Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*As far as I can see this two sources are translation of primary source or history of ] and probably refer to the last sentence.
*As far as I can see this two sources are translation of primary source or history of ] and probably refer to the last sentence.
Information that ''"It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period"'' is big historical fact and needs confirmation in the secondary sources. So far I have not found English or Serbian sources that confirm this. I only found this, Politika(Serbian portal) ''"Могуће је да су код Срба у употреби била два имена, једно опште –означавало је потомке првих досељеника на Балкан, представнике нове, шире заједнице – а друго обласно... It is possible that two names were used by Serbs, one common - it meant the descendants of the first immigrants to the Balkans, representatives of the new, wider community - and the other regional."'' Author is ''"Градимир Аничић, главни лектор у дневним новинама „Политика”.. Gradimir Aničić, Lecturer in the daily newspaper "Politika"''. I hear about this thesis for the first time. It is possible that it is some kind of fringe information but in any case we need strong sources which confirming this significant historical fact or claim. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Information that ''"It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period"'' is big historical fact and needs confirmation in the secondary sources. So far I have not found English or Serbian sources that confirm this. I only found this, Politika(Serbian portal) ''"Могуће је да су код Срба у употреби била два имена, једно опште –означавало је потомке првих досељеника на Балкан, представнике нове, шире заједнице – а друго обласно... It is possible that two names were used by Serbs, one common - it meant the descendants of the first immigrants to the Balkans, representatives of the new, wider community - and the other regional."'' Author is ''"Градимир Аничић, главни лектор у дневним новинама „Политика”.. Gradimir Aničić, Lecturer in the daily newspaper "Politika"''. I hear about this thesis for the first time. It is possible that it is some kind of fringe information but in any case we need strong sources which confirming this significant historical fact or claim. ] (]) 15:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
**{{ping|Theonewithreason|Griboski|Sorabino|Sadko|Amanuensis Balkanicus|Khirurg}} Given that you all know Serbian history and sources well, would you be so good to provide additional evidence for this fact? (It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period.) Very valuable historical information which I can't find it anywhere and for which do not exiast quality sources as evidence. I look forward to your cooperation in finding sources. ] (]) 07:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This map from the article although has some sources for confirmation, some part of the map is OR or fringe. According to Serbian historians the boundary of "Serbia" at that time was to the mouth of the river Vrbas (river) from that point to the left(eastward). However on this map, "Serbia" is and on the right side towards(westward). Source which mentions mouth of the river Vrbas as last point is from Tibor Živković in which he mentions and Sima Ćirković with a similar view. From paper (last page): "On the basis of the data from the mentioned writers, there follows a conclusion that the area of Serbia in the early Middle Ages, in the North-West stretched to the place where the river Vrbas flows into the Sava".
It is not disputed, but it's a bit tricky as there are not that many usable sources for that period. The sources used are solid. The basic info. comes from Ćorović and DAI. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Where in DAI is written about northern border of Serbia? Where Vladimir Ćorović writes about the northern border of Serbia? The sources I'm talking about("although has some sources for confirmation") are some kind of maps but I don't know on what those maps are based. This maps are from private WordPress.com Blog. Mikola22 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
There's indeed an issue with the boundaries of early medieval Serbia. At the Wikimedia Commons category Maps of the history of Serbia in the Early Middle Ages we can find many contradicting and fringe maps. The difference in interpretation mostly depends on the nationalistic tendencies and not the scientific arguments of national historiographies. The removed map (edit) as well the present map in the article exaggerated the western & southwestern (going over river Vrbas and including whole or part of old Croatian counties Imota, Hlivno, and Pliva), eastern, and northern borders in the 9th and 10th centuries, as well it is based on several unreliable or expired sources. Another issue with the present map is that it states to be 9th-century boundaries, while they were between the 9th and 10th centuries, and another that it represents Serb lands which is a controversial and disputable claim in the scholarship. I support the removal of the previously included map because in this case is better to have only one map and its derivations for the usage in this and other related articles. However, the original map (see this link) the mentioned present map is based upon did have a more correct western and southwestern border until the Vrbas river which is in accordance with the 10th-century map of early medieval Croatia at Croatian Encyclopedia (link). As such, I rather propose the usage of the original map and its derivations per NPOV although again it's not the most neutral map we should have on Misplaced Pages.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This is an issue on the Early Middle Ages article where the shows Serbia spanning very far North and West than what sources usually show it as. I’m not sure why that is. I brought it up on the talk page their in January but no one responded. It conflicts with the mapping on both Duchy of Croatia and Principality of Serbia (early medieval) which both show Croatia having more of a presence over parts of modern day Bosnia than the map I linked first. 23:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow, it is even worse and based on some 1905 map. It is claimed to be showing the early 9th century borders and without Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunia, and Dioklea. People really don't have a clue about the early medieval period of the Southeastern Europe.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The borders with the Byzantine frontier provinces are also wrong. Stari Ras and Raska which are always firmly placed within the medieval Serbian state in these maps were secured as late as 1127: Catepanate of Ras and before the Byzantine reconquest it was held by the first Bulgarian Empire.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 06:07, 7 January 2035 (UTC).
{{subst:DNAU|Miki Filigranski}}, what about the inclusion of the cities of Zagreb (New capital) and Knin (old capital) and was Pagania; Ragusia(Dubrovnik) (Southeast of Split) and Costal Zahumlje really under Servia at the time? This map used in the Middle Ages Croatia and Serbia articles show it as separate OyMosby (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The city of Zagreb didn't exist at the time while the cities of Zadar and Split were much more significant than Knin as well in the 9th century were controlled by Byzantine Empire and not by Croatia (hence their inclusion). The updated version shows Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia, and Dioclea as separate from Serbia. They were not part of Serbia at the time. The only reason they are of the same color as Serbia i.e. different than Croatia is that they were not under the direct Frankish political influence like Croatia (which was until the end of the 9th century).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 06:07, 7 January 2035 (UTC).
{{subst:DNAU|Miki Filigranski}} I see though Knin was the Capitol of the Croatian Kingdom so I think should be included and I think serves a good reference point. As for color coding, Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia, and Dioclea, I think, should be their own color to show they are separate. Otherwise the reader will think they are under Serbia. Perhaps the color used for Pruzzi? The light green? OyMosby (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Many other bigger cities and capitals aren't included in the map. Knin wasn't a significant city in the European or Adriatic context. Also, this is a map for 814 AD when the Kingdom of Croatia didn't exist (only since 925) neither Knin was the only capital of both the Duchy and Kingdom of Croatia. I don't think it is necessary to have a different color for these principalities, but it can be done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 06:07, 7 January 2035 (UTC).
{{subst:DNAU|Miki Filigranski}} I see your point. Thanks for explaining. I still think a different color for the principalities would be better. I appreciate the work you have done on the map. Thank you. By the way what program do you use for editing the map?OyMosby (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 06:07, 7 January 2035 (UTC).
{{subst:DNAU|Miki Filigranski}} not sure you saw my last reply but I agree a different color should be used and also what program do you use? Thanks. OyMosby (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I used Method Draw SVG Editor. Will change the color for these principalities this days. Do you have any specific color in mind?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 06:07, 7 January 2035 (UTC).
@OyMosby: Hi Miki. Thanks! Though maybe the color we should use is the none used for Northsmen? Make it stick out more. Or wouldnit be confused with Italy’s color? OyMosby (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
It is because maps are make by some anonymous people who obviously don’t use quality sources or multiple sources that confirm these maps. For this reason map(from this article) is OR. We know what to do in this case, delete it until the new map appears with RS as confirmation. As for other maps, any historiography (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian etc) has its own sources on which bases the maps and we have to respect that but there has to be a quality sources for confirmation and not some random person view based in part on some source. I give support to delete any map that has no confirmation in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Seems okay WEBDuB. It’s hard to get good data of territory boundaries from so long ago. Especially since Balkan boundaries we’re constantly shifting. OyMosby (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Disruptive removal of sourced info
During the 822 uprising, Serbs supported the rebellion, thus siding against the Frankish Empire and indirectly supporting the Byzantines, but it is unknown to which extent they participated in the skirmished between two empires in the 8th and the 9th century.
@Khirurg: please quote me this information from source, and page. I would also ask for additional source for confirmation because I cannot find this fact in Serbian, Croatian or English sources nor in primary historical source which speak about that rebellion. Thank you in advance. Mikola22 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Insistence on providing additional, multiple sources to you is hypocritical. You, with few other editors, in bouts and persistently, have been removing/adding data and sources with improper referencing (Ivanišević 2013, p. 450. points to nothing and will be deleted), which serve only one purpose – relativization, hidden behind the alleged POV issues. What is NPOV for you guys? Only when you dilute and relativize information with the opposing claim? When will it be over? When every single information which says “Serbs were” will be slammed with “but maybe they weren’t”? Cause every claim, no matter how well referenced, which states “Serbs are/were” is inherently POV, right? Also, part of the relativization effort is nitpicking regarding maps. Oh, this one is 5 km to the west, or 5 km to the east, it’s horrible, it's agony, let’s delete it. As if any map depicting that period can be correct, they are just approximate illustrations. Actually, the very map you just deleted was returned by me (it wasn’t made by me), when one from your relativists’ group, now blocked, asked for it to be returned, because the one placed instead (also by someone else, not me) wasn’t good.
The most pathetic of all are the attempts at relativizing the DAI itself. Maps and contents were removed and slapped over with explanations that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus was clueless what happened two or three centuries before his time, or that when he said “Serbs”, “Serbian lands”, “descendants of unbaptized Serbs”, etc., he wasn’t reeeeeally thinking “Serbs” or “Serbian lands”...so what was he thinking....reptiloids? The emperor probably had some of the best education available on the planet at the time. He was compiling his work to prepare his son to rule and to make him acquainted with historical and political matters, so he decided to fill it with fake and incorrect data? That doesn’t mean he was automatically 100% correct, but he surely had better access to chronicles and knew more what happened before and around his time than modern mind readers and crystal ballers who know for sure that he wasn’t thinking what he was writing.
And you can slam every claim, technically giving an appearance of proper referencing, as today you can find source and reference for everything. Literally. You can source claim that this article is nonsense, cause Serbs are the oldest nation anyway. Or Croats or Albanians, for that matter. Or we can scrap the article altogether, cause some claim the entire Middle Ages never existed and is a complete fabrication.
And yet, other editors barely reacted, allowing you to conduct your agenda, and made no fuss about it, but you are brazen enough to complain? Despite this pretended nitpicking on sources, following your edits on this article and others, almost all you do is relativization of articles regarding Serbs through this phony over-exacting reserved for Serbian articles only. You barely do anything else. Some administrator may tell me to assume good faith, or list me a bunch of guidelines about politeness or world peace or whatever – but you fit the duck test perfectly. You are a man on the Crusade. You are slick at abusing guidelines (like the alleged NPOV), a fact that administrators either know nothing about our history, don't want to know anything about it and don’t want to deal with us in general, that other editors fear to intervene and call you what you are cause they will be called nationalists or blocked by the administrators, but also a fact that sources indeed are so scarce. A perfect storm for you, and you abuse the situation to the max. PajaBG (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@PajaBG: I have invited other editors now and I invite you to present the quote and page as well as additional confirmation of this information. When you will ask me for some source, information and page, I will provide it immediately, if I do not find what you or other editor ask i can't go against yours edit. You wrote half a page of your critique and you forgot the most important thing, to present the evidence. We are not here to sell fog but to make articles more accurate and better. As for map and "5 km to the west, or 5 km to the east" fact, if Serbian academic sources say that Serbs or Serbian territory exist in some historical period to the river Vrbas then we cannot draw a map that goes to Banja Luka, Sisak or Zagreb. I guess we will respect the sources and draw the boundary on river Vrbas. As for Serb settlements map we cannot have a map without a source for half of the Balkans where the Serbs arrived. I guess we have some decency to respect rules of Misplaced Pages but also and decency to respect primary sources which talk about this migration also decency to respect secondary sources. And based on these sources, maps are drawn. If we do not respect it then each editor will have its own map which show migration and setlements of Serbs, Croats, Albanians etc to Balkans. This mean that academic Sima Ćirković drew or transfer maps in the sources for nothing when anonymous people from Misplaced Pages have some of their own maps without sources for evidence. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Opinions about the DAI have changed a lot in the past 50 years. Contemporary historiography - including historiography in Serbia - doesn't discuss DAI in the manner which you're describing. It has many factual mistakes and the consensus that has emerged in the past 20 years is that it's basically a document which was written in order to further Byzantine claims against medieval Serbian rulers. The DAI places the Serbs in Thessaloniki/Macedonia only because medieval Byzantine politics wanted to establish that Serb presence in the Balkans began as a vassal people within imperial territory. The Serbs, however, had settled across the northern border of actual Byzantine control as all archaeological and historical material indicates today, thus they weren't Byzantine vassals which had to be reintegrated as the narrative of the DAI would have its medieval (wealthy) reader believe. To a medieval Serb reader (a wealthy feudal ruler or merchant) the DAI would look like a document with a strong "anti-Serbian bias". From his perspective, he would be right. The 822 event is the one discussed at Ljudevit_(Lower_Pannonia)#Flight to Serbs and death. A quote from Aleksić will clarify what he is specifically exploring, but Serbian historiography discusses it in a different context than that of a possible Serbian participation in Ljudevit's rebellion. A middle ground would be to mention the event and link to Ljudevit for a full discussion of what it means.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Bibliography
Most citations have no page number, many are offline and many others don't discuss what mainstream bibliography discusses. I think that each section and citation should be reviewed separately. This is a central article about Serbia and I think that correct use of bibliography should be a priority. Some parts of this article should be trimmed. It stands at 224k and I don't think that a list of all Slavic tribes or other Slavic areas in the Balkans adds anything to it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure that several involved editors would love to hear your suggestions. I tend to disagree with the last part. Please do not make major edits to the stable version before reaching a consensus, which I'm sure is doable. Sadkσ(talk is cheap)20:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't have many suggestions: editors should be more careful with bibliography and some parts should be trimmed. I don't think that I should be the one to write this article. I strongly believe in an emic approch, thus I think that Serb(ian) editors should do most of the writing, but it has to be close to what bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the editor Maleschreiber that this should be better checked. We cannot have sources without pages. We can't even check some sources WP:VERIFY and there is a lot of information's from them in the article. In any case, there should be some order and I support every edit which goes in that direction. Mikola22 (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Stipčević (1977)
According to the article, Stipčević (1977) writes that Also, the Slavs merged with the native population (Illyrians, Thracians) and assimilated them, forming the base of the ethnogenesis of modern Serbs. He doesn't. Stipčević (1977) writes that: In the course of the centuries the Slavs merged with these people, thus preserving in their own national identity remains of ancient Illyrians. Evidence of this is particularly strong in some of the remote areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dalmatinska Zagora, in Crna Gora, etc. He discusses Croatia, Montenegro and parts of Bosnia, but not Serbia. Side comment: I don't think that national identity is linked to "admixture" or ethnic origin per se. I'm only reviewing what the author has written.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
In this case we need additional source as evidence. I as editor couldn't enter this information in the article because the source does not say so("forming the base of the ethnogenesis of modern Serbs"). For me this is WP:OR but there are probably sources which confirm this. Mikola22 (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Slavic settlement
Frankish Chronicle of Fredegar mentions Dervan, chieftain of the Serbs, in c. 631, who may be the first Serb mentioned by name in history. Dervan is considered to be the father or, more likely, brother of the nameless prince who led the White Serbs into the Balkans.
I can't verify this information in Tibor Živković source, I searched in Serbian language for other sources of Tibor Živković with that connection, but for now I can't find anything. While in article, in source of Curta has no page number for this information, but Dervan is mentioned "Dervanus, duke of the Sorbs" (page 109,115).. "His victory encouraged a certain Dervanus, dux gente Sorbiorum que ex genere Sclavinorum, to declare his independence from the Franks". This information is not in the context of the Balkans and Balkan Serbs while the sources cited here as evidence do not say that Dervan is "chieftain of the Serbs".
This is WP:OR for one source. I suggest that information be aligned with the source but this information is in Sorbs context and for that article. My opinion is that with these sources as evidence this information is not appropriate for this article unless Tibor Zivkovic claim that in this source but I can't WP:VERIFYMikola22 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period. A general one, depicting the descendants of the first settlers while the other was a regional one. By the 11th century, most of the regional names disappeared and were replaced by the ethnonym Serbs. In his work Strategikon of Kekaumenos, the 11th century Byzantine general Katakalon Kekaumenos refers to the duke of Duklja Stefan Vojislav as both "Dioclean" and "Travunian Serbian". John Skylitzes, a historian from the same period, calls Stefan Vojislav an "archon of the Serbs" and that he took over the "land of the Serbs"
As far as I can see this two sources are translation of primary source or history of John Skylitzes and probably refer to the last sentence.
Information that "It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period" is big historical fact and needs confirmation in the secondary sources. So far I have not found English or Serbian sources that confirm this. I only found this, Politika(Serbian portal) "Могуће је да су код Срба у употреби била два имена, једно опште –означавало је потомке првих досељеника на Балкан, представнике нове, шире заједнице – а друго обласно... It is possible that two names were used by Serbs, one common - it meant the descendants of the first immigrants to the Balkans, representatives of the new, wider community - and the other regional." Author is "Градимир Аничић, главни лектор у дневним новинама „Политика”.. Gradimir Aničić, Lecturer in the daily newspaper "Politika". I hear about this thesis for the first time. It is possible that it is some kind of fringe information but in any case we need strong sources which confirming this significant historical fact or claim. Mikola22 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason, Griboski, Sorabino, Sadko, Amanuensis Balkanicus, and Khirurg: Given that you all know Serbian history and sources well, would you be so good to provide additional evidence for this fact? (It is possible that there were two names used for the Serbs in this period.) Very valuable historical information which I can't find it anywhere and for which do not exiast quality sources as evidence. I look forward to your cooperation in finding sources. Mikola22 (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
