User:Uvouvo/archive

Discussion on article Lastovo

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Inače trenutno je glasanje da članak Lastovo postane Featured article, pa glasaj ako želiš. Inače jesi Lastovac ili imaš kaqe veze s Lastovom:-)?

Pozdrav! Luka Jačov 22:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka, thanks for the welcome. I'm not sure how voting works as I am new to Wikipedia myself. I am not from Croatia but do have ties to Croatia. I have started a discussion on the talk page of Lastovo and i hope you can contribute there so a common ground on this island can be found. This would also affect Hvar, Brac, Vis and Korcula, but they dont have articles yet :)Regards! Uvouvo 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are Hvar, Vis and Korčula articles:-)! So where are you from? What are your ties with Croatia? For voting go here and type support [[1]]. Luka Jačov 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel betrayed, u vote against making it FAC :-(. Luka Jačov 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka, in the current form i would vote support for the island. However as long as HolyRomanEmperor's pro serb bias edits are allowed i will object. Sorry I am new to Wikipedia so if you could help me out that would be great. My mothers side is from Lastovo. Do you have any ties to the island? BTW very nice article, I would be happy to vote in favor for it if it remains, however looking through the history i noticed you supported HolyRomanEmporers stand, Regards Uvouvo 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do u live now? where is your father from? i dont have any family ties with Lastovo except that my grandfather is from Korčula. Luka Jačov 23:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian. So you are Croatian? Croatia is a very beautifull country. I have been there a few times. I also study History here which is why I know the islands history so well as well as Dalmatia and to a lesser extent Croatia / Serbia. Historians like John Fine, Mandic, Lucijanovic, Antun Jurica (he is related to me and i asked him) would explicitly object to the edits made by HolyRomanEmperor as he is trying to mislead. The article in its current form is good, and you have done a great job creating it. Would you object to keeping it as it is now? Why do you enforce HolyRomanEmperors changes / edits? Regards Uvouvo 23:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, Antun Jurica, cos I am buying his book today. The thing is there was no counter-argument to his edits but also the fact that most of Croatian historians try to evoid facts like this as much as they can. But also Hrvatski Povijesni Zemljovidi published in 1999 and which are used in Croatian schools show that in 1073. border between Serbian and Croatian kingdom is Neretva and that Korčula, Mljet and Pelješac are part of Serbian kingdom. Well back than Lastovo was already under Dubrovnik but I dont find it hard to belive it was part of Serbian kingdom before. You think it was independent before it joined Republic?? I dont think so. Luka Jačov 00:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Antun Jurica is also writing a new book along with Nenad Vekaric. You wont be dissapointed with his current book, a very thorough book on Lastovo. However in the Durbovnik statute written in 1272 it explicitly says that the island joined the republic of its own free will and this is thought to be the most reliable source. Lucijanovic has some nice argument for this and he also takes into account Serbian sources. The DAI leaves Lastovo out of Paganija / Neretva along with Vis and Susac. There is no reliable sources saying it is Serbian or ever was, and unfortunately there is not enough written information from the early middle ages about Lastovo to ever be sure, so saying it is Serbian like HolyRomanEmperor portrays is wrong. I will post all my sources on this tonight which includes the original latin quote from the Dubrovnik Republic archives from their 1272 statute. I also have the book "Lastovski Statut" which is a good read (it was codified in 1310 and also confirms the Dubrovnik Republics idea that it was gained voluntarily meaning it had autonomy before. It is not unreasonable to assume lastovo had wide autonomy likely within or associated to the Croatian Kingdom. This is also supported by closely examining the island itself and realising there are no Serbian traditions, customs, language similarities etc. HolyRomanEmperor seems to be getting all his information from the one book "Pravoslavna Dalmacija". The 1073 border you are talking about was not between Serbia and Croatia, but between Duklja and Croatia. Duklja at that time included Raska, until Nemanja conquered Duklja for itself later. Another source from that period states that in 1185 Lastovo joined the Hvar diocese (under administration from the Croat-Hungarian kings) with Brac and Vis, so it is seperate from Peljesac, Mljet etc. If you look at the language, Lastovo speaks Cakavski variant which is exclusively Croatian, however Mljet, Ston etc all speak a Stokavski variant (However, Lastovo has been influenced by Dubrovnik Republic, hence the use he word Dundo instead of Barba etc). Please see this link for the map on former yugoslavia in 1073 for confirmation http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1073.jpg Uvouvo 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well now I have Jurica's book and he cites that Lastovo was inhabitated by Neretvans. The thing that they speak Chakavian and are catholic doesnt neccessarly means that they couldnt be part of Serbian kingdom in one period of history. What is the name of the new book he is preparing? Luka Jačov 10:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you have the book. Now we can refer to the same source. Jurica never mentions "Serbian Neretvans". The title for his chapter is "Hrvati - Neretljani" and he argues if anything they are of Croatian origins in that area. Professor John V Fine also agree's with this assertion saying that the southern dalmatian duchies are actually mixed populations of Croats and Serbs, with Serbs tending to inhabit the hinterland and Croats the coastal regions. Luka, with all respect I cant see why you would be supporting Serbian exclusivity of the people from Neretva when there is much evidence against this. I have more to post and will do so in the next few days. If you want to argue this point then do so in the Neretvani wiki page, such assertions do not need to be made in the Lastovo page and would only be leading readers to a non-neutral POV.

PS Cakavski is very important (How can you suggest many of your claims without proof, such as the language used to be Stokavski. I think you are jumping to to many conclusions. The article was better when it mentioned simply slavic neretvans, why you must add Serbian Neretvans suggests to me you are biased.)

PS: The name of his new book I think is the inhabitants of the island of Lastovo and deals with origins, names, genealogy etc of the people Uvouvo 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In the 11th and 12th Century nothing is written on Lastovo until in 1185 when it comes under the influence of the Hvar Diocese (I will post more on this later). However in 1272 when the Dubrovnik statute was written it included the following about Lastovo. XV. glavi I. Knjige Dubrovackog Statua "Notandum est quod, quando homines de Lasta dederunt se et insulam Lasta comuni civitatis Ragusii, hoc pacto dederunt se et insulum suam, videlicet: quod comune Ragussii iuravit manutenere eis omnes antiquas suas consuetudines, quas ipsi inter se habent, et secundum hoc pactum comune Ragussi dedit eam de sua voluntate comiti suo, qui per tempora erit in Ragusio"

This is why most historians agree that Lastovo voluntarily joined the Dubrovnik republic, and to do so it suggests it must have had autonomy. It also mentions respecting the ancient customs of the islands (none of which are Serbian). It's all here in black and white and officially coded in the statute of the Dubrovnik republic in 1272 Uvouvo 12:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I will respond to you at Talk:Lastovo, my friend! --HolyRomanEmperor 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Jurica's book mentions that there are two accounts about Lastovo joining Dubrovnik; one that Lastovo voluntarly joined Dubrovnik and one that it was gift or bought from Stefan Uroš. Please discuss before reverting and also think Holy should reveal us his sources.

Pozdrav! Luka Jačov 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Lastovo talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lastovo . Please discuss there :) Uvouvo 22:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Still u didnt anwser me:-)! Luka Jačov 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka that was an unreliable source and was discussed on the talk page. HolyRomanEmpire agreed that it was an unreliable source and he changed that part accordingly. I just tidied it up a little. I have many unanswered questions and I have done my best to answer all yours :) Uvouvo 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User 220.237.20.25 please join wikipedia if you have something to discuss. We are trying to get this article as reliable as possible. Its a little difficult if there are too many edits going on. I suggest the best way is bringing the article back to a common POV and then building from there with evidence on the discussion page. Regards Uvouvo 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although we have current discussion about Lastovo could u change your vote on Featured article vote. It doesnt matter if there r some issues it would be very good think if article becames featured. Luka Jačov 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Could u just please change your vote for featured article:-)? Luka Jačov 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Luka, Why would I change my vote if I don't agree with it. I am happy that a featured article is being created on Lastovo and think you have done a seperb job so far, but it is clearly being abused by HolyRomanEmpire in the History section and you seem to be supporting his diminishing evidence. I will vote once we have a consensus, up until then my other vote stands! Also I will do a general tidy up of the whole article first which I hope you will like. I also have some photo's, but i think the ones there are already good enough. Then I think we fix the history article and include major events that are properly proved, not some bogus things like HRE is trying so hard to support. This should take a day or two, and then i think a positive vote can be given :)

PS: How is Antun Jurica's book going? Uvouvo 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but u could vote in advance cos maybe in couple of days it will be to late:-)! I am looking forward to c the photos:-)! Jurica's book is great and very easibly to read I just dont know why he stoped with the end of Italian period:-/? You didnt anwser me what will be new book he is planning. Ask Jurica does he know Livio Ballarin, he also worked in Opća bolnica Splitand he is brother of my grandfather. Just one more thing, in his book Jurica doesnt exclude possibilty that the island was under Stefan Uroš. Pozdrav! Luka Jačov 23:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean vote in advance because it will be too late? What does that mean? Since the Italian period it is pretty well known. Most lastovci joined the partizani to rid the Italian rule, then lived within a communist yugoslavia until 1991. Not much happened since then :)

• I did answer about the new book. It is about the inhabitants of Lastovo, their origins, surnames, genealogy. It will be called something like "Inhabitants of Lastovo" and is co-authored with Nenad Vekaric from Dubrovnik.
• If i get the chance i'll ask about Livio. Lastly, Nothing can be excluded when it is not known, thats why he discusses everything. This is why we have to only include things that are certain. Such debates as the one i'm having with HRE are fine in the talk pages or a detailed book like Jurica's, but on a short article like Lastovo it is misleading. I'll have to ask Jurica more on this topic if I get a chance. He's pretty old now.
• I'm gonna revert the article a little later like I said before after i post my final arguments. I hope you'll support me so that we can get it a featured article Uvouvo 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean that there is deadline in voting. After then u must put request again. It is prety known to people of Lastovo but not the others. Saying "not much happened" is at least unscientific he should have finished at least with the period when JNA left the island (it is not criticsm towards just critic that I am as consumer am entitled to:-)). For example Second world war and JNA occupation r very topics we can cover here (or in his book). As you say we must only write certain things, but if there are two accounts then the other is not certain two. Do u use any messangers:-)? Luka Jačov 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i agree with that Jurica could have kept going as it wouldnt have taken much more, all the important information should be included. Although not much did happen. During WWII lastovo wasnt touched, during yugoslavia it was closed to foreigners because of the army base, and in 1992 the JNA evacuated and destroyed a few barracks and pillaged the hotel and graffited the walls saying things like "Tudjman, pusi srpski kurac" or "zivjela velika srbija" etc. You must agree not all information is required to be published :) Also, One account is certain as written in the dubrovnik archives, and the other is not. HRE agreed even which mean it must have been pretty weak - Have you been following the discussion in the talk page. Do you know the DAI well and other sources and history well?;) Sorry, I dont use messenger! I used to at university but i find them annoying :) LAstly when is the deadline? Uvouvo 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt on the island although I have seen it fron Korčula but I am defently planing to visit it this summer. I found the island very interesting cos of its remotness, rich history and beatiful nature. I see it as Adriatic Arcadia. Luka Jačov 12:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy your interested in the island. Its a very relaxing place ;) I'm amassing all my sources from my books on Lastovo and look forward to improving on this article. Uvouvo 13:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Lastovo

I made explaination on Poklada's statements. he made sx points as could be seen on Lastovo's talk page - they're essentially wrong. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll have a look. Uvouvo 23:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

uvouvo I've added to the discussion page and I'm going to edit out Caslav's realm; as it is inconsistent to our history and really greater serb diatribe.Pokladar 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Pokladar, go for it. I think HolyRomanEmpire missed the point of your argument. However, I am no expert on the LPD or Duklja so I cant really comment on what you guys have written. I may look into it later if I get the time, i think you have made your point, and maybe you could make the rest about what you have written on the wiki Duklja article? My primary focus at the moment is removing unneeded bias in Lastovo article. Uvouvo 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Uvouvo:

• I have made some more comments. Some more incorrect information by Poklada and a little message to you.

• I see that you have received a rather wrong image on me. To make you see it through different eyes, I will not object the removal of the Serbian realm based on wikipedia's WP:Relevancy policy. Satisfied? :) --HolyRomanEmperor 21:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE, relevency is not the only issue. When i have time to properly edit the article, then we can discuss in more detail what is accurate or not. Uvouvo 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Uvouvo, I don't see the problem here. You called my edits serbian propaganda and vandalism in the edit summaries, acused me to User:Elephantus. How can I understand this => other than that you do not want cooperation? --HolyRomanEmperor 11:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

HRE, dont take it personally please. I havent attacked you, you may perceive that but its not the case. I also asked Elephantus because he left an objection in the fac voting and I wanted to know what his objections were about as well. Check back on Monday and you will see the improvements I will make to the article. Uvouvo 13:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I made some explainations on [Talk:Lastovo] and on User_talk:Pokladar, and would like t hear your comments. Greetings! --HolyRomanEmperor 14:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry have been away. I will comment on your seperate discussion with Pokladar later. However I have nearly finished re-writing the Lastovo article and will post it soon with some new photos's. It has taken me longer due to work. I noticed you included caslav's realm and duklja again? Why when there is little evidence. Svetoslav Suronja Croatian king had more influence on that islamd as well as other croatian kings, including the kacici nobles, Pokladars points about Predimir seem to hold more water than you Rastko source - should I be going around and following all your articles and inserting this - I have also noticed you incorrectly included and had redone the southern dalmatia pics including Lastovo and Vis in Pagania - It is convenient that you omit the DAI in this? I wont be satisfied until you can counter what is written in the DAI. Your rastko link doesnt even marry up to what Serb historians (legitamate) say about Caslav. I will post all this later. We'll discuss these more in depth when i post my article. I have reverted the article in the meantime Uvouvo 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this is really POV. :) Anyway, you restored to the version which says that the Slavic tribe Neretvians inhabited Lastovo which is incorrect.

I don't know animosity towards the fact that the Neretvians were at war with the Croats and they conquered Lastovo and Vis from them. I demanded the pics changed to include their conquests. I trust Croatian historians. Why can't you trust Serbian?

Additionally, Lastovo was a part of the Slavic Kingdom of Duklja, which you left out again.

Nah, what Pokladar stated was just unsourced wishful thinking. He actually implaced a source which strongly confirmed Serbian ethnic identity in Duklja and the co. :D I think that his silence is an act that he quatly admitted that he was wrong. You should see his source. :)

This is why I'm going to revert your edits on Lastovo. Nothing personal, I would just like if you could discuss. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now your being deliberately provocative. I have given you more than enough discussion. You have obviously left the article alone in the hope no-one would notice your edits, as the article was obviously stable after Luka's edits. How can you want to discuss when you havent even answered everything i asked from you, even in my last question? Uvouvo 02:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Uvouvo,

Sorry, I must've missed your direct question (point). You have my full agreeing to revert my edit (just do not restore those incorrect bits that I mention), if you agree to continue the discussion. I reverted merely because you went silence, and I thought that you simply have no more desire to discuss.

There is still much to discuss, and HRE I thankyou for providing such a stimulating discussion - Although my stance that your a greater serb manipulator still stands :). Well this is presicely why I am reacting with care to thy edits.

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:POV. The articles of Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania are nationalist-written biased and essentially poorly sourced. See Greater Romania, for instance - a much more NPOV. There are also Greater Hungary and Greater Bulgaria.

What I am saying that the freedom of speech can be applied to wikipedia; but with a limit. You calling me a greater serb manipulator generally damages you more than me. So, from both a proffessional encyclopedic point-of-sight, and a showing of good will (which I have given to you - but you hadn't to me in turn) is what is necessary on wiki.

Bog!

P. S. Please don't call "Serbian-". Thank you. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bog :) Sorry i must keep misunderstanding you because of your actions. I dont care whether your serb or not, but i was judging by your recent actions, and your last revert made me upset. I understand that you thought I may have left the discussion and this is fair enough. This discussion will definately continue. I think I have also shown good will and not tried to push another agenda or be directly rude to you - You should definately be able to understand why i thought you were a greater serb because of your initial edits of this article and all the pro-serb bias you added when nothing suggestd any of that was necessary. Reminded me of when a Croat tried to prove to me that Sandzak was Croatian. Anyway, I have just added a link to the new article on the Lastovo Poklad and also removed the details you added in the history section for 2 reasons.

• I dont agree with their accuracy, i will discuss within 2 weeks, and the discussion will definately continue
• There are many non-significant pieces of history to do with the island not included. Yours would be classed as one of them. I have a whole book and many sources showing me many Croat rulers, Knez's etc, but I have never once tried to include them because that detail is not relevent here and also unless its accurate it can be misleading, especially to make deductions from them.

Lastly, i will within the next two weeks re-write the article. If I dont then you can edit the article to your hearts content. Also Every single one of my edits will be documented on the discussion page where we can discuss. I would also ask you to discuss here before adding any obscure information. Bog i Hvala - I Hope we can continue this discussion in good will Uvouvo 06:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

PS I'm not sure where Pokladar has dissapeared to, though I have pm'd him to tell him not to SHOUT :) I read the discussion you guys were having when i moved it to his pages. Cheers Uvouvo 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that common language is reachable. You might notice that I also wrote an abundance on Montenegrin and Bosnian and a little on Croatian history (I rarely write about Serbian history). And I am crossing to Slovenian, Macedonian and Bulgarian right now. I'm not an obssessed POV-pusher. I am an obssessed Yugoslav historian. :)

Actually, I like the current version of the article. It should stay just as it is. I'll just have to demand that the info on the 945 conquest of Lastovo by the Neretvians be inserted. :)

Note also, that (next to the fact that I am not a "greater serb") - that word is improper for usage in wikipedia. Like I said, if the other person sees my actions, he/she shall judge them. And you saying that, will create a bad image on wiki, just like a similiar thing that I said a long time ago that eventually turned as the crucial thing that made me drop my Administrator nomination. So, essentially, it doesn't even matter if someone was/is/will be a "greater serb"; let alone if that word meant anything else than a Serb that is 50-feet tall. :-D --HolyRomanEmperor 12:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You're being quit again... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, time goes quick and I am still busy. I will make a contribution about it on Saturday night. I have found some interesting information on this 'conquest' by the Neretvians, and some other things about them. I dont object to Nertvian conquests if verifiable and also without conflicting arguments etc, (but i dont think we should be including alot of small obscure 'sources' in the article as I have much to include if this is the case as well which will only clutter the overall article). However, I object to including Caslav's realm as this is not mentioned in any other sources apart from whats written in Corovic, but he seems to reference Neretljani. However, Corovic is a historian, and I would like to know what source he got that from and what it actually says as the difference between attacked, conquered, settled, retook etc is important. Was the source from the Chronicon Venetium? Corovic hasnt provided referencing or footnotes either. Anyway i'll make this more clear later when I post this Saturday. PS: Are you a history student, or do you work, because you seem to have a lot of time for Wikipedia? I have only had time recently for my article on Lastovo Poklad :) Uvouvo 03:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So vote then:)! Luka Jačov 23:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I will as soon as HRE gives me some feedback. Luka it seems to be only you, myself, and HRE editing this page, and one of the conditions of a featured article is that its not edited / reverted all the time after its finished. As soon as HRE has left feedback and the 3 of us agree, then I'll vote for it. At the moment it seems 2 of us are happy :) Uvouvo 23:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:PokladRope.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:PokladRope.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess

...that if you don't like a source, I respect and support your opinion (as long as it remains in the boundaries of common sence, naturally :) Vladimir Corovic is a very famous historian, and I think that his book should be used as a reference elsewhere, not vice versa.

If you do not like the mentioning of Caslav on the Lastovo article, simply leave it out. The actual Pagania article will state that instead. That Prince Caslav ruled Pagania is a fact. Not only that it can be found in Vladimir Corovic's book, but can be also seen on Aleksic's researches and is noted also in De Administrando Imperio.

The Princes of Rascia changed their titles to Grand Princes to emulate that they also rule Pagania, Travunia with Konavle, Duklja, Zahumlje and at times Bosnia legally. Rulers like Petar Gojnikovich ruled all four southern Dalmatian Principalities, while Ceslav ruled Travunia and Pagania (having also a strong influence on Duklja).

Best. Please shed further comments. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• HRE, thanks for the post. I try and do everything by common sense as well. I agree that Vladimir Corovic is well renowned, and I have taken the time to read his works, as well as those on Rastko.org - I have also seen the other one on Neretva Tribes before as well. The books I have by Croat historians also have references to Corovic's works as well. But, I have book length studies on the very topic of Lastovo, and none of them even have an index or mention Caslav anywhere. Prof John Fine says that Caslav's exact borders are unknown and I am really of the opinion that he had no real rule or influence over Lastovo, and thats why I left it out. This leaves us the question about the Neretljani, which is your link now to Caslav - I agree, Fra Dominik Mandic seems to agree with Caslav ruling some of Southern Dalmatian duchies and seems to agree with Corovic - Mandic also references Corovic. The thing i cannot ignore is that the DAI records that after Ban Pribina killed Miroslav there was great discord in the lands and Caslav then took over Pagania, Bosna, Travunija etc... This is fine, however the DAI also explicitly mentions that Lastovo was not under Pagania. This is what i cannot ignore. So we have two conflicting sides, which is why i put the passage that Lastovo may have been for a short time under the rule of Byzantine, Dukljan, or Neretvan princes from the 7th - 13th Centuries. This is I think the best way reconcile this as we dont know for sure. Anyway I would like to hear your opinion.
• I agree 100% with what you say about including Caslav in the Pagania article. I have maintained this from the start that is the best thing to do, same as the discussion as to what ethnicity the Neretvans were etc should be maintained in those articles, and not discussed in the same way on linked child articles like Lastovo. Let me know if you have any more questions. I'm not sure of the relevency the 3rd part of your post about Grand princes has here? Do you have any suggestions for Luka for its featured article candidature? I have made some improvements according to peoples suggestions, so if you have any let me know Uvouvo 07:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem lies on several points. Caslav most definately ruled Pagania and Travunia, however, some sources mention that he had an extent of influence on Duklja as well, but those that do, bear no mention of the Narentine Land. Additionally, Zahumlje is only somewhere refered to as in his demesne, and only when all four southern Dalmatian Principalities are mentioned as a part.

I said that I object nothing. I never did object anything in the first place! :-D Just I request further that you note that Lastovo was conquered by the Narentines after 945. This is completly parallel with a short war that Caslav led against Croatia. By 931, Prince Ceslav convinced the Bosnian Chiefs to abandon the declining Kingdom of Croatia, which they did. By 948, Ceslav expanded his realm at the expense of Croatia to the river of Vrbas. This is parallel with the Narentine conquest of Lastovo and the other island, so historians naturally asumed that it is Caslav who led them to the war.

P. S. On Lastovo, it says Nertvan - an error possibly, it has to say NerEtvIan.

All the best, chump! Bog! --HolyRomanEmperor 16:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Did you know that Vladimir Ćorović thinks that Croats arrived some time before the Serbs to the Balkan peninsular? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

HRE, I agree with all that, but that is assuming everything without a doubt. You still havent explained away the primary source written between 5 and 10 years after 945 which explicitly excludes Lastovo from the Narentine 'state' (DAI), so these two are obviously opposite assertions. I still havent seen from where Corovic obtained this from? Which primary source, as that would help? All this believe me I find fascinating, and I have included in a mention that Lastovo under various times may have briefly come under various states, even Duklja, which i'm not even sure about, Neretva probably because of an earlier mention in the 9th C and also the conflicting mention by Corovic, so its worth a mention. There is even a source or mention that it was ruled by an order of the knights Templar which could explain its supposed 'autonomy'. Uvouvo 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, thanks for the discussion as I think it definately helped develop the article and our knowledge on this pretty small adriatic island :) Uvouvo 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Corovic probably got that idea from the DAI. The DAI mentions that the Croats arrived before the Serbs and that it was only the Croats that beat off the Avars and then finally assimilated them (took a few centuries though). The Serbs were on their way back to White Serbia when they turned around at Belgrade an inhabited primarily Raska etc. I always thought the trickiest part about former yugoslav history was the histories of these 4 duchies and Bosnian Bosna Uvouvo 23:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, arounf 90% of Vladimir Corovic's work comes just like he said, from De Administrando Imperio and the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja when regarding early Medieval history. He also refered to the Royal Frankish Annals and Chonicum Venetum, and very much through the Dubrovnik Archive.

I am sorry, Uvouvo, but could you please say percisely you need sourced? I lost it in this age-long discussion. :-D

Also, White erbs didn't primarily inhabit Rascia. According to what contemporary Serbian researhc says, White Serbs inhabited Duklja, Travunia, Zahumlje, Pagania and partly Bosnia. Rascia was founded by the Red Serbs according to digging, who appearently came accross Asia Minor and melted in with the White Serbs at Servia.

This is the main reason why there's so little on the Red Serbs, and so much on the Red Croats.

I only wanted the reference of Lastovo's conquest by the Neretvians inserted. I can indeed guarrantee that it was a part of Duklja. If you desire, I will upload a picture right now showing the map of Duklja in the time of the crowning in 1077, with Lastovo in it.

I will await your reply. Cheers. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty much done with this discussion, your going around in circles. Using your logic, now makes it applicable to apply Pokladars logic. Does everything in Corovic's book agree with Dr Mladen Lorkovic, Mandic, Racki, Sisic, Klaic or any others? Obviously No, as each has there own opinion - Corovic was of the opinion that Lastovo was conquered by Nertevians, fair enough. You havent countered the DAI and how it mentions Lastovo as not a part of Pagania, this must have been important enough for the emporer to write. Also book length studies on the history of Lastovo dont mention Caslav, and are of the opinion Lastovo wasnt under Neretva in the middle 10th C - These books should be seen as an improvement of Corovic's research. The other references by Dubrovnik chroniclers and others about Lastovo which you also acknowledged as being weak were writtin in the 17th C, some 500 years after such events, and without references to primary sources. Also the map you posted doesnt matter, what comparison is a map to a primary source? I have posted other maps countering / conflicting that here in 1073 and here in 1102. At there end of the day, there are two opposing opinions, and thats why I wrote that under varying times Lastovo may hve fallen briefly under the rule of Duklja, Neretva or Byzantine influence - Isn't this meeting your objections and covering those possibilities. I think this article is just about completed, and this discussion is finished. I also object to the map of Pagania containing Lastovo for two reasons

• 1) The source is not 100% as this whole discussion has shown
• 2) Even if this source was correct, and the DAI was wrong in this instance, Lastovo and Vis according to you were conquered only for 15 years from 945 to 960, which obviously means it wasnt a constituent part of Pagania. Your logic is that the map of Neretva/Pagania should include all conquered territories or ones that under times were covered. I'm sorry but this is wrong, Korcula for a brief period of time was a part of Dubrovnik, but is obviously not included in the map of the Dubrovnik Republic because it simply isnt. Uvouvo 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow there! I think we've lost the trace of this discussion. What source were you talking about?

Oh, and I didn't even think that that was the arguement. Ofcourse I agree with you that it shouldn't be presented as it was later conquered. My idea is to present Vis, Lastovo and Kaza with a different colour, to resemble the later conquest... Oh, and in 960 Serbia collapsed, but Pagania continued its life under the Byzantine Empire. I'm not sure what happenned with each and every one of those islands, but as it seems in Lastovo's case, it crossod on to Duklja. Like I said, I will show you the map. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the source i keep refering to is the DAI and its mention of Lastobon. It explicitly excludes it from Pagania. You havent offered a explanation that is not original research as they say. Anyway i have sided with two historians native to the island, which is also backed up by historians in Split in two other books i have. The map part was an observation, i may take that to the Pagania page later. I gave two reasons why it shouldnt be used. Differing colours seems to solve the second reason though. Uvouvo 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Uvouvo, I think we lost the main trace of the discussion. The only reason why I came here is to ask you to put the Neretvians' conquest of the island, which you too agreed that occured. I have no idea why you're still arguing... Why are you so mad when we have nothing to argue over? --HolyRomanEmperor 13:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HRE, the image of me being mad is only your false impression. I didnt actually agree to it being a fact! As I dont think you've been reading my valid objections to it, or for that matter much of what I have written, you have been wasting both of our time. I only agreed that Corovic mentions it. Where its drawn from, what source, when was that source written and the reliability are still in question, and of course reconciling it with the DAI and native historians makes it unreliable and conflicting to add on its own. It is also not a major point that warrants a discussion either. Whether it was under neretva or not for 15 years wont change anything. So because of the weak support of this view, and its inconsequential nature, we can safely leave it out. However I have covered Corovic's opinion already when I added the phrase "at various times Lastovo may have come under Byzantine, Dukljan, Neretvian rule", mostly because of the scarcity of written records and a means to cover all the opposing views in a realistic statement. I am not sure why you are still arguing. It is not the wikipedia according to HRE or Vladimir Corovic either :) I know we have enjoyed each others company, but unfortunately this debate has ended Uvouvo 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. :) By the way, I converted the map, so it's down from 10 MB to 2 MB. I'll need to decrease it some more before I upload it (it's the map of the Slavic/Serbian/Tribal Kingdom of Duklja. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Who published it / created it by the way? Let us know when you do upload it as i'd be keen to see it. I have many maps in my collection. Anyway, why dont you vote now for the FA status for Lastovo since you did last time. I think the article has improved alot since then. Uvouvo 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Map

Here:

File:Duklja 1077.jpg

Please also see this. It's a map by Šišić, I believe. It's from a Croatian historian site - it perfectly emulates the cross over of Lastovo from Neretvian to Doclean hands (the image presents it when it was a part of Zahumlje). --HolyRomanEmperor 17:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This map, Croatian as well, presents Lastovo a part of Serbia in 1070. Do you think that now claims are founded? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen these maps before. Sisic is an important historian, same as Racki and Vjekoslav Klaic. Some of their work is dated. Farlatti and Orbini's works are largely used as sources to designate Zahumlje as rulers over these islands, and their works are often held to a higher importance by older historians like Sisic etc, but has been subsequently ignored due to errors. Again there are other sources that contradict each this sources as i have already shown. But more damaging to the credibility of this is that Farlatti's and co's works are written some 400 years or more after such events they describe and they do not reference primary sources. Current historians have been very critical of Farlatti and Orbini because of large errors in their works. When I get the chance I will post maps showing more current versions of borders from people like Stjepan Antoljak and from the Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences (HAZU) which has an excellent book on this subject. I will also post something out of John V Fines book on Farlatti. Just out of interest, here is a paragraph from the Lastovo Article which you want changed. Please show me the changes you would like introduced, and then we can discuss further. Maybe they are not as significant as your intial changes on the article. Show me your edits in Bold below... Uvouvo 01:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Porphyrogenitos mentions Lastovo in his De Administrando Imperio by its Slavic name Lastobon.[4] In the year 998 the Venetian Doge Pietro Orseolo II took massive operations against Croatian and Neretvian pirates along the Adriatic and its islands, which culminated with the destruction of the town of Lastovo. After this Lastovci decided to build a city on the internal hill away from the coast which made the city more defendable. During the next two centuries inhabitants dedicated themselves more to agriculture and neglected their earlier naval tradition.[3] Scarcity of accurate historical documents and an almost complete silence covering the events on the island in the early Middle Ages are trustworthy signs of a great autonomy of Lastovo in that period. Lastovo may have at times come briefly under various rulers from the 7th–13th centuries, whether Byzantine, Dukljan or Neretvian, however, it is accepted that Lastovo generally recognised the Croatian Kings as its nominal and natural rulers.[2][3] In 1185 the Hvar diocese is formed of which Lastovo is mentioned as having joined. A church synod held in Split that same year decreed that the Hvar diocese should come under the Archbishop of Split. Later in the 13th century the people of Lastovo voluntarily joined the Dubrovnik Republic in 1252 after the republic promised that it would honour Lastovo's internal autonomy. This agreement was codified in the Dubrovnik Statute in 1272.

I'll repost two more from above that show a different picture. 1073 and here in 1102. I might scan some from HAZU and also include the piece on Farlatti by Fine Uvouvo 02:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How there! I just said that I like the article the way it is now. :) This was just a short responce to your harsh dismissal. :))) Bye! --HolyRomanEmperor 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)