Talk:Višeslav of Serbia

message: * We have an obligation to represent major views, regardless of national origin. The views of international scholars are not necessarily authoritative based on their diversity of origin alone. Likewise, those views that are prominent in Serbian and Croatian scholarship are not necessarily authoritative either. I recognize that this is an area in which we often see disruption, particularly in the form of ethnonationalism. We should therefore attribute views to specific sources where they conflict with those from other sources. So as to not create a false balance, we should also grant more weight to those views that are shared among the largest numbers of reliable sources. For example, if there is a  minority viewpoint that the people of Zachlumia are or were ethnic Serbs, then we should attribute that viewpoint to the scholars that agree with it; if the majority view is different, then we should write more about the majority view before mentioning the minority viewpoint. I hope that answers the question in the RfC. If you have something more specific to ask, then please ask that directly. AlexEng(TALK) 00:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Many articles managed to reach a certain good point of neutrality (for example Duklja, Narentines, Zachlumia, Travunija, Kanalites, Serbia in the Middle Ages). However, few articles on Serbian rulers like this or Vlastimir remain for some reason a battleground for some editors pushing a viewpoint mostly held by Serbian historiography by ignoring/removing viewpoints found in both Serbian and other international scientific literature - specifically regarding the ethnic identity and origin of people of mentioned South Slavic principalities for some of which in DAI is stated to be Serbian.
In short, as asserted by the Croatian historians Aničić, Vedriš, and others in the same fashion the most notable modern Serbian historian and Byzantinist, Tibor Živković, who a great portion of his career studied DAI and wrote many papers and books on it, emphasized that the Serbian historiography and modern representatives like Komatina, extensively cited on Serbian-related articles, are uncritically stuck in the nationalist 19th-mid 20th century framework. He highly regarded modern Croatian historiography and historians on the topic of DAI, considering them reliable for a long period of time, including those which were cited in the article or here (Budak, Bilogrivić, Goldstein, Pohl, Fine). In comparison to part of Serbian historians, those representing Croatian historiography share long-held critical viewpoints with older (Dvornik) and newer (Whittow, Heather, Curta) international historians.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for the input, will make a change. Basically, the quotes are provided so the editors can read them and by reading them reach a conclusion on which of the viewpoints is in the majority, has more weight, is scientifically more modern and what valid reason we have to ignore/remove from citing Croatian and other international sources which interpret DAI critically with scientific methods. It is a complex issue so it's a bit difficult to make it very brief but hope it is more clear now --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, thank you very much for your survey comment. All quoted historians and scholars are authorative and very reliable as sources for the topic in question. If possible can you read all the provided quotes and add to your comment your opinion what's the most recurring theme on specific issues about ethnic and political identity, origin, migration, capacity to settle all these lands, whether the identity events refer to the 7th or 10th century and so on? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would choose not to use either Komatina nor Ančić, but would use Serbian: T.Živković, Croatia: N.Budak-Danijel Džino-Snježana Gregurović-Dubravka Mlinarić-Goldstein, international: Curta-Fine.--౪ Santa ౪99° 12:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  all quoted scholars and sources are reliable, can be used especially as a reference for a minority/majority viewpoint. I wouldn't exclude anyone Živković mentioned (Komatina and Ančić included). Can you cite titles and possibly quotes by Gregurović and Mlinarić? Are they any different from other cited Croatian historians? Anyway, it would be welcome to have your opinion in the Survey section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was just a suggestion, they can all be used with a certain amount of care, as it is always the case with historians and historiography (no empirical evidence :-) unfortunately). Maybe later, I am momentarily preoccupied with writing something (a report, which needs diffs, time, etc.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 19:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, have a pleasant writing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Ah, it's that whole kerfuffle. OK, so I would lose the excess aspersions against  because it's only been 10 days and you didn't actually ping them here on Talk to notify them, so it's not entirely unreasonable that they just missed it after the earlier revert. At the same time, I now checked, and saw that they actually three days ago filed a new SPI report against you and Croatian Telecom IP address and invoking diffs back to 2016, so this is shaping up to be a wonderful little flamewar... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are following the article and talk page. I've made an edit on 6 February, Theonewithreason made a revert the same day. I've made a comment the same day on this talk page where announced starting an RfC or dispute resolution. Ten days since then, three days since the report fail, and two days since the start of RfC we still don't have a single word here by Theonewithreason. Instead of constructively participating, explaining their revert and else they were doing what? No, this RfC isn't a flamewar but exactly the opposite - an attempt and only possible way that we finish once and for all with these tireless discussions and flamewars. We desperately need a solid NPOV consensus. Some editors don't want us to have a consensus. Thankfully, almost all of the ethnonationalistic editors involved before in such discussions have been blocked and sanctioned. It's a perfect time we finally have a focused and constructive RfC consensus without it becoming a flamewar battleground. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although pinging Theonewithreason was necessary, that SPI is closed as evidence lacking, as far as I can tell, but it looks to me more as an attempt to shortcut through this new round of dispute-resolution discussion.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion