Jovan Vladimir is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why not adding it at the beginning of the article, like elsewhere? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of the dual character of Jovan Vladimir: on one hand he was a ruler, on the other hand he is a saint. So we have two sections, one for his reign (including the rulerbox), and the other for his sainthood (including the saintbox). And I wouldn't give primacy to Vladimir the ruler over Vladimir the saint. Less important, the picture of Prince Vladimir (obviously an artist's imagination of how he could've looked) is of a lesser value than the icon, which has a long established significance and meaning (and the icon is not appropriate for the rulerbox).
On the other hand, I'm aware that an infobox should be quickly available for readers who want most general information. So, I don't know. If you insist, do as you think is the best. VVVladimir (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
VVV, how about adding a bit on his title. He was only remembered and considered mythically "King" by the people, as oral tales and national tradition kept the tellings and legends about him (see the Presbyter's Chronicle). Only his descendant in 1077 will truly become King. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Better now? VVVladimir (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done. I have another suggestion. Why not include John Skylitzes (a Byzantine historian that lived just after Vladimir) as a source in the article, as he wrote about Vladimir. He also calls him "Ruler of Tribalia and Serbia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have Skylitzes's book, so I can't cite it. There is an assumption by some that Jovan was added by Karlo Thopia when he made that inscription on the rebuilt church in Elbasan, and that the original name is just Vladimir. This assumption seems to be especially dear to the followers of the unrecognized church in Montenegro (they seem to dislike the Jovan part for some reason). I'm not sure that this deserves to be included. Two names might have been in fashion in that time (Gavril Radomir, Ivan Vladislav, Teodora Kosara). You have some other information on this? VVVladimir (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In all my sources, both foreign and domestic, "John/Jovan" is also used. So no, that's nowhere outside it.
The reason why they like it because the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is more-of pro-Catholic and Papal, rather than Orthodox, and "Jovan" is a Serbian-Orthodox connotation. For example, in the several references to it, they even use the Ivan translation, rather than the original. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
What is the source for the claim in specific? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
They support their claim with the fact that the Priest of Duklja calls him only Vladimir. But he also calls Gavril Radomir just Radomir, and Ivan Vladislav just Vladislav, and nobody doubts because of this that these two men had two-part names. In all these names we see the same pattern: the first part is of a biblical or Greek origin, and the second is Slavic, and that was probably a custom in Vladimir's time. For some reason the Priest always uses only the Slavic part. And (for your question on the talk page), regrettably, I don't understand Old Greek, though I understand the alphabet, and know a few words and a little bit of the grammar. VVVladimir (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean that there is no source at all whatsoever? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
See this. Pay attention to this sentence: Jer, te godine Vladimir šalje izaslanike u Konstantinopolis ne bi li obezbijedio političku podršku tadašnje regionalne super-sile. These emissaries are mentioned in a charter of the Great Lavra Monastery from 993 as Serbian emissaries (see Ostrogorsky). The chronology and dates are helter-skelter. VVVladimir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(scrapped for unrelated)
So, if that's the only source - no; Montenegrina is not a reliable source. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Several examples of King of Serbia and similar titles used on websites:
Greek sites:  – ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Βλαδιμήρου βασιλέως τών Σέρβων (of Jovan Vladimir, the king of Serbs);  – Ιωάννου [Βλαδιμήρου] Σερβίας (Jovan [Vladimir] of Serbia). Bulgarian site:  – сръбският княз Иван Владимир (Serbian prince Ivan Vladimir). Albanian site (in English):  – ...St. John Vladimir. He was a king of Serbia... VVVladimir (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
V, should we include the MOC in the ..venerated in.. bit? Your thoughts? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You're joking now, aren't you? :) They say that they are an Orthodox church, but since they are out of Orthodox communion, they are factually not an Orthodox church (as that article says, they are just self-styled as Orthodox). And I think that sects are not supposed to be included in that bit. VVVladimir (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know...if they're non-notable they shouldn't be in the article, but on the other hand they should because they celebrate him too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
(Sorry to have misread your question above.) Okay, I agree with that, but there's still a problem – it seems that they, in fact, do not celebrate Saint Jovan Vladimir, because for them he is nepostojeći Jovan Vladimir (), and Sv. Jovan Vladimir (potpuno izmišljena ličnost) koji se poistovjećuje sa Sv Vladimirom Dukljanskim (). I don't know if this is an official standpoint (if the sect has something like that), but they probably wouldn't even like to be included in the bit (I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a separate article with that name). VVVladimir (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't pay attention to the statistics in Mrkojevići. I followed the link Paštrovići, and it turns out that Androvići belong to them. My source says that the cross is under the care of the Andrović family from Velji Mikulići, and at another place it says that Velji Mikulići belong to Mrkojevići, what led me to conclude that the Andrović family belonged to Mrkojevići. To avoid any incorrect designation, I reworded that sentence. VVVladimir (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not very familiar with the families in both Paštrovići and Mrkojevići, however, what I meant in my edit summary was that Mrkojevici is NOT a Serb clan, but rather a coastal clan like as stated in the Paštrovići article (even though the Paštrovići predominantly declare themselves Serb). And BTW, Velji Mikulić is not part of the Mrkojevići at all, nor part of Crmnica or Krajina, but rather somewhere near the City of Bar. --Prevalis (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I understood what you wrote in that summary about Mrkojevići, and the statistics show that only about 8% of them declared to be Serbs. So, I agree that it might be inappropriate to term them as a Serb clan, but as I said, I previously didn't pay attention to that statistics; and the article Mrkojevići has no coastal clan designation. If they are a coastal clan, that's okay with me! If you're right about Velji Mikulići, which I have no reason to doubt, than my book is wrong in this case.
But now that the sentence simply states that the family is from the village Velji Mikulići, both these topics are not related to this article any more. VVVladimir (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Un-related, yes, I think we should use "Serb clan" (next to the clans who mostly identify as Serb) only in historical subjects and context. By the way, "Serb clan" does not mean that Serbs are its members - it's a historical reference, and members of Serb clans were and are Vlachs, Croats, Muslims (Bosniacs), Albanians, Romanies and, well of course, Montenegrins. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A. Varying spellings: Cossara and Kosara; Samuil and Samuel. B. split long sentences "He apparently ruled in peace, evading involvement in the major conflict, which culminated with Samuil’s disastrous defeat by the Byzantines in 1014, shortly after which the Tsar died of heart attack"
1. A. Throughout the article Kosara and Samuil are used, as spelled in other wiki articles; Cossara and Samuel are used only in citations from Stephenson, as spelled in that source. B. Better now?
3. Regrettably, nothing in historical sources. There is something in hagiographies, but it is a panegyrical legend rather than historical facts.
Some Orthodox churches use the international, Gregorian calendar, and some the Julian calendar (they keep the tradition from the times of Roman Empire). For all of them the Feast day is May 22, but in the case of those that use the Julian calendar, that day coincides with June 4 of the Gregorian calendar. That is the case with the Serbian and Albanian Orthodox Churches, which are relevant here. I thought that the note in infobox would explain it. Will the notes I added now do for the explanation? I'm not inclined to put it in the main text.
I would be very glad to use them, but Jovan Vladimir hasn't been given a significant space in English texts. VVVladimir (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not include those legends? I hear Albanian and Macedonian epic mythology is rich on Jovan Vladimir. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If Legends exist in Albanian and Macedonian epic mythology, they must be added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There are Albanian and Macedonian legends about him, but I wouldn't call them epic (at least those available to me). They mostly relate his saintly powers. Will add them later. Also a bit about his childhood from hagiographies. VVVladimir (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
PASS. I am adding the article in GA Phil and relig section rather than History section as Jovan Vladimir seems to be better known as a saint than a king.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
VVVladimir, why don't you something about money Vladimir minted, or in precise his Golden Coin? As the very oldest domestic coin from our lands, I think it's pretty relevant. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Pax, for the delay in responding. As for the coin, I see no information by whom and why it is considered to have been minted by Jovan Vladimir, and in which book or other text it was published. Anyhow, I intend to somewhat expand the article in certain aspects sometime later. BTW, in the meantime I expanded the article Јован Владимир in the Serbian Wkipedia. Have you any involvement there? I would appreciate your comments. VVVladimir (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
..Because while over Serbia reigned Vladimir, by daughter of Samuil father in law, a man just and peaceful and full of virtue, the occasions in Dyrrachion were peaceful. And when John executed Gabriel, and when this one (Vladimir) was double crossed and believed the oaths given to him by John across David, the Archbishop from Bulgaria, and gave himself to him and after a short time got executed, and then the occasions in there disturbed so greatly and mettled, considering that John day from day, often using his military commanders or himself personally, tried to seize back the City...
Very nice. All that is said here is covered in our article. VVVladimir (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there was no "Jovan Vladimir", there was only Vladimir, ruler of Doclea, and Serbian Orthodox Church use Jovan in front of his name to prove retroactively that he was a Serb. The other thing is, Doclea was not a Serbian state, it was Montenegrin state, Doclea being older name of Montenegro. There are of course, many Serbian historians who want to falsify the fact that Montenegrin state is older than Serbian (which is shown, among else, by the fast that Serbian king from 13th century, Stefan Nemanjic was nicknamed The Firstcrowned, although Doclea had dozen of kings a century before him). You should, at least, put in the text that according to some historians (mainly Serbian orthodox, or others who use their 'sources')it was Serbian state, and according to others, it was first medieval Montenegrin state. It would appear more serious. Using many sites put on by Serbian Orthodox Church and their so called historians is not the right way to present historical truth to people who don't know anything about this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
That what you complain about is referenced by a work of John Van Antwerp Fine, professor of history at the University of Michigan, and by a work George Ostrogorsky (see the "References" section). See also the cited pages of Konstantin Jireček. As none of these prominent and relevant historians is a Serb, your comment about Serbian historians has nothing to do with this article. Your comment is obviously inspired by the trivial daily politics of some parties in Montenegro, and as such it again has nothing to do with this article. The sites which are cited include those of the Serbian, Greek, Russian, and Albanian Orthodox Churches, and the Orthodox Church of America. None of these sites is used as a reference for history, but only for cult, and they are obviously quite relevant for the religious aspect of the article's subject. So your comment about "Serbian Orthodox Church and their so called historians" is a sheer nonsense. Vladimir (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Why is he carrying some guy's head in his arms? JIP | Talk 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, it says in the article: "The saint is classically depicted in icons as a monarch wearing a crown and regal clothes, with a cross in his right hand and his own head in his left hand. He is fabled to have carried his severed head to his place of burial." But how did he grow a second head, then? JIP | Talk 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a picture intended to reflect material reality. This is an Orthodox icon, providing an insight into spiritual things. The saint's body was destroyed by beheading, but his soul could not be beheaded and killed. It would be nonsensical and disgusting to represent the saint headless on this icon. You can find books on symbolism in Orthodox iconography, if you're interested. Vladimir (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So it's the non-corporeal soul (similar to a ghost) of Vladimir, carrying the actual physical head of Vladimir himself in his arms? JIP | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The head in the saint's hand is a symbol of his martyrdom. He was beheaded. Icons are symbolic. Got it? Vladimir (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Duklja was a medieval geopolitical entity (at times an independent state) which was inarguably in close association with the neighboring Serb principality of Rascia (Raska) throughout its history, but to present it as a definite Serb unit is rather bold given the subject matter in its whole is disputed. There is a much balanced discussion of this in the article on Duklja itself, while this article on Jovan Vladimir frankly fails to attain the same level of objectivity and is as such currently unworthy its featured status. There is in my opinion no reason to involve any ethnic/national labels whatsoever, the biographical purpose of the article would be just as fulfilled. Though I'm not certain I'd call it POV, but to include a completely irrelevant citation claiming that "Byzantines often called Duklja Serbia" in a biographical article is pretty awkward. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. Dioclea/Duklja isn't even mentioned in Tim Judah's "The Serbs", and Noel Malcolm simply discusses Catholic power in Dioclea (and, later, Jovan Vladimir's jealous imitation of Dioclea's "Pope-crowned dynasty and miracle-working royal saint"). Hafner makes much the same point. bobrayner (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
So the question is what revisions to make? I would suggest to either methodically remove all suggestions of "Serbness" or elaborate on the contention of the subject as to increase the objectivity of the article; though I can't really see how an expanded discussion on the 'ethnic affiliation' of Duklja would have a suitable place in this purely biographical piece. I'd personally say to limit all such excursuses to the article on Duklja itself and keep this article free from issues of that character. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Those are properly referenced important assertions necessary to place the subject in context. If something is not mentioned in the works of Tim Judah and Noel Malcolm that does not mean it doesn't exist. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
A completely invalid input to the discussion. The mere physical existence of literary sources does not as per se render the issue relevant to this biographical article, with its sources anyways having been one-sidedly invoked in favor of a Serb attribute of Duklja and Jovan Vladimir, which is, in reality, a disputed territory with opposing views. Nonetheless, some editors have even gone as far as including Jovan Vladimir in the Serbs infobox. I take it User:Antidiskriminator would thus rather see an elaboration of the contention than a complete omission of ethnic attributes within the article? This should be of no problem and is easily achievable by transferring relevant citations from the article on Duklja, though I am sad to see such a well-written article corrupted by nationalist sentiments from either side. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I would prefer that we achieve some form of consensus before any revisions are considered, although only two registered users have given their opinion so far. I'd quite honestly expect a feature article to attract more attention. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)