enough for your ignorance, and i once again ask you to stop undoing my edits.--Zoupan (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Red Croatia. The fact is that you are deleting everything related to Croatia or Bosnia. Next time I will report you if you revert article before discussing before on the talk page. --Kebeta (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't you understand? You are deleting sourced material and great improvements of the article and you are not shy of doing this to several pages, I advice you to stop. If you compare 1 and 2, you see evidence enough of your ignorance, and the fact that none of information is deleted. Stop, and again, Stop.--Zoupan (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read four points which I wrote above, and than try to improve the page. --Kebeta (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read my replies and read the article. If you compare the two revisions, you will see modified introduction of neutral tone and expanding of history. Your revision has a tone of 'cn needed' which I have clarified, then a completely false history intro: "The history of Zahumlje starts with the region being given by Eastern Roman Emperor Flavius Augustus Heraclius to the Croats", then a quotebox that is misleading into thinking the Hum was Croatia's vassal (It says the Croatian dux took part in a council with Mihailo, the potential vassalage is dismissed by: "Quique peruenientes dicti episcopi, Dalmatiarum peragrantes ciuitates et Croatorum atque Serborum proceribus conenientes; congregatis in Spalato epigcopis et iudicibus, celebcrrimum concilium peragere"-from 'Historia Salonitana maior (HSM)', the "C h r o a t o r u m fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus" directly by footnotes in Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. K. K. Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1856. p. 413-414) also, John the Deacon was a 13th-century writer (not the same as the 11th century you try to attribute the quote to), and the letter from Pope John X is not found anywhere but in HSM (see HSM clarification. All the things you have added to the article is Red Croatia or likewise, now please Stop reverting and deleting real facts. --Zoupan (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You are talking about one thing, and doing something else in the artice (removing sourced text, templates, Bosnian and Croatian language, and removing everything which is not connected with Serbia). Please discuss before doing major rewrite of the article. Or invite third party here like administrator or...--Kebeta (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I've checked some articles and Zoupan's work on Ljutovid(included on this article) has much source misrepresentation(details).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I know, and that is not a small number of articles on which he misrepresent sources. --Kebeta (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of me. Why do we need three languages have the word 'Zahumlje' when the article name has it already, the cyrillic version must exist as it is crucial to its character, i have added the footnote as you may have noticed. I have not removed any sourced text, the templates you are talking about can be added, that is the least problem, the real problem lies in the denying of history linked to Serbs, this is undisputable as seen in the revisions, you are reverting to a version with 'cn needed' after every sentence, something i have fixed, i have added tons of information over the later centuries as well, your version has nothing that isnt on the improved one. You are using the word 'everything' rather strongly, if you compare the two (I have said this 100 times) you would (if neutral) see the difference. You are free to add the template whenever you want, not to revert an improved version. --Zoupan (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to add more info and especially if sourced, but I am restoring the old version until you stop with deleting everything not connected with Serbs or Serbia. Please, add more, but do not delete Croatian or Bosnian languages, templates, text and other material....--Kebeta (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that Zoupan and you had a discussion here. I only added a couple of sentences (sourced, of course, but you removed them too with your revert), and an explanation of the name (in a note). It's redundant IMO to repeat Zahumlje (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian: Zahumlje) in the first sentence. The explanation of the name is for this reason better in a note. "South Slavic languages" (as was in the note I added) can be changed into "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian". I don't mind adding those templates.
Regarding the version that you reverted to, this sentence is falsly referenced: The history of Zahumlje starts with the region being given by Eastern Roman Emperor Flavius Augustus Heraclius to the Croats.[2] The reference cited for this claim, page 164 of The grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire, does not mention Zahumlje at all. I didn't look into further details of your version. Vladimir (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Zoupan showed one day here and made a major rewrite of the article. In this process he removed everything connected with Bosnia and Croatia. I told him to talk here first, but he refused to discuss his vandal edits (as I see them). I would reported him already, but I was very busy in real life. Now, regarding your question about the sentence which is falsly referenced - Zahumlje was/is a part of costal Dalmatia, isn't it? If you want to rephrase sentence to match the book better, that's OK with me. Regarding the note you have added - I am Ok with the note if you think that is better for the article, but Serbian Cyrillic is also a part of South Slavic languages, which also makes it redundant. So, its either "South Slavic languages" or "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian", which suits you better. Anyway, feel free to add more material here, of course without deleting already sourced text without discussion. --Kebeta (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The same goes to you, and as such, the most comprehensive version is to be the base of further edits. Read the previous statements and compare the versions, then show us the "vandal edits".--Zoupan (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Read whole this section on the talk page. You are deleting everything not connected with Serbs or Serbia. Please, add more, but do not delete Croatian or Bosnian languages, templates, sourced text and other material....This is vandalism, not constructive or comprehensive version.--Kebeta (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I see, you cant read my english. I have removed the "History of Serbia"-template as you wished, the "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian/Cyrillic language" in the intro has been taken care of, and could you show me the "Sourced text and other material" (?), because last i checked, you deleted 10,000 bytes of information and major expansion of the article, and i advice you to stop deleting "everything connected with Serbs" as you put it. Read my previous replies and compare the versions.--Zoupan (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I can read your english very well, but you write one thing and do another. I didn't wish to remove "History of Serbia"-template, what can be seen from my edits. Contrary to your post, templates "History of Serbia", as well as "History of Croatia" and "History of Herzegovina", should be a part of this article. You should try to make smaller edits instead of major rewrite of the article. And be sure that I will check every single edit that you make, since everything so far from you was pure POV and in some cases vandalism.--Kebeta (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No edit is too small. "major rewrite" or "major expanding"? If you think all the sources I've added are POV and vandalism I suggest you put forward your evidence of this as all sources speak against your accusations. btw, war-time Krunoslav Draganovic cant be taken as a first-grade source and I ask you to find the initial source for putting Zahumlje in Croatian rule in the 870s. I have thoroughly read your version and added all crucial information and views to the comprehensive version. I hope we can make this article better together, and im seriously tired of the reverting business.--Zoupan (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Read WP:VANDTYPES - "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason", and you are removing templates and sourced text without any reason, thus vandalism. Regarding "If you think all the sources I've added are POV and vandalism I suggest you put forward your evidence of this as all sources speak against your accusations" - how can I show an evidence when you don't have a proper citation, page number for example (take a look at Sneaky vandalism also). Again, please don't delete sourced text from the article without discussion --Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Am I supposed to PrintScreen the two revisions for you to understand? READ my previous statements, NO SOURCED TEXT HAS BEEN REMOVED. You are not the owner of this article, and calling the expanding "vandalism" is just absurd, after going through your latest revision (after a record 100 edits in a row) you have added information that is in no way or little of importance to Zahumlje itself and had the guts to delete or rephrase some of the information that i've added, downplaying what is really said in the sources, also putting emphasis on history of contemporary Croatia. All sources have pages, and next time you revert, you will be reported. This is the last warning.--Zoupan (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
If you want to write only about Serbian influence on Zahumlje, you can do it in other articles like Kingdom of Serbia or Serbian Empire. This way all things "of importance to Zahumlje" will be included :) --Kebeta (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay. You are adding Krunoslav Draganović as a source? "In 879, the Pope ask for help from Croatian prince Zdeslav for an armed escort for his delegates across southern Dalmatia and Zahumlje. Later in 880, the Pope ask the same from Zdeslav's successor, prince Branimir." means that they were the rulers of Zahumlje, or that they simply received letters from the Pope? In either way, Krunoslav was an Ustasha, thus not neutral in relation to Serb-Croatian history. I suggest you come with another source saying it (This is your "everything related to Croatia"). You have misunderstood the use of the blue boxes, you have added nonsense Latin two times, of which already exists in the article, one blue box is enough, certainly if the other have no comprehensive information crucial to the history, its too much - The DAI is the most important source in the early history, and thus you cannot rephrase the history towards a "Croatian character" that did not exist at the time (read) but much later. "ref name" shouldnt be added after every single sentence, also you have not understood that Fine has two books, thus you cannot use "ref name=Fine 206". The Infobox stays, restoring and adding your edits.--Zoupan (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Zoupan, DAI is not the most important source for this article. Why? 1.) Because it's content is disputed by many historians (they think that some parts are inserted later), 2.) DAI is primary source, and Wikipedia articles use secondary sources as the best solution, 3.) DAI is controversial, first it speaks of one thing and then of another (for the same thing) - and you chose second one only? Now, I know that you are a sock of user Ajdebre, but since I don't like complaining to "admins" if it's possible to reach an agreement with another editor, I suggest you to discuss any problems on this talk page first. As I aready told you above all citation must have a page number to be verified (you improved, now most of them have) and I know that Fine has two books (actually much more, but not used here), but year 1991 refers to 'The Early Medieval Balkans' and a year 1994 refers to 'The Late Medieval Balkans'. That is another reason why the citations have to be correct. As for Infobox - it cannot stay (at least in this form). Why? Zahumlje was sometimes ruled by 'xy' (Croat or Serbian) person, and during this time was nominally a part of Byzantine Empire. So, it's POV to write in Infobox that during that time period it was ruled exclusively by Serbian or Croatian Kingdom. But, you can explain in the body of this article that for example "During the rule of 'xy' person, Byzantine Empire had none real influence in Zahumlje". Now, if all this doesn't make any sence to you, I am open to invite a "third un-involved person" (not from Balkan) to help us here. Until then, please talk and don't remove parts of the article which you don't like. If this situation continues further, I will not revert you any more, but I will report you for sure. --Kebeta (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Krunoslav Draganović

Krunoslav Draganović was an Ustasha. He is obviously not a reliable source.--Zoupan 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

@Zoupan:, we've had this discussion before, and there was no clear consensus to remove Draganović en masse: Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia#Sources. Please bring it up at WP:RSN so that we can build a clearer consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Would the removal of Draganović really be that problematic for this article? Is there a reason why he should be kept? I mean, there are countless more reliable Croatian historians.--Zoupan 09:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
Generally, I think edits like that one should be discouraged - it's not likely Draganović had fabricated it all. It's certainly unclear why you were also removing section headings - how were they referenced to Draganović? Instead, you should use the {{better source needed}} tag or remove it and replace it with {{citation needed}}, and not mix edits of various issues. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Restored 879-880 paragraph.--Zoupan 10:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Zachlumia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

That Zachlumia was a "medieval Serb principality", added since 14 January, is contradictory to the rest of the text in the article, where it says that Zachlumia was subjected to various kingdoms and duchies throughout the Middle Ages. The sources that were added for the "medieval Serb principality" edit refer only to a small period of the existence of this entity, when it was subjected to Serbia. Even taking ethnicity into account, according to Fine the inhabitants of Zachlumia were not only Serbs. (The Late Medieval Balkans, p. 20)

As regards to De Administrando Imperio, as Florin Curta noted, it refers to the political situation in the 10th century: "According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs." 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." (Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250, p. 210)

Also, why is this map preferred to this one? Tzowu (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a question for you. Croatia was subjected to either the Hungarian crown or the Habsburgs for nearly 1,000 years. Does this mean it wasn't Croatian? Among the five sources provided, Hupchick does not shy away from stating that Zachlumia and the three other Serb principalities were subjected to countless foreign rulers during their existence and yet remained predominantly inhabited and dominated by Serbs. You are presenting us with a false choice: either Zachlumia was always independent of foreign domination and almost exclusively inhabited by Serbs or else its ethnic and national affiliation is inherently indeterminate. This makes no sense.
As for the maps, I say scrap both. The first one doesn't provide any sources and the second relies on highly dubious ones (blogs, etc.) 23 editor (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not presenting any choice, but giving a remark that the claim in question is contradicted in the text itself in both possible meanings of "Serb principality": Zachlumia wasn't controlled by Serbia most of the time period covered by the article and its inhabitants were not only Serbs. Even those five sources are not in contradiction with what I wrote. Hupchick 2017, p. 274 can be interpreted as the political situation of the late 10th century; Bideleux & Jeffries 2007, p. 234 as the political situation of 1037-1038; Velikonja 2003, p. 44 as the political situation in the early 10th century; Fleming 2002, p. 25 says that "Serbs also settled in Hercegovina, in areas known as Zahumlje (or Hum or Humska zemlja), which lay between the Neretva River and Dubrovnik", Zahumlje extended at times beyond this area and west of Neretva and the sentence doesn't mean that only Serbs settled in Zahumlje; Sedlar gives a reference to Red Croatia and it breaking away from Croatia after the death of Tomislav on p. 17.
There was a similar discussion already in 2011 Talk:Zachlumia/Archive 1#Edits. The lead should summarize the body of the article, in my opinion the previous version of the lead had a NPOV and should be brought back. Tzowu (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
And I agree with removing those maps. Tzowu (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
The phrase "Serb principality" doesn't have to appear in the very first line as it does now, but if you're going to argue that we should omit to mention this detail in the intro entirely, then I'm going to have to disagree with your proposal. 23 editor (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Protected version

@Vanjagenije: Why was protection of this article placed on its faulty version? In this highly problematic version, referenced text was disrupted, some scholarly references were erased and links were broken, quotations were altered, false titles invented - drastic examples in section: External links! Titles of several well known scholarly works, already listed in section Bibliography, were renamed in section "External links" and replaced with invented comments! Such disruptive editing becomes quite obvious when versions are compared, but it seems that protection was placed in haste, without proper analysis. Sorabino (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sorabino: You should know that there is no wrong version. See meta:The Wrong Version for more info. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: That is why I did not use that term, because my remarks were not about terminology. I was pointing out to obvious problems with the current version, because administrators have instructed all interested editors to discus those issues here. Sorabino (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This article was not problematic for many years (since 9 February 2004!). It was only when Sorabino started to push his edits that it became highly problematic, by his removings of referenced text or references CLEARLY readable in the external links section, obviously without having read them before or ignored them on purpose. --Silverije (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
That is not true. Current problems in this article occurred on 25 January 2018 with this edits of user @Silverije:, and soon after that problems were made worse by his edits on 26 January. As I stated above, by his edits referenced text was disrupted, some references to scholarly works were erased and some links were broken, important quotations and translations of primary sources were also altered, and above all some false titles were invented - everyone can see drastic examples in section: external links. Titles of some scholarly works, already listed in section "Bibliography", were renamed in section "External links" and replaced with invented comments. Such disruptive editing is clear embarrassment for Wikipedia, and problems are becoming quite obvious when versions are compared. Sorabino (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. Current problems occured before 25 January 2018. --Silverije (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Full support for the concept of "wrong version", but any objections to removing the "reference" to NetLibrary quickly? That's one of the many "World Heritage" Wikipedia mirrors; note the "citational source" link at the bottom of the linked article which points back to Michael of Zahumlje here. It's a little embarrassing to have that circular reference as a source. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no wrong version. See above. --Silverije (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Silverije:, could I trouble you to actually read my question? Pinging Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) and Sorabino (talk · contribs). IT appears both Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs) and Ceha (talk · contribs) added that ref - I'd rather not edit through full protection to remove the obvious error unless there's a consensus. I just can't imagine what the contrary position would be. Kuru (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Kuru: Feel free to remove it, of course. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
If the "World Heritage" reference is a mirror, I agree that it should be removed, but I didn't find the link at the bottom which points back to Wikipedia. --Silverije (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that circular reference in section External links should be removed, since it is an obvious mirror of other article on Wikipedia. That mistake was made by user Silverije, and repeated by users Ceha and Ktrimi991, who just supported Silverije. History shows that those two never made real contributions to this article. Sorabino (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I did not look back far enough in the history. @Silverije:, again, please evaluate that reference and let me know why you feel it meets WP:RS. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I already answered above. --Silverije (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The sources for this article look weak. Even if the obvious problems with the external links are fixed, we would be falling back on existing sources that maybe should not be there. It is of interest that the German Wikipedia article on this topic at de:Zahumlje links to two books published since 1990 (in German) that appear to be serious historical works. One of them is by de:Heinrich Kunstmann (Slawist) who until his death in 2009 was a professor at Munich. The two books are:
I hope that some editors here may be able to access these works, or get in contact with a German-speaker who can assist. If not, and if we are stuck with only bad references, one strategy is simply to reduce the scope of the article and take out some of the weakly-supported claims about the past national affiliations of this bit of territory. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
With no other objections, I've removed the obvious bad reference. Kuru (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zachlumia/Archive_1&oldid=1079351427"