Talk:Stefan Dušan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name

I support a move to "Stefan Dušan". Google Book hits for the most common forms any time:

• "Stefan Dušan" (20,900), ["Стефан Душан" (16,100)], "Stephen Dushan" (11,400), "Stephen Dušan" (5,600), "Stefan Dushan" (1,150), ["Стеван Душан" (690)],
• "Dušan the Mighty" (2,560), ["Душан Силни" (2,580)], "Dušan Silni" (2,570), "Dushan the Mighty" (592) ;; other translations of Silni - "Dušan the Great" (553), "Dushan the Great" (244), "Dušan the Strong" (133), "Dušan the Powerful" (96), "Dushan the Powerful" (85), "Dushan the Strong" (48)

The following are just showing the prevalence of other citings: ["цар Душан" (17,100)], "Tsar Dušan" (3,050), "Stephen Uroš IV" (2,050), "Emperor Dušan" (2,040), "Tsar Dushan" (1,010), "Stefan Uroš IV" (577), "Czar Dushan" (540), "Czar Dušan" (472), ["Стефан Урош IV" (459)], "Emperor Dushan" (458), "Tzar Dušan" (320), "Tzar Dushan" (124) ... All Stephen in Category:Nemanjić dynasty should be changed into Stefan. What do you think?--Zoupan 19:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course the hits favour Stefan Dušan - they are not all in English. I believe Stephen should be retained, because it allows consistency with the kings of Bosnia who are titled similarly - cf. Stephen Thomas of Bosnia, Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia, Stephen Ostoja of Bosnia, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also support the move, per sources. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the sources are not in all in English and only English language sources matter here. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The majority is. Names should be written correctly, Unicode, see Romanization of Serbian. If you check 21st-century sources "Stefan Dušan" (1,510) vs. "Stephen Dušan" (402). "Stefan Dušan" is used by Encyclopaedia britannica (X), Serbo-Croatian sources in English (Serbian Academy etc), Timothy E. Gregory (X), Angeliki Laiou (X), Oliver Schmitt, John Van Antwerp Fine, etc. Should all royal,noble Stefan/Stjepan/... be changed into Stephen? We need consensus for Serbo-Croatian form, and then look at Category:Romanian royalty - All "Ștefan".--Zoupan 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to call him Stephen. Stephen, King of England (a Frenchman) is called Esteban by es.wiki, Étienne by fr.wiki, Stephan by de.wiki, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

All in all since the early 20th century the trend has been moving towards using native names instead of Anglicized versions. Of course it isn't incorrect to use a title such as Stephen X of Y, but that would mean to ignore almost a century of common use in English-language sources. It's only logical for the Spanish-language wiki to use Esteban as its titles are based on the common use of Spanish-language sources and the same is true of the French-language and German-language wikis.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, all Serbian medieval Stephen's are in this form (i.e. Stefan Nemanja has 1,370 vs. 197 hits in 21st c), and if we go against WP:TITLE "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject." (In both these cases we have "Stefan Dušan"), we'll need consensus that there should be a norm, because "In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles;". The article was created in 2003 and was titled "Stefan Dušan" until a move in 2006, and from then on the article has had different names, even though there is only one "Stefan/Stephen Dušan". I am in no way against a possible move to "Stephen Dušan", but as I said - we need to discuss anglicization of given names of historical royalty and nobility - native given names (regardless of language) into Nicholas, George, John, etc. And that wide discussion is not appropriate here, but on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.--Zoupan 21:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with uniting all eastern Romans under Greek name, by doing that we are disregarding all Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Romanians that lived in eastern Roman Empire commonly and erroneously called Byzant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.169.167 (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Name II

The name of this page is inconsistent internally and with related pages from the Nemanjić dynasty. The article name here uses "Stephen," but the lead begins with "Stefan." The related pages include Stefan Nemanja, Stefan Dragutin of Serbia, Stefan Uroš II Milutin of Serbia, Stefan Dečanski, Stefan Konstantin, and Stefan Uroš V. It would make far more sense to change this page's name than to change all the others. It is worth noting that "Stefan" is used by Fine, which is a principal source used on all these pages, as well as by EB and Magill. In addition, I've been changing references to Uroš II, Uroš III, and Uroš IV to Milutin, Dečanski, and Dušan for ease of distinction, which also follows Fine. No consensus was reached with the prior discussion of this issue, but that has led to inconsistency among these related pages and a mixing of terms within them. All the other Nemanjić dynasty pages use "Stefan," and the majority of sources do as well, in particular Fine. So I support moving this page to "Stefan Dušan." Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Laszlo Panaflex: What do you think about moving the page to "Stefan Dušan of Serbia"? It would be in accordance with the sources, and with the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move to "Stefan Dušan".--Zoupan 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Anzulović

OK, seems that we got into a situation of a slow but continuos edit-war regarding Anzulović. IP's appear removing him while others come restoring him. Just to clarify, I never ever edit out of my account, so the IP's are not me. Also, I still don't have myself a conclusion regarding the legitimity of Anzulović book as a reliable source, or not. Was there any discussion already somewhere about him? Past experience tells me that we must be double carefull when using sources coming from authors from the region. Here we have a case of an Albanian editor, Ktrimi991, who has added content from a Croatian author, Branimir Anzulović's, book, "Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide" published in 1999 at the peak of the propaganda surounding the Kosovo War. Being myself Serb and being familiar with the beliefs and missconceptions all sides have, seing what Anzulović himself said at this inteview screams anti-Serbian propaganda from start to end. The author himself tries to hide his national belonging (says he is "of Croatian origin" when in fact he was born in Zagreb on April 26, 1928) and tries to convince us that his book is not biased, he does it subconsciently knowing the obvious. Anyway, who is Anzulović and is he reliable? His idea of Dušan being the guilty one for Turks having invaded Europe is ... speachless. Like blaming Poles for existing for Hitler having invaded them, then Poles are guilty of the Second World War. Distortions of the kind are typical of nationalistic biased literature, not a reliable one. FkpCascais (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

IP editor blocked as a sockpuppet. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Anzulovic was not a historian and that alone should be enough to remove his book as a source. He only had one book, the one we are talking about. His only public appearance (I think, not sure) was the one you mentioned, on CNN. And that is it - that is all his work as historian or "expert". 91.148.92.123 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC) You were asked by IP to delete my contributions and since then you have targeted my work. The stuff is still there in article and other editors have reverted IP you are working for. Can you present a historian who refutes Anzulovic? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Common sense and decency refute him. 91.148.92.123 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem isnt the IP but Anzulovic himself. Who is he to come with his WP:FRINGE and be part of the lede section? Can you please cite an academic author agreeing with the idea of Czar Dushan being guilty for Turks entrance in Europe, please? FkpCascais (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted the IP because no reason was given for the removal. Upon review, I agree that the statement is unsupported and overly broad. Looking into Anzulovic, I do find a couple of reviews of his book that are not dismissive of his scholarship, but are critical of his conclusions [Ivo Banac, History of Religions; Thomas Emmert, Slavic Review). At any rate, the statement here was far too broad and conclusory, and was by no means the primary thrust of the work. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Means a lot having senior editors like you Laszlo participating here, thank you for your help. It would be so goood to keep this and other related historical articles without sorts of glorification or diabolisation. Unfortunatelly, seems that Anzulović only book published by now, seems to contain cases where he uses real historical events to then make WP:REDFLAG. There are two main problems with the edit in my view:

The first one has to do with the fact that seems questionable if the material belongs to the lede section. Dushan was a ruler notable for numerous archivements in diverse fields he accomplished. Many of them are left out of the lede. With time and dedicaition, on behalve of constructive objective editors, we'll have a better and more complete lede section. However, this edit doesn't seem to accomplish that, right on the contrary.

The second has to do with the historical fact that Turks first entered Europe thanks to the Byzantines who asked them for help and asistance in their war against Serbia. Byzantines asked Turks (Ottomans) to cross the Bosphorous and their troops to assist Byzantine ones in order to stop the advance of Dushan's military. So obviously, I remember many historians agreeing with the fact that one of the consequences of the Serbo-Byzantine wars was the entrance of Ottoman forces in European soil. However, that consequence only gradualy gained importance; from being initially a pefipherical consequence of the Serbo-Byzantine war itself, to become later the main consequence which would affect the history of the entire region and several continents. So, mentioning the historical fact that Ottomans first entered Europe invited by Byzantines to assist them in their war against Dushan's Serbia is an important fact worth mention (I support this). But, Dushan died in the process, Serbian Empire lost its unity and privileged role in the scenario, so what Turks did in the followiing 5 centuries, which includes coming till Vienna and having the entire South-Eastern quarter of Europe under their rule, was a result of many facts and circunstances. Anzulović has the problem of wanting to simplify something circunstantially complex. He is not observing history objectively first and then writting the conclusions, but he seems rather writting his missconceptions and then seing which historical facts he can use by cherry-picking them to back-up his biases. In this case, he used Czar Dushan, a stone in the shoe of every anti-Serbian, to atribute him a ridiculous charge that he was the one to blame for Serbian subjugation by Ottomans during the following centuries. By doing so, he is inevitably then making Dushan guilt of all other subjugations of nations by Ottomans in that period: Bulgarians, Moldovans&Wallaquains (Romanians), Greeks, Hungarians, Slovaks, ALbanians, Ruthenians, Poles, part of Austrians, etc. Dushan by then was dead centuries ago. Yes, his military power did made Byzantines call Ottomans for help, and subsequently diid brought them to Europe, but Dushan died with his troops almost at the doors of Constantinople haviiing at the mooment almost all the Balkan peninsula in Serbian or other Chrsitian kingdoms domain. What happened next is hard to simplify. All I wish to say is that adding Anzulovic conclusion, TO THE LEDE, how Dushan was to blame for Turks invading almost a quarter of Europe next, is definiitelly an exceptional claim, and as such, it should never be added to the lede section. FkpCascais (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I neglected to mention the issue about the lede. The lede is a summary of the body, and content should not appear in the lede that is not is the body. Also, to be fair to Anzulović, his words were that the Serbian empire "indirectly facilitated" the Turk expansion. But of course so did countless other things. He states it as an observation, not an argued point. The characterization here was overstated, and given undue weight in the lede, as you point out. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jingiby & Ivanvector: The removal of the text in the lead here by Vuzz88 is warranted. As the discussion above illustrates, the passage overstates what the source says, and the material should not be in the lead as it is not developed in the body. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK! Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User Ursolk

Could someone please, keep eye on this user, so far, he registered just to edit this page, using outdated, and factualy wrong Source (Some book from 1915). This book mentions attack on Bosnia in Travunia arrea from 1349, altohg Travunia was not part of Bosnia till 1373, and war from 1354, which did not took place, due desease in Hungarian ranks. He also, made like edit was done 2 years earlier, with citation date from 2011. Not to mention errors, like Early reign of Dušan in 1349, and 1354 (18th and 23rd year of Dušan's rule) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor Đurić (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Uroš IV

The regnal name of Dušan was "Emperor Stephen", not "Emperor Stephen Uroš IV". His son was Stephen Uroš IV. As a source, I can quote, for example, any diploma published in Љ. Стојановић, Старе српске повеље и писма. Књига I (Дубровник и његови суседи). Београд-Сремски Карловци, 1929. Also, his, his father's and his patriarch's biographies in "Danilov zbornik". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Цар (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia → Stefan Dušan – Gbooks hits: "Stefan Dušan" (490) vs. "Stephen Uroš IV Dušan" (30). Gscholar hits: "Stefan Dušan" (762) vs. "Stephen Uroš IV Dušan" (5). Zoupan 11:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Proposed title is obviously the most common in English sources. It is also in accordance with WP:SOVEREIGN (while the current title is not). Vanjagenije (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as explained above. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CONCISE. sovereign°sentinel (my mess) 04:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. FkpCascais (talk) 08:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Armbrust: Are you going to move the article or should somebody else do that? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the target for speedy deletion. Waiting for admin assistance. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust: Oh, sorry. I thought you are an admin. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Target deleted. Way free for move. Samsara 13:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsar Dusans racism towards Albanians

Allright, i got two sources claiming Tsar Dusan used racist politics towards Albanians, Vlachs and Catholics. One is an Albanian one, and the other Edith Durham, a british traveler. They are both modernm, and the first one is Hasan Jashari who even translated his sources from a Serb source.... Zhoupan claims they are unreliable because i depict Serbs as racists, but then again Zhoupan does like fairytales....

Any thoughts on this? --Albanian Historian (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"The roman Catholic Albanians suffered not only the woe of being invaded, but were also subjected to religious persecution. To race hatred was added religious hatred"

https://books.google.se/books?id=8KCZhBWVkgMC&pg=PA96&dq=Albanians+tsar+dushan&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn-_ajmObKAhUCEywKHZi3BgoQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=Albanians%20tsar%20dushan&f=false

"Few people know and in fewer have researched in order to find out that this law has a racist approach against Albanians in particular, refering to the law of 13534 by Tsar Dusan. There are special punishments for them. The law goes on with other inequalities. If an Albanian passes through a Serb village, he has to be alone, if someone joins him, he has to be fined - article 82. This is how the law defines the enemy, ethnic separation, hatred... Tsar Dushan also had rules and laws regarding his enemy, and therefore prohibited stops and rests of travelers in Albanian and Vlach villages. Serbs are suggested not to mingle with Albanians at all. This is an initiative of prsecution and discrimination. The war had a religious character too. (ETLEVA, L. Ahmet, M 2010)."

https://books.google.se/books?id=czbNCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA53&dq=Albanians+tsar+dushan&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn-_ajmObKAhUCEywKHZi3BgoQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=Albanians%20tsar%20dushan&f=false

Prosecution, discrimination... Good enough for you, Zhoupan? --Albanian Historian (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No? It is not good enough. Durham is not reliable, I don't see a reason in explaining this to you over and over again. She is a British traveller, an Albanophile and Serbophobe. Etleva does not cite what is said by Jashari regarding racism, but religious makeup. Jashari does not look the least reliable, as already explained, he cites no reliable sources, in fact, he claims that:

• South Slavs came from the Carpathians
• Teodor Muzaka II, Balsha Gjergji II and Milosh Kopiliqi are Albanians that fought at the Battle of Kosovo
• Historical documents in the 18th and 19th century say that Albanians were majority in Kosovo
• Jovan I. Deretić represents Serbian historiography
• Marko Miljanov's name was "Mark Milani"

This is only what I found on a quick peek. It is funny how someone would read it and go, "yeah, Emperor Dušan and the Serbian people are god-damn racists!". As I told you, You have no scholarly understanding of Dušan's Code nor the social state of medieval countries, so don't try to interpret it. You are keen on displaying the Serbian people as racists. Stop it. Also, for a man who has lived in Tetovo and Skopje, Jashari claims to know Croatian, and not Serbian (!?). He uses "q" instead of "c" for "ć" (?). Purpose or not? You decide.--Zoupan 22:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Zoupan here. @Albanian Historian: As a historian, you should present some independent historiography sources, and not travel journals and essays. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR through and through. Also, when did Albanians become a race? 23 editor (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Jashari has translated the code written in Tsar Dusans Code. It is not a made-up propaganda article. If so, find the code which he speaks of and translate it for me if you want to prove it. Otherwise i see no reason why this is not legit. Edith Durham Travel journeys? Robert Eslie has much of his work done from the travel document of Edith Durham, the first British traveler who collected valuable data and information regarding the Balkans, I'm pretty sure you can't just call that unreliable. For your information, Zhoupan, there are proven facts to slavs coming from the carpathian mountains, and it doesn't take a Serbophobe to find that out. And as for Marko Miljanov, he indeed was an Albanian from the Kuci-tribe. A Slavicized Albanian for that matter, according to Albanian sources, but i do not intend to show you that right now, thats a matter of dispute for other times when you feel offended. Anyway, i do not settle with this. I want Zhoupan to show me that the mentioned code of Tsar Dusan isn't "discriminating against Catholics". --Albanian Historian (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It certainly sounds like propaganda. That is the problem, you can't and shouldn't take it literally. Leave it to scholars (reliable sources). Durham's journeys and Elsie's use of her doesn't change the fact that she is an outdated, unreliable, biased, unscholarly, source. For your information, Albanian Historian, there are proven facts that Slavs came from various geographical regions, including, but not restricted, to the Carpathians. It certainly takes a Serbophobe to find these facts out black-and-white wrong. As for Marko Miljanov, he was indeed a Serb, as he himself identified (he has some strong quotes), coming from a lineage that, as far as he reliably could count, was Orthodox and Slavic. As for the Kuči tribe and its ethnographical makeup, there is a minor truth to your claim, as there were migrations from northern Albania into Kuči, brotherhoods having merged into the Serb stock, however, to claim that the Kuči are, as a whole, Slavicized Albanians, is terribly wrong. Only those at the frontier, towards Albania, who are most oftenly not regarded ethnic Kuči, but sometimes tribal/geographical Kuči (in fact, those are regarded Malsorë), could be regarded Albanians, and guess what, you have Serb brotherhoods in Malësia having merged into the Albanian stock. I insist that you show me why Marko Miljanov should be regarded "indeed an Albanian" at the proper article page and make me feel offended (mmkay?). Please do settle with this, the good faith is running out on you. I show you this: Fine 1994, p. 316 says that Dušan's Code did not look favorably upon the Catholic Church, though he, as his predecessors, was friendly and respectable to his Catholic subjects. Hope you start taking a neutral approach and do some critical thinking, if not verifying information. If you would like to discuss a subject other than Stefan Dušan, comment at the proper article talk page and use {{ping|Zoupan}}.--Zoupan 09:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian pronunciation

Is the speaker on the recording actually using the standard 'literary' pronunciation, the one transcribed in IPA? I remember that somewhere in the article on Serbo-Croation phonology there used to be a mention about Belgrade pronunciation, where traditional length and pitch contrasts have allegedly been replaced by syllable-structure-dependent ones, and if my ears serve me well, this may be the case here. 195.187.108.4 (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Serbian language (not from Belgrade), and it sounds to me as a standard pronunciation (although the person has some difficulty pronouncing "r" correctly). Vanjagenije (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bulgaria Serbian vassal

@FkpCascais: In this edit, you inserted a claim that "Bulgaria became Serbian vassal in 1331". As a source, you cited this book. Your claim was today removed from the article [1] by an IP. Can you point to the exact page in the book where the claim can be verified? I can't find it. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are the sources I brought some time ago on this matter:

• The Cambridge Medieval History Series Volumes I-V by J. B. Bury: "But for the ruler (Dushan) of so vast realm, the title of King seemed insignificant, specially as his vassal, the ruler of Bulgaria, bore the great name of Tsar."

• Europe in the 19th and 20th Centuries by E. Upson: "...including (talking of Dushan Empire) Bosnia, the Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the vassal State of Bulgaria herself."

• The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey by Clarendon Press: "From 1331 to 1365 Bulgaria was under one John Alexander, a noble of Tatar origin, whose sister became the wife of Serbias greatest ruler, Stephen Dusan; John Alexander moreover recognized Stephen as his suzerain, and from thenceforward Bulgaria was a vassal-state of Serbia."

• Churches Of Eastern Christendom by B. J. Kidd: "But in 1330, the Serbs... ...stretching from the Danube to the gulf of Arta, and including Bulgaria as a vassal state, 1331-1365."

• A History of the Balkan Peoples by René Ristelhueber: "Bulgarias tsar, whose sister Dushan had married, became his vassal."

The problem of that source is that in my preview the page is not mentioned. FkpCascais (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• @FkpCascais: In that case, you should re-add the claim to the article, and cite those sources for which you do know the exact page. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is one more:

• Serbian Legacy by Cecil Stewart, page 69, says: "...Dusans kingdom now extended from the Danube to the Gulf of Corinth and, since the Bulgarian Tsar was his vassal,..."

Can you help me to see how to find out the pages of the sources without page? Are they opening to you at the page saying what I copied here? FkpCascais (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: This last link shows the page number (69), but when I click the link to the B. J. Kidd's book you cited above, I don't see any content. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

They all apear when you insert the same search I did. FkpCascais (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dusane Veliki!

Ti koji su nama sve na ovom svetu...prilozi svoj zakon i budi CAR NASE ZEMLJE!Zivela Srbija Vinsent Constantine (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please make constructive edits in the future. ty, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Short description

@Theonewithreason, my edit to the shortdesc was based solely on WP:SDFORMAT which states that the short description should be short – no more than about 40 characters (emphasis in original). I couldn't fit both the imperial position and the dates of the kingship into 40 chars, but if you can find a better way of doing it please update the shortdesc again. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001 greetings do you have another suggestion, mine would be Emperor of Serbs and Greeks since that was his highest title achieved in 1346.Theonewithreason (talk) 14. January 2022 (UTC)

14th century Serbian king and emperor is 37 characters. Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, 1346 to 1355 is 41, which is OK (only slightly over 40). I imagine you have a clearer view of what aspect of his career it is most important to highlight; I would be happy with either. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the first one to connect his both titles,since from historical point when he reached the emperor title he gave his son the Epirus king title and he retained Serbian king title (so we can say at one point there was 1 emperor and 2 kings) but I will leave it up to you, from the technical point of view you are definitely more experienced editor, especially when it comes to outlook and quality of articles, but thank you for asking me for opinionTheonewithreason (talk) 14. January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about me being more experienced – I've not worked so much on short descriptions – but I also prefer the first one so I've gone with that. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Dusan true titles according to Jiricek

Imperator Raxie et Romanie, dispotus Larte et Blahie comes. Why Serbs hide the Vlach's title ? 79.112.87.24 (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

"Vlachs" was one of the Slavic words for Romans, it's not hidden, it's just replaced by Greeks, which was also a word used for Romans.

The accurate title was emperor of Serbs and 109.245.34.154 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)