Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker


 * User:ARD – User talk:ARD – Special:Contributions/ARD
 * User:Jwalker – User talk:Jwalker – Special:Contributions/Jwalker
 * User:Harvardian – User talk:Harvardian – Special:Contributions/Harvardian
 * User:64.71.148.70 – User talk:64.71.148.70 – Special:Contributions/64.71.148.70
 * User:UCLA - Pasadena – User talk:UCLA - Pasadena – Special:Contributions/UCLA - Pasadena

Statement of the dispute
Joy has accused ARD and Jwalker of being sock puppets, POV pushing, edit warring, personal attacks, and of having a lack of good faith.

Description and evidence of disputed behaviour
These two accounts seem to be used by someone intent on getting the "truth" out with regard to the history of Herzegovina in the Middle Ages.

They have consistently added their wrong and biased stuff to History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and more recently other pages, as detailed on the talk page, and engaged in revert wars to try to push their version contrary to other normal editors. They've also vandalised my user page and called me and other people names.

They've also been warned, but each time there was no response, and later they removed this from their talk pages  (why keep the welcome message and not the criticism? so transparent).

They've also abused the image system. First they uploaded Image:Cpw10ct.gif, Image:Abd12ct.gif, but this was stopped. Cf. Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif, and discussion at History of BiH.

This also wasted time of good-intentioned other editors who tried to redraw their maps, in Image:Serbia - 10th Century - De Administrando Imperio.png and Image:Serb lands03.jpg.

But, this wasn't enough, then they added Image:Kpdai30.gif and Image:Serb lands02.gif which push their POV in a more unadulterated manner. These two images are now at WP:IFD.

They also seem to have used anonymous access, cf. Special:Contributions/141.149.113.178

This repetitive abuse has been going on for too long, we need to wield the axe. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   2 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)

The more senior Wikipedians among the crowd will notice a resemblence with Igor. *sigh* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Guess what? They made another account - "Harvardian". This is simply transparent. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   4 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

They're also using the IP 64.71.148.70. I've temporarily banned it after constant revert-warring and two warnings from *other* people on talk pages. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, Harvardian / 198.65.161.88 (contribs) has messed with Panonian's comments on Image talk:Serb lands03.jpg. I'm so tempted to just weild the axe... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Panonian uploaded his neutral picture, but the abuser insisted on keeping his version, and we've now went through two rounds of rollbacks. It is worth pointing out that 'Harvardian' did not merely wish to reinstate his stuff, he reverted to an old edition ignoring my effort to clarify the text. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Yet another new account used for mass-reverting: "UCLA - Pasadena". I'm this -><- close to banning them now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

On related note, there's also an anonymous user at 70.48.251.48/70.48.101.64/70.48.101.61 who doesn't seem to the be very same person, but also runs on the same party line. Igor also used sympatico.ca... *sigh* --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't ban User:UCLA - Pasadena, but I did continue to roll back the abuse, and vprotected:


 * History of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Travunia
 * Pagania
 * Origin of Serbs
 * Serbs
 * Image:Serb lands03.jpg

I did not vprotect:
 * Serbia
 * Zahumlje

because those articles had other edits in the recent history. I skipped over:


 * Duklja
 * House of Vlastimirović

The abuser has since replaced Image:Principalities.jpg with his Serb lands 02.gif, continued reverting on the pages that weren't vprotected, slightly vandalized my user and user talk pages, and complained to several other administrators about me, with his usual tirade about how we're all actually abusing "his" image, etc etc. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   09:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Most of the users' contributions (!)
 * Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * History of the article "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina"

more to be written; description above has more links

Applicable policies

 * Sockpuppet
 * Neutral point of view
 * Edit war
 * Civility
 * Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * Users' talk pages (in history, because it was since removed from the current version)
 * Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 * Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif
 * Image talk:Serb lands03.jpg

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * User:Mir Harven
 * User:PANONIAN

Response
(There has been no response other than constant violations of Revert rules and guidelines. I've blocked Harvardian's account for 48 hours to see if that will elicit any meaningful response. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   08:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC))

Discussion of the dispute

 * Having rather carefully examined the above users's contributions, I came to the conclusion:


 * both users (or one with split personality) try to establish historical Serb identity of early medieval Bosnia and the surrounding regions of Zahumlje & Travunia (which had subsequently been incorporated into the medieval Bosnian polity (cca. 1200 + A.D./C.E.), plus Duklja.


 * the one & only reason for the existence of wiki pages on Zahumlje, Duklja and Travunia is Serbian political propaganda. I'll reiterate: De Administrando Imperio is, as far as early ethnic composition of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Croatia (especially Dalmatia) is concerned- virtually unanimously dismissed by all historians except Serbian propagandists. This goes for other sources, too: Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, Ioannes Scylitza, Nicifor Brieniy etc. Early ethnic composition can be only surmised- and this too is completely irrelevant since the historical evidence and analysis of these regions' (Zahumlje, Duklja) medieval history doesn't give a unanimous answer: there are traits of culture, history and socio-economic ties that «point» both to the Croat and to the Serb side, not placing the regions into either fold permanently. «Ethnic» or «political» borders on the pics are purely fictitious- as are their sources, as well as interpretations based upon them. One could juggle with maps indefinitely- for instance, one could go to http://www.euratlas.com :


 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm


 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1000.htm


 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm


 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1200.htm


 * Anyway, from this source (admittedly limited, albeit immensely more credible than Serbian historical fictions) it is clear that Serbia/Rashka/Rascia was a much more geographically limited entity than authors of the images in Zahumlje or Duklja pages would like to convince «the world». As for other possible «arguments», they are discussed at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.


 * concerning historical sources: unfortunately, there are no English resources on the subject (bearing in mind the obscurity of the subject- not a surprising fact). As far as I know, there are just a few modern historians who wrote anything on the subject. Two most important names are Croatian historians Neven Budak and Mladen Ančić. Those conversant with Croatian can read Budak's article on Dioclea/Duklja at http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/etnicka.html I don't know about any Bosniak expert on the issue, nor a Serbian one (the grotesque example of certain Siniša Mišić is presented in Ančić's book- the part is available in Croatian at http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/stariji_orisi.html ). So, the issue is necessarily one-sided: the only serious modern historians who wrote on the subject of Zahumlje and Duklja are Croats, and their arguments and interpretations haven't been countered by Serbian or Bosniak experts. The conclusion of both historians is as follows: the ethnic composition of these regions in the medieval period was a mixture of Slavs who had been neither Croats nor Serbs, and these two tribes; the culture was Western and Catholic, but suffused with Byzantine/Eastern traits; religious texts bear the stamp of the West (the Romanesque minuscle; the liturgical form of the scriptural texts); the script is Bosnian Cyrillic; later historical development has brought much of Duklja and Travunia under Serbian rule- the result was the spread of Eastern Orthodoxy and Serbian culture/identity, which prevailed in the major part of historical Travunia, Zahumlje and Pagania remaining mostly Catholic and Croat, while Duklja is mostly Montenegrin and its future lies in the political (dis)agreement between Montenegrins and Serbs.


 * A very comprehensive bibliography on medieval Bosnia and surrounding parts is given on the Sarajevo Institute for History page:
 * http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/29/29_esad_kurtovic.htm
 * My proposition is that the articles's contents be deleted completely since they cannot be modified so as to satisfy wiki standards of veracity and impartiality. The Zahumlje & Travunia & Duklja & Pagania pages exist solely for the sake of Greater Serbian propaganda. The other way would be to add Bosnian and Croatian objections that would completely undermine the main source for these pics and texts, ie. De Administrando Imperio. If DAI goes (and I cannot see it could survive)- these four pages go down as well.


 * It is enough to juxtapose the pages at http://www.euratlas.com on the images appearing in Zahumlje or Duklja. More than enough.
 * At the end- I must admit I forgot how much precious time I've wasted on this Greater Serbian rubbish. Image talk:Cpw10ct.gif says it all. What a waste of time. Mir Harven 2 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Joy asked me to post the comment about this issue. As the maps from euratlas above confirm, Zahumlje, Paganija, Travunija and Duklja were independent medieval principalities, and articles about them should not be deleted. The other question is ethnic origin of the inhabitants of these principalities. Since I live in Serbia, I can tell you that I learned in school that these principalities were inhabited with Serbs. I also know that Croatian historians claim that they were inhabited with Croats. Fact is that there was hard to make the difference between Serbs and Croats in that time. Only one example: inhabitants of Duklja are in some sources called Serbs, in other sources Croats, and in other sources Dukljani. The way in which articles could be improved is to mention there which sources claim that inhabitants of these principalities were Serbs, and which claim that they were Croats. The readers of Wikipedia should find conclusion about this question by themselves after reading quotes from these sources. As about User:ARD and User:Jwalker, I didn’t have time for detailed reading of their contributions, but I do not think that all their contributions are necessary propaganda or vandalism. For example, it is not sure where exactly was border between Serbia and Croatia in the 9th century. I will write here only 3 theories about this question: river Vrbas, river Una and river Drina. I saw different historical maps from the same time period, which put the border on each of the 3 rivers. These maps, which were posted by these 2 users, in which the border between Serbia and Croatia is river Una, are only one of the theories (It is not necessary correct, but it is also not necessary wrong). Problem is that these users want to present one theory as a scientific truth, and in the same time to ignore other theories. The solution for the articles about Zahumlje, Paganija, Travunija and Duklja could be to draw a new map, which will show only the borders of these principalities, and not the border between Croatia and Serbia. I could draw this map if other people here agree with this. User:PANONIAN

On the second thought, User:ARD just vandalized my image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg for the second time. He is vandal and should be banned somehow. User:PANONIAN


 * That was fairly amusing :)
 * I would absolutely welcome further discussion regarding the four southern Dalmatian duchies. I've amended the related articles numerous times as I investigated more and more into their true nature. The only problem is that this guy or these guys are not interested in a normal discussion, they're just here to sell their story. We have no use of that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   3 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

--

I'll repeat: all this stuff is just a waste of time. There is no valid raison d'etre for these articles. One could argue along following lines:


 * the one & only source that mentions «Pagania» (for instance) is DAI. All other sources have been just rewriting De Administrando Imperio, without a rational analysis or use of other historical sources. Zonara, Brieniy, Scylitza,..don't know a thing about these 2-3 regional duchies (or whatever they had been.) Personaly, I doubt these entities had ever existed at all (except Duklja, which is confirmed in other sources and documents).


 * Zahumlje is mentioned only in DAI (and in those authors who drew upon it, like Orbini). Otherwise- the only corroborated historical name which appears in other documents (for instance, diplomatic correspondence & Bosnian rulers' titulation) is Hum. No Zahumlje anywhere.


 * Travunia has had a historical existence (hence, contemporary Trebinje). But, Travunia was not a historical province with continuity (unlike Hum or Duklja).


 * Pagania is, except in DAI- nonexistent.

So, provinces with corroborated historical identity are Hum and Duklja. Travunia is a sort of appendage, less individualized than Bosnian provinces Soli, Usora or Donji Kraji, while Zahumlje is a historical dubiety- there are still surnames (Hum, Humski, Humo) indicating the Hum origin, but none regarding Zahumlje. Pagania is a nonentity. Out of 4 historical provinces mentioned in DAI, only 1 remains (Duklja).

Even more problematic is ethnic identity of these regions. There is no possibility to ascertain ethnic composition of such fluid and changing «entities» which dissolved or appeared under other names or had been integrated into more spacious political units without preservation of regional identity. Who were the early inhabitants of Zahumlje ? Which Zahumlje ? Maybe Hum ? OK then, we'll dispense with the appellation «Zahumlje». What next ? Aha, ethnic composition....when ? Of what exactly ? When some region was under this or that rule ? We could use Dominik Mandić & argue about this indefinitely.http://www.magma.ca/%7Erendic/chapter4.htm

As I see it: there is no real reason for these entries. If they stay (in any form- Pagania should go in any case), they would be reduced to stubs which would contain only conflicting info on ethnic composition and maps that reflect various examples of wishful thinking.Mir Harven 4 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. I've redirected Pagania to DAI's page, Zahumlje to Herzegovina and Travunia to Trebinje. No doubt that we might see further vandalism in those pages, but that can be handled later. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   4 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

See this map from euratlas:
 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm

Pagania is written there, so, the historians who draw this map have opinion that Pagania existed. So, Mir Haven and Joy, unless you can’t prove that Pagania (and other principalities) really didn’t existed, please do not delete this page. Rather try to find a way to improve these articles. User:PANONIAN


 * Pagania is there simply because the authors of the maps used previous maps that relied solely on DAI. But, De Administrando Imperio is a fictional account re these principalities. There is no reason to perpetuate a fiction endlessly (for instance, the same is the case with "historical foundinig" of Rome by Romulus and Remus). Mir Harven 5 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)

Personaly, I doubt these entities had ever existed at all


 * Doubt of Mir Haven is certainly not valid proof that these principalities didn’t exist.

There is no possibility to ascertain ethnic composition of such fluid and changing «entities» which dissolved or appeared under other names or had been integrated into more spacious political units without preservation of regional identity


 * How interesting. Mir Haven first claim that these principalities didn’t existed, and then he claim that these principalities dissolved or been integrated into more spacious political units. User:PANONIAN


 * I didn't say all of these principalities were fictitious: just Pagania & Zahumlje (under this name- Hum was a historic principality). Travunia was a minor regional entity without historical continuity, and Duklja was a true medieval state. Mir Harven 5 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)

On the other hand: why not indulge in mythologizing history ? Croatia Rubea or Red Croatia & Croatia Albea or White Croatia have been firmly established in such sources like The Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, as well as in chronicle of the Venetian Andrea Dandolo or "Historia Salonitana", authored by Tomas Archdiacon. The array of Croatian territorial-historical claims can be seen, in Croatian, on the following page:http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/pabirci.html (parts are already in English at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina).Why not put all this stuff on wiki in English ? There are historians who claim these are romantic fabrications (Nada Klaić, Ivo Goldstein), then those who advocate them (Vjekoslav Klaić, Ferdo Šišić, Dominik Mandić, Stanko Guldescu, Ivan Mužić), and those whose attitude is more ambivalent and nuanced (Tomislav Raukar, Mladen Ančić, Neven Budak). When delving into fantasy- why don't we do it full speed ?

Ok, if we discuss about the existence of these medieval principalities, I want you to see these maps first:

This is map posted by User:Jwalker. All four principalities (Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija and Duklja) are here, while entire Bosnia belong to Serbia:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Kpdai30.gif

Here is the second map created by me (Similar map could be found in this historical atlas: Istorijski atlas, glavni redaktor prof. dr Milos Blagojevic, Beograd, 1999). All four principalities are here, while border between Serbia and Croatia is river Vrbas.
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Serb_lands03.jpg

Here is the third map from the Croatian web site. In this map entire Bosnia belong to Croatia, but all four principalities are here (You can notice name Zahumlje, not Hum).
 * http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/800s.jpg

Finally, map from euratlas again, which show these four principalities:
 * http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm

I do not think that existence of these four principalities is disputed, since Croatian, Serbian and neutral (euratlas) historians all agree that these four principalities did existed. Now here is what you said:

''Zahumlje is mentioned only in DAI (and in those authors who drew upon it, like Orbini). Otherwise- the only corroborated historical name which appears in other documents (for instance, diplomatic correspondence & Bosnian rulers' titulation) is Hum. No Zahumlje anywhere''


 * So, seems to me that you do not deny that this principality existed, but you only deny its name. Fine by me. It is irrelevant question is the name of the article Zahumlje or Hum. Important thing is that this principality did existed, and article about it should stay under one or another name. One more thing: Zahumlje/Hum is not same thing as Herzegovina, since Herzegovina is modern geographical region, while Zahumlje/Hum was medieval principality.

''Travunia has had a historical existence (hence, contemporary Trebinje). But, Travunia was not a historical province with continuity (unlike Hum or Duklja)''


 * You also agree that Travunia existed, but you say it is not province with continuity. So what? Where is written that province/principality should to have continuity (what ever continuity you have in your mind) to have its own article on Wikipedia? Also, Travunia is not same as Trebinje, since the Trebinje is modern city in Republika Srpska, while Travunia was principality, not the city.

Pagania is, except in DAI- nonexistent


 * So? It still is not good reason why Pagania should not have its own article. Even if the principality didn’t existed as you claim (with what some other people would not agree), it still should have its own article, which could be at least mythological article if not historical. User:PANONIAN

It is self-evident (I'd say) that these arguments are feeble & cannot survive closer scrutiny.

1. there are historical maps online galore & not a single one mentions these DAI-based principalities. For instance, such maps can be seen at: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/europe/easterneuropeindex.html

http://web.genie.it/utenti/i/inanna/livello2-i/bosnia-1-i.htm

http://www.philographikon.com/mapsbosniaherce.html

and much, much more.

2. maps including these principalities have begun to appear only during the latter half of the 19th century in works of Croatian & Serbian historians for very mundane purpose- spreading one's own name and influence in the struggle for control over contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina. It doesn't mean that all (or the major part) these works are worthless- on the contrary. Just- this was, above all, politically motivated historiography.

3. one should be blind, deaf & mute not to see that Serbian maps appearing on the en wiki page are nothing more than national fabrication originating in the latter half of the 20th century (probably the last decade). This goes for http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Kpdai30.gif, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Serb_lands03.jpg. To aver that this is one side of the coin, while the other can be (I assume) seen on Croatian pages is completely ridiculous. Croatian historians (Franjo Rački, Vjekoslav Klaić, Ferdo Šišić, Euzebije Fermendžin, Stjepan Srkulj, Nada Klaić, Stjepan Antoljak, Dominik Mandić, Stanko Guldescu, Tomislav Raukar, Ivo Goldstein, Mladen Ančić, Pejo Ćošković, Ivo Perić, Neven Budak,..) have come to differing conclusions with regard to Croatia's medieval borders (generally-not their primary interest since for the majority of them this ideologized & unsolvable question was of minor importance- essentially different for their Serbian colleagues: http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/feeling.html ).

So, one could very well add numerous Croatian cartographers' efforts:

http://www.hic.hr/books/hr-povijest/tomislav.htm

http://www.crohis.com/kartesis.htm

http://www.hrvatska-povijest.tk/

etc. etc.

Just- I don't see what have we got ?


 * primary sources don't help us any way


 * maps originating in Croatian historical circles show that minimal Croatian eastern border in 900s and 1000s was somewhere along the rivers Vrbas-Neretva line; the most frequent give the rivers Bosna-Neretva line, and the «easternmost» is somewhere close to the Drina river- Romanija-Zelengora mountains line. East of Croatia is Bosnia & not Serbia in any form or name (Raška).

It is evident that the maps are the only reason for these articles. Also, it is evident that the maps are a product of, say, miserable last two decades of a part of Serbian historiography. It is evident that without maps and De Administrando Imperio as the infallible source these 4 articles wouldn't have existed.
 * maps from newer Serbian historical sources (not familiar names- Sima Ćirković probably isn't one of them) give rather different maps- and these maps are not present in any reliable historical atlas. Just, coincidentally (strange, eh...) the maps mentioned are being forcefully hammered upon wikipedia. Not backed by history books, investigations, discussions etc.

Now, the situation is as follows:


 * article on any matter whatsoever (real, imagined, fictional,..) can be put on wikipedia


 * the articles on 3 out of these 4 principalities can survive only as stubs. The DAI can be mentioned, the opinion that it's just a bogus politically motivated report & texts on Croatian ethnic identity of these territories (usual old stuff- Priest of Dioclea, Croatian Chronicle, Historia Salonitana, Ibn Idrisi, Supetar charter, Andrea Dandolo, Halcocondyles, ..). On each page Croatian, historically verified (older historiography schools) maps are to appear. So, the articles would be a combination of description from DAI, counterbalanced by 10-15 pro-Croat sources and 3-7 maps.


 * Croatia Alba and Croatia Rubea articles need to appear, since they got much wider significance (and corroboration) than insignificant Travunia and fictitious Pagania.


 * of course- Croatian historic regions in Bosnia (Soli, Završje, Donji Kraji, Tropolje, Hum, Usora,..) should also appear, appended by relevant quotes and maps.

Since wikipedia standards should be respected, this means, with regard to Travunia or Zahumlje articles- the text should be revised heavily and presented maps removed completely since they are projections of Serbian geopolitical fantasies. Maybe euratlas should be contacted for permission to use their pics- which show rather different pucture regarding Croatia, Bosnia and Rashka territorial compas in the medieval period.Mir Harven 5 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

Ok, Mir Haven, I know what is the problem about define exact border between Croatia and Serbia in the 9th century. However, I am very interested to know history of various ephemeral states, principalities or provinces, which existed in the territory of Former Yugoslavia in history. For me, the existence of these four medieval principalities is very interesting subject. Since there are for sure more people who will agree with my view, I only say that these articles should not be deleted. I also do not agree that these articles should stay only as stubs. There is much what can be written in these articles. For example, our discussion from this page could be written in these articles. The problem about existence and character of these principalities could be elaborated in the articles about them. As for maps, I will draw a new map, which will show only these 4 principalities, and not border between Croatia and Serbia. User:PANONIAN

I just want to say something about behaviour of User:Harvardian.

(1) He constantly reverting this image:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands03.jpg

(2) He does not want to discuss this issue on the talk page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg

(3) Instead to discus his changes, he deleted my last post from the image talk page. You can see this here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Serb_lands03.jpg&action=history

I will also post here my statements about this subject from the image talk page. Here is what I wrote there and User:Harvardian deleted: For User:Harvardian: please do not vandalize my map any more. Since I believe that you are the same person as User:Jwalker and User:ARD, you already redraw my map and posted it on Wikipedia under another name:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Serb_lands02.gif

So, since you already posted your map under another name, it is very rude to constantly vandalize my map. You also posted two more maps:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cpw10ct.gif
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kpdai30.gif

To conclude: There are already 3 maps on Wikipedia, in which the western border of Serbia in the 9th century is put at river Una. Now about the borders of Serbia in the 9th century: It is not certain where exactly was border of Serbia in that time. There is no exact information about this border; there are only theories and speculations. The 3 main theories about this subject put the western border of Serbia on the rivers: Una, Vrbas and Drina. Here are 3 different maps about the same time period:

First map put the western border of Serbia at river Una:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Kpdai30.gif

Second map put it at river Vrbas:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Serb_lands03.jpg

The third map put the border at river Drina:
 * http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/800s.jpg

The second theory (river Vrbas) is most widely accepted among historians, and it is something about majority of Serbian and Croatian historians agree. We can call this a middle solution. You can check historical atlas for school in Serbia and you will find the same map. So, please do not revert this map again. I am Serb, but I must agree with some people that your goal here is to spread propaganda for Greater Serbia, and this propaganda create a lot of damage for Serbian people and Serbian history, and this is something what I do not like. Your attempt to present one disputed theory as scientific truth and to ignore (and remove) all other (unwanted) theories about this subject is obvious vandalism. Please, stop with this. *** User:PANONIAN


 * It should also be noted that the junk that these guys are spreading is also self-inconsistent: the map from Nada Klaić at http://www.geocities.com/hrvatskapovijest/img/09.gif that Harvardian used in an edit summary shows:
 * a core Bosna near the source of the river Bosna (mostly not even *near* Vrbas)
 * what DAI calls Pagania is marked as Neretljani (the people of Neretva)
 * no markings of Zahumlje whatsoever, let alone it spreading inland "behind" Neretljani
 * *all* borders marked približne meaning "approximate"
 * most peripheral territory marked politički neorganizirani teritorij "ničija zemlja" meaning "politically unorganized territory 'no man's land'"
 * Just wanted to explicate this issue too. I rolled that edit back, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I quickly illustrated it at Image:Serb lands03-nk-illustration.jpg. It's somewhat amusing. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

I've started reading the articles on the principalities and frankly they're full of crap. In their current state they weren't worth keeping at all, eventually they may work out to be decent stubs. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I copied geography-related quotes from Wikisource/DAI to the articles, and also uploaded a new version of Image:Principalities.jpg that doesn't have sharply marked borders. I've no idea where all this determinism comes from, the quotes from DAI are rather vague in comparison. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   17:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)