Talk:Serbia in the Middle Ages

message: I restored some of the sources and maps previously deleted and also removed two relativistic sections. One, with fallacious reasoning, referenced by Curta. I think we should remove all references by Curta’s "The making of the Slavs", and Curta in general. Refuting his claims by the Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian or Russian slavists and historians would only further enlarge the article because of these absurd claims. In this work he barely mentions Serbs at all, while the preposterous title says a lot – according to him, basically, not Serbs, but the Slavs in general never existed as such, instead they were a construct invented by the Byzantines. They didn’t migrate from the north, had no customs or tradition of their own so they copied their neighbors, and became Slavs only because others called them Slavs. And these are just few things. In 2020 book “Slavs in making”, he moves to the north and apparently claims the same for western and eastern Slavs. And those are acceptable scientific theories, they are not fringe? Shall we go over Wikipedia and add Curta's claim that Slavs actually never existed and were invented to every Slav related historical article? Danijel Džino, also added as the revisionist source actually claims that everything regarding the early history in the DAI was invented. This section was removed because it it disputing something that is not in the article - it says nowhere the emperor Heraclius "invited" Serbs. Besides, the sections were sneaked into the article under the edit summary of ce. I also removed at least one of the false maintenance tags, especially since it was posted by the revisionist editor who himself posts truncated references. PajaBG (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reference doesn't provide a page, there is no way for anyone to verify it. Those who have added pageless citations should correct them and then remove the tags. For offline sources, good faith should be assumed but many references in the article are pageless and can't be verified even if they are verifiable. Florin Curta is one of the great modern historians/archaeologists. You'd need contemporary WP:RS which discuss other theories, but first I think that we should read his work. He's discussing identity formation of the people who in western/Byzantine historiography were grouped as "Slavs" regardless of whether they had a common emic identity, not the historical existence of Slavic-speakers. Articles should be written on the basis contemporary bibliography, not 19th century publications. In contemporary bibliography - including Serbian historiography - the DAI is considered largely fictional. It has historical value, but that value is linked to what it highlights about the attitudes of the Byzantine upper class about the Serbs.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  agree, WP:AGEMATTERS and questioning of Curta is not only out of our domain but an attempt to remove his citation and quote, and not only his but the fallacious argumentation and association is also used to remove Dvornik, it happened today. Dvornik's reference and Curta's full quote, both of which are significant, have been disruptively removed. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of references and question of Curta 

message: Stari Ras was not part of Serbia in the 9th and 10th centuries. "File:Serb lands in the 10th century (en).png" is crap. Make better maps.--93.137.169.147 (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stari Ras 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion