Talk:Vojislavljević dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usual Bias

Country: Serbia Nationality: Serb

Laughable, at the very least... Sideshow Bob 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nemanyiden were (of) Vojislav(ljev)ics. The country is not Doclea (since it includes also Rascia, Bosnia, Travunia, Zachlumia, Canalites, Merania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Dalmatia, Arboria, Thessaly, Slavonia, Usora, Soli, Syrmia, Epirus, Serres, Bdyn, etc...). The collective name historically used for the region "Serbia" (name for the vast majority of these areas and historical name for the country) should be adopted. Pointing out "Duklja" is (somewhat) improper because its only a tiny portion of the Vojislavljevics' domain.

Nationality: "Dukljan (Montenegrin)". It seems too improper to prefer "Montenegrin" over "Serbian". And as for "Doclean", I don't see how one of the many lands this dynasty decides the ruling dynasty's nationality (were the Habsburgs of Neapolitan nationality?), and most especially the land upon which this family conquered and imposed its rule in the first place. You could also put: "Nationality: Bulgarian" according to that logic. --PaxEquilibrium 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In those times the term "montenegro" didn't exist, but neither did "serbia", so you can't call their country serbia at all, and they were doclean (today montenegrin) which was a catholic slav from doclea.

No, "Serbia" did.

Why don't we just put that they were of Doclean nationality since they were from Duklja and end this edit war. --CrnaGora 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Terms Serbian realm and Serbian dinasty should be changed, if you want to have a serious article here. As Rascia was early Serbian state, the same goes for Doclea-Zeta, as an earlier name for Montenegro. Doclean rulers were NOT Serbs, they were catholics, and Nemanjic king of Serbia was called Stefan Prvovencani, which means Stephen -the first crowned- and he got his crown 140 years after Vojislavljevics, which shows that Serbs didn't count catholic dinasty from other country as theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.15.31 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because of this:

• Factography on Vosilav Stefan, ruler of the Serbians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.9.6 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First crowned means that he was the first ruler from Nemanjici who got the crown and title of "king". And about catholic dynasty - so what? Religion is not nationhood. Catholic church is universal church, not only for one nation. And, as given above, in the historical sources from that time (and majority are Byzantine which are known to be most reliable and used in the Western historiography, for example, those territories were collective called "Serbia" and Doclea was more called "Serbia" in those sources then even Rascia, at that time when Doclean rulers were the most powerful. Their rulers were called "Rulers of Serbs" by Byzantines for more than a few centuries so, that is the end of that story. You have primary sources and secondary sources which are listed in the article and no sources to claim the opposite.95.180.82.17 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Vojislavljevići - ethnic Dukljani (modern Montenegrin)

Check the links:

http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/balsici/balsici_novak_adzic.htm http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/iz_knjige_relje_novakovica.htm

Sincerly, --89.212.52.4 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Montenegrina is not reliable source, but heavily political. Rv per other normal sources, but more are welcomed here on talk page. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

articles from Montenegrina (http://montenegrina.net/)

I take articles from Montenegrina and put it to wikipedia. This is internationaly recognised cite (ISSN 1800 - 8046). Here are articles in English langugages:

http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages_e/home.htm

Here is history of Duklja: http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages_e/history/duklja_the_first_montenegrin_state_first_dinasty_Vojislavljevic.htm

Thanks for recpect, --84.255.193.151 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

internationaly recognised cite? By whom? It looks like collection of nationalistic texts where Montenegrins existed 2000 years ago, etc. Also, several other editors removed it, as unreliable. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The "proof" of Serbian identity is a contemporary geographical text based on political bias, which in itself even recognises a duality of opinions about the dynasty's ethnicity. How is this a reliable source? It just supports Serbian POV, is written by a Serbian author with limited knowledge of history. Sideshow Bob 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a secondary source which shows that contemporary sources viewed Stefan Vojislav and his descendants (the dynasty) as Serbs. On another note, the use of Doclea (Duklja) as a "state name" was only used by the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, to be widely used later in historiography — calling it "Doclean" is superficial. --Zoupan 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vojislavljević dynasty. 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/20141106084704/http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0584-9888/2008/0584-98880845089C.pdf to http://scindeks-clanci.ceon.rs/data/pdf/0584-9888/2008/0584-98880845089C.pdf

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) 00:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)