Talk:Serbia

Issue of unsourced and provisory doubling of data excluding/including Kosovo in Serbia article

User @High Ground III edited population figures in infobox adding figures including Kosovo, thus raising numerous issues:

1. the mentioned changes were made without providing any source whatsoever (not to say credible), which is contrary to the basic policy of Wikipedia.

2. broke previous consensus without trying to reach a new one on the Talk Page before making changes; changes such as those have occurred from time to time and each time consensus on the Talk Page was reached to stick to the figures from the 2011 Serbian census, ie an updated estimate (based on that 2011 census) with a clear note "excluding Kosovo". Last discussions about this on the Talk Page were held on March 13 and November 13 2018, and both times the position was held as to go with the official figure with the note "excluding Kosovo" since there are no official figures for "Serbia including Kosovo" because for known reasons Serbian census couldn't be conducted in Kosovo and therefore is only correct to put official figure with note "exluding Kosovo" like was done and consensualy accepted before these last edits.

3. "manual" collection of data with providing no source and with mathematical summing of two figures in the process is neither methodologically nor encyclopedically correct. If that approach would be accepted, which above mentioned user High Ground III claims was guided by the reason of consistency and objectivity, then it poses a question: should we consequently duplicate any information with "including Kosovo" / "excluding Kosovo", even though we dont have a credible total figures for "Serbia including Kosovo"? Likewise, the infobox contains data on GDP ("excluding Kosovo", of course, because these are the only officially available data, given that Serbian institute of statistics did not perform statistical processing in Kosovo and other relevant economic organizations, IMF and WB, treat Serbia and Kosovo separately) and the HighGroundIII's approach would lead to duplication of any data, not to mention thath there are no data that have a total figure for Serbia with Kosovo, but provisory "manual" collection would have to be done.

Klačko (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Klačko, to begin, I would like to thank you for acknowledging that my rollbacks in the section regarding Kosovo's Declaration of Independence were justified. Now on to the question at hand. Firstly, I believe I did provide sources for the population, with them being Serbia's population excluding Kosovo and Kosovo's population. While the censuses might not be entirely credible due to certain groups boycotting them, they are currently viewed as credible enough to be used on both Serbia's page as well as Kosovo's. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, the population question has never been answered before on the talk page. The incident to which you were referring was one guy asking to replace Serbia's population sans Kosovo with a population including the number of Serbs in Kosovo. To clear, this is not what I am asking permission to do. I am asking to provide the numbers of Serbia's population both with and without the population of Kosovo. This is because, as a disputed territory, both numbers should be included to avoid violating Wikipedia's policy on none POV. Thirdly, disagree that summing the separate population numbers is an improper way of finding the total. Population counts in any country or any multinational group of countries are done by summing the population count of their constituent territories rather than by taking a country with census or a census including the entire EU and ignoring these territories. Though I do concede that for a more encyclopedically uniform approach the data for the other figures including Kosovo would also have to be provided. High Ground lll (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi High Ground III! Let me start by informing you that biased wording about Kosovo's declaration of independence was not mine at the first place although you somehow thought it was me. I fully agree with you about that and there is a constant tendency from some, I guess, Albanian editors to change text in this article with obvious political agenda and conotation behind it (look at the last edit to the article - wording of the subtext of Milošević's picture). Now, on the topic of this discussion... In regard to sources, we need one reliable source that cites total population of Serbia including Kosovo but that is a catch22 since reliable source in this regard could only be official census data and there is not a single one census data that includes Serbia with Kosovo. Serbia couldn't conduct its census downthere and in all official data of Serbia's Institute of Statistics (not just population, but all the others statistical areas) stands footnote "excluding Kosovo and Metohija" (like it stands in this article) because they were unable to collect&process statistical data from that territory... It is, in my opinion, methodologically correct approach. Note "excluding Kosovo" gives a reader direction to do the math by himself/herself and summ the two figures if he wants to know a total but putting a "manually" constructed total figure is, again in my opinion, not only methodologically incorrect but not encyclopedicaly correct - that is why in encyclopedias and almanachs there are lots of footnotes, to explain to readers background of one particular figure, data, or sentence. Another question subsequently arises: what about ethnic, religious and linguistic structure of population (all presented in the infobox) - how would it be possible to extrapolate percentages in total population of Serbia including Kosovo, "manually"? As for the fact that Kosovo is disputed territory that Serbia considers integral part of its territory, no one denies that since it is a well known fact, and reader in this article is constantly reminded about it (at least at 15-20 different places throughout the article). EU is not a good comparation since it is not a single country but a supranational organisation which doesn't take population censuses by itself. As for more consistent and uniform approach to say, GDP data among other things, it would create similar deadend since again not a single economic organisation (both IMF and WB have Kosovo as a full-scale member and therefore provide separate data) provide total data for both Serbia and Kosovo, nor does Serbia's Institute of statistics which goes with its footnote policy "excluding Kosovo and Metohija". To summ it up, I think that footnote "excluding Kosovo" is the best way methodologically and encyclopedically to handle this. I invite others to share their opinions on this.

Klačko (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Medieval principality wasn't in the 8th century, but in the 7th century. Please correct that

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.206.103.222 (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Information from two sources

Information from RS. "Some scholars based on the claim of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus suggest that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave". English word "slave" has similar derivation, which is thought to have come from the name Slav."

• "No consensus for this WP:FRINGE". This is information from two RS. First RS speak about two groups of scholars. This second groups of scholars has its conclusions ie "that name Serb comes from the Latin servus, "servant" or "slave" (based on Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus historical source) this is not WP:FRINGE theory. You have Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and there try to determine fringe theory. Sorbs, Sorbs (tribe), Serboi has nothing to do with this information and this RS. @TU-nor: are there any new problems here? Mikola22 (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the names of those scholars? While writing the etymology section on the Serbian ethnonym didn't find, if my memory doesn't lie, a single scholar who advanced such a derivation.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Try to ask historian Colin Wells who wrote book (Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World) and who says that "Others(scholars), following Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, suggest that the name Serb comes from the Latin servus, “servant” or “slave”. I didn't write a book. Good luck. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't have time guessing who are these scholars. The weight is on you to give this information, not on me.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

His book has about 200 bibliographic sources. I can't get to all these sources to say who these scholars are but we must respect RS and word of historian. I don't live in a library. If there are any problems here there is a procedure which I also followed when was edit conflict. Couple of times I couldn't remove information from the article for which there was no source and I respected that, but here are four RS. Mikola22 (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Only thing we must respect is the editing policy. The POV you're pushing is at least a borderline violation of multiple NPOV principles. It doesn't matter if there are 1 or 4 RS if it is a minor theory which inclusion causes weight and balancing issues.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is a problem with this information or the sources exist WP:RSN or WP:FTN. As for minor theory s concerned, this information is in two sources from 2014(Serbian) and 2018(Italian) and main RS of historian Colin Wells from 2007. This is theory which exist and this information was part of the article for about 6,7 months and without any specific reason was removed from the article. And now there is no specific reason other than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I also don't like this and many other informations but we must respect sources. Mikola22 (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Which Serbian and Italian reliable sources you're talking about? Please cite the titles of the sources. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking information and respecting sources. Wikipedia is edited according to WP:WEIGHT. Are you aware you're pushing a specific POV by violation of editing policy?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Information from the source(Italian): "on the border with Franks; their name was derived from Lat. servus, because they were serfs or vassals of Romans" and "under the Roman domination and was reinterpreted by the conquerors in association with the condition of servants, hence the belief of Constantine the seventh that the name of Serbs derived from Lat. servus" (page 21, Giampietro Fabbri, University of Bologna [1]. Information from the source(Serbian): "The etymology of the name of Serbs was brought from lat, Servus-slave" (page 41 [2]). If there are any problems then I guess exist some Wikipedia procedure which disputes these sources(WP:RSN or WP:FTN). For now, these sources are reliable and we must respect that. Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I am asking again - do you properly understand how WP:WEIGHT and balancing aspects of NPOV work? Do you mean that by respecting the point of view of these few reliable sources we should disrespect the point of view of countless other reliable sources?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Information has this introduction (from RS "Some scholars") not all scholars. Why would we disrespect the point of view of some scholars because exist countless other reliable sources? Next to this information you may add information from this countless other reliable sources which speak about other etymology of Serbian name and this is NPOV. Mikola22 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have ever read and understood WEIGHT and various balancing aspects you would have never asked such a question. Are you aware that it's already stated there exist only two prevailing theories (by the way do you understand what "prevailing" means and it is related to balancing aspects because citing every possible theory on this article is out of WP:SCOPE?), and that we have a whole section dedicated to the etymology of the Serbian ethnonym (Names of the Serbs and Serbia#Etymology) where are cited countless sources and linguists and that nobody argues Latin derivation? It is enough that this theory, an intrigue of the past, is included in the relevant article - Names of the Serbs and Serbia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski then erase it all and write your history in Wikipedia. You are the smartest in the world, smarter than those historians who write books which you do not acknowledge. Write your book so that he put here as RS.185.213.24.162 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I support Editor Miki Filigranski on this one and his argumentation. The main problem here is that this is an article about a country, a summary article which means that only prevailing theories should be presented, there is an article that covers all other minor theories, including this one and dozens of other ones. By posting this theory and ignoring other ones it goes against the WP:WEIGHT. And yet if we put all other theories in this article it will be full with unnecessary information about the name origin which again breaks a balance of article. That is why we have special article that argues etymology. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 21:16, 18. October 2020 (UTC)

I knew you would support editor Miki Filigranski and editor Sadko will support him. You must first list other name theories ie etymology of the name with minimal four sources, additional much more sources. And then we will be able to evaluate WEIGHT and make conclusion. Until then, the confirmed information cannot be removed. Edit summary is clear. If there is a problem with the sources we know the procedure. I hope you will not come with another IP sockpuppet account. Mikola22 (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, I gave my opinion, just keep it civil and restrain yourself from your usual bludgeon behaviour. We all know why you choose this theory to push and ignored other ones. User:Theonewithreason (talk) 21:38, 18. October 2020 (UTC)

We all now that I respect sources and procedure in this and other articles. Now show other theory based on various sources, to evaluate WEIGHT. Mikola22 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware that we don't have to do it because it is already done? Are you aware that if you barely found 4 reliable sources which mention, and not only, that theory then it's already a lost battle, and it's basically beating of a WP:DEADHORSE? Accept the intermediate solution that the information is included in another relevant article, as any other constructive editor should do, and move on editing other articles. Stop wasting your time.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

The origin of the name Serbia is unclear. Historically, authors have mentioned the Serbs (Serbian: Srbi / Срби) and the Sorbs of Eastern Germany (Upper Sorbian: Serbja; Lower Sorbian: Serby) in a variety of ways: Cervetiis (Servetiis), gentis (S)urbiorum, Suurbi, Sorabi, Soraborum, Sorabos, Surpe, Sorabici, Sorabiet, Sarbin, Swrbjn, Servians, Sorbi, Sirbia, Sribia, Zirbia, Zribia, Suurbelant, Surbia, Serbulia / Sorbulia among others

• Sources for this information mostly mention Sorbs and theirs historical names. Serbs are here mentioned sporadically. Serbian source "У немачким и латинским изворима такође се среће облик са -е (Serb), али врло ретко. Узрок томе свакако лежи у опасности од мешања са именом јужнословенских Срба." "In German and Latin sources, the form with -e (Serb) is also found, but very rarely. The reason for that certainly lies in the danger of mixing with the name of the South Slavic Serbs". These ethnonyms from article are mostly associated with Sorb names in historical records(German and Latin sources from area of Germany). As far as I can see sources from the article least talk about Serbs. These sources and informations are for the article about Sorbs not Serbs. Title from one source say "Лужички Србин" Lusatian Sorbs. Bold information is probably WP:OR or does not belong to this article. Mikola22 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

First source for this information is (Petković 1926), this is oldated source and WP:AGE MATTERS, as well and WP:VERIFY, second source is a translation of some unknown source which speaks about Lusatian Sorbian language "Статус лужичкосрпског језика и његово место у оквиру других западнословенских језика".."The status of the Lusatian-Serbian language and its place within other West Slavic languages" and it is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, aloso without any information about the original source, date etc, and third source speaks about Surbi (Lusatian Sorb area) and does not mention Serbs and their etymology, also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. For now, this information with these sources has nothing to do with this article ie Serbian etymology WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, also this is WP:OR (you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented) and also WP:SYN. We need concrete historians, new reliable sources which specifically talk about Serbian name etymology. Mikola22 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is a misunderstanding of the sources and policies.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This sources speak about Sorbs etymology. If is something "misunderstand", sources and still talking about Sorbs(see sources). These are sources of information for that group. OR ("you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented"). We cannot with sources that speak about Sorb etymology or historical record use for article about Serbian etymology since the sources do not say so. If the source mentions Serbs in one or two sentence, then we only can used this informations. Mikola22 (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't speak only about the etymology of the Sorbs because they as well scientific consensus relates Sorbian and Serbian ethnonyms - because it is the same ethnonym.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cite information from the sources(page and citations) where write that "this is the same ethnonym" ie about Sorbian and Serbian ethnonyms which are the same. Sources do not say that at all, and drawing conclusions instead of RS is WP:OR. I am waiting for quotes and pages. Mikola22 (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Weight evaluation

(balancing issues; discuss first on the talk page) last edit summary of some editor, I respect that. @Theonewithreason and Miki Filigranski: You need provide other theory for Serbian etymology based on various sources, to evaluate WEIGHT. If this is not done information based on quality sources must be returned to the article because we must respect reliable sources which exist. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This article talk page is really not the place for this discussion. If you want to discuss etymology then move it to Talk:Names of the Serbs and Serbia page. I am repeating again, nobody is inclined to provide another theory to evaluate weight and balance because it is already done. I will gladly cite you every single linguistical and historical source at the other talk page or dispute resolution, but I am warning you that you won't like it because nobody is arguing such a theory. I already went through the bibliography. That's a fact and a reality of the issue you brought up. The only constructive thing you can do now is to accept that and move one, please.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We have some informations from the sources about Serbian name. (it is already done) Where, show me? We can't evaluate WEIGHT if we do not have other sources which speak of another ethnonym theory. Therefore do not play with Wikipedia. You freely expose sources which speak about other Serbian ethnonym theory. This is "balancing issues" question. Mikola22 (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot engage in this discussion anymore. I give up. I have done what I could. It is simply embarrassing and insults common sense.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You give up because this sources which speak about other Serbian ethnonym theory do not exist. There is this theory which I cite and the Iranian theory(just as the main source of historian Colin Wells says). I have never heard of any other(main) theories. If you think that one of these theories is WP:FRINGE you know the place for this procedure. Therefore all is said, my information is legitimate and based on 4 RS. We must respect the sources and everything else is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Mikola22 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: It's always like this. Thank you for investing your time and nerves. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Foundation of early medieval Serbia?

User:JohnGotten, Wkipedia is usually based on reliable secondary sources, not on primary and especially not on their interpretation by random editors. You are definitely confusing the settlement of the White Serbs on the Balkans with the creation of the Serbian principality. For resolving the issue when exactly Serbia was established during the middle ages we can use for example the prominent academic book: "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" with author John Van Antwerp Fine Jr., a professor of Balkan and Byzantine history at the University of Michigan. This book was published by the University of Michigan Press in 1991. As prof. Fine has stated there: Thought the Byzantines had lost control of most of the Balkans in the seventh century, the Slavs had formed no states as yet. They continued to live in small tribal units, independent of one another, etc. see: p. 65. And he has claimed also that: In the middle of the 8th century Serbia has achieved some sort of statehood, as various Serbian tribes, faced with the Bulgarian threat, united under a prince named Vlastimir, etc. see: p. 141. The conclusion is clear: during the 7th century there were no Slavic state formations on the Balkans. Serbia emerged as a separate entity in the 8th century. Also check please: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).Regards. Jingiby (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, for your reasoning, the states of bosnia, and croatia appeared on the 8th, not on the 7th as both wikipedias say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia

to me this sounds very revisionist, trying to reduce Serbia in a recent state. JohnGotten (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

JohnGotten, I have mistaken your last edits. I am sorry. However I have also changed the dates in both articles pointed by you above for now, i.e. Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: you're right as a Serbian proto-state emerged after 780 CE under Višeslav of Serbia. The De Administrando Imperio which has been quoted - but shouldn't be because it is WP:PRIMARY - is considered a Byzantine political narrative in contemporary bibliography, both internationally and in Serbia itself and it doesn't even mention that an Unknown Archon "established Serbia" in the 7th century but it has the exact opposite function - to deny the legitimacy of Serbian statehood in the late 8th century. The Unknown Archon is a mythological construction of DAI whose only purpose was to show that a supposed ancestor of Višeslav (the Unknown Archon) was a Byzantine vassal who came to the Balkans with direct Byzantine interference and thus Višeslav had no legitimacy to statehood as he was in fact a ... vassal. Bibliography:

• Curta, Florin (2001). The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, c. 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dzino, Danijel (2010). Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia. Brill. ISBN 9789004186460.
• Kardaras, Georgios (2011). "The Settlement of the Croats and Serbs on the Balkans in the Frame of the Byzantine-Avar Conflicts" (PDF). Bulgaria, the Bulgarians, Europe - Mythus, History, Modernity, Veliko Turnovo, Oct. 29-31. 2009. IV. University Press "St. Cyril and Methodius". Now, why on wikipedia some editors defend a narrative which in its time was viewed as - and actually is - an imperial narrative against medieval Serbian independence is one very interesting anthropological case study.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Be careful which viewpoints you're citing due to bias and scientific ideology. These works aren't without criticism and scientific opponents. I would advise you to cite work by Tibor Živković for the Serbian medieval period, especially the analysis of DAI.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

My overview of Živković is the following: the Serbs came in cumulative migrational waves in the Balkans as foederati starting from the mid 7th century and in the 8th century reached proto-statehood. He also rejects the idea of an invitation by Heraclius to an unknown archon as an ideological construction/narrative. You're referring to Post-processual archaeology ("ideology") but in this subject at least in contemporary bibliography there's no fundamental disagreement. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I referred only indirectly to this ideology, what I meant was Vienna School of History which has the same postmodern and Marxist ideological background. Its scholars, like Walter Pohl, had a great influence on many contemporary historians, including Dzino who mentioned that fact in the introduction of the book. See also A. Piteša's review of Dzino's book clearly describing it as a poststructuralist and revisionistic in the perception of ethnic identities and anthropological migrations.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I am confused here, so the source for Heraclius is valid and 7th is the foundation of a Serbian state? This as added back into the article. But not for the Croatia article....OyMosby (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In the available sources it appears that there's no foundation of Serbia in the 7th century.N.Hoxha (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, please check: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). The source for Heraclius is not valid by a lot of reasons. Jingiby (talk) 04:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jingiby: Hmmm.... I will take your word and look into further sourcing about the Heraclius claim. And the 7th/8th c claims. It always gets wobbly with early dates. Though will you not tag the Serbia article for the same Heraclius 7th c claim? Also why was Duansty added as a founding entity? Thank you. OyMosby (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Disputed primary information

It was said in 822 that the Serbs inhabited the more significant part of Roman Dalmatia,

• This information is WP:PRIMARY, otherwise this information is incomplete (who says that?), in addition it is presented and as a historical fact because there is this context behind it ("their territory spanning what is today southwestern Serbia and parts of neighbouring countries. Meanwhile, the Byzantine Empire and the Bulgarian Empire held other parts of the territory.") Given that there are sources which criticize this information as inaccurate or contradictory(when the whole historical text is taken into account), it is my opinion that this information should not be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

On its arrival Ljudovit withdrew from the city of Sisak and fled to the Serbs,a people that is said to hold a large part of Dalmatia It's WP:PRIMARY and it doesn't even put forward that exact sentence.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable information

and in the 6th and early 7th century, established the Serbian Principality by the 8th century.

• @TU-nor: This information has only one source as conformation(Moravcsik 1967), but Sima Ćirković in his English book "Serbs" talk about some Serb rulers around year 822 etc. See book, page 14, (The Serbs, 2004). There is no mention of year 700-800 or earlier in Serbian rulers context. Mikola22 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tidied! --T*U (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Moravcsik (1967) is a 1949 translation of DAI, it's not a source.--Maleschreiber (talk)

@TU-nor:, Prince Vojislav or Višeslav , who ruled probably around the year 780, information from (Samardžić-Duškov) book. That’s why I sad in(Croatia article) that I used example from this article because it’s similar information. Višeslav of Croatia Reign 785–c. 802 and earlier rulers. However Sima Ćirković does not mention this fact(780 and Prince Vojislav) in his book until 822 and rulers from that time. Mikola22 (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio

I have removed the extensive discussion of the flaws regarding DAI from this article, because this level of detail is far too much for this article. While I have no issue with the material itself, there is a dedicated article for De Administrando Imperio, and I would not object to the material being added there. However, this being a country article, the history section is only meant to provide a very brief overview per WP:SS. The material about DAI is simply not appropriate for an article such as this. Khirurg (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio is only source which concern Serb migration to Balkans, and connections with White Serbia and White Serbs. This information is from the book of academician Sima Ćirković and very significant information regarding history of the Serbs. Removing this information with claim that this is "tendentious nonsense" actually refute book of academician Sima Ćirković who use this information establishing migration of Serbs to the Balkans. I think such reasons do not make sense at all, in any case the source is RS and must be respected. Mikola22 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

De Administrando Imperio is riddled with anachronisms and factual errors as shown here [3]. Not to mention that Servia is not anywhere near Thessaloniki, but rather a good deal south. So you linking the two as you did here [4] is misleading to our readers. Khirurg (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This information is from book of Serbian academician and if some historians think otherwise his claim may be enter as additional information. Our priority is the Serbian academic. As for Thessaloniki(Solun), from the source, same page: "smjestio u kraju u solunskoj oblasti... located in the area of the Thessaloniki". Mikola22 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And that is in turn based on DAI, which you now know to be unreliable. Khirurg (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the interpretation of the DAI in order to avoid such discussions in the future. Serbs have nothing to do with Servia. Greece. The only text where this connection appears is the DAI. It's not confirmed in archaeological, archival and historiographical material and it's not mentioned by medieval Serb authors. There's not a single person in medieval Serbia who wrote about a supposed first settling in Greece. In fact, the Serbs-Servia connection was ignored for much of history and only resurfaced in the late 19th century, at first as a pan-Slavic narrative which was later picked up as an ideological strategy after Serbia/Yugoslavia expanded in Macedonia. In the 21st century, it has been abandoned and contemporary analysis of the DAI has explained why its 10th century Byzantine authors made that claim. Now, I can write a brief version of the contemporary analysis of DAI in relation to Serbs-Servia, but the current sentence has to be changed. It takes as a fact that Serbs settled in Macedonia and then it concludes that they were transported to the other side of the Balkans in eastern Bosnia/western Serbia in order to bridge the gap between the DAI and the historically confirmed presence of the Serbs in that region.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

According to Tibor Živković in that area exist Serbian ethnonyms, also John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. in book "A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" use this information: "The emperor received them and gave them land in the province of Thessaloniki (a province settled by many Slavs prior to that reign)". In any case the Academic Source must be respected. Mikola22 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise I don’t know how much you understand the matter, DAI is only source which talk about Serbian migration to Balkans, connection with White Serbs, additional it is and only source which talks where this Serbs settled and about Serb origin of Zahumljani, Pagani etc. Therefore, these are facts which are used in historiography but without confirmation in other sources of that time. Mikola22 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is opinion of Serbian archaeologist Đorđe Janković from RS: "Установљена је археолошка веза у VII столећу између Дунава у околини Брзе Паланке и области Пљевља. То може значити да су Срби из данашње североисточне Србије прешли у области ондашње провинције Далмације. То даље указује да би податак о преласку Срба из околине Солуна на Дунав могао бити тачан...An archeological connection was established in the 7th century between the Danube in the vicinity of Brza Palanka and the Pljevlja area. This may mean that Serbs from today's northeastern Serbia moved to the area of province of Dalmatia. This further indicates that information's about moving of Serbs from the vicinity of Thessaloniki to the Danube could be accurate."[5] and then bring his conclusion or thesis which is probably fringe. Mikola22 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski: This connection is not contested, second source brings sources which speak about that connection(ethnonyms etc). This is historical information presented in Academic source. We must respect sources and in historiography there are probably different opinions but present sources use this information as valid information. Mikola22 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• DAI is not the only source speaking about arrival of the Slavs, including Serbs. DAI goes into more details. Stop edit-warring please. Stop undermining other editors. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We do not speak about arrival of the Slavs, we talk about Serbs. And indeed DAI is only historical source which speak about arrival of the Serbs to the Balkans and connection with White Serbs. If that historical information is used then it must be in reliable sources context (the whole information). If this information was disputable, the academic and others would not use it in their books. If someone does not like this important information concerning the history of Serbs, then say it clearly. Using fragments of information's from sources leads to nothing. We must respect sources. Mikola22 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

And you've been shown sources that show that DAI is riddled with factual errors and incorrect. Yet you are completely ignoring that and just repeating "information form the source" like a broken record. Khirurg (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Show me where I "show that DAI is riddled with factual errors", then I'll answer. As for broken record, unfortunately I have fellow editors who don’t really like to work in good faith. Example: 200 thousands of orthodox or Serbs which coming to Slavonia and Croatia, but this information is forgery ie "mistake" in historiography(Sima Ćirković explained in two sources). This 200 thousand of peoples is more than people which coming to whole Balkans in 7th century. It is big big fact, but some editors think "no matter what" that we must respect sources, therefore I also respect the sources.

I am an editor who works in good faith and if you don't like this information say it and then we will remove it from the article(whole information with all sources), but in any case we can't have fragmented information without context because source do not have fragmented information without context. I as a editor can't support fragmented information without context because it is new idea or fact which this sources do not prove and it is WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Show me where I "show that DAI is riddled with factual errors" Are you kidding me? You were shown right here [6] that the part about Thessaloniki is factually incorrect. Pretending not to notice is disruption and can lead to a topic ban. Khirurg (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, Which topic ban? What are you talking about? This edit from link is edit of editor Maleschreiber. I did not include this information in the article. ("That part about Thessaloniki is factually incorrect"), this claim is from Curta source about Serbian name(claim of Constantine VII) not about Serbs around Thessaloniki or migration to that area. Do you read talk page and information from edit of editor Maleschreiber? Therefore, you cannot return half of information to the article because you are not following the sources and with this edit you create new information out of context which is not stated in sources, and this is WP:OR. Mikola22 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: "I added the interpretation of the DAI". You added information from Curta source about name and disputes of Constantine VII claims about name(slave issue). This does not concern the Slavs and the Serbs around Thessaloniki. The third source brings information's and historians who talk about connection of Serbs with area of Thessaloniki. In addition, the first and second source use DAI information as relevant. First source is book of academician and second source is "awarded with the Wayne S. Vucinich Prize for the best North American book in the field of Russian and Eastern European studies. Mikola22 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The passage cited to Ivo Banac's book is footnoted to the DAI on that page. If other secondary sources are dismissed because they translate or interpret the DAI directly, then it should be applied equally. The best solution might be something like Maleschreiber's version that lays out the claims from the DAI and notes its inaccuracy afterward, without going into too much detail. This is beyond my realm though. --Griboski (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

("without going into too much detail") will not change the fact that all present sources use only DAI as historical source(also Ivo Banac's book), but this historians do not quote DAI, they on the basis of DAI draw a conclusions ie information's in their books. Make some new conclusions without too much detail is out of context and OR because we must stick to information's from the sources WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The only solution is to throw out this information along with sources from the article but this is information from two strongest sources which we have and which exists. Mikola22 (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

As for Maleschreiber solution, I explained that he use Curta source ie claim for Serbian name issue(if you think about that). This claim doesn’t really belong to this article or next to this information, maybe belongs in the "Names of the Serbs and Serbia" article. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg is correct. The section shouldn't be a place for extensive discussion on the DAI. It is sufficient to say that its accounts are innacurate/flawed and disputed in contemporary scholarship. --Griboski (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been no discussion in that section obout DAI. After Maleschreiber made edit then this discussion about DAI start. But edit of Maleschreiber has nothing to do with this information which is here for long time without intervention. Curta has own view about DAI but what does that have to do with this article and information from three sources. As for "disputed in contemporary scholarship" fact, first show me sources which talk about it because I don’t know what it’s about. In its current state, this information cannot remain because it is OR. This information must be consistent with the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if we take the claim that the White Serbs first settled in central Greece, before moving again all the way north to the Sava river (which is factually incorrect, but let's pretend), this level of detail is not appropriate for this article. The article is about Serbia, not the White Serbs. There is a separate article for the White Serbs, where that information can be discussed in more detail. Country articles are only meant to include general coverage of history per WP:SS, not go into this level of detail. The whole medieval section is only 10 sentences. The Serbian Empire, the apex of the Serbian state is not mentioned at all. And you want to add information about...Thessaloniki? Enough already. Khirurg (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I highly recommend Mikola22 to finally hear the opponents and stop going around in circles in this discussion.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't go in any circles, we cannot have only part of the information because we must respect full information WP:STICKTOSOURCE, otherwise we have some new history of the Serbs ie WP:OR. This same information is on Serbian Wikipedia (Serbia article) with academician Tibor Živković as source (Živković, Tibor (2002). Južni Slaveni pod bizantskom vlašću (600.-1025.). Beograd: Istorijski institut SANU, Službeni glasnik. str. 198.) I cant find this source but it is four source with same claim. @Khirurg ("which is factually incorrect, but let's pretend"), this is written in the book of academics and they are not saying that this information is incorrect or correct, this is only history information they have. That's why we say "according to De administrand imperio". Everything is explained, the current information is OR. Mikola22 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The DAI has been deconstructed long ago - if articles which are based on DAI are put forward, then the 100x more papers which deconstruct their arguments have to be put forward. That discussion can take place on White Serbs. The latest article - found on rastko.rs - and added by @Sadko: does the same thing and it's even more WP:FRINGE. With the help of late Early Byzantine fibulae we can determine the provinces that lasted until the beginning of Emperor Heraclius’s reign (610-641) in which, or along whose borders, also lived Slavs, i.e. Serbs. On the basis of written, archaeological, and topographic data, perhaps from as early as the mid 6th century, the Serbs, and possibly the Antes, i.e. Russians, lived in the upper Southern Morava – Pčinja – Bregalnica – Lepenac area. Now, the publication is not WP:RS and it's WP:FRINGE. There are other places where the idea that White Serbs and Russians "possibly" lived in Northern Macedonia in 550 CE is considered a legitimate discussion. What some editors want to discuss on wikipedia stands far removed from what is being discussed in reliable academic journals. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: ("The DAI has been deconstructed long ago.") The DAI is not deconstructed long ago. That DAI is deconstructed long ago then academics would not use it as a source of information in their books. DAI is main source for Serbian and Croatian history ie in the Croatian and Serbian historiography. I don't know what you're talking about? What you added to the article is explanation about Serbian name, and it has nothing to do with all DAI. However, current information is and still OR. Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Jankovic is partially fringe but that is not the case with this work. DAI still has a place and importance when it comes to studying early Serb and Croatian history. Russians who? You are making little sense. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)