Talk:Višeslav of Serbia/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Višeslav of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160616163143/http://www.docfoc.com/cirkovic-sima-1960-borislav-m-radojkovic-razmatranja-o-deonom-vladanju-i-deonim-knezevinama-ig-1-2-beogradpdf to http://www.docfoc.com/cirkovic-sima-1960-borislav-m-radojkovic-razmatranja-o-deonom-vladanju-i-deonim-knezevinama-ig-1-2-beogradpdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

DAI
Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive revert. what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try again; this is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased personal viewpoints" are just laughable and it shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Same issue like at Talk:Narentines. Nobody WP:OWNs the article and article status does not imply that the article cannot be improved. The old revision was written from a Serbian historiographical POV only using selected sources as references. It was an obvious violation of WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE). If you don't like how it's done here you have Serbian Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is just your point of view. You do not understand what WP:UNDUE means. Take a loot at the article's size and then check out how much content you added, which only brings more confusion to the readers. And yes, you are destroying the article's GA status with it, it's quite possible. Second of all, Budak is no expert for early Serbian medieval history, unlike Tibor Z. If you do not like working with other editors and enjoy labeling other editors who disagree with you as "nationalist" (laughable), you could check out hr.wiki, maybe with your help they'll realise what happened in WWII. I do not own the article, BUT the article was stable and major changes like yours, need community consensus, which is something that you seem to be ignoring. I suggest that you undo yourself.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  12:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments are laughable. Saying that Budak is not an expert on Western South Slavic medieval history is pathetic nationalistic patronizing of specific time, space and topic. Budak and Živković studied, cited, and reviewed each other's work when studied the medieval history of the Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:STONEWALLING and lack of WP:ETIQUETTE and this style of comments will not change the fact that Budak is not an expert on early Serb medieval history, which Viseslav of Serbia is a part of.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  14:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the principalities of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, and even Duklja are not related to early Croatian medieval history? Only because Budak is a historian from Croatia he cannot be an expert on the history of Serbia? That Živković or other Serbian historians who wrote or touched on the history of Croatia by analyzing historical sources, depending on the scope of the individual scientific paper, is not an expert on Croatian history? That medievalist's studies of South Slavs, in general, don't make them an expert on a level of national history? You are completely out of touch with reality and studies on the region of former Yugoslavia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm "not saying" - I claim that he is not. Tibor Živković, on the other hand, was an expert for early Serbian history. I do not need a lecture, thank you, one quick look at Budak's bibliography shows that pretty much all of his titles are about Croats/Croatian etc. In order to be an expert you need to study the field, and he is studying Croatian history which is an entirely different field, regardless of the fact that there is some overlaping.
 * Another things, Budak has authored this little thing - a work which is claiming that historian Fine (a source you use) is "writing from the position of yugonostalgia to negate Croatian history".
 * Your latest slur ("out of touch with reality"), which is in a poor taste, just like the intro. comment (and I doubt that any editor would have the courage to use such wording in RL, while I hold the same stance in RL and here), is just not worthy of a comment.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  16:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides making a WP:POINT revert still was not heard a single valid argument that the reliably sourced information cannot be kept and must be removed until is reached a consensus. This is nothing else but nationalistic WP:GAMING.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The part of the "Background" section dealing with Serbian migration and settlement according to DAI is written using only "Moravcsik 1967", which is a primary source (transl. of DAI) and as such obsolete, and "Fine 1991", which is an international secondary source which doesn't question DAI reliability like other international sources, including which was removed by Florin Curta, Neven Budak, Hrvoje Gračanin among others and even Serbian historian Relja Novaković in "Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka: Zaključak i rezime monografije" concluded that the Slavic population of Bosnia, Duklja and Raška was not the same as in DAIs unbaptized Serbia. This whole section is written from an extremely unbiased and Serbian point of view using only a selected few reliable sources. It fails by any NPOV standard of UNDUE and BALANCE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As modern Croatian historian T. Vedriš wrote in 2015 chapter: In Serbian historiography, it has become customary to speak of Dalmatian sclavinas as parts of Serbia, and on this track newer authors write about the "unique structure of this vast state" (S. Ćirković), assuming the original unity of that area "inhabited by Serbian tribes" which would be only partially disintegrated by the middle of the 10th century. In contrast, Croatian co-historians often attributed to them belonging to the Croatian state. However, unilateral attempts to determine the ethnicity of these sclavinia often did not take into account the complexity and multi-layered identities the consideration which lead to the conclusion that in the early Middle Ages on the eastern Adriatic coast "Slavic population differentiated into more than two ethnogenetic cores" (N Budak) ("U srpskoj se historiografiji uvriježilo o dalmatinskim sklavinijama govoriti kao o dijelovima Srbije te na tome tragu i noviji autori pišu o »jedinstvenoj strukturi te ogromne državine« (S. Ćirković) pretpostavljajući izvorno jedinstvo tog prostora »naseljenog srpskim plemenom«koje bi se tek djelomično dezintegriralo do sredine 10. st. Nasuprot tome hrvatski supovjesničari često istima pripisivali pripadnost hrvatskoj državi. No pri jednostranim pokušajima da se utvrdi etnička pripadnost tih sklavinija, često se nije uzimalau obzir sva složenost i višeslojnost identiteta razmatranje kojih upućuje na zaključakda se u ranome srednjem vijeku na istočnoj jadranskoj obali »slavensko pučanstvodiferenciralo u više nego dvije etnogenetske jezgre« (N. Budak)").--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Textbook WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and last but not least WP:CHERRYPICKING.
 * What is this alleged "Serbian POV"? It seems like yet another unfounded labelling based on people's origin. According to the thinking laied out above, Serbian sources are "biased", but, oh wait, there are sources from Croatia (published by Matica Hrvatska) which are supposed to bring balance? Nice try.
 * What else is Relja Novakovic saying? Tha can't be all.
 * Moravcsik can't be a primary source, please read WP:PRIMARY.
 * You have just confirmed that one excellent historian and academic Sima Ćirković is claiming that those lands were Serbian. Excellent addition, thank you.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're intentionally twisting what I said and quoted. Reliable sources mention Serbian POV. Every source is WP:BIASED but according to UNDUE is built BALANCE. Doesn't matter whether the reliable sources are Croatian, Serbian, English or else - all of them are used to bring balance. The old revision, and yourself, obviously don't want balance according to the Wikipedian editing policy. If you don't like it here go to Serbian Wikipedia. You're mistaking Moravcsik's translation of a primary source for a secondary source which would be this with Francis Dvornik's commentary. There's no Moravcsik's commentary and as such, it is not a secondary source (see other articles where's the source is even listed among primary and not secondary sources). Indeed, there's no point of citing old historian like Ćorović if newer like Ćirković are saying the same or similar thing. Novaković is arguing that the core of Serbian lands were principalities of Raška (more or less), Pagania, Zachlumia, and Travunia, but not Bosnia and Duklja.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Dvornik, with whom agrees on Curta and the Croatian historiography, pg. 138–139: Even if we reject Gruber's theory, supported by Manojlović (ibid., XLIX), that Zachlumje actually became a part of Croatia, it should be emphasized that the Zachlumians had a closer bond of interest with the Croats than with the Serbs, since they seem to have migrated to their new home not, as C. says (33/8-9), with the Serbs, but with the Croats; see below, on 33/18-19 ... This emendation throws new light on the origin of the Zachlumian dynasty and of the Zachlumi themselves. C.’s informant derived what he says about the country of Michael’s ancestors from a native source, probably from a member of the prince’s family; and the information is reliable. If this is so, we must regard the dynasty ofZachlumje and at any rate part of its people as neither Croat nor Serb, It seems more probable that Michael’s ancestor, together with his tribe, joined the Croats when they moved south; and settled on the Adriatic coast and the Narenta, leaving the Croats to push on into Dalmatia proper. It is true that our text says that the Zachlumi ‘have been Serbs since the time of that prince who claimed the protection of the emperor Heraclius’ (33/9-10); but it does not say that Michael’s family were Serbs, only that they ‘came from the unbaptized who dwell on the river Visla, and are called (reading Litziki) “Poles’”. Michael’s own hostility to Serbia (cf. 32/86-90) suggests that his family was in fact not Serb; and that the Serbs had direct control only over Trebinje (see on 32/30). 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. But in fact, as has been shown in the case of the Zachlumians, these tribes were not properly speaking Serbs, and seem to have migrated not with the Serbs but with the Croats. The Serbs at an early date succeeded in extending their sovereignty over the Terbouniotes and, under prince Peter, for a short time over the Narentans (see on 32/67). The Diocleans, whom C. does not claim as Serbs, were too near to the Byzantine thema of Dyrrhachion for the Serbs to attempt their subjugation before C.’s time.
 * 2) Dvornik, pg. 141–142: The Narentan Slavs differed in many respects from the other Slavs of Dalmatia ... The Narentan system seems thus to have been similar to that of the Polabian Slavs. The Narentans were scarcely influenced by Croats or Serbs, and seem to have been settled on the coast before the latter entered Illyricum. 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.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Spamming the TP will not do anything well for the article nor your POV. We can conclude: 1) Serbian historians have a different POV then Croatian (Novakovic, Cirkovic, Corovic, Deretic etc). 2) You are ignoring Serbian historians completely. 3.1) You are using Croatian historians with controversial works (such as Budak) for the topic of Serbian history, which is not their area of expertise. 4) Only a small number of modern sources is discussing this issue. 5) This is major WP:SYNTH and mostly WP:CHERRYPICKING, while making a point on other articles, which will all be removed at one point, because you do need to work with other editor, whether do you like it or not. Other slurs "you can go to Serbian Wikipedia" are irrelevant, even less so, because Serbian Wikipedia is the most sucessfull Wiki on the Balkans, all in all, very poor manners fellow EU citizen, which is not how things should be on Wiki. 12:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That reply was not constructive neither in good faith. Providing relevant quotes from reliable sources, with which you're obviously unfamiliar, is never spamming. It's common practice in disputes. I'm not ignoring the view of Serbian historians. There's nothing controverislal with cited Croatian historian's work and you're patronizing common history. There's no small number of reliable sources which are discussing the topic, as we are already having at least ten of them International (Dvornik, Curta, Fine), Croatian (Budak, Gračanin, Bilogrivić, Vedriš and so on), Serbian (Ćorović/Ćirković, Novaković, Komatina, Živković). All of them are experts in their field of work and highly reliable as authors. You're primarily dividing the authors inventing controversy where's none and dividing them by nationality rather than reputation or age. The only thing which has a SYNTH and CHERRYPICKING violation is an article written from this Serbian historiographical POV using a selected few sources and even Serbian sources contradict. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Other international scholars also consider them separate Slavic tribes and that DAI is a political document, which implies that it is the majority point of view alongside Croatian and partial Serbian historiography. The viewpoint of most of the Serbian historiography and very few of Croatian historiography (not cited or quoted because is not part of mainstream or modern Croatian scholarship POV) is a minority viewpoint. This article is clearly written by violating UNDUE, BALASP, FALSEBALANCE, BALANCE, SYNTH, and CHERRYPICKING - in short, multiple violations of the NPOV, OR and GAMING:
 * 1) Walter Pohl, Die Awaren Ein Steppenvolk In Mitteleuropa 567-822 N. Chr (2002), pg. 267: Die kroatische Ethongenese 267 auch im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert sehr darauf, die gewandelten Verhältnisse in den Balkanprovinzen wenigstens rechtlich zu ,normalisieren'." In den Grundzügen sehr ähnlich ist es, was Konstantin über die Ansiedlung einer Reihe weiterer slawischer Gentes auf dem westlichen Balkan mitteilt: Ser-ben, Zachlumi, Terbunioten, und Pagani." Wieder wird festgestellt, was für By-zanz wesentlich war: Es handelte sich um ursprünglich römische Provinzen; sie wurden von den awarischen Angriffen entvölkert; unter Herakleios teilten sich von den ungetauften Serben jenseits der Ungarn (oder, wie im Fall der Zachlumi, von den, Litzikil an der Visla/Weichsel) Gruppen ab, unterstellten sich dem Kaiser Herakleios und wurden von ihm in der verlassenen Provinz angesiedelt ... Was Konstantin sonst über die Ansiedlung der Serben berichtet, ist eher aus byzantinischer Perspektive geschildert ... Diese teleologisch-staatspolitische Deutung der Ansiedlung von Kronen, Serben und anderen auf Reichsboden steht in der Schilderung Konstantins im Vordergrund — ,De administrando imperio' ist eben keine bloß aus der Liebe zur Gelehrsamkeit entstandene Chronik, sondern hat vor allem eine praktisch-politi-...
 * 2) Henrik Birnbaum, Aspects of the Slavic Middle Ages and Slavic Renaissance Culture (1991), pg. 10: writing in the mid-tenth century, in his famous work, ''De administrando imperio, still singles out a number of individual Slavic tribes in addition to the ethnically controversial Serbs and Croats ... but, in addition, he also singles out the Croats, the Serbs, and further the Zachlumites or Zachlumi, the Terbouniotes, the Kanalites, Diocletians, as well as the Arentani or Pagani ... in all likelihood did not actually emerge, as previously indicated until the various smaller Slavic entities had arrived and at least temporarily settled in the the Balkans
 * 3) Danijel Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (2010), pg. 115: This chapter was a master-narrative for the following chapters 32-36 as it repeated two basic facts: Dalmatia, and in wider sense Illyricum, was Byzantine land where the Croats and Serbs, and all other Slavic peoples in the region related or unrelated to them (Zachlumi, Terbounites, Kanalites, Diocleans and Arentani), settled with the permission of the Byzantine emperor, and acknowledged his power. It was a diplomatic blueprint for Byzantine diplomacy in the region, as Margetić saw it.
 * 4) Georgios Kardaras, Byzantium and the Avars, 6th-9th Century AD (2018), pg. 96: The Serbs... Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani), who occupied portions close to the Adriatic coast, particularly in modern Herzegovina and Montenegro.54 Except the Diocletians, all these tribes are said to be Serbian, which implies that the actual area of Serbian settlement was even larger.55 ... *55 Ferluga 1984, 50; Ferjancić 1995, 153-154; Živković 2010a, 22-23; idem 2010b, 121; Reservations on this view; Jenkins 1962, 139, 142; Pohl 1988a, 268; Budak 1990, 131-133 ... The dependence upon Constantinople of the two peoples and the other mentioned tribes in the Balkans59 has been rightly dispute, mainly because of the ideological background and the political purpose of the information recorded by the Byzantine Empire... *59 DAI, 29, 124: Since the reign of Heraclius, emperor of the Romans, as will be related in the narrative concering the Croats and Serbs, the whole of Dalmatia and the nations about it, such as Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Arentani, who are also called Pagani [they were subject to the emperor of the Romans]; ibidem, 30-36, 138-164; Belke and Soustal 1995, 145, 168, 173, 178-182.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History (1994), pg. 12: As for the question of whether the inhabitants of Bosnia were really Croat or really Serb in 1180, it cannot be answered, for two reasons: first, because we lack evidence, and secondly, because the question lacks meaning. We can say that the majority of the Bosnian territory was probably occupied by Croats – or at least, by Slavs under Croat rule – in the seventh century; but that is a tribal label which has little or no meaning five centuries later. The Bosnians were generally closer to the Croats in their religious and political history; but to apply the modern notion of Croat identity (something constructed in recent centuries out of religion, history, and language) to anyone in this period would be an anachronism. All that one can sensibly say about the ethnic identity of the Bosnians is this: they were the Slavs who lived in Bosnia--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock:  Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) The article's section is complete SYNTH and CHERRYPICKING as is misinterpreting even John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (1983/1991), which cannot be considered as a source advocating the point of view of the Serbian historiography, per pg. 53, 57: They were then given land to settle on in what is now Serbia (i.e., the region of the Lim and Piva rivers), Pagania (the lower Neretva), Zahumlje, Trebinje, and Konavli, regions which had been made desolate by the Avars. Constantine makes no mention of Serbs fighting the Avars and there is no evidence that the Serbs did fight them, even though the Avars had previously directly controlled at least part of this territory. In these territories listed as Serbian Constantine informs us that the emperor settled the Serbs here and they were subject to the emperor and thus imperial power was restored here. This last remark can be taken as a convenient fiction ... Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia, Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli. This situates some of them in the southern part of the Dalmatian coast. The Croats were settled in Croatia, Dalmatia, and western Bosnia. The rest of Bosnia seems to have been a territory between Serb and Croatian rule. In time, though, Bosnia came to form a unit under a ruler calling himself Bosnian. Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may be an artificial issue ... The Croats and Serbs seem to have been relatively few in number, but as warrior horsemen fighting against disunited small tribal groups of Slavs on foot, they were greatly superior militarily. They arrived, expelled the Avars, and then, as tough, tightly knit groups of warriors, were able to dominate the disorganized Slavic tribes. They were able to provide a ruling class and be a source of unity for the different Slavic groups. Soon the newcomers came to provide a general name for all the people (the majority of whom were Slavs) under them. But they did not establish a single Serbian or a single Croatian state but several different smaller states (e.g., Zahumlje, Trebinje, Konavli, etc.)
 * 7) And in similar fashion Peter Heather in Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe (2009), pg. 404–406, 424–425 states: According to one source, the north-west Balkans saw a further distinct wave of Slavic settlement. The Administrando Imperio of Constantine Porpyryogenitus records that a first wave of undifferentiated Slavs originally settled in the lands now largely divided between Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia as Avar subjects, at the time when Avar rule was establishing itself in central Europe (from c.560 onwards). They were followed somewhat later, but still in the time of Herclius (610-41), by two, more-organized, Slavic groupings - the Serbs and Croats - who arrived from the north to expel most of the Avars from the region (causing the others to submit) and establish their own rule instead, over Serbia and Dalmatia respectively ... The stories are famous, but it is difficult to know what to make of them. Serb and Croat nationalists have long cherished them as the origin stories of their 'peoples', arriving as fully formed units in the Balkans landscape. The problems they pose, however, are obvious. By virtue of being unique, they lack corroboration. They also occur in a comparatively late source, the De Administrando being a mid-tentch-century text, and their telling has a distinctly legendary tone: the Croats are led south by a family of five brothers. Not surprisingly, they have often been rejected outright ... But if this much is plausible, the seventh-century Serbs and Croats were not whole peoples responsible for the complete repopulation of these parts of the Balkans ... It is also unclear whether their [Serbs and Croats] arrival represented a further major wave of Slavic immigration into the north-western Balkans, or whether they functioned essentially as an organizing element for Slavic groups already present there but formerly subject to Avar domination. If the latter, this would make them not unlike the Bulgars of the Eastern Balkans ... Serbs and Croats might represent yet a third type of migrant group caught up in the Slavic diaspora of the sixth and seventh centuries. There is obviously a huge margin for error built into the tenth-century traditions retold by Constantine Porphyryogenitus, but it there is any truth to them at all, the Serbs and Croats were breakaways from the Avar Empire.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Original research, out of context and information for Duklja article

 * According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosnia, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik. The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and the "land" of Duklja which was held by the Byzantine empire though it was presumably settled with Serbs as well.
 * Bold information do not exist in the John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. source, in DAI context (see source page 53) ("Thus Constantine describes the Serbs settling in southern Serbia, Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli.") And this information is according to DAI. Comment or observation of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. for Duklja is not from DAI, it is his personal view ("Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea); however, since Serbs settled in regions along its borders, presumably this would have been a Serb region. However, as we shall soon see, this may be an artificial issue.")
 * Given that this information is disputed in historiography we cannot use this article to present all information's about Duklja for NPOV because there is no consensus here(Duklja issue). Serbian Historian Relja Novaković ("Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja".)
 * In any case this is OR information, and as such in the context of DAI cannot be in the article. Everything is clearly explained.  Mikola22 (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree this information exists in Fine on page 202. chapter on Duklja where Fine in details writes on Duklja and says : "The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro ..." after that he goes about history of Duklja. therefore it cannot be just an opinion but a information which Fine confirms. Since this is a GA article I wish an opinion from senior neutral editors and admins. And consensus.  Theonewithreason (talk).  3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed with fellow editor Theonewithreason.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  21:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, I know you'd love that Duklja is according to DAI setled by Serbs. But DAI do not talk about that. John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. "Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja" . This information which you want to include in the article is his view as a historian and this view of his did not replace historical document from the 10th century. The fact remains that according to DAI Serbs do not setled Duklja and in article writes "According to the DAI...The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included.."land" of Duklja" fact. This information is WP:OR but also WP:FRINGE because there is no information in the sources which say that "According to the DAI Serb-inhabited land is and Duklja". Please start working as editors in good faith and not give yourself support in supporting FRINGE information. Mikola22 (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you tell me what chapter (page number and edition) of the DAI is being referred to and I can look it up in the text and we can see what exactly the emperor says, unfiltered by these layers of translated historiographical Balkanization. GPinkerton (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gyula Moravcsik, (1967) "Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio", page 163. Mikola22 (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * this information that Mikola22 tried to remove today is from Fine and Novakovic not from DAI, Fine confirms it on pg. 202 and 225 (early medieval Balkan)Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote information "that according to DAI Serb setled Duklja". This information does not exist in DAI nor in the sources which you mention. It is [WP:OR]] and WP:FRINGE. If you do not provide evidence this information goes out of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided it above, you need only to read it. "The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro ..." there is also another quote on pg 225, I even wrote in which book from Fine. Theonewithreason (talk).  5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you for that information, but this information "According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned included..Duklja". Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop gaming the system since the quote in article is connected with Fine. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask you to quote me information from the article which is allegedly in the source. "According to the DAI..the other Serb-inhabited lands that were mentioned included..Duklja". First it is WP:OR because it is not mentioned in the source, second it is WP:FRINGE information because that information does not exist in any source including primary source DAI. Fring information is also confirmed by a neutral editor on FTN. Please stop promoting fringe information. Delete fringe information from the article or I'll have to do it for you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you remove this information I will post the one from Fine also the same information is in Curta, since it is obvious that you do not understand what WP:OR is and I know that you only interest is to delete information, also you do not have concensus -it means you are again WP:BLUDGEON the system. Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Therefore there is no such evidence in any book nor you have quoted any information from any book as prove. The point is clear. You must not promote fringe information. Mikola22 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided 2 times already and here is another one from Fine (Early Medieval Balkan pg.225) "In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia" so what is the point of further discussing, information exists.Theonewithreason (talk). 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Major WP:BLUDGEON and stonewalling here.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  23:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree. The section above provides ample evidence that the assumption that these areas or polities were "Serbian" is fringe and not mainstream academic consensus (outside Serbia). A simple look at the primary and secondary sources quickly verifies this. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence for that, only a general comment, which is of course okay, as it seems that we have no consensus here.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm saying that I think the litany of sources by the Miki Filigranski account in the section above unassailable in their unanimity that: 1.) there is no evidence the "Diocletians" mentioned by Constantine VII were Serbs/Serbian 2.) there is/was/has been a tendency among Serbian historians to inflate the size and relevance of Serbs/Serbia in the mediaeval western Balkans. I concur with that Fine does not justify this view. I have already fixed some errors in the references (the standard translation is not Moravcsik; that was the editor of the Greek text and Romilly Jenkins was responsible for the translation and several others for the Commentary which goes with it and which is still the standard work and not to be dismissed on the basis of less well recognized, non-English language sources susceptible to national biases. GPinkerton (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and Fine is international historical expert on Balkan history, I provided 2 quotes from his book so I disagree that this is only a Serbian point of view, agree with Sadko that we dont have a consensus now, also Miki Filigranski is indefinitely blocked. One view from Fine other from Novakovic since the population of Dioclea is matter of different view among historians, we have now a balanced view in article, in a way I can also agree with GPinkerton with their edits and that the text in article should not be dismissed  Theonewithreason (talk).  6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am saying that the original text in the article should be dismissed and replaced with text that closer follows the sources. The pagination in the reference to the DAI is incorrect and needs rectifying. GPinkerton (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and We can replace with Fine and Curta both are international medieval historians and keep Novakovic for balancing. Theonewithreason (talk).  6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid the Fine source is being misused; Fine is not stating that the Diocletians were Serbian or Serbs, and the best sources say that such a an identification is unsubstantiated, at best. GPinkerton (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot agree on that, if you wish I can give you the book, he actually says that, even Novakovic as can been seen doesn't specifically negates that. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have the book. No part of it quoted so far supports the view as far as I can see; rather Fine says that the inhabitants and immigrants were, as in the rest of the western Balkans, "Slavs", and in some parts the ruling elite were Croats and in others Serbs. GPinkerton (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In Early medieval Balkans from Fine he says: ""The last chapter introduces Duklja, the Region inhabited by Serbs whose territory coincided what is now Montenegro" pg 202 and on page 225. ""In the course of our studies, we have found that Serbs living in many parts of former Yugoslavia: Raska,Duklja,Zahumlje,Trebinje and parts of Bosnia" Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's what I mean. Fine doesn't say Constantine VII is correct (about anything) and doesn't equate the "Diocletians" with Serbs (or Croats) and doesn't say Constantine does so either. Serbs living in a place does not make the country or its "Diocletian" inhabitants Serbian. A place having a Serbian ruler in the 10th century does not make it or its inhabitants Serbian in the 7th century (a time Constantine is writing about and for which he had little evidence, often using "the country was uninhabited" and "in the time of emperor Heraclius" to describe anachronistic events or conjectures invented to fill gaps in the then-available Byzantine records), or in the 10th century (when Constantine himself is writing and when for reasons of political control it was convenient to describe Dioclea as under Serbian influence). GPinkerton (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is much of discussion among historians which parts of Balkans did Serbs inhabited after being send of from Byzantine emperor, he did send them to desolate parts among them Dioclea, Fine doesnt negates that, there are also Frankish annales that speak that Serbs inhabited a large part of (Roman province of Dalmatia) which Dioclea would be also a part, the history of Dioclea was always narrowly connected with Serbia, being also mentioned by some authors like Christopher Boehm mentioning that the earliest settlers were Serbs meaning when Slavs came to Balkan Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, the consensus is that the stories which follow the format of "in the time of Heraclius x people was settled in y land, which for z many years had been uninhabited" are fictions concocted to explain 10th-century political realities in anachronistic terms used by all the urbane Greek historians following Thucydides but without Constantine VII having a very accurate idea of anything that actually happened in the remote past. This is why the Croats and Serbs are called "Scythians" and so on. Peter Heather says as much in relation to the Avars in the source quoted on this page. GPinkerton (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus. There can be no consensus because it is fringe and OR information. Then we could promote in every article that Serbs acording to DAI setled Duklja, if we have a consensus. None of the RS speak about that(therefore it is fringe information). When John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. speak about Duklja he says personally who lives in Duklja according to him and 11th century information but not in the context of DAI("Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja (Dioclea"), In the article can be no information according to DAI because this information does not even exist in his source. Serbian historian Relja Novaković: ("For the period after the tenth century, mostly everyone calls them Dukljani and Serbs, but for Dukljani in the time of Porphyrogenitus, we cannot categorically claim that they belonged to the Serbs ethnic group, but we also cannot claim that they are not. Simply about them at the time we know nothing reliable" (1981, page 63, book "Где се налазила Србија од VII до XII века..Where Serbia was from the 7th to the 12th century"). Even if exist historical evidence that Serbs lived in Duklja in the 9th or 10th century this still has nothing to do with the historical record DAI and fact "according to DAI" because DAI doesn’t say that. Information of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. may be part of Duklja article but also not in the DAI context. Mikola22 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Duklja in article is not mentioned "according to DAI" but separate with sources connected with Fine and Novakovic.Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included.."land" of Duklja". Where, in which historical source are mentioned other Serb-inhabited lands ( Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and Duklja)? Mikola22 (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , all these "nations" are mentioned in the DAI; they are not described as "Serbian" in that source, but as "Slavs". GPinkerton (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija are mentioned in DAI with information that they are of Serbian origin. Part of historiography uses this information for claim that they are originally Serbian tribes. But in DAI for Duklja it is not said that. Mikola22 (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , exactly. It is known that in the 8th century, Peter of Diokleia existed and issued Greek seals in the Byzantine tradition describing himself as archon. The "evidence" provided by the DAI is anachronistic and internally contradictory, and it cannot be argued that it proves anything about who these people really were or where they came from (if anyone actually knew), even if Constantine really did say the Diocletians were Serbians, which he does not. GPinkerton (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why the fact "according to DAI" is used because only in DAI for Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija Constantine VII say that they are of Serbian origin. Some want include Duklja in this fact with OR claim and with POV pushing make that and Duklja is settled by Serbs according to DAI. But it has nothing to do with DAI. What you are talking about is the material for Duklja's article and the opinion of various historians on the subject, this also applies to John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. claims. I also agree with you that it is anachronistic and internally contradictory also and for Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija tribes and this is also stated(historians) in articles obouth them. Mikola22 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is why we have both of the spectrum covered per NPOV there historians who say there are part the other one not. Theonewithreason (talk). 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion reload

 * The discussion has become inaccessible for editors who aren't already involved. has put forward some solid arguments. De Administrando Imperio is a 10th century work. It shouldn't be cited directly (WP:PRIMARY) and its translator Moravcsik (1949) shouldn't be cited as an author. WP:PRIMARY is not an arbitrary policy made up by wikipedia. Its a reflection of the fact that medieval works are inherently unreliable because they are written in a specific historical-political context, for a specific audience and purpose. This doesn't minimize their value, but it means that they have to be accessed via reliable, secondary sources which contextualize their content.


 * The first contested section is I think that this part has to be removed, because it directly cites DAI. Contemporary historiography has evaluated DAI in a very different manner (Narentines) As a community we have discussed the many problems which direct use of DAI presents (Talk:Serbia - use of DAI for the support of a fringe theory that Serbs first settled around modern Thessaloniki, Greece) and have collectively decided every time that it has to be accessed via secondary sources.


 * has written that which he links to Fine. The citation is . Fine (1991) writes:  Thus, in this time period a discussion about separate ethnic identities and the "origins" of the Slavs of Duklja predates the emergence of ethnic/national identities and should be removed. The article probably shouldn't discuss these subjects at all as they are out of its scope.


 * Pinging if he has the time for a quick comment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you pinged me, I must write that your suggestion are not in good faith because you are removing a lots what made GA article, your suggestion to remove the part about Paganija, Zahumlje and Travunija just because is mentioned by Moravscik therefore WP:Primary can be replaced with other RS like Zivkovic, the quotes about Dioklea are cherrypicked but not all what Fine says, I already posted 2 other quotes from his book Early Medieval Balkan  pg 202 and on page 225.  [] not to mention that this article was long time WP:STABLE and has GA article removing so much will disrupt its balance, please offer another solution. Theonewithreason (talk).  6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , Gyula Moravcsik is not the translator but the editor of the Greek text, and it is the standard edition. The translator was Romilly Jenkins. Neither is the most recent edition 1949, but rather the 1967 edition. No work has superseded the commentary, which is secondary and not primary. I agree that much of the arguments over ethnicity and are irrelevant, or only relevant to those that believe it important that modern Montenegro was long inhabited by Serbians ...
 * I have not said the DAI should not be cited, though I think that it should only be used (and quoted from) specifically and only when reference is made to it by secondary sources. In this case, almost the entirety of what the text says about Višeslav, could be quoted, not least because it is the only source to mention him and mentions him only briefly. GPinkerton (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks for clarifying the editor/translator roles. Much of the debate about "national narratives" seems to be generated by the background section. We could trim that to a section that provides context about the article's subject without discussing contemporary talking points. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging if they have time for a comment.Theonewithreason (talk).  6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . You see there is no mention of the DAI anywhere, he himself says that in the source. He as historian has to right make own conclusion, but that conclusion is for the article about Duklja where  various opinions and historians have conclusions and theses. What we do know is that before 10th century  we have no mentions of Serbs in Duklja. And what is most important Serbs do not setled Duklja according to DAI. Mikola22 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . You see there is no mention of the DAI anywhere, he himself says that in the source. He as historian has to right make own conclusion, but that conclusion is for the article about Duklja where  various opinions and historians have conclusions and theses. What we do know is that before 10th century  we have no mentions of Serbs in Duklja. And what is most important Serbs do not setled Duklja according to DAI. Mikola22 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This quote from a recent work (2014) of Serbian historian Predrag Komatina might provide some additional context for further discussion on the subject: . Sorabino (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You cannot add sources of various historians which express an opinion obouth Duklja issue for suporting fringe information that "according to DAI Serbs setled Duklja". Where Predrag Komatina says that "according to DAI serbs setled Duklja" show me. These are all information's for the article about Duklja. What does some opinion about  Duklja have to do with DAI or Višeslav of Serbia article? There is no point in discussing this at all, because those are information's for article about Duklja but historian Relja Novaković say this ("For the period after the tenth century, mostly everyone calls them Dukljani and Serbs, but for Dukljans in the time of Porphyrogenitus, we cannot categorically claim that they belonged to the Serbs ethnic group, but we also cannot claim that they are not. Simply about them at the time we know nothing reliable". page 61), John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. "Constantine gives no data as to Serb settlement in Duklja",  Predrag Komatina: ("The article discusses the issue of ethnic identity of the Diocletians referred to by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in his work De administrando imperio. Of all the tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, only for them the emperor fails to point out that they belonged to the Serbs").  Mikola22 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

a year passed and NPOV & BALANCE is lost. With recent edits, without valid substantiation, were removed historiographical sources and replaced only with those arguing pro-Serbian national narrative, Kardaras at least mentions opposing viewpoint in the notes, Fine is still misused, source by Morozova is not historiographical nor relevant anyhow, was also reinstated the old erroneous map for 814 AD for which we have an updated version and so on. I agree with Maleschreiber, we should trim the contested part from the Background section. Same thing happened at article about Vlastimir. Do you agree to start a RfC or dispute resolution so we can reach a clear consensus which will be implemented on all articles? Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, hope you're well. I'm well aware that sources which I've used many times have been misused. I really don't have the required free time to be fully engaged in any discussion, but you should start a discussion at RfC and notify one of the relevant wikiprojects about medieval history because the article should go through a GA review.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I had Covid this month, but I'm fine now, thanks. How are you? Will do it today. Indeed, this section wouldn't pass the GA review. Due to recent dealing with Theonewithreason on Zachlumia (and report) because of the same issues, am also pinging .--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Little time, lots of wiki-issues at the moment. Yes, editor in question tend to misinterpret sources or cherry-pick those in support of their stance. I was unable to resolve that issue, as you noticed. No idea how to approach, but if you have something on your mind, I would be able to chip in some thoughts, few words at the time, closely following developments.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)