Talk:Principality of Serbia (early medieval)/Archive 1

Orphaned references in Principality of Serbia (medieval)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Principality of Serbia (medieval)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IB": From Theophilos (emperor): Известия за българите, pp. 42—43 From Presian I of Bulgaria: Известия за българите, p. 42—43 From Vlastimir:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This needs to stop
The book from Scholz is definitely not a WP:PRIMARY or WP:OR. And you people need to stop removing sources and attacking other editors like you did it to me again recently (which was proven as false accusation), I am not going to involve in edit warring I am just going to prove that this behaviour is against good faith and neutrality of Wikipedia. There is a free example of the book on internet in pdf format. On page 111 it says that "Ljudovit withdrew from the city of Sisak and fled to the Serbs, a people that is said hold large part of Dalmatia" The book was published in 1970 by the University of Michigan Press. Feel free to examine it. []. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)

And also it would be nice that administrator gives opinion about this so that we avoid unnecessary over discussion I am fine with every decision you make, but it should be from someone who has knowledge and experience on the matter. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, this is from word to word primary source information. You see that source does not mention "rule" and this information is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re edit it then dont remove it or leave it to an administrator to make rephrasing of the source. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I cant "Re edit" this information when it is primary historical information, and with "rule" fact it is OR. I am not a historian who write book, I am editor. Mikola22 (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it primary? And why dont you remove rule and put hold or inhabit like written in source. We can go on and on like this. Just ask an experience administrator who will explain it. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is primary because it is a translation by Scholz of the Royal Frankish Annals, written from 741 to 829. --T*U (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok then I will leave this decision to you, will you rephrased this info or delete it, it seems you know the subject better. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict – written before your last changes) At least this has nothing whatsoever to do in the lede of the article. It could be discussed somewhere in the main article. It can not be presented as a fact that the Serbs were living in Dalmatia at that time. What could be mentioned, is that the Royal Frankish Annals mention the Serbs as a people holding a part of Dalmatia at the time. But if there are other reliable sources claiming that this was not the case, that would also have to be mentioned. I suggest that you first self revert. Then you might make a suggestion here in the talk page about how to include this in the main text of the article. --T*U (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok but what about Einhard and Pertz, they are mentioning this too and also I have problems with some editors here on Wikipedia who are constantly making reports against me, it seems more and more as a common behaviour that is why I asked you to make an edit what you believe should stand. Don't wish to appear in more than 1 RR.User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that problem with this information is deeper. Explained here . Namely, there is contradictory information from that period. Ljudevit left the Serbs(Dalmatia) and fled to Prince Ljudemisl(uncle of the Croatian prince Borna) in Dalmatas(Dalmatia), source (Annales regni Francorum inde ab a. 741 usque ad a. 829, qui dicuntur Annales Laurissenses maiores et Einhardi. Herausgegeben von Friedrich Kurze. XX und 204 S. 8°. 1895. Nachdruck 1950.) But Serbs are in big part of Dalmatia(Frankish Annals), and according to this source Ljudemisl is the ruler of Dalmatia(or has some power) so we don't know which Dalmatia is in question at that time. Mikola22 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok so I removed it, just to be clear if someone else restores it, that is not me since I did not posted it in a first place. The rest I leave to you. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * That was more or less what I tried to explain to Theonewithreason, that if the story about Serbs holding part of Dalmatia shall be mentioned, so must also other sources claiming otherwise.
 * Yes, what about Einhard and Pertz? They are just as primary as the Annals. Einhard wrote in the 820s/830s, mostly based on the Frankish annals and Pertz published Einhard in 1845. Same story. Anyway, I am glad you self reverted. Feel free to suggest an alternative presentation, but please do it in the talk page and gain consensus before adding.--T*U (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am perfectly fine with your explanation, at least you made an effort. If someone else gives alternative suggestion I will give my vote and that is it. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 26. October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thing is the same primary source that refers to Istria and Dalmatia as Slovene and Croat lands, basically conflicting itself which is problematic as the source says Serbs held the majority of Dalmatia. OyMosby (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The conflict exists because it is a primary source - there are many secondary sources which rely on contemporary historical and archaeological research.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s problematic as it is prevent throughout multiple wiki pages from what I see. OyMosby (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue?
User:Griboski your removal had nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. The policy of UNDUE was used for the inclusion of the statement you removed. Stop disruptively removing reliably sourced and scholarly opinion found in the majority of modern scholarship. Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)