User talk:Imladjov

This user may have left Wikipedia. Imladjov has not edited Wikipedia since August 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Imladjov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bulgaria

Hello! A WikiProject Bulgaria has been started to better organize information related to Bulgaria. If you are interested in joining, add your name to the "Participants" section. By the way, your recent major contributions to Bulgarian rulers articles are absolutely tremendous! Keep up the good work, I'm simply impressed! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andronicus V

From my information he has lived around 1388 - around 1395. He has been crowned with father. My source is serbian book John VIII from 1988 for which source is George Sphrantzes, The Fall of Byzantine empire. Because of many political problem it is hard to imagine crownig of Andronicus V after 1390. rjecina

I have looked your other work it is fantastic. It is not possible to imagine what problem for me has been death of Theodore II Palaeologus. From my sources he has died little before John VIII, but looking on internet they have all killed him in 1443. rjecina

Rjecina, Thanks for the comments. On Andronikos V, I have followed the two basic studies (which I referenced in the article itself), and the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB), which is from 1991 and the standard reference book on the field. This entry was contributed by Alice-Mary Talbot, a noted Byzantinist. I have no reason to seriously question this information, but it must be admitted that we know extremely little about the dates of Andronikos V's life and "reign". However, it is almost certain that Andronikos V was alive and co-emperor at Thessalonica in 1403/1404. The only real sources for his "reign" are a monody on his untimely death and the ivory at Dumbarton Oaks (both discussed in the referenced articles). Sphrantzes does not really come into play and they are anyway more primary sources. Moreover, any arrangement between Manuel II and John VII in 1391 (before Manuel II had sons of his own) would only make sense if Manuel II promised to make John VII himself his tentative successor (why disinherit the father in favor of a son?). Because of all this, until any clear evidence for the contrary appears, I think we have to stick with the ODB information. I hope you do not mind my corresponding edits. Best, Imladjov 16:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Emperors (etc)

Hi Imladjov,

I left you some answers to your questions here: Talk:Emperor#Questions by User:Imladjov --Francis Schonken 17:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Đurađ/Đorđe Branković

In Serbian historical books the first despot is always named Đurađ (or Đurđe) while his granson is always named Đorđe. It is how they are know in the Serbian history and naming them both Đurađ would create a confusion. I would rather keep traditional naming here: Đurađ for the first despot and Đorđe for his grandson. PANONIAN (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Byzantine Greek names

I like Greek spellings much better than Latinised ones. I've adopted Latin forms reluctantly in the articles I've written or edited, because that seemed to be the Wikipedia standard. I notice you've inserted Greek spellings in the article on Irene Lascarina, which I last edited, and I wonder whether this is something you plan to do more generally? (In which case I will happily follow your example!) Or is it just because this article is post-1204 or about Nicaea? Andrew Dalby http://perso.wanadoo.fr/dalby/ 09:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. Thank you for the note. I am generally reluctant to edit others' work where it is presented in a consistent and finished state, but the Latin spellings of Byzantine names strike me as archaic and probably in part caused by the heavy reliance on the 11th edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. As a Byzantinist, I prefer a more Hellenized transcription, but my changes have little to do with personal preference. There is now a very widely accepted standard reference book on Byzantine history and culture, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (ODB), Oxford University Press, 1991, which I cite in virtually every Byzantine article in which I contribute. This work has created a standard for the handling of Greek names that is pretty sensible and, more importantly, almost universally accepted in English writing on the subject. The basic rule of thumb is to transcribe Greek names and terms without ready equivalents in English directly from the Greek and to use common English forms for Christian names common in both languages. Thus, for example, John Komnenos (not Comnenus) and Michael Palaiologos (not Palaeologus). I would have gone further in providing a more consistent transcription (e.g., kh for χ) and showing the macrons (ē and ō) for η and ω, and so Iōannēs (not John), but a standard is a standard. I plan on working on most Byzantine articles (at least those associated with monarchs and their families) and to carry out the conversion to the ODB style in the editing. Feel free to do the same, I am happy to find support. I also appreciate your efforts to maintain the NPOV in article on Kaloyan of Bulgaria. Imladjov 14:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your edits regards the names of the Byzantine emperors. The reason is in Talk:Constantine XI page.--Panairjdde 14:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav I of Bohemia

hi I noticed that you created a new article of Ladislaus I, Duke of Bohemia - but the WP already had one, old article under Vladislaus I of Bohemia. While it is generally a good thing to create article about a notable enough person, we simply do not do two articles about the same individial here. The idea is that an old article gets edited by yet more editors, and new information is added.

The name of the article is possible to be changed, if so deemed. That is no reason for creating another article about the same subject. (I have my own idea about the correct name for the article, which not necessarily is identically the aame as either of the two now present.)

The page Ladislaus I, Duke of Bohemia, simply as the newer one, should be just a redirect to the original article Vladislaus I of Bohemia, and I change it accordingly.

I recommend you to insert all the information you wrote at [1] (i.e, the older version Ladislaus I, Duke of Bohemia) to the older and sustained article Vladislaus I of Bohemia. That would be the correct way to do things. You can find all the text using the earlier version of that page you created - it s not vanished from database, I simply just change it as redirect. It is best that you add the text to the old article, since in that way, the addition has your username as the contributor in the edit history. Shilkanni 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I realized my mistake after I had saved the page, but did not correct it since I did not know how to erase it. I would not have created a new article if I had been aware of the existence of the old one. I simply followed a non-existent link to "Ladislaus I, Duke of Bohemia", from the Ladislaus disambiguation page. I did search for "Vladislav I of Bohemia" and turned up nothing, so I created the article. While I am fully aware of the potential problems of renaming pages and in principle never do so (and here this was not my intent), I must say that the form "Vladislaus" is singularly inept and it would have never occurred to me to search under it. At least "Ladislaus" is standard in German. My personal preference is for the form used in the relevant standardized vernacular, but I realize it is all but impossible (and perhaps not advisable) to try to do so for the basic Wikipedia entries. Best, Imladjov 05:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislaus

Are you able to translate Polisn and/or Hungarian? My purpose when inserting those citations has been to get them translated by precise translation, so we would have a detailed treatment of those various ethnical pov's in the aticle. If you are able, please translate... Shilkanni 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on your talk page. There is really no ethnic POV here. Best, Imladjov 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Never mark an edit on a matter that you know is controversial (such as the Greek names) as minor edit. It is a bad behaviour.--Panairjdde 00:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that for an edit to be major it would have to include the substantial introduction or change of information. I am sorry if that was inconsistent with general practice. But before charging me with bad behavior please consider you own actions on the articles to which I have actively contributed and edited for style and consistency, in accordance with an actual verifiable standard accepted in English-language usage. Imladjov 00:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that I do not want to vandalize your work, but this matter about minor edits shows you did not read well the rules of Wikipedia before starting editing. This encyclopedia, infact, has its own rules, and you should stick to them. I assume good faith on your side, but you should respect another editor who complies to the rules.--Panairjdde 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander peer review

Hello! I've taken the Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria article to the Wikipedia:Peer review, because I believe it could become a featured article soon with a couple of improvements. I hope there will be good suggestions by fellow Wikipedians of what to change and how. I believe the most important thing is to include some more references and sources (possibly with incline citations), but I'm not sufficiently informed in the field and I hope you and the other contributors to the project could provide them. Additionally, to cite first-hand sources would be the best possibility. Thanks for the article and the other superb contributions, I really think this one deserves to be a featured article! → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Todor. I agree, with your edits and addition of the excellent portraits, this article is shaping up quite nicely. I followed up your suggestion and added a few more references. I think English Wikipedia would probably prefer something in English, but that's what there is... c'est la vie. Imladjov 15:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional references! AndyZ has given some good advice on how to improve the article. I've done a little copyediting and introduced some of his suggestions ({{Cite book}} format for references, delinked single years/decades/centuries, shortened the lead a bit). Could you provide footnotes using inline citations? Thanks again :) Todor Bozhinov → 12:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be both possible and useful to provide references to John Fine's book (most valuable here, as it is in English), but what precisely should be referenced? Everything? Imladjov 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally when a certain statement needs to be verifiable, it should have references using a footnote added, so the reader can be assured of the statement's truth. Not everything needs footnotes, usually dates of events do not use such, as well as things that are common knowledge. For example "... in 1369 (the date is disputed) Murad I of the Ottoman Turks conquered Adrianople" — the "date is disputed" part should have a footnote explaining by whom, why and what other dates are suggested. Another part that also may require a footnote is "his appeals fell on deaf ears, as his neighbors were suspicious of the sincerity of his intentions" referring to John VI Kantakouzenos. I hope I've given you an idea.

Also, could you add the ISBNs of the three books in Bulgarian? Todor Bozhinov → 13:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I cannot add the ISBNs but I have annotated the article and added another reference. In that sense I think we are set. Let me know if you need any further help with other articles, which I would be happy to provide. If you feel like focusing on a particular piece, consider the article on Konstantin I, for which you could probably find some spectacular images to add (both the Bojana fresco with his empress and his imperial seal). Considering the dubious state of my recent attempts to keep Byzantine articles to current scholarly standards, I am rapidly losing interest in editing materials in Wikipedia, which would sometimes appear to be a waste of time. Best, Imladjov 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a great job! I also think we're now finished, but who knows what else they could say at featured article candidate level. I'll try to find those nice images of Konstantin I, pictures really help make the articles better. It is sad that you're losing interest, Wikipedia could be full of stress sometimes, but I hope you'll stay because the project certainly needs people like you. Todor Bozhinov → 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stay, Imladjov. Andrew Dalby 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys, for your support and kind sentiments. But I am tired of having to defend my improvements to the content of this encyclopedia to people who, whether well meaning or not, simply do not know better (and I would not presume to contribute in fields in which I myself do not have expertise). I knew of the potential of this happening, but did not realize the ease with which such situations would develop. Wikipedia's open edit policy is both a blessing and a curse, but with the all too real possibility of the "lunatics running the asylum" I am increasingly discouraged from making quality contributions only to see them downgraded or compromised. Obviously none of this is directed at you two or the many other well-informed and conscientious contributors to this project. Best, Imladjov 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Rulers Names

We have a dispute on the matter of Byzantine rulers names. Do you agree?

I stopped editing the pages, because I want to solve the dispute friendly, but you are keeping modifying new pages according to your disputed (by me) standard. This is not fair. At least wait until we settle this matter.

I already asked for Third Opinion on this matter. I will revert your new edits starting on this moment. --Panairjdde 16:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's wait and see how that pans out. My modifications, however, have not extended merely to the rendering of names, but usually involved expanding the articles, editing for factual accuracy and providing references. I will not, however, contribute to articles in which my text is compromised by obsolete name forms. And, for the last time, the standard is not mine, but that of the consensus in the field. Best, Imladjov 16:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad you will not contribute only because you do not like the names. Furthermore, is there any place here on WP where it has been stated that OBD is the standard? Where is the consensus you are talking about? We are the only two, probably, aware of this dispute on WP, at the moment.--Panairjdde 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to work in this field, and my involvement even outside of it has to reflect the field's preferred standards. My preference is another. I am not aware that WP has ever established a standard on this particular issue, the consensus I am referring to is that of English-language scholars in the field of Byzantology. It is precisely their consensus that the ODB standard reflects. This should be the model that is used here, as I think it is consistent with WP's aims and expectations. I think we are not the only two aware of this dispute, as you have seen others being involved in it: Andrew Dalby (also a Byzantinist), Valentinian, Dimadick... Perhaps this issue should be introduced as a naming convention proposal in the appropriate WP venue. Imladjov 17:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any final decision on this matter (wheter Latinized or Greek names) will settle a (new) standard, specifically for this matter.--Panairjdde 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers: Follow up

Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Imladjov for your nice feedback. I might add I was also very impressed by the clarity of your arguments. Thank you for the reminder. I will vote soon. Take care. (Παρακαλώ). Dr.K. 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Imladjov. The mediator provided us with a reasonable decision. I will participate in the new survey as well. Thanks for letting me know. I think that the current climate supports proposition 2, but 3 is the eventual destination. If we can find means to speed it up it will be even better. Dr.K. 15:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 is my preferred option as well. but the recommendation suggested we go with option 2 first pending consensus on 3. Even though the mediation cabal decision is non binding shouldn't we just follow through with 2 and take a poll on 3 at a later date, as per the recommendation? Dr.K. 15:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the recommendation had been more explicit on enforcing option 2 (A), we should follow it. But it foresees the possibility of consensus about option 3 (B), and I thought that if we can reach it now, everything would be simpler. Otherwise (keeping option 2) we would have to create two sets of redirects instead of just one. So I am wating to see what the overall feedback would be. Imladjov 17:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll follow through soon. Thanks again. Take care. Dr.K. 17:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow up survey idea. Good work. Dr.K. 17:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediation on forms of Byzantine Names

I have posted a second response at the mediation page.--digital_m e^(t/c) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response and the recommendation. Imladjov 17:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco

Am I the fresco?

Hi! Is this the fresco of Konstantin I? Todor Bozhinov → 10:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todor. No, this is not the fresco in question, although it may be from Bojana. What we need is the counterpart to the famous Kalojan and Desislava portrait, depicting the imperial couple. I could send you an image if I knew how (not sure whether it is copyright or not, and whether I am allowed to post it here). Here is a link to a low-resolution image which would not do, but will give you an idea of what you are looking for: [2]. Hope this helps, Imladjov 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't worry about the license of such images — they are most certainly photographic representations of works of art whose author died more than 100 years ago, so they are {{pd-art}}. If you have a higher-resolution image, upload it — I found one here, but it isn't really larger than the one you've posted, although it's better-quality. Todor Bozhinov → 15:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the right image, I wish the quality was a bit better. I am still looking for the image I used to have, which might (might!) be a bit bigger and clearer, though this may be an illusion caused by my use of it in PowerPoint (from which, it appears, I cannot copy it). Perhaps the image you found, if usable, may be put up at least temporarily. Imladjov 17:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John II Komnenos

I have changed the article so that Komnenos is the first name used in the article. However, how can we get it so that the page is called "John II Komnenos"? Should I start a new page with that name? Bigdaddy1204 13:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, we will have to eventually move this page and others to new ones (e.g., "John II Komnenos"). In the interest of securing more support I was going to wait for another day, but it does seem that the survey favors the ODB usage for both article title and content. If you want to start moving pages, click on the "move" tab and type up the ODB spelling. It will transfer the page content to the new page and it will produce a redirect from the old one. That way a user can look under either form and find the article. The same would be true for your excellent work on Manuel I Komnenos (I recall you asked about it), which I had not edited, awaiting the results of the survey and mediation. Hope this helps, Imladjov 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Imladjov :) I have now changed the articles on Alexios I, John II and Manuel I to the new ODB spelling. Thanks also for your corrections on the Manuel page, I wasn't sure about how some of the name forms should be so I'm glad you've been able to fix them.

I have a question about the Byzantine Empire article. I've changed the references to the three emperors I mentioned above, but shouldn't we do this for the rest of the article too, so that it's all consistent? If so, I'm not sure what some of the name forms should be under the new system so it would probably be safest for you to make the remaining changes. Bigdaddy1204 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into them again, I think I already did some of this. Thanks for the note, Imladjov 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediation on Byzantine names follow up: some move requests

Unfortunately, I am not an admin (I do have an RfA though), so you will have to go to requested moves and have an admin move the page. Be sure to link to the talk page where the consensus was reached so that this can go through smoothly.--digital_m e^(t/c) 15:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! (Although I forgot to link to the Constantine XI talk page, oh well.) Adam Bishop 22:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Imladjov 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration of Bulgarian Cyrillic

Concerning your question on my talk page, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28Cyrillic%29#Bulgarian Preslav 17:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Imladjov 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek names

Hi Imladjov. I see you are opting for Greek names for Byzantine people. The question I want to give you here is, how much behind do you intend to go? Because if you chose to give Greek names to rulers to Emperors before Irene, I will find myself forced to contest your definition of the Byzantine Empire. In particular I strongly oppose this regards placing Greek names for Late antiquity emperors, that is from Diocletian to Heraclius, since Latin was the language of the state machinery; and and would object, if with less strength, those from Heraclius to Irene, as till 800 the empire maintained it's universality, and was aknowledge as supreme and formally sovereign of all Christianity even in the west, a universality that was lost in 800. Also, with the second council of Nicaea, orthodoxy starts to define itself and the post-Heraclius crisis can be considered passed.--Aldux 10:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aldux. This was discussed in principle on Talk:Constantine XI and the prevalent opinion was that for things Byzantine the appropriate forms on English Wikipedia would be the current standard reflected by the ODB. This issue has more to do with standard current (and future) usage than with historical arguments. (By the way notice that the names are "Greek" only where no "common" English form exists (which means that Constantine, Constantius, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, Valens, Marcian, Leo, Zeno, Justin, Justinian, Maurice, Constans are not changed, to mention just the imperial names from the period in question).

However, the point you raise is important, as the ODB covers everything since Constantine. It would certainly be a bit strange (for me anyway), to have Arkadios alongside Honorius and the like. Any cutoff would be to some extent arbitrary, but if we have to pick one I am inclined to see Herakleios as the beginning of the Byzantine period proper. In truth the administration and legislation had used Greek long before (e.g., the novels of Justinian I) and some Latin usage continued for awhile after (mostly expressed in garbled Latin acclamations at court or the substitution of some Latin letters for the Greek ones in Greek inscriptions on coins), so this cutoff is not a clean one, but then again, no other point it.

Herakleios did, however, institute an important change, namely abandoning the complex Roman imperial titles in general administrative usage and substituting them with the simple Greek basileus, usually not even modified by autokratōr (imperator) and (tōn) Rōmaiōn (of the Romans), which became standard in the 9th and 10th centuries. This change could be pinpointed to 629: the last documented usage before this year was (note the Greek!): autokratores kaisares Phlabioi Hērakleios kai Hērakleios neos Kōnstantinos pistoi en Khristo augoustoi (perfectly Roman title, though translated into Greek); the usage from in 629 became: Hērakleios kai Hērakleios neos Kōnstantinos pistoi en Khristo basileis (no specifically Latin elements even in translation).

The nominal supremacy of the Byzantine Emperor in the west until Irene is not enough to justify the usage of the occasional Latin form in the 7th and 8th centuries. These emperors spoke Greek and presided over an administration that used Greek in most of their territories (even southern Italy); their non-Greek speaking territories were quickly lost (in both East and West); and their connection to the most significant Roman institution surviving in the West, the Papacy, was repeatedly severed by theological controversy (Monotheletism and then Iconoclasm).

Personally I would not carry out the editing of names according to the ODB standard past Herakleios and the beginning of his dynasty (610). The imperial names affected by the change would be Herakleios, Heraklonas, Tiberios Apsimaros, Leontios, Philippikos Bardanes, Anastasios II Artemios, Theodosios III. With appropriate redirects there should be no confusion or loss of information.

By the way, while I am trying to restrict my contribution to Byzantium, its neighbors, and related topics, and do not intend to branch out, as someone who contributes (extensively, I might add) a lot of articles on the classical period, you should be aware that English usage now increasingly applies something like the ODB standard there as well: "household" names like Homer, Plato and Aristotle are unchanged, but now one increasingly finds Drakon, Peisistratos, Kleisthenes, Perikles, Alkibiades, etc.

Best, Imladjov 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see your point, and won't insist; after all, I'm mainly interested on pre-Heraklios names, and I do tend to agree that Heracleus was the first truly Byzantine emperor. Regards the classical period, I know that some scholars prefer the "scientific transliteration", but the traditional one is still dominant, as can be judged among other things by the OCD, and there is a proposal to make it official wikipedia policy [3]. This said, since you're a historian and clearly have advanced knowledge of Byzantine history, could you give a look at the sectionNames of the Greeks#Romans and Romioi? While the general article is good, I've had always some doubts about this distinction, especially since it was mainly introduced by an editor who has always showed a great passion for fringy and minoritarian theories. Bye.--Aldux 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I am glad we basically agree on Byzantine names. However, I do want to point out the difference between a "scientific transliteration" (which used to be called "scholarly transliteration") and these transcriptions. The transliteration would be precise and reversible, i.e., Iōannēs Komnēnos for Ιωάννης Κομνηνός, whereas the transcription allows "household" names combined with basic rendering of non-"household" names without the diacritics that guarantee precision, in this case John Komnenos (where John is English, and Komnenos is simplified from the transliteration). I realize the various problems inherent in using transliteration as the basic form in an English (or for that form any) text, and therefore espouse the current standard as a workable compromise. This is just about terminology. Thanks for drawing my attention to the naming convention and the Names of the Greeks. I have looked at the latter article and will do so again. Best, Imladjov 17:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Just a quick question: the Battle of Levounion was not fought in modern Bulgaria, right? Of what I could find on the Web, it seems that this Levounion is somewhere near Enos, Turkey at the lower Maritsa. I'm asking because I corrected it (it said "near "Levounion, Bulgaria"), but would like to be sure. Thanks in advance! Todor →Bozhinov 10:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Levounion (ODB Lebounion) is a "mount" near the mouth of the Maritsa. Therefore it is either in Turkey or perhaps more probably in Greece (not sure which). Imladjov 16:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi Imladjov, if you create new medieval articles, could you add them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/New Articles? Adam Bishop 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best, Imladjov 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming frenzy

Hi, can you explain why you moved my article about Studion to an obscure transliteration? We have redirects in WP to fix such problems. Please don't move major articles to self-devised names before discussing the issue on talk. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There was a discussion on the rendering of Byzantine names in Talk:Constantine XI and the general opinion ended up being in favoring the forms used in the standard English reference work, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. I referenced this during the move. The ODB lists this monastery under Stoudios, and hence the move. If anything is a self-devised name, that would be Studion, which is neither Greek (Stoudios or Stoudion) nor Latin (Studium), and at best a Germanized form of the Greek. At any rate, as you say, we have redirects in WP to deal with such problems. In spite of what you aptly call a renaming frenzy, please rest assured that I only rename for good reason and where absolutely necessary. With so many Byzantine articles that had to be moved for uniformity, it would have been impossible to provide any discussion beyond the one already referenced. Best, Imladjov 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. When starting this article, I long hesitated which name would be the best and decided in favour of the one which yielded most google hits. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am Greek but I never heard heard of it called "Stoudios" by the name of its founder alone. It is always referenced as Μονή Στουδίου (Mone Stoudiou) meaning "Monastery of Stoudios". User:Dimadick

Yes, that is because you are calling it "The Monastery OF Stoudios", putting it in the genitive case (hence Stoudiou or tou Stoudiou). But in English one just uses the preposition plus the nominative form (which in this case is Stoudios). At least that is what the ODB uses. Imladjov 13:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC

There it goes! Todor →Bozhinov 11:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbians

I've moved them, but I didn't have any problems with it so I think you would have been able to move them on your own. I think there are a bunch of double redirects now too. Adam Bishop 22:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, will fix redirects. Imladjov 22:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transliteration

You seem to be the local for standard transliterations of Greek names. Could you take a look at Aspasia Manos - there is a bunch of Phanariote names and others. I would like to know each name's proper transliteration as what is its Greek form (portion of those have been use in Romania too, them being in both countries: regarding such, I am not desiring Romanian variants to be erased but I would like to know also the Greek variants; those only in Greek world, no need for any more Romanian translations). Maed 01:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. Best, Imladjov 04:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Comnenus and Paleologus Dynasty articles

~~Hi Imladjov. Why are Comnenus and Paleologus articles still in latin? I thought we had this settled. Can you let me know? Thanks. Dr.K. 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please disregard. Maed took care of that. Thanks. Dr.K. 05:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names controversy

Hi Imladjov

You might be interested in these recent posts [4] and [5]. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine stuff, and so forth

Hi Imladjov - I responed to you further on the Constantine XI talk page, but I thought I'd try to come over here and be a bit more conciliatory. So keep in mind that I wrote my most recent comments over there before writing this, and consider that I've cooled down now. Ignoring the procedural issue of the mediation, which was the main thing that got me going in the first place (looking at that first vote, where there was a total deadlock, and then seeing that the option that got the lest votes in that vote somehow ended up being the one implemented raised my procedural indignation to unfortunate levels), I think our disagreement comes down to a basic disagreement on how, exactly, we are supposed to determine what names to use in instances like this. I understand why you want to go with the ODB forms, and I could actually see a lot of virtue in a "current specialist usage" convention for naming things. But, for better or for worse, that's not the convention we have, and I really do think that my view on this (that we have to look at a broad variety of sources, and not just "usage in academic specialist works over the past 15 years") is more in line with the existing convention and the way it's been interpreted over the several years I've been driving myself insane with wikipedia. My problem is not so much with the ODB forms themselves, as the fact that they seemed to be agreed upon not as "the best way to interpret current policy" but as "completely ignoring current policy in favor of a better policy which has only a dubious local consensus." I tend to think that this is bad, especially when it is arrived at in a procedurally dubious way. (john k)

Hi john k. I have responded on the Constantine XI talk page as well. The procedural issues are not my concern--I was asked to go through them which I did as best as I understood. At the time not even the opposing party suggested there was anything wrong with the procedure. Your objection, that the least popular option (Option 3) in the first survey was implemented is based on a problematic survey. The problem was in part caused by my own mistaken assumption that bringing the text into line with current standard usage (which in this case is equivalent with current scholarly usage) while keeping the article names the same would avoid redirects and yet allow easy accessibility of the information regardless of a user's preferences. The survey was designed by Panairjdde who either intentionally or incidentally split up the anti-Latinization vote between two options. All the same, eliminating duplicate votes (since many users voted for both Options 2 or 3), the outcome was too close 10:11 (for moving away from consistent Latinization). In the second vote Option 1 was abandoned because of the mediator's recommendation, which suggested deciding between Options 2 and 3. Option 2 had to be abandoned because it did not allow full accessibility of information in internal searches. So Option 3 won.

Current naming policy is to follow common English usage. Current common English usage in this field is indubitably the ODB. The alternative is now very clearly in the minority. Former common English usage is another thing. Since we can only move forward and no reversion of the trend is in sight, it does not make sense to seek to establish common English usage largely on the basis of former English usage. Wikipedia is not really set to design policies for usage in any field (and for good reason!), but it is set to reflect the current stage of scholarship. Open editing is intended precisely to allow for the maximum improvement from hopefully informed and conscientious editors (hopefully being the operative word). Where a current English standard exists, is currently prevalent, and is gaining in prevalence, I cannot see why it should be opposed on the basis of largely oudated (obsolescent) and non-specialist usage.Imladjov 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, ultimately, it doesn't matter too much, and, while bad, is not terribly bad in this instance. The ODB forms aren't so bad (I would have just immediately moved them back if we'd moved articles to Konstantinos XI, and so forth), and aren't in especially great contradiction with policy, if at all - it's an ambiguous case. What I have done here is gone on a bout of pedantic rules fetishism, when I probably should've just realized that the new forms are tolerable, and let it go. A lot of problems in wikipedia seem to arrive out of different varieties of pedantry coming into conflict, and I fear this is what happened here. So unless somebody else shows up at Talk:Constantine XI and agrees with me, I'm going to let it go. There's more important things to worry about. I hope this experience hasn't soured you on wikipedia, as you suggested over there. I think it's good to have people on Wikipedia who are aware of current scholarship and what it says, and who are willing to fight for it. There's so much nonsense here that's been written by ignorant people who don't really know what they're talking about. I think this particular fight was perhaps ill-chosen, but I hope that my ill-tempered pedantry hasn't soured you on the whole business. john k 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely it is I who am usually accused of pedantry. Sometimes consistency and pedantry go hand in hand are fully desirable. But that does in no way militate against ODB usage for Byzantine names and terms. On the contrary. The current Wikipedia naming policy exists precisely because the general practice (I would not call it a standard) in European history is to Anglicize historical names (Philip IV of France, Charles IV of the Holy Roman Empire, etc). But in Byzantine history the standard (more than just a general practice) is readily available in the single common reference work (ODB), and it is to pair Anglicized common Christian names with fairly faithful though simplified and non-Latinizied transcription of the Greek. By the same token, as you admitted, you would not Anglicize Lorenzo de' Medici or Ivan the Terrible. This particular experience has not soured me on the whole business, that has happened long ago and over issues perhaps more substantial than my attempt to maintain a basic level of professional accuracy within articles pertinent to this field. Best, Imladjov 02:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a general note I think that finding ways to attract more academic contributors (and not driving away those we already have) is one of the greatest challenges Wikipedia faces. I think we'll increasingly to acknowledge that academic contributors, in any field, will tend to prefer academic usage of terminology and names. The venerable "use the most common name" guideline has served us well in many cases but I think it is more and more in need of refinement. Haukur 12:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander again

Hi! The Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria featured article nomination failed because of some relatively minor problems that I believe could be solved promptly — I changed the sectioning a bit (objection 1) and I hope you'd help by writing something of a ==Background== section to make readers who actually have no knowledge of who he (and the Second Bulgarian Empire) is familiar with the subject (objection 2). It doesn't have to be detailed, but to summarize the preceding events well and introduce the reader perfectly to the subject.

I'd really like to see the article featured because it deserves it, that's why I'm looking for your help. Thanks in advance! Todor →Bozhinov 13:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My basic inclination is that this section is not needed. Actually it work much better as a concluding summary than as an introduction. If I recall correctly, this is precisely how it was originally written. Will look into it. Imladjov 04:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, I just hope it is not redundant. Best, Imladjov 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, the intro has to serve as a rather concise summary of the whole article — we currently have a quite lenghty intro and another overview at the bottom, so some of the facts are repeated a whole three times. The first paragraph of the intro is OK, but the second should only be, say, not more than about one and a half times the size of the first considering the whole article's size. The Background section should dicsuss the events preceding Ivan Alexander's ascension (to make the ordinary reader, not necessarily a specialist in the topic, familiar with what it's all about, and prevent him from getting confused later on — it should say what the Second Bulgrarian Empire is, what happened before Ivan Alexander came to the throne, etc.).

In brief, we should have a concise overview of Ivan Alexander's life and reign in the second para of the intro and a Background section, immediately after the intro, summarizing the events before Ivan Alexander. I hope we can make it to FA status, since that's the only considerable objection currently and the only problem to solve. Todor →Bozhinov 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for unexpected cut off

Sorry Imladjov but it appears that the warning at the top of the edit page was valid: Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it. I use Firefox and it did cut off some of the debate on the Byzantine Emperors talk page but I did not notice it, but you fixed it. Sorry again. Dr.K. 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Thanks, Imladjov 05:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Imladjov 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine debate

Thanks for your concise and eloquent points. It was a pleasure and a priviledge participating in the debate with you. I hope you will contribute in any future debates. спасибо. Dr.K. 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you (and a few others) for your contributions and keeping up the good fight. Imladjov 12:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I hope you'll be around too. Take care for now. Dr.K. 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well. It was a heated debate, but the seed has been sown now. Thanks for your excellent contributions. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the same. Imladjov 12:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar

I have responded on the talk page [6].--194.145.161.227 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian rule north of the Danube

Hello, I hope you're still there :) A few Romanian Wikipedians have questioned the degree of Bulgarian rule over the territories north of the Danube (from the defeat of the Avar Khaganate by Krum till the time of Samuil), and claim it's "theoritical" and not continuous, but instead periodical, and there was little evidence of it. I tried to defend the position that these territories were continuously part of the Bulgarian Empire, but I'm not an expert on the subject and have no access to the primary sources that this is based on. Could you please help settle the issue? You may like to read User talk:Bogdangiusca#Map of Bulgaria. Thanks in advance! Todor →Bozhinov 10:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Todor. I happened by your comment by chance, as I have retired from editing following the Tsar travesty. I have lost any and all inclination to contribute to or support a project which is so openly affected by inept and irresponsible editing. In that particular example the scholarly literature was blatantly ignored and definitions were created on the basis of exceptions and misapplications. And that did not even involve nationalist bias.

Bulgarian political and military presence north of the Danube is usually not denied but often qualified and minimized by Hungarian and especially Romanian authors, for obvious reasons. That being said, Dahn makes some important points. It would be appropriate to at least indicate the uncertainty of the precise reach of the northern frontier by using a dotted or interrupted line there (as opposed to elsewhere in your map). That the quality of Bulgarian administration over some of this area (especially Bessarabia and further NE) was different from that south of the Danube is clear. This is very much a "march" (in Carolingian terms), and moreover an area readily made available to foederati like the Magyars and the Pechenegs. Further S and W the administration, rudimentary as it would have been, was more standard and based on a number of fortified centers. According to the Hungarian chronicles, these fell under Arpadian control only in the early 11th century.

Epigraphic sources document Bulgarian military presence on the Tisza and the Dnieper in the reign of Omurtag, and literary sources (Byzantine and Frankish) indicate that Krum and Omurtag expanded into the Carpathain Basin (i.e., the area between the N-S flowing middle Danube and the Carpathians). In De administrando imperio Constantine Porphyrogenitus indicates that in his time (i.e., c. 950), after the Magyars had arrived in Pannonia, the Danube still separated them from the Bulgarians to the east and that the area between the Danube and the Dnieper was a region of Bulgaria (although in both cases he also mentions Magyar and Pecheneg settlement within these general bounds).

In general I would recommend the excellent study by Petăr Koledarov, Političeska geografija na srednovekovnata bălgarska dăržava, vol. 1, Sofija 1979, and an article by Vasilka Tăpkova-Zaimova, "Roljata i administrativnata organizacija na t. nar. 'otvăd-dunavska Bălgarija'" in Studia Balcanica: proučvanija po slučaj vtorija meždunaroden kongres po balkanistika, Sofija 1970. I have published a lengthy article on the subject in Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines, n.s. 3 (1998), but in these respects it pretty much bears out the aforementioned studies. Koledarov's work in particular is instrumental and it also takes into account the relevant modern literature, including the works of Romanian historians taking opposite positions on the issue.

In my opinion your map would benefit from the following:

A perhaps more generalized and conjectural line for the northern frontier between the northern reaches of the Tisza and the Dniester.
The NW corner should probably be retracted further to the SE, and the line should run from somewhere S of Pest and N of Kalocsa on the Danube to somewhere N of Solnograd on the Tisza. It is assumed that this territorial loss was effected by the settlement of Magyar clans who were not Bulgarian foederati in the area.
Although noting the annexation of Serbia in 924-931 is fine, much of the southern border seems exaggerated.
As far as a relatively stable frontier is concerned, Simeon extended his rule to include Ioannina and Veroia in N Greece but he did not secure a lasting outlet to the Aegean either SW of Thessalonica or in "Belomorska Trakija." The frontier (at Simeon's death and under Petăr) ran inland (including Veroia) NE towards Thessalonica, passed some 22 km N of it, then further to the NE leaving Serres and Philippoi under Byzantine rule, and then N towards the Marica valley leaving Adrianople and the eastern Rhodopes to Byzantium but Plovdiv and Boruj to Bulgaria. N of Adrianople it followed the Strandža-Sakar mountains to the E and then headed SE to include the ports of Sozopol and Ahtopol in Bulgaria. The border with Byzantium probably ran between Vize (Bulgarian) and Midia (Byzantine) in the mid-10th century. Any territories further south that you have included in your map represent very fleeting occupation, and essentially the extent of Bulgarian raids. In Koledarov's maps they are defined as "voennovremenni granici," but even that obscures the occasional and impermanent nature of Bulgarian presence in those areas.

I hope this is of some help. Since I do not check these pages with any regularity, I cannot promise a prompt response to a follow up. Best, Imladjov 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough and clear response! I will revise my map accordingly. I'm really sorry to hear you've decided to quit Wikipedia and hope that's not your final decision, since your work here considerably improved the coverage of medieval European history. Best regards, Todor →Bozhinov 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I see that you are a very worthy historian. Perhaps we could collaborate? How do you like my Stefan Nemanja article? Also, I would like to start a Nemanjics WikiProject. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing acceptance of the use of native forms

Just pointing out the use of the form Paleologos by the BBC [7] and a multitude (actually, the majority) of other news sources (as a Google News search will show). I thought you would be pleased to know as well. To the extent that your efforts here in Wikipedia and elsewhere as an academic researcher have contributed to the wider adoption of this, more correct, practice, I would like to use this opportunity to commend you as well. Contributor175 17:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Alexander is a featured article!

Hello, I know you're not contributing to Wikipedia anymore, but unfortunately you haven't left an e-mail, so I have to write here to let you know Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria, which you mainly wrote, has been promoted to FA status :) I'll write again as soon as I know when it's going to appear on the Main Page. Congrats and thanks, Todor →Bozhinov 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Karvuna

Greetings. There is an argument with some people on the origines of the Principality of Karvuna and despot Dobrotitsa. As a historian would you please leave your comments in the discussion pages? --Gligan 22:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!