Talk:Višeslav of Serbia

RfC on DAI and NPOV

Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Is there any and what valid reason per WP:NPOV to exclude from citation Croatian and other international sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This and related articles have experienced over a decade of slow back-and-forth editing to add/remove certain sources and scholarly viewpoints which exhibit more or less critical evaluation of information and reliability of De Administrando Imperio (DAI) as a historical source - specifically on chapters 30-36 about the Croats, Serbs, Zachlumians, Travunijans and Kanalites, Dukljans, Narentines. The one scholarly viewpoint, represented mainly by some modern Serbian historians, repeats and takes for granted as factual the information that the people of Zachlumians, Travunijans-Kanalites, and Narentines are of Serb ethnic origin since the 7th century, adding to them even Dukljans for which there's no information on Serb origin in DAI. The other scholarly viewpoint, represented mainly by some modern international and Croatian historians, rejects such claims because modern ethnic and national identities don't correspond to those in the early medieval period, don't refer to the ethnicity but political identity and context, not of the 7th but 10th century, not of the common people but the elite and so on.

There have been numerous discussions, usually long and tiring, with some consensus. It would be helpful to have a solid consensus on the scholarly viewpoint on DAI's reliability and information (WP:WEIGHT) to point to when editors edit information related to DAI chapters on Croats, Serbs, and others. To make such an assessment easier and possible below is a list of historiographical references with quotes and those in Serbo-Croatian translated to English. Before commenting it is expected to read them and be familiar with WP:RFC, WP:VOICE, WP:BALANCE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:ETHNO among other policies and essays.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC ended and restarted.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

International historiography

1. Francis Dvornik, De Administrando Imperio: Volume II. Commentary (1962), 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. 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. – Although published 60 years ago it is "Still valuable introductory study and extensive comments (written by the then very prominent Byzantologists, F. Dvornik, R. J. H Jenkin, G. Moravcsik, D. Obolenski and S. Runciman and Orientalist B. Lewis) that facilitate the use of the text are provided by the publication" (Ančić 2011).
2. Dvornik, Byzantine missions among the Slavs (1970), p. 26: Constantine regards all Slavic tribes in ancient Praevalis and Epirus—the Zachlumians, Tribunians, Diodetians, Narentans— as Serbs. This is not exact. Even these tribes were liberated from the Avars by the Croats who lived among them. Only later, thanks to the expansion of the Serbs, did they recognize their supremacy and come to be called Serbians.
3. 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
4. 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
5. John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century (1983/1991), 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.)
6. Mark Whittow, The Making of Byzantium, 600–1025 (1993), p. 263 "The Croats and Serbs have also been seen as rebels who broke away from the Avars to set up their own states in the 620s with the blessing of Emperor Heraklios. But the only evidence is an anachronistic story preserved in De Administrando Imperio which seems to have been invented in the late 9th or early 10th century to give historical precedent to current Byzantine policies."
7. 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-politische dimension...
8. Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250, p. 210: According to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Slavs of the Dalmatian zhupanias of Pagania, Zahumlje, Travounia, and Konavli all "descended from the unbaptized Serbs."51 This has been rightly interpreted as an indication that in the mid-tenth century the coastal zhupanias were under the control of the Serbian zhupan Časlav, who ruled over the regions in the interior and extended his power westwards across the mountains to the coast.
9. Peter Heather, 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

Croatian historiography

1. Neven Budak, Prva stoljeća Hrvatske (1994), pp. 58–61: The main difficulty in noticing the ethnic diversity of the Slavs along the Adriatic coast was the interpretation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, according to whom the Neretvans (Pagans), Zahumljani, Travunjani and Konavljani were by origin Serbs. At the same time, the emperor consistently left out the people of Duklja from this Serbian community of peoples. However, it seems obvious that the emperor does not want to talk about the real ethnic connection, but that he has before his eyes political relations at the time when he wrote the work, ie from the time when data were collected for him in Dalmatia. The description certainly refers to the time when the Serbian prince Časlav extended his power to the neighboring Slavs, in addition to the above, also to Bosnia. Along with the spread of political supremacy, the ethnic name also spread, which fully corresponds to our notions of the coincidence of ethnic and political terminology. Precisely because of that, the emperor does not include Duklja among the Serbs, nor did the Serbian name in Duklja / Zeta take root before the 12th century. Historians who attributed Dukljans to Serbs without any hesitation referred to Constantine, although he did not give them any arguments for such theses, citing Dukljans exclusively under their own ethnonym.
2. Budak, Hrvatska povijest od 550. do 1100 (2018), pp. 51, 177: Disputes between Croatian and Serbian historiography over the ethnic character of the Slavs between Cetina and Durres are pointless, as they transpose contemporary categories of ethnicity into the early Middle Ages, in which identity was understood differently. In addition, the survival of most Slavs, and especially Duklja (Zeta) speaks in favor of insisting on their own identity by which their elites differed from those of their neighbors ... However, after some time (perhaps after the internal conflicts in Croatia) he changed his position and accepted the supremacy of the Serbian ruler because Constantine claims that the Zahumljani (as well as the Neretvans and Travunjans) were Serbs from the time of the archon who brought the Serbs to their new homeland during the time of Heraclius. This claim, of course, has nothing to do with the reality of the 7th century, but it speaks of political relations in Constantine's time.
3. Ivo Goldstein, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek (1995), p. 196: could not be regarder neither Serbs nor Croats
4. Hrvoje Gračanin, "Od Hrvata pak koji su stigli u Dalmaciju odvojio se jedan dio i zavladao Ilirikom i Panonijom: Razmatranja uz DAI c. 30, 75-78" (2008), p. 67–76: The findings suggest that Croats did not settle in Lower Pannonia during the original migration from north to south, although it is possible that some smaller groups lagged behind in the area, eventually drowning in the vast majority of other Slavic settlers. The expansion of the old Croatian populations from the south to the north belongs to the period from the 10th century onwards and is connected with the changed political circumstances, the strengthening and expansion of the early Croatian state. Based on all this, it is much more likely that the ethnonym "Croats" and migration hide the fact of the transfer of political power, which means that the emperor equated political supremacy with ethnic presence. This is exactly the approach he applied, turning Zahumljani, Travunjani and Neretljani into Serbs (DAI, c. 33, 8-9, 34, 4-7, 36, 5-7).
5. Mladen Ančić, "The Early Medieval Narentines or Chulmians: Tracing the confusion caused by De administrando Imperio" (2011), p. 223-224: Thus, as part of the development of the skill of interpretation De administrando… in particular (in Croatian and Serbian historiography), careful efforts were made to exclude from the narratives of unknown authors whose texts were incorporated into the whole work what was acceptable for a particular national ideology, yet not call into question the credibility of the very basic narrative set and (as will be seen misunderstood) information it brings. Serbian historians accepted one after the other both the chronological elements of the narration of one part of the text (which speaks of the "Serbian" arrival in the 7th century) and what was the foundation of their entire national ideology of the 19th and 20th century p. 225-226 In the practical interpretation by historians from the end of the 20th century, this whole narrative set, which otherwise relates to the realities of the beginning of the 7th century proved to be rather absurd and meaningless, it looks like this [Siniša Mišić 1996 quote] ... That is why the author, without the need to comment on such a procedure, throws out everything that hinders the making up of such a simple conclusion, and by denying the role of the emperor, he turns the people into actors, ie subjects of history. To not be any confusion - a procedure of this kind is not [only] a feature of Serbian historiography, it is a fundamental feature of the mental structure from which the concept of "national history" originates. p. 234–244 Therefore, the political history written by the collaborators of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus under his supervision is a real narrative of events in a very limited circle of the population, that is, as Patricia Crone puts it, relying precisely on the results obtained by J. Kautsky: "Politics in pre-industrial societies was elite politics, or in other words is only one to two percent of the population".54 In this context, the eventual ethnic identity or difference between the ruling class and the subjects was essentially insignificant for the authors of the texts we use today as a source of knowledge of the time, for the subjects were not the focus of their attention anyway, except in situations where the existing distribution of social power would be called into question p. 276-277 it is very likely that it is the work of several authors, who wrote referring to each other; the task facing these authors was not to give an "objective view" (even for them) of the distant past; therefore the text is full of material errors, confusions and delusions; as such it is practically almost useless in terms of a serious historical source ... This analysis leads to the conclusion that the categorical apparatus of this "ethnic discourse," and particularly the terms for ethnic communities such as "Croats," "Serbs," etc., cannot in any way whatsoever be equated with the later, and especially modern uses of these same ethnic designations. The author warns that the ethnic designations used in the texts of the "Dalmatian dossier" actually conceal relatively stable, although ethnically diverse and socially stratified, political formations of the first half of the tenth century. One may discern that in some cases these formations (primarily where this concerns "Croats" and "Serbs") emerged under the wing of specific ethnic communities, but the author notes that the populations of these political formations must not be limited in any way to only the members of these eponymous communities.
6. Goran Bilogrivić, "Bosnia i Hum/Hercegovina" (2015), p. 486: Porphyrogenitus writes that the inhabitants of all three Sclavinias are descended from Serbs, but it is more likely the interpret of this statement in terms of their subordination to Serbia, under which rule they fell most likely during the first half of the 10th century, during the time of Serbian Prince Peter or Časlav. In favor of a separate ethnicity speaks the account that the Travunian people were Serbs only from the time of the Byzantine emperor Heraclius until the Serbian prince Vlastimir, when they gained some independence under the župan Krajina, as well as mentioning of a clear and separate local tradition of the ruling Zahumljan family about the origin of their ancestors from the area of Vistula.
7. Trpimir Vedriš (2015), "Balkanske sklavinije i Bugarska – Hrvatska u međunarodnom kontekstu", pp. 581–608: In Serbian historiography it has become customary to speak of Dalmatian Sclavinias as parts of Serbia and on such note also newer authors write about the "unique structure of this vast state" (S. Ćirković), assuming the original unity of this area "inhabited by Serbian tribes" which would only partially disintegrate by the middle of the 10th century. In contrast, Croatian co-historians often attributed to them belonging to the Croatian state. However, one-sided attempts to determine the ethnicity of these Slavs often did not take into account all the complexity and multilayered identities, which lead to the conclusion that in the early Middle Ages on the eastern Adriatic coast "Slavic populations differentiated into more than two ethnogenetic cores" (N. Budak ) ... That is how Skylitzes calls Dukljane as Serbs, and Kekaumenos writes about the Duklja ruler Vojislav that "Travunian is a Serb". Skylitzes and Joannes Zonaras are obviously confusing or equating Serbs and Croats in Dukla. Mihajlo Devolski calls the inhabitants of Duklja Croats. Writing about the anti-Byzantine uprising of 1072, Nicifor Brijenije clearly distinguishes Croats and Dukljani from the Macedonian Slavs. Finally, Anna Komnene calls the subjects of the Dukljan rulers Mihajlo, Bodin and Vukan as Dalmatians. Based on this, it can be concluded that "the allegations of Byzantine writers do not allow the equating of the inhabitants of Duklja in the 11th and 12th centuries with either Serbs or Croats".

Serbian historiography

1. Relja Novaković, "Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII do XII veka: Zaključak i rezime monografije" (1981): The author of this book already believes that there are certain signs from which it can be inferred that the original Slavic population of Duklja (Zeta), Bosnia and Raška was not of the same origin as the Slavic population in Porphyrogenitus' "present" or "baptized Serbia". It could have been very similar, but not identical. The fact is that the earliest and most authoritative source does not say anything about the origin of the inhabitants of Duklja, Bosnia and Raška, although it writes about them four centuries after the immigration of those Slavs to their then lands. The fact that Serbs are mentioned in later history in these areas does not necessarily mean that their original Slavic inhabitants are of the same origin as those in coastal Serbian lands and in "present-day Serbia ("baptized Serbia"). The name of Serbia and Serbs could have expanded. Therefore, we must remain reserved until we find out something more reliable.
2. Tibor Živković, "On the northern borders of Serbia in the early middle ages" (2001), p. 11: Porphyrogenitus calls the tribes in Zahumlje, Pagania, Travunija and Konavle as Serbs,28 separating in the process their political from ethnic identity.29 This interpretation is probably not the happiest because for Mihailo Višević, prince of Zahumlje, he says that he is originally from the Vistula of the Liciki family,30 and that river is too far away from the area of White Serbs and where should be expected first White Croats. This is the first indication that the Serbian tribe may have been at the head of a larger alliance of Slavic tribes that came to the Balkan Peninsula with them and under their supreme leadership of the Serbian Unknown Archon.
3. Živković, Portraits of Serbian Rulers: IX-XII Century (2006), p. 60: Data on the family origin of Mihailo Višević indicate that his family did not belong to a Serbian or Croatian tribe, but to another Slavic tribe who lived along the Vistula River and who joined the Serbs during the migration during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The introduction of Mihajlo Višević and his family by Porphyrogenitus suggests that the rulers of Zahumlje until his time belonged to this ruling family, so that, both in Serbia and Croatia, and in Zahumlje, there would be a very early established principle of inheriting power by members of one family. Constantine Porphyrogenitus explicitly calls the inhabitants of Zahumlje Serbs who have settled there since the time of Emperor Heraclius, but we cannot be certain that the Travunians, Zachlumians and Narentines in the migration period to the Balkans really were Serbs or Croats or Slavic tribes which in alliance with Serbs or Croats arrived in the Balkans. The emperor-writer says that all these principalities are inhabited by Serbs, but this is a view from his time, when the process of ethnogenesis had already reached such a stage that the Serbian name became widespread and generally accepted throughout the land due to Serbia's political domination. Therefore, it could be concluded that in the middle of the 10th century the process of ethnogenesis in Zahumlje, Travunija and Paganija was probably completed, because the emperor's informant collected data from his surroundings and transferred to Constantinople the tribal sense of belonging of the inhabitants of these archons. p. 61 The Byzantine writings on the De Ceremoniis, which were also written under the patronage of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, listed the imperial orders to the surrounding peoples. The writings cite orders from the archons of Croats, Serbs, Zahumljani, Kanalites, Travunians, Duklja and Moravia. The above-mentioned orders may have originated at the earliest during the reign of Emperor Theophilus (829 - 842) and represent the earliest evidence of the political fragmentation of the South Slavic principalities, that is, they confirm their very early formation. It is not known when Zahumlje was formed as a separate principality. All the news that Constantine Porphyrogenitus provides about this area agrees that it has always been so - that is, since the seventh-century settlement in the time of Emperor Heraclius. It is most probable that the prefects in the coastal principalities recognized the supreme authority of the Serbian ruler from the very beginning, but that they aspired to become independent, which took place according to the list of orders preserved in the book De Ceremoniis, no later than the first half of the 9th century. A falsified and highly controversial papal charter from 743 also mentions Zahumlje and Travunija as separate areas. If the basic information about these countries were correct, it would mean that they formed as very early principalities that were practically independent of the archon of Serbia.
4. Živković, De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: A Lost Source (2012), p. 195: it was stated in the DAI that the Serbs had been baptized much earlier, and therefore, the Pagans could not have belonged to the Serb tribe. There is information in chapter 32, that the Serbs controlled Pagania in ca. 895, during the rule of the Archon Peter, and from this political situation Constantine would have been able to write that the Pagans belonged to the Serbian tribe. [and other pages]
5. Živković, "Arentani - an Example of Identity Examination in the Early Middle Ages" (2012), p. 12–13: The geographical position of the Neretvans, ie Paganians, often imposed the opinion in science that they were Croats, which was especially used to deny their affiliation with the Serbian tribe - which is explicitly stated by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.7 In this case, there can be no question of the existence of any Serbian or Croatian identity outside the political framework of their principalities. In fact, the ethnic moment is completely subordinated to the political one, so the formation of the tribal states of the South Slavs is a consequence of political development, not some independent development of ethnic / tribal consciousness.8 In other words, when discussing the principality of Neretva, its territory, and the tribal affiliation of its inhabitants, one should first of all examine how the formation of these principalities as political beings came about.9
6. Živković, "New Interpretations of Data about South Slavic Gentes from the De Administrando Imperio of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus 944-959" (2012), p. 204: Thus, the phase of DAI research after the Second World War was directed, as far as the Belgrade Byzantine school is concerned, by persistently defending the credibility of Porphyrogenitus' story about the migration of Serbs and Croats (Ferjančić, Maksimović, along with Croatian authors - Katičić, Suić). Novaković, Ćirković),45 and the least to the criticism of the news from DAI, with complete denial, but also ignorance/lack of knowledge of the entire DAI. To this day, this concept has remained as a trademark of Serbian Byzantine studies, at least in the part in which it deals with Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his work.46 [46 Komatina 2010 ... as if time had stopped, more than 150 years ago. In the same plane, repetition, without research, remains the youngest representative of the Belgrade Byzantine school, Babić 2011] p. 204 The end of an era in the study of DAI was also marked at the beginning of the new millennium. This area is not only calendar-friendly for historians, but, due to circumstances, a new methodological approach opens up space for new interpretations. New authors appear, with new perceptions of the identity model in the early Middle Ages, as well as openness to the intersection of related disciplines - archeology and ethnology with history and classical philology. First of all, we should keep in mind three authors: Florin Curta, Danijel Džino and Mladen Ančić p. 206-207 How can historians who deal with the early Middle Ages in Dalmatia or Illyricum be sure of their interpretations today, and how much can they be? I leave this question undecided, with the caveat that I can point out the choice of some authors who, in my opinion, are more reliable, more willing, more open to new approaches, new methodologies. Among archaeologists, Maja Petrinec and her important book on early medieval cemeteries in Croatia should be singled out;70 but also a young assistant from the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb, Goran Bilogrivić.71 There is another young force in the field of art history, Ivan Basić, who has already shown great ability to critically analyze sources.72 From Russia is the young Denis Alimov who also deals with Dalmatia in the early Middle Ages, as well as issues of ethnogenesis in a meticulous way.73 So from Croatia, as it seems, first and foremost should be expected new advances in Porphyrogenitology. Finally, those who are less inclined to adopt new ideas, hypotheses, and analyses always have solid authors to rely on for many years to come - Neven Budak,74 the well-known John Fine,75 Hervig Wolfram,76 Walter Pohl,77 and Ivo Goldstein.78
7. Sima Ćirković, The Serbs (2004), p. 12–13: The regions occupied by the Serbian tribe in karst basins suitable for agriculture between the Dinaric Alps and the Adriatic coast gave rise to the principalities of the Neretljani (between the Cetina and Neretva rivers), Zahumljani (from the Neretva River and the Dubrovnik hinterland), and Travunians (from the Dubrovnik hinterland to the Gulf of Kotor). In their immediate vicinity was the principality of Dukljani in the valleys of the Zeta and Morača rivers, from the Gulf of Kotor to Bojana River. The continental side of the principality bordered on the vast territory where the name of the Serbian tribe was preserved ... The single structure of this vast principality did not last long. By the middle of the tenth century the shape of the land of Bosnia was clearly evident within it, in the area of the river of the same name. It was later to expand and develop independently.
8. Predrag Komatina, "Идентитет Дукљана према De administrando imperio" (2014), p. 33: 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. Based on the analysis of various segments of the emperor’s narrative on the South Slavs, we come to the conclusion that he considered Diocletians to be Serbs also, although he nowhere explicitly recorded that. p. 43 The fact is that the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus does not point out that Diocletians were Serbs in the 35th chapter of the De administrando imperio, contrary to what he says concerning other tribes of the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast – Zachlumi, Trebouniotes and Kanalites and Pagani (Arentani), as well as that he does not mention Diocleia in the 32nd chapter among the countries settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, but only „what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites.“ Because of that it remained unclear whether he considered them Serbs or not. Based on the analysis of different segments of his narrative on South Slavs of Dalmatia in the chapters 29–36 of the DAI, we could reach the answer to that question. At first, Porphyrogenitus divides South Slav Dalmatia primarily into Croatia and Serbia. Regarding that division, Diocleia was part of Serbia. When he relates the earliest history of the South Slavs of Dalmatia, he knows only of Croats and Serbs. Even when he emphasises their division into Croats, Serbs, Zachlumi, Terbouniotes and Kanalites, Diocletians and Pagani, the division into Croats and Serbs was primary to him. In that context also Diocletians belonged to the Serbs. Porphyrogenitus does not record Serb origin of Diocletians in the 35th chapter because he did not mention Diocleia among the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled Serbs in the 32ndchapter. However, the omission of Diocleia in the list of the countries settled by the Serbs at that point is not a prove that he was aware that they were not Serbs. At that point he just failed to follow strictly to his principle of listing countries and peoples in detail, to which he usually follows at other places in his works. Finally, even though he does not mention Diocleia by name listing the countries in which the emperor Heraclius settled the Serbs in the 32nd chapter, he nevertheless bears it in mind at that place also. That is attested by the information that those were the countries from which the Avars had previously expelled the Romani, who in Porphyrogenitus’ times lived in the theme of Dalmatia and the theme of Dyrrachium. That is the only place in the whole of the DAI that the emperor-author mentions the Romani in the theme of Dyrrachium and he does that exactly because he believed that they originated from the territories settled by the Serbs during the reign of the emperor Heraclius, the territories which in every sense must have encompassed Diocleia, which lied in the immediate vicinity.
9. [etc. viewpoint already described above but feel free to add]

Survey

• We have an obligation to represent major views, regardless of national origin. The views of international scholars are not necessarily authoritative based on their diversity of origin alone. Likewise, those views that are prominent in Serbian and Croatian scholarship are not necessarily authoritative either. I recognize that this is an area in which we often see disruption, particularly in the form of ethnonationalism. We should therefore attribute views to specific sources where they conflict with those from other sources. So as to not create a false balance, we should also grant more weight to those views that are shared among the largest numbers of reliable sources. For example, if there is a significant minority viewpoint that the people of Zachlumia are or were ethnic Serbs, then we should attribute that viewpoint to the scholars that agree with it; if the majority view is different, then we should write more about the majority view before mentioning the minority viewpoint. I hope that answers the question in the RfC. If you have something more specific to ask, then please ask that directly. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to have started when Theonewithreason reverted Miki Filigranski (previously known as Crovata I believe?) with [1], and MF is restricted to no reversions because of some previous abuse. The revert seems to be largely non-sensical because De Administrando Imperio is a primary source for which there's been plenty of secondary sources trying to analyze it and make sense of it all. I don't know if MF's grasp of secondary sources is entirely accurate or inclusive enough, but it certainly seems more plausible than harping on a phrasing from the primary source. I had a quick look at [2] and it's a mess already, and I seem to recall at least one discussion where I interacted with them and they were breaking WP:ARBMAC in some form, but I can't recall right now where it was, will have to look into it. It's not exactly my first choice to have controversial points of articles addressed primarily by two users with a very problematic history of editing, so let's leave this discussion open to see if anything fruitful comes from it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Many articles managed to reach a certain good point of neutrality (for example Duklja, Narentines, Zachlumia, Travunija, Kanalites, Serbia in the Middle Ages). However, few articles on Serbian rulers like this or Vlastimir remain for some reason a battleground for some editors pushing a viewpoint mostly held by Serbian historiography by ignoring/removing viewpoints found in both Serbian and other international scientific literature - specifically regarding the ethnic identity and origin of people of mentioned South Slavic principalities for some of which in DAI is stated to be Serbian.

In short, as asserted by the Croatian historians Aničić, Vedriš, and others in the same fashion the most notable modern Serbian historian and Byzantinist, Tibor Živković, who a great portion of his career studied DAI and wrote many papers and books on it, emphasized that the Serbian historiography and modern representatives like Komatina, extensively cited on Serbian-related articles, are uncritically stuck in the nationalist 19th-mid 20th century framework. He highly regarded modern Croatian historiography and historians on the topic of DAI, considering them reliable for a long period of time, including those which were cited in the article or here (Budak, Bilogrivić, Goldstein, Pohl, Fine). In comparison to part of Serbian historians, those representing Croatian historiography share long-held critical viewpoints with older (Dvornik) and newer (Whittow, Heather, Curta) international historians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This is an extremely verbose and unclear RfC. I appreciate the effort that you put into formulating it, but I ask that you please reword the RfC statement to a brief, neutral question or statement about the issue per WP:RFCBRIEF. You asked Which of the following viewpoints is in the majority and has more scientific weight? Therefore, please also include a neutrally worded summary of each viewpoint that you are seeking consensus on below the RfC statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: thanks for the input, will make a change. Basically, the quotes are provided so the editors can read them and by reading them reach a conclusion on which of the viewpoints is in the majority, has more weight, is scientifically more modern and what valid reason we have to ignore/remove from citing Croatian and other international sources which interpret DAI critically with scientific methods. It is a complex issue so it's a bit difficult to make it very brief but hope it is more clear now --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: yes, thank you very much for your survey comment. All quoted historians and scholars are authorative and very reliable as sources for the topic in question. If possible can you read all the provided quotes and add to your comment your opinion what's the most recurring theme on specific issues about ethnic and political identity, origin, migration, capacity to settle all these lands, whether the identity events refer to the 7th or 10th century and so on? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would choose not to use either Komatina nor Ančić, but would use Serbian: T.Živković, Croatia: N.Budak-Danijel Džino-Snježana Gregurović-Dubravka Mlinarić-Goldstein, international: Curta-Fine.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99: all quoted scholars and sources are reliable, can be used especially as a reference for a minority/majority viewpoint. I wouldn't exclude anyone Živković mentioned (Komatina and Ančić included). Can you cite titles and possibly quotes by Gregurović and Mlinarić? Are they any different from other cited Croatian historians? Anyway, it would be welcome to have your opinion in the Survey section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just a suggestion, they can all be used with a certain amount of care, as it is always the case with historians and historiography (no empirical evidence :-) unfortunately). Maybe later, I am momentarily preoccupied with writing something (a report, which needs diffs, time, etc.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem, have a pleasant writing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: for clarification, this is not a dispute resolution between two editors as the RfC is connected to the discussions above ("DAI" and "Original research, out of context and information for Duklja article") from a year ago, as well as those from other linked article talk pages, but a good part of the editors became blocked or sanctioned in the process and over the years. See also Talk:Narentines/Archive 4#Re: Porphyrogenitos- You'll have to get another consensus happening on the talk page. discussion from 2008. I wish this RfC consensus is a recent upgrade to that. Yes and I am restricted to 1RR. The only way to resolve this issue isn't edit-warring and endless ethnotionalist discussions. They are bringing us nowhere. The only way is with a solid consensus which would apply for all linked articles and of course to be based on verifiable and reliable sources and not our personal, unprofessional and especially not nationalist opinions. The editor Theonewithreason, who previously participated and now is seemingly doing anything but constructively participating, continued what was started a year ago by other Serbian editors (see for example your reply to Sadko at Narentines talk page and AN report about this article, this and other talk pages of linked articles). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's that whole kerfuffle. OK, so I would lose the excess aspersions against Theonewithreason because it's only been 10 days and you didn't actually ping them here on Talk to notify them, so it's not entirely unreasonable that they just missed it after the earlier revert. At the same time, I now checked, and saw that they actually three days ago filed a new SPI report against you and Croatian Telecom IP address and invoking diffs back to 2016, so this is shaping up to be a wonderful little flamewar... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

They are following the article and talk page. I've made an edit on 6 February, Theonewithreason made a revert the same day. I've made a comment the same day on this talk page where announced starting an RfC or dispute resolution. Ten days since then, three days since the report fail, and two days since the start of RfC we still don't have a single word here by Theonewithreason. Instead of constructively participating, explaining their revert and else they were doing what? No, this RfC isn't a flamewar but exactly the opposite - an attempt and only possible way that we finish once and for all with these tireless discussions and flamewars. We desperately need a solid NPOV consensus. Some editors don't want us to have a consensus. Thankfully, almost all of the ethnonationalistic editors involved before in such discussions have been blocked and sanctioned. It's a perfect time we finally have a focused and constructive RfC consensus without it becoming a flamewar battleground. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: Although pinging Theonewithreason was necessary, that SPI is closed as evidence lacking, as far as I can tell, but it looks to me more as an attempt to shortcut through this new round of dispute-resolution discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment What we have here is a case of not using the RfC process properly. We do not "choose" and label a number of fine and reliable sources or authors as "nationalistic" because they do not agree with some other authors. We should contrast and compare. All of the quotes Serbian authors are usable. We could make different sections for various views... I would also like to say that I am very disappointed that somebody on en.wiki can start his very based RfC as if it was something normal or regular, which was already explained by another uninvolved editor. Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

User:Griboski, RfC achieved exactly consensus in the survey like other similar discussions, seems you didn't understand the point of the RfC at all. Explain how your removal of reliably sourced majority opinion, important statement regarding the topic, was substantiated by UNDUE and OVERCITE rather than other way around? How "no one is making the claim that these territories were inhabited only by ethnic Serbs" when some, mainly Serbian, historians (and even editors on Wikipedia) are using DAI (primary source) exactly to claim these territories were inhabited only by Slavs who were ethnic Serbs? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you pinged me both here and on the Early medieval Principality of Serbia talk page, I'll respond here only to avoid discussing the same issue on multiple pages. You can read the RFC as clearly as I can, right? Your proposal achieved no consensus, which means you don't have the authority to impose your edit into articles, especially since they were challenged before and you're on a one-revert rule. So, please don't make accusations that I am the one being disruptive. Also condescending posts like this on other editors' talk pages are inappropriate and can be considered WP:CANVASSING.

I removed your addition because yes, I felt it was undue. The text in the article states that these areas were inhabited by Serbs. It doesn't say they were exclusively inhabited by Serbs. What some Serbian editors or historians think, who aren't cited in the article, is irrelevant. In fact, I kept the previous paragraph you added which mentions that the Serbs arrived and assimilated the larger indigenous Slavic population. That makes it clear that the populations living in these territories at this time were mostly not ethnically Serb but were ruled by Serb tribes. Griboski (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the edits forcing pro-Serbian viewpoint are constantly challenged and have no consensus. Wow, you "felt it was undue" (WP:GAMING), ignoring that the edit was fixing the mess Theonewithreason edited five months ago. Your reasoning implies as if we don't know what's written in DAI - what a joke. Now you removed the part about Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia etc., implying that there's no need anymore for inclusion of the important scholarship viewpoint although it is directly related to it and you still talk about "these territories". Which territories, can you answer please? Interesting change of approach which is still doing the same bloody thing - forcing to not mention anything regarding the controversy of ethnic origin in DAI. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Challenging an edit is gaming the system? More bad-faith accusations aren't a good look. "Pro-Serbian viewpoint" and "mess" are your personal opinions. The second paragraph of the background section which discusses the "inhabited cities" of Serbia say nothing about ethnicity. You are the one who is looking to include a discussion on the ethnic origin of the inhabitants of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia when the previous paragraph already states that the Serb rulers assimilated the previous Slavic settlers. Interestingly, it's established that both Serbs and Croats ruled over Slavs who assimilated and only later came to identify as those ethnic labels in the modern sense, but you are only adding this "ethnic controversy" about the DIA to Serbia-related pages. It would be nice if you could explain how this is due and also be civil and respect consensus. Griboski (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You call this "challenging"? You still didn't provide a single valid reasoning (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). You claim that the second paragraph said nothing about ethnicity and I am the one who is looking to include a discussion on the ethnic origin of the inhabitants, although secondary sources know and state very well that the claim these territories were inhabited by Serbs is based on scientifically controversial "ethnic information" from DAI? Where is the sentence in previous paragraph that the Serb rulers assimilated the previous Slavic settlers? Please, show me in the old revision prior to my edits:

The history of the early medieval Serbian Principality and the Vlastimirović dynasty is recorded in the work De Administrando Imperio ("On the Governance of the Empire", DAI), compiled by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (r. 913–959). The DAI drew information on the Serbs from, among others, a Serbian source.[1] The work mentions the first Serbian ruler, who is without a name but known conventionally as the "Unknown Archon", who led the Serbs from the north to the Balkans. He received the protection of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), and was said to have died long before the Bulgar invasion of 680.[2] Slavs invaded and settled the Balkans in the 6th and 7th centuries.[3][c] Porphyrogenitus stressed that the Serbs had always been under Imperial rule.[4] His account on the first Christianization of the Serbs can be dated to 632–638; this might have been Porphyrogenitus' invention, or may have really taken place, encompassing a limited group of chiefs and then very poorly received by the wider layers of the tribe.[5]

According to the DAI, "baptized Serbia", known erroneously in historiography as Raška (Latin: Rascia),[6] included the "inhabited cities" (kastra oikoumena) of Destinikon, Tzernabouskeï, Megyretous, Dresneïk, Lesnik and Salines, while the "small land" (chorion) of Bosna, part of Serbia, had the cities of Katera and Desnik.[7][failed verification] The other Serb-inhabited lands, or principalities, that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunija.[7][8][9][10] and the "land" of Duklja which was held by the Byzantine empire though it was presumably settled with Serbs as well.[11][12][13][14] Constantine VII in DAI does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable conclusion about the origin of the Slavic inhabitants of Duklja.[6][15] These were all situated by the Adriatic and shared their northern borders (in the hinterland) with baptized Serbia.[7] The exact borders of the early Serbian state are unclear.[6] The Serbian ruler was titled "archon of Serbia".[d] The DAI mentions that the Serbian throne is inherited by the son, i.e., the first-born; his descendants succeeded him, though their names are unknown until the coming of Višeslav.[16]

Your claim about "...the Serbs arrived and assimilated the larger indigenous Slavic population. That makes it clear that the populations living in these territories at this time were mostly not ethnically Serb but were ruled by Serb tribes" is your own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Both ethnic origin and ethnic identity in 7th and 10th century mentioned in DAI are related but separate controversial issues. We cannot deal with both of them in a single manner as you did by avoiding to mention major mainstream opinion. Regarding the "ethnic controversy", to remind you, I majorly edited the article on Slavs in Lower Pannonia which neutrally dealt with pro-Croatian ethnic identity of the Lower Pannonian principality and Slavic population (merging the "Duchy of Pannonian Croatia"). I already explained how this is DUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The burden rests on those wishing to add content, on a GA no-less, and it's not original research. I was referring to the additions you made here and here which I retained but edited and is now in the first paragraph. Which goes with the annotation C in the article about the 7th century: "The numerous Slavs mixed with and assimilated the descendants of the indigenous population." Also corroborated by Fine p.37: ..The second of the two Slavic groups settling in the Balkans was the Serbo-Croatian Slavs.. [who] came to be dominated by two different but similar tribal peoples, called Serbs and Croats in the second quarter of the seventh century. But though subjected by a smaller military elite of true Serbs and Croats, who gave to the larger number of Slavs these new names, the masses who made up these people go back to a single group of Slavs (probably Slaveni) who settled in the Balkans during the sixth and early seventh centuries. --Griboski (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The burden is also on those who are challenging to bring forth valid arguments & editing policies which you didn't bring none. I fixed section which wasn't GA. Yes, it is original research and synthesis on your side because you fail to understand that the information in DAI about both ethnic origin and identity and both 7th and 10th century are separate, but related controversial topics, while the migration and whether arrived as military elite another topic. What is said by Fine, although can be rightly cited, doesn't counter argue nor explain the issue of ethnic origin and identity mentioned in DAI, on what is based sentence "Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast.[10]", "Serb-inhabited" and so on. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The same, but even worse, goes for the section at the article "Principality of Serbia (early medieval)" which still includes sentence "The other Serb-inhabited lands (or principalities) that were mentioned included the "countries" of Paganija, Zahumlje and Travunija,[19][21] while the "land" of Duklja was held by the Byzantines (it was presumably settled with Serbs as well).", without major secondary explanation which yours isn't because it is advancing, implying, a pro-Serbian viewpoint against NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Is the argument about the content removed here? Sorry, it's a bit hard to understand from the discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Alaexis: yes.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm copy-pasting the sentence in question with the removed part in bold.

“ Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast, but a closer reading of the DAI suggests that Constantine VII's consideration about the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century and does not indicate ethnic origin. ”

I think that saying "but a closer reading suggests" might be WP:SYNTH as it makes it look like the preceding sourced statement is inaccurate. On the other hand, it does seem relevant that some scholars believe that the account in DAI reflects the situation in the 10th rather than 8th century. Maybe something like this would work:

“ Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast.[Fine] Some historians suggest that Constantine VII's consideration about the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century.[Dvornik][Curta] ”

Two good sources should be enough - there is no reason to have six. ¿question? 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources question the accuracy of the primary source and make the exact conclusion so there's no SYNTH, but agree with your viewpoint and wording, except would add at the end "...and does not indicate ethnic origin" because that's central issue - the ethnic identity in the primary source is claimed on basis of supposed ethnic origin since 7th century and not political background, while academic secondary sources conclude exactly the opposite that the ethnic identity and origin claims for 7-10th century are actually based on political circumstances of 10th century when was written the primary source (DAI). I would keep six or more sources so editors don't question its WEIGHT but grouped in a single reference for easier readability. Thanks for your input. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you think about the following version? @Griboski:

“ Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast.[Fine] Some historians questioned the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia in the 8th century saying that it is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century.[Dvornik][Curta] ”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you think it's due, I think it's ok but we should make it clear it's based on their interpretation of the DAI. Something like "Based on their reading of the DIA, some historians regard Constantine VII's consideration about the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia as reflecting Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century and not an indication of ethnic origin". This seems to be what the sources are saying. I also think 8 citations is overkill, 3 or 4 should be enough. --Griboski (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to the content, I think that I would write it a bit differently

“ Certain groups possibly crossed the Dinarides and reached the Adriatic coast.[Fine] Some historians questioned the Serbian ethnic identity of the population of Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia in the 8th century saying that it is based on Serbian political rule during the time of Časlav in the 10th century when DAI was written.[Dvornik][Curta] ”

As far as I can see there is no major disagreement regarding the content so I think you can take it from here. Alaexis_¿question? 18:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)