Talk:Lastovo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lastovo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

	Lastovo is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed February 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2006 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Croatia Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Islands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Definite POV problems in the history section. It seems HolyRomanEmperor is reaching for anything serbian to connect it to the island as well as anything in southern croatia, hercegovina. Looking at user HolyRomanEmperor it seems this is his specialty. Could I ask HolyRomanEmperor to quote his sources and prove his edits? I would also like to add appropriate evidence contra this. If anything this island was never outright Croat, but enjoyed loose autonomy within the Croatian sphere with never a direct Serbian settlelment or control ever! Using the river Neretva or Cetina is propaganda firstly, however secondly is also not applicable to the island. I think the history needs to be discussed. Uvouvo 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you characterised my edits like Serbian propaganda; but please view this: De Administrando Imperio. Also refer to Pagania. The Neretvian Slavs are referred to as Serbs quitte a number of times. It is known, that Prince Ceslav Klonimirovic Vlastimirovic ruled the lands (including the island). See his article. That's the full story... --HolyRomanEmperor 13:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roman emperor. I'm sorry to categorise you that way, as that term can be misused. I still hold firm in this case though. I know the DAI very well and also how it can be manipulated. The DAI is not the only source however. Here is a list of all the objections I have with the article. There are more to come though...

From the article HRE (HolyRomanEmpire) writes "Around 950, the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos mentions Lastovo in his De Administrando Imperio by its Slavic name Lastobon, which proves that it was already inhabited by the Serbian tribe Neretvians."

It does NOT prove this at all. Such proof is for your benefit only. If you want to prove that Neretljani are exclusively Serbian, then do this in the Neretljani wiki pages, such assertions dont need to be made here on the Lastovo page. All non biased historians agree that the southern dalmatian duchies were inhabited by both Croats and Serbs. Serbs tended toward the mountainous hinterland while Croats inhabited the coastal regions. This is affirmed by Professor John V A Fine in his book "The early medieval balkans". If you read Mandic, Jurica, Lucijanovic these would also argue that Croats also inhabited the neretva regions. It is absurd to say it was exclusively Serbian, even the DAI in the different chapters suggest otherwise. Uvouvo 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again from the article HRE writes "The island would soon fall to the Croats, but during the Croatian Civil War after the death of King Krešimir around 945 Lastovo is returned by the Neretvians and incorporated into the Serbian Realm of Prince Časlav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir."

Firstly how do you know it "fell" to the Croatians? This is leading the reader and is biased making it sound that it was otherwise Serbian when it wasnt "occupied" by the Croatians. If at 945 Lastovo is under the Neretvan political spehere under Prince Caslav Klonimirovic, how does this suggest the inhabitants are Serbs, and where did you find out that Caslav Klonimirovic ruled Lastovo or that Lastovo was even within Neretva district at that time. Let me quote chapter 36 of the DAI which exclusively excludes Lastovo from Netreva / Pagania. Remember Porphyrogenitus wrote this around 950 which means at the height of Caslavs rule... "Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon (Lastovo)"

Again from the article "HRE writes After the fall of the Serb Realm in the second half of 960, the Byzantines made it their own theme of Serbia. Lastovo would be contested for control but the resurgent Duklja in the 11th century and other medieval factions until its direct incorporation into the Serbian Grand Principality of Rascia in the second half of the 12th century"

What does this have to do with Lastovo. Make another article on the Serb realm falling in 960. Where was it written that Lastovo was contested for control? Duklja in the 11th / 12th Century was hardly Serbian at all until Nemanja conquered Duklja / Zeta. I use the word conquered because he himself writes this. In Stefan Nemanja's declaration in 1198 he writes how he forcefully expanded the Serbian state to include Duklja. He writes: "i priobretoh' od' Mor'ske zemle Zetu i s' gradovi, a od ' Arbanas ' Pilot', a od' Gr'c'ske zemle Lab' s' L'planem...". Also Duklja under Mihajlo had Croatian inhabitants. The DAI doesnt specifically allocate the Serbian ethnicity to Duklja. Furthermore John Skylitzes in his chronicle mentions the following... "Dukljan King Michael rules over those who call themselves Croats" The notion of Croats in Duklja is supported with the testimony from Byzantine Chronicler John Scylitza. Lastly Lastovo was never part of Duklja and we can see by this map in 1073 the Dukljanska Drzava which included the southern dalmatian duchies including Raska. http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1073.jpg This didnt include Lastovo. However even if it did this does not mean it would be Serbian as I pointed out there are sources saying that Croats were present in the area as well. Here is another map from 1102 (when Croatia entered the Pacta Conventa) http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1102.jpg . The other thing is Serbia at the height of its power under Uros never included anything west of Dubrovnik. See this map http://www.croatia-in-english.com/images/maps/1358.jpg . Serbia waged war on Dubrovnik many times and never won. Had they won then fair enough Dubrovnik and surrounding areas may have turned out to be Serb like Duklja. These maps show Lastovo part of "white croatia" in the year 800 as well as during King Tomislav's time in the year 925. Uvouvo 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again HRE writes in the article "The Dubrovnik Republic aqcuired Lastovo from the Serbian Kingdom of Rascia of King Stefan Uroš I in 1252 after it promised that Lastovo would keep its internal autonomy."

Wrong again. 1252 is the date Lastovo voluntarily joined the Dubrovnik republic. This is codified in the Dubrovnik Statute written in 1272 only 20 years after Lastovo joined. Its accuracy is accepted by all serious historians. XV. glavi I. Knjige Dubrovackog Statua "Notandum est quod, quando homines de Lasta dederunt se et insulam Lasta comuni civitatis Ragusii, hoc pacto dederunt se et insulum suam, videlicet: quod comune Ragussii iuravit manutenere eis omnes antiquas suas consuetudines, quas ipsi inter se habent, et secundum hoc pactum comune Ragussi dedit eam de sua voluntate comiti suo, qui per tempora erit in Ragusio" The translation to this basically says that the island community Lastovo voluntarily joins the Dubrovnik / Ragusan republic which agree's to honour the islands internal autonomy. The Lastovo Statute written or codified in 1310 also supports this assertion.

I have more to add and will do so in the future. Regards Uvouvo 13:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian would be nationalistic propaganda. However, of the four southern Dalmatian Principalities (Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, Duklja), the Narentines were the ones with the highest Serbian determination. I suggest also that you read the Pagania article. Currently, it puts the Narentines as a Serbian tribe. I agree that claiming that the Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian, is essentially absurd. All of the three (or better five) southern Dalmatian Slavic peoples are distinct groups, at times expressing Serbian and at times Croatian affilation. AFAIC, most non-biased historians consider that the population is either(not stating percisely which-is-which) Serbian or Croatian. Or, even better, as distinct Slavic nations of different (varying at times) Serbian or Croatian affilation. The Narentines to the most west have had the strongest link with the Serbs, while the Dukljans to the most east barely had Serbian affilation.

The subject on the fall to the Croatians... is very disputive and should probably be left out. The main problem is this:

• The Neretvians inhabited the island of Lastovo since they came to the region in the first half of the 7th century
• The Neretvians took the isand of Lastovo from the Kingdom of Croatia as soon as the Civil War broke out after Kreshimir's death in 945

So how to explain how did the Neretvians conquer something that was originally theirs? The only reasonable explaination - is that the Croats conquered it from them before. Isn't it?

Ofcourse Ceslav had ruled Neretvia (with Lastovo) directly. It is actually a well-known historical fact. However, there can be brought no conclusion on the island's population based on that. The island's population could've been Chinese, but that is not the subject. The subject is that it was ruled by the Serbian Prince back then.

DAI does not exclude Lastovo from Pagania. You mentioned it yourself - Lastobon.

Here is the main problem about the 1073 year's map: Around 1050, King Stjepan I of Croatia invited the Neretvians to join his realm. I suppose that they did. Duklja made serious military attempts against Croatia in the second half of the 11th century, raiding all the way to Knin. Since then, the Croatian Kingdom never restored control back over the river of Cetina. I've got the original of this map from the 12th century, showing Lastovo as Serbia's: Map of the Balkans and Asia Minor in the 13th century.

You should also see Duklja, to see that you're a little wrong on its lack of connection with the Serbs. The main title of the Ecclesiastical head in Bar was Primate of Serbia - and the ruler's title was Ruler of Serbs and Tribals. Additionally, it is reffered to as the Servian Kingdom (since 1077). Also, that priobretoh' is translated as annexed. Essentially, what does it even matter? Stefan Nemanja was a Roman Catholic Christian born in Duklja, by origin from Travunia. So, it should be said that he conquered the Serbs, according to your view on the matter. :) You made a mistake in a year. Please differ Emperor Uroš (reigning 1355 - 1371) and King Uroš I (reigning 1243 - 1276).

I took the info on the giving away from Urosh to Dubrovnik from a very biased source. I just realised that now. I will repair the problem immediatly.

Sorry for the confusion. I forgot that Mljet was the center of Serbian mercantilism :D. (and Korčula and Vis slightly). --HolyRomanEmperor 18:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There! Better now? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the differences between the two Uros's, I just used the example that at the height of Emperor Uros's reign he included many non-Sebrian lands all the way to and including parts of Greece, but nothing west of Dubrovnik - this would be weird if Zahumlje and Neretlja were really exclusively Serbian tribes. Anyway thats not the point, the point is that you failed to address the points I made and still failed to produce any evidence / valid sources without opinion. Your maps also do not convey anything, mine were specific and from Croatian text books based on the evidence / sources I quoted. Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE you said that "I took the info on the giving away from Urosh to Dubrovnik from a very biased source. I just realised that now. I will repair the problem immediatly".

This is mentioned, but as you stated it is a biased source and the account in the dubrovnik archives which directly contradicts this is the more accurate one. I provided the latin original from the statute of 1272. I will tidy up your edits so that it reads better and conveys the above we now agree on Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE you also said this... "DAI does not exclude Lastovo from Pagania. You mentioned it yourself - Lastobon".

I even provided you the text from the DAI, i'll do it again and bold it this time so you can see ...

"Chapter 36 - Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon (Lastovo)". How can Klonimorovic control it if he was at his height in the 950's and all this when the DAI was written at the same time and excludes Lastovo from the Pagani suggesting a loose autonomy elsewhere? Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE you also mentioned this... "I agree that claiming that the Neretvians are exclusivly Serbian, is essentially absurd. All of the three (or better five) southern Dalmatian Slavic peoples are distinct groups, at times expressing Serbian and at times Croatian affilation. AFAIC, most non-biased historians consider that the population is either(not stating percisely which-is-which) Serbian or Croatian. Or, even better, as distinct Slavic nations of different (varying at times) Serbian or Croatian affilation.".

You are basicallyu agreeing with me. The wording on the history of Lastovo is carefully chosen. There are no hard facts as I mentioned since there are only a few written sources and many of these contradict each other. We know that both Croats and Serbs settled in the four southern duchies. This is the reason why the wording is chosen carefully to describe the history of Lastovo. Your wording is chosen to push another agenda. It is important to honestly portray the islands history, or be vague rather thn make bold assertions such as the ones you have made Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly and this should apply to both Luka Jacov and HolyRomanEmperor - The article should be brought back to the most common ground, and any claims such as croatian or serbian ethnicity need to be proved. I think this is the best approach??? Uvouvo 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it weird if they're Serbian lands, but not in the boundries of Serbia. After all, Zahumlje was invaded for four times by the Croats, and twice by the Bosnians. I think that that explains everything sufficiently :). By the way, Mljet is slightly west from Dubrovnik.

OK, we're through with the Urosh bit.

That last bit explains a lot. The Narentines didn't retrieve the island from the Croats after Krešimir's death, they conquered it. OK, I will change that bit.

Yes, but I do not agree that you left out the Narentines' identity - entirely - as it says in De Administrando Imperio.

I also noticed that you erased Ceslav's Realm... Why?

I don't understand your POV pushes that are nearly vandalims on the Duklja article. What were you trying to do? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent edited the Duklja article. That user is not me. I noticed that user as well making edits on Lastovo and he seems to be agreeing with my POV. I however made a reference to him in my talk page for him to join Wikipedia. I was asked by someone on my chat forums to have a look at this article which is why i got involved. Anyway, The Narentines identity should only be discussed in the Narentine wiki page. It cannot directly be included here because this is not an agreed fact pertaining to Lastovo. Caslav's realm may have included Pagania, but I showed you at the height of Caslav's rule the DAI specifically says that Lastovo was not a part of Pagania, therefore Caslav has nothing to do with Lastovo. These were written at the same time. Where is your proof otherwise, as I already mentioned all claims need to be substantiated.

I'm glad were through with the Urosh bit :)

HRE writes "Why is it weird if they're Serbian lands, but not in the boundries of Serbia. After all, Zahumlje was invaded for four times by the Croats, and twice by the Bosnians. I think that that explains everything sufficiently :). By the way, Mljet is slightly west from Dubrovnik." This is reaching and once again unsubstantiated. There is more to suggest Croatian since there was nothing written apart from the DAI, Ivan Dakon, Lastovo joining the Hvar diocese in 1185, and the dubrovnik statute in 1272 saying they voluntarily joined. I still havent seen your sources yet? You are trying very hard to say it was populated by serbians, or was once serbian. I havent even tried to say it was Croatian, even though more suggest that it was. We still need to talk about the customs, language, names of the inhabitants, religion, architecture and many other things, none of which confirm or suggest Serbian traditions or culture ever being there Uvouvo

I just noticed you re-included this .... HRE writes "The island would soon fall to the Croats, but during the Croatian Civil War after the death of King Krešimir around 945, Lastovo is returned by the Neretvians and incorporated into the Serbian Realm of Prince Časlav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir." and "After the fall of the Serbian Realm in the second half of the 9th century, the Byzantines made it their own theme of Serbia. Lastovo would be contested for control but the resurgent Duklja in the 11th century and other medieval factions until its direct incorporation into the Serbian Grand Principality of Rascia in the second half of the 12th century" I gave you plenty of reason why it shouldnt be included, yet you have given no specific piece of evidence linking this to Lastovo to suggest why it should even be discussed here? I dont want to have an edit war with you which is why i asked the article be reverted back to a common base and that any claims such as serbian or croatian rule / ethnicity need to be proved. It seems that this cannot be achieved, so we may need to seek arbitration in the matter. Can we agree that claims need to be substantiated before they are included? Uvouvo 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jacov, can I ask that the above mentioned parts be excluded from the article until HolyRomanEmpire proves with primary sources explicitly, reliably showing that Lastovo was indeed under Caslav realm. I dont think Jurica even mentions this. He makes many other points, but these would be too detailed to include in this article. I think the removal of the above with a gneral tidy up of the history would make this article fair for all concerned (Pretty much a carbon copy of Jurica's historical summary provided on many other websites). I didnt want to change it until I heard from you so I will wait a little while? PS user 220.237.20.25 is not me and I have asked him to join to also discuss rather than edit without discussion. I think he was the one that asked me to look at this article in the first place - Cheers :) Uvouvo 01:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not attempting to push anything. See the Pagania article by the way.

According to the Ilustrovana Istorija Srba of Vladimir Ćorović, he draws from Chronicum Venetum that Lastovo was conquered by the Narentines after the death of Krešimir. And, Pagania was ruled by Prince Časlav.

However, the Byzantine theme is elusive and slightly disambigutive, so it should be dropped. --HolyRomanEmperor 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evo ako treba i dokaz da su osvojili Lastovo oko 945. : [1] --HolyRomanEmperor 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, i'll have a proper read later. Although quickly looking through it I cant find any reference to reliable sources, I need to see the part from Chronicum Venetum to give substance to your claims as even the Rastko links provided by you contradict what you said earlier. Your link say's it was conquered by the nerentines, but earlier you mention 'returned' and that in fact it was the Croats that conquered it (meaning if the Nerentines conquered Vis and Lastovo it probably was Croatian by your own logic) - this is all in complete discord with the DAI at the time which says Lastovo and Vis were not part of Pagania and this was written in ca 950 at the same time Caslav ruled his realm. Your sources also seem to be mainly opinion from the Rasko site unless you can show me primary sources, and these have to be weighed against other reliable sources. I agree this whole thing should be dropped from the article as I have always suggested because of ambiguity and subjectiveness. I will wait till tonight to see Luka's opinions before I edit the article. I will take it back to a common base. This can be built upon by providing proof and reliable accounts / sources, but first we need something we all agree on Uvouvo 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uvouvo has provided clear and concise quotes from the time and shown impartially that the island of Lastovo enjoyed virtually complete autonomy which was in a large part due to its remote geographical characteristic. If one was to take the generally accepted and impartial view it is quite clear that Lastovo gravitited between the known state boundaries at the time, this even the DAI asserts when it explicitly excludes the island from the Chapter of Pagania and its boundaries. He has also furnished quotes from John Skylitzes & Ivan Dakon.

One must remember that like the LPD the DAI also had a political bias insofar that during the time of the great schism which was in this area visible earlier, portrays Byzantine posturing for these sparsely populated areas and bring them under the Eastern sphere of influence; whereby the Catholic priest of Bar attempts to achieve the opposite and the aggrandisement of his own bisphoric. The most important point and information on this point is not what external sources say, but what the islanders themselves do and say. In the Statute of 1310 they affirm a previous agreement to joint the republic of their own free will, meaning that they saw themseves independent of and different to peoples around them; this is confirmed in DAI. "They tied themselves to the bisphoric of Hvar voluntarily in 1185" meaning the saw themselves not of the Eastern persuasion.

Marin Lucijanovic - Lastovo u Sklopu Dubrovacke Republike 1954 p 257; this is supported by: Dr G Cremosnik - Srpska akedemija Beograd - 1939 str.6

I have provided a reasonable Croat & Serb source to make my claim can you do the same?

In summation I have shown that there was a distinct Croat presence in the southern duchies, HRE attested to this earlier when he cited the presence of Red Croats in the southern duchies. DAI excludes Lastovo from Pagania. Lastovo sees itself autonomous and ties itself to the bisphoric of Hvar in 1185 (which was tied to the Croato-Hungarian kings)and to Dubrovnik in 1272 later codifying it in law in 1310. What could one deduce from these facts logically could be best summed up in

Lastovo -- Logos 1985 str 93

"the events in the middle ages are trustworthy signs that a great autonomy for Lastovo in this period, it most likely recognised Croatian kings as its nominal rulers" Pokladar 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is whether Serbia ruled Lastovo ever. Like I said here can be seen that the Narentines conquered after 945 the island of Lastovo from the Kingdom of Croatia, while Prince Časlav Klonimirović of Vlastimir, who ruled Pagania from before 931 to 960, advanced into Bosnia annexing those territories.

Regards. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed my whole point. My point is that these southern duchies prior to the advent of Nemanja by force were a mix of both Croat & Serbian. You are saying that because Caslav ruled Bosna & Pagania, of which Lastovo was not a part (DAI) for only a brief period from 930-960, you seem to think that it warrants six lines of text in Lastovo's history, as opposed to generally accepted version of its centuries of Croatian history either side of this date which is not mentioned at all.

Show me a source apart from a serbian site that he in fact conquers Pagania. Lastovo is anyway excluded in DAI from Pagania. My point which you seem to have chosen to ignore was at this time these duchies were in fact acting as a buffer between east & west during the time of the great schism. They are not exclusively Serbian which you try to claim with Caslav. Serbianization came to Duklja later with Nemanja and the process of conversion to orthodoxy took centuries thereafter.

Does not Vuk Karadzic exclude as non-serbs speakers of the cakavian dialect; this is spoken on Lastovo. Why since antiquity is there an uvala Hrvaska on the southern part of the island; it has been known this since antiquity. There are no visible, archeological or cultural signs of serbs ever on the island.

Quite clearly this island due to its geographic characteristics was remote and gravitated between the periphery of these southern duchies; both you (HRE) and I are relying on a broad text loaded with political bias (DAI & LPD) to try and explain the unique & specific history of these people.

So the most important point and information on this point is not what external sources say, but what the islanders themselves do and say. In the Statute of 1310 they affirm a previous agreement to joint the republic of their own free will, meaning that they saw themseves independent of and different to peoples around them; this is confirmed in DAI. "They tied themselves to the bisphoric of Hvar voluntarily in 1185" meaning the saw themselves not of the Eastern persuasion.

So in summation as previously

Lastovo -- Logos 1985 str 93

"the events in the middle ages are trustworthy signs that a great autonomy for Lastovo in this period, it most likely recognised Croatian kings as its nominal rulers"Pokladar 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokladar, I see the points you are making and I essentially agree with your overall point. HRE is missing this on purpose. HRE - you said: "Yes, I already clarified that statement. The Neretvians conquered the island from the Croatians, obviously. Didn't you notice when I agreed with you on that matter?". My point precisely. You dont care about whether it was conquered or returned. Your only interested in the serbian realm of caslav being mentioned. I still havent seen your source (I need something better than Rastko). Also you havent countered why the DAI specifically leaves Lastobon out of Pagania?

Pokladar, I also agree about the Chakavian dialect as well. This was exclusively used by Croats and by the Croatian nobility. The bascanska ploca and most early medieval croat documents were written in the cakavski dialect. This suggests Lastovo must have been populated by slavs of the same stock, since there is no recorded migration of chakavski speakers to the island. (Sto / Jekavski yes because of Dubrovnik influence since 1252).

I've made it very clear already that i think Caslavs realm should be removed. I will wait until i get all my arguments ready before I edit. Maybe by the weekend. I have also many other parts of the article to contribute to as well.

Lastly, i really like the wording from your logos source Pokladar. I have that book I need to give it a quick read. Uvouvo 14:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the third matter, but it's wikipedia's policy to add things, not remove them. Do you know what I mean?

Conquers? What do you mean by conquers? You cannot conquer something that is already yours. :D You may notice that Prince Caslav had ruled Serbia, and Pagania and Travunia with it, as stated in De Administrando Imperio. He also managed to tackle in the affairs of Duklja.

The cultural heritage of Serbs on the island is not the subject. Owning the island is (the island's population could've been Bedouins, but it would not change its rulers).

To User:Uvouvo: Don't be so harsh. If you fail to notice, I have been agreeing with everything that you said by now!. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State department of statistics and Lexicon of settlements of Croatia call the village Uble. Thats offical. Luka Jačov 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here Luka? The locals definately have been calling it Ubli for hundreds of years Uvouvo 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont doubt that but this is offical. I dont know why they changed it. Luka Jačov 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but i think that Ubli should remain. What does Jurica say? I know the locals refer to it as Ubli. Legend has it that it refers to 'ubili' or kill in English because this is where the major fighting between the venetians occured, hence it recevied that name. No proof of that of course :) Uvouvo 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we should use offical name here and when u, me or somebody else deceides to start Uble article it shpuld be explained there. Luka Jačov 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official name is Ubli. Thats what it is on the street signs ;) I think the other way around is more appropriate, mentioning Ubli then Uble? Why does this bother you so much? Uvouvo 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) I'll however ask why there is a difference. See here however...[reply]

• http://www.fallingrain.com/world/HR/0/Ubli.html
• google search for Uble Lastovo returns 150 results, but for "Ubli Lastovo" returns 47,000 suggesting Ubli is the far more common name. I'll try find out the difference though.

It is not like it bothers me a lot but just think we should use offical version:). Nothin' personal Luka Jačov 23:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :) Didnt mean it like that. I guess it is personal though since it is my heritage :) Anyway why are you so interested in Lastovo to go to all this effort and create this nice article? Have you been there? Uvouvo 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checked with my family and and Antun Jurica's book. Luka, look at the map right at the beginning. Both the bay and the town are called Ubli. Ubli is also known as Sveti Petar (Saint Peter). I'm not sure where Uble came from, but I am certain the correct term should be Ubli. I need to read up further on this. I agree with your Hom change though. Pozdrav Uvouvo 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia's policy is to use offical names. Luka Jačov 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HRE, i have moved your reply to poklada to the correct part - I dont think I have been harsh at all? Sorry if you think that. Luka, I agree with your edits, still the official Lastovo Tourist agency testifies that it is known as Ubli not Uble. Ubli is known as St Peter (Sveti Petar and Uble). I'll leave this until the meantime. Maybe you can post your source on Uble as Jurica doesnt seem to mention it? BTW: You didnt answer me regarding whether you have been to Lastovo and why you would be so interested in creating an article on this island? Pozdrav, :) (I will add some further information tonight with a major edit of the article and extra contributions. I Hope that you will enjoy them) Uvouvo 02:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this section for two reasons. Please keep all converstaion related to photo's here, otherwise talk in the correct area's

• I'm not sure who added the main photo's on the lastovo page. I can see they are identical to the ones on the lastovo tourist page, and the other map looks like it is from a copyrighted book. Has anyone verified the copyright on these?
• I will upload some photo's i have personally taken sometime tonight / tomorrow, and then we will see if any merit inclusion Uvouvo 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, the talk page was getting too confusing with the sidetracked debate on Duklja. I removed all the discussion regarding that topic to Pokladar talk page (hope you dont mind - if you do please revert then). I however did extract from that discussion any points pertaining to Lastovo and re-integrated them back here. There is still much to discuss, and HRE I thankyou for providing such a stimulating discussion - Although my stance that your a greater serb manipulator still stands :)

Above is all the discussion up until Luka Jacov's edit on the 16th February 2006 where he removed Caslav's realm. Everyone was happy with this article until HRE reverted it back after nearly a month on 10th March 2006. This is the part in contention... The island would soon become a part of Croatia, but during the Croatian Civil War after the death of King Krešimir around 945, Lastovo is conquered by the Neretvians under Serbian Prince Časlav of Klonimir of the House of Vlastimir. After the fall of the Serbian Realm in the second half of the 9th century, the Byzantines captured the island. The island was a part of Duklja in the 11th century.

I will leave the article for the moment to avoid an invevitable edit war with HRE. I will discuss this article in detail along with my complete edit of the article when i get the time to do it. I will also document and discuss all changes.

Lastly, can we all please stick within the discussion area's i.e. Talk on Photos to stay in that section or talk on Ubli / Uble to stay there - Thanks Uvouvo 02:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bog! :) As you can see i re-wrote a major part of the Article, I hope you like it. Anyway, I havent finished the article yet, so give me suggestions on what you want me to modify so i can take this into account when i rework some more changes in. I think the article is getting better though. I would also appreciate discussion here before changing things, saves unnecessary reverts and misunderstanding. I will also be active on wiki for a while atleast Here is a brief list of some of the changes... Uvouvo 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Added census data in the intro
• Changed Luka's map (obvious that he borrowed it from the diving centre website :) It even had the diving markers on the map
• Redone the Geography section. Added extra facts and re edited to make it read better
• Renamed place names from Uble to Ubli, as Ubli is the official name. I have verified this.
• Replaced the photo of the south coast. Ugly and didnt show much. New one features Pasadur, Prezba etc
• Created the Lastovo Poklad page. Will include some images tomorrow when i finish my edits here
• Trivia, added more facts. Removed other one because it was untrue and partly offensive to lcoals
• Famous people section included
• New myth, story and quote section
• New photo of town - Typical traditional view, plus my own photo from 2004
• Included a photo of roman artifact
• Photo of lastovo pecat or seal
• Details on island name origins etc
• extra general info in history
• included details about secret london pact of 1915
• History section reworked to try and solve dilema bewteen HRE, mentions possibility of ownership by Duklja, Neretva and Byzantine. I also included the quote from Lastovo Logo's. I think this should satisfy everyone even Pokladar. I also included details from Antun Jurica about the inhabitants and Specifically Croatian folk names as he describes from 13th C records. Included Hvar Diocese.
• Uvouvo 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article almost became the featured article of the day for 3 July 2006. Then it was changed to Pope Pius. What happened? --Lembut 10:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was put off due to copyvio and quality issues. It's simply not ready (and until the problems are resolved, won't be). Todor→Bozhinov 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that we recieved permission on OTRS from adriatica.net to use the Poklad text (OTRS ticket number 2006070310008089) Raul654 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, now we have to prove that somehow to the reader (current ref format suggest it's only a reference). Also, Jačov has reinserted some of the problematic images claiming the permission is to be sent. Also, are all Croatian government publications PD? It's not the case with every government. Anyway, it definitely needs a concrete source so we could check copyright more precise. I would object the article being on the Main Page while having images with unclear copyright status. Todor→Bozhinov 13:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jačov keeps claiming Image:Kuzma.jpg is {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} when no rationale for this is provided, and reverts my changes. I'm not willing to edit war, but I would object the article's appearance on the Main Page in this state (until all copyright issues are resolved to everyone's satisfaction). Jačov says he's from a 'country where we dont care about copyrights', so I'd be cautious regarding his actions in the first place. Todor→Bozhinov 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so obssesed with it why dont you mail them and check instead molesting us all... Luka Jačov 13:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my job. I haven't uploaded them, I just tag them properly and make sure the copyvios that have somehow made it to FA status won't appear on the Main Page, since that would be against all Wikipedia principles. As simple as that. I don't care about those images, I care about the article and its overall quality. You seem to hold firmly to their inclusion, so showing us all clearly-worded and genuine permissions is what you have to do. Todor→Bozhinov 13:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong whith you? Didnt I tell you what Raul said, send permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. I am not obligated to send you all permissions. So calm down! Luka Jačov 14:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop with those personal attacks? If you don't provide permissions, those images will be removed, it's very simple actually. You have to put them here: Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. I have serious doubts whether you've got these permissions taking your past activity and your attitude to copyright in consideration, that's why I'm insisting. And I'll do anything to stop a copyvio from appearing on the Main Page. I have no desire to edit war with you, but you have to understand that proving you've got the permission is required — I highly doubt anyone would allow the article to appear on the Main Page in this state, and I'm glad to have helped preventing it from doing so for now. So, basically, you're working against the article's display on the Main Page by acting this way. Todor→Bozhinov 15:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've resorted to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Todor→Bozhinov 16:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem with you man?! Why cant you wait till Raul's notice? Luka Jačov 16:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"During this period, forests were exploited less than at Venice, which heavily deforested its domains in the rest of Dalmatia." Now, if the Venetians (gone since the 1790s) are still blamed for deforestation in Dalmatia, well, that might be a local culture-of-denial issue... but should it be exhibited like this in Wikipedia, exposed to every skeptical eye? --Wetman 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a culture-of-denial issue, unfortunately. As a consequence of Venetian-era deforestation, there are large areas in Dalmatia where the topsoil is gone completely, leaving bare rock. IIRC, that topsoil is estimated to grow at a rate of 1 meter in 5000 years, so - other things being equal - it is going to take centuries before it is restored. GregorB 08:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Croatian historiography is that Venice and Italy are connected systematically to bad events of Croatian history, but whatever is good (starting from Culture and Arts to arrive to Marco Polo) it's genuinely Croatian. However to stick to the article, certainly Venice deforested part of Dalmatia but if more than 200 years later Dalmatia is still deforested perhapas the management of the natural resources during the Socialism is also to blame.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there are historical references to the populations of these islands as 'Croatians', only 'Dalmatians'. Therefore, the majority of the population is Dlamatian and holders of Croatian citizenship. Politis 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What period do you refer to? Uvouvo 13:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the Venetian presence, Dalmatia was known as such, not as part of Croatia. Its character and ecomony was Italianate (Italo-Slavic, if you prefer) and Mediterranean. Its history until just before the formation of Yugoslavia was not characterised as Croatian and the vigorous trading activities and its architecture (no references at hand) enabled it to be seen as an entity on its own. However, this is only peripheral to my areas. Politis 13:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venetian rule on the island was extremely shortlived. The rest of Dalmatia was under Venice while Lastovo was a part of Ragusa / Dubrovnik. You are right though, nationalism back then didnt mean the same thing as today. Ethnically they were majority slavic croats, but their awareness of this probably didnt show until the blossoming of nationalism in the 19th century. Was wondering, if this is peripheral to your area, I am interested to know why you believe Dalmatia should be independant as stated by one of your userbox's? Uvouvo 06:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undid its obvious. Pax, your the one reverting and removing content. I helped create the entire article. Your edit warring on a narrow point.

Please do not falsely characterize as if I am removing content. You're the one who is excluding, and without even a reason stated. --PaxEquilibrium 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the sockpuppetry isn't fooling anyone. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually PAX, you have made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. Another one would constitue a violation of the 3RR rule. Please stop edit warring.

There are a few things here i take exception too

1) You have assumed bad faith on my revert on something we have already gone over a long time ago - one needs to only examine this talk page. You, now thinking that I am not active on wikipedia try to re-introduce incorrect claims already debunked in the past. This article has been made a featured article, and has been stable for one year.

2) I am not a sock puppet and never have been - that accustaion is insulting and baseless, and i expect an apology. I am assuming your thinking hambar is a sock puppet of mine. I welcome you to ask the moderators to invesitigate and confirm that, and on clarification of the truth I would expect your apology. Based on this bad faith judgement you now perceive me to be a ill intentioned user giving you the right to do what you are doing, which is infact wrong.

I have edited all facets of this article, from geography, history, economy to notable people, plus created sister articles on the statute of lastovo and also on the traditions of the poklad. Your pushing your agenda only on a narrow point that has been debunked in the past is the problem. You also introduced many unsourced and unprovable claims debunked in the past. You also mention that i have not been active since dec 2006. That is correct, i have never been an active wikipedian (except on the lastovo article). I read wikipedia actively, and always check the edits on this article while online - I have been at busy stage in my life until recently and didnt want to get involved in other articles. I dont see why i need to prove anything to you however. I respectfully ask that you leave the article in its previously discussed and stable state and also ask for your apology after you confirm that i am not the sock puppet you have accused me of being. Uvouvo 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, if this is really not a sock-puppet(eer), I am very sorry. But as I see, you've also accused me of pursuing an agenda of sock-puppetry - and shouldn't you too apologize to me? :) You say I accuse everyone of sock-puppetry - who is that everyone, aside from one single case next to this one? Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

1) I actually assumed this was bad faith on your account. I posted restlessly replies on the talk page. Invited you on this very talk page numerous times, but you were constantly absent. Therefore, I waited for almost a year (lol ;) and the only logical assumption that came from that was to restore the old version. What incorrect info am I precisely introducing? 1. Lastovo was integrated into the Croatian Dalmatia after Tomislav's reign over the Byzantine province of Dalmatia in the 920s, AFAIK that's from Croatian sources. After 948 Croatia fell into civil disarray with almost a of succession and Serbia used the moment by taking ("correcting" as Serb nationalists-historians say) some Croatian land, one of them the Narentine takeover of Croatian Lastovo. Could you tell me why is this incorrect?

2) You have to admit, that one hour return to rv after a year-long pause is very shockingly suspicious, wouldn't it be to you yourself? :P Cheers. What agenda am I promoting? --PaxEquilibrium 23:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"I actually assumed this was bad faith on your account. I posted restlessly replies on the talk page. Invited you on this very talk page numerous times, but you were constantly absent. Therefore, I waited for almost a year (lol ;) and the only logical assumption that came from that was to restore the old version."

Hahahaha, are you serious? Please stop with the games. The rest of your post is just a diversion and i dont need to answer your thoughts on what is suspicious or what is not. Uvouvo 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the incorrect information, the DAI (The only source which incorrectly identifies pagania as Serbian) specifically leaves Lastovo out of Pagania. Since it describes Serbia according to Caslav's Serbia and was written circa 948-952, and Lastovo / Vis was out of Pagania then your claim is incorrect. Croatian historians also do not agree with what you put forward, (The Croatian historians which focus / specialise on Lastovo (Antun Jurica / Neven Vekaric) - We should place more weight on what the locals call themselves and how they describe the situation - These historians offer updated scholarship compared with the likes of Ferdo Sisic and Vladimir Corovic. Like i said we have been through all this before, and re-reading this talk page and the lastovo talk page makes it clear if you have forgotten. Below is the quote from chapter 36 in the DAI "Chapter 36 - Of the Pagani, also called Arentani, and of the country they now dwell in In Pagania are the inhabited cities of Mokron, Beroullia, Ostrok and Slavinetza. Also, they posses these islands: the large island of Kourkra (Korcula) or Kiker, on which there is a city; another large island Meleta (Mljet) ... another large island, Bratzis (Brac). There are other islands not in the possession of these same Pagani: the island of Choara (Susac), the island of Ies (Vis), the island of Lastobon" Uvouvo 02:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Yes, of course I am serious.

And? I have myself pointed that out. The (Serb?) Narentines populated in the first half of the 7th century the islands of Mljet, Hvar, Brac & Korcula. The islands of Vis & Lastovo were, as I quoted, conquered only for a short time.

And as for the other matter, I don't understand why are you removing the details that Croatia acquired Lastovo? I thought you agree yourself to that as well? Cheers, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now i feel we are getting somewhere. There are no primary (not secondary) sources that confirm the above. Its the same with the pro Croatia sources - none are certain, and that is the reason why we reached agreement of the wording of the history section pertaining to medieval Lastovo, and that is the reason why that section of the page remained unchanged for close to a year and a half. It is clear that Lastovo was largely autonomous, as confirmed by their seperate statute codified in 1310 confirming their own laws and policies within the Dubrovnik republic as a commune. Lastovci never described themselves as Serbs, and external rule spread over lastovo was largely unclear and written about many centuries after the event with conflicting dates and overlapping rulers - clearly untenable. Historians (experts on the island) have agreed that the island remained autonomous and "may" have been claimed by other rulers as a sort of nominal rule which actually never was real or pervasive. I really think the article should remain in its current state. Also in a side note, there has been updated scholarship from the likes of John Fine (regarded as one of the most respected english based and least biased historians on the subject) which actually debunks the Serbian ethnicity of Paganians, which would present a problem for you in all the other articles you have recently changed. If you wanted I could present all these sources and make the appropriate edits in those articles? Lastly, now i hope that your hambla case has been worked out that you will again respect my edits based on good faith. Uvouvo (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, you have yourself used secondary (pro Croatia?) sources (the non-certain ones) in this very article.

Of course Lastovans never described themselves as Serbs. Why would they?

If you have any info on Fine's interpretations, please supplement it to me ASAP. I am very interested to find out that which I do not know yet. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the all due respect, the section of history of the XX century has been written very badly. The language is inappropriate, sources are missing, information are unclear and strong language (e.g. ethnic cleansing) is used without any reference. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lastovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110721101315/http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/Vijenac430.nsf/AllWebDocs/Jubilej_otocne_mudrosti to http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/Vijenac430.nsf/AllWebDocs/Jubilej_otocne_mudrosti

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lastovo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410083624/http://www.io-warnemuende.de/homepages/schernewski/Littoral2000/docs/vol3/Littoral2002_28.pdf to http://www.io-warnemuende.de/homepages/schernewski/Littoral2000/docs/vol3/Littoral2002_28.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718202242/http://www.edubrovnik.org/lastovo/I_Lastovo_PPUO_obrazlozenje.doc to http://www.edubrovnik.org/lastovo/I_Lastovo_PPUO_obrazlozenje.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kuzma.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]