Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava

On the redirect "Humska zemlja" and its proper targeting

Since the endonymic term "Humska zemlja" (English: Land of Hum) refers to the historical region of Hum (Zahumlje) that is covered in the article Zachlumia, it would be proper that the redirect Humska zemlja should also point to that article. For some reason, user Santasa99 insists that redirect Humska zemlja should point to article on the Duchy of Saint Sava, a 15th century feudal polity whose territorial scope was much wider, and included not only Hum (Humska zemlja), but also several other historical regions (such as: Primorje, Travunija, Podrinje, Polimlje). Since the region of Hum (Humska zemlja) or Zahumlje has its own article (Zachlumia) that covers the entire history of that medieval region, there is no justification for the present targeting of Humska zemlja to this article here (Duchy of Saint Sava). It would be interesting to hear the views of other users on this problem, particularly in light of the recent disruption on Wikidata by the same user. Those problems can also be resolved by initiation of RfD procedures. Sorabino (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Should “Duchy of St Sava” be an article or a redirect?

Joy and I have asked very similar questions: here, here, here, and here. To re-cap:

• The current content has little about this Duchy and is primarily about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača.
• The modern secondary sources linked to on this page and in Google books have sparse cursory references to it. It doesn’t appear to have a substantive historiography. (Per WP:PRIMARY can we stop referring to primary sources and also sources from the 1920s or the 19th century are of little interest.)
• I’ve asked several times what is the sourced content that’s to be added to turn it into a proper article and not yet got a credible answer.
• I fully understand EdJohnston’s position on halting editing on the article until editors on this page can engage in a constructive way. In the meantime, I would suggest that any editor who thinks this should be more than a redirect should create a sandbox of what a “proper” version of this article should look like so that a genuine assessment can be made. If they’re not able to do that, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t become a redirect.

Oh, and I hope I don’t get another Wall of Text with the same links which I’ve already opened earlier on in this talk page. I’m only enquiring whether anyone is willing to set out their proposed text with sources (and avoiding WP:SYNTH) in a sandbox. DeCausa (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect - I agree with DeCausa. Circling around the "Duchy" - beating around the bush, if you prefer - with sources that have only cursory mentions in all of them provided by editors who advocate for it, only wastes everybody's time and energy, and no matter for how long they were argued and how many time repeated, or how hard advocated, nothing will ever make those sources an adequate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: User DeCausa, thanks for creating this section, and emphasizing the need for further and substantial improvements of this article, as a necessary requirement for its very survival. Fortunately, now when user Santasa99 has finally expressed his strong preference for the abolition of this article, a clearer assessment can be made on all those moves from title to title and removals of referenced contents that occurred during past two or three months. If administrator EdJohnston would agree, we could start to improve this article, by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. Sorabino (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. DeCausa (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorabino, stop policing editors viewpoints and arguments, and stop reinventing new ways of diversion with new sections (WP:SATISFY), just try to respond to these questions by Joy an DeCausa, and try to respect deCausa's query.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Three-layered subject of the article

The subject of this article, as defined by its title (Duchy of Saint Sava) has three distinctive layers, well founded in historical sources, and covered in historiography, both older and modern:

1. First layer encompasses the origin, creation and use of late medieval and early modern feudal title “Duke of Saint Sava” (Latin: Dux Sancti Sabbae), first by early rulers of this 15th century feudal polity, and then by exiled members of the Kosača dynasty and their descendants, that were recognized under that title both in the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Republic of Venice.

2. Second layer encompasses the creation and development of the Duchy of Saint Sava, as a late medieval feudal polity that existed from 1448 to 1482, including the development of its territorial scope, and its relations with the Kingdom of Bosnia, and several neighbouring countries, such as: Republic of Venice, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Naples, Ottoman Empire, Serbian Despotate , Principality of Zeta, and the Habsburg Monarchy.

3. Third layer encompasses the legacy of this ducal polity, particularly during the early modern period, from the 16th to 18th centuries, within geopolitical rivalries and relations between the Republic of Venice and the Habsburg Monarchy, including specific forms of cultural legacy as reflected in the early modern diplomatics and cartography of the region.

At this point, there is at least a hundred (if not more) scholarly works that can be used for the creation of additional contents on all three subjects, as mentioned above. Most of those articles are written by contemporary Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin authors, but also by various foreign experts for the late medieval and early modern history of the region. Sorabino (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to stop with these diatribes and simply provide sources for your WP:Extraordinary claims. All of this here right now amounts to egregious WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Gaming the system. I have been very tolerant, literally for a decade now, as evidenced by this very talk page top. The parallel 'Great Khaan' abuser has pushed us to protect more and more, but this whole pointless conflict has started to become just a meaningless drain on our collective resources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Joy, as stated above, I am working on creating additional content, in order to improve this article, and cover all relevant questions within its thematic scope. Also, I am hoping that administrator EdJohnston would continue to advise us on procedural issues, since it seems that we are currently stuck in these discussions. Regarding your mention of WP:Extraordinary claims, I guess that such qualification would be quite proper for several claims of user Santasa99, who insists that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist, and also claims that this ducal title is not relevant enough to have an article, not to mention his theory that "Humska zemlja" is something else than historical region of Hum (Zahumlje), that is properly covered in general article on the region in question (Zachlumia). Do you agree with user Santasa99 on those points? Sorabino (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Good job. On experienced administrator's harsh criticism, who also perceives WP:Gaming the system, you ping me with an obvious attempt to suck me into another round of already argued-to-death matter. Well done.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99, you are right in observing that these discussions are very long, but here are two very clear conclusions that resulted from them, so far:

1. Not a single participant in these discussions supported your first claim that this 15th century feudal polity somehow did not exist.

2. Not a single participant in these discussions supported your second claim that "Humska zemlja" is something else than historical region of Hum (Zahumlje). Here on English Wikipedia, that subject is quite properly covered in the general article on Zachlumia.

Unfortunately, those Wikipedia:Fringe theories of yours are the main cause of problems related to this article during past three months, not to mention the fact that on several occasions you explicitelly refused to provide any scholarly sources for those claims. Since you recently reviled, after all those moves and removals of referenced contents, that your true position is to abolish this article (above), it seems that administrators should allow users who are interested in improving this article to continue with adding new and scholarly referenced content, as suggested by several participants in these discussions. Sorabino (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

So, are we done here by now? In the meantime I remembered we actually have another similar article - King of Rama - but there we don't beat around the bush and pretend that apples are oranges, and instead just state the simple facts, and leave any further elaboration of any related minutiae for the linked articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joy:, I am with User:DeCausa on this issue, I fully agree with their assessment from the above post. As a solution DeCausa proposed a redirect to the article Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, which I significantly expanded and proposed for GA (pending review), however, the article Herzegovina is another suitable candidate for redirect. On the other hand, any changes to the article as it is, which might or might not, perhaps improve it (I still don't see how, and Stjepan's article is good place to look up why) into something coherent (including the title and context), are beyond my reach despite my interest into this topic, as Sorabino and I agreed with EdJohnston, as result of the last “ANI”, not to edit.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we restarting those discussions again? Since no consensus was reached here in previous discussions, it would be quite unfortunate to restart those disputes again, in the same manner. I was also hoping that we might get some advice from administrator EdJohnston on further steps, particularly in relation to further edits and additions. During past few weeks, I gathered many additional sources, that can be used to expand and improve this article, but I don′t want to make any unilateral changes. Sorabino (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So, Sorabino, it's okay for you that the title remain Duchy of St Sava? As is? That was a dirty trick, not gonna lie. --Mhare (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The idea is to use Sandbox, and when you are finished ping us so that we can see the result.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Creation of additional content, that would expand and improve this article, is not the main problem here. The lack of consensus on several major issues is the main obstacle, that remains unresolved. Some advice from administrators that are monitoring this talk page would be more than welcome at this point, in order to avoid circular recurrence of old disputes. Sorabino (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

reference to Miller 1923

I noticed today how the first reference in the article is to a book that says:

The "Duchy of St. Sava"

hence with scary quotes in the source. This is a bit of a travesty of WP:V - if the purportedly best sources themselves don't treat this as a proper name but as something that needs to be quoted, this article should describe that, as opposed to use it in some sort of a WP:SOAPBOX manner. --Joy (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What can we do about it? There are fewer and fewer editors interested in these topics (Bosnia and its history in particular) - even my reply to your latest post here is two months belated, and most of my focus is directed to the mentioned topic area. You probably already know my stance on this article, and that I would prefer it fixed or merged, or whatever you had or have in mind, under condition that you are still interested - it doesn't have to be dealt with straight away, anyway. The article is almost entirely based on feeble if not entirely flawed argument; it was/is grounded in really feeble sources too, like the one you pointed out; it was moved and rewritten without consensus, while rejecting real sources and historiography completely (the fact that ex-YU historians, of both YU and post-YU era, never mentioned this construct, had no relevance in decision to retitle and rewrite article giving it, for all intents and purposes, a new (baseless) scope); also, a whole mess is created of up to dozens, if not more redirect pages, just to prevent any move from this figment of imagination and a soapbox to more reality-based title and scope. If you are now or whenever you get interested to give it a try, please ping me as I am open for suggestions and eager to fix it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which sources are relevant for you? You have Britannica up there, as well as Vatican sources and many others. In this regard, I am interested - which sources carry weight for you if you do not find the aforementioned ones satisfactory. 188.124.192.19 (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sima Ćirković, Ljubomir Jovanović, Vladimir Ćorović, Marko Vego, etc, etc. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Since Marco Vego is relevant to you, let's start with him: https://books.google.ba/books?id=yoPRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Slu%C5%BEbeno+se+zemlja+zvala+Ducatus+Sancti+Sabbae%22&redir_esc=y Quote 1: "Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae" English translation: "Officially, the land was called the Duchy of Saint Sava." https://books.google.ba/books?id=7sFpAAAAMAAJ&q=%22umjesto+Hercegovina%22&redir_esc=y Quote 2: " Tako se i u stranom svijetu često spominje Vojvodstvo svetog Save Ducatus s. Sabbe ili Save umjesto Hercegovina" English translation: "Thus also in the foreign world, the Duchy of Saint Sava (Ducatus s. Sabbe or Sava) is often mentioned instead of Herzegovina)." By the way, if I'm not mistaken, this is the author and book you're referring to, thus confirming the title. If anything else is unclear, please don't hesitate to ask. I would be delighted to share my knowledge with you. I hope I helped you. Sincerely, 31.223.145.207 (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You really think I didn't know about the fact that Marko Vego used Stojanović's 133 years old claim (1890) that one(!) time in the "Naselja bosanske srednjevjekovne države" (I had discussed this book of his long before you appeared under this IP), and he never again repeated it. Infact Vego repeats another Stojanović's blunder and says that title existed much earlier, even before Stjepan Kosača. Marko Vego is good source of references, and just like any other author on history, he will always be useful, until editors like you dig something out that neither he nor anyone else repeated it ever again ! (I assume that you have been digging through all these authors which I mentioned but you could only find that small remark in Vego's book which needs another proper research for confirmation, for reasons I explained. You probably don't know but Vego also claimed that Slavic tribe called Bosna probably existed and inhabited Bosnia, but you won't see me going around making that same claim in wiki voice while using him for reference. Vego is good, he is useful, until he's not, and that claim is never repeated by him nor anyone else ever again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you maybe not have read the books you referenced. It's possible that those outside of this scientific field may not be familiar with the terminology in historical sources and historiography. However, just because something is unfamiliar to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For instance, have you heard of the butterfly species Graphium Agraulis vanillae? While not part of your field, it is a very real and vibrant species. Regarding the "Stojanović blunder" you mentioned, could you provide the exact citation and page numbers, as well as the author's full name? I would appreciate further clarification on this matter. 31.223.145.207 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I won't provide anything, and I am not interested in your assessment of my abilities and knowledge - keep your opinion of me to yourself. You have been blocked twice from editing English Wikipedia over this same issue, and you have returned again to make same futile arguments you have made sometime just over a year ago. Vego is not enough in this case, and that's a simple matter of following verifiability guidelines, which you did not bothered to read back then, and I do not expect that you are going to read it now. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to draw attention to the fact that the user "Santa" is, to say the least, telling untruths. Santa Says: "You really think I didn't know about the fact that Marko Vego used Stojanović's 133 years old claim (1890) that one(!) time in the "Settlements of Bosnian medieval states"....and he never again repeated it." This is not true. Marco Vego also mentions "Ducatus Sancti Sabae" in his other works. I am listing here only what I can think of at the moment. One study is from 1957 and another from 1982 (in other words, his last book). So he had enough time to change his mind, but he didn't. Naselja srednjovekovne bosanske države, Sarajevo 1957. (Settlements of the medieval Bosnian state, Sarajevo in 1957.) Postanak srednjovjekovne bosanske države, Sarajevo 1982. (The emergence of the medieval Bosnian state, Sarajevo 1982.) 79.143.161.75 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The first priority for you would be to stop socking in block evasion, that's a rather serious impediment for anyone who wishes to press on matter of ethical editing. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Duchy of St. Sava is referred to as such in Il Regno dei Slavi (The Reign of the Slavs), by the widely cited Dubrovnik chronicler, Mavro Orbini. A Croatian translation of the work can be found here. see page 440. I somewhat agree that this article should perhaps be part of the Hum or Herzegovina articles, but then again the [Banovina of Croatia], which existed in history for all of 1 year and 8 months, also got its own article, probably for similar Balkan nationalistic reasons.Thhhommmasss (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Each of the administrative banovinas in Yugoslavia got their own article, but none of them should pretend they're anything other than subdivisions. The issue here has largely been the fact that we don't have similar level of standalone articles on the realms of other medieval lords like this one. A comparable example might be Hrvoje Vukčić who claimed the titles of Duke of Split, Herzog of Split yet nobody tries to make it into a WP:SOAPBOX like this. --Joy (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Thhhommmasss, @Joy; problem with this article is in cherry picked sources, which are unacceptably weak to the point of irrelevance. This (bogus) name (and all the connotations such usage infer) for the land is complete invention by few laymen interpreter of medieval history of Hum. References used in article span from one primary Latin source (exonym) to few centuries' old secondary one like this Orbini's; there is one Stojanović's. The point is - no modern scholarship uses this name for the Land of Hum nor does it infer some special status on whatever basis; it can't be found in Jovanović's work on Stjepan Vukčić and his realm, nor in Stjepan Vukčić's biography by Sima Ćirković, which is most important one on the subject. Not to mention inflated significance of the title Herceg of St. Sava by laymen and nationalist interpreter, all of which is not only absent from Ćirković's "Stjepan Vukčić's" bio but is dismissed by the author as "hardly significant" (pg.272). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's true that a quick google revealed few recent sources referencing the Duchy. Yet the Dubrovnik chronicler, Orbini, uses it in his first sentence on Stjepan's domain, which bordered Dubrovnik and made Stjepan a Dubrovnik nobleman. Given the importance of titles in those days, Orbini no doubt was careful in his nomenclature. Herzog of St. Sava is mentioned by John A. Fine, in The Late Medieval Balkans. I found this, indicating Stjepan and his son's signed with the title (p.18-20) What makes it more significant than some other titles, is that is how Hercegovina got its name. On the other hand, there is no indication Stjepan considered himself an ethnic Serb. He belonged to the Bosnian Church but had an Orthodox and Catholic priest in his court. Fine says he took on the title because the grave of St. Sava was on his lands, and the latter was considered a miracle worker by people of other faiths as well. Unlike today's nationalists, Stjepan was very tolerant (in When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans, Fine notes that before the advent of nationalism in the 19th century, many prominent citizens of Dubrovnik and Dalmatia considered themselves to be primarily Slavs, Illyrians, Dalmatians or citizens of their towns, while concepts like Croat or Serb were associated with geographical/political entities, not ethnicity)Thhhommmasss (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Orbini lived 400 years ago and is documented to have advocated for various mythological positions. It's not a secondary source comparable to the works of numerous trained historians who've lived and died since... Likewise for the link to the Diplomski rad from 2020, meaning it was made by a university student. If John V.A. Fine doesn't actually talk about the polity as the Duchy of Saint Sava, and I don't think anyone's claimed that he does, then that source also doesn't support this as a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Santasa99 can you just merge the remaining few relevant paragraphs from this article into Herzegovina#Medieval period, and redirect this there? Nothing of substance seems to have happened since the 2021 discussion where Sorabino was promising a rewrite, and it's 2024 now. --Joy (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good idea @Joy, it is about time that something is done. I will try my best and as soon as possible, maybe even today. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)