Talk:Baptismal font of Prince Višeslav

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 14 November 2021 by reviewer Theroadislong (talk · contribs).

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

This page was created by translating de:Taufbecken des Fürsten Višeslav from German Wiki. - Sthelen.aqua (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Times article

An anonymous user recently added:

Since The only known Slavic ruler named Višeslav from the late 8th and early 9th century is a Serbian duke mentioned in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio work. Along with the temporal match, the form of this name appearing on the baptismal font is the same as in the text of the Byzantine emperor. Furthermore, the land at the time of Serbian Duke Višeslav stretched across the southern parts of the former ancient province of Dalmatia, and the most important ecclesiastical center in this area, between Split and Durrës, was Kotor, whose bishopric at this time was headed by a priest named Jovan. He is mentioned among the attendees at the church council in Constantinople in 787, noted archaeologist Marko Aleksić. ^[1]

References

^ Times, Serbian (2024-11-27). "Croats claim it: Efforts to return the baptismal font of the Serbian ruler, who Croatia considers its first duke! | Serbiantimes.info EN". serbiantimes.info. Retrieved 2025-01-07.

This is actually an article where some Association of Displaced, Endangered, and Exiled People of Serbia makes a public plea to the Serbian government about this object. While we can all appreciate a funny troll, this is an encyclopedia, it's not the place to report on random claptrap. If someone actually wants to report on the same claims by this Marko Aleksić, they can find a less bizarre source for it. --Joy (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The news article has some strange claims. DAI mentions two Višeslav's, the duke Boïsesthlabos of Serbia and Zachlumian duke Bouseboutzis father of Michael of Zahumlje. To say it's related to a Serbian ruler they opted not for Višeslav of Serbia (as did Komatina), but Višeslav of Zachlumia (as did Aleksić). Claiming that the polity of Zachlumia was a Serbian polity, or its duke Višeslav was a Serbian ruler (although DAI mentions to descend from the tribe of Liziki from Vistula, and not from the Serbian tribe from Polabia, and polity of Zachlumia was not in good terms with Serbia in the early middle ages, having better relations with Croatia), is far-fetched.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: as the topic is scientific subject, and an encyclopedic article, we must stick to the reliable secondary and possibly teritary sources for reaching NPOV, but also WEIGHT for specific claims. Those which are extreme minority or fringe, not mentioned in reliable sources, shouldn't be even cited. Sokol mentioned Komatina's paper, but neither Sokol nor Komatina cited Aleksić's paper. I would say that Aleksić can be removed until gains notability.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Marko Atlagić's paper cited now in the article, but also not cited by Sokol or Komatina. Did the Serbian news article mistook Marko Atlagić with Marko Aleksić? --Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any references to Atlagić on nationally-charged items are inherently suspect, with the history of rabble-rousing. Is there any reason why you removed the {{better source needed}} tag from that one? --Joy (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you kept Atlagić's paper, I edited the reference style and added mention of Zachlumian duke to be connected to the rest of the article because "published far-reaching claims on this topic in 2018" doesn't say anything to the readers, as well being our abstract editing. I don't understand what kind of better source is needed, is it about Atlagić's paper, or claims from Atlagić's paper? As said, couldn't find a better source about it (but Višeslav's presumed identification with Zachlumian duke is already mentioned, hence, there's not much contribution to the article from the paper itself). --Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't necessarily keep it because I believe it's good, it just wasn't as egregiously bad as the other reference. I will remove it now if it doesn't seem to be relevant to the actual scholarly body of work about the topic. --Joy (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the other part removed: Marko Atlagić and Filip M. Obradović published far-reaching claims on this topic in 2018, relating it to the Zachlumian duke Višeslav.^[1]

References

^ Atlagić, Marko; Obradović, Filip M. "Višeslav je srpski a ne hrvatski knez, a Višeslavova krstionica ranohrišćanski srpski a ne hrvatski kulturni spomenik". Baština (139): 139–147. doi:10.5937/bastina1844139A.

I googled the co-author and couldn't find any proof they're a separately reliable medieval historian, and WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies. --Joy (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember any reliable, notable historian whose body of work is commonly cited in academic literature, and in the same time is a politician. It is immediatelly a red-flag. As for the co-author F. M. Obradović, indeed seems ([1], [2]) their primary topic of interest is political status of Serbs on Kosovo, and not medieval history. In the same year, they also published a study "Serbian Nemanjić's coat of arms: Eagle's wing in the coat of arms of the Croatian ban Pavao Bribirski the first" in which introduced a hypothesis that the Šubić's eagle wing in the coat of arms was taken from Nemanjić's coat of arms (which had double eagle with wings) because of marriage to second wife Ursa/Urša. I really don't understand how they imagine as possible taking as your own CoA symbol of a foreign family, with whom you're at war with over Herzegovina, as hardcore Roman Catholics, genealogically identifying themselves with the last Croatian king Zvonimir, and possible ambition of proclaiming themselves as new Croatian royal dynasty? Reminds of the Greater Serbian claims about the foundation of the Orthodox Krka monastery in the 14th century on Šubić's land. How such idea's even pass peer-revie? This not only doubts reliability of these two historians, but also of any work published in the journal Baština (on the site is categorized as a "Distinguished journal of national importance and high publishing quality in research area: Humanities"!) and by the "Institute of Serbian Culture Priština, Leposavić" (which was formed in 1991, *cough*) itself. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Marko Atlagić isn't a reliable author, actually, shouldn't be cited at all on English Wikipedia, this is what recently published in the same journal in 2021 and Napredak (2020/2021 by Foundation "For the Serbian people and the state") The Srebrenica massacre of 1995 is the biggest triumph of propaganda", "Croatian scientists and politicians falsifying the number of victims in the Jasenovac concentration camp in the ISC from 1941 to 1945", "The SFRY did not fall apart: It was intentionally broken up".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be cited on his own article, or at Bosnian genocide denial. During the Milošević trial, "Marko Atlagic, for example, insisted that Serbs had committed no bad acts".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlagić's work as a historian is worthless, not only his research is made through the prism of Greater Serbian propaganda (e.g. "Grbovi nekih srpskih plemićkih porodica u Dubrovniku", "Neke značajnije srpske plemićke porodice u BiH i njihovi grbovi"), in 2022 was a whole public controversy about fake information about his biography and scientific unworthiness and lack of notability of his works (N1, N1, N1, Direktno.rs).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Times, Serbian (2024-11-27). "Croats claim it: Efforts to return the baptismal font of the Serbian ruler, who Croatia considers its first duke! | Serbiantimes.info EN". serbiantimes.info. Retrieved 2025-01-07.

[2] Atlagić, Marko; Obradović, Filip M. "Višeslav je srpski a ne hrvatski knez, a Višeslavova krstionica ranohrišćanski srpski a ne hrvatski kulturni spomenik". Baština (139): 139–147. doi:10.5937/bastina1844139A.

[1]

[1]