Talk:Narentines/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

maps

I am sorry to object, but the maps on the right side of the page are clearly false. They both use the same sorce, but size of the raska (in the maps it's name is serbia) is two time bigger on the second. This page looks like just another greater-serbian propaganda page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.144.241 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 6 June 2005

Removal of Serb tribe reference

I have replaced Serb tribe reference with Slavic tribe in all areas except for history section quoted from De Administrando Imperio. To call them Serbs or Croats is breaking wikipedia rules of no original research. It is also controversial & conveys a sense of formality & certainty on the subject that in reality does not exist. It should be stated that "x" historical source source states that they a--Factanista 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)re Serbs or Croats & then provide link, and let the facts speak for themselves. Hence the edit.

Added section on Red Croatia & linked to relevant Wikipedia article.

Also added section on the reign of King Tomislav & Kresimir IV.

Happy to discuss any queries.

Cheers,

croatian_quoll 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Corrections: Pagania was never a part of a Red Croatia - where is it mentioned as such? If you are refering to the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - it mentions only Travunia, Zachlumia and Doclea as a part of that Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 09:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed the strong Serbian character of the Narentines under Ceslav's reign.

You added Petar Krešimir IV's domination over regions irrelevant to Pagania itself. Next to that, King Petar simply couldn't've dominated those areas - as they were under strong local rule (see Duklja). --PaxEquilibrium 09:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Response - Additional Information

1. Territory covering Pagania was described as Red Croatia From the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja Post haec secundum continentiam priuiligiorum , quae lecta coram populo fuerant , scripsit priuilegia , diisit prouincias et regiones regni sui ac terminos et fines earum hoc modo : secundum cursum aquarum , quae a montanis fluunt et intrant in mare contra meridianam plagam , Maritima uocauit ; aquas uero , quae a montanis fluunt contra septentrionalem plagam et intrant in magnum flumen Donaui , uocauit Sumbra . Deinde Maritima in duas diuisit prouincias : a loco Dalmae , ubi rex tunc manebat et synodus tunc facta est , usque ad Ualdeuino uocauit Croatium Album , quae et inferior Dalmatia dicitur.....Item ab eodem loco Dalmae usque Bambalonam ciuitatem , quae nunc dicitur Dyrachium , Croatiam Rubeam.....

Croatiam Rubeam means Red Croatia and is described as covering an area from the Cetina river in modern day Croatia to the frontiers of Northern Albania. This includes Pagania/Narenta, Hum/Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja & some other parts of Illyricum.

2. Describing any of the Slavic tribes that inhabited any of the four southern Duchie of Pagania/Narenta, Hum/Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja as Serbs or Croats is breaking the wikipedia rule of no original research. Some sources define the people as Serbs, others as Red Croats. Most of the sources are incomplete or self contradictory. By denoting these tribes, which were supposedly @ one time part of the Croatian state or allied to them, @ another allied or part of the Serbian state, as Serb or Croat, we are implying a formality & certainty that is not borne out or even stated by the sources which are open to interpretation & have varying degrees of reliability.

You can say that an area was described as Serbian/Croatian lands by source 'x', or that Serb/Croat King 'Y' ruled over this territory - but you cannot deduce that the people were Serb/Croat from this - that is original research - particularly considering the conflicting (at time self-conflicting) nature of the sources; political controversy surrounding this subject; & the way it is misused by chauvinistic nationalists. The best we can do is quote various sources & link.

Hence I believe the best option is to note the Narentines as a Slavic tribe then cross -reference with the respective sources that describe them as Croat or Serb or in the relevant spheres of orbit of the respective kingdoms.

Also with the line Around this time, the Neretvian Frontier had a Serbian character. - what does it mean - because it sounds like too much like opinion & open to interpretation. I think a better way to describe it (considering the lack of credible information on the definitive identity of these tribes & how it evolved) is to say that they were allied, or subject of the Serbian king etc etc.

3. Realm of King Petar Kresimir IV

What is certain is that "his father Stjepan I had previously negotiated with the Narentines to join the Croatian state around 1050". In the information on King Peter Kresimir IV, it says "His influence also extended over the three remaining southern Dalmatian duchies in the southeast, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja, as well as Bosnia in the east." Have changed to reflect this.

I have reverted back to my previous edit because it contains the more neutral description of Slavs.

Hapy to discuss any further changes. Also please keep the modern day country reference because it is a useful geographical reference.

Am happy to discuss further changes.

---

M¢PYQžQXQœR\RœNZNœQ\S¡P^L¢KZN¦R^W¡X[U›QZP¡QYT¡UYT¥T^V«UdU¥RdR¦OeR T_W W^S¡P]Q¡S_T¦RbP¥T^U¦X\V¡T\T¡T^T¡V\Z^YZ¡Q\LœNXT¡UVSO\QS_XXbW›W`XXhU˜Lr;Ž'o�„�s�‡�v�

2. I perfectly agree with you on this - it's just that we have 3 sources on the Narentine land (one from their time and the other two researches of historians). Please present sources if there are claims of otherwise - everything needs to be sourced.

That "strong" Serbian character, is because in that period they were reffered to as Serbs, and were the best of all Serbd fighters under Prince Ceslav - they alone took the islands of Vis, Lastovo & Kaza from the Croats - and they excelled elsewhere as the best troops in the Serbian Army

3. I agree that the 1050 invitation to join the Kingdom of Croatia is well-known - however that latter mention has no link whatsoever to Pagania itself. Additionally, could you please present me a source where it mentions the 1050 invitation? I've heard this quitte a number of times - but failed to notice a single source.

I think that we should discuss here before Thy changes are accepted. Do You agree? --PaxEquilibrium 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree the references should be changed to Slavic tribe.

"... svi narodi, osim Hrvata i Srba, ne nose etnička, već teritorijalna imena, dobivena prema pripadajućim sklavinijama. To su Neretvani (Morjani), Bosanci, Dukljani, Timočani, Moravljani i, vjerojatno, Konavljani. Glavnu poteškoću uočavanju različitih slavenskih identiteta duž jadranske obale činilo je tumačenje Konstantina Porfirogeneta, po kojemu su Neretvani (Pagani), Zahumljani, Travunjani i Konavljani porijeklom Srbi. Pri tome je car dosljedno izostavljao Dukljane iz ove srpske zajednice naroda. Čini se, međutim, očitim da car nije htio govoriti o stvarnoj etničkoj povezanosti, već da su mu pred očima politički odnosi u trenutku kada je pisao, odnosno iz vremena kada su za nj prikupljani podaci u Dalmaciji. Opis se svakako odnosi na vrijeme kada je srpski knez Časlav proširio svoju vlast i na susjedne sklavinije, pored navedenih još i na Bosnu."

Neven Budak - Tomislav Raukar: Hrvatska povijest srednjeg vijeka; str. 51,52.

Response to PaxEquilibrium

---

1. Note please - only Zachlumia, Doclea & Travunia composed Pagania - the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja bears no mention of the Narentine land.

I am not saying it mentions Pagania explicitly - it's the description of the territory ascribed to Red Croatia in the Chronicle of the priest from Duklja i.e. from the Cetina river in modern day Croatia to the frontiers of Northern Albania overlaps the territory of Pagania. As such it should be included in the article & the neutral term slavs employed to reflect the ambiguity of identity. Is there anything in this that you disagree with?

2. I perfectly agree with you on this - it's just that we have 3 sources on the Narentine land (one from their time and the other two researches of historians). Please present sources if there are claims of otherwise - everything needs to be sourced.

I thought the source provided was from the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja? Is this what you are talking about?

That "strong" Serbian character, is because in that period they were reffered to as Serbs, and were the best of all Serbd fighters under Prince Ceslav - they alone took the islands of Vis, Lastovo & Kaza from the Croats - and they excelled elsewhere as the best troops in the Serbian Army

Assuming they were Serbs - the sources I have read refer to them as Nerentines who allied themselves with Croats & Serbs at different times. By the same rationale, I could say they were the strongest Croatian fighters. To call them Serb fighters ignores conflicting sources. Will get back to you either way re sources or lack of them.

3. I agree that the 1050 invitation to join the Kingdom of Croatia is well-known - however that latter mention has no link whatsoever to Pagania itself. Additionally, could you please present me a source where it mentions the 1050 invitation? I've heard this quitte a number of times - but failed to notice a single source.

Will look into this one.

I think that we should discuss here before Thy changes are accepted. Do You agree? --PaxEquilibrium 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

To start the ball rolling on this consultative process, can you reinsert the linked modern day country reference (i.e. modern day Republic of Croatia) as this is the one that will have most meaning (in terms of geographical orientation) to most people.

I'll get back to you either way re external sources or lack of them vis a vis Red Croatia & Pagania & any ethnic attribution of the Narentines.

Cheers,

croatian_quoll 07:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Well that's what I have been trying to tell you - it's not a territory ascribed to Red Croatia.

2. Like I said - the Chronicle bears no mention of the Narentani - how can it be used as a source?

3. The best Serb fighters in the manner that they were the best fighters in the Serbian Army. And it draws a parallel with the 10th century sources - that depict them strongly as Serbs.

Well, the reference to modern country could be put - I just saw no possible need for it, since the article is already chategorized under Category:History of Croatia - with another mention being either useless or WP:POINT.

Cheers to you too. --PaxEquilibrium 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Query

1. Well that's what I have been trying to tell you - it's not a territory ascribed to Red Croatia.

The territory is ascribed to Red Croatia in the description of Red Croatia's boundaries in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea.

From the well sourced Red Croatia wikipedia entry:

'.....Item ab eodem loco Dalmae usque Bambalonam ciuitatem, quae nunc dicitur Dyrachium, Croatiam Rubeam...." [1]' ''The last, bolded part is translated in English:

"And from the field of Dalmae (Duvno) to the city of Dyrrachium (Durres) is Red Croatia"

This description includes Pagania. The same would apply if the writer/s of the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea had used bishoprics or the duchy names. All would describe the same thing using a different refernce point.

Do you agree that this description covers Pagania? And can you explain why you would not include it in the article.

We should include this quote from the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea with an explanatory note of it's significance.

2. Like I said - the Chronicle bears no mention of the Narentani - how can it be used as a source?

Not to my knowledge - but the territorial description of Red Croatia in the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea includes the territory the Narentines inhabited.

This conflicts with another source that says Serb settled the area.

The article should note this point, also making reference to the quality of the sources.

Calling the Narentines Serbs (or Croats for that matter) is not a fact. It's a conclusion made from select sources. The article shouldn't do that - that should be left to the reader.

3. The best Serb fighters in the manner that they were the best fighters in the Serbian Army. And it draws a parallel with the 10th century sources - that depict them strongly as Serbs.

The 10th century source you are referring to is De Administrando Imperio?

Well, the reference to modern country could be put - I just saw no possible need for it, since the article is already chategorized under Category:History of Croatia - with another mention being either useless or WP:POINT.

Modern day country references are a common & useful way of giving readers a geographical orientation because they are more likely to be familiar with countries as opposed to regions & don't have to follow a link for that information.

Examples of modern day country references being employed include the wikipedia entries for Silesia, Prussia, Persia, Transylvania, Wallachia & Dacia.

The WP:POINT reference is a red herring because it is equally WP:POINT to exclude as it is to include a modern day country reference.

The category Category:History of Croatia is irrelevant because it is a historical reference & does not provide an accurate geographical orientation because the territorial boundaries of Croatia have ebbed & flowed during history.

Can I impose on you to make the relevant edit to include the modern country reference in the intro of the Pagania article please?

Thanks in advance,

croatian_quoll 12:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Outstanding Issues - Talk #1

Pagania's geographically located in Red Croatia description

1. That region does not include Pagania - that's what I have been trying to tell you. And even if it would cover - this is not a geographical term, but a historical state - so where's the connection?

Of course it covers Pagania. If it didn't the description would say:

"And from the 'Neretva river' to the city of Dyrrachium (Durres) is Red Croatia"

instead of:

"And from the 'field of Dalmae (Duvno)' to the city of Dyrrachium (Durres) is Red Croatia"

Pagania & Red Croatia are both historical states with associated geographical connotations. Can you please explain the relevance of whether something is geographical term or historical state?

See this change of mine. For instance, one Byzantine source details descriptions of Serbia & Croatia - but bears no mention of Bosnia. According to that logic, we would have to write "bears no mention of Bosnia, it mentions Croats in the west and Serbs at the east" which is foolish - it simply doesn't deal with it. In the same manner, LPD doesn't deal with Pagania. For instance - see the Priest's Map. It marks Pagania a partitioned between Zachlumia and Dalmatia - quitte probably refering to how it was when he lived. I believe that I noted in the article that Zachlumia consumed Merania? --PaxEquilibrium 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the map - it looks wrong & I question it's authenticity. It has the delineation between Bosnia (which on this map is defined as Serbia) & Croatia moved from the Bosnia/Vrbas (depending on time period) to the Una river - a notion only really supported by Greater Serb nationalists & sympathisers. croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying now - however unlike the Byzantine source (based on your description) that describes Croatia in the West & Serbia in the East, the LPD specifically defines the territory from the 'field of Dalmae (Duvno)' to the city of Dyrrachium (Durres) as the boundaries of an entity known as Red Croatia. What sub entities Red Croatia was composed of & which ones get a mention would have been considered unnecessary when considering the very specific nature of this geographical description. Any mention of sub-entities would thus be included for reasons other than geographical delineation e.g. power centres, where a certain noble resided etc. croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a slighlty different proposal - let's say taht we input that Pagania's actual existence is disputed - as is clearly that way in the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja.

Sounds like a red herring to me.

Just like you said "...Pagania & Red Croatia..." and not Red Croatia alone. The basis what I am trying to tell you is that the Priest of Duklja has never heard, nor known anything about the Narentines - thus, according to his interpretations - Pagania would be a non-existent (yet very much existent) geographical region between Croatian Dalmatia and Red Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that Pagania did not exist at the time. The reference to Red Croatia stems from De Regno Sclavorum, dated ca 750AD with DAI dated ca 950AD. What dates does DAI talk about Serbs migrating to the region? Would that not make the Narentines a mix of Red Croats & White Serbs?? I think I understand your point - but like the hypothesise that we were discussing above, it represents original research & really can't be included. Unless there is a study by a credible historian on this very question?

On contrary - I think that no factual mention of Pagania in a source - and using the source to source info put on the article is original research. --PaxEquilibrium 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise, we can mention that the source LPD & the fact that it does mentions Red Croatia for the territory where Pagania is supposed to be. Maybe even write that this is suggestive of the time Pagania as a geo-political entity came into being (provided this can be sourced)?? croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, as far as I understood - Pagania was supposed to be a part of Croatia (Dalmatia) according to the Priest - and not Red Croatia. He probably considered the other three Realms united (while they were a Kingdom) - after Pagania joined the Kingdom of Croatia in 1050. You must understand that the Priest used contemporary geography - because the Narentines were completly unkown to him. --PaxEquilibrium 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pagania not mentioned in Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea

2. Well - there's the issue - the Priest never mentioned Pagania - I corrected that issue. There is absolutely no mention of it and he clearly states Red Croatia composed out of three states: Zachlumia, Travunia and Doclea (+ the Albanian territories). See also Red Croatia.

I have read Red Croatia but cannot see where it mentions the three states in the excerpt from the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea. Do you access to the relevant excerpt from the Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea where this is mentioned?

Yes, I do (se below & above). --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I still can't find any latin excerpt from LPD that mentions the three duchies - can you copy & paste here please. croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have to mention Pagania by name, because it is covered in the geographical description of Red Croatia. See point 1 above.

See above - it's disputable. It's quitte possible that he used the present (his time's) interpretation of Zachlumia to describe Pagania since he never heard of the Narentani, or just simply didn't think about them at all. --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

He described Duklja (which he refers to as the factual Red Croatia - Duklja alone). Duklja, according to him, expanded at verious times to include the territories to Dyrrachion - and it included Zachlumia & Travunia (just like the Priest says) in King Mihailo Vojislav's time, for instance. --PaxEquilibrium 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, the geographical description of Red Croatia is very specific & covers where Pagania is supposed to be. Unless you are suggesting that Pagania came into being later or the priest got it wrong (need sources, otherwise it's original research), we will need to include this point in the introduction. Your thoughts? croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

you should read up Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - all will be clear what I mean. --PaxEquilibrium 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

DAI

3. Yes, it's DAI (next to some domestic Serbian medieval sources) --PaxEquilibrium 22:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.

---

Modern day country reference

Oh and - are you now completly sure that you want the reference to modern country included? Countries are political - and to resemble it's geographical locations we use geographical terms (Dalmatia in this case). It's not really standard practise, as it conotes it with something political. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this political connotation that you speak of?

HRM, I noticed you left the modern day country reference to Montenegro for the Duklja article & ignored the examples I have cited in previous response.

As a sign of good faith, I have agreed not to make unilatreal changes (which I notice you continue to do on other pages). Please reciporcate the good faith in your choice of arguments.

Whether anyone likes it or not, what was Pagnania is part of the internationally recognised modern day Republic of Croatia. People often have better knowledge of countries (regardless of political & geographical connotation) as opposed to regions (in this case, the term Dalmatia has disparate geographic connotations).

The modern day country reference will be included because it is a relevant fact belonging to this encyclaepedic entry. If anyone has a problem with this 'fact', then create a separate stubb on disputed territory/territorial aspirations.

You also forget that the term Croatia has been used as a geographical term throught the ages. What I am proposing is using the neutral UN country reference in addition to the regional reference.

Shall you make the change to include the modern day country reference, or shall I?

Apart from the comment on political connotions, is there any reason why the modern day country reference should not be included. I aim to put it in next weekend. croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apart from it - nope, there isn't. --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Red Croatia - credibility & number of sources

Now - you must also keep one fact in mind. This is only one (single) mention of Red Croats in Duklja - whereas its by far outgunned by the mentions of Serbs. Stating the population of Duklja as Slavic instead of Serbian would be the same as stating the population of Lika during the early middle ages as Slavic - as there's the old toponym of Srb, to which the Ljudevit Posavski fled (and tricked the Serb lord, taking his area for himself) - instead of Croatian. The same goes for Dalmatia - it bears the first mention of Serbs in these areas (which is some 3 decades before the first mention of Croats) the people of Serbs that control the greater part of Dalmatia from 822. It's simply POV to assert such things - these facts merely deserve a mention - and not beyond this. For instance - Red Croatia's one & only mention was in the anonimous work from 753 - De Regno Sclavorum - that is only present in a source within the 1171-1196 Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja - a work discovered in the 16th century bearing so many contemporary facts (not corresponding the early period) meaning that it was clearly vastly rewritten in the period. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There are three sources, Flavius Blondus, De Regno Sclavorum (& translation of this is Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja), Andrea Dandolo's Chronicle of Dalmatia.

Indeed, it is POV & a form of censureship to exclude these sources. By all means, make an explanatory note re credibility & number of sources, but to exclude is censureship.

What was there before with the mention of Red Croatia in the intro was good. It mentions the source, what it says, links it & moves on. Can we agree on that?

croatian_quoll 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse we can! --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree to include in the intro of the article, that is. croatian_quoll 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

And essentially, you must agree that the LPD is, essentially, POV and not really neutral - and in every possible way inferior to the DAI. --PaxEquilibrium 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That statement itself is POV :-) Every historical reference has elements of POV, that equally applies to DAI & LPD. LPD is an authentic reference & should be included instead of censored. croatian_quoll 06:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Eh, no, considering "...And from the field of Dalmae (Duvno) to the city of Dyrrachium (Durres) is Red Croatia...", meaning that it stretches from the northwestern border of Zachlumia to central Arboria, and explicitly meantioning the three southern Dalmatian Principalities (Doclea, Travunia, Zachlumia) and not Pagania. --PaxEquilibrium 15:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually - LPD is not a neutral source - just like any History of Bosnia written by a Croatian historian would be more prominent over an Austrian Archive. It's domestic, not foreign - hence, although it may be more informative, it's almost definately polarized. For instance, did you read some parts of it? Firstly, only one copied version includes the mention of a Red Croatia (and it's not the Slavic Croatian version, but a Latin one), secondly, the actual work was written (or rather, translated) into the so-colled "pig latin" language, and constantly you will find fathers living 200 years after their sons. Although this is, as the Roman Catholic Christian Archbishop of Antivari Gregory himself notes, written legend & myth, I consider it credible - just, regarding that it's only reason of existence is that it was created as a propaganda pamphlet for the citizens of Antivari, helping them survive the siege and raising morale of the Doclei - I choose a Chronicle written by a Roman Emperor to his son how he should rule. Additionally, the LPD was written 250 years after DAI - nut refering to the same events that happened earlier.

I agree with those who advocated for removal of Serb references. You can state what Porphyrogenitus wrote of them but neither he knew much about them nor is he 100% valid source. So keep his reference but mantain a more neutral position. Narentines were mostly likely and objectively slavic-illyriran(vlach) mix and were neither Serbs nor Croats. Most of them however assimilated into Croats.

No one advocated that and the removal would also make it unsourced. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting DAI over LPD is unsourced as well. There is absolutly no valid arugment why would one be put as more valid over the other. Afrika Paprika 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We may argue about that - but it's totally irrelevant. This is the subject about Pagania - and the LPD isn't related to it. --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The article which speaks of the areas directly related to the matter we speak about(Pagania) isn't related to it? LOL! Afrika 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chronicle never mentions nor speaks about Pagania. --PaxEquilibrium 09:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it speaks of 'Red Croatia' of which Pagania was a part of. Afrika 10:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Oh and also it may be interesting to know that Narentines spoke Chakavian-Dalmatian dialect which was and is exclusively spoken by Croats and was the main "standard" language of medieval Croatia. - Afrika_Paprika

Really? Interestingle enough, things are contrary to what you claim (could you present some sources, please?) please consult this image:

--PaxEquilibrium 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You should do better than that. 1. This map is based on what? Sources please? 2. Cyrillic doesn't means Serbian. 3. Based on what does the author concludes presence of "serbian tombs" in those areas?

As I said and I'll repeat it - Neretvians were Chakavian speaking people(refer to Ferdo Šišić)...even the Serbian historians such as Vaso Glušac, thoguh he wasn't the only one, admitted that.Afrika Paprika 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It was made by a proffessor based largely on Historia Salonitana Maior of Thomas the Archdeacon; if you've ever heard of him. On the other hand - you should put your sources to prove your own claims. 1. How can we know that they spoke Chakav dialect? and 2. What essentially does that mean? Vuk Karadzic claimed that all shtokav spokers were Serbs (and by then there were many Croats that spoke that way). Many Croatian writers of Serb origin spoke that. Linguistics can't prove much, even if they are (today) exclusive to a nation; direct links should, rather. --PaxEquilibrium 11:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat refer to Ferdo Šišič...he was prominent export on that field and his counterparts among Serbs agreed with him. Direct links will prove nothing whatsoever as you can put on the internet whatever you want...you are textbook example with your revisionist edits all around wikipedia. Afrika 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What percisely did Ferdo Sisic (whome I love and read all works - I wonder why I didn't hear this) say? And is it only based on dialect? And if it is, how can that be enough? And how on first place could he discover a dialect of a people vefore 1000 years? --PaxEquilibrium 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Šišić considered them to be Chakavian speaking. The core of early Croatian literature is written in Chakavian as are all the oldest Croatian charters known including the Neretvian. Enough for what? The only thing I am doing here is proving to you that there is a shadow of doubt about your version you are enforcing....unlike you I am not proving to you they were Croats although majority of them started identifying as Croats and their descendants continue to do so to this day. The point is the people of 'Croatia Rubea' as it was referred had not national character except that of their own and as such they are referred elswhere including Venetian and Arabian sources from that time. While at some place Serbian and Croatian name is even considered the same...literary. Thats why we need a compromise and consensus...the thing which you constantly refuse. Afrika 19:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned a thousand times and will mention it again (you obviously missed it) => WP:CITE. The claim that Neretvians were Chakavian-speaking completly contradicts with the map from above that I posted for you. The core of the Serbian language has always been Shtokavian. This reminds me of how Vuk Karadzic considered all Shtokavian-speakers Serbs. How can that be enough to claim them Croats? You are enforcing a version - I'm just rv back edits that contradict with wikipedia's rules (WP:V and WP:NOR). Descentents majorily identified as Croats? Can you source that? Aside from that, the descendents of Doclea, Travunia and to an extent Zachlumia mostly identified themselves as Serbs - but that doesn't seem to mean much to you. The origin of the current people living in that region is far from able to be directly linked (what do you think that is? East/Old Herzegovina, Montenegro? :D). "Croatia Rubea" has absolutely nothing to do with the Narentine people. Venetian and Arabian sources called them Croats? --PaxEquilibrium 09:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your map above is wrong. Refer to my previous post and spare me of your useless rants.Afrika 10:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So you returned.... regardless of the community ban. --PaxEquilibrium 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Serbs or Croats

Paganians were described as Serbs, but as in those times Serbs and Croats were SAME tribe, (like it is still today, no matter what some brainwashed wiki-"scientists" think), it's either Serbs or Croats. Serbs=Croats, that's the formula eterna.. Cheers;

Narentines were not described as Serbs, they were described as Narentines or Paganians. However as I stated earlier it is well proven and acceppted that they spoke Chakavian dialect which is exclusively Croatian dialect throughout history and today. Afrika Paprika

Several things: they were described as Narentines and then PaganS only by the Byzantines. They indeed are described as Serbs. Chakav dialect, well, first you'll have to source that; and then you'll have to state who claims that they're Croatian because of it, or you would be violating the No Original research wikipolicy. --PaxEquilibrium 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

First it is you who should prove that DAI is credible source. For example explaining how and why is Porphirogenitus contradicting himself when he later claims "and Croats and Serbs....and Pagans(Neretvians) became independant". Why on Earth would he mention the Pagans as separate as they are as he says earlier "Serbs". How can they be Serbs twice? And also what about Venetian and Arabian sources which do not mention Neretvians being Serbs with one word? Explain? Everything you base your claims(and ridiculous ones I might add) is DAI, rather contradicting source of not very much great importance among scholars and historians. Afrika 18:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the same manner that he says "Dalmatians" and "Croats". If it's stated that Pagans aren't Serbs - than the Principality of Dalmatia (predecessor of the Croat Duchy from the 9th century) should say "South Slavic" and not "Croatian" - don't push beyond an obvious compromise. Serbs are rarely mentioned with a single word through many Hungarian and Byzantine sources. "rascians", "Bosnians", "zetans" was used, rather. --PaxEquilibrium 21:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your comparison is that Croatian state and Croatia as a nation was born in the very province of Dalmatia so you see your comparison does not makes any sense. Also Porphyrogenitus when speaking of Dalmatia like Einhardt(also for example) speaks of the old Roman province Dalmatia(former Illyricum) which encompassed much greater area than medieval and modern province of Dalmatia - modern Dalmatia(including medieval Croatian state), Coastal Croatia(Liburnia), Bosnia, Hum/Zahumlje, Pagania, Duklja, parts of Serbia(former Rascia). You only continue to prove that you actually know nothing of the matter or at least that you are intentionally ignoring pieces of information which are essential to understanding of the whole matter. Afrika 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have beein saying this and you refused it - the Serbian state was born as well as its nation in southern Dalmatia. Although this only measily applies to Pagania, it most definately applies to Doclea, Travunia with Konavli and Zachlumia. And he doesn't speak of the old ROman province, but "Principality of Dalmatia" - the Croat (Slavic, according to you) Principality from Istria to Cetina. Please, stop with personal attacks and scally judgements. --PaxEquilibrium 09:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Serbian state was born in the Princiaplity of Rashka not Dioclea. The latter had ambigous national character where they have been referred as many things...from Croats over Romans/Latins to Serbs and simply Slavs. Afrika 00:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually - that's not quitte correct. The Serbian statehood was revived (after it collapsed in the 10th century) by Doclea and Duklja alone (the previous Serbian state existed in Bosnia, and before that in Rascia). While it took over leadership among the Serbs whenever Rascia fell apart or was occupied, it created in the 11th century a large "min-empire" composed out of Rascia, Doclea, Zachlumia, Travunia and Bosnia. It continued to compete for leadership with Rascia and Bosnia over the Serb people, but eventually lost. Anyway, the one who came to Rascia and regathered the Serb confederate state was Stefan Nemanja - a member of the Doclean rulling family himself; so, yes, Doclea is the key element in awakening and regathering of the Serb people (just like Montenegro was in modern times). They were never "Romans/Latins", and its argueable that they were Croats. They were "Slavs", who identified as "Serbs" for the most of the time. --PaxEquilibrium 11:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrika Paprika

You have led a rather violent Edit War. Please understand that Wikipedia is not for pbulicating Original Research and demands sources for its every bit. This is why I reverted your edits:

1) You replaced Neretvia (correct translation) with fictious Narentia

2) You removed the mention that they were a Serb tribe (when it's supported)

3) you removed the sole reason of the their pagan name

4) You entirely rm the Wikiquote of De Administrando Imperio

5) You removed the explaination why it's refered to as the "Frontier"

6) You removed the notice that their titles were typicly Serbian

7) You removed the White Serbs and their Unknown Archont (even though this is a part of the Narentine story)

8) You oddly destroyed the name of the island of Brach (not only there, elsewhere too, like with Gojnikovich, Vlastimirovich, Pribislavljevich and Branovich, for instance)

9) Replaced "Serb" with "Slav" everywhere

10) You removed THE ONLY source/external link anf ALL categories. This is (especially the 8 and 10) the sole reason why your edits are unacceptable. --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

1.Noted, will correct that.

2.It's not supported, there is one doubtful sources which mentions them as such, all others mention them as simply - Neretvians and/or Croats

3.Don't know on what do you base such a claim. It's clearly stated they refused to aceppt Christianity while all their neighbours did thus their name.

4.It is not nescessary to quote it as below it we have again reference that it is mentioning the same passage.

5.The explanation is not valid. "Krajina" or "Frontier" was the Slavic equivivalent of the German "Mark"

6.Their titles were not typically "Serbian" but typically Slavic.

7.Again this is repeating of the doubtful source of DAI.

8.You will excuse me for I know not what you are talking about.

9.According to NPOV policy of Wikipedia and according to the discussion here on talk page.

10.Unintentionally, thank you for your notice.

Afrika Paprika 19:19 12 August 2006 (UTC)

2. You shouldn't clearly dismiss it as being doubtful - however, what you should do is provide any source claiming them being Croatian, because you would be endorsing a POV

3. I don't base it. I directly take it from Emperor Constantine's and Emperess Anna's words.

4. Yes it is - it's the way of a source, percisely to prevent people from doing what you're doing.

5. No; there were two Krajinas - one in the Narentine land - and the other below Skadar (the two borderlands of the Serbian land),

6. I took this from a source; on what do you base your claim?

7. No - but the actual origin of the Narentines; rm is actualy destroying the article and cutting off its richness.

8. Just see your changes - you were destroying 1/3 of the article's wording.

9. According to NPOV? Well, where is that other point of view? I am not denying that it doesn't exist - just show it to me, please. And, no; it's contrary to the discussion. --PaxEquilibrium 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

2.I did provide a source, refer to F.Šišić. Also you should do better than DAI which is contradicting source on equal with myths and legends of Arthurian age for example or Nestor's chronicle.

3.Which are contradicting.

4.The reference is mentioned once, it does not needs to be posted twice...thats flooding.

5.I will repeat - "krajina" is the equivalent of the german "mark" or english "march", it designates a strip of land attached to some other larger principality/land.

6.I thook mine from many sources....LPD, Venetian, Papal, Arab, etc...many other chronicles which do not mention Neretvians as Serbs and also F.Šišić who concluded they spoke Croatian(chakavian) with what Serbian historians of his time agreed with him.

7.The actual origin of Neretvians is undesignated.

8.I destroyed nothing...only removed NPOV contradicting and revisionist propaganda.

9.Again refer to other sources. And also please explain to me the contradictions of DAI...then you can claim it as a source. Since you can't do that...

Afrika 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Could you please QUOTE AND CITE THE SOURCE?

3. No, they're not.

4. The citation isn't. There's no flooding

5. I don't understand you.

6. Very interesting - the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja bares no mention of the Pagans at all - and could you point at ANY Venetian, Papal, Arab source which does?

7. Not if there's only one claim and its sourced

8. Yes you were, check your editing - you still are destroying practicly 1/3 of your editing.

9. I see no other source. Except that you mentioned Ferdo Sisic at one point... --PaxEquilibrium 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Refer to 'Povijest Hrvata' and F.Šišić's transliteration(with explanations) of LPD.

3. Yes they are...I've shown you directly on this page...you have not answer it and ignored it.

4. The citation only repeats what is stated afterwards. There is no need to cite only to state what it says...if we would quote every work that speaks of the matter the article would be 20 miles long

5. Of course you don't.

6. The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja(LPD) speaks directly of the area where Pagania and other slavic principalities known as 'Croatia Rubea' are placed. I can point you to any Venetian, Papal and Arab source which speaks of Neretvians...I mean ANY...you will not find any referance about the supposed Serbian character of Pagans/Neretvians.

7.I tend to disagree...especially since your 'source' is contradicting and unfounded. Porphyrogenitus wrote hearsay, he never visited Neretvians thus his 'chronicle' should be taken with the grain of salt. And as mentioned total lack of information from other sources and contradicting information referring to Dukljans, Zahumljans, etc as Croats from other various Byzantine sources.

8. No I am not.

9. Of course you don't see, just as you don't understand #5.

Afrika 19:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

2. As I said, please WP:CITE.

3. Contradicting with what?

4. Oh, you removed that from Pagania, Zachlumia and Travunia (where it calls them Serbs) and kept it at Doclea (where it calls them simply Slavs) - this really speaks a lot about your intentions.

5. Explain it to me, then.

6. That's the point - it doesn't. Please, do point me out (and do they call them Croats?)

7. That's the problem - you find that that way, and yet you support LPD, which is a lot less credible and is generally disregarded as historicism (and relies on POV), unlike DAI. This also tells a lot about you (maybe you don't like DAI exclusivly because of its contents?)

8. Yes, you are. A lot of broken wording is being restored, you constantly remove the only sources from the article, etc. Thus, I rv your edits as per WP:V

9. I don't see, simplt because you didn't give them. --PaxEquilibrium 09:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

2. As soon as someone transliterates the whole book to some internet site. LOL. Ridiculous...

3. Contradicting with itself

4. I only removed it on the begining where it claims it was Serbian and only Serbian which is absurd. Further in the article the historical association with Serbia is preserved.

5. I already did explained it to you. You claim 'krajina' is Serbian and only Serbian term which is again absurd. Krajina is simply slavic term for 'mark', 'march', etc. as in 'Spanish March' or 'Ostmark', etc. You have these all over Slavic world...it is even the name of the biggest European country (not including European Russia) - Ukraine. Do you understand now?

6. Point you what? Read carefully what it says.

7. Actually I do not support LPD...LPD is irrelevant as is DAI....both are not very much credible. One must look at greater picture and the greater picture says they were simply small Slavic principalities that later got incorporated into later greater entities and started to identify with something else (Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian...)

8. No, I am not.

9. Of course...

Afrika 10:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

2. Could you please - for a change - read when you are told to read: please, WP:CITE or abandon your claims

3. How?

4. You removed all DAI citations from Pagania, Travunia and Zachlumia (with Serbian claims) and not from Doclea (with non-Slavic claims)

5. ? So what? I never claimed that...

6. I read carefully the whole thing (and the Croat version - one of many). I found no Pagania/Pagans or anything similiar.

8. Yes, you are - deleting the only sources, changing the wording back to its bad previous form, etc.

9. Of course you can't prove it? --PaxEquilibrium 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

I see that dispute here is whether inhabitants of Pagania were Serbs or Croats. However, the deletion of the Serb name from the entire article certainly will not solve a problem. The policy of Wikipedia is to present ALL points of view about the subject, so, the both points of view (that they were Serbs and that they were Croats) should be presented. Are there any constructive suggestions how both points of view could be presented? PANONIAN (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now for anybody interested, the quotes from source (DAI) that claim that inhabitants of Pagania were Serbs are already mentioned in the article. What is a source that claim that they were Croats? PANONIAN (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been searching - but all I could find are traditional claims by modern or semi-modern Croat and Serb historians "They were Croats" or "They were Serbs". Other than that, there is just some quasi-historical research on Red Croatia - not even bearing on mind that Pagania wasn't its part. --PaxEquilibrium 12:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey!

Why fight again? What's the problem? PaxEquilibrium 22:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Afrika Paprika

Just reportin' that Afrika paprika still silently enforces his editing. I have no choice but to revert his edits until he democratizes, sadly. All convincing failed, as can be seen on User_talk:Afrika paprika, where even an administrator failed to influence him. --PaxEquilibrium 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HolyRomanEmperor

And I am reporting that 'HolyRomanEmperor' is still trying to enforce his version ignoring the obvious neutrality and objectivity needed in this article. All discussion is discarded to him unless it suits him...same for the sources. Afrika 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I like sources that I can read here. I dislike sourced that are not visible. It's just Wikipedia's policy. Or are you now going to point the blame at Wikipedia itself? --PaxEquilibrium 09:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I also like source that can be read and can be verified on more than one place and do not contradict themselves. One of wikipedia's policy is verifiability also. Afrika 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you concur - I verified on Britannica Encyclopedia, Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Catholic, etc... the list is endless as those facts which are claimed are internationally and globally accepted. --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Croats and Serbs did not exist in time of Pagania

Why were then actually litterally called Serbs during their age?

Additionally, Afrika paprika has continued the Edit War - I use this moment to report him further here and hope that he will come and discuss. However, I have no choice but to revert. --PaxEquilibrium 17:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

They were equallly referred as Croats too...especially people from Duklja(Dukljani) who were often transliterated in Byzantine sources as Croats., same for Hum(Zahumlje) while Neretvians were mostly referred simply as 'Slavic pirates' though the autochtonous Illyric(Vlachic) elemnt in them is undisputable. Now if I would be intolerant as you are I would go on and push the Croatian-oriented version but unlike you I at least have some objectivity and neutrality in all this. As can be observed in this page alone you are not interested in discussion...only in enforcing what YOU think is right. That is unacceptable Afrika 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Equally to as Croats? Wow, that's odd - since I can't see one single mention (perhaps you could point out). The people of Doclea were rarely called Croats - as far as I remember, only once; and that's when their state went as eastwards as the City of Knin. As for them being called Serbs - there are around 20-30 mentions by Emperors and historians and a lot more by poets & writers (I can't remember them all; please see Talk:Duklja for the full story). The same goes for Travunia, and almost the same for Zachlumia. However, I will give my hat to you regarding the Narentines - as they are almost sourceless. Is it so unacceptable to go by WP:NOR and to revert edits according to WP:V? --PaxEquilibrium 09:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes equally to Croats. There is more than one instance where Byzantine sources mention this....contradicting the "almighty" Porphyrogenitus who had crystal ball and knew everything although he didn't have a clue.Afrika 09:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually - I stated that already - that's insignificant when compared to the Croats. For instance, there is only one mention, and that is of Byzantine chronicle historian John Skylitzes who calls King Michael the one who rules the Croats and that's it. However, John Skylitzes also mentions that John Vladimir of Duklja (of the same dynasty) is the ruler of Serbia; calls Stephen Voislav the exarch of Serbs and his subjects Serbs and says that Doclea is inhabited by Serbs (that was in the 11th century). According to Scylitzes, Stephen Voislav retook the land of the Serbs when he escaped imrisonment and gathered the Serb, Tribal and other neighbouring tribes. He also writes the expeditionary soldiers that Doclea sent to Macedonia in 1072 were the people of Serbs that came to conquer Bulgaria. Aside from that, there are dozens of more mentions by Empress Anna and Kekauman (both in the 11th century). Aside from that, even the Archbishop of Bar refers to their "Serbdom". Aside from that single Croat mention, there is no other exception - and you have to consider the fact that Doclea than went all the way northwards to Knin (so - he indeed is rulling the Croats; right?) --PaxEquilibrium 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

velikosrpsko sranje!

This post was added by none other than User:Afrika paprika. In English, it means "Greater Serb shit!". Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia:Profanity. Your insultive remark at Talk:Pagania to the bottom is highly offensive. --PaxEquilibrium 15:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

it was NOT a serb tribe, it was a SLAVIC tribe. can you please edit this.

They're not Serb? How come? They're stated as such. --PaxEquilibrium 18:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

They are also stated as Croats...by the same source you call yourself upon as well - DAI of Porphyorgenitus. The point is that DAI is simply not credible enough...it contradicts itself. The mention of Croats and Serbs is in the chapters 32(about arrival of Croats) and chapter 33 (about Serbs). The two chapters are almost identical with mininal changes which is why some historian consider that the chapter 33 is simply added later as transliteration of the previous chapter with minor changes. Furthemore in the same DAI (chapter 32) Porphyrogenitus writes that Croats came upon call of Heraclius to fight against Avars from 'White Croatia'(Chrobati) which was around today southern Poland and western Ukraine (later Galicia-Halych/Galich). He says that Croats defeated the Avars and took their lands...settling mostly in Dalmatia from Istria and Liburnia to theme of Dyrrachion, with one tribe going back north and settling in Lower Pannonia among other Slavs who already lived there and governed them. And here is interesting part - Porphyrogenitus say that Croats have not moved from the places they settled at all meaning they were living in those same places for more than 300 years ago which means also - Pagania, Zachlumia, Dioclea and Travunia. This also corresponds with the earlier work 'Regnum Sclavorum' which was transliterated (the original in Old Slavonic is lost) into Latin and preserved in Rome. And then we have numerous other Venetian and Saracen(Arab) sources which speak of neither Croats or Serbs when referring to Dioclea, Zachlumia and especially Pagania. It is also without doubt that these small principalities later however started acceppting Serbian and Croatian identity. Croatian(Ragusa, Pagania and partially Zachlumia) and Serbian(Travunia, Dioclea which became known as Zeta and partially Zachlumia). Porphyrogenitus also speaks of Bosnia as Serbian land which also corresponds with 'Regnum Sclavorum' but it must be noted that at that time Bosnia was far more small and only encompassed aproximately 1/3 of what is today commonly referred as Bosnia and mainly took the eastern part of modern-day Bosnia region (area between rivers Bosna, Drina and Sava). In any case referring as Pagania, Zachlumia, Dioclea and Travunia as "Serbian medieval states" cannot be confirmed and is simply ridiculous claim. Afrika Paprika 21:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DAI nowhere mentions Pagans as Croats. It's not self-contradicting. It's just a little ambigous, just as any other work of its global fame. The "De Regno Sclavorum" (that's the correct name) isn't preserved anywhere, and its sole world mention is within the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja as a source - and it doesn not mention Pagania - so it is out of subject here.

Yes it does. Just as it speaks of Serbs settling in those lands so does the chapter before it speaks about Croats settling there. As I said the chapters concerning Croats and Serbs are almost identical save for few minor differences. That is why DAI is not credible when we speak of ethnic character of these medieval states and that is why NPOV article shouldn't contain statements from DAI save for those speaking of geography. The 'Chronicle of Presbyter of Dioclea' is in fact transliteration of the 'De Regno Sclavorum' and thus preserved version of the same work translated from Slavonic to Latin and kept in Rome. Afrika Paprika 21:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Show me one Saracen (Arab) or Venetian source calling inhabitants of Pagania Croats. Ragusa accepted Croatian identity? But Croatian identity appeared in Dubrovnik in the 20th century, or only a further later. We have sources confirming Pagania's "Serbdom" - and we have no sources denying Pagania's Serbian identity. I just see it like that. --PaxEquilibrium 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot show you because they do not say such a thing and what is more I never claimed they did claim such a thing. I am constatly repeating that - the mentioned Dalmatian principalities were ambigous - neither Croatian nor Serbian and articles should follow that policy. As it is now it's simply ridiculous. Please read more carefully. The Venetian and Saracen sources mention absolutly nothing about Neretvians or for that matter other neighbouring states(Dioclea, Zachlumia and Travunia) as being Serbian and Croatian. These cultures had extensive contact with these princiapalities and they should be considered with great care and interest. As for Ragusa/Dubrovnik it acceppted Croatian identity much much earlier than 20. century. We have numerous sources of Ragusa/Dubrovnik accepting Croatian identity as early as 15., 16. and 17. century. There is absolutly no mention of anyone's "Serbdom"...whatever that may be. Afrika Paprika 21:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Afrika paprika's arguements

DAI doesn't mention Croat settling in Pagania. The Chronicle of the Preist of Duklja was written by a Serbian Archbishop, it was based mainly on legends and oral traditions; it was written almost two centuries after. Additionally, we have been discussin this for long time - but it simply shouldn't be mentioned here, as LPD is out of the subject on this one and shares no relevancy here. --PaxEquilibrium 18:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

DAI does mention Croats settling in Pagania and whole Red Croatia(Croatia Rubea). It is in the chapter 32 of 'De Administrando Imperio', a chapter before chapter about Serbs. The two chapters are almost identical, especially regarding settlement with only minor changes to some details. 'The Chronicle of Presbyter of Dioclea' was written by a Catholic Archbishop(not a Serbian) as no such thing as "Serbian Archbishop" existed then. His chronicle was transliteration of 'De Regno Sclavorum' which is the earliest chronicle regarding that area. One which fits DAI perfectly. Afrika Paprika 21:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, how come when DAI doesn't even mention Red Croatia? I used the wrong expression - the Archbishops of Antivari were/are "Serbian Primates". The Chronicle was written by the Serbian Primate Gregory and yet again I repeat - bears no relevance to the subject of this article, so please stop mentioning it. ;)

Because DAI and Porhpyrogenitus doesn't know much about the area or the division between the South Slavic tribes/people. I don't see how the catholic Archbishop could have been "Serbian"...he was simply Catholic Archbishop and that is undisputable fact...the fact he was Serbian...well we cannot really know that. And sorry I will not stop mentioning it because it is vital to this article...I know you would like me to stop but that will not happen. Afrika Paprika 15:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bar of Antivari's title has been "Serbian Primate" forever - up to this very day. Gregory is signed as a "Serbian Primate". Actually, many think (among them the Vatican) that the Archbishop of Bar styled himself "Primate of Serbia" in the 16th century - which is percisely the same period that the LPD appeared - making a very strong incinuation of the possibility of its invention. I would like you to stop mentioning irrelevant bits - that's what I would like. The subject is Pagania, and not the Chronicle. --PaxEquilibrium 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but thats bull. The title of Archbishop of Bar is just that - Archbishop of Bar. If he was ever styled as "Pimate of Serbia" it was referred at the fact that the most (and when it was) of the Archbishopric was part of Serbia. It did not denote the national character of the church because Roman Catholic Church does not work in that way. In fact there is no doubt that the Catholic Church in Bar and whole Kotor Bay showed great affiliation with the Church in Croatia and Ragusa. And I am sorry if I disagree...this is not "irrelevant" this is very relevant as is the fact that Pagania was not "Serb tribe" as you enforce the Serbian POV nationalistic propaganda. here. Afrika Paprika 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(ragusians): This has nothing to do with the unification; when in the unified Yugoslav state Dubrovnikers were bygone already fierce Croats. What do you mean by saying "small number of people" and then "none"? Those are all famous Dubrovnikers of the 19th century (and early 20th century; to an extent also going to the 18th or perhaps even late 17th century, but without a fierce Serbian national identity).

The people mentioned here were a dwarf minority. Can you comprehand that? They were so insignificant that even the Yugoslav(Serbian) king made fun of them when they came upon him and said "we are catholic Serbs"...he replied "Yeah? And I am an Orthodox Croat". Funny. :)) Afrika Paprika 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please be serious. Medo Pucich is the most prominent Dubrovniker of the 19th century. Anyway, this is totally off the subject, so let's concentrate on Pagania. Please provide sources for your claim. --PaxEquilibrium 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if I disagree with you agian. The sources are provided. It is you who needs to back your claims with more valid and credible source not just Serbian greater Serbian propaganda and spinning the facts as it suits you. Afrika Paprika 15:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Bar's Archbishops have eternally been "Primus Serviae" (considering if we take the LPD as authentic). And I repeat, the Pagans might be Serb tribes, or they might be not - I am only here to present sources. If we start a study seeing if the Narentines were Serbs, Croats or other... we would be violating the Wikipedia:No original research rule. And I repeat once again - the Serbian Primate's Chronicle is irrelevant to this matter.

Sorry but "eternally" is rather strong and....incorrect. And i repeat to you - if you are so interested in presenting the sources and neutral stance then why are you enforcing one-sided articles with huge Serbian POV? The DAI for example in one chapter speaks of Pagania and other principalities(Zachlumia, Travunia and Dioclea) settled by Croats as well...yet you decided to take excerpts only from the latter chpater which speaks of them as being Serbs. Doesn't really looks to me like neutrality and objectivity. Afrika Paprika 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is I who need to find more credible sources? Great, you validate your plain 2nd-term source on Croats, and here you ask me to provide more than a primary source. I'm sorry, but you have provided nothing by now; and you as the one making the change are to provide sources (any, if possible?). --PaxEquilibrium 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

2nd-term source? Croatian World Congress is "2nd-term source"?! LOL! I have provided sources...it is DAI and it is LPD. Unlke you however who is forcing the exact same sources only spinning the facts and making it what you want it to be. Ridiculous... Afrika Paprika 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I do aim to be neutral & objective - but to actually be that way is impossible; nor do I claim that I am such (you on the other hand, do claim). I repeat again - DAI does not mention Croats there; and I tend to look all available sources that I can find. For now, I've just read Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porhpyrogenitos' De Administrando Imperia, Vladimir Corovic's History of the Serb People and Aleksic's archaeology of the forgotten Serbian tribe - the Narentines (the first being primary source and the two latter second-class sources).

DAI does mention Croats - refer to chapter 32 of DAI. Also Corovics "history of Serb people" and Aleksic's article of the supposed "forgotten Serbian tribe" (LOL!!) is nothing but greater Serbian nationalistic propaganda. Afrika Paprika 16:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DAI claims the Pagans to be Serbs, and yes, that's a primary source - I'm glad to see you agree. However, LPD may be a primary source on something, but not on this. CWC is a secondary source because it's statement is a globality-size estimate, and not a defined population census. --PaxEquilibrium 14:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

DAI also claims Pagania was settled by Croats. Are you going to accept parts that only fit your history as you see it? And what does CWC has to do with this article? You are confused... Afrika Paprika 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I refered to Chapter 32 - and saw absolutly no mention of Pagans being Croats... Please say what is "greater Serbian nationalistic propaganda"? Why is the greatest Serbian/Yugoslav historian classified by you as such? I notice that you not only consider the peak of the Croatian linguistical omnibus "Yugoslav propaganda", but now Serbian historians' books "Greater Serbian nationalistic propaganda". Tell me, did you read the History of the Serb People? Such a harsh & claim you could justly say only if 2: 1) You read the book yourself and got that impression or 2) You've seen many criticizes of the book accross the globe, so you you claim that. If the case is neither of the two, I guess the old controversy with you is repeating - you disregarded the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica (several versions), LaRousse Encyclopedia, BBC, DAI, ICT and many other simply because you didn't like what it writes there, I'm afraid. Or let me quote how you called them: "Serb sympathizers". I'm afraid that it seems that you don't like the books only because of what they say... Is that the truth, or you read the whole book and reviewed many different critics of it?

DAI does not claim the Narentines were Croats. I am only going to accept history visible to the eyes of humans. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Borderland

Forget your Greater Serbian dreams, child. Don't spread your expansionist ideology here. This change [1] "most western Serbian borderland" has spilled the water over the edge.
I'd react earlier, but you know, I have a life, and especially I don't want to spent it arguing with a bunch of persons, hiding behing one nick (or a person without normal social life) on various articles, referring to various subjects.
Live a life, don't put the poison in minds of young generations. If you can't live with the defeat of Greater Serbian aggression on Croatia, that's your problem. But don't spread lies. Lies didn't help anyone; they always hit you back. The truth always comes on the surface. Kubura 20:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, remain civil. I just take from sources, I do not publish Original Research. That is the explanation for the "Krajina" term used in there ("inbetweens" facing Croatia). --PaxEquilibrium 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ancient cities - modern cities

There is a sentence: "The main Narentine cities were Vrulja, Mokro, Ostrog...". These were ancient cities, nowadays they are Gornja Brela near Brela, Makarska and ruins of Ostrog near Zaostrog. It would be nice to put these references into the article, and eventually write articles about ancient Vrulja and Ostrog. Plantago 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to do it Yourself. --PaxEquilibrium

Serbian propaganda Pagania page is a excelent example of serbian propaganda and how it selectivly uses material from unreliable sources to prove serbian natonalistic claims. Yes, DAI is tottaly unreliable document and I will prove this to you. DAI states that croatian army had 160 000 soldiers. Wow, medieval croatian state had bigger army than both Frank and Bizantine empire, ineed very reliable.195.29.101.2 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Yomi

Selectively? Is there a source claiming otherwise? I'd say DAI is pretty reliable (and most global experts on this subject would agree with me). I agree that it might be an overestimate, but then again what wasn't back then? Did you know that sources say there were 500,000 Christians at the Battle of Kossovo (which is pure insanity)? Even the traditional 70,000 Serbs and 140,000 Turks seems to be an overestimate. It's nothing suspicious there. BTW who are you (asking because of the Afrika paprika case)? --PaxEquilibrium 00:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now registered. I do not think so. DAI is not universaly accepted as reliable document and I think that you have not understand what am I trying to tell you. Thing that overestimation was common in medieval times and examples you listed do not prove that DAI vas reliable. And those documents you listed (whatever they might be) are not very reliable also because it is well known that medievel documents are not scientifically written and accurate. For examle, some historians believe that DAI was part or all prose, and thus do not have any scientific value. There are also instances where some people of that time said ˝Serbs, also called Croats˝, so medieval writers did not distinguish Croats from Serbs and we can not claim that Porphirogenitus did. Also, unrelated to that some scientists believe that word Serb, was a word that designated all Slavic peoples, and that only todays Serbs kept that name so Neretvians were called Serbs as they were Slavic people. This all point to problem that we can not call them Serbs because that would be original research and we can not claim that they were Serbs on just one(1) document that is not reliable anyway. On the other hand people who live what was then paganija now consider themself Croats and have no traces of suposed ˝Serbian ancestory˝.

DAI is one of the two most comprehensive early Byzantine works (the other being DC). It has entered (and stays to this day) the world's greatest cultural-historical heritage. Each and everyone studying the Byzantine history, infrastructure, arts, etc... quoted DAI. It also made a significant impact/contribution to the late medieval political ideology concept (like those developed by Machiaveli). Apart from that, every single historian talking about the Serbo-Croat peoples used DAI (from international like Fine, across domestic Serbian like Vladimir Corovic or Croatian like Ferdo Sisic, etc.). It was dismissed by an insignificant minority (s-called historians) that emerged within the Ustashas in WWII, and has found its steps to post-1990s rejectionism/historical revisionism, but that's just 1990s bollocks (there isn't a single good post-1990s Yugoslavian historian).

There is not just one. There are several Italian chronicles, and numerous other Byzantine scripts (like Anna Comnenus' works, John Scylitzes' etc...). I just chose to present DAI because it's the only contemporary and speaks in detail about them.

That would not be original research. For definition of the term, please see WP:NOR. That would be something that I and I alone invent. However this is not the case. Besides, I admit that the sources are scarce (there are argues as to whether did the Narentines exist in the first place), but we have to rely on those very scarce sources (DAI). What do you suggest then, that we should delete the article? As long as there's not contradicting information, a Wikipedian article could even use a single source (this one however, doesn't).

What precisely do you propose? --PaxEquilibrium 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In my first post on talk page ˝Serbian propaganda...˝ I did not created an account because I did not have enought time and in the second ˝I have not registered...˝ I forgoten to sign myself, so forgive me if I caused some confusion.As for the subject, I do not agree with you, PaxEquilibrium. I am not arguing that parts of DAI wich talk about Bizantine art, arhitecture etc are unreliable, but some other parts (notably about neighbouring nations) are writen like a myth (for example coming of first Croats-Tuga, Buga etc) and thus not reliable. Also, you did not answer to my other arguments. You said that there is more than one document that talk about Neretvians as Serbs, it might be true, but it is also undeniable that documents who descibes them as just Neretvians by far outnumber those who claim that they were Serbs, and they are refered to as Croats from about 13. or 14. century . And how about this argument: Those people who live what was then paganija are now Croats, there do not exist traces of Serbian national consciousness and there are no autochtone Serbian population in that area. I think that this claim is pretty reliable because, you can not assimilate some people in way that they completely forget they former nationallity. We can confirm this on following example: Magyarised Croats in Hungary in town Szentendre kept memory of their Croat origins. Also, one nation can not be easily completely assimilated. I will also try to back up my claims on this example: Croat population in Kotor for centuries constantly declined because of assimilation, but they are even today Croats in Kotor (althought they number is smaller than it was before few centuries). You maybe can explain some problems with theory that Neretvians are Serbs, but your theory has many weak spots and you can not objectivly claim that they were Serbs. So I suggest following: It would be best (and most objective) to present both sides on ˝paganija˝ page, so that viewer decide for themselfs what is true.Linguae Latinae 09:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote that? That's weird, because we thought it is Afrika paprika who wrote that.

Let me understand, DAI is a wonderful historical UNESCO-acknowledged monument, but it fails just in the bits in which it talks about Serbs?

Like I said, the 1066 William of Normandy is mostly based upon sources that are practicing a lot of mythology. By that we could claim the William of Normandy is a fictional character. Emperor Constantine notes the story of the Croat origin and later gives another version, presented as his personal historiography-one.

I would not agree the sources are so vastly outnumbered as You point out, but it's true that there are a lot of them (as "lot" as might mean when we are scarce on sources). I've heard how some Croatian Wikipedians (or one: Afrika paprika) claimed that the Narentines're actually Croats. However, all users that mentioned failed to present any whatsoever such mention. And besides, by the 13th and 14th centuries the Narentines are already long extinct, and their descendants (if they could be notes as such) were Orthodox Serbs by then (or many also Roman Catholic), but what's more important, were living in a unified Serbian realm under the Nemanyiden. But also keep on mind this: Not a single source gives in full detail explanation of the Narentines as the ORE; and as such, it should always be the primary source for Merania's article.

Well of course; these are places of great migration. Does all the population of Banija, most of Kordun, eastern Lika and the northern Dalmatian hinterland (ignoring the 1990s war right now) recall of its Croat origin? No, it doesn't. Neither does the the Bosnian Krajina population. Whereas they are mostly Serbs, the Western Bosnia Bosnian Moslem/Bosniac population is AFAIK of great part of Croat descent (and of course they don't hold that). The number of Slavic Muslims who descent from either Croat or Serb heritage is very large, but the number of those who acknowledge that is greatly insignificant. There are a lot of Montenegrins who would be offended by the very mention that they might be of Serbian or Albanian origin - Bunyevs now greatly detest their Croatian origin. BTW there is an autochtonous Serbian population close by - in Imotski (thought they left after the war). Kotor Croat population decreasing because of assimilation? What are You talking about? The population has been decreasing - but not significantly at all. That's because a very large negative birth rate and because ever since the Yugoslav unification Croats have been moving out. There are still many Croats in Kotor. However I do not understand why You mention them. Croats themselves were never ever in majority in Kotor.

So far I only see that there's one side of it. --PaxEquilibrium 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

i think that calling "Narantians" as a Serbs or Croats is both false. At those times 600-1000 nobody considered themselves as Croats or Serbs just Slavs. But later than that people living in Narantia became part of Croatian area (not state - becaus state didnot existed) and indentified themselves as Croats and Catholic MarinkoM8 17:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)MarinkoM8

"...there is an autochtonous Serbian population close by - in Imotski..."
That's not truth. They are not autochtonous, they were settled in village Glavina by foreign ruler (18th century, if I remember well). I'll put you the link here. And, in Glavina already existed Croat population [2]) .The authorities settled few families from Eastern Herzegovina in Glavina, and gave them the building of former mosque to serve them as their church. Kubura 06:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. But in the end it's off-topic regarding this article. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 08:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You've mentioned that data first. Here is when those "autochtonous Serbs" came to Imotski area. "...Venetian leader Mocenigo has reported Matissa Alilovic has brought 240 families from Herzegovina in 1718. 180 Greek Orthodox families, Serbs and Montenegrins were brought from eastern Herzegovina...after the boundaries were changed and they were left within the Turkish rule." [3].

That's 1718. And you're playing "fine and neutral". You're POV-izing, Pax. Those who don't know you, easily buy what you say. Kubura 13:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original text from the chronicle of Franciscan Stipan Vrljić:"Anno Domini 1717. uze naš princip mletački Ioan Corner grad Imocki a đeneralom biše od Dalmacije Alosio Mocinigo koi dođe s voiskom ...I za Mociniga Ge(nera)la dodjoše prokleti arkači iz Carne Gore i staše pod Imockim, a za Turčina ne bieše niedne cigle kuće arkača u svem kadiluku. I tome krivi bieše naši ljudi karstiani jer pođoše bižati u tursku zemlju kako se mir učini, A Imocki se uze za karstiane da onde stoi, koi biaju uskočili z Goranaca i Blata mostarskog. I tako u Imotise naseliše Sizmatici jer je naš narod dobro bi stao mirno pod krilom principa privedroga i milostivoga. Neka se zna koie su župe ovoga manastira Imockoga bile od starine za Turaka i od kada je manastir u prološcu fundan."". Here is also some more data [4]. In fact, in 1717 he speaks about Orthdox Christian families (neither Serbs). Kubura 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Neretvanska Krajina" is the expression used everywhere (both in Croatia and Serbia) and was used as the name for the area (Imotska Krajina representing Croatia's frontier and Narentine Krajina Serbia's).

Are you joking? Neretvanska krajina representing Serbia's??? That's your personal point of view. A POV.

Second, you're not getting the meaning of the word "krajina". It does not designate the frontier area, but the area around certain town, or at least, the biggest settlment in certain area. "Krajina" is an augmentative form of "kraj". It's not rare in Slavic world (from Croatia till Ukraine). The term is hard to translate in non-Slavic language ("u mom rodnom kraju"). The meaning of it, her, is not the "end", or the "edge", or the "mainland" (one of meanings in Croatian), here it refers to a bigger geographical area, although, smaller than province (Slavic translation of the word "province" is "pokrajina).Kubura 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unified Serbian state" means that - well, after one state is broken into several (loose dependent on each other or other), reuniting them under one central hand is usually considered unification. :) To evade controversies, I will change to "reunification". --PaxEquilibrium 10:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not doing anything here (especially not WP:OR). I just presented historians' explanations. Now if you have any other source or anything similar - I'm not stopping from presenting them and including them into the article. ;0)

Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Dalen is not (?) Omiš

Hi, I noticed that Dalen is referenced as modern Omiš. According to some sources (see Image:Bosna.jpg), Dalen is today's Doljani, on left bank of Neretva, next to Bosnia-Hercegovina - Croatian border on main road Mostar - Čapljina - Metković. It is quite unlogical that it is name for Omiš (especially because Omiš is on the sea, while for Dalen is stated that it is away from the coast). Cheers, Plantago 13:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Will correct it. --PaxEquilibrium 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Serbs or Croats

You guys can argue for years about hether they were Srbs or Hrvts.

I think it is a futile debate, as there is no clear history describing which they were. One can speculate and interpret 'sources' whichever way they want Secondly, the modern concept of ethnicity did not exist back then. Thirdly they could well be both Serbs and/or Croats, as i'm sure they intermingled at border areas such as this.

Fourthly i doubt that serbs and croats are more than the same people living in different areas (but claimed to be different by both serbs and croats in order to prolong and fuel this unfortunate rivalry that the 2 great cultures have) Serbs and croats can be alikened to the Anglo-Saxons. Pretty much the same as one another, except the anglo-saxons lived in peace as one, whereas the serbo-croats are determined to destroy one another!

--MarinkoM8 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Offcourse it's fair to say (as i said earlier) that modern concept of ethnicity did not exist back then. The entire area of Pagania, Travunia, Zahumlje and Doclea was an intermixed area of Croats and Serbs. Eastern parts later became ortodox (Serb and Montenegrin) and the Western parts became catholic. the border line would be river Neretva in the hinterland while coast line stayed catholic (Croat). i think there is no question there. For that reason i think Pagania, Travunia and Zahumlje MUST be reffered as SLAV countries. btw Croats and Serbs are much more different than Anglo-Saxons. New genetic researches proves that. --MarinkoM8 01:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to the different compositions of I1 vs E3b haplogroups, based on one study, then you are reaching a premature conclusion. These studies need to be repeated and varified at least a few more times before they are accepted as theories. Hxseek 06:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Pax or better to say for this discussion HRE you have not answered on this comments they have been slavs and not serb or croat. You have deleted my changes when I have writen that in article like many other similar changes. In my thinking you are making POV edits. Deleting statements from Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (in february 2006) and declaring them irrelevant is clear POV because you are not in position to declare what historical source is irrelevant or not. About how historical truth is De Administrando Imperio by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus I will only say that he has south slavic people under Byzantine influence in IX declared Serbs in his works. Croats on other side has been under Franks influence !! I will not question fact that leader of Pagania in 915 has been serbian zupan, but this do not speak anything about people because you must accept that Pagania has for short time come under Croatian control during king Tomislav reign (and again latter in XI century). Because all this fact I will not revert to previous version but I will do something similar --Rjecina 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On other side I must say that I feel sorry for Serbs because nobody outside Serbia understand that Bosnia, Kosovo and great part of Croatia are historical Serbian land. Here is argument for this statement [5] --Rjecina 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Or better to say HRE...? Why better?

I delete because it is that which it is - irrelevant. I don't decide this, but the very Chronicle itself, which is unrelated to the subject of this article.

If you have any more significant data, I will be glad to include. As far as I recall, the region was only some time in the 13th-14th century firmly and permanently incorporated into Croatian territory.

The last sentence I really cannot understand what you're talking about. It makes absolutely no sense. :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your attempts to improve this article...I think you yourself will agree if you review your last edit. I mean does it actually have sense? ;) It's also highly against rules - unencyclopedic. BTW I'm working on my computer a slightly more balanced version that will mostly refer to them as Slavs. --PaxEquilibrium 08:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Serb expansionism

This edit [6] is blatant Serb expansionism. Perfidious greaterserbian propaganda.
And someone wanted to be an admin?
Narentani "was a land settled by the Serbs", "Narentines didn't accept Christianity in the time that all other Serbs did" (you're speaking about them as if they were Serbs??), "The Adriatic coastland that the Serbs inhabited... ranged...from the mouth of Neretva... to the City of Split (Oh, wishie-wish, if you could have it, wouldn't you; željo, željice. Da ti je, a?)", "The late version of the name is plainly Frontier, signifying the most western Serbian borderland".
What is this? Another version of famous article "Serb lands"?
Go tell those stories to Greeks and Bulgarians, when speaking about Dušan's empire. Call their country as "Serb land", if you have guts. Kubura 06:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please define 'greaterserbian propaganda'. This way, it's very much weasel-wording.

Not really, others wanted me there mostly.

What on earth are you talking about? If you want to make a point, make sense first. If you have a problem with Serbs... you should ask yourself if you're a 'Croatian expansionist', which is of course low-grade blatant stupid wording and does not correspond Wikipedia. If you don't want to be WP:CIVIL and most of all make sense (sorry for repeatin'), just don't edit and the problems will be solved. --PaxEquilibrium 14:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is really yet another idiotic Great Serbia insanity. Let me clarify, I am not Croat. But, some people are born liars and inable to talk any truth speech or keep a bit on the evidences. For example, in link in the end you gave on some idiotic Serbian archeology site, there is an picture of Bosnian (yes BOSNIAN, there are so 60000 of them ) tombstone with death dancers. Below you can find description that is a Serbian monument, that should support other lies in this article. Thus, Pagania has nothing with Serbia, because that tomstone is from 14-15th century, and probably belongs to Vlach tribe people whose presence is historically confirmed in the area of former Pagania area about that times. Father of Croatian grammar Kasic in 1st issue of the first Croatian grammar in 1604, Croatian language he have chosen for IKAVIAN dialect and doesn't call it Croatian at all, but exclusively naski or BOSNIAN. Cakavian dialect he calls DALMATIAN and ijekavian DUBROVNIKIAN. Today people in former Pagania speak exclusively IKAVIAN and CAKAVIAN. That means they are Dalmatians and Bosnians. And perhaps Serbs, but with huge speaking disfunction, because all the other Serbs are EKAVIANs. Look at an correct article here: [[7]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndh1941 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, Afrika paprika, you never do get tired of ethnic hatred speeches, don't you? :) --PaxEquilibrium 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This reminds on a joke that Serbs were telling:Where is one Serbian grave that is Serbian land!

Why do not we include Entire Germany as Serbian territory?? There are some [scientific evidences] who support that theory. --Anto (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add posts like this. They have no purpose but obstruction and are very not constructive. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Italian Joannes Lucius or Croatian historian Ivan Lučić, in his "Historical Monuments of Tragurion" (Memoriae istoriche di Tragurio, ora detto Trau) from 1673: "Serbians, who were mostly subjects of the Eastern Empire, took various names by the areas they inhabited, and the most famous were Narentines and Bosnians, named so by the rivers of Narenta and Bosnia, that flow through their lands". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The same is claimed by the 19th century Croatian historian Franjo Rački. Will look for citation. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Aachen

Because only source of statement (and I will return this words in article) that population of Pagania are Serbs are words from Byzantine emperor. Problem is that after Treaty of Aachen territory south of today Split has become part of Byzantine empire. Territory north of that city has become territory of Frankish Empire or better to say Croatia. It is clearly seen in his book that population south of this border are Serbs, and north Croats ... --Rjecina 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Like source for this statement how border between empires has been near Split I will give 1 serbian source [8]--Rjecina 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well according to all sources I could find - e.g. the Brockhaus encyclopedia (the German pairing to English Britannica) is that Croats settled the territory north of Cetina and Serbs southwards, and that Cetina was the standard medieval border between the two realms, with Neretva as the secondary one, until the bordering region was taken by the Bosnians. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla words which are saying "I'm equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian homeland" has been always on wikipedia deleted until finding of original source. Reasons for deleting has been that newspaper articles and similar things are only second hand sources which will not been accepted on Wikipedia. Similar thing is with that. Brockhaus encyclopedia has like source used Constantine writing so it is not accepted like source on wikipedia. --Rjecina 22:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me well, the newspaper articles called upon Tesla's autobiography, which bears (I have it in my possession e.g. both English and Croatian editions) no such mention, so it was deemed as a both second-hand and invention.

The fact I mentioned isn't used anywhere on Wikipedia articles. I just used it here on the talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Slavic, Serb, Croat tribe

Nearly every modern source agrees that the Narentines were a separate Slavic tribe. There are examples of foreign sources (Florin Curta), Serbian sources (Tibor Živković) and Croat sources (Neven Budak, Ivo Goldstein) given in the article that confirm this. So IP, why do you keep changing the lead? Tzowu (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Neretva.

"southern Dalmatia centered at the river Neretva"

95% of Neretva river is NOT in Dalmatia. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)