Jump to content

Talk:Narentines/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Re: Porphyrogenitos- You'll have to get another consensus happening on the talk page.

Hi Ivanplusequalsivan (great name)! These issues were discussed and agreed upon (Slav vs. Serb), check consensus. Porphyrogenitos as a source for Southern Dalmatia is inaccurate. You'll have to get another consensus happening on the talk page. Could you please not edited the Pagania article concerning these issues. The article it self is very weak in terms of references. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sir Floyd!! Thank you for your response. I read the page you suggested and there is no science spirit there, just futile Croatia/Serbia trolling. I didn' see any agreement there. I must insist on Porfirogenitus reference, because it is the only indipendant source on the topic from that time. Simple as that. Accurate or innacurate - that's pretty much everything history has on the topic. And it is very important because it was written by the Byzantine Emperor who was "in charge" for the theritory in that period. Even if you think it is inaccurate, you should post the evidences for YOUR opinion before you remove relevant references and sources that are already on the page. I agree that the page is poorly written, but links to the Porphirogenitus work are not the problem here. So let' us get concensus, but for that - you'll need sources that backup your thesis that Porphirogenitus is innacurate, The only other source that deals with the topic is [1] but it is of much lesser importance for the history of the period we are interested in because it was written in the XIII or XIV century when Nerentines were no more. I suggest that we write that according to Porphirogenitus - Nerentines were Serbs, and according to Priest of Duklja - they were Croats, stressing the fact that first source is more firm that he second. I alsso suggest that we use only internationally recognized sources, because theere are lot of pseudohistory books written both in Croatia and in Serbia in the last 20 years. I hope that you don't mind for me putting this conversation of ours also on the discussion page of the article. Thank you again for your response. All The Best Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Check consensus -Link Here Sir Floyd (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together. That has nothing to do with scientific sources. So, please do not erase sources. I did my part for the research on the topic by finding exact Porphirogenitus words on Pagania. If you want to contribute, please find sources that state something else. else, I will start to suspect that you are not interested in truth but in sentiment. Best Regards Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It's the Wiki way. Sir Floyd (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Sir Floyd, but our missunderstanding stays. Please provide relevant SOURCES instead of calling other editors to testify with heir OPINION. Because sources are the Wikipedia way, not the consensus. Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The issues of Porphyrogenitos on this article has been sorted. You needed to ask the editors in question to change their mind, or organise a new consensus vote. I don't see any other options. Also Porphyrogenitos as a source for factual information concerning ethnicity (& other issues) for Southern Dalmatia (Croatia) has been discarded by noted scholar John V.A Fine Jnr (When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans). Sir Floyd (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Floyd! Thank you for keeping the nationalistic bias out of this discusion. Also, thank you for pointing to John V.A. Fine Jr book. Please notice that he stresses that Venetian sources are less precize than Porphirogenitus here: http://books.google.com/books?id=p3oGybOY1w4C&lpg=PP1&ots=d9_Yq1h-IC&dq=When%20Ethnicity%20Did%20Not%20Matter%20in%20the%20Balkans%3A%20A%20Study%20of%20Identity%20in%20Pre-Nationalist%20Croatia%2C%20Dalmatia%2C%20and%20Slavonia%20in%20the%20Medieval%20and%20Early-Modern%20Periods&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q=&f=false I didn't found that "Porphyrogenitos as a source for factual information concerning ethnicity (& other issues) for Southern Dalmatia (Croatia) has been discarded" by John V.A Fine Jr. Please, point to the exact passage that can back that opinion of yours. Best Regards Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

John V.A. Fine book points out how Porphyrogenitos contradicts himself (page 30/line 12) Also, others have pointed out, how there are two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs is almost identical to one of the arrival of Croatians. These chapters read as a retelling of the migration patterns (as if the author lacked historical information). One chapters uses mythic Croatian narratives as fact!

Hello Sir Floyd! John V.A. Fine Jr finds that Porphyrogenitos contradicts himself... fine, but that contradiction has nothing to do with our topic. When you point to a controversy about Bulgar-Croatian relations, that still: A) doesn't proof anything related to our dispute here; B) doesn't mean that John V.A. Fine wrote that Porphirogenitus contradicts himself when he writes about Pagania, and C) doesn't disqualify DAI as the only relevant source on Slavs in Dalmatia.
Nobody said that Neretljani weren't called Slavs. My previous citation [[2]] points exactly to that, also. Fact is that they were precisely called Unbaptised Serbs in De administrando imperio which is (as is also pointed both by John V.A Fine Jr and the website Spiritus-Temporis.com): "the only surviving authoritative text of its kind about the region and era".
Spiritus-temporis.com also stresses that it is: "... unlikely that Constantine_VII would insert propaganda in a work written for his son, who must have been given true facts in order to rule successfully."
Anyway
Since all this starts to get boring,
I suggest this formula for the text:
"Pagania (the Narentine Frontier), (Greek: (Ν)αρεντάνοι - (N)arentanoi, Croatian: Paganija, Krajinjane, Neretljani, Italian: Narentani, Narentini, Serbian: Paganija, Neretljani), was a land settled by the Slav tribe known as the Narentines (Neretljani) in an area of southern Dalmatia (modern day Republic of Croatia), west of the river Neretva (Narenta). Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus stresses that "Pagani are descended from the unbaptized Serbs" and that "The Pagani are so called because they did not accept baptism at the time when all the Serbs were baptized." [[3]] . Venetian and Frankish sources from the same period refer to Narentines only as to Slavs [[4]]. They were known for their piracy."
Please say what you think? I believe that this is reasonable because points to different sources ("mine" being DAI, and "yours" being John V.A. Fine's citation of Venetian sources) and encourages readers to do their own research. I put refference to DAI before the John V.A. Fine Jr because it is older and because first is the source for the second. I encourrage you to add references and details to the text above so that we can revisit it together and make consensus ^_^. All The Best Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


This is what I think:

  • Firstly there was a consensus on the issue concerning Slav vs. Serbs. Issue resolved.

Consensus from archive:

Because of PaxEquilibrium last comment I have send invitation to all editors of this talk page so that this question can be solved. I am only sorry that many editors of this talk page has retired from editing wikipedia. In my personal thinking there is no need for vote or anything similar because between 2005 and 2008 users:croatian_quoll , Afrika (now banned), Kubura , .[[User:195.29.101.2|195.29.101.2] , Linguae Latinae , MarinkoM8 , Rjecina , Anto all in all 8 has declared that population of Pagania has been South Slavs or Croats. In thinking of user:PANONIAN we need to show both positions in article (that they are Croats and Serbs) and only User:PaxEquilibrium has supported idea that population of Pagania are Serbs. My proposition is that in article we write that population of Pagania has been South Slavs (neutral solution). Lets vote:

That makes 4, and there's also User:Hxseek, User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић & User:PANONIAN. Counting violent internet trolls doesn't really look good upon your behalf. This is not a matter of vote, but of sources. We could vote that Chinese are actually French and have majority, and it still wouldn't be appropriate. I don't care if Pagans are Serbs, Croats, Illyrians or Mandarenese, this is a matter of writing encyclopaedic articles. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User Panonian is not an open minded user. Some of his biased works have been deleted. -- Imbris (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you please show me where on this talk page have User:Hxseek , User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић & User:PANONIAN writen that population of Pagania are Serbs ?? It is important to notice that I have not called editors of this article because it will be overkill.
It is not very nice to call other editors Internet troll !! It is possible to see that I have not called any editor which has been confirmed or suspected puppet of somebody else so that it has been 1 editor 1 vote. Situation on this talk page during ulmost 3 last years has been 8 for South Slavs or Croats, 1 for Serbs and Croats and only PaxEquilibrium for Serbs !!!--Rjecina (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
They have edited the article. Anyway, this is pretty much irrelevant & off-topic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional: I was pointing out how De Administrando Imperio is not the ideal source for establishing ethnicity for the state of Pagnia or that region as whole. Also the source is stating a falsehood. Based on the above I'm reverting your recent edits. Please try to archive a consensus. You have not done that yet. Try and contact the above Editors in question. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, sir Floyd! I must say that what you think is wrong. DAI is THE ONLY source concerning Pagania. The history work that you proposed stresses that also here: [5]. What you do is that you cite DAI wrong by saying this: "In the words of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus The Romano-Byzantines named the region Pagania because the Narentines didn't accept Christianity in the time that all other Slavs did." That are not his words, and you know it. He wrote "Serbs" instead of "Slavs" [6]. You also put reference that has nothing to do with the citation (this one: [7]) after the text above which is pointless and misleading. I can only conclude that you have some sort of problem with the word "Serbs" which is something I can not understand. Thus, I can only conclude that you have no interest in history as a science, but only as propaganda, and that is bad. Now, please stop erasing relevant citations and sources. Have anice day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanplusequalsivan (talk • contribs) 08:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Problems

I have a problem with stated ethnicity in De Administrando Imperio. Put simply it's incorrect, thus creating a falsehood, a dangerous one at that. People from that region are Croatians. Furthermore Neretljani also called themselves, Slavs & Dalmatian Slavs. So I have to ask myself why are you making these edits. Wikipedia should not be used as a propaganda tool? Sir Floyd (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear, Sir Floyd! Of course that people who live there are Croatians. Nobody denies that. Point is that this is the article about the people from the IX century. Will you please present the references where Neretljani call themselves Slavs? As opposite to your actions on this article I did not erase a single line from the text. I just added relevant reference and source about the Narentines. I am also very happy to to see as much sources as possible. Right now we see that DAI calls them unbaptized Serbs, Venetians call them Slavs, and some other source (?) puts them in Red Croatia (?) which is all fine by me. That is history - dated and signed sources! If I understand correctly - you would like this article to be without the DAI refererence, and I am ready to allow any relevant source. Who's stand is closer to propaganda? As a matter of fact Priest of Dioclea's Red Croatia stories are classic example of propaganda, but that text is also relevant to this article because it shows what some people thought in the XIII century. I just hate to see when you erase relevant source (Romano-Byzantinum DAI), and especially when you forge that same source (by switching the word Serbs with Slavs). Best Regards Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

Pagania/Neretljani is just source poor when it comes to its history. Sir Floyd (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We are lucky to have Ivo Perić (from the ""Titans Of The Western History Science") then.
As he writes: " The Neretljani Croats also took part in this conflict, siding with their Croatian brothers."
True Brotherhood and Unity it is then.
^_^
Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Neretlani were never called Croats by anyone apart from Croatian historians. No contemporary source refers to them as paganian Croats or neretlian-Croats, etc. Nor were they ever truly part of Croatian kingdom (apart from some occasional and inconstant alliance with Croatian Kings) until much later in history. So the neretljiani were Neretlijani; not Croats, not Serbs. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources, etc

We should not dispose of De Administrando as a source. It's story about the migration of the Serbs and Croats is semi-legendary, however its commentary is accurate about the political situation at the time of Constantine Porphyrogenitus and when he wrote his book. Ie mid 10th century. The Pagans originally were neither Serb nor Croat, given that such terms were political bodies, and clearly the Croats were north of the Cetina, and the Serbs were roughly in the Piva, Lim and Drin river valleys. Rather, the Pagani were one of the numerous Sklavinias which arose along the Adriatic from the 9th century, after couple of centuries of significant demographic, cultural and linguistic changes which began in the west Balkans from the mid 6th century, linked with, amongst many other factors, the arrival Sklavenoi and Avars. Their first mention by Venetian sources refer to them as Slavs. Later, in the 10th century, they were confederated with Serb zhupans in the Lim valley. Then they were increasingly Croaticized although the area actually came to be part of the 14th century Bosnian kingdom. Hxseek (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

title and scope

As I was fixing Neretva pirates, I came across this little gem again. The problem with the title is that it's anachronistic - the pagans were in fact Christianized around 840, yet the article covers the period between ca. 600 to ca. 1000, so that's plenty inconsistent. And the piracy in the area did not actually notably stop, it just died down a bit, its epicenter moved from Komin to Omiš, and then it became rampant all over again, with attacks in the same area of Dalmatia. This kind of segmentation of articles seems pretty arbitrary, esp. given so few actual sources presented here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it needs some work, for sure. Maybe it would better be called the Neretljani Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
"Pagania" was created in April 2005‎, and "Neretva pirates" in December 2005‎. After all this time, it's hard to talk of WP:CFORK, but it certainly looks like one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DAI

Starting a discussion regarding the recent disruptive reverts. @Sadko: what's the issue besides biased personal viewpoint?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is no way to start any discussion. Notions of "biased pesonal 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)
I had a look at the edit war and I don't see any rationale in claiming that a direct quote from an ancient source is more relevant than the many secondary sources that built upon it in the last, oh, millenium? Sadko, please stop littering the lead section with a phrasing that is blatantly Serbian nationalist. Were you ever notified of the existence of WP:ARBMAC? If not, please consider yourself notified. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
What? You had the opportunity to set an example of appropriate behavior by writing a comment about the content instead of personal viewpoint, as noted, yet you made a comment on an editor making false accusations. You clearly have some issues with understanding Wikipedian editing policy when you are not able to recognize the reliability of sources, in other words, advocating the usage of unreliable (Serbian) nationalistic sources like of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo. Your edit on this article and simultaneously Višeslav of Serbia‎ clearly was not based on RS. If that's not true, sorry then, but you give such an impression. Making a revert of so reliably sourced information without proper substantiation is not in good faith.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That "ancient source" is the most relevant source for early Serb and Croat history. If you do not know that, there is not much to discuss. Do not try to label me, your hate speech in attempt will be brought to light, because you know nothing about my views. Second of all, all of this information can't be in Wiki voice, and what you are doing is nothing but subtle POV editing and WP:GAMING. You've added a bunch of Croatian historian's viewpoints in Wikivoice. It's quite obvious that the sources make a distinction between Croats and Narentines. Interestingly enough, there is a sentence about differences between 2 historiographies, which see things differently, but you choose not to add any information from the noted Serbian historians. Instead, you are pushing the idea that they are "something else" which is not the general conclusion or viewpoint shared by all historians, and it's mostly pushed by a part of Croatian historians. Also, when an editors challenges your additions to the stable version, you should start discussing first and not pushing the version which you, one editor, think to be "better". It's not. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Give us a break with this nationalistic and patronizing WP:OWN. Instead of focusing on the content and sources you're again mostly making comments about fellow editors who are falsely accusing of POV editing and GAMING - because you're exactly doing that. It's so transparent it's pathetic. The one whose behavior should be "brought to light" is you. Of course the historical source, DAI, makes a distinction between the Croats and Narentines, and nobody of the cited Croatian historians denies that. However, that doesn't imply they were Serbs as the source was obviously written from a political and not ethnic point of view at the time, and nobody of the cited Serbian historians denies that either. Due to scientific debate, the only right and best thing according to neutrality is to mention them in the introduction as South Slavs without any national association.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not adding content, therefore I can't be associated with any of such actions, on the contrary, I am trying to introduce a more balanced view to this article, which can't be achieved by adding a bunch of Croatian historians in Wikivoice and pushing all mentions of Narentines (per DAI) as Serbs deep in the article and not even mentioning it in the lead - like it's not relevant. Mentions of Narentines as Serbs (per DAI) must be in the lead as well. It does not have to be the first sentence.
After all, starting a debate like this just proves that some editors are not here to build an encyclopedia or accept any remarks by other editors, which is exactly what WP:OWN is, which is not surprising consdering that such comments are coming from an editor which had the audacity to call other editor's "biased" because they are "Serbian editors", while preaching about "scientific debate" on other articles. haha
Learn how to discuss with people who do not agree with you civily. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
And we should agree with your opinion about the introduction of what's written in DAI because of...? Are you aware that your personal opinion is not a reliable source upon which is assessed and built balance of an article? Mention of Narentines as Serbs in DAI is misleading without proper context. Per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia should be written by mostly using reliable secondary sources and not primary sources like DAI so all this bragging about DAI being the most relevant source upon which should be built balance and else is dull. In modern historiography even the DAI's mention of the settlement of the part of Dalmatian Croats and rule in Lower Pannonia isn't perceived in the sense the Pannonian Slavs are ethnic Croats as well as the term "Pannonian Croatia" is abandoned. A long time ago was concluded that DAI is primarily a political document.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Pannonian Slavs are another matter. Historian Vladimir Ćorović writes - Out of these Serb tribes, the Narentines were the most warlike.[1] It's on the page 98, I have the book published by Feniks Libris in 2010. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not another matter. It's the same matter of DAI misinterpreting ethnicity according to the political events. Ćorović died in 1941 and as such is a historian from an older generation which is not part of modern historiography. Per WP:AGE MATTERS we should use modern reliable sources in topics related to scientific and academic fields, including historical events, because "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed". It's pointless for an encyclopedia citing what some 19th-century or early 20th-century historian argued about, but if are still going to have a section dealing with historiography then at least the balance should be based on modern historiography.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
That would be the case for his other works, but the book I am quoting was not published during his lifetime, but only later in 1989, after 2 excellent historians and academics Sima Ćirković and Rade Mihaljčić examined it and edited the work. Also, the same book is probably one of the best works of Serbian and Yugoslav historiography. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Since when posthumous work published almost 50 years after death doesn't make it "outdated" as the other, and by now at least 80 years old? In what way other younger historians edited the book? What are we dealing with here, a book by Ćorović or by Ćirković & Mihaljčić?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not know all the details. They found the manuscripts, organised, edited and published the book/s. Those are some of the best historians from the former Yugoslavia, all three of them.
Another respected author (not to be confused with pseudohistorian of the same name) calls lands held by Narentines as Serbian lands (p. 54-55, if I'm not mistaken).[2]

References

  1. ^ Ćorović, Vladimir (1989). Istorija Srba (in Serbian). Beogradski izdavačko-grafički zavod. ISBN 978-86-13-00381-6.
  2. ^ Деретић, Јован (2005). Културна историја Срба: предавања. Народна књига.

19th century sources

@Joy: you said "the claims attributed to the old historians are dated so it seems fine to let them stay, let's just give them some context". Okay, it seems reasonable because such viewpoints can be found in later and modern historiography. There's a chronological link between them. However, age does matter and what's the point of mentioning the 19th-century "scientific" viewpoint i.e scientists when it is repeated and better formulated by modern scientists? Actually, what's the point of mentioning old historians and their date of birth and death at all? It is the historiographical viewpoint that matters. Shouldn't it be removed or at least trimmed to: "In the 19th century, scholars treated them as Serbs or a distinct South Slavic tribe". Isn't that enough for an introduction?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it is worth mentioning, according to Ančić (2011, p. 31–32), 19th-century Croatian historian Miho Barada defined them as "neither Croats nor Serbs". Such a definition was also shared by prominent 20th century Nada Klaić and was generally accepted in Croatian historiography. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The section is named "historiography", so I don't see the point in omitting these just because they're out of date. It illustrates nicely to the readers exactly how much confusion there has been in describing this tribe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Joy: if that's the exact scope of the section then it's alright and fine with me. Indeed, there exist scholarly dispute on the topic of ethnic identity and origin, but thanks to such section is respected NPOV on the article. However, isn't at Višeslav of Serbia and Vlastimir. Please take a look and your vote/comment would be welcome to the Talk:Višeslav of Serbia#RfC on DAI and NPOV so we can finally reach a solid consensus.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narentines/Archive_4&oldid=1250813484"