text:
Talk:Narentines/Archive 2

Identity of Dubrovnik
For God's sake, Pax Equillibrium. "But Croatian identity appeared in Dubrovnik in the 20th century, or only a further later"? Following writers, beside others from 16th - 19th century (before the Age of Romantic National Awakenings) were explicit in declaring themselves as Croats and theirs language as Croatian : Vladislav Menčetić, Dominko (Dinko) Zlatarić, Bernardin Pavlović, Mavro Vetranović, Nikola Nalješković, Junije Palmotić, Jakov Mikalja, Joakim Stulli, Marko Bruerović, Peter Ignaz Sorgo, Michael Anton Sorgo, Giovanni Francesco Sorgo. No writer declared its language as Serb language. If you want sources, here's this: Accroding to Graubard "during the Renaissance era, Venetian-ruled Dalmatia and Ragusa gave birth to influential intellectuals - mostly minor aristocrats and clergymen, Jesuits especially - who kept alive the memory of Croatia and the Croatian language when they composed or translated plays and books from Italian and Latin into the vernecular. No matter that the dialects of Dalmatia and Dubrovnik were different from each other [...] and both these dialects were somewhat different from the dialect of Zagreb, capital of the Hapsburg-ruled north. They still thought of it as Croatian. [...] The Dubrovnik poet Dominko Zalatarić (1555-1610) explained on the frontispiece of his 1597 translation of Sophocles' tragedy Elektra and Tasso's Aminta that it had been " iz veće tudieh jezika u Hrvacki izlozene ," "translated from the great foreign languages in Croatian (from Stephen R. Graubard (1998). A New Europe for the Old?, Transaction Publishers, ISBN 07658). More to follow. Kubura 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, yes; ofcourse. The Republic of Ragusa has been the centre of the Barroque Croatian linguistical corpus - no doubt of that. I meant "a little earlier", not later. I was refering to the national awakening. I think we all agree that the cosmopolistical Ragusians were free of that for a very long time. --PaxEquilibrium 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * No one said that they declared their language Serbian, you did. ;) However, a number of second-class writers and other linguists maintained their language Serbian. Among them is the most prominent man of the 19th century Dubrovnik (in the Age of National Awakening, Serbian nationality was strongest in Dubrovnik's area) is Medo Pucic (or better Orsatto di Pazza), a very good writer and a fierce Serb nationalist; then there are writers brothers Ivo and Lujo Vojinovic; then there's the owner of the Press Antun Fabris, then Pero Budmani, Ivo Kazancic, Luko Zore, Niko Pucic, Mato Vodopic, etc... --PaxEquilibrium 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are talking about a period when a small number of people...mainly the elite agreed with the enforced policy within Serbian dominated 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' that all shtokavian speaking people are Serbs and that 'chakavians' were Croats. By that logic of course people of Dubrovnik were Serbs...there was only one small problem....none ever declared Dubrovnik in any important and valid historical document as Serbian or their language as Serbian. There are only mentions of Illyrian, Croatian, Latin/Roman. Afrika Paprika 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, nearly all prominent individuals from that certain period, yeah. Amd tjat jas nothing to with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which was a century later. And the policy was not like that - it was Catholic=Croat and Orthodox=Serb. And we just spoke, of course they did (throughout the 19th and early 20th century and semi-through 16th, 17th and especially 18th). --PaxEquilibrium 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For uninformed: those above mentioned "Serbs" were the small group of persons that joined the short-living movement from 2nd part of 19th century of Serb Catholics (Srbi katolici), that was financed from Serbia. As Kingdom of SHS (later renamed into Kingdom of Yugoslavia) came to life, that movement vanished, and those that declared themselves as Serbs changed their national declaring. Kubura (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The movement grasping majority of the city's intelligence was hardly a small group of persons. 150 years isn't quite short-lived either. Same as the movement of Croats, except that it became a permanent fragment of the Croatian national being. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbs/Slavs/Croats
On this talk page vote is around 10:1 that population of Pagania are Slavs or Croats (not Serbs). In line with this consensus I will today change article. If words from Constantine need to be in article, then we will add information about Treaty of Aachen and how population of Byzantine Dalmatia has called this population of Pagania between VII and XI century.--Rjecina (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Where did you count 10:1? Btw, a consensus derives from active discussion. Of course, I'd be glad into include into the article as much info as possible. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. What Treaty of Aachen are you referring to? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Peace treaty with which war between Byzantium and Franks has ended in 812. I will be surprised if you will question this source ? --Rjecina (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just didn't know about it. Anyway, of what relevance is it? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you fight so much if naretines were Serbs or Croats or Slavs. The naretines today declare themselves Croats and that is what is important. Let the Serbs write whatever they want. Serbs think that naretans are Serbs and the Croats think that naretans are Croats and we can go on forever like this, you should make a deal to call them Slavs and end this nonsense. Naretines were for a period of time in the Croatian and another period of time in the Serbian state. Making them Serbs on one source is stupid.Carib canibal (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The fight is over. :) The Narentines of today are more than half a millennium after the Paganians were extinct. Compromise has been made. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is crap. Serbs are calling the Naretans Serbs all because of one source (de administrado de imperio) which was written between 948 and 952 (time when Pagania was a part of Serbian state). Maybe that is why he called them Serbs. Or because Caslav Klonimirović died in 950 and Konstantin called them Serbs because he wanted Pagania in the Byzantium as a part of a collapsing Serbian state that was taken by Byzantium. It is easy to say that after the Serbian collapse they have fallen to Croatian influence or maybe they were Croats who went back to the mother state of Croatia. Calling them serbs is stupid and the part that they were assimilated by Croats is stupid also. They today call themselves croats and maybe they were croats always, just there isn't any source to confirm that so the good thing to do is to erase the sentences in which they're called serbs and replace them with South Slavs. There are even some theories that they weren't ether Croats or Serbs but a separate branch of South Slavs. Carib canibal (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As true as it may be (only that one source), historiography (global, not just Serbian and even in some cases Croatian) has accepted that for the past few hundreds of years. It is actually most probable that he called the Serbs because of Serbian statehood. After all, being a Serb or a Croat back then (beyond the very centers of the two peoples) is plainly categorized by which state do the Slavs in question belong. It makes no sense though that the Emperor made that because he just wanted something. Yes they fell to Croatian influence, or better said became a part of Croatia, in the second half of the 11th century, staying that way until the Serbs conquered it a century later. Back to mother state of Croatia is impossible, but in the end they were assimilated into Croats, mostly seen through their Chakavian dialect. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh Pax Pax... You are defending this Serb POV, acting like you are reliable source, bouncing around with definitions like you did above. accepted that for the past few hundreds of years? Not really, not at all. In the scientific circles DAI is not considered to be too reliable. Ie per some detailed analysis it was written by 17 (or something like that) different writers (according to different writting styles noticed) in a longer time period (2 centuries, not 20 years). It's one of a few earlier sources about the Slavs and that's why it's so often used in this part of the world. However it doesn't change a fact that many parts of that work are disputed or considered to be innacurate, not only pieces about Slavic settlement. Zenanarh (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * No, Zenanarh, Zenanarh, I am not defending any POV, I am just stating that all Serbian, Croatian and international historians used, and mostly use DAI, as a source. There is no such thing as a quantity of reliability, only interpretations of works as themselves. It was compiled by Constantine the himself and several of his co-workers (specifically employed by him to study the Byzantine Secret Archives and get information from the Slavic lands themselves). A major basis for the part on the Serbo-Croats comes from the early 9th century Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor (in precise some put it at 814), a Byzantine ecclesiastical chronicler. The pieces about Slavic settlement are but a minor set of the DAI and I am not aware that the rest of the work is inaccurate. There are some inaccuracies, in the linguistic messing and that around toponyms, but most things that are disputed are the various interpretations of the Tractate. The 11th, 12th and 13th centuries famous Byzantine chroniclers begin with the creation of the world more than six thousand years before, and even make various interpretations trying to (on the basis of the skill of linguistics) connect it to contemporary sites and peoples - after, the very same thing historians do still today. For some time, for example, it was thought that De Administrando Imperio was written by just the Emperor himself, then 50% of the things supposedly compiled by John Scylitzes - turned out to not be true after all. Should we discredit everything the legendary Ferdo Sisic found, just because he was oh-so-much wrong about one of those Adriatic forgeries/edicts? Time tells. Perhaps one day we shall reveal that the Croats indeed did receive their name as a derivation from "large People"... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
Because of PaxEquilibrium last comment I have send invitation to all editors of this talk page so that this question can be solved. I am only sorry that many editors of this talk page has retired from editing wikipedia. In my personal thinking there is no need for vote or anything similar because between 2005 and 2008 users:croatian_quoll, Afrika (now banned), Kubura , .195.29.101.2] , [[User:Linguae Latinae|Linguae Latinae , MarinkoM8 , Rjecina , Anto all in all 8 has declared that population of Pagania has been South Slavs or Croats. In thinking of user:PANONIAN we need to show both positions in article (that they are Croats and Serbs) and only User:PaxEquilibrium has supported idea that population of Pagania are Serbs. My proposition is that in article we write that population of Pagania has been South Slavs (neutral solution). Lets vote:
 * South Slavs --Rjecina (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * South Slavs -- Imbris (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * South Slavs--Anto (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes 4, and there's also User:Hxseek, User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић & User:PANONIAN. Counting violent internet trolls doesn't really look good upon your behalf. This is not a matter of vote, but of sources. We could vote that Chinese are actually French and have majority, and it still wouldn'n be appropriate. I don't care if Pagans are Serbs, Croats, Illyrians or Mandarenese, this is a matter of writing encyclopaedic articles. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * User Panonian is not an open minded user. Some of his biased works have been deleted. -- Imbris (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please show me where on this talk page have User:Hxseek, User:Ђорђе Д. Божовић & User:PANONIAN writen that population of Pagania are Serbs ?? It is important to notice that I have not called editors of this article because it will be overkill.
 * It is not very nice to call other editors Internet troll !! It is possible to see that I have not called any editor which has been confirmed or suspected puppet of somebody else so that it has been 1 editor 1 vote. Situation on this talk page during ulmost 3 last years has been 8 for South Slavs or Croats, 1 for Serbs and Croats and only PaxEquilibrium for Serbs !!!--Rjecina (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They have edited the article. Anyway, this is pretty much irrelevant & off-topic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * South Slavs or Croats -- Zenanarh (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * South Slavs or Croats -- Uvouvo (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hxseek
For christ's sake, we have been going round and round in circles since 2006.

I have been doing quite a bit of research about the early slavic balkan states- our knowledge of which is the poorest. Just to clarify my position :

We cannot say that Paganians are either Serbs or Croats, there is just not enough mentioning of Pagans. THeir importance declined after 1000 when the venetians finally defeated them, and their pirateering declined. THen the area became known as the frontier region

We cannot ascribe our modern understanding of ethno-national orientation to a people 1500 years ago ! THey were quite independent, so they were probably neither 100% croat nor 100% serb. The thing is, serbs and croats back then were too similar to have had distinguishable material culture that we can look back at and interpret as characteristically Serbian or Croatian.

AS for DAI, which clearly states that Pagans were Serbs. One interpretation offered by Florin Curta is that COnstantine says that they are Serbs because when he wrote the book (ie 900s), the Pagans were allied with / under the authority of the Serb princes (Peter, then Caslav).

AS for the chronicle of the priest of DUklja, most western scholars dismiss it as a reliable source. It reads like a mythologic account of DUklja's rulers.

What we have to realise is that the western south slavs (in the 700s onwards) were virtually the same people divided into different tribes/ zhupanias/ 'states'. Croat and Serb was a clan or tribal label of just two of these many groups. THey tended to be more powerful, that's why at times, they ruled over others, like Pagania or BOsnia, etc. But, i re-iterate, we cannot say that Pagans identified as Serbs or Croats because:

1) They were their own tribe/ territory that only sometimes formed alliances with the Serb archonts or Croat dukes

2) THey were all ethnically the same (or very similar) so debating whether they were Serbs or Croats is a mute point

3) Serb and Croat only came to refer to a distinct ethnos much later.

A fair (and correct) way of depicting Pagania and other slavic duchies in the early 9th century is as the map i have constructed

Hxseek (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

When we speak about Pagania you are right 100 % right !--Rjecina (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleting of section and sources
Hey, what's this? Someone speaks about my "outright deleting", but on the other hand, calmly deletes the sections I created, together with my references (Ivan Mužić: Hrvatska povijest 9. stoljeća, Naklada Bošković, Split, 2006   and Mate Suić, Nekoliko spojnica i razdjelnica između Nina i Knina. Iz starije hrvatske povijesti. In: Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog pejsaža. Zagreb, 1996., p. 165-167). We cannot work this way. Kubura (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got any explanations for that removal of references. 20 days have gone. Kubura (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit was from 11 March 2008. Today is 21 July 2008. That makes 4 months and ten days. Still no explanation. This was enough (and overoverenough) time for explaining. Since I've got no explanation (opposing party had got enough time), I'll reincorporate removed parts. Kubura (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of map
I've removed this map, because I find that map as original research, original work. Please read WP:OR. Persistent and intentional evading of mentioning of word "Croats", "Croatia" (in matters that were discussed in historiography much much before), including for the medieval Croatian duchies (and that was also in former Yugoslav history books). Also, we can see on that map "Serbian principality" (on the area of Polimlje). As far as I know, in all historic atlases, that area is in that time referred as "Rascia", Raška. But, someone decided to make his original work here, and even put it as map here. Come on. There're enough old atlases on the internet for free (at least, free by access, not by download). We can consult those maps, discuss them and make agreements according to them. Kubura (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You are wrong. There is no source from 9 century which is speaking about Croats or Serbs. Like I have shown before sources from this century are speaking about Slavs.--Rjecina (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've meant on the map. Historical atlases spoke about Croatia on that area. Also, I see revert-warring by Pax here. Kubura (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * User:Hxseek made that map, on the basis of John Fine and Curta.

Alternative sources
This one, , ? Or am I making things up? Kubura (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * EuroAtlas is known for making many, many grave errors. But nevertheless, I see no difference from that one and this map...? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You see no difference? Really? Zenanarh (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * And you do? Also, remember that this is 830-840. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pax obviously hasn't read the discussion Image_talk:830.png. On that map, countries and provinces are in English, but for the Syrmia - Serbian name: Srem?? Further: Doclea is missing! . Pax, compare that map to this one. Does this map satisfies you, Pax (it also calls the area of Rascia as "Serblia", and as subtitle "Rasa")? It relates to year 870, rule of Trpimir in Croatia. Kubura (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You are correct. I haven't.
 * "Srem" is as much a default name in English, would you not agree (I suppose that's because most of it is in Serbia)? There are more Google hits for Srem than for Syrmia. This is not really a strong reason for its removal, is it?
 * That map, as far fetched as it may be, doesn't really relate to this. We're talking about the middle 9th century over here. And as we know, there is absolutely no concrete data on Doclea before the 10th century - but, for some sort of balance's sake (we do know that there was a Byzantine viceroy by the name of "Petar" somewhere in the 9th century), I endorse adding its name. I also do not see why you are discussing this with me, when it should be with User:Hxseek. ;0) I have just invited him to join the discussion. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's really toponimical mess in that map, but also in the other maps made by User:Hxseek. Weird admixture of modern English, modern South Slavic, Medieval Dalmatian, Reinessance Italian, modern Hungarian, etc. all in the same map. I tried to warn him 2 times, he ignored me. But there are also conflicts with history, like in this one - there is Venetian Dalmatia in 1080?! Is it made on basis of John Fine and Curta too? What's the real relevance of these authors? Zenanarh (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My responce

1) The maps are original work, but not OR. As stated, the maps are constructed using multiple sources, with extensive research dervived from descriptions of borders of the states at that given time. If you have any queries regarding this, please feel free to discuss further. I have used primairy Curta and Fine, but also Hupchik, and other atlases such as Shepherds, McMillans and Euratlas. However, this atlases are not as accurate as my work ( i dare say) since they are only generally acquanited with European history, and not specialising for the Balkans.

2) The Toponyms used are the names most commonly used. Yes, Srem, is Slavic, but as Pax clarified, it is commonly used in English-written history books. Another eg, I used Ragusa (Dalmatian) because at that time, that's what it was called- not Dubrovnik.

3) Alternative maps used: Euratlas is copy-right firstly. Secondly, as pax also pointed out, the map is good visually, but falls short of precise historical accuracy. Since all parties involved here (Pax, Zen) etc have deeper knowledge of the history, such a map would not be accurate enough for our purpose. As for your map by the Croatian Historical Institue: I have nt encountered any western historian referring to any "Red Croatia" . So, to include such a map would be dubious.

4) "Venetian Dalmatia". Yes in 1080, venice captured much of the Dalmatian Byzantine cities and islands from the Normans. Then it got taken by Hungary by 1105.

5) From what i have read, the word "croats" and "croat duchy" was 1st used in 850s, with Trpimir. Prior to this, it was known as Dalmatian Principality. Its a shame that you quickly start accusing people of being anti-Croat, anti-this. These are the facts as i read them. I am more than happy to hear a counter point.

6) Serbia was called "serbia" in 9th century (DAI). ""Raska"" is a later term used to denote the part of Serbia east of the Drina, inland to Duklja. The land came known as Raska sometime in the late 11th, early 12th century when the Serbs (raskans) captured the city of Ras from Byzantine; not in the 900 ! This is how it became known as Raska - the land aound the city of Ras (make sense ). Some authors use Raska to denote 9th century Serbia, but that is, stricly-speaking, historically inaccurate.

7)Duklja. Duklja did not become an independent polity until sometime after 960s. Prior to this, from my understanding, the coastal half was under direct Byzantine rule, whilst the eastern part of what-would-be Duklja was just straight part of Serbia, since the center of Vlastimirs Serbia was in the valleyes of the upper Drina, Ibar, Lim rivers. So I did not include Duklja as a recognised, independent polity (ie in bold, italicized letters), but in some maps have included it as a toponymic name.

So, in all, i cannot really see any substance to your criticisms. If you guys are SO sensitive about the naming of cities, i will be happy to change the names. All it takes is a few clicks ! There is no need for finger-pointing and crying ! Remember to act like gentlemen. This is a friendly, scholarly discussion - not war

Hxseek (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Point 6 is wrong because DAI is writen in 10 century (between 930 and 959 ). --Rjecina (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, unless I am mistaken, it was not known by anything other than Serbia. The Royal Frankish Annals (probably written c. 780-840 AD) refer to the Serbs occupying a "large part of Dalmatia". Interestingly, within the RFA there is no mention of "Croats" despite the obvious fact that the Franks had closer contact with "Croatia" than "serbia" (Insted, they refer to Guduscans occupying what is now Croatian Dalmatia).Hxseek (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * My side-notification: The Serbs conquered / took the fortress of Ras in 1127 in precise.
 * A good comparison to a Serb version of such "map of ancient grandiose" is this Serbian and this Greek map. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Re Hxseek:
 * 2) If you use Ragusa it's OK, it is Dalmatian name from the same age (9th century). In that case you cannot use Zara, Durazzo (Reinessance Italian names of the Venetian origin). Zadar was Dalmatian Jadra or Jadera (spoken Zadra and Zadar) according to the original documents. The oldest name of the Zadar citizens found after the faulth of the Roman Empire (6th) was Jaderani (spoken Zadrani - same as in modern Croatian) in the beginning of the 9th century. Venetian name of Zadar in 9th was Jatara (Venetian hyper-urbanism), later it was Zara, both used in Venice not in Zadar, not before 15th century. The same about Durrës, which was Latin Dyrrachium and not Italian Durazzo. In 9th century there were no Venetians around these cities. Also Split was Spalatum in the documents, even during Croatian rule, old-Croatian Spljet was vernacular. Belgrade was Singidunum, Bulgarian name Beligrad has appeared, during the rule of the First Bulgarian Empire, around 878 (and a map is from 830?). And Srijem(Srem) was Syrmia. But if you want to use historical Slavic name for it, you should use Srijem in that case, Srem is modern Serbian. Zenanarh (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) In my opinion, superficialty of the western historians (concerning very dynamic history of the Balkans) is ten times more dubious.
 * 4) "Venetian Dalmatia". Yes in 1080, venice captured much of the Dalmatian Byzantine cities and islands from the Normans. Then it got taken by Hungary by 1105. ???
 * Ooohh, what is this? This is totally wrong misinterpretation of totally different nature of the accidents. What is the reference for this? Who wrote it? Here we can see a result of absolute ignorance of the history of Dalmatia and Croatia. For a historian who wrote it, it would be much more clever to ride a bike in the park, or play with his grandson in the sand, than to write history. From what you wrote it appears that there was some "Venetian Dalmatia" in 11th century?
 * From 7th to 9th century Byzantine Dalmatia were the coastal cities: Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar and some number of the islands and its cities like Vekla (Krk), Arbe (Rab), Opsura (Cres). In 7th and 8th century this Byzantine Dalmatia was the archonty subgrade to the Byzantine Emperor, but more as periphery far from the main political accidents. In 9th century Venice was vassal to Byzanth same as Dalmatian cities.
 * However there was very poor political connection between Dalmatians and Byzant, so these cities kept a lot of autonomy and by the time they tended to accomplish indenpendence from the Empire. It was especially noticed in 9th century because Byzant couldn't protect Dalmatia from Saracen attacks. In the same time there were also problems between Croats and Venetians. New relationship between Dalmatians and Croats occured around 870, during conflicts Byzantine Emperor - King of italy and during the rule of Croatian Duke Domagoj. Byzantine Emperor Basil I had a mission: to recover weakened empire and authority in Dalmatia and south Italy. He had no problems in south Dalmatian Slavic countries to Cetina river, but further to the north he had to use political manipulations in the Croatian court. He developed new political organization: Byzantine Dalmatia became theme with Zadar as the theme centre in 867. It seems this theme organization was never finished and this Dalmatia was just a group of disconnected city autonomies. These cities were paying tribute to Croatia by order of Basil I and that was the only reason why it was not all Croatia already in that moment. Actually it was a tribute for autonomy. (Dalmatians, Croats and Slavs, so far in this story in political meaning, not ethnical!)
 * In 10th century connections of Dalmatian cities to Byzant were almost invisible, cities were already largely populated by Croats and Slavs. To the end of 10th century Byzantine proconsule had authority only in Zadar, but just symbolically since in reality Zadar was ruled by Croatian patrician family of Madi (Croatian queen Jelena was Madi). Madi's lost their position in 998 thanks to Venetian Duke Peter II Orseolo who gave his help to Byzantine Emperor against Narantine pirates. This was 1st political Venetian trip to Dalmatia (Byzant had no navy or army in Dalmatia at all). Venice was the most distant vassal of Byzant in the Adriatic, so Venetian historiography recorded 1st Venetian Dukes from 8th century, in 9th century Venetian navy was indenpendently fighting against the Saracens, however still in 10th century they were vassals to Byzanth (the name of the Byzantine Emperor was still written in their documents). Peter II Orseolo changed the situation in the Adriatic, his motivation was to change the direction of tribute paid by Dalmatian cities to Croatia and to bring this money to Venice. It automatically meant a lot of trouble for Dalmatian communes with Croatia. Since these cities were a lot autonomical (officially Byzantine) they were under Croatian pressure and very soon in 1.000, money flow to Venice was stopped. Madi's recovered their authority in Zadar and it was the beginning of their new politics, final Dalmatian secession from the Byzantine Empire noted through all 11th century.
 * In 70's of 11th century Dalmatian communes brought the Normans (Byzantine enemies) to strengthen their resistance to the Empire. Of course, it immidiately meant reaction of Byzant, Venetian duke Dominico Silvio (a vassal to Byzant) received task from Byzantine Emperor to admonish Dalmatians becuse of their alliance to the enemies of the Empire. So the priors of Split, Trogir, Biograd and Zadar had to make new pact with Venetian Duke, after what Venetian navy went back to Venice. But autonomical Dalmatian communes didn't change their politics, actually they didn't care about the Empire interests anymore, alliance with the Normans was not stopped. Claim that from 1076 to 1085 Venetian navy ruled in all Adriatic is somebody's funny imagination. In fact Venetian navy was not allowed to cruise in the northern part of the eastern Adriatic coast at all (even it was in the front of their noses!). It was ruled by Croatian king. So "Venetian Dalmatia" was not there at all. It was much much later. This is obviously just another funny idea of imperialistic Italian historiography of 19th century, unfortunatally so easily transfered to the international historiography. Actually in 1091 Zadar ruled by Drago II Madi gained total autonomy. In 1105 Koloman (Croatian and Hungarian Kingdom in union) replaced Madi in Zadar with his own people, he didn't conquer "Venetian Dalmatian" or "Byzantine Dalmatian" Zadar! This is real history for your map... Croatian Kingdom and a few autonomic Dalmatian cities! Zenanarh (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with what you say. But the maps I make show the Political (ie legal) borders. I am well aware that by this time SLavs were the dominant demographic of the "Byzantine" cities. The BYzantine theme was different to other themes. Byzantine presence was minimal / nil. There was no BYzantine governor, instead the prior of Zardar was the nominal strategos or catepan, but in reality, all the cities were independent to each other. THey ruled themselves, by rectores and priors, etc. YES, they were politically under sway of the Croat Kings. But, stricty speaking, they were independent.

My sources - Florin and Curta are great. THey have both written 300- 400 page books on just Balkan history, JUST for the period of 600-1200. I have not come accross any more detalied books (Written in English). Yes, every historian has their own interpretation.

From Fine:
 * "The Normans struck first against northern Dalmatia in 1074; ..overlords of SPlit, Trogir, Biograd, Zadar and Nin. But within the next three years the Venetians sent a fleet .. and drove them out. The doge of Venice again took the title of dux of Dalmatia. ...Despite its close teis to BYzantium and its supposed vassal status, Venice was truly an independent force in the Adriatic". He goes on later: Koloman "obtained submission from them" (ie the coastal towns) by 1105-07, although they kept their former autonomy.

 * Curta only writes "Only the intervention of the Venetian fleet drove the Normans out".

Does this not mean that Venice nominally contrlled the Dalmatian -BYzantine cities at this time ? Or stricly speaking, since they were Byz vassals, it was still BYzantine ? ?Hxseek (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * What I've written is also about political, legal borders, not ethnical; otherwise there would be a lot more of "Croats" instead of "Dalmatians". Citation of Fine is a little bit uncorrect. But first about some other previous accidents in 11th.
 * From 1035 to 1058 Zadar and all Dalmatia were under authority of Croatian king Stjepan I. Another Croatian king Petar Krešimir IV annexed Dalmatia to Croatia by agreement with Byzantine Emperor in 1069. Petar Krešimir IV died in 1074 and instead of his nephew Stjepan, the court was given to nobleman Slavić from Omiš (Croatian family of Kačić). Dalmatian communes were not happy about him, since he was proclaimed a king by will of Croatian people and not by royal legacy, so that was 1st reason why they invited the Normans.
 * Fine: The Normans struck first against northern Dalmatia in 1074 - It was Norman voivod Amico de Giovenazzo who came with a big army from Apulia. In the same year (1074) King Slavić was captured by them and taken away. There were no records about him anymore.
 * As you can see this was moment when only a few Dalmatian communes tried to gain total indenpendence from Byzant, while all others were, more or less, vassals to the Emperor: Venice, Croatia, Bosnia, Dioclea,... B. Emperor was afraid of the Normans, he already lost south Italy because of them. He was not afraid of losing territory, but rather of losing his vassals (read: money or precisely a few golden coins per each city in 1 year, although Dalmatians were not good payers during 11th - but this was good reason for action).
 * Fine: But within the next three years the Venetians sent a fleet .. - I've already explained it, it was ordered by B. Emperor... - and drove them out - or they left by their free will with Dalmatian money and Croatian King Slavić in chains. Venetian fleet came to Dalmatia to sign agreement called "foedus" - Dalmatian obeyment not to collaborate with the Normans again. After signing Venetians immidiately went back to Venice.
 * Fine: The doge of Venice again took the title of dux of Dalmatia. - Nothing new by Venetians. Typical behaviour of arrogant Venetian Dukes already seen 75 years before that. The same irrelevant self-proclamation was done by Orseolo in 1000. Orseolo's title "dux of Dalmatia" was recorded only in his own memoirs, it was never recorded in Dalmatian or Byzantine documents or anywhere else. Obviously Duke Dominico Silvio had a good teacher in Orseolo. These V. Dukes were using these imaginary titles only to gain some political points in Venice. It meant nothing in Dalmatia and for Dalmatians.
 * Fine: Venice was truly an independent force in the Adriatic - Yes, from 11th century only Venetians were capable of rising a big fleet to disturb others in the Adriatic Sea. This was the very beginning of their rise, well seen in the upcoming centuries.
 * Fine: Koloman "obtained submission from them" (ie the coastal towns) by 1105-07, although they kept their former autonomy. - It's very important to understand Medieval for understanding politics of that age. We cannot observe it from our modern point of view. In our time everything is much more simple. In Medieval there were a several levels of the civil authority, in Medieval city society as well as in Medieval "international" society. Byzant was an Empire, Byzantine Emperor was almost a messanger of the God himself (picturesquely). His vassals were indenpendent in the same time, but not all in the same degree. As you know there was a period when Serbia or Rascia was his vassal without a sovereignety on its territory, while Croatia and Dalmatia were his vassals only in the Byzantine documents or Byzantine poetry. Venice was his vassal just to ensure free trade in the east. To be his vassal meant to have peace with him and nothing else. Venetians didn't control Adriatic at all at this point, except acting like a big guy in a few attempts. Croatian and Dalmatian vassality to Byzant was floating as in sinusoid, step up, step down, depending on occasion, local and global. It was very very loose connection, none in some periods. When B. Emperor ordered Venetians to yell on Dalmatians, they obeyed him not because they were frightened of him, but rather because they had their interests - they were looking to the eastern Adriatic coast because it was good for navigation because of the islands, it was the best and the most secure path for navigation to the east, the most secure for their trade ships. Venice was slowly strenghtening and waiting. Next centuries were marked by constant wars with Croats and Dalmatians, especially Zadar which was a key of ruling the Adriatic. But in 11th century Venice and Zadar were still just the rivals.
 * To simplify you can mark Dalmatian cities as Croatia in the maps of 11th century, it's the most objective. You should make a lot more maps to have Venetian Dalmatia there. And Byzantine theme has already gone. Zenanarh (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have edited some of the maps. Here is a progression of maps from different time intervals depictin the territorial changes in the Balkans. I welcome any suggestions:

All independent 'principalities'

900AD. Peter Gojnikovic had expanded into Bosnia and Pagania, conflict with Michael of Zahclumia

Serbia taken into Bulgaria. Reign of Tomislav I- Croatian zenith

Caslav's rule

After 1018, BYzantines rued all Balkans, including Croatia as vassals. Then Croats reasserted their independence, Voislavs rebelled from Duklja. "Raksa" and "Bosnia" emerge as vassal states of Byzantines

Bodins Duklja, Croatia under Zvonomir Hxseek (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All maps are having 1 mistake: In Aachen peace treaty (812 AD) between Frankish and Byzantine Empire Istria has become Frankish territory (all Istria). She will stay that very long time. See map in article March of Istria. Second mistake is Slavonia in 1050. Between 1020 and 1065 Slavonia has been Croatian banate under Hungarian protection. It is important to notice that this banate has been de jure and de facto Croatian territory.

My proposition for you is creation of maps AD 975, AD 1000, AD 1025 because without them your work is not complete.

 * YEs. I am acquianted with the Treay of Aachen. The Franks had Istria, save the coastal strip

In 1024, the Hungarian King seized Slavonia, which he gave to Stjepan to rule as an appanage. C. 1065, when Zvonomir was ban of Slavonia, it was placed back to Croatian kingdom under the agreement that it remain very autonomous. Both Fine and Hupchik state this, and maps of this time show Slavonia as part of Hungary.

As for the Dalmatian cities: Yes, the Byzantine theme was gone by then. Yes, Kresimir IV was the imperial representative in Dalmatia in 1069. But the towns (most scholars suggests) always remained independent (albeit subservient to Croatia). I undertsand that they were essentially Croatian, but i just want to depict maps correctly { I am not Italian, or anything}

I have made a map of 1000 already. 975, I am not sure what this would be like. I know Croatia, but Serbia was in anarchy after Caslavs death, so i do not know how to draw its territory.

1025:what is significant about this date? All of the Balkans were part of the Byzantien Empire. There is a great map already in the Byzantine Empire page by one Romanian user.

 * Your data about Istria is wrong. Look this wiki articles to see history of Istrian coastal towns:Poreč, Umag, Rovinj. Everywhere is clearly writen that town has been taken by Frankish empire in 788. On other side you are having Venice expedition of 997 (or something similar) during which town of Pula (and others) has bowed to Venice.
 * This map of Byzantine Empire is wrong. Kingdom of Croatia has been Byzantine vassal and not annexed to Byzantine empire.
 * Year 1025 is not important but my thinking has been to create maps which will show changes in Balkan border every 25 years. If maps are done in that way nobody will question NPOV of the maps. --Rjecina (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree with Rjecina concerning this 1045 map of Byzant, this map doesn't show different levels of vassalty and territorial indenpendence of involved political units. In fact it's really weird map. I've put a link there to this discussion.
 * As for the Dalmatian cities again - under Krešimir IV - yes the most scholars suggest their indenpendence, but it was fiscal indenpendence or better to say fiscal autonomy - it means nobody was interferring in their city economies, from outside the city walls, it was conducted by the city councils only. But they had no political autonomy as in earlier periods. They were choosing the king same as all others in Croatia. Observe that the Dalmatian city commune was the city inside its city walls, it was not the city plus its surrounding area. 1 century earlier, in 10th, when some Zadar, Trogir or Split citizen stepped outside the city wall, it was Croatia. Nin, the royal Croatian city, is just a few kilometers to the west of Zadar. In 11th the city was Croatia too. As you said you are drawing political borders, not ethnical and I suggest not economical in this case. Zenanarh (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I take your woord. Were the northern-most islands part of Croatia too?

Yeah, i actually asked the creator of that map about it. I donlt think he understands the different levels of vassalage- as you say. Certainly, Croatia was its own state, not part of Sirmium. It is more accurate as i have drawn it in 1050. Hxseek (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

krajina???
What does this quote mean?? "The late version of the name is plainly Frontier (Latin: Crayna and the people Craynenses), signifying the most western Serbian borderland, facing another realm"

Some story about "United states of Serbia" again from Arkan??? --Anto (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of revert
I've reverted this edit. Duchy of Croatia was the neighbour of Pagania, and you cannot neglect that. Kubura (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wortless article
This article, as written, is completely wortless. On one account - it qoutes (incompletely) the Porphyrogenitus' work, on another - denies its accuracy. All other 'sources' are not supporting frivolous intenitons of editors to put history of Pagania into context of history of Dalmatia or Croatia. Pagania, as a medieval state, is mentioned only by Porphyrogenitus - there is no other historic sources that might be used to support this subject, as it was attempted here. Also, Porphyrogenitus mentioned that inhabitants of this medieval state were descendants of the Serbs - which was removed from the text.--I am Mario (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In article is writen that inhabitants of this medieval state were South Slavs because of March 2008 wiki compromise with which all nationalistic edit warring has ended.
 * On 1 side we era having Porphyrogenitus word that they are Serbs or other side they are speaking Čakavian dialect of Old Croatian because of which they are Croats. This is creating little problem (like other similar stuff) so it is writen that they are South Slavs.
 * If you look for other similar interesting comments about Porphyrogenitus work you must read article Duklja in which is writen that inhabitants are Croats which has come under command of Serbian Unknown Archont ??? --Rjecina (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DAI was misrepresented here by certain user(s). Without all criticism, that scientific community has been writing for a whole century. Those explanations were and are enough for a serious scholar or student, but for a banned troll (very refined one, many users have never recognised him as such person) that kidnapped this article - it has never been. Unfortunately, and for many contributors and admins (that dealt with this article), that simply couldn't or didn't want to understand the matter. Kubura (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to repeat the facts: - the only historic source about Pagania is the Porphyrogenitus' work - all the text - which is not based on the De Administrando Imperio in this article - is utter nonsense - unreliability and inaccuracy of the Porphyrogenitus' work is another nonsense coming from some Croatian scribes out of which two of them (Draganovic, Mandic) were priests. G. Ostrogorsky in his History of the Byzanine State, says explicitly: Recently there has been a reaction and it has been pointed out that there are not sufficient grounds for rejecting the account of Constantine VII which, though embroidered with legendary details, is in essence thoroughly reliable - Porphyrogenitus never mentioned language of the Serbs inhabitating Pagania; it is infantile to claim (out of blue) that Serbs did not speak their own language This article, as written, just illustrates why Wikipedia is disqualified as a source of scholar/scientific knowledge by American (- and worldwide, too) high schools, colleges, and universities. Wikipedia, following its own credo saying that everyone can contribute to it - does not attract people of serious and proven academic background to contribute anything. Seeing your eventual Wikipedia work trampled by ignorants, altered to the utter nonsense, forcing you to defend it against people of no knowledge and of no editorial ethics at all - is something that blocks the very idea to improve or write anything and ever here.--I am Mario (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are Mario? Are you sure? Do you have other names too? Many of it?
 * DAI is contradictorious concerning Slavic settlers there. People of serious and proven academic background should know it. Nobody says that Porphyrogenitus mentioned language of the "Pagania" inhabitants. It's simply that local dialects in the Southern Dalmatia contributed to Croatian language and Croatian dialects, there's nothing to connect it to Serbian, there are no archeological proofs for this connection, there is no tradition of any kind to make such connection, there is no memory or vernacular history, legends, anything to connect "Pagans" to Serbs, etc... There's only highly productive mythomania machinery with blind followers who recognise only what they like to. Thesis like "the Narentines - lost Serbian tribe", based on 0 (zero) scientific proofs, but so desperately repeated by "non-ignorants" like you are. Many claims of this machinery are disputed, but its followers faced with reality usually react like you do. Zenanarh (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia this is Greater Serbia and it's made up history or it's just edited in such a way so it looks good (for the Serbs). Also it can be used politically for the wrong reasons. Nothing to do with real history. Anyone from that part of the world knows that this is wrong. Is Wikipedia part of some political agenda? . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.253.195 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Principality of Paganija & De Administrator Imperio.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to bring Wikipedia’s attention to some of the historical information on it’s web site. It is about the former coastal Principality of Paganija in today's modern Croatia. The article concerned is in the historical section of Wikipedia (English Version). Historical facts are being presented here which appear to be formulated using unscientific methods. One can only interpret this as to be politically motivated.

The article is uses the information written in the book "De Administrator Imperio" by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire) as it's only reference point. The historic information in the De Administrator Imperio which it cites has long been know as questionable, contradictory and should be treated as such. While other sections of this book have been regarded as genuine by respected Historians.

By using edited sections of De Administrator Imperio the reader comes to the conclusion that Slavic people of that area are of Serbian decent which clearly is not the case. This makes De Administrator Imperio a questionable source of historic information about this region. There are others such as two chapters telling two different versions of the arrival of Croatians. The sections about the arrival of Serbs seem to be identical to one of stories telling the arrival of Croatians. The chapters read as a retelling of the migration pattern of same peoples as if the author lacked historical information and used it as a template. One of the chapters also used mythic Croatian narratives as fact. Also De Administrator Imperio is describing events that took place three centuries before it was written. With this in mind, information in De Administrator Imperio concerning the Principality of Paganija can be put in serious doubt.

It beggars the question why hasn't other information been represented, such as the historical perspectives from the other Chronicles written in that period. Historical perspectives from the Venetian Republic, The Vatican, Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik), Medieval Kingdom Of Croatia and of course the most important of all the people themselves who live in that region.

Due to the very nature of the Internet and its place in society this misleading information can be used in the future as a propaganda weapon. One can only recall the recent former Yugoslavian Wars and how much pain, misery and death it brought.

One should also ask why is Wikipedia using poor historic scientific methods and is it representing politically biased interests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Why don't you fix the article yourself, or present the rewritten sections here on the talkpage so that we can discuss it? It's in indeed true that DAI has been historically pimped out by GS propagandists (they sometimes remind me of Biblical apologists who interpret Old Testament verbatim as "The Truth"), and as you can see from this article's edit history some would still very much incorporate the area of Pagania into some historical "Serb lands" (which would then by extension legitimise their "historical right" on the region), but the article itself has evolved a long path from such trollish attempts. If you find particular factoids contentious, please bring it up here, tag it with, or replace it with more neutral properly-referenced wording. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Historical Facts On Wikipedia Web Site!
Thank for your eloquent invite to participate in the article in the talk pages concerning Dalmatia. I’ve taken some time to think about this and undertook some research on the weekend to examine the history of the article in question. It is true that the article has come a long way but it’s still appears to me to be a politically motivated historical work (which is scary!).

I also had a look at other articles that relate to Dalmatia and it’s writers (& their personal Wiki Pages with their Wikipedic symbols and statements). I found some of the authors of these articles to have stated that they support biased and questionable political leanings. For example dictator worship, support for communist regime, anti fascist slogans (World War Two ended more than 1/2 century ago), atheistic declarations and so on. What is this all about? I am not declaring that all the writers are that way inclined but it seems to be that way.

From a western point of view it looks like a gathering of the old Yugoslav Communist guard. Correct me if I am wrong, however weren't they responsible for war crimes, ethnic cleansing, politically imprisonment, torture etc?

I choose not to debate or engage in conversation with any of these individuals and do not want to participate in dialogue that is not based on facts.

To put it succinctly there is a clear contradiction to their stated historic statements. The ethnic demographic of that region is predominately made up of people who have Croatian ancestry and some Italianic ancestry (Roman/Venetian). One merely has to research the Census documents and family names to reach this conclusion. In the face of these facts you still have researchers on your web site contradicting these simple truths. Due to this contradiction, it appears these articles are politically motivated.

There is also the issue of Red Croatia. Byzantine, Roman, German, and Venetian chronicles all suggest the existence of Red Croatia which appears to explain the ethnic demographic of the area.

I have researched the “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site and they do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian Region. This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered contradictory and therefore unreliable for that region. Maybe Wikpedia could consider adopting the same approach as www.britanica.com.

For Wikipedia to retain any sort of respect as a serious and reliable research tool, I would think it would be advisable to address the idea of some sort of academic unbiased screening of questionable material.

''Sincerely

123.2.59.195'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.59.195 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Try focusing on the content, not on editors editboxen and similar stuff, OK? It's better to see anti-fascist and atheism-supporting messages on editors' userpages these days, than most of the other rubbish people put, as it at least indicates some kind of mental hygiene, and not severe infection with religion/nationalism memes..
 * DAI is not reliable as a historical source, as it provably contains a host of statements not only not found anywhere else (hence highly doubtful), but contradictive with many other sources. We must mention it tho, but in the context of modern scholarly interpretations, and not some nationalist (either Croat or Serb) viewpoints. The truth is, if you go back in time 3-4 centuries and ask the common people (not the blood-sucking nobility) what "nationality" are they, they'd prob. just say "Slav" or "Dalmatian"..
 * So please, state the issues you have with particular statements and we'll try to discuss them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ivan Štambuk, don't mess into things that you don't know. Don't use the word "nationalist" if you don't know what it means. The word "nationalist" has much milder meaning in former Real-Socialist block (or former Eastern Block) than in Western countries. "Blood-sucking nobility"? Not necessarily. You obviously don't know the nobility of Poljička knežija, the "peasant republic" (it is believed that Utopia is formed after the "template" of Poljička knežija). "if you go back in time 3-4 centuries and ask the common people". Have you read Wikipedian rules? No original research. Or you have a time machine without telling anyone? Further, "they'd prob. just say "Slav" or "Dalmatian"". Where did you pull this out from? From your time machine? It's interesting that you skipped two mostly used forms for Croatian language and Croats in Dalmatia: "Croats" and "Illyrians". Or you simply don't know that. So please, don't mess into things that you don't know. Kubura (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Icame here because the ip left a message on the Reliable sources board. I don't know about current views on the reliability of the De Administrator Imperio, but the current chunk of quotation is the middle of a section on geography serves no discernable purpose. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Mr Stambuk have you read the chapters concerned? Chapters 30, 31 and 32. There are studies, which are available out there (if you wish you could check them out). In my opinion those controversial chapters pertaining to Dalmatia from De Administrando Imperio cannot be used as a source for factual information. They also contradict the ethnic demographics of that region (why is this the case?). If De Administrando Imperio is mention it should be placed in its context (rewrites of myths/ historical blunders etc). If you have not read the chapters please do so and tell me what is your opinion, I’ll be more than happy to read them. Also I'm no scholar and do not wish to get involved in Wikipedic Talk Page Wars or even writing historical articles. My personnel opinion is that historical matters should be done by professional scholars with no politically motivation. 123.2.59.195 (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) But what of the "Alexiad" the work of Anna Comnena?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.107.96 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mr Stambuk!
Made some changes. What do you think? Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (formerly know as 123.2.59.195)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Narentines/Archive 2


text:
Category:Hindu Wikipedians

This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being Hindus. Please only specify your user page in this category, and not any sub-pages.

You can also add yourself to this category without the userbox by adding to your userpage.

title: Category:Hindu Wikipedians


text:
Public Security Section 9

Public Security Section 9 (公安9課) is a fictional gendarmerie-style information security and intelligence department from Masamune Shirow's Ghost in the Shell manga and anime series. In the franchise, its jurisdiction exists under the Ministry of Home Affairs (内務省, Naimu-shō). In some translations, the name is given as Public Safety Section 9. In the original film, it is known as the Shell Squad or Security Police Section 9. In the original publication of the manga, it was known as Mobile Armored Riot Police Section 9. Regardless of translation, when spoken of by the characters, it is simply referred to as Section 9.

The Section 9 is composed of former military officers, forensics scientists, and police detectives; these agents answer only to the Chief Director and the Prime Minister of Japan. Most information about Section 9 remains highly classified; the Ministry of Home Affairs does not comment on the details of its activities. The public at large is unaware that Section 9 even exists, though the National Diet and other security forces sections are generally aware of them as a black operations unit. This allows Section-9 to operate independently from governmental oversight, cutting through red tape and bureaucracy.

Many of Section-9's functions are unique, its activities in support of national security are comparable to those of the American FBI, the British MI5 and the Russian FSB. Their structure was based on the German GSG-9. Due to cross-training exercises in the past with the British Special Air Service's (SAS) 22nd Regiment, which also included personnel exchanges, Section 9's structure has been partially influenced by the British SAS.

History
Public Security Section 9 was established as a search and rescue organization; its mission statement has evolved to meet the demands of an uncertain and changing world characterized by invisible enemies who can destabilize entire countries from a simple reach of their keyboard, and by a blurring of the lines—between war and politics, combatants and civilians, crime and terrorism—have become increasingly irrelevant.

Officially billed as an international organization, it is actually a covert counter-terrorist network and anti-crime unit operating in the Japanese National Public Safety Commission. The organization is modeled on the idea that counter-terrorism traditionally consists of two interlocking areas: "pre-" and a "post-incident". With its unique organizational structure, Section 9 is empowered and expected to handle both areas, removing bureaucracy and logistics that might otherwise slow down the process. Its operatives are allowed to act with or without government consent as they are almost unknown to the public eye.

In particular, Section 9 and its members are among the best counter-fourth generation cyberwarfare operatives in the country, and as a result usually end up involved in cybercrime cases relating to cybernetic lifeforms and the Internet, such as hacking and cyberterrorism. Even though Section 9 team is the "crème de la crème" of military prowess, there is a competitiveness with the other Section teams as well.

Ghost in the Shell (1995)
Major Motoko Kusanagi is dispatched by Section 9 to spy on a building in New Port City. A foreign power conspires to recruit a domestic programmer to fix the Project 2501 "bug." The team moves in while Major activates her thermoptic camouflage. The foreign official refuses to return the programmer, while Kusanagi moves in and kills him.

Season 1
During the investigation of the Laughing Man case, Major Kusanagi poses as the Laughing Man in order to uncover a conspiracy against Serano Genomics, a nanotechnology (micro machine) company owned by the Japanese government. After higher-ranking government officials uncover information about the Section 9 investigation, the government disbands the agency and declares war on them.

In preparation for an attack on their headquarters by the Umibozu's shock troopers and their Type 303 Armed Suit robots, all remaining Section 9 members barricade themselves into the building and fight the invaders with heavy weaponry. Failing that, they assemble a diversion and escape through a passage in the sewers of New Port City. They are all eventually captured, with the Major apparently killed.

Togusa spends the next three months wondering what happened to the rest of Section 9 before encountering Batou. The whole thing turns out to have been Aramaki's plan, sacrificing Section 9 in order to leave the prime suspect wide-open to arrest, investigation, and prosecution. Everyone, including the Major is fine, and Aramaki is in the process of rebuilding and securing funding for the newly-reborn Section 9, which happens in 2nd GIG.

Season 2
The second season starts with Section 9 non-existent in an official capacity due to an amendment to the Special Forces Bill. The first episode involves a hostage situation in which nine terrorists, who call themselves the Individual Eleven, are holed up in the Chinese Embassy, demanding a swift change in the Refugee Action Policy. They demand the freedom of the refugees from the stand point that refugees drain the country. The previous Japanese Prime Minister issued a temporary bill that allowed for the entrance of refugees into certain zones, but the bill was never repealed. Because the new Prime Minister, Kayabuki, plans to repeal the policy soon, she has to act quickly on the terrorists before their demands become known in order to ensure it doesn't appear that she was caving in to the terrorists' pressure.

Section 9 is promised full reestablishment, and the approval of their new budget proposal that includes the reinstatement of think tanks (Tachikomas), on the condition that there are no hostage casualties in the process of stopping the terrorists before the press blackout runs out. From this point on the 2nd season goes on to focus on the refugee issue from multiple perspectives, along with providing additional background information on almost all of the characters.

A new group emerges in this season, The Individual Eleven. This group first appears in the premiere episode as a group of Individual Eleven "copycats" take hostages in the Chinese Embassy. Later in the series it is revealed that the Individual Eleven's true intentions were to harm the wellbeing of refugees that had taken shelter in Japan at the end of World War IV. This group destroys itself in a public display of mutually assisted suicide among the members. Only one survives, Hideo Kuze, who then sides with the refugees and confounds Section 9 as to his motives.

Solid State Society
Section 9 is radically reformed after the Major leaves in order to pursue investigations of her own. The section has increased in size, and is now run by Togusa because Batou declined the position. Solid State Society initially focuses on the cyberbrain suicides of members of a terrorist organization that gained asylum in Japan. This case leads to the discovery that around twenty thousand children may have been abducted. The mastermind behind the crimes is known as "The Puppeteer," and is classified as a Super Wizard Class Hacker.

Arise
Arise is an alternate universe telling of the formation of Section 9. Major Kusanagi, an ex-army hacker, is recruited by Aramaki and charged with putting together a team to deal with high level hacking threats. Over the course of the series, while pursuing her own personal investigation, she encounters and works with (sometimes double crossed by) all of the original team members. At the end of the series she offers them positions on her team. A notable change is that Togusa is involved from the beginning rather than being recruited some time after the team's formation.

Ghost in the Shell (2017)
According to Tawanda Manyimo, part of what makes the Section 9 group so interesting is they aren't controlled by the government. "We are able to cut through red tape and bureaucracy it seems," he said "Who doesn’t want that? We can actually just do what we want, in essence. And we answer to essentially to Aramaki and the Major, so we’re almost a rogue renegade, but not quite. And I think that’s a unique position because in the world, there is a lot of political intrigue."

Location
Public Security Section 9 is located in the fictional Japanese city of Niihama-shi (also known as New Port City). The exact location of Section 9's headquarters is held as top-secret and is only known by the Japanese government and Section 9 employees. Their building disguised as a false security company.

Section 9 Headquarters facilities include a rooftop helipad, underground car park, Operator-managed control room, cyber-warfare and information gathering room, holding cells, meeting rooms and Tachikoma/Fuchikoma/Uchikoma workshop.

Members

Section 9's operatives are versatile, quiet professionals: trained in various methods ranging from criminal investigation, cybercrime-criminology, and digital forensics to unconventional warfare, special reconnaissance, information operations, cyberwarfare, counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, direct action and special operations.

title: Public Security Section 9


text:
Category:Zoroastrian Wikipedians

This page contains Wikipedians who have identified themselves (at least on Wikipedia) as being members of the Zoroastrian religion. Please only specify your user page in this category, and not any sub-pages.

title: Category:Zoroastrian Wikipedians


text:
Talk:Zachlumia

who lives in Hum in middle ages
Yea, in his very broad synthesis "The Late Medieval Balkans", on p.20 Fine speaks of Serbs in Hum. However, he refers to ruling class, which will become much clearer later, first in the same book and then in other writings. But, to banish any and all doubts, we will use same researcher, Fine, only his much later and much more focused research - instead of his synthesis from 1987, we will use his monograph from 2005, titled "When Ethnicity Didn't Matter", in which he analyses this very particular issue in much more focused and direct approach. So, Fine abandons nomenclature used in 1987, and changed ethnonym "Serbs" in favor of label "Slavs" in 2005 - see "When Ethnicity Didn't Matter", pp.94 - 98, or if interested you can broadened your reading all the way through pp. 67 to 174, which comprises two chapters. By the way, we are obligated with a WP:AGEMATTERS to use most recent scholarship, whenever that seems reasonable or possible - in this case we have one and the same scholar and his two books from different periods, with different view.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First of the book is from 1994 not from 1987, second there is no direct rule on [WP:AGEMATTERS] when exactly age is to old to be applied, third it is funny you did not removed Vlachs even though he does not mention them but you removed Serbs. I am restoring according to source and fourth there are other sources from Fine where he mentions that Zachlumia was a Serbian land. See early medieval Balkans Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am adding a source here (open access) pg 20 so that everybody can read what is written []. Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why should I remove Vlachs? J.A. Fine changed his view, if one can even say that, on one label not the other. And no, age matters very much, especially with scholarship/research. Yes, early region was ruled by Serbian dynasty sometimes, sometime by Croatian, and sometimes it was governed by local indigenous župans, who were not Serbs (gospoda Srpska) nor Croats. However, it appears that article is characterized by a tug-war between two groups of editors, whose competing view is based on injecting ethnicity into a narrative describing medieval topic. This mostly revolves around enduring misunderstanding, or confusing ruling elite use of labels, which we today recognize as ethnic, with peasantry, which never developed any kind of sense of common identity beyond tribal and local.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  20:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Vlachs should be removed because they are not mentioned in this particular quote or in source and because even Fine goes on saying that they were more of shepherd community with mixing of Slavs and Vlachs since 12. century, Fine did not changed his opinion because even in the book "When ethnicity..." he translated the views of Goldstein and some other regional historians and the views were presented mostly around the land that surrounded Dubrovnik not whole land of Zachlumia actually the whole book deals only with what is today Croatia and wath authors are talking about Croatians and Croatia, Hum was more than just Dubrovnik, especially not the inner parts, peasantry did identified itself at that times with their lords and the lords during that part of history were Serbs, there are other sources from 11. century that are calling different regional rulers "archons of Serbs" meaning that ethnic identification started in that period, giving also the fact of influence of Serbian orthodox church in the area, it is obvious that Serbs did inhabited Zachlumia. Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to check it again, but as far as I remember, Fine 1994 says on page 19 that Hum's population had Slavic speakers and Vlachs. On page 20 he says that the largest part of the interior had Orthodox Serbs, while the areas near the Adriatic, including the capital, had mixed Orthodox and Catholic populations. He does not specify whether those Orthodox people, and especially Catholics, were Serbs or not. Check the source on both pages. I will do the same. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes inner parts Serbs, around Ston mixed catholic and orthodox population Theonewithreason (talk) 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything I said earlier is confirmed by introduction of yet another messy line in the article, where the editor unnecessarily insists on a non-existent ethnicity and labels. The editor also ignored WP: AGEMATTERS, which in this case and in this particular context is really blatant - we use one and the same author and his two books, one from 1987 and the other from 2005 in which he updated his attitude on ethnicity by completely rejecting it. Editors, guided by their emotional (irrational) motives, persistently insist on introducing ethnic labels into the article, which is wrong because these labels are absolutely unknown in a given space at a given time (Middle Ages) when used in a manner known to us since 19th century to this day. In this way, the article (sentence, paragraph) puts readers in a situation to deal with contradictory claims, which are referenced to two good books by the same author, but ignoring the fact that this author has, in the meantime, completely revised some of his views, especially those concerning ethnic labeling in the sense of modern ethnic names, and which the author in this second, 20 years newer book, which also represents his far more extensive, detailed and focused study-research on the topic of ethnicity, completely and absolutely rejects! (See my first two TP posts.)-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  08:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring anything, the source is clear, claims are definitely not contradictory because the book "When ethnicity did not matter" by Fine deals only with the territory of today Croatia, meaning Dubrovnik and surroundings, not mentioning inner Zachlumia and also Fine in the book only transfers what Goldstein thinks, Fine did not change his opinion, the formation of Serb identity was already present earlier and known, because lot of these rulers were called "Archon of Serbs" or "Lords of Serbs" by the Byzantines, so the fact is that the WP:RS is the main policy to be respected here. And Fine is reliable source. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do, all that and some more - you are trying to squeeze the author’s view of the ethnicity he has abandoned. The fact that you are now trying to plant the extremely incorrect (both ethically and factually) understanding of his research in the book, one that is more recent one, is a matter of the editor's integrity and ethical approach to the project (Wikipedia). As for the development of identity among the South Slavs, there are two approaches: one is anachronistic and nationalistic, abused by politicians, generals, but also academics and intellectuals; the other is an expertly, scientific, which gave us everything that we could learn about it, considering the development of the research branch itself. You refer to the former, which can be read from your misunderstanding of the medieval notion of labels "Serb(s)" (Gospoda Srpska), "Bosnian(s)" (Dobri Bošnjani), while Fine's book "When Ethnicity" speaks the most about medieval Croats. After all, trying to talk about identity the way you do it is hard sell on the English Wikipedia, because there are too many high quality sources available on the Internet in refutation of such views - here, just this book by Fine shatters such illusions, and there are far better ones, written by historians and anthropologists who deal exclusively with ethnic identity - but for a start read “When Ethnicity” on Google books, it’s almost entirely in their preview, or at least its Introduction.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * He did not abandoned anything. That is your opinion and it goes under WP:SYNTH because you are using misinterpretation of the sources (quote: do not make conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.), you are quoting the book that has nothing to do with Zachlumia (most of it, but present day Croatia), you are giving your personal opinion about the author not knowing anything about them and by removing Serbs from the list (even though it is well sourced) and yes there are other authors that also mentioning Serbs living at that time in Zachlumia like Stephenson, so no it is not a hard sell on english wikipedia because it is well and clearly sourced by foreign authors, and I did read the book and its introduction and it clearly deals only with the territory of present Croatia, that excludes inner Hum, Fine is clear, source is also clear. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)
 * You should at least read (and try to understand) these policies first (like WP:SYNTH), before you decide to cite them. Back to Fine - And in fact such political “Croats” (or Serbs or whatever) may, as we shall see, have actually identified themselves as “Slavs.” ; But if these incorporated individuals feel that they are still part of a Croat community even though they now live beyond the borders of a Croat state and that they are, therefore, Croats—and in this example not Hungarians — then they are on the way to acquiring an ethnic identity. Such feelings, or at least evidence of them, as we shall see, were very rare in the Middle Ages; thus I shall argue that most South Slavs mentioned with specifc national-type names in our sources were such by political affliation, namely that the individuals so labeled served the given state’s ruler, and cannot be considered ethnic Croats, Serbs, or whatever.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * More Fine: My research on the Balkan peoples in the Middle Ages indicates that an identity label like “Croat” or “Serb,” when we do find it in medieval texts, was drawn from the geographical region or more frequently the state name in which the identified person lived..-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  12:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since we are quoting Fine: The other Serbian state of this period was the one of Michael of Zahumlje ...  (pg 160 Early Medieval Balkans), more of the same author:  In the course of our studies, we have found Serbs living in many regions of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje (or Zachlumia), Trebinje and parts of Bosnia... (pg 225 Early Medieval Balkans) it is obvious that ethnic identification of Croats and Serbs started somewhere during the period when DAI was written since the Byzantine emperor also started to call Slavic tribes by their names and that Zachlumia was one of Serbian states which Fine also recognises, he even finds in his studies where the Serbs lived, from the source that recognition started in 11. century, not to mention the quoted source in the article that states Most of Hum interior was settled by Serbs and belonged to Eastern Church (under the Archbishop of Ohrid until 1219 when Hum was subordinated to a new independent Serbian church so we have Serbian lords, established Serbian church in 1219., we have mentioning of Serbs living in those parts and like user Ktrimi991 noticed in the parts oh Zachlumia where there was mixture of Catholic and Orthodox population Fine writes those synonyms for the population, where it is is clear that Serbs lived (inner Zachlumia) he writes that, just like article mentions. Theonewithreason (talk) 22.July 2021 (UTC)

after many months
You again anachronistically trying to inject ethnicity into times when such labeling didn't exist, and for that you are trying to pass outdated sources as relevant on that issue. When you quote Fine you should use his latest stance and argument, not those which he abandoned or updated long time ago. Respect WP:AGEMATTERS guideline and the fact that this article falls under WP:ARBEE.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No I am putting what was is written in source and you are removing sourced material, please read what was written above, there is no Age matters aspect since this was not disputed by newer sources, actually it was confirmed.Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is confirmed and what, in which publication ? You have cited outdated and misunderstood Fine, while ignoring the fact that he made his mind much clearer in his last book on the Balkan ethnic identities. Your insistence on anachronistically labeling people with outdated and misread sources is violation of AGEMATTERS, in article under ARBEE.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How can it be misunderstood, when this is exactly what it says, where is the quote that he made his mind ? And this book you are mentioning does not even deal with Hum or interior of Hum but with Croatia, that was already written here multiple times. Theonewithreason (talk) 02 January 2021 (UTC)

J.A.Fine 2010 entire book is research on identity specifically (monography)
First, to state the obvious - WP:AGEMATTERS, which means that all works and research published more recently take precedence over those published earlier, in this case, what J.A.Fine said in 2010 supersede what Fine said in 1981. And John Fine last book on medieval history of Serbo-Croatian speaking people, published in 2010, which makes it most recent of all his books written on the subject. This book, like his Bosnian Church, is also a monography and a proper research, dealing with medieval identities (it wasn't just synthesis of most relevant information on variety of peoples and states, like two of his most famous, The Early and The Late medieval Balkans). Like "Bosnian Church" before, this book also dealt a blow to all nationalistic revisionisms, in this case anachronistic imputation of ethnicity to medieval inhabitants of areas gravitating Bosnia (between traditionally Croatian and Serbian areas):
 * p.95:
 * p.95:
 * p.95/96:
 * p.96:  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It cannot be an WP:AGEMATTERS if the book is from 1994. There are also newer sources like Cirkovic book from 2004 which confirms the continuity of this land s being inhabited by Serbs:

Furthermore Fine gives us in details why was Hum important for Serbs in the midlle ages:Sava's first task was to place all Serbian territory under the jurisdiction of its new archbishop. This necessitated the ousting in 1220 of Greek bishops from the recently acquired towns of Prizren and Lipljan. Sava then proceeded to construct Serbia's Church administration, dividing all Serbia's territory (including Zeta and Hum) up into about ten bishoprics. The inclusion of Zeta and Hum contributed to the binding of these previously separate Serbian regions more tightly to Raska by helping their populations to i dentify themselves as Serbs and to perceive a commonality of interest with the S erbs of Raska. There are many other sources that are confirming what Fine said. That has nothing to do with nationalistic revisionism since the Serbs from that area left the cultural mark on that area. Including some that are protected by Unesco. Theonewithreason (talk)05:10, 09 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)Noel Malcolm says in history of Bosnia :Srbi su se naselili na području koje odgovara današnjoj jugozapadnoj Srbiji (teritoriju koji je poslije, u srednjem vijeku, postao poznat pod imenom Raška ili Rascia), i malo-pomalo proširili svoju vlast na teritorije Duklje ili Diocleje (Crna Gora) i Huma ili Zahumlja (Hercegovina).The Serbs settled in the area corresponding to today's southwestern Serbia (a territory that later, in the Middle Ages, became known as Raska or Rascia), and gradually expanded their rule to the territories of Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro) and Hum or Zahumlje. (Herzegovina)
 * 2) Cirkovic in his book from 2004 also mentions that the land was inhabited with Serbs. [].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 hinter-land), and Travunians (from the Dubrovnik hinterland to the Gulf of Kotor)
 * 3) Kardaras, Georgios (2018) : 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.[]
 * WP:AGEMATTERS because age matters for published works - as I said above, what J.A.Fine said in 2010 supersede what J.A.Fine said in 1981. But where in these quoted paragraphs authors actually talk about ethnic makeup of the inhabitants?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean in 1994, and this is not age matters, also if we put your logic in than the source from 2018 is newer than Fine 2010 so yours is agematters. But again Fine in the book from 2010 deals with the area around Dubrovnik and the hinterland so he does not contradicts himself Theonewithreason (talk)05:26 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Zachlumia is Dubrovnik hinterland, and all historians always referred to it in such a manner, -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, 2018 is more recent per AGE, thus, if contradicting then is more relevant, but, fortunately, your Kardaras is not contradicting. But you keep avoiding my question: where in these quoted paragraphs of yours authors actually talk about ethnic makeup of the inhabitants?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Umm everywhere, don′t you see the quotes above, Serbian tribes, inhabited by Serbs, Serbian lands etc. and Zachumlia hinterland according to Fine is inhabited by Serbs, on the coast there is mixed catholic and orthodox population -- so with this quote he defines where he is certain who lives in hinterland and where he is not certain he only mentions religion. Theonewithreason (talk)05:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everywhere - where? Where exactly they talk about specific ethnic makeup of inhabitants of Zachlumia (and while we are at it, Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro))?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  06:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine pg 20 Cirkovic pg 43 Kardakas pg 96 quotes are presented on this tp, the green letters above.Theonewithreason (talk)06:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine p.20 is superseded by same author 2010 p.95-96. Ćirkovć and especially Kardaras don't speak about ethnic makeup of inhabitants - Ćirković speaks about tribal migration, and Kardaras, actually, starts by just repeating Constantine's writings about tribal migration of Serbs and Croat, which is obvious to any little bit more careful reader, who will also read authors footnotes. He, than, make sure that we understand which modern historians accept that at face value and which don't, and in the following 50 or so pages he chose to stand with those authors who don't accept Constantine's implications at face value.
 * Ćirković "in green letters" says "Serbian tribe" .... gave rise to the principalities of the Neretljani, Zahumljani, and Travunians, all of which implies a rise of new local identities, because he writes Neretljani and not Nertva, Zahumljani and not Zahumlje, Travunjani and not Travunija - he in no way, shape or form implies ethnicity either way.
 * Kardaras "in green letters" says "Porphyrogenitus also refers to other smaller tribes (Zachlumi, Terbouniotes, Kanalites, Diocletians, and Pagani/Arentani)" and "all these tribes are said" by Constantine "to be Serbian", and then he leaves us footnote in which he points which historian accept this and which ones reject it. He, it will be clear on following pages, is among those who reject it !-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  06:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Cirkovic points out Serbian tribes, not other, Kardakis confirmes what the sources and Byzantine authorities and later historians were thinking about Zachumlians of that time, that they were Serbian tribe. Fine says directly inhabited by Serbs. And finally Find does not suppress himself, there is no section in his book where he writes I was wrong this is how it was. Actually in his book from 2010 deals mostly with Croatia and RagusaTheonewithreason (talk)06:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Another quote by Fine:In the course of our studies, we have found Serbs living in many regions of what is now Yugoslavia: Raska, Duklja, Zahumlje (or Zachlumia), Trebinje and parts of Bosnia... Theonewithreason (talk)07:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and tribal labels for migrating Slavs, Serbs and Croats are not ethnic.But he does speaks of smaller tribes because he also refers to Constantine, he's not inventing them from his dreams, but repeats emperor-historian.
 * Where exactly "Kardaras confirms sources" ? I can give you a link to download entire book, because I again doubt that you have access to entire volume, so that you can explain what that "Kardaras confirms sources" means. Because, he actually does not confirms anything, he has his own theory about migrations and he reject to take Constantine's text at face value.
 * I am not that naïve, regarding your new quote of Fine.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If DAI distiguinsh Serbs and Croats already in 10th century, that means that the names of those tribes were known. Kardakas on pg 96 says: 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, Cirkovic says too, Malcolm is also the source I added above, there are other quotes by Fine I added earlier. Theonewithreason (talk)07:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * DAI is only source on the topic but as primary is completely irrelevant for two of us and other wiki editors - we can only use historians working on DAI, meaning through secondary sources. All these mentions are tribal labels, not ethnic, and even in case of tribal migrations we cant categorically claim who settle where, because different historians interpret DAI differently.
 * Malcolm in particular is clear: "Serbs settled in the area corresponding to today's southwestern Serbia" and than "gradually expanded their rule to the territories of Duklja or Diocletian (Montenegro) and Hum or Zahumlje" - emphasis on "expanded their rule" not ethnic makeup. His view correspond with all these other historians views, which I already tried to explain.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  07:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope it does not say that, additionally the number of cultural heritage left by Serbs in that time some of them protected by UNESCO, only confirmes that, later in the centuries one of the rules was even Saint Sava, which is also confirmed by Fine.Sava's first task was to place all Serbian territory under the jurisdiction of its new archbishop. This necessitated the ousting in 1220 of Greek bishops from the recently acquired towns of Prizren and Lipljan. Sava then proceeded to construct Serbia's Church administration, dividing all Serbia's territory (including Zeta and Hum) up into about ten bishoprics. The inclusion of Zeta and Hum contributed to the binding of these previously separate Serbian regions more tightly to Raska by helping their populations to identify themselves as Serbs and to perceive a commonality of interest with the Serbs of Raska.Theonewithreason (talk)09:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nope it does not say that", that's your respond? OK, wiki general consensus per WP:ETHNO is to avoid ethnicity in controversial topic areas - and you are aware this is such case per WP:ARBMAC / WP:ARBEE. Anachronistic insertion of ethnicity by imposing modern sense of ethnic identity onto medieval populace is undesirable and it always lead to disruption and unresolvable disputes. And although historians never use ethnicity to identify medieval populations, they sometimes use tribal labels to explain early Slavic migrations, which is than sometimes misused as an evidence of everlasting eternal identity by editors via references (either in good faith, or fueled by preferable ideology). Not one of quoted sources speaks about ethnicity and ethnic makeup of inhabitants. Name(s) are used as tribal label(s) and only when historians talked about 7th century migrations, and nowhere else - except in nationalistic demagoguery in narratives such as "Croatia to the Drina" and "Serb Bosnia" (now "Serb Montenegro").-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC) Agree with Santasa99, AGEMATTERS and Wikipedia is not the place for editors to make original research & comments based on primary sources, misinterpreting and misuing secondary sources for claims they don't completely support and ignore many other reliable sources, violating WP:UNDUE.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Zahumlje/Zahumska zemlja = Hum/Humska zemlja
This long-standing article (Zachlumia) is properly covering the entire history of a medieval region known as Zahumlje (Zahumska zemlja) = Hum (Humska zemlja), with corresponding articles on more than 20 other projects. Quite recently, on 28 June 2024, a novelty was introduced here on EW. Using a redirect Humska zemlja, that was pointing to this article (Zachlumia), user created a separate article dedicated specifically to the late medieval history of the same region (here), a subject already covered by the full scope of this long-standing article (Zachlumia). Thus, a duplication was created, that previously did not exist, nor it exists on any other project, since none of them has separate articles on Zahumlje and Humska zemlja, because it is common knowledge that those are just variant names for the same historical region. By detaching the redirect Humska zemlja from Zachlumia, and turning it into a separate article, quite a confusion was created, and a reductive and incorrect meaning of that term was introduced, since Humska zemlja = Zahumlje in general, while the newly crated article detaches and incorrectly reduces the term to the late medieval period only. Instead of expanding chapters on the late medieval period in this article (Zachlumia), a separate article was unnecessarily created, by duplicating the same subject, and that was done without any explanation. Therefore, some explanation by the user Santasa99 would be welcomed here, since it is quite obvious that the late medieval period of Humska zemlja is already covered by the full scope of the long-standing article Zachlumia. Sorabino (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zachlumia


text:
USS Narragansett

USS Narragansett may refer to the following ships operated by the United States Navy:

 * USS Narragansett (1859), a Union sloop, launched in 1859 and decommissioned in 1875. During that time she saw significant action in the American Civil War.
 * USS Narragansett (SP-1163), a United States Navy ship
 * USS Narragansett (SP-2196), a passenger liner that served as a troopship in Europe during World War I.
 * USS Narragansett (YFB-1163), built in 1905, purchased by the Navy in 1918 and struck in 1944.
 * USS Narragansett (AT-88), commissioned in 1943 and decommissioned in 1946.
 * USNS Narragansett (T-ATF-167), a fleet ocean tug launched in 1979 and struck in 2002.
 * USNS Narragansett (T-ATS-14), a planned Navajo-class rescue and salvage ship

title: USS Narragansett