Jump to content

Talk:Constantine Bodin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Religion

I've inserted a "citation needed" tag for the Religion in the infobox. The reason is that the Serbocroatian and the Croatian versions of this article give his religion as Catholic, and the English article suggests that he was a Catholic; the wording used is: "Constantine Bodin's relations with the west included his support for Pope Urban II in 1089, which secured him a major concession, the upgrading of his Bishop of Bar to the rank of an Archbishop." This suggests that Constantine Bodin took the side of the Roman Church after the 1054 Great Schism between the Roman and the Eastern Churches. Please update the Religion tag if you have reliable sources, and also ensure that the Serbocroatian and the Croatian versions of this article are consistent in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Is he a Serb

What makes Bodin Serbian??? Sideshow Bob 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, he's a ruler of a re-forged Serbian realm (actually, not directly; but a successor of such a thing), and he's from the Serbian Vojislavljevic dynasty. Apart from that (and what mostly counts, I think) is that internationally, he was known as "Archont of Serbs" (reflecting that he ruled all Serbs, is my guessing). --PaxEquilibrium 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

lazi kolko oces ali on je bio Kralj Duklje a ne Srbije koja tad nije postojala. Voislavljevici su dinastija Dukljanskih Slovena/Crnogoraca. Ko to osim vasih kvaziistoricara kaze da je bio poznat kao Ahront Srba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.114.110 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, in order to get a discussion started, try writing in English. I kinda understand what you're writing (or some of it at least), but it'd go much easier in English. --Laveol T 21:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

- Basically what "213.149.114.110" said to PaxEquilibrium is "Lie as long as you want, but Bodin was king of Doclea, and not of Serbia which didn't exist at the time. Voislavljevics are Doclean Slavic/Montenegrin dynasty. Who, beside your quasi-historians says that he was known as archont of Sebs?" I totaly agree with "213.149.114.110". What PaxEquilibrium said is complete Serbian nationalistic rubish. We have problems dealing with these lies, cause we are outnumbered 15 million to 800000 by the Serbs. Therefore we cannot catch up with all the nonsence they write on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.12.145 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Where do you get your numbers from, I wonder... For one there is nowhere near 800,000 "montenegrins" in or out of Montenegro and two there aren't 15 million Serbs contributing on Wikipedia. You don't have problem dealing with lies, you have a problem called historical revisionism and funny enough these revisionists, such as yourself only recently started sprouting from the ground here on Wikipedia and else where. Rather odd considering your claims to the extensive montenegrin history uniquely seperate from the Serbs woudln't you say? What source exactly do you "montenegrins" have to attest to the supposed montenegrin noble, Constantine Bodin? A text book writtin in 2006/7 perhaps? (Buttons (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) (UTC)
If they can present a verifiable reliable source to backup their claims then I'm afraid what they say should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
And where did you find claims that Bodin was Serbian? If we write "Doclean noble" it can't be wrong, anyway you look at it. He was born in Doclea in Doclean royal family. He was the ruler of Doclea. He was a Doclean noble. Quite simple. Whlist, on the other hand there is not a single claim that he was a Serb, and calling him a Serbian noble is your assumption.

Why are you playing stupid? I didn't say all the Serbs are editing wikipedia. It's clear that proportionally to the number of Serbs and Montenegrins there is a lot greater number of Serbs editing wikipedia. 95.155.12.136 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we need to see reference for being "Serbian" noble! Rave92(talk) 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He was of the House of Vojislavljević, a prominent Serbian noble house. His Serbian roots are not in question. (Buttons (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC))
References? Documents that claim that Vojislavljevics were Serbs, please? I think you're about to get busted. Thanks for bringing up the article on House of Vojislavljevic. It too, needs some re-editing.78.155.46.94 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make changes to people's nationalities in the article without a reliable source. A source would be nice for Serbian too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we need consensus on such a things. Rave92(talk) 10:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced a few things from the Serbian Unity Congress as they are the most reliable source I can find (they have a Wiki article at least) on this guy. I think a good compromise - and one that is included in that webpage so it can be sourced - is to call him a Medieval Balkan figure.
PS I can't speak anything other than English - but if more reliable foreign language sources can be found to cover things in this article that would be fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how it is reliable? Also, he was king of Duklja :). Rave92(talk) 18:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well at least it isn't just a blog. To be honest I couldn't find anything better :(. I changed the kingdom to match the source as stuff here should be verifiable. I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on whether the source is right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
PS That said as the Serbian Unity congress isn't explicitly saying that he's a serb he probably isn't. So it could probably be changed to something else, but to avoid an edit war we should ideally find a source saying that he isn't a Serb. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there is little known from that period, and everyone know there weren't nationalistic moves and those until 19/20th century, so probably he didn't even cared. Rave92(talk) 19:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed Serbian to Balkan and sourced it, I hope everyone is OK with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a good idea, this way it's more neutral, so neither Serbian or Montenegrin. Rave92(talk) 09:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Ok, guys, enough is enough. Instead of edit-warring to get the Montenegrin in or out of the article, why don't you discuss it? I'm not sure if it should be there, but it'd work much better if you were to give motives for your actions etc. Otherwise you might as well be subjects to administrative measures. --Laveol T 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

He was a ruler of Duklja, Duklja is todays Montenegro, Montenegro has all rights over him as well as Serbia let's say. None one deletes Serbian Cyrillic, but Montenegrin does. If someone things Montenegrin isn't a language he should keep it to him, it's not his to decide about those things. 92.36.185.92 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Duklja/Zeta is NOT today's Montenegro, Duklja/Zeta was much bigger (Duklja/Zeta = today's Montenegro+ Rascia+northern Albania+ southeast Bosnia+south Dalmatia), besides: 1. all those lands is (or was at that time) inhabited predominantly by Serbs (term "Montenegro" will be first time mentioned 5 centuries after death of king Bodin) 2. at least 99% of historic sources,publications,etc...refered to king Bodin/Duklja/Zeta as Serb/Serbian lands/principalities/kingdoms etc... 3. to claim that kingdom of Duklja/Zeta was not Serbian is lake claiming that principality of Wallachia is not Romanian or kingdom of Aragon is not spanish or Venetian Republic is not italian etc... don't steal others history in attempt to confirm existance of false nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.14.65 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not on you to deside if Montenegrin nation is false or not. Bring those historic sources up if you have them. In "De Administrando Imperio" by Byzantine emperor Constantine VII there are no records that claim Docleans are Serbs. It says that Doclea is settled by Slavic tribes, but says nothing of their origin. The Pope refers to King Mihailo as King of the Slavs. Nićifor Virenij, Byzantine dux of the Dyrrhachium theme, says that Croats and Docleans abused the entire Illyricum, after rebbeling, so he considers Docleans as equal as Croats (if you want to claim that Croats are Serbs too, move on on the "Croats" page). Duklja/Zeta certainly is Montenegro. First of all, it's true that Doclea had a lot larger territory than Montenegro but only under the governance of King Mihailo and King Bodin. Under other rulers it occupied today's central and southern Montenegro and northern Albania. People moved from the plains in the northern Albania to the mountains so they could resist the Turks more easily. Serbian Empire was a lot larger than today's Serbia but Sebia still considers itself to be an heir of the Sebian Empire. Second, we, Montenegrins are direct decendants of the Docleans whlist you cannot say that today's Serbs are pure decendants of the medieval Serbs after being 500 years under Ottoman oppression. Third, although the name has changed during the 12th century country still had the same borders and was ruled by Voislavljevićs untill it was conquered by Stefan Nemanja. Nemanja's brother Vukan, who governed Zeta, took the title "king of Duklja". "In one inscription from 1202-1203 Vukan is titled as Grand Župan Vl'k ruler of all Serbian land, Zeta, maritime towns and land of Nišava." This is from the article about Vukan Nemanjic which nobody had edited but the Serbs. If Zeta is a Serbian land, why should you mention it seperately if you already said he was a ruler of all Serbian lands? Zeta had kept almost the same borders as a province in the Serbian Empire, that Duklja had. After it got independent under the Balšićs it was still named Zeta. They, during their 65 years rule, lost parts of their territory. Crnojevics succeded them. They considered themselves lords of Zeta and it was under their rule that Zeta started being refered as Montenegro. Montenegro fell to the Ottomans in 1499. Fighting ever since for independence. Had it more or less during the 17th and 18th century. Got it de facto at the ending of 18th century and de jure in 1878. Montenegro is Duklja. Duklja is Montenegro, just as you, Serbs, call and consider Rascia as Serbia, although it wasn't called like that at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.12.145 (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And so called Kingdom of Serbia presented on the picture is a a complete lie. There is not even one source that supports this claim exept the imagination of Serbian nationalists. It was Kingdom of Doclea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.12.145 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin is and should be left out becuse is has no historical relevance to the article whatsoever. Considering that it was invented in 2007, it hardly deserves a place in an article about a 11th century noble. The use of it here is merely political as the ... "contributor" above demonstrates as a form of justification or proof of a seperate ethnicity/history from the Serbs. (Buttons (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source which shows that Montenegrin isn't historically relevant? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As a language? The lack of any mention of it historically should suffice. The country itself is still divided on the matter [1] (Buttons (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)) (UTC)
Well that seems to be pretty decisive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And Serbian has historical reference? Do you know in what year did Constantine lived? You think he wrote in Serbian? Please, if there is going to be Serbian, there must be Montenegrin, as this is part of MONTENEGRIN history, not vice versa. Buttons fascist claims that language was "invented" in 2007 and it looks we communicated with rocks since you say we invented it few years ago. Rave92(talk) 13:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Buttons point is that Montenegrin is more like a dialect of Serbian, rather like American English being a dialect of British English -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The point is, Montenegrin is standardized, official language, when American English isn't. It isn't a dialect. Rave92(talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a verifiable reliable source for that then? Because the BBC seem to be basically implying that its only a dialect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Please quote me where BBC says it's a dialect? And that is news article, not a documentary. Montenegrin "LANGUAGE", language means something, doesn't it? Rave92(talk) 19:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the pronunciation differences, Montenegrin purists say there are also some words that are specific to their language, although it takes Ms Susanj a few minutes to find a commonly-used example."In Serbian, they say 'dinja' for melon, but in Montenegrin, that actually means 'watermelon'," she says.

It wouldn't take a few minutes for anyone, let alone a language expert, to find an example in common use for US, Australian or Indian English compared to British English. For example sidewalk in US English compared to pavement in UK English, crore for 10 million in Indian English and g'day as a greeting in Australian English. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's not up to you to say what is language or dialect. It is the same for Croatian and Bosnian, but none seem to have problem with it. Like I said, please quote it where BBC states that Montenegrin is dialect. Montenegrin and Serbian is not the same like English. English immigrated to countries which you mention, ex colonies etc... this is not the case. Serbs don't have monopoly over the language which was/is spoken here. Rave92(talk) 20:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely then finding a reliable source that makes it clear that Montenegrin is a real and separate language from Serbian should be pretty easy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Constitution of Montenegro enough reliable? Rave92(talk) 12:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as a reference is made to the constitution itself and not the Wikipedia article I don't have a problem with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In constitution, Montenegrin is official, while Albanian, Croatian etc... are minority languages. Rave92(talk) 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I think its best if you add the citation to the article. I've stuck a citation needed tag on the language and this should be replaced with a Template:cite web or Template:cite book to the Montenegrin constitution. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rave92(talk) 14:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have started up again. Though the current reversions seem to be removing sourced content from the article, which doesn't seem acceptable to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, user Rave92 has been blocked for a month, so his edits was reverted. --Tadijaspeaks 17:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That Rave92 has been blocked doesn't mean he's wrong in this case - just sourced content is basically being removed in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
PS I'm perfectly happy to compromise on the unsourced content as long as all the sourced content is returned to the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I've readded the sourced content but left the other stuff how it was. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

House of Vojislavljevic

First Serbian dynasty-House of Vlastimirović → House of Vojislavljević

Hard to understand? Let me clarify: →(Vlastimirovici) Petar Gojniković → Hvalimir Petrović → Dragimir Hvalimirović →(Vojislavljevici) Vojislav of Duklja → Mihailo I of Duklja → Constantine Bodin.

I have made this easy visual to make the reverting retards understand that this continuity does not result in the house becoming something else than Serbian nor making Constantine Bodin "Jupiterian". Please stop!

-Ajdebre (REPLY) 03:45

Do you have a reliable source to back this up? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest to back down on the personal attacks. If you continue with that retards style and I can promise you administrative sanctions will be upon you. I have to say I'm not impressed with your edits, too since now the article displays the name of Georgi Voiteh with three different spellings, not to mention the wikilinking. And I'm not sure why you've removed some valid cats. --Laveol T 08:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
When have i made personal attacks? There are people reverting and wrongly editing this article WITHOUT any sources, and it is not my fault that Georgi Voiteh has been spelled differently, this is Wikipedia, you are free to edit this article with truth and relevance.-Ajdebre (REPLY) 03:45
Yes, but you're actually edit-warring to include those 3 different spellings. And no matter how much you dislike other editors, you have no right to call them "retards" or something else. Mind your language and your edits, please. --Laveol T 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Languages

Nice compromise :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 6 January 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)

Zoupan, please, stop this biased action. Macedonian nobility existed, but that was the Byzantine Emperor Basil the Macedonian from the Theme of Macedonia. The nobility from Kutmichevitsa was a Bulgarian. Stop the nonsense. 78.159.147.70 (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The subject is not a Bulgarian ruler, but a Serbian ruler who was titular Emperor of Bulgarians for a year meanwhile (and because of) a Byzantine/Bulgarian/Slavic/Macedonian revolt in Povardarje and Pomoravlje. You are giving undue weight. The map of Kutmichevitsa does not correspond to the area of operations of Bodin.--Zoupan 14:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Non-Yugoslav researchers claim the uprising was Bulgarian. The ruler was also descedent of Bulgarian Tsar. Slav Macedonians are product of Communist Yugoslavia. Use neutral sources. Thank you. 212.5.158.45 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Refrain from POV, and present your views here.--Zoupan 17:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • John Van Antwerp Fine (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 213. ISBN 0-472-08149-7. Slavic landholder in Skopje named George Vojteh revolted against Byzantium
  • A. P. Vlasto (1970). The Entry of the Slavs Into Christendom: An Introduction to the Medieval History of the Slavs. CUP Archive. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-521-07459-9. as leader of the Balkan Slavs against the Greeks
  • Stjepan Antoljak (1985). Samuel and His State. Macedonian Review Editions. Nycephoris Bryenius writes about the "Slavic people" who, in 1072, led by Constantin Bodin and Georgi Voyteh

Do not ref-bomb the introduction. To call the revolt simply "Bulgarian" is false, because it involved not only Bulgarian magnates, but Slavs overall; "Bulgarian and Slavic nobility" is therefore more appropriate to describe the leaders. Note that Bodin and Petrilo, who led their own armies and major operations, cannot be regarded and described as Bulgarian.--Zoupan 17:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

John Van Antwerp Fine is cited by you out of the context. He claims in the same book: The reader should ignore references to Slav Macedonians in the Middle Ages, which appear in some modern works. In the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century, the term ‘Macedonian’ was used entirely in reference to a geographical region. Anyone who lived within its confines, regardless of nationality could be called a Macedonian, i.e. these people were Bulgarians. The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century, John Van Antwerp Fine, University of Michigan Press, 1991, ISBN 0472081497, pp. 36-37. A. P. Vlasto `(1970) is out of date and Stjepan Antoljak is Yugoslav, who wrote in Communist Yugoslavia and is biased. Look at modern academic sourses. All describe the rebellion as Bulgarian. It was placed in a province called Bulgaria and on a territories that were under Bulgarian control before the Byzantines seized them.

There was never any use of the term "Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" in the article. I have altered the text accordingly.--Zoupan 19:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, the article makes an odd read at the moment. I guess, it's still under construction and the issue would most probably be dealt with. Currently, it reads as though Bulgarian nobility decided yo pick someone at random who could lead a revolt against the Byzantines. The choice was, in fact, not random at all, since they needed someone who could claim descent from the Bulgarian noble family. There is a mention that such a connection is "theorized" but, for some reason, this rather important fact is almost completely disregarded. Why is this the case, since this is the only thing that makes Bodin a suitable claimant for the kingdom of Bulgaria.
And further, what is this obsession with cherry-picking sources that sometimes mention the uprising as a revolt of the "Balkan Slavs". It was a war to restore a kingdom and far from some unified attempt of all Slavs to fight the Byzantines.--Laveol T 13:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constantine Bodin. 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:

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) 11:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constantine_Bodin/Archive_1&oldid=1140167172"