Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1

title etc
This article looked like a WP:POV fork, so I merged the histories to make things clear. Whichever way it goes, the rules are clear - references, references, references. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the persistent edit war, and the article history, it looks pretty lopsided - the editor(s) with a Serb nationalist slant place too much emphasis on the Serb qualities of this domain, while the opposing Croat/Bosniak/whatever side basically dismisses that out of hand. We need an impartial observer to determine whether any of this is relevant. I will also remind that on this matter, admins have the option of blocking abuse with a single warning. Because started this latest round of mess with what looked like a content fork, and is persisting without any discussion on talk so far, he's the (first) recipient of such a final warning. I advise the others to stop the simple reverting and explain their edits in detail here, or they will get the same treatment. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ducatus Sancti Sabae = Duchy of Saint Sava. The fact that it is referred to as Duchy of Herzegovina (Duchy of the Duke's/Herzog's Land), is clearly part of the intro (if this is the problem with the Croat/Bosniak/whatever side). If you read the article there is none of "Serb nationalism", just compare the two revisions and their quality, and explain your dislikes of the content. So far the expanding of the article is good, I dont see any faults with the current sourced revision. --Zoupan (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.

Long overdue rename from previous move without solid source and basis in reality
Prior to his block, sock-puppeteer Zoupan/Ajdebre moved the article from its original title "Duchy of Herzegovina", and then did it a few more times, every time without discussion, hence prompting an edit-wars, because the moves were unwarranted and controversial as they were without basis in reality and in historical facts, or basis in modern solid mainstream scholarship. Editors in good standing and with established credibility, Joy, Surtiscna, Potocnik, Praxis, and Kebeta attempted to alleviate the damage but Zoupan/Ajdebre kept reverting them. However, I wonder if anyone who still agree with a mess Zoupan/Ajdebre was creating, really thought that this kind of misinterpretation of data, misrepresentation of historical reality, and misuse of sources, could really withstand scrutiny?
 * First ref is 274 years old "Illyricum vetus & novum, siue, Historia regnorum Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Slavoniae, Bosniae, Serviae, atque Bulgariae", by Caroli Du Fresne domini Du Cange - can not be checked;
 * (Subsequently inserted) - In above TP section, sock-master, Zoupan, claimed that "Ducatus Sancti Sabae -equals- Duchy of Saint Sava.". He refed this with Charles du Fresne's 300yr. old work, which really mention "Ducatus Sancti Sabae", but he lied about translation, which he claimed to be "Duchy of St.Sava", which simply is not true. "Ducatus Sancti Sabae" means, simply and literally, "Duke of Saint Sava". -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, with an exception of Zlatar and Fine, it is impossible to check these refs and its source texts. Du Cange is known as a pioneer in research of the Byzantine history but his time has long passed, Fine is still foremost authority for Balkans history, but the rest are obscure authors. There is one particularly weird reference - "The Danube-Aegean waterway project: a paper" (?!) And even stranger yet is this choice of sources, when we have a plenty of distinguished medievalists from all over former Yugoslavia, who comprehensively researched Herzeg Stjepan specifically ! Why blocked sock-puppeteer Zoupan/Ajdebre moved this article and re-titled it in this way, how controversial was that move, most importantly, how strong are sources used to justify such a controversial move, how many of these sources is out there if I couldn't find any, how common is this name from the articles title (used for the land which was never a state to any degree(!) considering any era, as noted by Surtiscna in one of edit-summaries) in mainstream scholarship, especially contemporary to us? Now, here's how Stjepan Vukčić, the guy who took the title Herzog of Saint Sava, styled himself in his charters, including period from time he titled himself that way until his death in 1466, three years after Bosnian Kingdom was annihilated - in full title and style between 1448-66 used interchangeably: Point to a part of Stjepan's title where the realm under his domain is mentioned - how he, Stjepan Vukčić, calls his realm!? I am certainly aware of the methodology or ways historians name former countries when and if they have first hand sources, when they can confirm how former rulers called their realms - they, historians, don't invent new ones (especially not fake ones), nor reinterpret old ones, they simply use the name as it was used when that realm existed, and hopefully left behind numerous clues in numerous written monuments. They also say that Herzeg Stjepan's is one of the medieval characters whose life is the best documented among pre-Ottoman South Slavic elites. So, if anyone is really willing to contest this move, they should first accept that instead of presenting couple of obscure sources, expressing surprising and hence fringe view, only credible mainstream medievalists who researched, specifically, life and deeds of the Herzeg Stjepan should be used, such as probably the most distinguished and decorated historian and medievalist among Serbian scientists, Sima Ćirković, who is the one who made this statement of Herzeg's life being the best documented.(S.Ćirković, Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba, Intro/Uvod pp.1, 2) Now, proper sources: Sima Ćirković also commended authors Mavro Orbini i Jakov Lukarević as the first to devote considerable and deserved attention to Herzeg's life in their works. On the sidenote, another was Ljubo Jovanović, who calls Bosnian Kingdom a Serb kingdom, which was usual even expected for Serbian and Croatian authors of the age (19th c.), but not even he used this fake name, "Duchy of Saint Sava", for Hum/Herzegovina in his Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. He calls it "Humsko vojvodstvo" - actually, all proper medievalists, regardless of era, use these names: "Hum", "Humska zemlja", from 1450's "Hercegovina" ("Herzegovina").-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Second is Nebojša Damnjanović's and Vladimir Merenik's "The first Serbian uprising and the restoration of the Bosniak[?!] state". Who are Damnjanović and Merenik, and where is published and where and how many time is cited/referenced this work of theirs and by whom - can not be checked;
 * Third is Vaso Čubrilović who, beside being in snipet previews and can't be checked, isn't exactly a foremost authority on historical research and source of information, especially since we know, hopefully, how to use good mainstream contemporary, modern and post-modern, researchers which are in abundance in Serbo-Croatian.
 * "By the Grace of God Stjepan Herceg of Saint Sava, Lord of Hum and Bosnian Grand Duke, Knyaz of Drina and the rest"
 * "By the Grace of God Herceg of Hum and Duke of Primorje, Bosnian Grand Duke, Knyaz of Drina and the rest"
 * Sima Ćirković and his Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba, and Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države - for instance, the best insight on how Ćirković writes about our article subject is given on pp.336, 337 - there is no fabled land nor country, let alone "short-lived state", called "Duchy of St.Sava". Ćirković described Herzeg Stejpan while he was on his death-bed dictating his last words in 1466, and when he mentions his country Bosnia, three years after its annihilation. Nowhere in the book is mentioned such a "state" called Duchy of St.Sava;
 * Marko Vego Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske države - the most direct and most obvious description can be read in this one, pp.42-50, and last two para. on p.48 in particular ;
 * Pavao Anđelić's, on "Humska zemlja" in Studije o teritorijalno političkoj organizaciji srednjovjekovne Bosne, pp. 239, 240.

dine ''' u pismu osmanskog komandanta Esebega iz Skoplja.
 * U povelji od 29. januara 1448. godine herceg Stjepan naziva se “božijom milošću herceg Humske zemlje i primorski vojvoda, veliki vojvoda bosanskog rusaga (države), knez drinski i još drugih krajeva“.
 * U potvrdi hercega Stjepana od 5. jula 1450. godine (...) se oslovio: "Mi gospodin Stjepan, herceg od Svetoga Save, gospodar humski i veliki vojvoda rusaga bosanskoga, knez drinski i k tomu“.
 * Herceg Stjepan s titulom "herceg od Svetoga Save (Ducatus s. Sabbe)“ podigao je svoj ugled i čitavog plemena Kosača unutar bosanske države i vani. Zato je sve okupljene zemlje u sklopu Hercegovine nazvao Hercegovinom. Tu se radilo o zemljama: Humskoj zemlji, Zagorju, oblasti Drini, Rudinama, Banjanima, Trebinju, Gornjoj i Donjoj Zeti, Polimlju, Dračevici, Krajini i Poljici kod Cetine. Nije isključeno da je naziv Hercegovina potekao i od drugih država.
 * '''Prvi put se topografski naziv Hercegovina za oznaku svih zemalja hercega Stjepana Vukčića-Kosače pojavljuje na historijskoj pozornici 1. februara 1454. go-
 * Tako se pojam Humska zemlja postepeno gubi da ustupi mjesto novom imenu zemlje hercega Stjepana — Hercegovini.

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Zachlumia
Noticing the recent rename, I had a look, and it struck me - why are we not linking Zachlumia early in this article? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, it should be part of the History section, first paragraph if not entire sub-section, albeit small but decently elaborated. It was precluding political reality, which existed on the ground prior to Stjepan II acquisition of entire region in 1326, roughly, with Zahumlje, Travunija, Primorije and Narenta, which will be placed under Kosača family over-lordship - constitution of Hum marked a rise of that family to prominence. That's a necessary prehistory of Humska zemlja. However, I have battled with the proper title, and decided to use Serbo-Croatian name as it is the only proper name used academically. Meanwhile, significant text changes will have to wait - I have only as much time to make these bit-by-bit improvements, for the time being. Unless someone jumps on board and helps.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Humska zemlja / Zahumlje" and "Duchy of St. Sava" should be separated
Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic. Relevant historical sources and literature are listed. With a few clicks, the correctness of the data can be checked. If there is any objection, write it and we will discuss it and I will also quote other relevant titles if necessary. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: The article "Humska zemlja" or "Zahumlje" and "Duchy of St. Sava" should be separated. Hum/Zahumlje was a historical area from 7 -14 centuries and with special state traditions (up to the middle of 14 centuries as part of Raska) while Duchy of Saint Sava /Herzegovina Svetoga Save/Ducatus Sancti Sabe) has been the area and state of Kosača noble family in 15th century. Even in a geographical sense there is a difference between this the two terms. There is already an article on wikipedia (Zahumlje/Principality of Hum)). Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons. This led to confusion as well. In any case, the omission in the title needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.152.93 (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, Mavro Orbini (in his work "Il Regno de gli Slavi") has two different chapters regarding this topic:" The Principality of Hum" and "The Duchy of Saint Sava" In the last part of the book. If necessary, I can post photos of the chapters with pagination, as well as parts from DAI that refer to Zahumlje, Travunija, Konavle and Paganija. It is very important not to confuse these two terms. This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all. I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic. We must not allow such a practice to be copied to the English Wikipedia. Regarding this problem, I recommend the following texts: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/ https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Croatia/Croatian-language-Wikipedia-when-the-extreme-right-rewrites-history-190081 https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-wikipedia-je-takvo-smece-da-su-i-vlasnici-digli-ruke-od-nje/2138213.aspx In 2021 the Wikimedia Foundation posted a job ad for a Disinformation evaluator position, with the aim to further examine disputed content on the Croatian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.152.93 (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This is just a very short selection from the bibliography: There are 19 charters (Stjepan Vukčić Kosača and his sons) with this title. If necessary, I can post photos of all 19 charters. In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet. https://prnt.sc/10m3maw https://prnt.sc/10lyvwo https://app.box.com/s/06dsf2t6z8nsdudev1ix015zp1j42hyh http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BOSNIA.htm#_Toc359577451 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.152.93 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Vogel, Walther (2015). Dan neue Europa und seine historisch-geografischen Grudlagen (jezik: njemački). Paderborn: Salzwasser Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-84607-843-3. p 336,
 * Lejla Nakas, Konkordancijski Rjecnik Cirilskih Povelja Srednjovjekovne Bosne p 42-49, p 113, 114, 118-125, 129-132, 135-139 https://www.academia.edu/35567380/Konkordancijski_rjecnik_cirilskih_povelja_srednjovjekovne_Bosne.
 * Hösch, Edgar (2018). Geschichte der Balkanländer; Von der Frühzeit bis zur Gegenwart (jezik: njemački). München: C. H. Beck. ISBN 978-3-406-57299-9. p 75, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest p 578
 * Caroli Du Fresne domini Du Cange Illyricum vetus & novum, siue, Historia regnorum Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Slavoniae, Bosniae, Serviae, atque Bulgariae p 126 Il Regno de gli Slavi by Mavro Orbini https://books.google.ba/books?id=Fx3OntcdUkQC&redir_esc=y, Mavro Orbini, Kraljevstvo Slovena, p 439-447
 * Moravcsik, Gyula, ed. (1967) [1949]. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (2nd revised ed.). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. ISBN 9780884020219. chapter 32-33
 * Fine, John V. A. Jr. (1991) [1983]. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7., pp 49-59, pp 141, pp 159-160, pp 171-179, pp 180, pp 185-186, pp 202-208, pp 219, pp 291
 * Fine, John Van Antwerp (1994) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08260-4. pp 17-21, pp 142-149, pp 275-285, pp 322-325, 99 368-370, pp 384-395, pp 408-414, pp 453-488, pp 491-492,pp 498, pp 516, pp 531-534, pp 551-552, pp 555, pp 560, pp 577-590, pp 599, pp 611
 * Mak Dizdar, Stari Bosanski tekstovi pp 112 http://pdfknjige.net/knjiga.php?pdf=stari-bosanski-tekstovi
 * Momčilo Spremić, Balkanski vazali kralja Alfonsa Aragonskog, Prekinut uspon, Beograd 2005, pp. 355–358


 * Not one of these sources maintain your position, as not one mention any kind of "duchy" let alone "duchy" with that name - that Stjepan Kosača renamed his title from "herzog of Hum" to "herzog of St.Sava", but nevertheless used both interchangeably until his death, is in no way disputed, however, that does not influence the fact that the land was and still is referred to as Hum (Humska zemlja, in English Hum Land) - his title was "herzog of St.Sava and Lord of Hum", Hum being the land, and of St.Sava titular suffix referring to a saint, so he was not Lord of Duchy of St.Sava, because there was no duchy to begin with, and certainly not with that name(!), and never is any one historian nor primary historical source referred to it as "duchy of St.Sava". You nor anyone else should interpret his title and use that interpretation to give unsupported name to historic land and then title our article - that's blatant OR.
 * Further, these accusations and aspersions should be enough to bring an IP permanent block.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally have not heard about "Duchy of St. Sava". Today I researched Serbian and Croatian or Bosnian sources but I do not find quality sources which speak of it, only some title is mentioned. I suggest that newer Balkan sources be exposed first to see what this is about. Also a map which existed which determines the territory of that "Duchy" is WP:OR because there is no source for confirmation. Mikola22 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Non whatsoever ! The name "Duchy of St. Sava" is invention of the blocked POV-pusher and sock known under username Zoupan, who used Ajdebre and Ardic-as Zoupan as sock-accounts to support damage he was making to the article. This sock has pulled this name out of his magic hat and re-titled the article back in 2011, disregarding in the process many objections espoused by User:Joy. who objected it here in TP above, and editors User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, all of whom objected in a number of reverts with elaborate edit-summaries (can be observed in article's history page).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, this mess is creating on article Talk page should be dealt with by admin. Although I suspect the IP belong to bs.wiki admin who goes under the username AnToni, these unsigned accusations of perceived vandalism, chauvinism, nationalism, invoking alleged analogy between our article and project with article and wikipedia in Croatian language, misrepresenting sources (all of the above listed) through misinterpretation and misreading the source texts, disregarding WP:OR and WP:RS in its all relating instances (such as prim, second, tert distinction; academic specificity of training and age for/of scholarship; etc.), must be stooped in its tracks, especially now when we have one quite arduous arbitration enforcement case regarding these kind of scope problems.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And NO, I don't have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet, my wife is a Belgrade born and bred Serb woman, which makes our three children at least half-Serbs, unless they say differently! You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Duke of Saint Sava
The title "Duke of Saint Sava" is well attested historical title, and the subject of this article is defined by that title, and its historical scope (15th century). We also have a more general article, on the region of "Humska zemlja", that has a common English title: Zachlumia. There is no need to confuse those two subjects, or to corrupt this article, that has its distinctive theme. Here are some search results for the English version of the title: Search entries for variants of the same title in other languages are showing similar results. This article is well defined, by the historical scope of this feudal title. Does anyone here disputes the historicity of this title? Sorabino (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Books Search for the title "Duke of St. Sava"
 * Google Scholar Search for the title "Duke of St. Sava"
 * Google Books Search for the title "Duke of Saint Sava"
 * Google Scholar Search for the title "Duke of Saint Sava"
 * "title of the Duke of Saint Sava". You don't see that all sources talking about the title. We need sources that speak of existence, political entity and history of that "Duchy" not "title" because the article talks about "Duchy of St Sava". Present informations are in fact WP:OR because in the context is the "title" not "Duchy".
 * First source from Fine, John Van Antwerp Jr. "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" on page 160 don't talk about "Duchy". Source of "Mak Dizdar, Stari Bosanski tekstovi" is source which expose primary information's.


 * You first must expose Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian sources in which historians speak about Duchy. Conclusions from these sources must be the basis in the talk page decision because without these sources this is an artificial article based on some title which has been mentioned a couple of times somewhere through history. For now this article is actually a promotion of OR and WP:SYN. Mikola22 (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , could we all agree, for start, that the medieval feudal title "Duke of Saint Sava" (15th century) was a historical reality, well attested in sources, and also used in historiography, and could we also agree that this article was created to present the content on the historical and political scope of that title? Sorabino (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources talk about it (title) so we have to respect that but sources do not talk about "Duchy" ie present "Duchy" context. All sources and citations should be presented which talk about "Duchy" and then we can start discussing whether this is enough for existence of an independent article. This is my opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , ok - we agree on something - that historical feudal title (Duke of Saint Sava) itself is not disputed here. Could we also agree that the term "Humska zemlja" refers to "Hum" or "Zahumlje" in general, a subject that is fuly covered in the main article that has an English title: Zachlumia. Since we have that general article on Humska zemlja = Hum = Zahumlje = Zachlumia (all synonyms) it would be improper to use the term "Humska zemlja" for the title of any other, more specific and narrower article, like this one, that refers only to the 15th century title "Duke of Saint Sava" and its historical scope. Sorabino (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you go too wide with conclusions. It should be focus on this article and the sources that talk about specific "Duchy of St Sava", ie of territory, history, political entity, boundaries of that entity, etc. To see what it's about. Mikola22 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , this article has a very specific subject, that is well defined by the historical and political scope of the title "Duke of Saint Sava" (15th century). The article was stable, since its very creation up to those recent changes and moves, made by one user . It seems that he wanted to create an article on the Bosnian period of rule over this region (14th-15th centuries) but instead of writing such article, he tried to use this article, disregarding the fact that those are two different subjects. If someone would want to create a specific article on the Bosnian period of rule over this region, that would be totally OK, but that should be a new article, while this article (DoSS) should maintain its own scope. Wouldn′t that be the best solution? Sorabino (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will repeat since Sorabino moving discussion with these breaks, disregarding what was said before: the name "Duchy of St. Sava" is invention of the blocked POV-pusher and sock known under username Zoupan, who used Ajdebre and Zoupan as sock-accounts to support damage he was making to the article. This sock has pulled this name out of his magic hat and re-titled the article back in 2011, disregarding in the process many objections espoused by User:Joy. who objected it here in TP above, and editors User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, all of whom objected in a number of reverts with elaborate edit-summaries (can be observed in article's history page).
 * Sorabino should revert themselves in order to halt the procedures which I intend to follow on this issue - very likely socking, moving the page and redirects without RS evidence and consensus, misinterpreting RS, completely inventing the topic and article scope in a worst OR I encountered in my 10+years on the project.
 * Just for the record and to attest Mikola22 statement:
 * Zachlumia was political entity separate from the political entity called Humska zemlja both in territory these entities covered and in epoch they existed - Humska zemlja was new political reality 1326, when Ban Stjepan II Kotromanić annexed small counties of Zachlumia, Nerenta, Travunia, Primorije with Konavle. From 1326 to 1482 it was only called Humska zemlja, although from 1454 name Herzegovina started to appear however Humska zemlja was still the only name which could be found in primary sources, that is in medieval charters. This is all from medievalists whose very narrow interest was medieval Serbia, Bosnia, Humska zemlja, and people like herzog Kosača, namely Serbian medievalists Mihajlo Dinić and Sima Ćirković, Bosnian medievalists Pavao Anđelić and Marko Vego.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , first: I had many disputes with that former user, who was known as "Zoupan" (look at my talk page). Second: this article is about medieval feudal title "Duke of Saint Sava" and its historical and political scope (15th century). If you want to create an article on the period of Bosnian rule in those regions (14th-15century) go ahead, but please stop corrupting this article. Historical title (Duke of Saint Sava) is relevant enough to have an article, as so many other feudal titles and polities they represented. There are hundreds of such articles. And please, can we at least agree that the title "Duke of Saint Sava" is well attested in historical sources, and thus used in historiography? I hope that you are not deniying that. Sorabino (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this article is certainly about Duchy of St. Sava. If it's about title it should be named Duke of St. Sava, which is attested title of Stjepan Kosača, for sure. --Mhare (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you proposing to move this article to "Duke of Saint Sava" thus referring directly to that feudal title? You are aware that historical and political scope of that title would still be the part of the article, so in essence, the content would be practically unchanged in that aspect, but also widened with all later uses and mentions of the title. That would be an interesting addition for sure. Sorabino (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * u|Sorabino, I realized I might don't know too much about this field as I might have thought, as you have maybe noticed on the talk pages of Bosnian wiki. The evidence Santasa provided made (especialy Ćorović) a good point, but I also see other literature with Dutchy of St Sava so I'm not entirely sure. I just observed you are talking about title, as The Guy was Duke of Saint Sava, Lord of Hum (translated Gospodar Humske zemlje). --Mhare (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  (Inserted reply)  -, Sorabino and IP (IP range is now blocked for their violation) injecting inadequate sources printed in Europe 100+ years ago (itineraries, historical-geography atlases, encyclopaedia, comparative histories' overviews - all tertiary, all outdated, and all written by non-medievalists and/or people whose focus is not on narrow research on the matter (Hum) ) - these sources simply do not comply with our policies on reliable sources (WP:RS), and can't be compared with those seven books ("Humska zemlja u srednjem veku" by Siniša Mišić (Serbian, Profesor nacionalne istorija srednjeg veka (Professor of National History of the Middle Ages), at University of Belgrade ), one by Mihajlo Dinić (Serbian), two by Sima Ćirković (Serbian), two by Marko Vego (Bosnian), one by Pavao Anđelić (Bosnian)) which are the most important, most focused, most detailed, and still up-to-date very specific, very narrow researches on the topic. I take these medievalist (Mišić, Dinić, Ćirković, Vego, Anđelić) for their written word, and Sorabino seeks conformation for his/hers POV all over the Internet and Google, and will always be able to find something inadequate like above mentioned sources found by them. However, we have very clear rules how to chose between sources too. Nothing is left to editors' arbitrariness and personal whim, and this is exactly Tezwoo is talking about when they objected inclusion of all that IP and Sorabino dug out from Internet.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about the history of Hum in the period in question, during the rule of Stjepan Kosača. It seems to me that "Vojvodstvo Svetog Save" was just one of the numerous names used for "Hum" or "Humska zemlja" in the Middle Ages, and not a different/new a duchy. Per Vego 1982, p. 54: "Bio je svjestan da je gospodar velike i značajne oblasti Hercegovine čije ime nije nikad stavio u svoj naslov pri pisanju pisama i povelja nego je uvijek odvojeno označio razne manje oblasti kojima je vladao. Naročito je isticao uz ostale naslove i naslov da je gospodar Zemlje Svetoga Save gdje je živio na njegovu dvoru mitropolit mileševski David, njegov ukućanin." ... "Misli da se u pojmu herceg Svetoga Save i veće podrazumijeva čitava neosvojena baština naslijeđena od hercega Stjepana Vukčića-Kosače. Tako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo svetog Save ( Ducatus s. Sabbe ili Save ) umjesto Hercegovina."
 * According to Helena Dragić: Od horonima Zahumlje do horonima Hercegovina: "Malo je zemalja koje su kroz povijest toliko puta mijenjale ime kao što je Hercegovina. Najprije se zvala Zahumlje, Hlonska, pa Humska, ali i Gornja Dalmacija, potom Vojvodstvo svetoga Save (Sabe), Principovina, Ivanbegovina (Skenderbegovina), te od 1448. godine do naših dana Hercegovina." Per this source, if this "duchy" in the article was established in 1448, it should be called "Duchy of Herzegovina". Tezwoo (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know about your disputes with Zoupan, he is irrelevant in your context, possibility of your IP's being used for editing yesterday is.


 * In line with Mhare, who observed correctly, if your, Sorabino, intention is to create article solely about the noble title "Duke of Saint Sava", which would then be properly referred to as "duchy", then you should not do following:
 * you should not use this particular article but create new one instead - this article is connected with myriad of other articles, navboxes, wiki-data, and you are disrupting all those links and connections; hell, you even moved the redirect(!);
 * you should not use "Former countries" Infobox and other templates indicative of country/land/antity;
 * you should not use article narrative to inject misinformation on the name for the land or political entity, where this particular title is used by its nobility.
 * you should not use this particular article but create new one instead for reason stated under 1.
 * But even if your intention is to create a new article about the noble title, you really need to bare in mind the strict notability policy of this project (WP:NOTA), because such article would be extremely irrelevant in my eyes, since we have no RS about it, except those in which medievalist just mentioning it, however nobody not one expert ever researched that topic, what it was, how was created, how was granted, what was its position in peerage system. and do on - we simply don't have scholarship at our disposal, particular research of peerage system since such institute never existed in Serbia and Bosnia that researchers could begin with! All this means that such an article on the title would be removed - hell, we barely can describe Balkan medieval titles like vojvoda, župan and knez, we have articles in poor state and unreferenced because we don't have research about that either.
 * However, your intention is not clear as seen from your earlier explanations and reverts, and your explanation at Ed Johnston TP where you are citing tertiary source (encyclopaedia published in 1953) and comparative historical overview written before 1911 on entire medieval epoch and entire, as author calls it, Eastern Roman Empire, so it seem that you just using topic of "nobility title" to sneak in article about the alleged political entity and land called "Duchy of Saint Sava". Either way I advise you to revert yourself in light of the currently discussed discretionary sanctions on the Balkan scope.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  13:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a stable article, with a well defined subject. Its title is accepted and used in English historiography. Here are just two selected references, from notable publications: The Cambridge Medieval History, t. 4 (1923): Duchy of St Sava and Encyclopædia Britannica, t. 15 (1953): "Duchy of St Sava". There are many other sources that could be added to support the use of that title. Sorabino (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "stable" and nothing is "well defined" - you are now moving both, this page and its redirect, your last move is done over redirect and all against consensus and objection of three editors. You are using and misusing sources and fringe sources, and you are misinterpreting your intentions with the article scope. I don't want to continue this discussion on your TP, but if you find this problem intriguing enough we would really, really appreciate some interjection from you.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  13:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One additional remark to, if you decide to get involved with this: please, take into consideration to move page back to its evidence based proper name "Humska zemlja", which also has consensus among three editor (myself included), and then, I guess, move protection would be next step, as Sorabino obviously have no intentions to back down despite the objection of three editors who refused to reach consensus on Sorabino's position. Sorabino's references are fringe, outdated and out of context - Sorabino misrepresents his intentions about the scope and in line with that they misrepresent sources. I can explain further if needed.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you please explain why are you trying to replace the entire subject of this article with a different subject, when you can create a new article under whatever subject you want, and leave this article in its stable state, as was defined since its very creation years ago. If The Cambridge Medieval History and Encyclopædia Britannica are not good enough sources for you, well that is something else then. Why are you so against the old medieval feudal title of the Dukes of Saint Sava? Are you generaly oppose to an article on that subject? Sorabino (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This article was never about the noble title, it was always about the country, it was about the country before I stepped in, and it still is about the country ! It's you who changes the scope of the article, however it is obvious to me, and to Mhare (from his above statement), that you are just using that rational where you supposedly want it to be about the title, when in actuality article is still about the country and you explained it yourself that you want it to be about the historical and political scope of the title "Duke of Saint Sava" (15th century), which is nothing but again about the country. If you want to create an article about the title, you can try to do that, but I believe it would never cross notability threshold, as I explained it earlier above, but you obviously don't read my posts in full if at all. However, you need to desist and rollback your re-namings, so that we have all the navboxes, categories, and links referring to this article not messed up.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles on the Duchy of Saint Sava exist on 13 (thirteen) Wikipedia projects. I am not worried, after I just saw what was happening on Bosnian Wikipedia, in relation to the parallel article (Vojvodstvo Svetog Save). BW administrator was right to protect that article from further vandalism, and the same thing should happen here. Sorabino (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not worried, but your conduct would worry me for sure. You have moved the page, then you moved the redirect, then you renamed the page using improper English language - when you realized that I am able to undo your reverts, where you reinstated old name "Duchy of Saint Sava", you came up with an idea to change the name completely, but since "Duchy of St. Sava" with this "Saint" abbreviation "St." is in existence, you tweaked it by removing a full stop from its abbreviation "St" ! Now we have article with a title "Duchy of St Sava". You should read Page-move war not just Moving a page.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sorabino, unfortunately I can't support this article because you have not presented sources that speak of the duchy. Sources mention the title and perhaps some source duchy but without more detailed information. If I had been asked to provide sources and data I would done this immediately. You must to acquaint the editors with the facts, in this(your) way we know nothing. Mikola22 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific phrase used in the article title seems to only have a few cursory mentions in all the linked sources scraped from Google Books that I have seen here. Overall, this time period of less than a century being defining isn't technically impossible (cf. Italian Regency of Carnaro, Free State of Fiume, Province of Carnaro...), but it should be supported by way better sources than single sentence mentions, esp. in sources that just reproduce some medieval source with no analysis. As is, this looks like a case of Duke of Wellington (title) vs. Duchy of Wellington (the latter is not actually much of a thing). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Duchy of Saint Sava - More historical sources
Here are some other historical sources that Orbini referred to. All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic) sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses, it would be good to include these photos (especially this inscription of Queen Catherine of Rome) or some of them in the article (with a short translation into English).

From "Il Regno degli Sclavi" from 1601 (Serbo-Croatian translation 2016) (Mavro Orbini) according to Roman Catholic Church sources. the Serbo-Croatian edition of this source from 2016 has an appendix at the end of the book, which contains photographs of the original edition with a list of authors to whom Orbini referred. This complete edition of this source (2016) has an appendix at the end of the book that contains photographs of the original edition with a list of authors to whom Orbini referred. Duchy of Saint Sava: https://ibb.co/513KK0y Principality of Hum: https://ibb.co/7CYr27k An inscription from the grave of the last Bosnian queen Katarina, daughter of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. Inscription in Latin script in the old Serbo-Croatian language and Latin language. I think, the inscription from Rome should be published in article: https://ibb.co/XybnSxM Cropped photo for publication in the article: https://prnt.sc/10pfizo Whole pages (to verify the veracity of the information - end 431 and beginning 432 pages): 1 https://ibb.co/Hz359Zv 2 https://ibb.co/4jTKXTr I have many more historical sources as well as relevant literature (per review), very high-quality photographs of several original charters concerning "Herceg of Saint Sava" with an additional translation into the modern Serbo-Croatian language. I still have a lot of historical sources as well as relevant literature (according to the review). As I said earlier, I will post historical sources as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Largest seal of Kosača noble family (from the book Srednjovjekovni pečati iz Bosne i Hercegovine by Pavao Anđelić) https://ibb.co/XFFP66Y Larger photo: https://ibb.co/7KhqYTG if anything is unclear feel free to ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mavro Orbini lived in the 16/17th century. We tend to use newer secondary sources. Tezwoo (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The process of proving an allegation begins with quoting historical sources that are from the time we are writing about or that are close to that time. After that comes the citation of scientific papers. In any case, both types of evidence are represented in the references. If necessary, I will add more references to this TP discussion, although it is not clear to me at all, what more should be added when someone has already added a articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica. On other Wikipedia articles such evidence is taken as relevant. https://books.google.com/books?id=j5DWAAAAMAAJ&q=%22duchy+of+st+sava%22&redir_esc=y

Life of Justinian by Theophilus J Bryce, C Jireček - The English Historical Review, 1887 - JSTOR … Hoc Agathias de bello Gothico Bederinam appellat et hodie sub Turcis inter fines antique Dar- danim et recentioris Hercegovinm seu DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE visuntur tam intra quam extra civitatem complura vestigia et rudera eximiorum vestigiorum mdificiorum estque titulus Screenshot: https://prnt.sc/10pggfb

Stjepan/Ahmedpaša Hercegović (1456.?-1517.) u svjetlu dubrovačkih, talijanskih i osmanskih izvora P Vrankić - Hercegovina: Časopis za kulturno i povijesno nasljeđe, 2017 - hrcak.srce.hr … Jedan lokalni sukob poprimio je međunarodne dimenzije, dok je sultan Mehmed gotovo neometano osvajao Carigrad i stvarao povoljne uvjete za definitivno zaposjedanje Srbije, Bosne i Vojvodstva Svetoga Save (DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE) Screenshott: https://prnt.sc/10pggri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What do unsigned user want to prove - that noble title existed ? That the title was styled as Herzeg of Saint Sava ? Can you point to anyones claim where this fact is disputed ?
 * Or, are you trying to prove that land was called "Vojvodsto Svetog Save" (approx. English = Duchy of Saint Sava) ?
 * If you want to prove that land was called "Duchy of Saint Sava" then you need better source then 16th - 19th century manuscripts, 19th century European itineraries, 19th and early 20th century European atlas-books or comparative historical overviews or early 20th century European encyclopedias, all per WP:RS ! Not that these sources talk about name for the land, they don't, they all talk about noble title - you and Sorabino derive the land name from the noble title, and that's WP:OR.
 * Here's proper source, written by medievalist in the second part of the 20th century or very late 20th century:
 * "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku", 1996, by Siniša Mišić, Professor of the National History of the Middle Ages, University of Belgrade;
 * "Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba", (but seminal research and most important on the subject to this day), Sima Ćirković - the best insight on how Ćirković writes about our article subject is given on pp.336, 337 - there is no land called "Duchy of St.Sava";
 * "Istorija srednjovekovne bosanske države", 1964 (same), Sima Ćirković;
 * "Povijest Humske zemlje", 1937 (but seminal research and relevant today), Marko Vego - Vego is not included on scholar because he lived before Google-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  00:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage: https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/ https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Areas/Croatia/Croatian-language-Wikipedia-when-the-extreme-right-rewrites-history-190081

The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the books mentioned at all? Everything I have written is in keeping with those books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what the problem is. I proved that the title "Duke of St. Sava" is historically attested in medieval historical sources, and after that I mentioned the works of relevant Western historians (Jirecek, etc.) to whom no one can dispute objectivity, in which the term "Ducatus Sancti Sabae" is mentioned. Not to mention that someone found that term in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Since when is it disputable that a duke rules a duchy? A duke cannot rule a principality or a kingdom right? In what parallel universe do you live?

QUOTE: "A duke (male) can either be a monarch ranked below the emperor, king, and grand duke ruling over a duchy or a member of royalty or nobility, historically of highest rank, below princes of nobility and grand dukes. "

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke

"A duchy is a medieval country, territory, fief, or domain ruled by a duke or duchess, a high-ranking nobleman hierarchically second to the king or queen in European tradition. " Surce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy

German wikipedia: Herzog (althochdeutsch herizogo, ursprünglich Führer, Heerführer im Kriege)[1] ist ein Adelstitel. Im Französischen entspricht er dem duc, im Englischen dem duke, im Spanischen dem duque, im Italienischen dem duca, im Ungarischen herceg, im Portugiesischen dem duque und im Polnischen dem wojewoda. Die Bezeichnungen in den romanischen Sprachen gehen auf lateinisch dux „Anführer“ zurück. Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzog

Herzogtum, lat. DUCATUS, ist der stammesbezogene bzw. territoriale Amts- und Herrschaftsbereich eines Herzogs. Source:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herzogtum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs.

https://prnt.sc/10pni1e https://prnt.sc/10pi1x6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.153.242 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia.

It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers.

Discussion re-start
I don't know much about the history of Hum in the period in question, during the rule of Stjepan Kosača. It seems to me that "Vojvodstvo Svetog Save" was just one of the numerous names used for "Hum" or "Humska zemlja" in the Middle Ages, and not a different/new a duchy. Per Vego 1982, p. 54: "Bio je svjestan da je gospodar velike i značajne oblasti Hercegovine čije ime nije nikad stavio u svoj naslov pri pisanju pisama i povelja nego je uvijek odvojeno označio razne manje oblasti kojima je vladao. Naročito je isticao uz ostale naslove i naslov da je gospodar Zemlje Svetoga Save gdje je živio na njegovu dvoru mitropolit mileševski David, njegov ukućanin." ... "Misli da se u pojmu herceg Svetoga Save i veće podrazumijeva čitava neosvojena baština naslijeđena od hercega Stjepana Vukčića-Kosače. Tako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo svetog Save ( Ducatus s. Sabbe ili Save ) umjesto Hercegovina." According to Helena Dragić: Od horonima Zahumlje do horonima Hercegovina: "Malo je zemalja koje su kroz povijest toliko puta mijenjale ime kao što je Hercegovina. Najprije se zvala Zahumlje, Hlonska, pa Humska, ali i Gornja Dalmacija, potom Vojvodstvo svetoga Save (Sabe), Principovina, Ivanbegovina (Skenderbegovina), te od 1448. godine do naših dana Hercegovina." Per this source, if this "duchy" in the article was established in 1448, it should be called "Duchy of Herzegovina". Tezwoo (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The specific phrase used in the article title seems to only have a few cursory mentions in all the linked sources scraped from Google Books that I have seen here. Overall, this time period of less than a century being defining isn't technically impossible (cf. Italian Regency of Carnaro, Free State of Fiume, Province of Carnaro...), but it should be supported by way better sources than single sentence mentions, esp. in sources that just reproduce some medieval source with no analysis. As is, this looks like a case of Duke of Wellington (title) vs. Duchy of Wellington (the latter is not actually much of a thing). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * and, I moved your posts here, to try and start anew, and a reason is that your inputs are latest but scattered around this mess created by locked IP. You guys are also the last remaining editors involved in this recent developments, that can still edit on this article. To avoid blocks Sorabino and myself had both pledged to EdJohnston not to do anything without explicit consensus achieved among remaining involved editors.
 * It would be of great help if you are both willing to spare some more time and energy on this matter, and although, in whole honesty, I am in agreement with you, I say this because there will be no editors for the foreseeable future willing to fix the problems here (see history).

The problem with the region name was never particularly resolved by historical geography - on that matter I have encountered only this Vego's observation, which he made as a medievalist. You have now brought to my attention this Dragić. Thing is, (still not read Dragić) the only proper researches that can be found are historical researches, which all relate all these names to very specific political geography: Zahumlje was "kneževina", Hum was "zemlja", Hercegovina was "sanđak". ::Topographically, Hum was just a hill west of Neretva in the vicinity of Mostar, Za-Hum or Zahumlje was polity which stretch eastwards from Hum. During the existence of Zahumlje polity, other polities also existed, namely Primorije with Konavle, Travunija, and Narenta, all neighboring Zahumlje. This Zahumlje will become part of the new polity, Hum or Humska zemlja, and in it will be included all these other neighboring polities - after 1326, all under one name, Humska zemlja.


 * , regarding Vego lines: that book's scope is "Postanak srednjevjekovne bosanske države", so it's a bit wider than his Humska zemlja, on the other hand we have the most specific and most detailed, probably unsurpassed research-book on the subject to this day, Sima Ćirković's "Sefan Vukčić i njegovo doba".
 * If you can see the whole page 48 in Vego, you will noticed that he actually quoting directly from Ljubomir Stojanović's (1921, 1934) "Stare srpske povelje i pisma" - but even Stojanović (in Vego's quote) makes distinction between "Humskea zemlja" and "zemlje Svetog Save", referring to the later as "stare srpske zemlje", which in that context are lands taken by Stjepan in Raška and Zeta, which were called that way in 19th and the beginning of the 20th c. But even all that is Stojanović's conclusion (no prim.sources ("charters & letters") talking about it), and that's why Sima Ćirković rejected it completely in his "Sefan Vukčić i njegovo doba".


 * , Sorabino (and blocked IP) injecting inadequate sources printed in Europe 100+ years ago - itineraries, historical-geography atlases, encyclopaedia, comparative histories' overviews - all tertiary, all outdated, and all written by non-medievalists and/or people whose focus is not on narrow research on the matter. Good, very specific research-books are: "Humska zemlja u srednjem veku" by Siniša Mišić, (regardless of contemporary national slant - Mišić is Profesor nacionalne istorija srednjeg veka, at University of Belgrade), two by Sima Ćirković, two by Marko Vego, one by Pavao Anđelić, which are the most focused, detailed, and still relevant, very narrow researches on the topic. I take them for their written word, and Sorabino seeks conformation for his/hers POV all over the Internet and Google, and will always be able to find something inadequate.
 * Sima Ćirković's "Sefan Vukčić i njegovo doba" is still preeminent on the subject, unsurpassed to this day.


 * In hope that Joy and Tezwoo are going to take part in this discussion over this interesting matter, my final two points: 1) historical geography never defined region and its name(s), and this fact is being exploited to promote a certain POV through reverted title and scope; and 2) there was no independent "vojvodstvo" or "vojvodstvo Svetog Save", and Sima Ćirković in both of his books, "Istorija srednjevekovne Bosne" and "Sefan Vukčić i njegovo doba", is very clear about this - nothing of such a ground-breaking significance changed in 1448, nor in 1450, except that Stjepan changed his style.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Additional note for Tezwoo: I changed the name in February this year, and I tried with "Duchy of Hum" first ("Duchy of Herzegovina" was/is redirect page, so unavailable), however, I encountered significant problem - I was simply unable to reference it.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional note for Joy: you are right in principle, when you found analogy in the Duke of Wellington (title) vs. Duchy of Wellington, only in our case there is a problem with notability WP:NOTA, because, first, this particular title was not part of the peerage system, because there was non in the Slavic Balkans, except those titles awarded by Hungary to its Croatian nobility, that is, Stjepan invented style "of Saint Sava" himself (earliest doc. is from 5 July 1450), while only "vojvoda" and "herzog" were confirmed by Kotromanić and Fridrih (it's quite normal and expected that foreign sovereigns would later refer to him the way he would style himself - also, both Vego and Ćirković agree, this is Vego: "ne zna se sigurno ko mu je dodijelio naslov hercega: bosanski kralj papa, Fridrih I, sicilijski ili napuljski kralj ili sultan."); and second, the land was never named that way through local court ceremony nor in local Bosnian, Ragusan or Hum chancelleries' documents. So, again, we have problem with both notability and sources which could confirm and elaborate existence of "duchy" as a noble titulage within the peer system (not duke, singular hereditary title, which in case of Bosnia and Serbia rulers wouldn't even care to confirm all too often but would accept it).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Historicity of the 15th century feudal title "Duke of Saint Sava" is not disputable. The title is well attested in historical sources, and also frequently used in historiography. Historicity of the feudal polity (duchy), defined by the title in question, is also indisputable. Surprising claims of user, who stated on several occasions during these discussions that the polity itself somehow never existed, have not been supported so far by a single reference to any source that would justify such claims. Please, can anyone provide a reference to any scholarly work on the alleged non-existence of the polity? Is that even an issue in historiography? Many scholarly works treat this polity, as demonstrated by references already used in this article, not to mention others that can be seen in search results on Google Books and Google Scholar. In works written in English language, common name name for this 15th century polity is: Duchy of Saint Sava, as demonstrated by references already used in the article. Both in Serbian and Croatian historiography, the polity is referred to as "Vojvodstvo Svetog Save" or "Herceštvo Svetog Save" that literally translates as: Duchy of Saint Sava. Therefore, the existence of this article, that refers to a specific feudal polity (1448-1482), is clearly justified, and its title (Duchy of Saint Sava) is also well attested in English sources. Sorabino (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * At any place of higher education, the first or at least second lesson in logic would be that you can't, and you don't have to, prove negative. Ducal title Herzog of Saint Sava was never disputed, "duchy" however never existed, whether as name for the land or as titulage in local peerage system (which also simply never existed), and not one medievalist who researched Hum's, Herzegovina's, Kosača's history never called it "duchy" let alone "Duchy of Saint Sava" one way or the other. We have quite clear and detailed guidelines and policies for application of notability and reliable sources, and all of the sources which you provided are inadequate for either.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  01:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , existence of this medieval feudal polity (1448-1482) is attested by many sources, and that is a well established fact, as can be seen from scholarly references already used in the article. You are the only user who claims that this polity somehow did not exist. I would urge you again to provide some scholarly sources for such claims, or please stop wasting everyone's time with fringe theories. This article, with the same subject, exists on 13 (thirteen) Wikipedia projects. Sorabino (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are too experienced editor to ask me to provide sources for something that did not exist - and you are too experienced not to know that burden of proof is on you, however, you provided inadequate source, to put it mildly, or in the words of Joy's perfect observation, specific phrase used in the article title seems to only have a few cursory mentions in all the linked sources scraped from Google Books. You are experienced editor, with more edits than I collected so far, so you know very well what is needed if you are to change perfectly correct title and scope without consensus in the midst of discussion. Instead, you are continuing to ask for proof for negative - that's a crude way of gaming the system.
 * Such "polity" never existed, and you have no sources to prove that it is - there was/is Hum (Humska zemlja in books on the subject), and only thing that happened in 1448 is that Stjepan Vukčić acquired title of "herzog".
 * Editor need sources that explains most if not all of whatever editor tries to say in the article, and you can't provide such sources. I can, and I did. Maybe you read those books which I mentioned in almost all of my posts here on TP, but you simply don't want to acknowledge that, or maybe you have no interest in reading them (all of them are available in pdf online), but then question remains, why are you doing this.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  03:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If I'm reading Vego 1982, p. 48 correctly, the "land of Saint Sava" was the eastern part of the lands under the rule of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, between Trebinje and Mileševa, and not the entire entity:

"Jasno se vidi da pod pojmom Zemlja Svetoga Save označava sve stare srpske posjede od Mileševe do Trebinja zaključno obuhvatajući svu Travuniju osim prodatih Konavala koje su posjedovali Dubrovčani."

The lands under Vukčić Kosača's rule were much larger than that, and were according to Vego, on the same page, called Herzegovina since his times: "Zato je sve okupljene zemlje u sklopu Hercegovine nazvao Hercegovinom. Tu se radilo o zemljama: Humskoj zemlji, Zagorju, oblasti Drini, Rudinama, Banjanima, Trebinju, Gornjoj i Donjoj Zeti, Polimlju, Dračevici, Krajini i Poljici kod Cetine."

According to Jelena Mrgić-Radojčić, Rethinking the Territorial Development of the Medieval Bosnian State, p. 60:

"In 1448  he  took  the  title  of  “herceg  (duke)  of  Hum  and  the  Littoral“,  then  briefly  after  that  the  title  of  “herceg  of  St.  Sava,  Hum  and  the  Littoral“.  His rule, between 1435 and 1466, stretched over a huge territory between the  river  Cetina  and  the  Gulf  of  Boka  Kotorska,  and  in  the  hinterland  it  almost reached up to the town of Višegrad on the river Drina. The name Hercegovina  thus  denoted  the  whole  territory  ruled  by  the  Herceg.  The  establishing of the Turkish administrative unit – the “sandžak“ of Hercegovina (1470), also helped preserve this name. The present day region of Hercegovina is substantially smaller than it was in the Middle Ages"

Croatian Encyclopedia says that the entity was called Herzegovina since about 1448 : "God. 1448. priklonio se Osmanlijama i srpskom despotu Đurđu Brankoviću u napadu na bosanskoga kralja i proglasio se »hercegom od sv. Save«. Teritorij pod njegovom vlašću, od tada poznat pod imenom Hercegovina, protezao se od Lima do Cetine i od Rame do Kotorskoga zaljeva. Na tom je prostoru bio samostalan vladar."

The 2018 Croatian historical atlas also calls the entity "Herzegovina" on a map for the year 1448 on page 169.

Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian historiographies seem to agree that this entity was since about 1448 called "Herzegovina". Tezwoo (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , lets not get into cherrypicking and partial quotations of sentences. Many additional quotations from works of Serbian, Croatian and foreign scholars, besides those already referenced in the article, can be presented here in support of the use of endonymic terms such as "Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save" and its exonymic equivalents such as "Duchy of Saint Sava". Besides that, everyone knows that the term Herzegovina is a common regional name, and it can not be reduced to this 15th century feudal polity. The same goes for the term "Humska zemlja" that is a synonym for the region of Hum or Zahumlje, and the entire medieval history of that region is covered in the English article Zachlumia. Territorial scope of the 15th century Duchy of Saint Sava was much wider than Humska zemlja / Hum / Zahumlje / Zachlumia, since the Duchy also included several other regions. Sorabino (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see cherrypicking, the historians mentioned here on the talk page are the most well known sources for medieval Bosnia. Starting with Vego and Ćirković, all of them agree on the name "Herzegovina", and not "Duchy of Saint Sava". Tezwoo (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if someone chooses to present selective quotations of some author, taking them out of context or avoiding in the same time other relevant quotations of the same author, that would be cherrypicking. For example, you missed to mention that Marko Vego (1957) states explicitly (p. 45): "Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" (English translation: Officially, the land was called the Duchy of Saint Sava). As you quoted yourself, Vego (1982) is also stating that the generic term "Herzegovina" was not used in that form by Dukes of Saint Sava, and he also states (p. 54): "Tako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo svetog Save (Ducatus s. Sabbe ili Save) umjesto Hercegovina" (English translation: Thus also in the foreign world, the Duchy of Saint Sava (Ducatus s. Sabbe or Sava) is often mentioned instead of Herzegovina). Therefore, it is quite clear that Vego is recognizing the fact that the 15th century feudal polity was called the Duchy of Saint Sava, while the generic term "Herzegovina" became a common regional name, used for centuries up to the present day. Sorabino (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , don't feel discouraged by the last post by Sorabino, because what he's doing is the very definition of cherrypicking by scraping few lines from Internet and Google books, and in this case completely misattributing the cited quote to Vego. The Vego's book in this case is "Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne države" - it is encyclopedic compilation of villages, towns, župas, counties and zemlje names with paragraph or two of description, which makes it WP:TERTIARY. In this particular quote pointed to by Sorabino, Vego simply takes entire two-three sentences description from another encyclopedic compilation, again tertiary, that is, from Ljubomir Stojanović's "Stare srpske povelje i pisma" (first published in 1921). Stojanović makes this observation regardless of complete lack of primary sources which are main topic of the compilation - in other words it's just his opinion. Why would Stojanović in 1921 made such observation is completely irrelevant, but it was irrelevant to all later authors, beside Vego, who very specifically and very thoroughly researched Hum and Stjepan Vukčić, like for instance Sima Ćirkovićm who seem not take Stojanović opinion seriously at all.
 * Also, please feel free to ping me if you return to this TP, since this is closest subject matter to my rl training and vocation, I am very interested in this Balkan topics and would like to take an opportunity to discuss this with you when you are around. Needless to say, and it's not a mystery or secret, I agree with you in most part, certainly on those most relevant things.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , your claims about Vego and Stojanović are 100 % incorrect. Those quotes are representing views of Vego, and they are not taken from Stojanović, or anyone else, as can be easily seen in sources. Here are links for both volumes of "Stare srpske povelje i pisma" (Volume 1 and Volume 2). Please, can you find those quotes in works of Stojanović? Your earlier claim, that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist, is receiving no support here, from anyone, and so far you are failing to present a single source that would demonstrate the presence of any such "existential" debate in historiography. There is not a single scholar who would claim that this 15th century feudal polity never existed. I can provide additional quotes from several Serbian, Croatian and foreign scholars who are explicitely writing about the Duchy of Saint Sava (Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save). Can you provide any source for you claims? You are trying to challange the entire historiography, without providing a single source. Sorabino (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Volume II (Knjiga 2); Item No. 818 (Br.818); "item No." is (should be) also a page number. Not only that Vego uses Stojanović's comments on charter No.818 from "Srpske povelje", he also uses same Volume II and items No. 662 and No. 821 in his book "Postanak srednjevjekovne bosanske države", where he's quoting Stojanović directly and puts quoted paragraph appropriately in italic.
 * Vego uses Sojanović's comment(s) a "lot" when he writes about "Hum" and "Kosača", but that shouldn't surprise anyone as nothing better existed before Ćirković's 1964 "Herceg Stefan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba", who, on the other hand, discards Stojanović's comments completely . Ćirković's book is proper research, while both Vego's and Stojanović's are not, their is encyclopedic compilation, which makes them tertiary source, and in presence of better ones should be put into perspective and used only in exigency.
 * I also implore you, I urge you, to stop demanding sources for negative from me, the burden of proof is on you, which means you should provide proper, adequate sources for your claims instead of continuous cherrypicking of scraped one-liners from Internet in search for your POV confirmation.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , there is nothing in that source ("Stare srpske povelje i pisma", Volume 2, No. 818.) that would justify your claim that the quote in question was taken by Vego from Stojanović. The quote from Vego (1957, p. 45): "Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" (English translation: Officially, the land was called the Duchy of Saint Sava) represents his own views on the subject. But it seems that you are not interested in facts, and unfortuanately you are stil refusing to provide any source for your claims. Sorabino (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That usually happens when editors cherrypicking key-words from Google Books snipet-previews. The entire paragraph actually ends with reference pointing to quote from Stojanović. By the way, "(t)ako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo" is referring to title not a land - they, foreigners, refer to him in titular style using "Ducatus s. Sabbe" instead of "Duke (Ducatus) of Hum" or "Herzegovina", but we already know that, and we don't need "strani svijet" to tells us. Then we have small problem with opinion based on time-framing of medieval and modern Latin usage for Ducatus, which obviously doesn't fare well with any of the authors writing about Hum and Kosače after 1964 and Ćirković.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , you are misrepresenting those sources, again. It is clear that Vego (1957, 45) was mentioning a certain source from 1454, and then he made a reference to Stojanović (1934, II, No. 818) where the source from 1454 was published. That reference had nothing to do with previous, clearly stated conclusion of Vego: "Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" (English translation: Officially, the land was called the Duchy of Saint Sava). You claimed (above) that Vego took that from Stojanović, but that is 100% incorrect. In spite of that, you are continuing to misrepresent sources, and in the same time failng to present here any sources for your claim that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist. Sorabino (talk) 05:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The only tactic that is now available for you is this persistent diversion in discussion on RS. You persist on inadequate sources, including Vego's "Naselja", which, being encyclopedic or if you like dictionary style list on Bosnian medieval geographic and toponymic nomenclature, is tertiary source - it can be used in article for refing of some names, such as for instance "Herzegovina", or "Hum", but it can't be used to create article with separate subject (with misleading information allover it) based on its entries consisting of one-line or one-paragraph definitions.
 * Regardless of both, heavy usage of Stojanović and being tertiary source, Vego still says everything opposite to your preferred article title and what you want to say in its prose (article which does not passes on WP:NOTA anyway): Vego's entry is "HERCEGOVINA", his very first sentence under "Hercegovina" says: "Zemlje Huma, Travunije i Podgorja prozvale su se Hercegovinom 1448 god."
 * And then in last-ditch effort you grasp for dubious secondary information given in the same paragraph and referenced to Stojanović - and I am the one who "misinterpret" sources?
 * Joy has best summarized your problem for you, and explained in short how you approach to source usage - you are scraping cursory mention of key-words from Google Books and the Internet in attempt to find confirmation for your POV, and that's unacceptable in general, let alone in controversial article under heavy scrutiny like this one. Vego is my favorite source, but that sentences (or two) from his "Naselja" is cherrypicked fringe view nevertheless.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You make claims that have nothing to do with reality. When disputing, you were referred to a book by Marko Vego. Then Sorabino quoted a passage from that book that refutes all your claims. Did you read that book at all? And to make things more interesting, now your main complaint is that it's a Google books quote. So what? Isn't that the usual procedure you used? Should I remind you that you used quotes from same book you are now criticizing? There are too many contradictions in your claims.
 * Aside from the abundance of other sources (primary and secondary) and scientific papers, what more do you want? Everything here is completely obvious. Great Khaan (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I said that Vego's (entire opus) is my favorite source, and the rest of my position on usage of Vego is stated in plain English. So, beside being sock of blocked IP, your constant remarks on my ability to read books, or if I have them (book(s)) in my possession, or asking me to read it for you here, along with other misleading re-interpretation of what I have said or thinking, or what are my intentions, and so on, are extremely unhelpful and derailing this discussion. Burden of proof is on you, but your proof is not to repetitiously say that you have RS in abundance - so, before you continue to choke this discussion by repeating it over and over, you should first read complete WP:RS policies and guidelines.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , archaeologist and historian Marko Vego was one of the most notable Croatian scholars from Herzegovina, highly respected throughout former Yugoslavia and abroad. By misrepresenting or distorting views of any author, dispespect is shown not just towards that author, but also towards the editorial community here. Please, be more careful when making statements about sources. And also, lets tone down this discussion. Sorabino (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You use the ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM. You are trying to disqualify me because you cannot disqualify the facts. But it doesn't matter. That says more about you than about me. I forgive you.


 * Let’s talk a little about the burden of proof. The burden of proof can be on one side in criminal law and property disputes. This here is a discussion of editing an article on Wikipedia and not criminal proceedings. You should know that. You need to keep that in mind. Nevertheless, I and the other editors presented relevant evidence for each claim. On the other hand, we have not received anything from you to substantiate your claims. Except empty platitudes about the burden of proof.


 * If we are going to use your logic - you (or someone with the same views) were the first to dispute the name of the article. You should bear the "burden of proof". But despite that, we were very kind and pointed out to you that you are wrong by quoting numerous sources and scientific papers (in several languages). History cannot be learned from communist historiography alone. We all know what censorship was carried out by the state authorities there (especially what was the attitude towards the history of the "dark" Middle Ages and religion). Fortunately, numerous primary and secondary sources as well as their processing in numerous scientific papers in Europe (some of these sources and scientific papers I quoted in this conversation) made censorship of this kind meaningless. If you have good intentions and a desire to learn all this will come in handy. Such misconceptions often occur when very narrow scientific literature of either communist or nationalist orientation is used. You are now faced with an abundance of evidence that your claims are wrong. Stubborn persistence in earlier views, despite the evidence, is useless for the Wikipedia project. And it will not give results.
 * P.S. To prove the point to you, I will list one (of many) of your earlier refuted claims. You said that ducatus means duke. That's not true. "Ducis" (latin) means "Duke" and "ducatus" (latin) means "duchy" Great Khaan (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What "views", what are my views, I am curious? What "numerous sources and scientific papers"? Conspiracy theories, such as this: have no place in articles TP, nor anywhere else in en.wiki, for that matter. Best way forward is always to read policies and guidelines, for this occasion those policies and guidelines which regulate Talk Page, and to keep your personal opinions for yourself, and, of course, not to choke discussion by repeating over and over again remarks and phrases without proper evidence-based argumentation, in this case both of you.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  14:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * History cannot be learned from communist historiography alone. We all know what censorship was carried out by the state authorities there (especially what was the attitude towards the history of the "dark" Middle Ages and religion).;
 * If you have good intentions and a desire to learn all this will come in handy. Such misconceptions often occur when very narrow scientific literature of either communist or nationalist orientation is used.;


 * Why don't you apply "policies and guidelines" to yourself? You choke the debate from the beginning. In my earlier response, I provided links to relevant historical sources and literature. Is it my fault you don't read that? What you are doing now diverts attention from your erroneous claims that have no basis in sources and literature. Do you think that's a good approach?


 * You are contradictory again. You resent me for repeating some things and then you ask me where I wrote it. Is that how you imagine having a conversation?


 * I will draw your attention to a few more details: first you refer to Marko Vega as a holly scripture. When someone points to quotes that confirm my claims, you get angry. Are you 15 or what? Suddenly Marko Vego is wrong.


 * Here is another source, but now in a completely different language (also with a Latin term DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE) https://prnt.sc/10yakmk


 * This is how I can cite sources and literature for weeks, but does it make sense? You have certain prejudices and you live in the belief that articles on Wikipedia are edited by endless repetition of these prejudices. You probably expect someone to get tired. This is not an elementary school, so the one who shouts more has the right. You have never heard of some terms, nor of historical sources in various European languages, and you want to discuss this term. The term shouldn't exist because you haven't heard of it or you didn't want to hear it or you don't like it? Do you think that's how the world works? Great Khaan (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Again double standards.
 * Completely unfounded claims. Ljubomir Stojanović published a collection of historical sources in the Serbo-Slavic language (it is not an encyclopedia, as you said, these are primary sources) written in Cyrillic. Vego could not take over from him the claims you are talking about because Ljubomir Stojanović does not write any texts there, but publishes some old charters and letters from the Middle Ages. Exclusively in Cyrillic. There are no documents in Latin. And there are no translations of those charters into the modern Serbo-Croatian language. That collection of sources is still relevant today. Its only drawback is that there is no register at the end of the books (only in the first edition). In any case, these books are used in specialist studies and are not understandable to almost anyone who did not specialize in the old Church Slavonic language. By the way, during the reign of Bolshevism in Yugoslavia, it is not advisable to insist on the names of saints. And that is one of the reasons why the name "Duchy of Saint Sava" is more common in the scientific literature in the West than in communist states. So, we have relevant historical sources (primary and secondary, in several languages) and we have scientific studies and papers (also in several languages and in different centuries). I don't see the problem at all. I explained more widely in a special post Great Khaan (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, Stojanović's is not exactly encyclopedia in context of Wikipedia reliable sources, it's even worse, it is a catalog of primary sources, again tertiary source. However, he, Stojanović, does makes short comments and providess what he believed was context for every item.
 * I'm not interested in replying to your conspiracy theories, in which you also confuse entire eras - foreign offices are of Kosača times, not time of "Bolshevism in Yugoslavia".-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * A several objections. This conversation is full of logical misconceptions. Is this conspiracy theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Eastern_Bloc
 * If so please rewrite this article. I am very interested to see your contribution to this topic.
 * I didn't confuse the era. You said that you could not find that term in 2-3 books (written in communist Yugoslavia). And I explained to you the reason why this title, which bears the name of a Christian saint, is not mentioned too often, unlike primary and secondary historical sources and scientific works in the West.
 * Again, you make problematic and unconfirmed claims. In addition, you make contradictory statements regarding Stojanović's books (Old Serbian charters and letters). First you said it was an encyclopedia, so now you confirm my claim, but you claim that they are tertiary sources (no, it is not. It is the primary source. But that doesn't matter at all because no one but you mentioned this source. Vego wrote about the Latin term "Ducatus Sancti Sabe". And the Stojanović's book you mentioned does not deal with Latin terms). Have you ever seen or held those books in your hand? Can you read something from it?
 * In this context, when we have primary and secondary sources as well as scientific papers in various languages and from various decades of the 20th (not to mention earlier) and even 21st centuries it is not crucial what was written in communist Yugoslavia (although some quoted several scientific papers from the communist period where explicitly mentions this term).
 * As far as I have seen, from the very beginning the discussion is meaningless. Soon, in a few years, artificial intelligence will edit Wikipedia and clean it of false information. And the main database will be The Library of Congress. So even these pointless debates will stop forever. Great Khaan (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see a 21st century source that calls the entity "Duchy of Saint Sava". Here are some from modern sources:
 * "In October 1448, Sjepan takes the title of Herzog. In the charter dated 6 April 1449, especially prominent is the cult of Saint Sava. The Herzog emphasized through Mileseva monastery (with the relics of Saint Sava) his countries' relationship with the old Serbian state and dynasty of Nemanjic. The title was showing Saint Sava as protector of Kosaca and their possessions. After this title 'Herzog' the country was named Herzegovina, and that name has been preserved until today." (Marijan Premović: Herzog (Duke) Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca and Polimlje, 2017)
 * "The area he governed, which included present-day Herzegovina and parts of Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro, was already referred to as Herzegovina during his lifetime." (Dijana Pinjuh: Conversions to Islam in Bosnia and Herzegovina..., 2018, p. 209)
 * For the name, I would suggest "Duchy of Herzegovina", "Herzegovina (1448–1482)", or something like "Realm of the Kosača family (1448–1482)". Under a separate section (like "Nomenclature") we could cite Vego 1982 p. 54, that foreign (old) sources often called the entity "Duchy of Saint Sava" due to the title of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača. Tezwoo (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I explained everything in the chapter "Why does someone block pointing to the practice of double standards?" Great Khaan (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your constructive contributions to this discussion, but here are some problems with those alternative titles you are proposing, in relation to the terminology of English Wikipedia:
 * 1. "Duchy of Herzegovina": Primary mening of the term Herzegovina on EW is related to a specific region in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the historical Duchy of Saint Sava was encompasing more than twice larger area, including regions of modern states of Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. Besides that, while the title "Duke of Saint Sava" is well atested in sources (that fact is not disputed by anyone here), no Duke of Saint Sava ever used the title "Duke of Herzegovina" thus revieling the proposed title "Duchy of Herzegovina" as unfounded in primary sources and somewhat artificial.
 * 2. "Herzegovina (1448–1482)": As mentioned above, on English Wikipedia primary meaning of the term Herzegovina is related to a specific region in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the historical scope of the Duchy of Saint Sava was much larger, and the final stages of its history are not even related to the teritiry of primary Herzegovina, since the DoSS was eventualy reduced to regions in southwestern parts of modern Montenegro. Also, within the defined time-range, it would owerlap with the Turkish "Vilayet of Herzegovina" that was an administrative unit within the Sanjak of Bosnia until 1482. Therefore, in historical reality before the creation of the Sanjak of Herzegovina (1482), there were two distinctive entities: Turkish "Vilayet of Herzegovina" and the Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482).
 * 3. "Realm of the Kosača family (1448–1482)": Regarding this, purely descriptive and unusual title you are proposing, it fails to satisfy the common-name principle, and it also fails the basic Google Books search, since there are no hits for the term Realm of the Kosača family.
 * The present title (Duchy of Saint Sava) remains the most precise, historicaly founded, distinctive and recognizable title, that is backed up by references already used in the article, and if necessary, many other similar references could be added. Sorabino (talk) 06:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Sorabino, yes Tezwoo is constructive, but to no avail, you would still like us to decide on some nomenclature based on our personal opinion, but most likely based on yours, and this sock's who posts these ill formatted walls of text (it takes me five minutes to find the beginning and the end of people's discussion, every time). By the way, all medieval lands had fluctuating borders, so it was the case with Hum-Herzegovina.
 * @Tezwoo, you probably have some compromise in your proposals, but problem remains with why would we make separate articles solely based on name change (by the way, we would encounter one more small issue - first appearance of name Herzegovina is of later date, few years later than 1448, in 1470 we had Sanjak of Herzegovina imposed as political reality on most of Hum's territory, there are few other problems, like persisting attempts to separate Kosače from Bosnia, which was Sorabino's (and series of IP's) original reason to remove title "Humska zemlja" in the first place, and so on), where as geo-politically, Hum was one whole as "feudalna oblast" (or "zemlja") which existed between 1326-1481 (you should really read Mrgić one more time, but juxtapose Pavo Anđelić's "Studije o političko-teritorijalnoj organizaciji srednjevjekovne Bosne" with both Mrgić and Ćorović), and then, from 1481-1878 we have another. But, I get it, if we are to remove this incredible name with something at least closely resembling reality, we should at least try to make some compromise. If you ask me, we should stick with political situation. But, I will accept some other compromise if you think that you can get it under these TP circumstances.
 * @Tezwoo, another small matter - neither Sorabino or myself are allowed to make any kinds of edits on the article, so, any changes would be someone else's task.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * We will not talk in phantasmagorias and personal prejudices but in facts: The last time I posted a scientific paper in English from 2003 (with term - Duchy of Saint Sava) and Hungarian study from the end of the 19th century (with term Duchatus Sanchti Sabae), this time I will post a Hungarian term: Szent-Száva hercegsége (hungarian term for Duchy of Saint Sava) https://archive.org/details/szzpolitikaistr00pestgoog/page/n376/mode/2up?q=%22Szent+Sz%C3%A1va%22
 * As you can see, if you don't know something or don't want to know, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
 * Tell me, from which century or decade do you want me to give you the source or scientific papers? Or in what language? In previous discussions, a number of primary and secondary sources have been posted, as well as relevant scientific papers. Even those to whom you refer yourself. One question in this regard: can you tell us what the relevant source is for you? We need to know what your approach is. For now we see only ignorance of the topic we are discussing here.
 * For all of us here, the goal is the truth and progress of Wikipedia. This cannot be achieved if someone approaches editing with personal prejudices and if he takes all this too personally. Such behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia. As an experienced editor you should know this. You first change the title of the article for no reason and then ignore the sources and scientific studies (even the parts of those scientific papers you refer to) that prove you wrong. I don't understand why you're doing this?
 * If I understood you correctly,....you are trying now to vandalize here and persuade others to do so because you have been denied that opportunity? Despite all the historical facts that speak against your claims? Is that your view of history? Or is it your view on editing Wikipedia?
 * P.S. Have you read his Vladimir Ćorović's scientific study "Saint Sava in folk tradition"? Jelena Mrgić-Radojčić's "Rethinking the territorial development of the medieval Bosnian state" (the scientific paper you mentioned) QUOTE:
 * " After Časlav's death, all former tribal and geographical units continued to develop as separate Serbian states – Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija, Duklja on the coast, and inland - Bosnia and Raška. At the same time, within these states, adjoining župas merged to form higher territorial and administrative units – “zemlje“ (“lands“). The central župa usually lent its name to the whole “land“ – Ras, Hum, Trebinje and Bosnia. For the first three, it is certain that initially it was the town that gave its name to a župa, to gradually spread on to a much wider area (“land“, state). However, no such conclusion can be made concerning Bosnia." page 8
 * "All decisions regarding interior and foreign matters had to be reached unanimously. Nemanja’s “co-principality“ consisted of four župas in the eastern part of the state – Ibar, Rasina, Toplica and Reke, while his brother prince Miroslav ruled in the “land“ of Hum, and prince Stracimir in the “land“ of Moravice. In Raška this practice ceased to exist during the reign of king Stefan Uroš I, somewhere around 1254." p 13
 * "The historical province of Hercegovina, the second most important part of the Bosnian state, was demarcated in the work of M. Dinić The lands of the Duke of St. Sava (1940). It has the same scientific significance as Ćorović’s work on Bosnia. Due to the further thorough and extensive research work of S. Ćirković (1964) and S. Mišić (1996, 2002), the activity of Stefan Vukčić-Kosača was more precisely established. In 1448 he took the title of “herceg (duke) of Hum and the Littoral“, then briefly after that the title of “herceg of St. Sava, Hum and the Littoral“. His rule, between 1435 and 1466, stretched over a huge territory between the river Cetina and the Gulf of Boka kotorska, and in the hinterland it almost reached up to the town of Višegrad on the river Drina. The name Hercegovina thus denoted the whole territory ruled by the Herceg. The establishing of the Turkish administrative unit – the “sandžak“ of Hercegovina (1470), also helped preserve this name. The present day region of Hercegovina is substantially smaller than it was in the Middle Ages." P 18
 * This is in line with everything I have posted. Do you even read these scientific papers that you are trying to refer to? Great Khaan (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Great Khaan, I am tired of fixing and properly formatting your posts; I am tired of walls of text without substance; I am tired of your inability to digest our WP:RS and WP:Talk page policies and guidelines; I am tired of your conspiracy theories and the fact that you are not here to build encyclopedia - since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia) and with your first edit, showing singular interest, you immediately and literally plunged yourself into contention over this very particular and now controversial issue, first in article space and then into TP discussion with derisive rhetoric, and eventually got blocked as IP for series of violations, both for making anonymous and unexplained substantial removals and changes in the article, and then turning to TP to make defamatory posts against various perceived conspirators. I have lost my patience with you back then, while you were editing as IP.
 * , do you see any sensible argument and point in Great Khann's huge post, or am I really starting to lose perspective here?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Additional sources: Some users have requested the presentation of newer (after 2000) and additional sources for the term Duchy of Saint Sava, and here is the selection of such sources. Some are already used in the article, while others can be added. The following list is focusing on modern Croatian and Bosnian authors, since those requests (mentioned above) were made by some users from Croatia and Bosnia.
 * 1. In 2017, three Croatian and Bosnian scholars (Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić) stated: "Herzegovina’s real name was Duchy of St. Sava (Ducatus Sancti Sabbae)" (p. 35).
 * 2. In 2017, Petar Vrankić (Croatian scholar from Bosnia) mentioned Turkish preparations for the "zaposjedanje Srbije, Bosne i Vojvodstva Svetoga Save (Ducatus Sancti Sabae)" (English translation: "conquest of Serbia, Bosnia and the Duchy of Saint Sava") (p. 14).
 * 3. In 2017, Croatian scholar Bartul Marušić mentioned that during the 15th century, the region of Makarska Krajina was the subject of interest for several regional powers "od Bosne i herceštva „sv. Save“ pa sve do Venecije i Dubrovnika" (English translation: "from Bosnia and the Duchy of St. Sava, up to Venice and Dubrovnik") (p. 114).
 * 4. In 2018, Croatian scholar Luka Špoljarić mentioned that Vladislav Kosača (d. 1489) has reign over "zapadnim područjima Vojvodstva sv. Save" (English translation: "western regions of the Duchy of St. Sava") (p. 69).
 * 5. In 2013, Helena Dragić (Croatian scholar from Bosnia) wrote a paper on regional names, with a section on the "Vojvodstvo svetoga Save" (English translation: "Duchy of Saint Sava") (p. 182-183), also noting the name in English as "St. Sava’s (Saba) Duchy" (p. 195).
 * 6. In 2003, Bosnian scholar Mithad Kozličić noted: "Hercegovina se doista nazivala i Dukatom sv. Save (Ducatus Sancti Sabbae)" (English translation: "Herzegovina was also called the Duchy of St. Sava") (p. 167).
 * Other surces can also be added, from older (before 2000) works, not to mention newer and older works of foreign authors in various languages, that are using equivalent terms for the Duchy of Saint Sava. Sorabino (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any medievalist anywhere on this list? But seriously, now that you have scraped Internet for key-words and found scholars' cursory mentioning "vojvodstvo Svetog Save", we should also try to grasp significance of these cursory mentions. As Joy and myself pointed already at the beginning of this whole affair - one will always be able to scrape key-words form the Internet and/or Google Books in search for his POV confirmation, but that doesn't mean that one will be able to present them as proper secondary RS or used them exactly as one intended or would like as long as there is a proper and enough scrutiny.
 * Scholars cursory mentioning "vojvodstvo" are:
 * - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"
 * On du Val they describe his map and for every toponym they give footnote - beside saying that Herzegovina second name was Dukat sv. Save, they attribute their footnote to Vego's 1957:
 * Footnote:"Du Val je ovdje spojio Gornju Bosnu s Hercegovinom za koju ističe i njezino drugo ime (Dukat sv. Save). Protom granica između njih uopće nije istaknuta. To je prema tome područje koje na istoku ima Srbiju, na jugu i jugozapadu Tursku Dalmaciju, a na zapadu Donju Bosnu. Preciznije, Gornjom Bosnom obuhvaćena je nekadašnja uža jezgra srednjovjekovne Bosne, a Hercegovina se doista nazivala i Dukatom sv. Save (Ducatus Sancti Sabbae). Cfr. Vego, 1957, 18-19, 45. Cjelina te oblasti je pod osmanskom vlašću."
 * They do not study, discuss or explain how and why of Dukat of Saint Sava, which they say was "second name".
 * - Mithad Kozličić - maritime historian of the Adriatic, specialty geography of antiquity: how, in what context, and why is cited quote put into the footnote of the following book(?) "Unsko-sansko područje na starim geografskim kartama" ?
 * - Helena Dragić - philology, specialty Croatistics - in the magazine of linguistic, literary and cultural issues, Dragić published essay "FROM ZAHUMLJE TO HERZEGOVINA: ON HORONYMS"
 * How well Dragić masters historical information we can illustrate with her following statements:
 * Under chapter "3. Gornja Dalmacija, Vojvodstvo svetoga Save", she makes most unbelievable claim, it's actually so ridiculous that I wonder if Sorabino ever read it in its entirety:
 * "Daniele Farlati Hercegovinu je nazivao Gornja Dalmacija. Hercegovina se nekoć nazivala Vojvodstvom svetoga Save. Taj naziv spominje se u nagradi kralja Tvrtaka (with a footnote 13), koji je u znak zahvalnosti za pobjedu nad Turcima, sinu Vuka Hrane, Vlatku darovao Vojvodstvo svetog Save." (pp. 182 and 193)
 * King Tvrtko in question died in 1392, Vlatko in question is Vuković, and in her footnote 13 there is nothing(!) that would confirm her above claim about "nagradi Kralja Tvrtka" - although, with this kind of nonsense not that we need it in the first place, right. She missed only eight or so decades, entire epoch, not to mention whole host of characters and other phenomenons and events leading to Stjepan vukčić's title in late 1449-early 1450.
 * And then another nonsense:
 * "Do 1448. godine današnja Hercegovina zvala se: Zahumlje, Hlonska, pa Humska, ali i Gornja Dalmacija, potom Vojvodstvo svetoga Save (Sabe), Principovina, Ivanbegovina (Skenderbegovina)."
 * How could it be that "potom Vojvodstvo svetoga Save (Sabe)" appears before Stjepan Vukčić even obtained the title "Herzog of Saint Sava", which he assumed in late 1449 or early 1450, only Dragić can tell. (By the way, I never heard of !Principovina, Ivanbegovina (Skenderbegovina)".)
 * Or this one, extraordinary contradictory statement garnered with one piquant tripe, my favorite:
 * "Godine 1448. počeo se nazivati hercegom, a po tome je njegova zemlja dobila ime Hercegovina. Grb hercega Stipana Vukčića Kosače iz 1452. godine na kojem je kristalni križ usred crvenog stijega, s tri bijele poprečne crte na svijetlocrvenom polju. I to, pored ostaloga, svjedoči da je bio katolik. "
 * What can I say, she is spot on, there is no doubt about it, poor Kosača was Catholic and he was not even aware of it.
 * But at least she got it right at least some things: " Prema povijesnim izvorima nedvojbeno se može zaključiti da se Hercegovina tim imenom prozvala 1448. (ed. no, first mention of the name is 1452) godine kada se neprikosnoveni vladar Humske zemlje Stipan Vukčić Kosača prozvao hercegom. Herceg je riječ koja je nastala od njemačke riječi Herzog što znači vladar." (p.193)
 * However, all this boloney aside, Dragić makes many other good points and observations in her essay, as long as we look at those made within her own training and specialty.
 * - Bartul Marušić - lawyer; his cursory mention is about title, no explanation;
 * - Luka Špoljarić - political and intellectual history
 * - Petar Vrankić - Church historian;
 * These other scholars will have to wait. These first few already got me a nice migraine.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , the way in which you are trying to misrepresent data on those Croatian and Bosnian scholars is truly remarkable. But it seems that the lack of arguments, that would support your claims, is driving you in that direction. Please, when you are mentioning scholars, particularly those who are contemporary, try to state accurate data about their works and academic credentials. Fortunately, everything can be checked and corrected quite easily. Sorabino (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Now, here's "Ducatus" translations - classical, post-Augustinian Latin, and medieval Latin:
 * In latin-is-simple.com, and in latin-dictionary.net (Source: “Oxford Latin Dictionary”, 1982):
 * leadership
 * position/function of a leader
 * generalship
 * In www.wordsense.eu, and in etymologeek.com:
 * ducātus (genitive ducātūs) (masc.)
 * ducatus - Latin (lat)
 * (post-Augustinian) leadership, command
 * (Medieval Latin) authority
 * (Medieval Latin) guidance-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you really implying, in whole honesty, that Latin word "Ducatus" in the source-term "Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" (Duchy of Saint Sava) means something else than Duchy (Dukedom)? That would be a truly remarcable claim. All those sources and quotations from scholarly works are showing quite clearly that the Latin source-term "Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" is properly and commonly translated as the Duchy of Saint Sava, in various languages. Sorabino (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * And finally, Sima Ćirković, "Herceg Stefan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba":
 * "При оцени историјске улоге Стефана Вукчића Косаче не сме се испустити из вида проблем постанка Херцеговине. За херцега Стефана се везује постанак Херцеговине. То је најзначајнији и неизбрисиви траг који је Стефан Вукчић оставио у историји нашин народа. Уједно и јединствен случај код нас да једна личност наметне своје име великој области наше земље. Тачније речено, не своје име, него своју титулу, нераздвојно сраслу са именом. Па и тај случај је само привидан. За постанак Херцеговште се не можке приписати нарочито заслуга самом херцегу Стефану. Херцешка титула није била од одлучног значаја. (...) Узимање херцешке титуле од стране Стефана једва да је имао и онај симболични значај који му се приписује, Стефан је формално до краја живота остао „велики војвода русага босанског"." (pp. 271 and 272)-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , when you are trying to present sources, please provide a link if possible and also, since this discussion is conducted in English, try to present apropriate translations or comments, so that English speakers could follow the discussion. I hope that you are aware that this article is about a politiy (Duchy of Saint Sava) that existed untill 1482, thus outliving considerably the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia, that fell under Turkish rule in 1463. Sorabino (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ARGUMETUM AD HOMINEM. I understand your reaction. When you have no arguments you have to focus on side things. But....You did not answer me, what are the relevant sources for you? As far as I have noticed, in each books you mentioned, we found what confirms our claims. And suddenly they are not relevant to you? Cherrypicking. This last comment of yours missed the topic. But, well, let's move on with quoting historical sources and literature. I guess this is going to take a long time.


 * DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE - Gazette of the National Museum in Sarajevo https://books.google.ba/books?id=PkVRAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK-6Huu9bvAhWIjYsKHT_vDgEQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg


 * DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE - Veljan Atanasovski "Fall of Hercegovina" https://books.google.ba/books?id=DA49AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK-6Huu9bvAhWIjYsKHT_vDgEQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg


 * I have set you primary and secondary sources as well as the greatest historians (among other things, the historians you refer to, such as Ćirković and Mrgić). You didn't even look at it. And now you blame Sorabino for "not quoting" historians. We both quote you all the time. But that doesn't matter to you. You are not interested in facts. Anything that is not in line with the narrative of several editors from the Croatian Wikipedia is disputed. When you get sources and scientific studies, you attack very relevant authors because you cannot dispute the facts.


 * For some reason, the religious orientation of people in the Middle Ages suddenly became important to you. I don't think it's too important for this topic, but if you insist. I will try to clarify some things for you by quoting the books you are referring to.


 * Why don't you quote the whole page you're referring to ( Sima Ćirković, ''"Herceg Stefan Vukčić-Kosača i njegovo doba")Your quote got a completely different context. https://prnt.sc/10zfx1v


 * "Patriarch of Constantinople Genadius Scholarius about Stjepanu Vukčiću Kosači:
 * Odgovarajući na pitanje sinajskih monaha da li u svojim obredima mogu pominjati episkopa Bosne i "hercega" od kojeg su nedavno milostinju primili, a u čiju ortodoksnost sumnjaju, patrijarh im je odgovara: -da je episkop Bosne pravoslavac i da je i samog "hercega", kao i još neke tamo u njegovom delu Bosne učinio pravoslavnim hrišćanima i prisajedinio našoj crkvi, kao što su i neki učitelji Latini mnoge od "kudugera" učinili pokornim rimskoj crkvi. Dalje patrijarh kaže, mada se "herceg nije u potpunosti odvojio od kudugera iz straha od vlastele, on je unutar hrišćanin od pre kratkog vremena, pa zato i šalje milostinju monasima, jer da nije hrišćanin ne bi uzalud bacao svoju imovinu. Patrijarh poručuje sinajskim monasima "da neće pogrešiti ako nekad i episkopa spomenu, jer je pravoslavac i hirotonisan od zakonitog pravoslavnog patrijarha tog mesta. To je dovoljno, mada nije u redu što liturgiju vrši u stanu, pa ako se vremenom pokaže prevrtljiv i licemeran, ne treba da žele ako su pogrešili, jer Sveta Crkva prima pokajanja ljudi i pomaže im, a ljudske pomisli i namere ne zna niko osim sam Bog". https://prnt.sc/10zd5zu


 * And all this does not matter because the attitude of people towards religion in the Middle Ages in the territory we are talking about is as follows. I am quoting (again) the source to which you referred the most relevant (Sima Ćirković - History of the Medieval Bosnian State): https://prnt.sc/10zd8q2


 * 2/3 of Serbs during their baptism in the early Middle Ages (before the schism) accepted Christianity from a priest from Rome. Orthodoxy has only strengthened with the Nemanjić family. Even Stefan Nemanja was baptized for the first time according to the Roman rite in Ribnica. For example, he was later an Orthodox, his eldest son Vukan a Catholic and his brother Miroslav inclined to heretics.


 * It is a common place that the Nemanjićs originate from earlier dynasties (Vukanovići and Vojisavljevići from Dukla). I underline the place of their origin are Duklja and Zachlumia (present day Herzegovina). The eldest son took over the administration of Duklja and the youngest son traditionally ruled in Zachlumia. Prince Rastko was supposed to rule in the land of his grandfathers (Zahumlje). He refused and became a monk Sava. These are common places in history. If you don't know that, you don't need to comment on topics like this.


 * This is the state of the first Nemanjićs and the areas from which they originate https://i.imgur.com/iLoGp9j.jpg


 * Your favorite historian Ćirković about ethnic relations in the Middle Ages: https://prnt.sc/10zdlpm
 * It seems to me that you are projecting today's Balkan relations into the Middle Ages. That is completely wrong.


 * As you can see, when you look at the books in detail, the situation is much different from the one you believed in. Which only shows that you do not know enough about the topic you want to write about, but also that you have not read the sources you are referring to.


 * If I understood you well you claim that all the relevant historians in the world who have written on this subject have mistakenly translated the Latin term "ducatus"? Why don't you write a PhD thesis on the subject if you think everyone made a mistake and you're right? That would be a significant contribution to science. https://prnt.sc/10ze6al


 * Dukat sv. Save (Ducatus Sancti Sabae) term in latin sources. Herzegovina Svetoga Save (from Herceg od Svetog Save) is the original term (https://books.google.ba/books?id=DA49AAAAIAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiK-6Huu9bvAhWIjYsKHT_vDgEQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg (Herzegovinae de Sancto Sabba - look below the Latin term). I explained more broadly in a special section: "Why does someone block pointing to the practice of double standards"Great Khaan (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Another book you cited as your source (scientific study) "testifies" against your claims: https://prnt.sc/10zh6la (Sinisa Misic - Humska zemlja QUOTE: "It should be noted that Hum (Zachlumia) and Herzegovina are not terms of the same meaning.")


 * You also messed up the chronology. The first preserved mention of the name "Herzegovina" (Herzogtum / Duchy) is from 1454 in a letter. He certainly exists earlier but that is not important to our discussion. What is important is that this area originated during the time of Stjepan Vukčić"s ancestors. His significance for our topic is that he received other noble titles. Stjepan inherited the area from his uncle Sandalj Hranić, and Sandalj inherited the area from his uncle Vlatko Vuković a military leader in the battle of Kosovo in 1389. (son of Vuk Kosača and military leader of Tsar Dušan Nemanjić - see Mauro Orbini - Duchy of Saint Sava).


 * By the way, I have to notice that you resent us when we cite scientific studies and sources from "google books". Then why are you doing the same? So many contradictions. Great Khaan (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

, are you really disputing the credibility of those Croatian and Bosnian scholars and their works? All of those scholars are working in prominent academic institutions, like universities and institutes, and their works (cited above) are published in peer-reviewed publications. It sems that you are going to far (again) in this discussion. First, you claimed that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist, but you presented no sources for the occurrence of such problem in historiography. You received no support for such claims, by anybody here. Then you made several inacurate claims about various sources, but when proven in error, you persisted in your claims, in spite of presented facts that can be easily observed in sources. Now, you are disputing the credibility of scholars whose works are showing that your claims have no foundation. That is to much. I have to ask you again, please, can you provide any sources for your claims? Let me remind you that your initial attempts to push the same fringe theories failed on Bosnian Wikipedia, where your edits were reverted by an administrator who characterized recent corruptions of the article Vojvodstvo Svetog Save (Duchy of Saint Sava) as vandalism. Those are serious issues. This article, with its stable scope and title, exists on 13 (thirteen) Wikipedia projects. Do you really think that all sources on which those articles are made and all editors who created those articles are somehow in error? Sorabino (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My response is written in plain English; as for the links for my previous quote, you can't read such large chunks of text in Google Books snippet-previews, but you can use next-door library for Sima Ćirković or you can find it in pdf online (you are quite capable in surfing the Internet in search for key-words and key-phrases, it should be relatively easy for you to find pirated e-book, or I could provide a link to you via e-mail (I am not sure if wikipedia is appropriate place for exchange of pirated works - you see these external links Great Khann is using, well, I think that's extremely inappropriate)).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And "let me remind you", talking about my editing on bs.wiki, and how is my contribution there met by involved admin, who pose as both contributor, content owner and admin, is also extremely inappropriate for the TP discussion here.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You mention Ćirković again, and I posted quotes from the books (several times) you refer to, which prove the opposite of everything you say. And you pretend like nothing happened. You persist in the same story again and start the discussion from the beginning (again and again), try to make it meaningless and bury it with nonsense. Expecting you to achieve some "victory" that way. This seems to be the angle of view from which you look at things. What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.

LITERALLY, each of your claims proved to be unfounded. From the Latin term (even on the Herzeg"s seal, which I have placed above, the Latin expression "ducis" / duke / can be seen - and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE), title, claim that the term does not exist or is not common. We have shown that the term is common. The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.

Interesting, how everything that calls these events by their real name is inappropriate for you. And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?

You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS.

Don't worry at all, you will get as many quotes as you need that speak against your claim. But I am sure of one thing: NO SOURCE (primary or secondary) OR SCIENTIFIC STUDIES CAN CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU ARE MISLEAD BECAUSE THE FACTS DO NOT MATTER TO YOU. THE ONLY THING WHICH MATTERS TO YOU IS PROOFING A MEANINGLESS THESIS THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

You think you have a mission to rewrite history on Wikipedia by posting your personal beliefs. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It is a futile business. Soon, artificial intelligence will clean up all false information. Do you think that doing this is a good way to spend your life?

I continue to cite sources (due to the variety of sources, I will also include one Russian source): https://books.google.ba/books?id=vKJnAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwwoLG99fvAhUwiIsKHXHgCm4Q6AEwA3oECAgQAg

German-Croatian source: https://books.google.ba/books?id=UrMUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwwoLG99fvAhUwiIsKHXHgCm4Q6AEwBnoECAQQAg

Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built:

Zagrađe Monastery

Savina Monastery

Church of Saint Archdeacon Stephen

Church of Saint George in Sopotnica near Goražde, founded by Duke Stephen in 1454. The Goražde printing house worked at this church (producing books in the Serbian recension of Church Slavonic)

QUESTION:- even though Kosača's wife Cecilija was a Catholic, can you tell me if there is a Catholic church built by herzeg Stjepan.

By the way, to talk about the religious affiliation of people from the Middle Ages using today's standards is a wrong initial premise. And when the initial premise is wrong everything after that is wrong. I posted above a quote from Simo Ćirković (your favorite historian) who talks about this.Great Khaan (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to notice one more thing - it is inappropriate for you when I quote Google books (even though you do it too). When I send you a photo of printed books, it is also inappropriate. So anything that doesn’t go in your favor is inappropriate? Everything is forbidden to everyone and everything is allowed to you? I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.

By the way, in the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you ((or Joy) referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it. I do not mention Bjondo as a source because he is irrelevant in this regard (I have plenty of other relevant sources). I mention this situation to show DOUBLE STANDARDS. Do you think this is how Wikipedia is edited?

Le missioni cattoliche nei Balcani tra le due grandi guerre: Candia (1645-1669), Vienna e Morea (1683-1699) Flavio. Scritti inediti e rari di Biondo Flavio... 1927. https://books.google.ba/books?id=1e4WAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwwoLG99fvAhUwiIsKHXHgCm4Q6AEwCHoECAEQAgFlavio. Scritti inediti e rari di Biondo Flavio... 1927

Latin term "ducatus" translated into Serbo-Croatian (vojvodstvo - duchy, herzogtum). This article in the Croatian encyclopedia once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about. https://prnt.sc/10zxl0s from https://proleksis.lzmk.hr/13167/ Great Khaan (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Bosnian Franciscan sources https://books.google.ba/books?id=z9AAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDhfjthdnvAhUF3xoKHXggCso4ChDoATABegQIBBAC

Hungarian sources https://books.google.ba/books?id=aDegAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&dq=%22Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDhfjthdnvAhUF3xoKHXggCso4ChDoATACegQIABAC

Great Khaan (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

French - Encyclopédie de l’Islam https://prnt.sc/1108kx6 from https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedie-de-l-islam/*-SIM_5263

Italian (Roman catholic church source)- Visite e colegi https://prnt.sc/1108nbb from https://hrcak.srce.hr/52966 (PDF page 8)

Polish (PhD thesis) https://prnt.sc/1108rdc from https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/2474/1/sajkowski_rozprawa_doktorska.pdf page 32

German: Alter und Neuer Staat des Königreichs Dalmatien By Erhard Reusch, Giovanni Lucio https://books.google.ba/books?id=WuFC0cSBW1sC&pg=PA175&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijla3qitnvAhWN3YUKHXJXBWsQ6AEwBnoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Great Khaan (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Italian - Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, Volume 10 https://books.google.ba/books?id=zWAKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA146&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwCXoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

German - Die Geschichten der Ungern und ihrer Landsassen, Volume 2 https://books.google.ba/books?id=Ci0GAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA979&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwB3oECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

English https://books.google.ba/books?id=fkhoAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwA3oECAAQAg

Serbo-Croatian https://books.google.ba/books?id=XnNpAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg https://books.google.ba/books?id=eXFpAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwBHoECAMQAg https://books.google.ba/books?id=M-yMN9WK4ZUC&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwAXoECAYQAg

Latin excerpt from Yugoslavian per review: https://books.google.ba/books?id=K11FAAAAYAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwAHoECAQQAg

Great Khaan (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Latin - Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, Volume 10 (Collection of sources from the Kingdom of Hungary) https://books.google.ba/books?id=l4oAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA264&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn25bcmdnvAhUx_7sIHSNBATA4ChDoATACegQIAhAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Italian - La Vita Justiniani di Teofilo abate https://books.google.ba/books?id=UN8TAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn25bcmdnvAhUx_7sIHSNBATA4ChDoATABegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

German and Serbian - Militärgrenzen in den jugoslawischen Ländern der Neuzeit bis zum Frieden von Karlowitz 1699 https://books.google.ba/books?id=DLdBAAAAYAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn25bcmdnvAhUx_7sIHSNBATA4ChDoATADegQIAxAC

German - Die Kriege in Bossnien in den Feldzügen 1737, 1738 und 1739. https://books.google.ba/books?id=XnNpAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjejqr4l9nvAhWngf0HHb6cBisQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg

Great Khaan (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Italian https://books.google.ba/books?id=wwFAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA146&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiei9XYydrvAhUdCRAIHUS5CD04ChDoATAHegQIABAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Hungarian - Az országos jog és a particuláris jogok közti viszony hazai jogrendszerünkben By Gusztáv Wenzel https://books.google.ba/books?id=HdEKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiei9XYydrvAhUdCRAIHUS5CD04ChDoATAIegQIBxAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

To be continued Great Khaan (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Latin source: Constitutiones By Catholic Church. Pope (1878-1903 : Leo XIII) https://books.google.ba/books?id=TBooAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA45&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi668-30trvAhWHHXcKHZDMDRo4HhDoATACegQIABAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Historia Episcopatus Quinqueecclesiensis Tomus VII. Complectitur ..., Volume 7 https://books.google.ba/books?id=TXteAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA106&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGr6T679rvAhUErqQKHXpvDJU4FBDoATAAegQIABAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

English - A System of Geography: Ancient and Modern, Volume 3 By James Playfair https://books.google.ba/books?id=Zn3mktmfUzwC&pg=PA427&dq=ducatus+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3gKOewNvvAhWW3YUKHVYRBCkQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sabae&f=false

Hungarian - Száz politikai és történeti levél Horvátországról By Frigyes Pesty https://books.google.ba/books?id=sJoLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA371&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT2OOOwNvvAhXJyIUKHbFYDGs4FBDoATACegQIAxAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

More relevant references:

Hungarian - Magyar Országos Levéltár kiadványai: Forráskiadványok. II, Volume 11 https://books.google.ba/books?id=C-I4AAAAIAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAHegQIBxAC

German - Lexikon zur Geschichte Südosteuropas (2004) page 276 https://books.google.ba/books?id=1TppAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA276&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAEegQIBRAC

Italian - International Congress of the History of Medicine https://books.google.ba/books?id=-itrAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAGegQICRAC

Serbo-Croatian - Bibliotheca Ragusina: in qua Ragusini scriptores eorumque gesta et scripta recensentur, Volume 4 https://books.google.ba/books?id=dx09AAAAIAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAFegQIBhAC

Latin - Collectanea historiam, linguam, litteras Serbicas spectantia: Tertia sectio page 895 https://books.google.ba/books?id=L0sKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA895&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAIegQICBAC

Latin and German - Nomina scriptorum medii aevi Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Munich (2000) page 443 https://books.google.ba/books?id=PzwPAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA443&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi37_7_l93vAhWJlosKHeM2B0c4FBDoATAJegQIARAC

There is much more. I will continue as needed. I think that this is too much and that no other article title on EW has so many cited historical sources and scientific papers/studies.

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Publication of historical sources and literature

Latin - Schematismus topographico-historicus custodiae provincialis et vicariatus https://books.google.ba/books?id=wlQYFlYiBLcC&pg=PA13&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXrMD1md3vAhXgAxAIHWRwBwU4HhDoATAAegQIABAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Kalendarium Manuale Utriusque Ecclesiae Orientalis et Occidentalis ..., Volume 2 https://books.google.ba/books?id=Vas_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA791&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXrMD1md3vAhXgAxAIHWRwBwU4HhDoATADegQIAhAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

https://books.google.ba/books?id=NrkOAQAAIAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXrMD1md3vAhXgAxAIHWRwBwU4HhDoATAGegQIBRAC#v=snippet&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Serbo-Croatian - Грађа за српску историју нашега времена https://books.google.ba/books?id=AOowAQAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+sabae&dq=ducatus+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRxdWQ6t_vAhXwCBAIHX9VDsUQ6AEwAnoECAMQAg

Hungarian (cartography) Bosnyák és szerb élet- s nemzedékrajzi tanulmányok Lájos Thallóczy https://books.google.ba/books?id=iekV3FAWO5oC&q=ducatus+sabae&dq=ducatus+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRxdWQ6t_vAhXwCBAIHX9VDsUQ6AEwBnoECAkQAg

Italian - *Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da san Pietro sino ai nostri By Moroni Romano (Gaetano) https://books.google.ba/books?id=RJ5HIWFtQpAC&pg=PA202&dq=ducatus+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRxdWQ6t_vAhXwCBAIHX9VDsUQ6AEwCHoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20sabae&f=false

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 17:07, 02 April 2021 (UTC)

Publication of historical sources and literature

Latin - Sanctissimi domini nostri Leonis Papae XIII Allocutiones ..., Volumes 1-3 By Catholic Church. Pope https://books.google.ba/books?id=NrkOAQAAIAAJ&q=ducatus+sancti+sabae&dq=ducatus+sancti+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8rd2P7N_vAhVSi6QKHakDA2s4HhDoATAGegQIBBAC#v=snippet&q=ducatus%20sancti%20sabae&f=false

Serbo-Croatian - Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika, Volume 3 By Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti (Dictionary of the Croatian or Serbian Language, Volume 3 By Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts) https://books.google.ba/books?id=gRYTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjakZqL7N_vAhWIDewKHaM0A-EQ6AEwBHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

О натпису на цркви Херцега Стефана By Ilarion Ruvarac https://books.google.ba/books?id=Hm50YmxRTg0C&pg=PA8&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjakZqL7N_vAhWIDewKHaM0A-EQ6AEwCXoECAAQAg#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

Skupljeni istoriski i etnografski spisi https://books.google.ba/books?id=6bNOAQAAIAAJ&q=ducatus+s+sabae&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMyp_G7d_vAhVRMewKHY5qCqk4ChDoATACegQIAxAC Great Khaan (talk) 17:07, 02 April 2021 (UTC)

Pogled u Bosnu: zapisi veleposlanika - Zdravko Sančević (1998) - A look at Bosnia: notes of the ambassador https://books.google.ba/books?id=Y4ziAAAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+s+sabae&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMyp_G7d_vAhVRMewKHY5qCqk4ChDoATADegQIARAC

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 17:20, 02 April 2021 (UTC)

Publication of historical sources and literature

German - Fortsetzung der Algemeinen Welthistorie durch eine Gesellschaft ..., Volume 49 https://books.google.ba/books?id=OxOFZzoLQVwC&pg=PA455&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9Lfs7OLvAhUUAxAIHegpBV84ChDoATAGegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

Latin/Serbo-Croatian - Glas o natpisu na crkvi Hercega Stjepana https://books.google.ba/books?id=QdArAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA8&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9Lfs7OLvAhUUAxAIHegpBV84ChDoATAAegQIABAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

Slovenian, Croatian https://books.google.ba/books?id=C_kSAQAAMAAJ&q=ducatus+s+sabae&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9Lfs7OLvAhUUAxAIHegpBV84ChDoATAHegQIBxAC

German - A. F. Büschings große Erdbeschreibung, Volume 6; Volume 34 https://books.google.ba/books?id=J3g3flW_-9QC&pg=PA379&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9Lfs7OLvAhUUAxAIHegpBV84ChDoATAIegQICBAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

Neue Erdbeschreibung, Volume 1 By Anton Friedrich Büsching https://books.google.ba/books?id=RUZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1341&dq=ducatus+s+sabae&hl=sr-Latn&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx9Lfs7OLvAhUUAxAIHegpBV84ChDoATAJegQICRAC#v=onepage&q=ducatus%20s%20sabae&f=false

To be continued

Great Khaan (talk) 21:54, 02 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does someone block pointing to the practice of double standards?
Per review from 2003 https://books.google.ba/books?hl=sr&lr=&id=_sHmTRCEe7kC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22Duchy+of+saint+sava%22&ots=C6P2saEAWy&sig=TI4dPmppyrdBwqloTv6oHZZp-xM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22saint%20sava%22&f=false

The name "Herzegovina of Saint Sava"/"Hercegovina Svetoga Save" is the original name. Mavro Orbini translated it as "Ducatus Sancti Sabae". When translating his work into the modern Serbo-Croatian language (BTW each local community has its own name of that language. Joke aside, it is the same language and the same Slavic-Illyrian ethnos.), it was translated as "Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save" ("The Duchy of Saint Sava"). Those words are synonyms (Vojvodstvo - Slavic and Herzogtum - Germanic origin).

As for the proposal to rename this article to the "Duchy of Herzegovina" this is not possible because there is no single source for such a name (I dont get it. Don't you insist on a name that appears in historical sources and literature?) Besides, it would mean "Duchy of Duchy". Does not make sense. Herzegovina translated into English means Duchy or Herzeg's land. It is indisputable that the name "Herzegovina" originated on the basis of the high noble title "Herceg od Svetoga Sava."

Even in the Roman Catholic Church Santa Maria in Aracoeli (Rome), his name is written on the grave of the Bosnian Queen Catherine ("Catharinae Reginae Bosnensi Stephani ducis Sancti Sabbae sorori" - "Bosnian Queen Catherine, /daughter of/ Stephen, the Duke of St. Sava")

I HAVE TO NOTICE: this title is attempted to be challenged despite the validity of the term "Duchy of Saint Sava" in many sources, as well as per review literature in several languages ​​(Italian, Latin, German, English, Hungarian etc.) and in different centuries (from the 15th to the 21st century).

In this regard, I do not see that the term "RED CROATIA" has gone through the same dispute procedure. Namely, It appears in the (CPD) Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (a very controversial historical source that uses terms that do not appear in other sources) and after that Dandolo and Bjondo borrow that name from CPD. Although some editors who dispute the article "Duchy of Saint Sava" also edited the article "Red Croatia", they did not make such remarks there. Although there are no historical sources other than CPD (except Dandolo and Bjondo) and it is a completely fictitious term, none of them have disputed "Red Croatia" article.

One slightly different example, the name "Byzantine Empire" originated 150 years after the fall of Constantinople. Although this term never appears in historical sources before the fall of Constantinople, today it is a common term. Applying the logic of some editors, we would have to write the whole history from scratch and change the names of many countries and dynasties.

On the other hand, we have a historically grounded term here (Duchy of Saint Sava) and someone is trying to challenge it by applying double standards. Great Khaan (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Despite the abundant citation someone put a flag on this article
Primary and secondary historical sources, literature and scientific studies/papers of relevant historians (30-40 titles or more) are listed. In many European languages from different eras. There are very few article titles on Wikipedia that are supported by so many cited sources and scientific papers like this article. Also the article is available in 14 languages. It also existed in Croatian, but someone (guess who) removed the article from the Croatian Wikipedia.

On the other hand, those who dispute this article have posted book titles in which I found additional evidence for my claims (I published them above). Some refer to books that are in complete contradiction with their claims. And when it is mentioned, they ignore it as if nothing happened. Instead of giving up disputing an article after so many misses, they mark it with a flag. If there’s anything controversial here it’s this pointless dispute of the article.

It is very important to read the chapter →→"Why does someone block pointing to the practice of double standards?"←←. For a better insight into the situation. This practice of double standards must be stopped. Great Khaan (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

One observation
I see some editors not knowing good enough the topic they want to write about. Namely, the name "Herzegovina of Saint Sava"/"Hercegovina Svetoga Save" is the original name. Mavro Orbini translated it as "Ducatus Sancti Sabae". When translating his work into the modern Serbo-Croatian language (BTW each local community has its own name of that language. Joke aside, it is the same language and the same Slavic-Illyrian ethnos.), it was translated as "Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save" ("The Duchy of Saint Sava"). Those words are synonyms (Vojvodstvo - Slavic and Herzogtum - Germanic origin). As for the proposal to rename this article to the "Duchy of Herzegovina" this is not possible because there is no single source for such a name (I dont get it. Don't you insist on a name that appears in historical sources and literature?) Besides, it would mean "Duchy of Duchy". Does not make sense. Herzegovina translated into English means Duchy or Herzeg's land. It is indisputable that the name "Herzegovina" originated on the basis of the high noble title "Herceg od Svetoga Sava." A LITTLE. BUT VERY IMPORTANT, DIGRESSION: Saint Sava is one of the greatest saints of Orthodox Christians. Especially in the Balkans. I suppose that aristocratic title would be something that members of other religions in the eternally quarreling Balkans would gladly ignore. I may be wrong, but it is possible that this is the reason for disputing this article. I do not see another explanation. If I am not mistaken, even in the Roman Catholic Church Santa Maria in Aracoeli (Rome), his name is written on the grave of the Bosnian Queen Catherine ("Catharinae Reginae Bosnensi Stephani ducis Sancti Sabbae sorori" - "Bosnian Queen Catherine, /daughter of/ Stephen, the Duke of St. Sava") There is a big problem in the Balkans. As I have already noticed, it is basically the same ethnic group (Illyrian-Slavic), on the basis of which several nations were formed, along the lines of religious division. These divisions are encouraged from outside. And these small nations did not have the strength to resist that. Although some of them have tried (a brave attempt but brutally punished). All those small Balkan nations could at one historical moment grow into one big and very strong nation (like the Germans and the Italians). That chance was missed and today there are several new dysfunctional, mutually divided nations/states through which the great powers project their interests. The best example is meaningless polemics like this one about noble titles. Some of these newly formed nations are arguing over things that happened 600 years ago and their nations are demographically extinct. I HAVE TO NOTICE double standards. Namely, this title is attempted to be challenged despite the validity of the term "Duchy of Saint Sava" in many sources, as well as per review literature in several languages ​​(Italian, Latin, German, English, Hungarian etc.) and in different centuries (from the 15th to the 21st century). In this regard, I do not see that the term "RED CROATIA" has gone through the same dispute procedure. Namely, It appears in the (CPD) Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (a very controversial historical source that uses terms that do not appear in other sources) and after that Dandolo and Bjondo borrow that name from CPD. Although the editors who dispute the article "Duchy of Saint Sava" also edited the article "Red Croatia", they did not make such remarks there. Although there are no historical sources other than CPD (except Dandolo and Bjondo) and it is a completely fictitious term, none of them have disputed "Red Croatia" article. One slightly different example, the name "Byzantine Empire" originated 150 years after the fall of Constantinople. Although this term never appears in historical sources before the fall of Constantinople, today it is a common term. Applying the logic of some editors, we would have to write the whole history from scratch and change the names of many states and dynasties. On the other hand, we have a historically grounded term here (Duchy of Saint Sava) and someone is trying to challenge it by applying double standards. Great Khaan (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Breaking the cycle
@Sorabino, let us follow proper TP formatting - I am tired of fixing IP/Great Khann ill-formatted walls of text, you must know better. I will respond this last time on your inquiries from above inserted posts, bottom-up here: I won't be responding anymore, and we should start following WP:SATISFY that says: This concerns some specific instances in WP:FILIBUSTERS (including your requests directed at me to prove negative), because we get it from the very beginning, Joy, Mikola, Tezwoo, myself, we get it and we stressed that (WP:IDHT), I clearly said, Joy, Mikola and Tezwoo implied, that you will always be able to find this particular phrase (title "Herzog of Saint Sava - Ducatus Saint Sava"), allover the Internet, even in some scholarship, and there is no need to bury TP with more of the same links to sources (academic or any other kind, written by people who are not renown medievalists of the Balkans and/or specialists on the subject and its history (WP:REDFLAG)!) that mentioning it in passing or as a secondary information, without any considerable and very clear study and elaboration on the subject or topic. We all objected your re-titling and reverts (WP:DRNC), we all pointed to the fact that you need better sources (WP:REDFLAG) from those you are providing by scraping the key-words and key-phrases. This is also related to WP:GASLIGHT (repetition and misdirection). As an experienced editor you must be aware of the fact that this kind of source-searching on the Internet, or even in proper academic works, and fishing for particular word or phrase mentioned in passing, does not guarantee inclusion of that information (WP:ONUS, policy which you didn't follow), let alone re-naming or creating whole article based on it. As appropriate analogy: even if you could find in academic paper(s) on comic-books and cartoons, that someone mention in passing that Mickey Mouse alias Bob Cratchit is in fact his real name, you still couldn't claim to have an argument to change Mickey Mouse article title, re-focus entire scope adjusting entire narrative to this, and so on. Or to make analogy more familiar, now that you mentioned article Kingdom of Bosnia - no one editor can go to that article and change it to "Kingdom of Rama", despite the fact that Hungarian kings bore the title "King of Rama" referring to Bosnia for almost thousand years until 1918, and that this fact is not just mentioned in passing in research by scholars, instead it is thoroughly studied ! Only thing that editor was/is able to do is to mention this fact somewhere within the article Kingdom of Bosnia.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  06:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sima Ćirković - instead of responding to Ćirković's arguments in my quotation from his book "Herceg Stefan", you concern yourself with lack of English translation when you are native Serbian lang. speaker, or why I haven't provided a link - quotation is rather large already, so anyone wishing to read it in English could ask me and I would provide immediately; also, what does article Kingdom of Bosnia have to do with that;
 * "Ducatus" - I am not implying anything, I posted translations from online Latin dictionaries, which offer explicit explanations;
 * "Croatian and Bosnian scholars" - I am not trying to misrepresent data on those Croatian and Bosnian scholars, everything is in plain sight - your links + comments, and my reply in plain English.
 * Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't overly demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not. Do not badger editors to restate something just because you would have worded it differently. No one should try to police others' viewpoints. It may be taken as especially disruptive to attempt stalling out the consensus-building process with repeated unreasonable demands for re-explanation of that which has already been clearly explained, as if incapable of "getting it". This "sealioning" behavior pattern has sometimes resulted in topic-bans and even indefinite blocks.

→→→→Your claims - an abbreviated version←←←←

I will try to briefly expose all your wrong claims and misconceptions. First of all, you don't know Latin and you quoted everything selectively (cherry-picking). I have shown you on the basis of historical sources what the meaning of that word is (I am quoting encyclopedic articles - Croatian encyclopedia).

https://proleksis.lzmk.hr/18717/ english transaltion: "The name comes from the Latin word ducatus (duchy, name for the Venetian Republic" ie.  The name for gold coins comes from this term.

As can be seen from these encyclopedic articles, the word means "duchy". In the Byzantine Empire, certain military administrative areas were called so. Later, the Latin term was also used in some western countries.

The Duchy of Srijem (ducatus Sirmii) Duchiy of Sirmi https://prnt.sc/110ptcg from https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=57628 https://prnt.sc/110pvm8 from https://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=44724

So, this objection of yours is UNFOUNDED and therefore rejected. As far as I am concerned the debate on this is over.

Going further, your next complaint was that the name does not appear often enough in the sources. By quoting the source (and I will continue - you can be sure of that), I proved that the name is mentioned all the time. Only you didn't know that (or you didn't want to know?).

As for the historians you mentioned above you quoted selectively again. Cherry-picking. I have quoted parts from their scientific studies (to which you refer) that prove the opposite of what you claim. And Sorabino found parts in Marko Vego (to whom you also refer) that explicitly confirm our claims.

When you get this proof then you complain that we list too many historical sources and studies.

→→→→ Didn't you claim ←←←←:

1. that name does not exist

2. when after →→ facing the evidence you saw that it still exists ←←, you claimed that it was not frequent and when you got the enumeration then you complain that there is too much and that we enumerate from google books and that it can not be enough but that you need something like the books you quoted and when we proved to you that there are confirmations of everything we claimed in those books, you pretend that nothing happened and you bring the discussion back to the beginning. This is completely frivolous behavior.

3. then you continued to insist on the Latin term (and began to stick to the claim you made at the beginning of the discussion) and I proved to you by quoting numerous sources and encyclopedic articles that the name in translation means "duchy". You didn't know that. And those who do not know that should not comment on such articles. And he ((in this case - you) shouldn't be angry with someone who pointed it out to him. I am grateful for everything new I learn. You obviously aren't. You persist in your delusions and try to convince others of them. No one can forbid you to believe what you want. We are dealing here with facts and not personal desires.

→→→→ Worst of all - you persuade others to vandalize this article because you are denied that opportunity.←←←←

I wonder what kind of logical juggling you will bring up next time. Most likely, your objections will relate to text formatting and procedural issues, as well as complaints to Wikipedia administrators. Anyway, I'm ready for any of your objections.

P.S. This area was usually called that way until the 18th century (Herzegovina of St. Sava, abbreviated Herzegovina. The abbreviated name has remained until today and it is indisputable that it was named after Herzceg/Herzog (Duke) of St. Sava, just as it is indisputable that this name is based in historical sources that you obviously didn't know. Although it doesn't surprise me. Considering what attitudes you have.)

→→→→ So you've got proof ←←←←: - the meaning of the word ducatus - you got the frequency of appearance of that name in sources and scientific works/ studies - you received quotes from the books that you cite as references. These quotations confirm our claims.

My question to you - what else do you need? Confirmation of the Holy Father Pope? You got something similar. I also posted an inscription from a Roman Catholic church.

Do you want us to start the proof process for the 10th time from the very beginning? Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?

I will be very happy to explain everything you need. And now I continue to quote the source above (where I started). When I have more time, I will also access the internal database at my university. Until I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem. Great Khaan (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Wikidata
Could you please take a look at the recent disruption on Wikidata, that occurred today in spite of your recent recommendations and warnings, issued on 19 March 2021, regarding the proper ways for resolving disputes related to the Duchy of Saint Sava article. Since then, discussions were going on here on the TP, but unfortunately, before any resolution, user decided to undertake some unilateral actions on Wikidata, by detaching this article from corresponding articles on other Wikipedia projects. The edit history of that Wikidata item also shows that his previous attempts (2 March 2021) to impose similar changes were corrected by user, who is an administrator on Bosnian Wikipedia. Here is a list of corresponding articles on other Wikipedia projects, that have both the same title and scope as EW article on the Duchy of Saint Sava: By disrupting the Wikidata item, two problems were created: 1. Detachment of this EW article from corresponding articles on other Wikipedia projects has produced a misleading illusion that this article somehow has no corresponding articles, with both the same titles and scopes. 2. Such unilateral action could be seen as a breach of previously issued recommendations and warnings, since user did not address the question of corresponding articles here on the TP. Instead of responding to the existence of those corresponding articles, mentioned in discussions (above) he decided to disrupt the Wikidata item. Could you please advise us how to proceed further in the light of these recurring problems? Sorabino (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (BE) Герцагства Святога Савы
 * (BG) Херцогство на свети Сава
 * (BS) Vojvodstvo Svetog Save
 * (DE) Herzogtum des heiligen Sava
 * (EL) Βοεβοδάτο του Αγίου Σάββα
 * (ES) Ducado de San Sava
 * (ET) Püha Sava hertsogkond
 * (IT) Ducato di San Sava
 * (RU) Герцогство Святого Саввы
 * (SR) Војводство Светог Саве
 * (UK) Герцогство Святого Сави


 * Sorabino, "Humska zemlja" is the only en.wikipedia redirect which you didn't moved, and which still direct links to this article, you understand this? When you came behind me to Wikidata and moved it to Zachlumia, you disregarded their project's item with the same name that already refer to Zachlumia. My misleading illusion that this article somehow has no corresponding articles has nothing to do with that, and since I am not delusional I referred wikidata item "Zachlumia" to en.wiki article Zachlumia, and wikidata item Humska zemlja to en.wkik article Humska zemlja.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , you are misrepresenting facts, unfortunately. Since administrator issued us warnings and recommendations on 19 March 2021, I made no edits in this article, and I made no moves of any redirects. In the same time, I participated actively in TP discussions, hoping for proper resolutions of all related questions. For some reason, you decided earlier today to make those disruptions in the Wikidata item, without any discussion. It is quite clear from discussions (above) that there was no support for your views on "Humska zemlja" and yet, you decided to make unilateral changes within the Wikidata item, in spite of clear warnings and recommendations issued to us on 19 March 2021. Sorabino (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Humska zemlja article also has corresponding articles on several projects, and they were connected before you move your reverting to wikidata. It is kinda strange to read you are appealing to resolution, when you just some fifteen days ago started to move titles and redirects, all before any resolution, even without any regard for Joy's, Mikola's, Tezwoo's, Mhare's, and my own objection - actually, between EdJohnston's question if two of us accept condition to restrain from editing or risk a block, and your positive reply, you took the opportunity to revert and when you finished you then promised that you will restrain from editing on this article.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , that is not true. Edit histories can be easily checked. Please, can you point to any section in discussions (above) that would demonstrate any consensus on the question of "Humska zemlja" and thus justify unilateral actions you undertook earlier today, by disrupting the Wikidata item. You made those changes without discussing the existence and significance of corresponding articles on other Wikipedia projects, not to mention that you imposed those changes without the required consensus. Since the beginning of this cycle of discussions (initiated after 19 March 2021) all involved users have respected the integrity of this process, until your breach earlier today. Sorabino (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I did not say "since EdJohnston issued a warnings", I said between his question and your reply, Ed even had to ask twice or something like that. But we can check, and if I am wrong I will gladly apologize for any inconvenience.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, in above discussion issue was not if my title "Humska zemlja" can get support, rather discussion was/is about if your title "Duchy of St Sava" can get support. Let's be more precise, shell we.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  16:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Santasa99 Have you even looked at all the above evidence that speaks against your claims? You are trying to make the discussion meaningless with objections, complaints because you have no arguments. It is a completely reckless behavior that does not contribute to the progress..
 * No other title of the article is supported by so many historical sources and scientific papers as this one. You don't care about scientifically established facts and truth at all. For you, the progress of Wikipedia is not important, but only proving your personal beliefs. Great Khaan (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Santasa99 You are trying to create the impression that the majority is for your changes. This is not about the “majority” but about scientific facts. By the way, the "majority" you are referring to are the editors of the controversial Croatian Wikipedia. After all, you know that for sure, because you also edit there.
 * https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/
 * My claims are very easy to verify.
 * Besides, in the previous discussion it turned out that you are not interested in the facts.
 * It is not allowed to introduce the practice of editing from the Croatian Wikipedia here. I will fight against any kind of extremism, totalitarianism and pseudoscience. Great Khaan (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is no problem on Croatian Wikipedia, please look again. Croatian Wikipedia has a general article on the region of Humska zemlja (Hum, Zahumlje), that was properly connected to the corresponding EW article on the same region (Zachlumia), until earlier today, when user made those disruptions within the Wikidata item. Sorabino (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorabino Previously, there was an article - Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save - on the Croatian wikipedia, but it was removed or title has changed. Guess who did it? Now this Santasa99's manipulation that you described has happened. Even google does not show this information at all. It shows some pages he has never shown.
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Vojvodstvo+Svetoga+Save%22+&sxsrf=ALeKk00tqD0O_e1El3_XRE1m1v-y0BhKcg%3A1617210881980&ei=Aa5kYM-2O5eO1fAP98eh4Ac&oq=%22Vojvodstvo+Svetoga+Save%22+&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeUOQrWOQrYNstaAJwAHgAgAG8AYgBrAKSAQMwLjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6wAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiPu5aBhNvvAhUXRxUIHfdjCHwQ4dUDCAw&uact=5
 * Great Khaan (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , was there an article, on the same subject, over there on Croatian Wikipedia too? I did not know that. Were there any delete or merge discussions on similar issues over there? I just looked on CW, but could not find any record of related discussions on such issues. Sorabino (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact time. Deleted article and redirected or just merged with the article "Humska zemlja". In short, when I noticed the problem here, a problem also appeared on the Bosnian Wikipedia. On the Croatian Wikipedia instead of the "Vojvodstvo Svetoga Save" (Duchy of Saint Sava), the inscription "Humska zemlja" appeared. On the Bosnian Wikipedia, Santasa99 tried to do the same editing. Check out all these options. They have all that information on the Bosnian Wikipedia. I don't know what the possibility of manipulating that data is. On the Croatian Wikipedia, no one prevents such actions. There is a trace of all this on the Bosnian Wikipedia. Great Khaan (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * https://prnt.sc/110x7yi from https://bs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vojvodstvo_Svetog_Save&action=history Great Khaan (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Santasa99 You have arbitrarily changed the long-term name of this article (Duchy of Saint Sava) which exists in 14 languages. Despite numerous historical sources and scientific papers. Great Khaan (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI report

 * Also, Santasa99 reported me because I point out his problematic views and actions.That will not stop me from insisting on scientifically established facts.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_IP_is_back_as_Great_Khaan


 * [User:Great Khaan|Great Khaan]] (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)