Talk:Catepanate of Ras

Articles without bibliography
For many years, many articles about medieval Serbian history have been written without bibliography and with no reference to what conntemporary Serbian historiography discusses. removed sources which are used in the article and re-added sources which aren't used in the article. I have reverted them. Every discussion is welcome but to claim that acceptable points which stem from research within Serbian historiography are "fictional" is WP:FRINGE. The fact that something had remained stale on wikipedia for years because nobody bothered to verify it, doesn't make it acceptable. That is what contemporary Serbian historiography and medieval archaeology is discussing. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Other issues: Cirkovic (2008) discusses Ras/Rascia only in one instance: . used Cirkovic (2008) as a source for  which the author doesn't mention anywhere in relation to Arsa/Ras/Rascia in the 7th century.
 * Bad use of bibliography as a means of support for POV talking points will only bring admin oversight. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There are so many issues here that are misunderstood, and therefore misrepresented by the user For start, it is quite clear, since the very creation of this article, back in 2011, that it was about the Catepanate of Ras, a Byzantine province that existed c. 971-976. After 1018, a new Byzantine province, the Theme of Serbia was created, but that is a different subject. All editors had respected that, throughout the years, until recent edits by the user Maleschreiber, who created several problems, and one of the main is misrepresentation. For example, the claim of user Maleschreiber that historian Sima Ćirković: "" is 100% untrue, since the issues regarding Ras/Racia/Raška are treated throughout his work, as can be seen by the simple search. Ćirković has entire chapter called literally: "The town of Ras and Raška Land" but user Maleschreiber is somehow silent on that, here in his discussion, because it is he who actually removed from the text all references to Ćirković′s work! Further on, a claim of the user Maleschreiber that I had "" is also 100% untrue, since I did not remove a single source, and in fact, I added some more. It is the user Maleschreiber who is removing sources, by his own admission, and that can be clearly seen in the edit history. Non of the quotes that he has produced support the claim that the Catepanate of Ras existed during the 11th century or later! Events from the 11th century and later belong to different subject, the Theme of Serbia. Since edits of user Maleschreiber are not an improvement, I will try correct them in hope that the integrity of this article shall be restored. Sorabino (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cirkovic (2008) doesn't mention any "collapse of the Byzantine Empire" and "settlement of Serbs" in this region in the 7th century.
 * You replaced Ivanišević (2013): with
 * The 1127 date marks the final collapse of Byzantine rule in the area, but you've removed it from the article. Its relevant information and adds context about the historical era regardless of whether a catepanate existed at that point in time.
 * - The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is a medieval forgery.
 * You've marked the article with an anachronistic narrative about "Serbian lands". You wouldn't be allowed to do this in a proper paper, so you can't do this on wikipedia either. I'm not interested in proving any WP:POINT, so I'm not interested in getting involved in an edit-war. But, I will tag the article because we have a fundamental dispute which involves several guidelines. This was borderland area with quickly shifting allegiances, identities and state rulers. Your narrative is retroactively projecting onto the past modern analytic categories ("Serbian lands", "South Slavic revolt" etc.) and an essentialist reading of history. I'm pinging for a second look whenever he has some spare time.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)