Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava

Improper merge

This long standing article was reduced to redirect as a result of an improper merge. That was done without consensus, on 26 April 2024, by these actions: selective merge of merely a quarter of this article into another article, followed by the removal of the complete content of this article. Such "merge" was conducted without proper discussion or notification to opposing users who took part in previous talks, and thus no proper consensus was reached on the subject of merge, as can be seen in the talk page history. Now, a proposal was made (here) to delete the "Duchy of Saint Sava" even as a redirect, that would also result in a complete deletion of the entire history of these disputes and consequent improper actions. This entire case should be reexamined, and article restored. Sorabino (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Arguing for the preservation of article talk history while ignoring what that talk history actually says at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2 is blatant wiki-lawyering. If you wish to keep posting here, please go directly to WP:AE instead, because this is where we're heading next anyway. --Joy (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This redirect should have never been proposed for deletion in the first place, nor it was proper to reduce the long standing article to a redirect without discussion and consensus. Regarding the talk page history, it is quite clear that after a long pause discussions were renewed there on 25 April 2024, and "merge" was conducted already on 26 April 2024, only a day later. Do you really think that those changes were made in a proper way? Sorabino (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. I'm going to quote what I posted in 2021 advocating it becoming a redirect (see Archive 2):

• The current content has little about this Duchy and is primarily about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača.
• The modern secondary sources linked to on this page and in Google books have sparse cursory references to it. It doesn’t appear to have a substantive historiography. (Per WP:PRIMARY can we stop referring to primary sources and also sources from the 1920s or the 19th century are of little interest.
• I’ve asked several times what is the sourced content that’s to be added to turn it into a proper article and not yet got a credible answer.
• I fully understand EdJohnston’s position on halting editing on the article until editors on this page can engage in a constructive way. In the meantime, I would suggest that any editor who thinks this should be more than a redirect should create a sandbox of what a “proper” version of this article should look like so that a genuine assessment can be made. If they’re not able to do that, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t become a redirect.

You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

You failed to mention that during those disputes the article was protected by one of administrators who was supervising those discussions, and because of that editors were reluctant to make any substantial changes, while the discussion was going on. Unfortunately, main issues were left unresolved at the talk page. Because of that, I didn't want to make any unilateral changes. There are many historical and scholarly references that could be added in order to improve the article. In any case, the article should be restored, since it was abolished without proper discussion or consesnsus. Sorabino (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I very rarely use caps on Wikipedia, but your response drives me to shouting. I had said to you: "SORABINO, JUST DO IT IN A SANDBOX AND POST THE LINK HERE." DeCausa (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for shouting, since historical sources and scholarly literature on the subject are abundant. Please take a look at recent paper (2019) by Croatian historian dr Luka Špoljarić from the History department of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb. Writing on the first duke of Saint Sava (Stjepan Vukčić Kosača), Špoljarić stated (page 156): In 1449, in order to emphasize his independence from the Bosnian king and cater to the sensibilities of his Orthodox subjects, he took the title of Duke of St Sava, in honour of the Serbian saint whose relics were held in the Mileševa monastery located in the easternmost parts of his duchy. While this large and powerful Duchy thus remained outside of papal influence, the Catholicization in the king’s land continued. In the same paper, Špoljarić included a historical map (page 158), presenting geopolitical situation in 1460, with the Duchy of St Sava. That is just one of many possible additions to the long list of sources that were already mentioned in previous discussions. Continuous attempts of some users here, who are trying to discredit a legitimate historical subject, will be inevitably revealed as a waste of everybody's time. Sorabino (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, more of the same. Špoljarić is not medievalist, his research field and area of expertise are religion and the intellectualism of Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, and that's why his paper is on the subject of religious conversion in which he cursory mention in passing situation surrounding Stjepan Vukčić (and entirely superficially, actually, in utter conflict with how medievalist see the situation). Špoljarić does not deals with territorial-political, feudal nor military developments, he does not research titles, feudalism, nor status of the feudal holdings or their relations to each other or to political and military centers. It's another scraping the google for papers where certain phrase or words are mentioned in passing. (His cursory mentioning of "independence" is just that, he doesn't delve into meaning, extent and consequences of that claim and any medievalist from Zagreb, Belgrade and Sarajevo, and faculties and institutes in between, would discard that claim as superficial mention of historian from another field.) Here's suggestion, go and read that paper by Špoljarić and come here and explain to me what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna oblast-entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context. Only if Špoljarić paper gives answers to these questions, I don't need what you may deduce or believe. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you serious? Luka Špoljarić is a medievalist. Did you even check before posting? These are his faculty pages: scholarly qualifications and teaching subjects. For some reason, you are continuing to embarrass yourself here. Please, reconsider your positions on the subject in question (Duchy of Saint Sava). Nobody in scholarly world disputes the existence of that late medieval feudal polity. Sorabino (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am dead serious! Why don't you find those same claims by listing proper medievalist? You can find them hundreds in former Yugoslavia. How about Serbian medievalist Sima Ćirković who wrote a full biography of Stjepan Vukčić Kosača? How is late poor Sima so stupid to miss something so obvious?. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet somehow you still can't produce anything of substance, except these Internet scraps and cursory mentioning in passings ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Nobody dispute existence of Humska Zemlja, Stjepan Vukčić taking a title Herceg Svetog Save - nobody ever said it was called Duchy of Saint Sava; nobody ever used that name in their research and books; and nobody ever claimed it was full-fledged independent state! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You are so wrong, as shown in previous discussions, where various sources were already cited, including Sima Ćirković. Why are you ignoring those sources, it is hard to say. But let me add some more. Another prominent medievalist, Hungarian historian Tamás Pálosfalvi recently (2016) wrote a scholarly article dedicated specifically to this subject. In the first part of the article, he elaborated on the history of that feudal polity and its dukes in the second half of the 15th century, while in the second part he elaborated on the later migration of the senior branch of the ducal family to Hungary. The article is titled: The Dukes of Saint Sava in Hungary (Hungarian: A szentszávai hercegek Magyarországon). Regarding the historical region of Zahumlje/Hum/Humska zemlja, it was just one of several territories within the Duchy of Saint Sava, that also included regions of Travunija, Drina, Dabar and others. Sorabino (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Translation is Dukes not Duchy - @Joy this amounts of utterly bad faith discussion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Now it seems that you are not denying historicity of the title (Duke of Saint Sava / Herceg Svetog Save)? If that is so, why did you propose for deletion all those redirects that are based on that very title (here)? Would you consider revoking those proposals? Sorabino (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You never understood what the problem is. Nobody denied his ducal title, actually his vojvoda and herceg titles. I denied existence of systemically formalized peerage among all south Slavic states - there was no duchy among South Slavs. The only two kingdoms in developed high Middle Ages among South Slavs were Serbia and Bosnia, but nothing was developed nor high with those two states, they had underdeveloped state aparatus based on underdeveloped feudal system, with few chancelleries borrowed from more developed states in neighborhood (Byzant, Hungary) and some underdeveloped customary, traditional posts and social stratification - knez to manage village, at most općina or župa, ban/župan, and vojvoda as a military rank. Stjepan was vojvoda whose vassals were vojvodas too! In his realm there was a vojvoda at every turn. The reason historians translate vojvoda to duke is convenience only - those two have little in common. South Slavic titles were little more than decorative labels for the ruling "elite", and nobility was a little more than rich redneck bullies (seljačke kabadahije) with few generations at best, incomparable to aristocracy in Hungary, Spain, France or England, just as the level of state development was incomparable. There was no peerage system within state to formalize titles, nobody cared if Hrvoje got herceg title from Naples or if Stjepan took it for himself by, literally, inventing it. The only real duchy was Vojvodina because it was part of Hungary, developed high Middle Ages state that formalized its status as duchy. If my explanation is insufficient or even irrelevant to you, well, read the whole book Herceg Stjepan i njegovo doba, you can find it online in pdf - it's an exciting reading, who likes to read. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Could you finally point to a scholarly source that would support your claims? Historical and scholarly sources clearly indicate that the title (Duke of Saint Sava) and the feudal polity in question (Duchy of Saint Sava) are indisputably historical, and those terms are widely used by scholars, as indicated in many sources that are already mentioned in this discussion. Here is an additional example, from recent German historiography. While writing on the relations between the Venetian Republic and Balkan feudal polities during the late middle ages, German historians Christof Paulus and Albert Weber (2020) included among those polities the Duchy of Saint Sava (Herzogtum des heiligen Sava or Herzogtum des Hl. Sava). Their paper can be seen here. Sorabino (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, what a fool I am. Burden is on you, so stop scraping papers for phrases (your paper also says on p.218 "the Albanian noble families Balšići and Thopia gave them Valona , Durazzo, Alessio, Skutari and Drivasto" - shell we go and fix our article on Balšić's?!) and from now on go and bother someone else. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Scratch that, you can say whatever you want, I will not reply to your posts anymore. I will say this, though: I never ignore reliable sources because I am not motivated by ethnomania, I don't root for Team-Croat(ia), Team-Bosnia(n), Team-Serb(ia); I would like to think that I could fit into some kind of Croat collective identity but only in a modern sense of that word and reduced to label, but you won't see me going around attempting to Croatized bits and pieces of Bosnia-Herzegovina history, quite the contrary, I have always fought tooth and nails in preventing Croatian editors who wanted to squeeze in obviously nationalistic parallel history from Croatian POV. They ended being banished from the topic or the project by the community because of those cases. I will certainly do my best to prevent squeezing in nationalistic parallel history that is coming from the other two sides, Serbian and Bosniak POV. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Sorabino, redirect "Duchy of Saint Sava" is excluded from the nom after User:Srnec remark about page's long edit and talk history, but, as Joy suggested, you should at least be fair and acknowledge and respect everything that was said there, the amount of time you had to convince community that your position is correct (at least by providing necessary reliable sources), and eventual consensus that was reached between parties involved in those long discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

What was your motivation for proposing the present redirect "Duchy of Saint Sava" for deletion, and making all those changes on 26 April 2024, without proper discussion or consensus? Sorabino (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Should I ask you what your motivation was to move earlier article, on 18 March 2021 without proper discussion or consensus, and change its scope to unsourced, factually and historically inaccurate article, whose title and scope lead readers to infer something that amounts to parallel history and historiography, or even more than article says in its content; whose existence is one open allusion of some parallel history of the region? I am not your average nationalist editor, I actually like medieval history and I actually read whole books not just titles and cherry-picked useful phrases - I actually know medieval history of Western Balkan, and Hum and Bosnia in particular, and I think I know what your article was supposed to lead readers to believe versus what was factual history of the region. Historiography knows nothing about the article title and a scope you created and knows nothing about a parallel history your creation implied. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It was you who made unilateral changes on 8 February 2021 and 3 March 2021, but your actions were reverted, and during the 2021 discussions you failed to gain support for your views. Now, in 2024, you tried again, but this time you attempted to abolish the entire article, by reducing it to a redirect without discussion or consensus. Please, would you consider reverting your own recent actions? Your attempt to abolish the same article on Bosnian Wikipedia failed in 2021, and it should be expected that similar outcome will occur here. Sorabino (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I failed to gain support? Are you serious? Tell that to Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, and DeCausa. Who supported your arguments ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

And my page moves were not unilateral, because, unlike you, Ajdebre/Zoupan and AVNOJist, I first started the TP discussion and then waited for an answer for a month - quite enough to do what my discussion argued. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

JFTR I brought this up at WP:AE#Sorabino. I'm not at all amused at how this discussion has devolved into "your response drives me to shouting". --Joy (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

(coming here from AE) I have reverted the improper conversion of this article to a redirect. It's clear from the talk page archives that there is not consensus for this change; several editors objected, and -- contrary to the assertions of some editors in favor of redirecting -- those editors absolutely brought WP:RS in favor of their position. Maybe this should be a redirect, maybe it shouldn't, but that needs to be discussed and decided in accordance with the global consensus documented at WP:MERGE or WP:AFD. Meaning: if you want to redirect it and you know where you want to redirect it to, start a WP:MERGE discussion at the target page; if you want to redirect it but aren't sure where, nominate it at AFD and vote "redirect." (Also, I should not have to be explaining this to editors who have more experience than I do, especially not to an admin. I will address conduct issues at AE shortly.) Levivich (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

They absolutely brought WP:RS that don't matter in favor of their position. Please, let's not pretend that WP:GNG doesn't exist - this level of significant coverage of the term "Duchy of Saint Sava", even the term "Duke of Saint Sava", is absolutely ludicrously small. Literally all the reliable sources brought forward by Sorabino over a period of several years are cursory mentions, I can't remember seeing a single one that spent more than a sentence at a time on it, and most of them are footnotes and uses of scary quotes. Also, I should not have to be explaining this over and over and over again. --Joy (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to spend time explaining to someone who's been an admin for 20 years what WP:MERGE and WP:AFD say. You know what to do if you think this article doesn't meet GNG and should be merged or deleted and someone disagrees. Boldly redirecting, and then nominating the redirects for deletion, is not the proper approach. Levivich (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there's no demonstrated WP:CONS-based opposition to the merge, only a single intransigent editor who has obstructed progress in these discussions for years now for reasons that have been based in a gross misinterpretation of policy.

Mind, I never nominated the redirects for deletion, and indeed I said already at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Redirects to Herzegovina#Medieval period in no uncertain terms that the redirects which are plausible should stay. --Joy (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If someone had started a WP:MERGE or WP:AFD at some point in the last 13 years, it'd probably be over by now. Levivich (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Possibly, but for my part I assumed good faith for most of that period, and in the latest iteration I assumed we are not a bureaucracy, but hey. --Joy (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Da Causa started specifically the section Should “Duchy of St Sava” be an article or a redirect? as "informal" discussion on merge/move, which Sorabino bludgeoned the same day with a section of his own, Three-layered subject of the article . ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You two have seriously been complaining about Sorabino for 14 years and neither one of you wants to go start a WP:MERGE discussion instead of complaining? Don't you feel stupid? Because this is crazy. Go start a merge discussion and stop talking shit about another editor. Levivich (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you feel stupid? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I do, yes, on this website, pretty regularly. I wonder why I bother, why do I care? Go ahead, erase "Duchy of St Sava" from Wikipedia, since you insist it was an invention and not a real place. You couldn't leave it alone at having the merger performed, you had to also try and delete all the redirects. But why do I care? Why do I care that a couple people on the internet are bullying someone else on the internet? There's this step-by-step instructions for what to do when you want to redirect something and someone reverts you, it's at WP:MERGE, but why do I care that you follow it? I don't know, I must be stupid, indeed. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we tone down the aggression here?

With regard to starting a new formal discussion, let's simply acknowledge the fact that the new discussion proposal is going to require some preparation work to make sure it passes - for example, someone now has to go through the list of mentions posted by Amanuensis in the RFD and summarize the context in which they appear in order to demonstrate that it's still all cursory mentions that don't add up to significant coverage. --Joy (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Toning down the aggression here is a great idea, as is going through the sources to see if they have enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article. If someone starts a WP:MERGE discussion (or an WP:AFD if someone thinks the various titles should be deleted instead of becoming redirects), it'll be up to the person(s) opposing the merge/deletion to post the examples of WP:SIGCOV that merit a separate article. Levivich (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I will AfD it because I am assured that those are the same superficial mentions. However, everyone should check sources every time for themselves, and not only depth and scope but also who utilize the phrase, because it is not the same if, say historian of Catholic church and Renaissance intellectualism utilize it, or geographer utilize it, as when proper medievalists does not use it at all. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should inform yourself first, and finally acknowledge the very existence of this feudal polity (1448-1482), and also the historicity of the title (Duke of Saint Sava). Those are well known facts in historiography, and we are still waiting for you to produce any, literally any scholarly source that would support your claims. And please, stop being so disrespectful towards prominent scholars (some of your remarks on Croatian medievalist Luka Špoljarić were quite inappropriate). Also, you should check your claims on Sima Ćirković, who was an expert on the subject and explicitly mentioned "Stefan Vukčić Kosača, who had grown completely independent of the Bosnian king, pronounced himself herzeg (“Herzeg of St. Sava”)" (here). Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You do realise, Sorabino, the reference you linked to would, in any AfD, be provided as evidence of why this shouldn't be an article. That is the only mention of St Sava in that book (excluding references to the saint himself). The mention is in brackets in scare quotes. WP:SIGCOV requires that it is "more than a trivial mention". That is a trivial mention: there's nothing more about the "Duchy" in that chapter. All the refderences you've put forward are like that. DeCausa (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

DeCausa, would you provide, please, any scholarly source that would dispute the historicity of this feudal polity and the ducal title in question? Stating your personal opinion is all right, even when it is quite repetitive, but some references are also needed here. The question is quite simple, for all those who want to abolish this article: What are your scholarly sources, that would support your denialist claims? Sorabino (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You want me to provide a source that says it doesn't exist? That's not the issue, or even how it works. Obviously, there was a title - you just linked to a source that references it. That's not the Wikipedia issue. The Wikipedia issue is whether there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV to meet the Wikipedia notability threshold. If there isn't the article will be deleted at AfD. DeCausa (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This was unnecessary. @DeCausa If my posting bothers you, from now on I am excluding myself from any further discussion (including replies) here on TP. The only thing that I will do is to nominate AfD in the next several days, but I will not participate in its discussion either. I hope you believe me and will help others who invested their time and energy to resolve this matter in whatever direction. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have singlehandedly written an article BIO on Stjepan Vukčić Kosača (it's a GA currently being in preparations for FA nom) by using Ćirković monograph and biography "Herceg Stefan Vukčić i njegovo doba" ("Herceg Stefan Vukčić and his age") - I read the book cover-to-cover at least twice in the last two years and I have it in my hands and my laptop; I know everything that Ćirković wrote and in what (proper) context (what and how he meant it). I won't use this discussion to extract every quote from that biography that gives actual facts and context, but our article does exactly that - Ćirković in his book gives many statements and interpretations of primary sources which disproves your arguments based on cursory mention sources. And before you ever again ask something like you asked DeCausa above, and me dozens of times during this discussion, read the "Russell's teapot" first! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Toning down the aggression here is a great idea. Levivich (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, it is quite proper that you are acknowledging Serbian medievalist Sima Ćirković as an authority on the subject, but please, lets stick to what that prominent historian has actually stated. Writing on early cartography of the region, Ćirković noted (here): "For decades, even centuries after the Ottomans conquered the Balkan states and introduced their administrative system, Serbia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, or the Duchy of Saint Sava, remained on the maps." (that was a Google translation, from Serbian: Деценијама, чак и столећима пошто су Османлије освојиле балканске државе и увеле свој административни систем, на картама су остајале Србија, Босна, Бугарска или Херцештво светог Саве). There you have an example of Ćirković using the term in question, as many other scholars are doing for centuries now, without any dispute. Sorabino (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How article title and its scope was created

• On 20:02, 27 June 2007‎ PANONIAN created an article of unknow title, but on 7 July 2009‎ Surtsicna complained: "This article is awful Was this territory a state at all? There was no Mostar while it existed. There was no such place as "Hercegovina Vojvodstvo". which could mean that article started with the title Hercegovina Vojvodstvo or Dukedom of or Duchy of Herzegovina or some such inaccurate construct.
• On 1 August 2010 blocked abuser User:AVNOJist moved the page to Dukedom of Saint Sava without discussion
• On 18 March 2011‎, later blocked user Ajdebre/Zoupan (blocked for socking and nationalistic leanings) invented another construct and moved "Dukedom of Saint Sava" to "Duchy of Saint Sava" without discussion and against many objections espoused by User:Joy. who objected it here in TP, and User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, all of whom objected in a number of reverts with elaborate edit-summaries.
• Then, many edit-wars and back-and-forth rv's ensued all the way throughout 2011 and 2012. - always without any TP discussion, and sometimes even without edit-summary.
• On 8 February 2021‎ Santasa99 moved page Duchy of Saint Sava to Dukedom of Hum then to Duchy of Hum, with an edit-summary: see TP discussion; I started a discussion "Long overdue rename...". However, I did not wait for reply, I moved the page the same day. But then again, it can't be said that I made a huge mistake as nobody responded to my discussion anyway, until, that is, Joy responded on 5 March 2021 with a new section asking some unrelated question, pointing to unrelated linking issue - unrelated to my move. I believe that the reason Joy did not complain is because he already in 2011 noticed problems with a title and nationalistic slant in article's scope and content.
• On 3 March 2021‎, almost a month after my first move and creation of TP discussion, to which only Joy joined, I moved Duchy of Hum to Humska zemlja
• On 17 March 2021, an unsigned IP commenced his nationalistic diatribe, for which they were soon blocked - I assumed that user was from Bosnian wikipedia where I crossed path with them on the same issue. Nevertheless, this IP was the first to complain about my move and respond to my discussion of it.
• User Mikola appeared on the same date and agreed with my move.
• On 18 March 2021 Sorabino appeared and replied to TP discussion, however, he moved the page back to Duchy of Saint Sava a day earlier on 17 March; he, of course, did it without discussing it and despite the fact that EdJohnston protected the page earlier same day !

This short analysis shows how unfair, to put it mildly, is Sorabino in his complaining ! A clique of blocked editors, who disrupted the project with their nationalistic leanings and biases, invented and imposed the problematic title and scope of this article, and all that without any discussion and despite the objections of many editors over many months and years. The same way of doing business adopted Sorabino and moved page without discussion (more than once). That era is finally behind us with the last merging and creation of a new article with an appropriate scope and properly sourced. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for reminding the community that it was you who tried to change the title and scope of this article back in 2021. Your disruptive edits were reverted, and in consequent discussions you failed to gain support for such radical changes. During those discussions it was revealed that you tried to impose similar changes in the same article on Bosnian Wikipedia, but your unilateral actions were reverted by administrators of that project, who protected that article against vandalism (here). It should be also noted that similar articles on the same subject, related to historical feudal polity, Duchy of Saint Sava (1448-1482), exist on 13 (thirteen) Wikipedia projects, with their stable scopes and identical titles. Your constant attempts to suppress that subject on some projects (BW, EW) are very revealing. Sorabino (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  Unlike you, I started discussion on TP, and nobody responded for entire month, something you, and before that, both soon to be blocked, Ajdebre/Zoupan and AVNOJist never did. The three of you didn't just move the page back and forth without discussion, you did it despite the objections of several editors: at first User:Joy, User:Surtsicna, User:Praxis Icosahedron, User:Potočnik, User:Kebeta, and then me, User:DeCausa, User:Mhare, User:Mikola, Joy again, User:Tezwoo; how about that list of editors who told you this page with this title and scope need to go. And for these other wiki project - I simply don't care; not that I believe you, because I don't anymore, I literally don't care. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Regarding the creation and scope of articles that are relevant for this discussion, I have a related question for user Santasa99. Since EW has a long standing-article on the medieval region of Zachlumia (Zahumlje, also known as Hum or Humska zemlja), why did you recently (28 June 2024) duplicate the same subject by turning a redirect Humska zemlja into a separate article (here)? It would be interesting to hear your reasons for such an unusual action, since you have mentioned various issues related to names of that historical region on several occasions in these debates here. Are you claiming that those are two distinctive subjects? Sorabino (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

new additions to the Sources section

I noticed this edit. I had a look at some of these that were available:

• Hercezi svetoga Save: 50 godina povjesti hercegovačke, an 1895 book by Croatian historian Bare Poparić that is titled "Herzogs of Saint Sava: 51 years of Herzegovinian history", where the latter adjective is for the place, Herzegovina. It starts with the section titled Herceg Stjepan Kosača and says:

Poviest Hercega sv. Save, koji su dali ime Hercegovini, ujedno je poviest zadnjih decenija te zemlje prije nego li je potpala pod Osmanlije. Hercezi sv. Save vuku lozu od vojvodske porodice Hranića, koja se kašnje pozvala Kosača.

So that land is again clearly called Herzegovina, and that is the actual significance of the title. The book makes several references to the title as such, discussing earlier sources about who could have invented it etc. I noticed at some point it also mentions the term Hercezštvo Sv. Save but that does not appear to be in reference to the territory, but the concept of who can hold the title. The same historian also wrote Tužna povijest Hercegove zemlje in 1942,[1] which means "The sad history of Herzog's land", which leads with

Neobičan je naslov ove radnje. Ne sadržava ona povijest Hercegovine od najstarijih vremena, kao što se običava kad sе piše povijest jedne zemlje, već je u njoj opisano samo kratko razdoblje, i to baš ono, kad ja ta zemlja dobila današnje svoje ime. A to je razdoblje nada sve tužno.

So he says the work is oddly titled, refers to the place as Herzegovina, and emphasizes that this is just about the short time period when the land got its present-day name. It also mentions Hrvoje as the Duke of Spljet, etc.

• Prilog rodopisu hercega sv. Save[2], an 1898 article by Croatian historian Emilij Laszowski which means contribution to the genealogy of Herzogs of St. Sava, and introduces the topic of O rodu hercega sv. Save (duces s. Sabbae) as interesting (the family of these dukes), and later talks of Stjepan as gospodar zemlje Hercegovine - the lord of the land of Herzegovina. It also talks of Vladislav as the lord of Kalnik, and notes the specific Latin term dux de Kemlek.

I couldn't open the other links to investigate further, Google Books only showed me the summary. Still, so far, there's still zero ways anyone could interpret even these old sources as sourcing for the idea that this place should be described as anything other than "Herzegovina", and the historically relevant thing about the story was the fancy title among these noblemen. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Joy, it seems that you are not accepting the common translation of title herceg/herzog as duke? Good luck with rewriting English dictionaries. Sorabino (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  That translation is immaterial, as the idea that every claim of dukedom corresponds to a duchy and that every duchy needs to have a standalone article - is not based in sources. When most sources discussing this topic don't dedicate even a standalone section to it, having the encyclopedia do it would be prescription, not description. --Joy (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

sources mentioned in the RFD

I had a look at the sources posted in this edit, too.

• Pitcher 1972 - uses quotes around the name 'Duchy' and notes the name Herzegovina in the same breath. Didn't read further, doesn't seem likely that there's anything else there that would contradict this.
• Petrovich 1967 - uses primarily Herzegovina and this title in parentheses, so likewise I didn't try to read more into it.
• Houtsma 1993 - uses this as part of the name of one of the six periods of Bosnian history 12th-19th c., sadly I can't read the next page after this one to see the context further, will try later
• Zlatar 1992 - explains the term as Herzegovina
• Nicol 1997 - explains the term as ruling family, not place, and just notes dukes twice after this mention of 'duchy'. Interestingly, it does not mention the term Herzegovina, just Bosnia. For reference, the work refers to Ragusa and Ragusans, and doesn't mention the term republic in reference to them - doesn't seem like they were too interested in these sorts of fine details.
• Elsie 2003 - mentions a lord called Ercecho, but that seems like a corruption of Herzeg, because I can't find this search string anywhere else.
• Short 2022 - sadly couldn't open this one in gbooks, will try later
• Djukanovic 2023 - sadly couldn't open this one either, ditto. I was able to see some other pages, and saw mentions of Herzegovina, so it seems moot at best.

So, does it make sense to wait for the RFD to be closed before starting the next formal discussion? --Joy (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I just happened to be half an hour early on that. --Joy (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Joy. Is AfD, then, proper forum? Since we already have text of this article in at least four bigger more comprehensive ones, I presume there is nothing to merge/move from here to elsewhere. If accepted, the AfD should look to turne this article into redirect(?) - probably without possibilities so that we don't experience any kind of RS manipulation in the future as basis for POV fork recreation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade closed WP:AE#Sorabino saying:

The article Duchy of Saint Sava is placed indefinitely under a "consensus required" restriction as follows: Prior to taking any of the actions of moving, merging and redirecting, or blanking and redirecting the article, consensus must be established for such an action. That consensus may be established by any normal process, including request for comment and requested move. If there is any dispute over whether such a discussion establishes consensus, formal closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor must be sought. Edits or moves covered by this restriction made without establishing such a consensus may result in sanction, and may be reverted by any editor.

While the two listed process examples were RFC and RM - AFD is still a normal process and can be used. Right? --Joy (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have asked Seraphimblade here, and they said this, so I guess it is exactly what you say it is. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am more interested what's your assessment regarding presented sources, in relation to possible AfD? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Same as before, it looks like it's a bunch of cursory mentions. Later I noticed that a lot of these sources were actually from the article text, so they're not actually new. I tried to open those three I couldn't see yesterday, still no go, but it doesn't matter, we already have a decent idea of how scholarship treats this topic. --Joy (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, it should be noted that giving this title space in the Herzegovina article will probably give it more prominence than keeping it in this weird separate article. The readership of the two articles is mostly 20 : 1 (10 : 1 at best). --Joy (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Other specific articles like Herzegovina Eyalet and Sanjak of Herzegovina also have much lesser views then the general article Herzegovina, and that is a common ratio of views between specific and general articles. Would you advocate to merge those articles too, into the same general article, on the same grounds? I guess not. Sorabino (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Eyalet and Sanjak are part of established field of research, Ottoman B-H history, regardless of pageview stats on Wikipedia - "Duchy" is synthesis and pov fork created by abuser whose known blocked accounts were Zoupan and Ajdebre. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts

The way I see it, this entire dispute centers around a single medieval polity that historically went by several different names (we have Humska zemlja and Duchy of Saint Sava, which are WP:CFORKS of each other). So rather than debating whether the Duchy of Saint Sava existed as such (it most certainly did), the nature of this discussion should instead revolve around how best to go about reconciling the different names and making things more accessible for readers. All sides are going to need to compromise here, otherwise we'll be running in circles forever and nothing is ever going to get done (this dispute has been ongoing for nearly 15 years!) Here are two potential solutions:

1) We can merge Humska zemlja with this article (or vice versa) and have the lead and infobox mention that reliable sources refer to the polity by different names (Humska zemlja, Duchy of Saint Sava, etc.) The alternative titles would become redirects (which aren't going to be nominated for deletion). Here are a few variations of what the opening line of a merged article could look like:

• Humska zemlja (Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Хумска земља; lit. 'Land of Hum'), also known as the Duchy of Saint Sava, was...
• The Land of Hum (Serbo-Croatian: Humska zemlja; Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Хумска земља), from 1448 to 1482 known as the Duchy of Saint Sava, was...
• The Duchy of Saint Sava (Serbo-Croatian: Vojvodstvo Svetog Save, Војводство Светог Саве), also known as Humska zemlja or the Land of Hum, was...
• The Duchy of Saint Sava (Serbo-Croatian: Vojvodstvo Svetog Save, Војводство Светог Саве), also known as the Land of Hum (Serbo-Croatian: Humska zemlja; Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic: Хумска земља), was...

These aren't hard and fast proposals, just suggestions meant to kick-start some discussion. If we decide to go down this route, the article title should probably come down to what most reliable English-language sources say (WP:COMMONNAME), for which we can use Google Trends or something similar. I'm personally not a huge fan of the title Humska zemlja because of WP:ENG. A Google Books search shows that reliable sources do indeed use Land of Hum, which means the same thing in English. Other than this pet peeve, I personally don't care much one way or the other, other than that I am steadfast that Duchy of Saint Sava is clearly attested to in reliable sources and shouldn't be whitewashed and removed, as was attempted recently, whatever the outcome of any potential discussion vis the merger of the two articles/deletion of the one, etc.

2) Instead of merging the two or deleting the one, we can expand Duchy of Saint Sava with reliable sources but restrict its WP:SCOPE to the period 1448–1482, whilst the scope of Humska zemlja would be restricted to the period before 1448, thereby avoiding the CFORK issue, as the Duchy of Saint Sava article would then be dedicated solely to covering Hum's twilight years. I'm open to different opinions. Let's discuss. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Compromise is always the best solution, but, in this case and with the following ideas, to go with Humska zemlja....also known as the Duchy of Saint Sava, including all other versions mixing the two would be WP:SYNTH, not compromise. I started "Humska zemlja" article with half a dozen of books and research essays whose scope is description of Humska zemlja (among other things) without mention of "Duchy" in any context; sources such as Ćirković ("Herceg Stefan i njegovo doba"; "Istorija bosanske države"); Mladen Ančić ("Šta je Bosna bez Hercegovine"; "Na rubu zapada: tri stoljeća bosanske države"), Esad Kurtović ("Veliki vojvoda bosanski Sandalj Hranić"), Zilic ("Radivojević-Vlatković, gospoda Humske zemlje") Kresic ("Vjerske prilike u Humskoj zemlji"), even Misic and Vego and their books with a same title, "Humska zemlja". This is to name several just from the top of my head. To use an article written upon these sources that describe the region in context of the "Humska zemlja" name and scope, and to include (to attach to it) another phrase that is nowhere in those sources but is cursory mentioned in some other, is WP:SYNTH. My position is that only redirect per WP:REDIRECT is acceptable. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• As noted on several occasions in these discussions, the region of Hum/Humska zemlja was just one of several regions within the Duchy of Saint Sava, since the territory of that feudal polity was much wider then Hum/Humska zemlja, and also included several other regions, such as: Primorje, Travunija, Drina, Polimlje and others. Distinction between main constituent regions within the Duchy of Saint Sava was clearly expressed in the titles of its rulers. Therefore, the Duchy of Saint Sava can not be reduced to any of those narrower regions. Adding to that, all of the western regions of the Duchy, including Hum/Humska zemlja, were lost to Ottomans already during the 1460s, while the Duchy continued to exist until 1481/1482. Regarding the recent transformation of a previous redirect Humska zemlja into a separate article by user Santasa99, that question was addressed here in hope of some clarification. Sorabino (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even quite see the reason why to split up Zahumlje and Hum (zemlja) as all these articles seem to significantly overlap in content. There's comparatively so little content here that we might as well split off History of Herzegovina and use that to describe it all. Having a separate article about every 50-year period is nonsensical, it just makes everything harder to follow for the average English reader. We already have an unavoidable need for separate biographies about various rulers, but the general history timeline doesn't have to be chopped up into bits and pieces. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Zahumlje and Humska zemlja are not synonymous, they are different geopolitical formations. Zahumlje article was a battleground for years and resulted in a mess created by many blocked and banned editors. There was no way to make it into smaller article on the narrower subject, which is quiet well defined geo-politically and differentiated in historiography. Instead, it was practically general history of the region that, at present, include entire epoch from coming of a Slavs to coming of Ottomans - which is ridiculous, but it was for years a place to entertain our lowest nationalistic impulses from all three, Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian side. I think that I tried to complain about it long time ago, but I don't remember that my arguments were anything but outright dismissed. Humska zemlja already include info that is not part of Zahumlje article. Herzegovina article should be main article on the subject, but both periods, Zahumlje with Humsko kneštvo (from earliest time to 1326), and Humska zemlja (from 1326 to 1481) should have their separate articles. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ančić Mladen has written on Zahumlje and Hum, what was the difference, and so on - here's but one excerpt: 30) Dukljaninov opis "Humske zemlje" (Chelmmiia regto) vidi u Šišić, 1928, 327 Hum (Chelmo) ili "Humska zemlja", zajedno s "vladarom Humske zemlje (pririceps regionts Clemanae), spominju se u Ljetopisu Popa Dukljanina na nekoliko mjesta (Šišić, 1928, 346-7, 356), .... Ostaje, međutim, kao jedina važna činjenica to što je u vrijeme kad autor [Pop] piše svoje djelo, u drugoj polovici 12. stoljeća, pred njegovim očima "Humska zemlja" kneštvo kakvo poznaju i vrela iz kasnijih vremena. 31) Usp 8 vrela koja govore o "Zahumlju" što ih je sabrao Trpković, 1964, 230-1, i njegov zaključak o nastajanju imena. Vrijedi ovdje istaknuti kako je u vrijeme kad Pop piše svoj Ljetopis (druga polovica 12. stoljeća) u okvire "Humske zemlje" već bilo uključeno Zahumlje.....[ovdje navodi geografske lokacije]..... No, tradicije "zahumske" zasebnosti nisu bile odmah zaboravljene, .... ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, Zahumlje/Zahumska zemlja and Hum/Humska zemlja are the same thing. The same medieval region with variant names, derived from the term Hum/Zahumlje, as it is well established is scholarly sources, and thus reflected in more then 20 projects throughout Wikipedia, that have only one article on that historical region. Recent creation of a separate article Humska zemlja besides the long-standing article Zahumlje was therefore quite unnecessary. Sorabino (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

After all the fuss about "Duchy" for years and now your questioning of Hum on, allegedly, the same grounds, I'm really no longer convinced that the best interest of articles about Zahumlje, Hum and Herzegovina is what you have at heart. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, please take a pause and reflect on these facts: your various actions, related to those and corresponding articles, have been reverted on several occasions, both on Bosnian Wikipedia and here on English Wikipedia. You are the primary initiator of all of these discussions and disputes, and the rest of us are just trying to understand why are you doing all of that. It seems that some of your recent actions are not supported even by those users who tend to agree with you on some other points. It seems that misrepresentation of sources has become a manner of yours, and that is becoming quite embarrassing. Sorabino (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

After reading Duchy of Saint Sava, Zachlumia, and Humska zemlja, I still don't understand what those places are, or whether they are the same place or a different place. Levivich (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

That is the central question here, particularly after various distortions that were introduced recently by user Santasa99, who detached a redirect Humska zemlja from Zachlumia and created a separate article, thus duplicating the subject. Zachlumia (Zahumlje/Zahumska zemlja = Hum/Humska zemlja) is a medieval historical region between Dubrovnik and river Neretva. On the other hand, the Duchy of Saint Sava was a late medieval feudal polity that was much wider in scope, at least three times larger than Zahumlje/Humska zemlja, since the Duchy was encompassing several other historical regions, such as: Primorje, Travunija, Drina, Polimlje and others. Sorabino (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Even, though, article Humska zemlja says, twice, (I)n a geopolitical sense the Humska zemlja is not synonymous to Zahumlje; and From the 9th to the first half of the 11th century, in the neighborhood of the Principality of Hum, on the left bank of the Neretva all the way to Dubrovnik, there was another political formation, independent of the Principality of Hum, and it was called "Zahumlje"? Then goes on to explain Until the end of the 11th century, the Principality of Hum itself was part of the broader structure of the Croatian king's authority. At the time of the dynastic crisis and the dissolution of the Croatian Kingdom at the end of the 11th century, the Knez of Hum gained almost complete independence. As a result, his rule now extended to the west as far as Imotski with the župa of the same name. On the other hand, during the 12th century, Hum knez's authority definitely expanded to the east, into neighboring Zahumlje. These expansions of the Principality were also accompanied with certain territorial losses, mostly on the Adriatic islands. But the most significant consequence of the expansion of the rule of the Knezs of Hum to Zahumlje is the loss of the distinctive character of Zahumlje itself, although that name will appear sporadically with the Principality of Hum for some time to come. Meanwhile, referenced source itself - Ančić 2001, p. 143 (See footnote 3); Ančić 2001, pp. 150, Footnote 30 & 31.; Ančić 2001, pp. 150–151, Humsko kneštvo- goes on and on in explaining that the two are not synonymous. In short, with a passing of the 13th century Zahumlje on the left bank of the Neretva and Hum's Principality (Humsko kneštvo) on the right bank (both roughly speaking) ceased to exist as separate geopolitical formations and the territories of both will be encompassed by the Bosnian state and one noble family as Humska zemlja, until Ottomans invented a new name for a new geopolitical reality, which is Herzegovina. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, your attempts to reduce the term Humska zemlja to the period after 1326 have no bases in scholarly sources, since that very term refers also to previous periods of regional history. The term is well attested as a regional name in numerous sources from previous centuries (an comprehensive scholarly article on that subject can be seen here). In other words, Zahumlje and Humska zemlja are just two variant names for the same region throughout the entire medieval period. That is why there is not a single Wikipedia project that treats those terms separately. In every of more than 20 projects, there is only one article on Zahumlje/Humska zemlja. Your recent turning of a redirect Humska zemlja into a separate article is the only example of an artificial duplication of the subject, and that problem is already addressed here, waiting for your response. Sorabino (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you, please, wait your turn? I responded, answered and asked Levivich about his post. Don't bludgeon every post you see. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that text and sources speak for themselves in this article. Any confusion and misunderstanding that editor not familiar with a subject are expressing and asking for clarifications, I am trying to clarify, but I can't because you are constantly derailing my attempts by going in circles and repeating the same even when I explain and respond, earlier to Joy and now to Levivich. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disparaging of someone else's writing (and I don't know who wrote what in these articles), but no, none of what you quote explains it to me. For example:

• (I)n a geopolitical sense the Humska zemlja is not synonymous to Zahumlje
  • What is Zahumlje and what does it have to do with Zachlumia? Do these two words mean the same thing? And what about "Humska zemlja" and "Zachlumia"? And each of those three and "Duchy of St Sava"? Which of these words mean the same thing, and which of these words mean something different?
  • What does "geopolitical sense" mean in this sentence? I mean, is "Humska zemlja" synonymous with "Zahumlje" in a non-geopolitical sense? What other "sense" is there?
  • Why use the word "synonymous," which is a linguistic term. Are "Humska zemlja" and "Zahumlje" the same place, with the same borders, or not the same place? Do they overlap--same place, different borders? Or are they next to each other? Or not even next to each other? Did they exist at the same time, or different times?
• From the 9th to the first half of the 11th century, in the neighborhood of the Principality of Hum, on the left bank of the Neretva all the way to Dubrovnik, there was another political formation, independent of the Principality of Hum, and it was called "Zahumlje".
  • What is "Principality of Hum"? Because the article Zachlumia says that Zachlumia is also called "Hum." The article Humska zemlja also says that Humska Zemlja is also called "Hum." So is the Principality of Hum the same as Humska Zemlja, or the same as Zachlumia, or are all three things the same thing? Principality of Hum redirects to Zachumlia.
  • If Zahumlje was independent of the Principality of Hum, then that means it's not Hum, right? So why is Zahumlje a redirect to Zachlumia, when the first one is not Hum, and the second one (according to it's article) is Hum? What is Hum? Is that just a word that means "hill," or Hum a place?

Duchy of Saint Sava, Hum (zemlja), Zachlumia, Zahumlje, Humska zemlja... I do not understand what, where, or when these things existed. In some places, Wikipedia says they are the same; in others, it says they are different. What I'd love to see is a source that actually discusses all of these words (or at least most, or at least some of them), and to see a quote from the sources to see how they define these words. Levivich (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I understand, we use hatnotes to distinguish between these things if there is a dilema: "Not to be confused with....", we don't have to explain in one article body that it does or does not refer to another article subject, right? Out of courtesy, I will explain here on TP to a colleagues that these are different geopolitical formations and that Hum and Humska zemlja are synonyms, but Zahumlje is a different formation and different place (that is, different geographically and politically) from Hum/Humska zemlja, and that Duchy does not exist at all - there was a duke but not duchy. I will repeat for the sake of clarification that article Zahumlje is an out-of-scope mess for years because it was a battleground for the entertainment of the most banal nationalists' impulses between Croats and Serbs, trying to prove it was more Serbian or more Croatian - it was overblown because when one side put some info in it, immediately other side had to put some other info too that would counter the first. Back to Hum - Hum was principality that in the course of 12th century extended its rule on different place called Zahumlje; from that point on Zahumlje both in name and politically disappeared; in the course of the 13th century Hum Principality (now including Zahumlje) was annexed by Bosnian Banat and thus disappeared politically; from the first half of the 13th century the name for entire region is Humska zemlja and synonymous Hum was used but rarely. Toward end of the 15th century Ottoman occupied it and started calling the region Herzegovina, ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, you made some factual mistakes and erroneous interpretations. For example, you claim that Bosnia took Hum/Humska zemlja already in the 13th century. That is not truth, and you know it, because Bosnia annexed that region in 1322-1326, and that is a well known fact. Here is another example: you are trying to muddle the fact that the regional name Hum/Humska zemlja was used in continuation for centuries, long before that region was incorporated into the Bosnian state in the 14th century. Therefore, your attempt to monopolize the term "Humska zemlja" as title for your newly created article on the Bosnian period of regional history is unfounded, because the same term was used widely as a regional name during previous periods too. The proper name for your article would be, for example: Humska zemlja in medieval Bosnia, or something like that. Maybe you did not think it through, but you should consider giving your article a proper title, and return Humska zemlja to the previous state of a redirect, that was originally pointing to the principal article (Zachlumia). Those are just some basic suggestions, that would resolve at lest one of several questions that were raised here. Sorabino (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Hum and Zahumlje were two statelets next to each other. The name in Serbo-Croatian is very close - Hum vs. Za-Hum-lje, which, according to modern (21st century) historiography, is why it was sometimes confusingly misinterpreted as synonymous in name, including in geographical and political sense, in older (from the beginning of the 20th century) historiography. They rarely overlapped in political sense, while of course they could never overlap geographically - politically, one ruler would extend his rule over parts of both places - until, that is, both places finally became one political statelet that was later annexed by a large state and incorporated into its system with the name Humska zemlja. This is in short; we are talking about couple of centuries of feudal history, whatever source one use it is never easy to summarise it in simple terms like this and attach a ref that will show historian writing it down in these kinds of terms. It is much easier to write an article on historical biography than on geopolitical development of some region. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

When you write that Duchy does not exist at all - there was a duke but not duchy, I just stop believing anything else you say. Because I have by now personally read half a dozen RS that explicitly say the Duchy of Saint Sava existed, that there was not only a duke, but also a duchy. I don't know why you keep saying it didn't exist in the face of RS that directly contradict you--is it a language barrier thing or what? But the Duchy of Saint Sava definitely existed, according to many RS that's been posted on this page, in the article, and in the RFD. Levivich (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, then you take those sources and attach them as references to article, where you thoroughly describe to readers Duchy of Saint Sava. I will also say that I don't believe a word you say, nor do I think anymore that you are neutral, now that you made such an exceptional claim, and I mean WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

They are in the article. Look, participate in the discussion if you want to, but if you make untrue claims like "that Duchy does not exist at all," that's not participating in the discussion, that's disrupting the discussion by misrepresenting the sources. We are past the point of questioning whether the duchy existed: there are ample RS that say that it did exist. The question now is where (at which page) Wikipedia should cover it--not whether it was real or not. Levivich (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Show me the evidence don't cast aspersions, again. Burden of proof is in on you, and "they are in the article" is not an evidence - those references are all cursory mention, one-liners, more often than not espoused by non-medievalists. Place to make conclusions such as "we are past the point of questioning whether the duchy existed" and who is "misinterpreting sources" is some of the bords suggested at AE. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you again try to derail this discussion by claiming that the Duchy of Saint Sava did not exist, I may well take it to AE. We are not going to waste more editor time with claims that the Duchy never existed; enough editor time has already been spent gathering and quoting from sources that attest to its existence, and that was the consensus at the RFD you started, which is why those redirects aren't deleted. Because we discussed it, gathered and reviewed sources, and came to a consensus about whether it exists, that discussion is now over. Time to move on to deciding which article will cover the Duchy of Saint Sava. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich I think they mean there's no duchy as in a place, nobody would really refer to the realm in a geographical sense. For example, Duchy of Anjou is described as a "province", it was preceded by a County, the people from there were referred to as Angevin after it. The Dukes of Saint Sava, etc never lasted long enough for their domain to get such characteristics, and indeed there's a discussion in these various historical works about how they used the name more to honor the sacred site of Mileševo than with the intent of naming their land after Saint Sava. But if you give the "polity" a standalone article, it makes it sound like it was a place, which is more like wishful thinking rather than an accurate description of history. --Joy (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Joy, please, could you provide some scholarly or any other source for the claim that the very existence of that feudal polity should be regarded as "wishful thinking"? If that is your personal opinion, how do you explain all those scholarly references on the polity in question, and its rulers, territorial scope and related historical events in general? Are all those scholars, who wrote about those subjects, somehow engaged in "wishful thinking"? Sorabino (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussions of territorial scope by sources in relation to this term do not imply a conventional duchy as described above. (I'm going to ignore the trolling parts.) --Joy (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• I have a proposal, since we are discussing two different subjects here:

1. Questions related to Zachlumia (Zahumlje) and Humska zemlja should be discussed in detail at the talk page of the primary article, since those questions are already raised there.

2. That region (Zahumlje = Humska zemlja) was just one of several regions within the Duchy of Saint Sava, and therefore all those questions related to Zahumlje/Humska zemlja do not overlap with the much wider territorial scope of the Duchy. Chronological scope is also different, since the historical region of Zahumlje/Humska zemlja existed throughout the middle ages, while the Duchy in question existed from 1448 to 1482. Therefore, the Duchy of Saint Sava should not be reduced to just one of its regions, particularly not the one that was lost to Ottomans already during the 1460s, while the Duchy continued to exist until 1482.

3. There are several scholarly articles that are dedicated specifically to these questions (including regional terminology), but they are already mentioned in these discussions, or used in those articles. Sorabino (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

And you have sources that describe your following statement: Zahumlje / Humska zemlja was just one of several regions within the Duchy of Saint Sava, and therefore all those questions related to Zahumlje/Humska zemlja do not overlap with the much wider territorial scope of the Duchy. If you don't, please drop it and don't mention it again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Santasa99, I would gladly respond to your request, by citing your favorite scholar, a prominent Croatian medievalist and university professor Mladen Ančić, who made a clear distinction between a minor region Hum/Humska zemlja, and much wider feudal polity of herceg Stjepan. In 2015 (here), Ančić stated: In a territorial sense, the Herzog’s province far surpassed – in the mid-15th century when it was completely built as the administrative cradle of the future Herzegovina – the land of Hum and included, at certain moments, the territory from Omiš in the west, to the upper and middle Drina Valley, and even parts of Zeta in the east, and also added: The Herzog himself did not equate his province with the land of Hum, also noting that: in the first months he called himself the ‘Herzog of Hum and the Littoral’. He quickly changed this, however, and began to further call himself the ‘Herzog of St. Sabba’. There you have it: Hum/Humska zemlja was just one of the regions within the Duchy of Saint Sava. Sorabino (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please,do not insult my intelligence anymore with these nonsensical statements - Herceg of St.Sabba is a personal title not a Duchy with all implications of that term. Ančić never mentions any Duchy ! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you say what Ančić says how is Herceg's land called ? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm in favor of #2 of Amanuensis's proposals: reduce the scope of the article to just the years that the Duchy existed. The other, longer-lasting territories can be covered elsewhere (either in one or multiple articles, but that can be discussed separately). Levivich (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)