Talk:Grand Principality of Serbia/Archive 1

Rascia
Suggest a move to Rascia. The name of the principality was that. It was that famous at the time that the drap d'Arras seems to have been derived from drap de Rascia (the word drap we have it as bed sheet in the English wiki), rather than from the French city of Arras, see etymology from Wiener here in p234. --MorenaReka (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The name of the principality was Serbia, an exonym was Rascia. The Arras story makes no sense.--Z oupan 05:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is exactly because it was an exonym, that it is important. Western sources called it Rascia, and that's how it was known to the western world. Besides, what are the sources that the endonym was Serbia? The etymology of the drap de Rascia shows how the western world knew Rascia/Serbia at that time. This is the English Wikipedia and naming is important. The name Serbia has been recorded in the 9th century for the first time, but in the 12th century when this principality existed, no one called it Serbia.MorenaReka (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You must know that basing this on is the weakest of arguments. Western sources at that time may have used Rascia, Rassa, Rasie, etc, alongside Serbia, but Serbs and Byzantines called it Serbia.  I would like to see sources on that, please. In modern historiography, Serbia is predominantly used for the state.--Z oupan  02:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you don't like fashion, I do. But Laurențiu Rădvan says in p89 : Latin sources in the 11th and the 12th centuries associated the Serbs with the town of Ras and thus validated the name of Rascia for Westerners, and not Serbia, a name which the Byzantines kept.. So for the Westerners it wasn't Serbia, it was Rascia. This is the English Wikipedia not the Serbian/Byzantine one, so the article should have the name with which it was known to the Western world in the 12th century, because Rascia was notable then too, it didn't become notable now. However if Wikipedia goes with modern historiography, you have to be right, and not me. I just don't see many sources that call it "Grand Principality of Serbia". I see Principality of Serbia (Rascia) in most modern sources. And some precisations need to be made: The kings of Rascia wanted to invade parts of Serbia, I read plenty of sources about this, and it is not true that Rascia had the whole jurisdiction into Serbia: the borders were continuously varying during that period, thus that map is misleading. --MorenaReka (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Papal sources in the 11th and 12th centuries did not use "Rascia" for the state. Rădvan clearly says that the Latin sources in the 11th-12th century associated the town with Serbs, not that Serbia was known as Rascia — it would later be known as such in western sources (hence his terming "validated the name of Rascia for Westerners"). What you're doing here is synthesis. (?) The title is descriptive. The rulers were "Grand Prince of all Serbia/Serbs". It was known as Serbia at that time, and in modern historiography, alongside Rascia/Raška (although erraneously). I don't see the problem in having "Rascia" in the introduction, which has clear information on the naming.  what are you trying to say here?  where is this even claimed?--Z oupan  06:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ajdebre made the map in 2010, but the map is unsourced. Btw back then he called it Principality of Rascia (Serbia). --MorenaReka (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed that incorrect map now. I will request from that a new map be made based on sources. Are we clear on the points you made?--Z oupan  14:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think our discussion was fruitful. Perhaps a move is premature. MorenaReka (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wp:Undue by Filigranski
This has been discussed in various ways by several editors especially on Viseslav talk page, editor Crovata/MF is ignoring reliable sources and posting they usual as Croatian historians or Dvornik from 1962,removing J.A.Fine from 1991 with a excuse that it is a primary source (????), failing to reach consensus, meanwhile I could also post at least 30 sources who argue differently, some of them are this: {{tq|825-1020. - Vlastimirovic and Vojislavljevic dynasties create first Serb states of Raska and Zeta/Duklja in present day Montenegro. {{tq|An early medieval state of Serbs that emerged in the area roughly corresponding to modern southeastern Montenegro was known as Duklja. The name Duklja was derived from Dioclea, the name of the capital city of the Illyrian tribe of Diocleatae that lived in what is now Montenegro. Through the eleventh century, Duklja was the leading Serbian state with its capital at Scodra.
 * 1) Tibor Živković De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source (2012), p. 160: [] {{tq|And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumians and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romaioi, and since these countries had been made desolate by the Avars (for they had expelled from those parts the Romani who now live in Dalmatia and Dyrrachium), the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries, and they were subject to the emperor of the Romaioi. This section, as it appears to be, is Constantine’s understanding of the settlement of the Serbs based on all the available sources he had at his disposal. In chapter 32 is more circumstantial evidence that Constantine had used an older source on the Serbs (as well as the Croats).
 * 2) Deliso, Christopher (2008) Culture and Customs of Serbia and Montenegro []:
 * 1) John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., (1991) [] (pg 202) Early Medieval Balkans: {{tq|The last chapter introduced Duklja- a region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided with what is now Montenegro under John Vladimir after he was murdered by John Vladislav of Macedonia in about 1016. After he was murdered the history of Duklja becomes obscure for a while...Skylitizes say that in 1034 the Serbs renounced Byzantine rule.Since the source do not mention any Serb rising other than Vojislav´s and since there were anti-Bizantine military acitivities in Duklja in middle of 1030s, the Serbs to which Skylitzes refers were probaly from Dioclea.
 * 2) John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. (pg 160) Early Medieval Balkans: {{tq|The other Serbian state of this period was the one of Michael of Zahumlje.
 * 3) John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. (pg 225) Early Medieval Balkans: {{tq|In the course of our studies, we have found Serbs living in many regions of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje (or Zachlumia), Trebinje and parts of Bosnia.
 * 4) Morozova, Maria (2019)[]:
 * 1) Britannica History of Montenegro [] {{tq|The South Slav peoples of the region were the ancestors of today’s Serbs and Montenegrins, though the degree of differentiation between those two groups remains controversial. The peoples were organized along tribal lines, each headed by a župan (chieftain). In this part of the Adriatic littoral, from the time of the arrival of the Slavs up to the 10th century, these local magnates often were brought into unstable and shifting alliances with other larger states, particularly with Bulgaria, Venice, and Byzantium. Between 931 and 960 one such župan, Časlav, operating from the županija of Zeta in the hinterland of the Gulf of Kotor, succeeded in unifying a number of neighbouring Serb tribes and extended his control as far north as the Sava River and eastward to the Ibar. Zeta and its neighbouring županija of Raška (roughly modern Kosovo) then provided the territorial nucleus for a succession of Serb kingdoms that in the 13th century were consolidated under the Nemanjić dynasty.
 * 2) Malcolm Noel History of Bosnia pg. 35: {{tq|Srbi su se naselili na području koje odgovara današnjoj jugozapadnoj Srbiji (teritoriju koji je poslije, u srednjem vijeku, postao poznat pod imenom Raška ili Rascia), i malo-pomalo proširili svoju vlast na teritorije Duklje ili Diocleje (Crna Gora) i Huma ili Zahumlja (Hercegovina).The Serbs settled in the area corresponding to today's southwestern Serbia (a territory that later, in the Middle Ages, became known as Raska or Rascia), and gradually expanded their rule to the territories of Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro) and Hum or Zahumlje. (Herzegovina).
 * 3) John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Centurypg. 20 {{tq|Most of the Hum interior was settled by Serbs and belonged to Eastern Church (under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church.
 * 4) Tibor Živković De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source (2012), p. 162: {{tq|The mention of the other Slav principalities, as allegedly being inhabited by the Serbs, should not be rendered as being Constantine’s interpretation of the political situation from his time, but rather it had been the consequence of the usage of his primary source on this matter.It must be noted that Dioclea was not part of the province of Dalmatia, neither Roman, nor Byzantine – Dioclea belonged to the province of Praevalis. This must be one of the main reasons why the Serbs (which are observed as the inhabitants of Dalmatia) had not been mentioned in Constantine’s source as the primogenitors of the Diocletians.
 * 5) Tibor Živković THE WORLD OF THE SLAVS - Studies on the Eastern, Western and South Slavs: Civitas, Oppidas, Villas and Archeological Evidence (7th to 11th Centuries A.D.) Belgrade 2013 p.20 {{tq|At the beginning of the seventh century the centre of the former Praefectura Illyricum was far away from the main routes and the urban centres of Thrace, which were still controlled by Byzantium. The Serbs, who settled into the territories of present-day western Serbia,north-eastern Montenegro, and the eastern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, virtually had no contact with the remaining centres of civilization, either to the west (Dalmatia) or to the east and south (Byzantium).
 * 6) Jovanović Stanko []: {{tq|DAI se u naučnoj istoriografiji i dalje uzima kao najpouzdaniji i najrelevantniji istorijski izvor za proučavanje Slovena i njihove pojave na Balkanskom poluostrvu (Живковић, 2002).DAI is still considered in scientific historiography as the most reliable and most relevant historical source for the study of the Slavs and their appearance on the Balkan Peninsula (Živković, 2002).
 * 7) Jovanović Stanko same source pg. 182: {{tq|Danijel Dzino, kritički se osvrćući na tvrdnje K. Porfirogenita vezane za sedmi vijek, objašnjava da Porfirogenit daje podatke koji su bliski njegovom ličnom interesu, tj. svoju ličnu percepiju i mišljenje, koje je uslovljeno ideološko identiteskim diskursom njegovog vremena, te da DAI suštinski daje relevantne podatke za vrijeme u kom car živi (deseti vijek), ne za sedmi (Dzino, 2010, 116). Iako ove ideje unose svježinu i novi pristup tumačenju perioda doseljavanja Slovena, one za istraživače koji se bave pitanjem porijekla Slovena i njihovim pojavljivanjem na prostoru provincije Ilirikum predstavljaju ambiciozan i (ne)primamljiv pristup (Јанковић, 2015, 154) te skoro pa neprihvatljiv (Živković, 2012a, 204) Daniel Dzino, critically referring to the claims of K. Porphyrogenitus related to the seventh century, explains that Porphyrogenitus provides information close to his personal interest, i.e. his personal perception and opinion, which is conditioned by the ideological identity discourse of his time, and that DAI essentially gives relevant data for the time in which the emperor lived (tenth century), not for the seventh (Dzino, 2010, 116). Although these ideas bring freshness and a new approach to the interpretation of the period of Slavic immigration, those for researchers dealing with the origin of Slavs and their appearance in the province of Illyricum represent an ambitious and (un)tempting approach (Janković, 2015, 154) and almost unacceptable. (Živković, 2012a, 204)
 * 8) Pirivatric Srdjan The Dynamics of Byzantine-Serbian Political Relations [] pg 19 and 20: {{tq|The rise of Byzantine power, which commenced after the restoration of the cult of icons in 843, in the time of the emperors Michael III (842–867) and especially Basil I (867–886), paved the way for strenghtening direct imperial power over a signiﬁcant part of the Eastern Adriatic coast, where the rest of the possessions were reorganised into a separate administrative unit the Byzantine theme of Dalmatia. The same process enabled the penetration of more powerful Byzantine inﬂuences in the Serbian regions – in the hinterland, the continental area of Late Roman Dalmatia, most of which was governed by Serbian princes, along with part of the coast and some islands. The most important political–geographical units, as an area of the early Serbian ethnogenesis, had already been created by that time, which, depending on the case, represented a more or less important factor of Byzantine–Serbian relations. Serbia with Bosnia, Zachlumia,Travunia and Diocletia, as well as the unstable areas of Konavle and Neretva. Te Empire’s political inﬂuence was ,from the time of Basil I, reﬂected in the special relations of the Serbian princes and the Byzantine maritime cities,which paid to them an annual tribute.
 * 9) Pekić Radmilo Christian ‒ Orthodox Monuments of Travunija in historiography pg.149: [] {{tq|Ријека Требишњица протицала је кроз насеље Паник (римски Leusinium),а била је премошћена старим мостом. Пронађени натпис у камену говори да је мост на ријеци Требишњици код Паника обнављан од 79. до 84. године нове ере.На овом подручју хришћанство је наговјештавано још пред Константиново доба, што потврђују трагови у откривеној луксузној вили с Црквине уПанику коју је сачињавало неколико грађевинских комплекса, а датирана издоба цара Галијена (253‒268). Изнад римског грађевинског комплекса пронађена је мала старохришћанска црква која је изграђена још у VI вијеку, а касније је изнад ње изграђена средњовјековна црква око које се сахрањивало становништво. Хришћанска традиција настављена је доласком Словена. Ово подручје јеприпадало средњовјековној области Травунији за коју византијски цар и писацКонстантин Порфирогенит половином X вијека каже: „тамошњи становнициводе поријекло од некрштених Срба“ и потом констатује да су њени владариувијек били подложни владару Србије. Касније, 1376. године, Твртко I Котроманић ово је подручје припојио Босни.The river Trebišnjica flowed through the settlement of Panik (Roman Leusinium), and was bridged by an old bridge. The inscription found in the stone says that the bridge on the river Trebišnjica near Panika was renovated from 79 to 84 AD. complex, and the dating of Emperor Gallienus (253‒268). A small Roman church was found above the Roman building complex, built in the 6th century and later a medieval church was built above it, around which the population was buried. The Christian tradition continued with the arrival of the Slavs. This area belonged to the medieval region of Travunija, for which the Byzantine emperor and writer Constantine Porphyrogenitus said in the middle of the 10th century: "The inhabitants there are descended from unbaptized Serbs" and then states that its rulers have always been subject to the ruler of Serbia. Later, in 1376, Tvrtko I Kotromanić annexed this area to Bosnia.
 * 10) Ćirković Sima M. Ziveti s istorijom [] pg. 307: {{tq|U pričanju cara Konstantina Porfirogenita (sredina X veka) prepoznaju se ta dva sloja imena kad govori o Neretljanima, Zahumljanima i Travunjanima, koji potiču od onih Srba koji su se doselili za vreme vladavine cara Iraklija (610–641). Govoreći o Dukljanima, on ne spominje staro ime plemena od kojega bi poticali, ali pisci XI veka zetske vladare označavaju kao Srbe i ponekad njihovu zemlju označavaju kao Srbiju. Pitanje je, dakle, krajnje stručno i može se rešavati brižljivom analizom izvora, ali se odavno politizovalo utoliko što su Dukljani suprotstavljeni Srbima i što se zanemaruju podaci izvora XI i XII veka o istoj teritoriji. translation: In the story of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (mid-tenth century), these two layers of names are recognized when he speaks of the Neretvans, Zahumljani and Travunians, who come from those Serbs who immigrated during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610-641). Speaking about the people of Duklja, he does not mention the old name of the tribe from which they would originate, but the writers of the 11th century label the Zeta rulers as Serbs and sometimes label their country as Serbia. The issue is, there fore, extremely professional and can be resolved by careful analysis of sources, but it has long been politicized in so far as Dukljani are opposed to Serbs and neglect data from 11th and 12th century sources on the same territory.

{{u|Amanuensis Balkanicus}},{{u|Sorabino}},{{u|PajaBG}},{{u|Griboski}},{{u|Soundwaweserb}} and {{u|Elserbio00}}, as you can see the way it is described in sources it is actually not corresponded with how it is presented by the editor MF/Crovata. Please take a notice on this article and several others edited by the same editor and make a neutral version so that we can stop with this. Theonewithreason (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This discussion started full of misinformation and false interpretations. Exactly the contrary, revisions like this are ignoring reliable sources according to the WP:NPOV and POV according to the WP:WEIGHT and every reached consensus until today. The provided sources by the editor Theonewithreason in this discussion are almost only of Serbian historiography, sometimes misquoted and misinterpreted, and do not correspond to NPOV's UNDUE weight in scientific literature. Serbian historian Tibor Živković, who was one of the most specialized historians on DAI in the world, was highly critical of the Serbian historiograhical POV as its interpretation is still mostly stuck in nationalistic and literal reading of the primary source, "persistently defending the credibility of Porphyrogenitus' story". Serbian historiography is almost a century behind international POV ("To this day, this concept has remained as a trademark of Serbian Byzantine studies, at least in the part in which it deals with Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his work"). Fine is like always not fully quoted and misinterpreted.


 * The pinged WP:HOUNDING call to "notice on this article and several others edited by the same editor and make a neutral version so that we can stop with this", intending replacing or inhibiting actual NPOV with forced pro-Serbian POV, is an open call for edit-warring based on nationalistic tendencies, which is seriously wrong and violation of editing policies and core principles of Wikipedia ({{u|Joy}}, {{u|Peacemaker67}}). The content regarding Croats, Serbs and related polities in the primary source De Administrando Imperio has been widely discussed on English Wikipedia for years (lastly Talk:Višeslav of Serbia - where is list of references and quote, any further addition or comment should be addressed there). The consensus is clear and only on Serbian related articles can be found POV which is violating NPOV. The violation is often found in the form like in this article's section:


 * According to the De Administrando Imperio (DAI), the Serbs settled the Balkans under the protection of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–41), and were ruled by a dynasty known in historiography as the Vlastimirović dynasty. Slavs had begun settling the region in the early 6th century, after raiding deep into the Empire.[4] They settled "baptized Serbia" (the "Serbian hinterland", anachronistically known as "Raška"), which included Bosnia, and the maritime lands (Pomorje) of Travunija, Zahumlje and Paganija,[5] while maritime Duklja was held by the Byzantines, it was presumably settled with Serbs as well.[6] All of the maritime lands bordered "baptized Serbia" to the north.[5]


 * [4] Janković, Đorđe (2004). "The Slavs in the 6th Century North Illyricum". Гласник Српског археолошког друштва. 20: 39–61.
 * [5] Moravcsik, Gyula, ed. (1967) [1949]. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (2nd revised ed.). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. ISBN 9780884020219.
 * [6] Fine, John V. A. Jr. (1991) [1983]. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.


 * The newly edited version was " According to DAI they settled "baptized Serbia" (the "Serbian hinterland", anachronistically known as "Raška"), which included Bosnia, and the maritime lands (Pomorje) of Travunija, Zahumlje and Paganija,[5] but the account about the Serbian ethnic settlement and establishment of several future principalities by the 10th century is considered as highly disputable.[6; Dvornik 1962, p. 139, 142: C.’s general claim that the Zachlumians were Serbs is, therefore, inaccurate; and indeed his later statements that the Terbouniotes (34/4—5), and even the Narentans (36/5-7), were Serbs and came with the Serbs, seem to conflict with what he has said earlier (32/18-20) on the Serb migration, which reached the new Serbia from the direction of Belgrade. He probably saw that in his time all these tribes were in the Serb sphere of influence, and therefore called them Serbs, thus ante-dating by three centuries the state of affairs in his own day ... For C.’s statement that the Pagani are ‘descended from the unbaptized Serbs’ (36/5-6), see on 33/18-19. It is obvious that the small retinue of the Serbian prince could not have populated Serbia, Zachlumia, Terbounia and Narenta.] ", similar to the type of statement from the last RfC.


 * The edit was done because the old revision is based on cherry-picked sources and most of the information is only based on direct citation of early medieval primary source, DAI, in version translated by Romilly Jenkins and edited by Gyula Moravcsik. I repeat again, this reference is only a translated and edited original text, so-called volume I, while the so-called volume II (1962) edited by Jenkins and authored by the most prominent historians at the time (Francis Dvornik, Romilly Jenkins, Bernard Lewis, Gyula Moravcsik, Dimitri Obolensky and Steven Runciman), includes the commentary which is, direct quote, "arranged for use in conjunction with Gy. Moravcsik's edition of the text". The volume II in almost all cases such as this one is strangely not cited or found in ref list although it was and still remains to this day the main and most reliable, as well as international, secondary source for reading and understanding of DAI ("still valuable", and its conclusions are almost the same even today and became only more neutral). Volume I cannot be quoted without, at least in most cases, using volume II. Otherwise it is violation of WP:PRIMARY because the information is shown as to be a fact or mainstream interpretation which is not the case. Also, DAI does not say anything about Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Duklja, but nonetheless, old revision editing ignores the existence of NPOV dedicated sections in linked articles, for example Duklja and Pagania#Historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)