Jump to content

Talk:Slavs in Lower Pannonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for move. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pannonian Principality → Pannonian Croatia — An IP moved Pannonian Croatia article into Pannonian Principality, without any discussion. Request for returning an old name. Kebeta 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Whining about somebody moving the article without discussion is not a reason to revert. They are encouraged to be bold, and move the article, unless they think it will be controversial. If you want support to move the article back, you need to give reasons. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion below. The previous move was a cut-and-paste, and I've fixed the history now. Just say "no" to cut-and-paste moves. - GTBacchus(talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Pannonian Principality → Pannonian Croatia — Pannonian Principality is general name for several Pannonian states. For example it can lead to Balaton Principality which was between the rivers Danube and Drava. Pannonian Croatia was between the rivers Drava and Sava. Like I said above, an IP moved Pannonian Croatia article into Pannonian Principality, without any discussion (and made a big mess in the article deleting article history). Pannonian Principality is also a name for a part of Great Moravia, which add more to confusion. Kebeta (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. In normal English, "Croatian Pannonia" would be expected as Pannonia is the name of a region stretching from Slovakia to Illyria and the Croats are one people inhabiting it. Also, Croats are Slavic grouping who appear to have come into existence in their recognizable High Medieval form in this region only after this era, and weren't distinguishable from other Slavs except by allegiance. Why is this Slavic Pannonian principality supposed to be particularly "Croatian"? Must oppose this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Pannonian Principality is to general and can refer to several Pannonian states. Why is to be Pannonian Croatia? Because of this for example Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0472081497.Kebeta (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be referring to the bit of "Croatia" in Pannonia. This article however is about a principality called Pannonia that existed before the existence of the Croatian kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right, it refers to a 'bit' of "Croatia" in Pannonia which would become Croatian kingdom after king Tomislav unite that 'bit' (Pannonian Croatia) with Littoral Croatia. Of course that 'bit' is just a small part of Pannonia. That is way I wan't to make a difference from other parts of Pannonia ruled by others (like Balaton Principality or Great Moravia). In the source above (Fine, John Van Antwerp) on which we are refering now, Pannonian Croatia is mentioned as name of the Principality before unification by Tomislav. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator and per above discussion. Kebeta (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, arguments seem to make some sort of sense; and as a procedural matter, the move to the present title should never have happened in the first place - not only was there no consensus for it, it was a cut-and-paste move which now needs repair (closing admin please note).--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title

[edit]

This article seems to have an unstable title. The last move was in January 2014, after two RM's above. We need a modicum of reliable source review... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Duchy+of+Pannonia%22&tbm=bks&tbo=1 is unsettling - 0 actual hits. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Lower Pannonia" was a different country located north of this one. It has na article (Principality of Lower Pannonia). Tzowu (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a fair bit of overlap here, and it's not clear what particular narrative we base these articles on. There's also a separate March of Pannonia article! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there's more! Lower Pannonia is an article ostensibly primarily talking about the Roman meaning of the term, but then the largest actual section in the text is "Later usage" about this whole thing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick googling of modern-day Croatian sources seems to indicate that the old consensus about using the term Pannonian Croatia and delimiting this medieval Pannonian province strictly at the Drava (the Hungarian border, which came to existence later) - is dissipating. Need to check other sources, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only historical name for this entity is "Pannonia", period. This article was basically created for the "Pannonian Croatia" a-historical fiction peddled in Croatian public schools. Of course, no such thing existed.. the term "Croatia" itself is a massive anachronism. As far as I'm aware, the term "Croat" is found applied in this period only to the dukes of "Littoral Croatia", not even to their "state" as such. I.e. the only use of the term refers to the "Dukes of the Croats" which was the title of the rulers of the southern duchy.
We barely know anything at all about this entity, it doesn't seem to have been any sort of continuous "state" in the ascribed period.

The text of this article itself is only good for a laugh. Apparently we arrived here in the late 6th century, and then in the 7th century we were subdued by the Avars :) - as opposed to arriving with them as their blasted slaves. -- Director (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Director, please don't rant, because it just doesn't improve the article or the encyclopedia. Any time of yours spent on writing them or everyone else's on reading them - is instead better spent on researching reliable sources and contributing them to the article. For example, instead of this, you could spend time on citing some of the readily available stuff from https://www.google.com/search?q=lower%20pannonia%20site:hrcak.srce.hr or https://www.google.com/search?q=donja%20panonija%20site:hrcak.srce.hr in the article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Yah. Except the last time I submitted a properly researched point I was overridden by plain edit-warring and a slew of meaningless links to superficial publications. Because its very hard to override the narrative from Croatian public schools, i.e. the Croatian official view.. And no, I don't feel like expanding articles that are fundamentally slanted. If the choice is between ranting and working to improve the presentation of nonsense, then I think its ranting for me.. If its actual history you're aiming to present here, then my advice to you is to avoid anything from anyone with a local surname. -- Director (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're still ranting. There's even an article on Hrčak from the journal Povijest u nastavi or "History Teaching" that explains this exact topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now merged both articles about Slavic polities into this one, and moved the Roman provinces to their Latin names, leaving disambiguation pages behind. The question remains if this should be further merged with March of Pannonia, perhaps under some general, descriptive title such as Pannonia during the Franks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this title could also integrate yet another poorly referenced article that we have: Avar March. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

[edit]

Sorry, but I think this article should be deleted, because there is no reliable source which could make a connection for instance between Ratimir's Slavic polity which emerged around Siscia and Pribina's domains received from the German monarchs along the river Zala. Should we also create an article of Kingdom of Western Europe? It could refer to Charlemagne, Adolphe, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and Queen Elisabeth II as rulers of this realm, and we could also write of the history of this realm based on books of the history of Portugal, Ireland and Monaco. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a reliable source (preferably not a Croatian or a Slovak one, just to be conservative) that discusses the two as separate? How do they explain Braslav? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that, despite me having done the merge, I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that this is improper synthesis. It's just that we currently don't seem to have a clear picture of how does the Pribina/Kocel polity differ from the Ratimir/Braslav polity. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you refer to a reliable source based on which the history of the Duchy of Pannonia could be written? Could you cite a WP which exludes Croatian and Slovakian historians when editing articles? Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Books search quickly brings up e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=G9tDboBJ70EC&pg=PA104 where Oto Luthar, published by Peter Lang in 2008, writes about all of these folks simply as "Slavic princes". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand. Does this book state that they were dukes of Pannonia and there were no other duke of Pannonia? Does this book state that a Duchy of Pannonia whenever existed? Does this book make a connection between Ratimir's domains (which were mainly situated to the south of the Drava) and Pribina's domains (to the north of the same river)? Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, yes, the book clearly puts them all in the same chronology and context, which you would see if you bother to actually read it? Why are you being so belligerent? In any event, you seem to be concerned with the naming, but that's something where we're in agreement - even though the word dux was used in this context meaning there's a rationale to calling the polity a duchy, my previous suggestion was to merge this further into a descriptive title such as Pannonia during the Franks. Would this title upset you less? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not understand. The book does not write of the Duchy of Pannonia. It does not state that these men were the rulers of the same polity. Why do you think that they are connected to each other or they were the rulers of the same polity? Borsoka (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it does say that they all ruled over the territory identified as "Pannonia", they were all known from the same Frankish sources and they were all Frankish vassals at one point or another. Right? Given the overall territorial extent of "Pannonia" at the time, we aren't certain they all ruled the same area, but that doubt doesn't extend to only Ratimir and Pribina - so little is known about these and there's so few archeological artifacts, the extent of any of the individual rulers' realms is uncertain. Once again, would you be amenable to moving this to Pannonia during the Franks? That way we move one more step away from implying a single, coherent state. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reliable source which uses this term (I mean "Pannonia during the Franks")? Who are "we" who are not certain about the territories ruled by these Slavic lords? Borsoka (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a descriptive title. Nobody is certain about the territories ruled, TTBOMK. In some cases we have the river Drava used for delineation, but more often than not, that is also conjectured by historians and also there are often no clear borders on the east or west. Do you disagree? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the source you cited above uses the term "Frankish Pannonia" when writing of the period. Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks: why did "we" create a never-existing "Duchy of Pannonia" and list its rulers if "we" had no knowledge of the territories ruled by those men? Borsoka (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's known that they existed, but the details are scarce. For a long time no, we had two articles, one based largely in Croatian historiography, about the rulers of what would later be known as Slavonia; and the other about the realm of Pribina and his son. They are currently merged. We can unmerge them, but that doesn't actually solve the bulk of the problems. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you clarify what is "the bulk of the problem"? I do not understand: if more than one domains ruled by Slavic lords used to exist why were the originally separate articles about them merged? Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gah.. d'you know how little primary sources there are on all this? For all we really know, none of those entities really existed... -- Director (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the merge is hopeless, so I've unmerged the articles now. Now we're back to the long-standing consensus version (Feb 2007 - Jan 2014) until new consensus arises. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pribina and Kocel

[edit]

What is the academic work which lists Pribina and Kocel among the rulers of "Pannonian Croatia"? Borsoka (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be disruptive here or what is the deal? Didn't we just discuss the Oto Luthar source a few days ago? Do you know what the term "interregnum" means? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otto Luthar does not write of "Pannonian Croatia", but of "Frankish Pannonia", as it was clarified above. Would you refer to the source which lists Pribina and Kocel among the rulers of "Pannonian Croatia"? Borsoka (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the diff [1], nobody is saying that they were rulers of the same territory. Why are you arguing this straw man? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they were not rulers of Pannonia Croatia, why are they mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, what kind of a question is that? Why should we omit a bit of relevant context from the article just because your arbitrary criterion is not met? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevant information? And what is the source of this information? Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you having some sort of a blackout? We already discussed this above. What is the reason for us not to mention their existence when Luthar mentions them in the same context? How exactly does their mere mention offend your sensibilities? The blanket claim of "original research" is void given the secondary source. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I still do not know what the relevant information is. I neither know what is the source based on which this relevant information can be cited. Would you write them here? Borsoka (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try having a look at e.g. https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=pannonia+pribina+braslav&pws=0 - you'll find works by Francis Dvornik, J. B. Bury, and a number of other historians all talking about these medieval figures in the same context. This is hardly as contentious as you seem to imply. I suppose this could be considered contentious if one thinks this of this title as a WP:POVTITLE, but at the same time you've already protested any merge to get a more generic title and context, so I'm not quite sure what the next useful step might be. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this list about the connection between Bulgaria, Pribina and Braslav [2] or this list about Arnulf, Pribina and Braslav [3]. Please be more specific: you referred to some relevant information which should be added. What is the relevant information and what is its source? Actually, I think this article should be merged into Frankish Pannonia (all princes listed in this article were Frankish vassals) Borsoka (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er, did you actually read some of those entries in the search list for Bulgaria? I have, and none of them support your claim of equivalence. Do you even realize how disruptive you're being here? *facepalm* In any event, an upmerge into March of Pannonia is possible. I am exhausted from your wikilawyering (I wonder how come you didn't gut that article completely already, given that it has no inline references :P), so, maybe later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you share with us the relevant information you would like to write of Pribina and Kocel in this article? I would be grateful if you could also cite an academic work (author, title, page) which substantiates this information. Otherwise, you are right: I will delete the whole article in a couple of days because it contradicts both WP:NOR and WP:Synth. However, there is an easy way to fight against my disruptive behaviour: all statements in the article should be based on a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article moved to "Pannonian Croatia"? The term "Croatia" is a huge anachronism, and even the term "Croats" is not connected in primary sources with "polities" north of the Sava, which themselves usually extended on both sides of the Drava (and were at the time most likely associated with Great Moravia to some degree or another). I'm not comfortable with crippling Wikipedia's coverage of the region in this period through adherence to Croatian-nationalist terminology from the 19th century, i.e. I don't think "Pannonian Croatia" warrants an article at all on enWiki. Imo Pannonia (duchy) would probably be our best option.. -- Director (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and scope

[edit]

Should the article still be named Pannonian Croatia, despite the fact that this is an outright anachronism? Various better names (and perhaps wider scope) include Lower Pannonia (790–896), Pannonia under the Slavs, Pannonia/Lower Pannonia (duchy). I reject the idea of an infobox, as this was not a (1) succesive polity. In any case, the article should be merged with Principality of Lower Pannonia, though an article regarding the Balaton Principality should be made from the beginning (Pannonia under Pribina and Kocel).--Zoupan 22:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the article was then moved to "Lower Pannonia (9th century)". That's still ambiguous with the Pribina/Kocel polity, and I'm still leaning towards an upmerge into March of Pannonia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geography classes

[edit]

Isn't it fascinating how a page about Frankish Pannonia with images of Upper Pannonia a few years ago http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lower_Pannonia_(9th_century)&diff=626378974&oldid=626357685 Became a page about Lower Pannonia? May I suggest that anyone wishing to edit pages about Pannonia get their geography straight in their heads first please to avoid contradictions in the copy. Upper Pannonia is not and never has been Lower Pannonia. and Pannonia Major is not Upper Pannonia and Pannonia Minor is not Lower Pannonia. all these terms have different meanings and cover different periods. please sort it all out because as a casual editor reading through just a few related pages the whole thing is currently an utter shambles.92.40.248.110 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever in wikipedia is involved in making rules might I suggest two new fundentals to become wikipedia standard. 1 always follow chronological sequence in the copy. 2 always cross-check check geography. 92.40.248.110 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article scope and merge

[edit]

The new article is going to be called "Pannonian Slavs" because we lack a general article related to them. It will also include information on the Lower Pannonia principality merging Principality of Lower Pannonia and Duchy of Pannonian Croatia because they are WP:DUP and WP:CFORK which is in heavy contradiction of scholarship as Croatian historiography denies the existence of the Duchy of Pannonian Croatia and doesn't separate them. Politically, ethnically and historically it never existed with the term "Pannonian Croatia" being an early 20th-century historiographical construction which is avoided in the scholarship. Not to mention the existing article is already related to March of Pannonia, we really don't need three-four articles dealing with the same subject - this, titled as Pannonian Slavs, and other, March of Pannonia, are enough to deal with the region of Lower Pannonia. I don't know who created them and with what bogus reasoning, but in all talk pages, there was a discussion dealing with this issue. Now it will be fixed once and for all.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly doubt that, because this has been simmering for quite a while. The article was created at "Pannonian Croatia" to talk about something like https://enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=46450 but then instead of consistently explaining that term, it was just a bunch of axe-grinding, as various editors embarked on various crusades of enforcing whatever version of "correctness" they personally advocated at the time. I see the outlines of the same behavior in these edits as well, as you went after a number of references to that term and changed them to use pipe links to sections of this article, which is likewise pretty artificial. And the other N articles talking about Slavs in Pannonia are still not integrated here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing special to explain about the artificial term "Pannonian Croatia" as can be read in this article annotations and reference quotes. It's an abandoned artificial historiographical term, not historical, political, or ethnic. That article was written in a way as if "Pannonian Croatia" was a Croatian polity that existed since the 7th century and was separated from other accounts on Lower Pannonia and Pannonian Slavs. No, I only did what historiographical sources, including Croatian Encyclopedia, conclude and did. There's nothing artificial about what I've done. Everybody relevant is writing about the Principality of Lower Pannonia and Pannonian Slavs (even having books and chapters titled in the same way), which did not have certain and fix boundaries hence there's no rationale to have separate articles "Pannonian Croatia" (also implying "Pannonian Croats"), "Principality of Lower Pannonia" or "Lower Pannonian region in the 9th century". They were poor FORK articles dealing with the same subject. As such all mentions of the principality of Lower Pannonia need to link to the relevant section of this article. That's the only true and correct solution. About which other N articles are you referring to?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Miki Filigranski’s point. If “Pannonian Croatia” never existed as an entity, it would be misleading especially of sources to use the term. I say as long as we are going by the sources, the merger of all articles dealing with Pannonia, it should be fine unless I’m missing something. OyMosby (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact there is no “Pannonia Croatia” to begin with. Just a redircet page. Which is fine. We can have people redirect when searching the term when they find rhe article as Southern Pannonia is labeled as “also known as Pannonia Croatia”. So I agree further with the merger. I don’t see the issue with Miki’s proposal. Only thing is is Southern Pannonian sometimes referred to as Pannonia Croatia as included in your caption of a map and the redirect page? Also Never really heard of a “Dutchy of Pannonia Croatia” before. OyMosby (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it has existed in historiography for such a long time is probably sufficient to make an encyclopedia article out of it. In the meantime I went looking for the other N and realized that you did in the meantime squash them, e.g. Balaton Principality, so that's much better. I still don't think we should use pipe links as it's now e.g. in the intro of the articles on Ljudevit or Kocel because it's retaining a degree of artificiality and obfuscates links - i.e. if the phrasing there ("Lower Pannonia") is incorrect enough to have to be pipe-linked, then it should be amended instead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the note in the article provides a nice explanation to this story, but its placement in the note with a smaller font makes the text look pretty weird. Can't we move it to a proper section? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't make another article because the main "inventors" and "users" of it are avoiding it, or when rarely used its context is explained as can be seen in Croatian sources published by LZMK, Matica hrvatska and so on. However, yes, had the same thought about the note. It could be a fine reasonable solution. Will move it to make a proper section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See. It is titled as Pannonian Croatia because it is mainly dealing with the term and is more recognizable than naming it as Historiography (at least for now if out there are other significant historiographical viewpoints from Hungary, Austria, and Slovenia which could be added).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Descriptions in Croatian historiography" could be a more neutral section title. Also, thinking about this, maybe a better article title would be Slavs of Lower Pannonia. That seems a wee bit more specific (avoiding the idea that the article would talk about anything east of the Danube) and might allow us to use it in sentences more easily (e.g. "Ljudevit was a prince of the Slavs of Lower Pannonia"). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck through the edits of a sockpuppet and deleted their last remark as it had no response. This is standard procedure. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was weird, as in this case they seem to have actually contributed something that was by and large useful. Someone should proofread the edits to make sure no subtle abuse was left within. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

[edit]

The merger of Duchy of Pannonian Croatia with Pannonian Slavs and then moved to the newly created article Slavs in Lower Pannonia is inappropriate.

  1. Sources have been deleted by former user Miki Filigranski (e. g. [4], [5], [6], [7]).
  2. The merger is not appropriate because Pannonian Slavs or Slavs in Lower Pannonia are terms too wide to describe not a tribe or nation, but a COUNTRY (either duchy or principality, where people known today as Croats used to live). The “Pannonian Slavs” is a term appropriate for describing a tribe, group of tribes or nation. On the contrary, this term is NOT appropriate for describing a COUNTRY, either it is called Duchy of Pannonian Croatia or Principality of Lower Pannonia (or using another similar title, because medieval sources are not unique). It’s a big difference.

Let me say that there are similar articles dealing with medieval history of modern nations who carry different names (e.g. Grand Principality of Serbia). Should we rename it to “Slavs in Raška” or so?

So, if anybody mergers or renames such articles, he must think about that they should be more accurate and more specific. Otherwise, such a wide, generalized, imprecise, maybe even misleading, “conglomerate” article cannot be acceptable. Let the article “Slavs in Lower Pannonia” talk about Slavic people in (lower or whole) medieval Pannonia and the “Duchy of Pannonian Croatia” or “Principality of Lower Pannonia” about the country. --Silverije 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slavs_in_Lower_Pannonia&oldid=1207635915"