Talk:List of Serbian monarchs
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Please check if they are in listed in this article. Mikkalai 18:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Stefan Dusan (1346-1355)
- Stefan Uros V (1355-1371)
- Lazar of Serbia (known as tsar in folk tradition)
Wenn I read this articel, I was thinking Balkan is in Serbia. Sorry but Serbia is only a part of Balkan.
- Rascia (Raška) it was a Bizantin Rulers
- Bosnia (Bosna) it was a Bizantin Rulers
- Doclea / Zeta it was a Bizantin Rulers
- Zahumlje / Hum it was a Bizantin Rulers
- Travunia (Travunja, Terbounia) it was a Bizantin Rulers
- Pagania / it was a Bizantin Rulers
No one of this "Serbian monarchs" is Serb they belong to Bizant Rulers.--Hipi Zhdripi 14:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous IP removed Tihomir from the list of rulers... --PaxEquilibrium 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Bosnia was never Serbian state !
even though that rulers of other regions(pagania, zahumlje, etc) of serbian domain are unknown to some extent, serb rulers of bosnia(kotromanici, for example) should be listed here. --PrimEviL 18:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, they shouldn't be listed here. This is the list of monarchs of Serbia, not a list of monarchs who are allegedly of Serbian ethnicity. The only Bosnian rulers who should be listed here are those actually ruled Serbia: Stephen Tomašević, for example. I'm not sure whether Tvrtko I actually ruled Serbia, or he just crowned himself King of Serbia and remained a pretendent only. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you remove Bosnia from the chapter "Monarchs of medieval Serbian states", its not just an extension of Serbian politics from the middle of 18.century to the recent Balkan events (war, ethnic cleansing, genocid), but also a flagrant misuse of en.wikipedia and clear and deliberate propagation of false informations, revision of the history - simply, its belong to domain of the myths spred by nationalistic mythomaniacs !--Santasa99 (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Bosnia and Hercegovina WAS one of serbian medieval states because:
1. ALL rulers of Bosnia was descendents of SERBIAN nobility, bosnian ruler Tvrtko Kotromanic 1377 is crowned by SERBIAN priest in SERBIAN monastery of Mileseva (which is located in todays SERBIA) as "King of the SERBS, Bosnia,coast and western teritories" (note that "Serbs" are the ONLY ethnic mark in the title and Bosnia is just a teritory) 2. Hercegovina is named after mighty SERBIAN noble Stephen Vukcic Kosaca took the title "Herzog (duke) of St. Sava" (St.Sava,brother of first SERBIAN king Stephen Firstcrowned, was also first SERBIAN archbishop) 3. Bosnia WAS and IS inhabited primarly by SERBS then and now, half of today's "Bosnia" is under 100% SERBIAN rule, the other half is divided between catholics(Croats) and muslims(so called "bosnians" ) 4. Today's so called "Bosnians" are not related with medieval Bosnian heritage in any mean because they are islamised SERBS who served Ottoman occupators,the same islamic occupators who killed last Bosnian king Stephen Tomasevic (who also was last SERBIAN Despot too). 5. To say that medieval Bosnia was not one of serbian states is like saying that medieval Burgundy is not one of medieval french states. Plain and simple! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I propose unification of all table on this page. It will look better, it will be easier to understand all data, and all other.
Born - Died
|Picture of ruler
or his territory, if photo is unknown
and below years of life 1274 - 1345
|Years of reign
600 - 626
|Name of territory||All important notes.|
The image File:Serb lands04.png is repeated in this article no less than 9 times. Firstly this excessive use in one article is not necessary and secondly the image itself is questionable per WP:SYNTHESIS. This is not a good way to build wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Cleaning of false monarchs
Simply deleting information is not a solution. However, this list is supposed to be a list of monarchs of Serbia, not of monarchs who were of Serbian ethnicity. The list is supposed to be a list of people who ruled Serbia, not:
- a list of Serbian people who ruled a land (for example, the list of French monarchs does not include French people who reigned as monarchs of England, Scotland, Jerusalem, Naples, Sicily, Sweden, Norway, Spain, etc),
- and not a list of people who ruled a Serbian land (for example, the list of British monarchs does not include people who ruled England, Scotland, Wales, Wessex, Mercia, Kent, Essex, etc, nor does the list of French monarchs include rulers of Burgundy, Brittany, Auvergne, etc).
Therefore, I propose creating:
Those articles could easily be made simple and much more understandable than the present article. Of course, this article would link to all those articles where appropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since nobody has opposed this proposal for five days, I will do as I proposed. Surtsicna (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, i didn't saw this. Well that is a bit problematic, as those other lists are not really needed. Rascia is very much Serbian state, and this list is not quite comparable to french or English ones... This is list of the people that ruled as Serbian state (kingdom, principality, whatever) lands. It's separation will not be quite good idea. --Tadijaspeaks 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Of course Rascia is a Serbian state, just like, for example, the Kingdom of England was a British state. However, Rascia was not equivalent to Serbia. Therefore, the list rulers of Rascia needs its own page. "This list is not quite comparable to french or English ones" - could you please elaborate? Why is it not comparable? Wasn't Serbia divided into several small states during the Middle Age, just like England, France, Spain, Italy, etc? "This is list of the people that ruled as Serbian state (kingdom, principality, whatever) lands." Again, that's not how any other list of rulers works because that's not practical or understandable. You won't see a list of rulers of the Kingdom of Asturias in the List of Spanish monarchs. Besides, I fail to see how some parts of the list are related to Serbia or monarchs at all; what do rulers of Thessaly do in the list and how can members of the House of Sanković and the House of Rastislalić be considered monarchs when they were nothing but feudal lords? "It's separation will not be quite good idea." You haven't quite explained why. Surtsicna (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, that is not how we are going to do. You dismiss historical accuracy, saying Rascia isn't equivalent to Serbia? This is a list of Serbian rulers, that meaning ethnic Serb heads of state, as Rascia was the seat of the Serbian throne, being the Knez of Serbia (Archont/Prince/Great Zupan/King of the Serbs) meant "Ruler of Rascia 'with' Duklja, Travunia" etc. for example Časlav Klonimirović was titled Archont of the Serbs, Knez of Serbia, his seat was in the traditional Rascia and he ruled all Serbian Zupa's=Ruler of Serbia is synonymous with Ruler of Rascia) All Serbian principalities are equivalent to modern Serbia as they were ruled by, most always, members of the same house. For example Hvalimir Petrović is the Zupan of Duklja, he ruled the Zupa which has Zupanates/Zupaniyas which in turn are ruled by other nobility, he is styled the Ruler of Serbs/King of Duklja=Synonymous with Ruler of Serbia. As the other Zupa's are conquered by Bulgars and Byzantines, when he dies he divides his realm between his sons; Petrislav becomes the supreme leader, his two brothers become Zupans (sub-ordinate) of Travunia (became Zupa when Vlastimir gave his son-in-law his birthplace, Trebinje, as wedding present to rule) and Podgoria (now a Zupa, previously region of Duklja). When other principalities (Zupa's) became independent or under foreign rule, the rulers of sovereign Serbian states did not abandon the goal of having their realm as seat of the Serbian Kingdom-unifying the Serbian principalities (becoming the supreme leader of Serbs-Serbia). I will clean up the article of sub-ordinate rulers (No lords, It will only encompass the highest statuses Knez and Grand Zupan (Archont)). It will become more practical and understandable if we give more time on the article, if we go with your idea it will only create more unneeded articles which will confuse, for now we can improve the existing article and we talk more in time. Funny header. Ajdebre (talk · contribs) 05:59
- "You dismiss historical accuracy, saying Rascia isn't equivalent to Serbia?" It obvioulsy isn't, just like England isn't equivalent to the United Kingdom. But this is irrelevant now.
- "This is a list of Serbian rulers, that meaning ethnic Serb heads of state." That is a great problem. This list should not be a list of "ethnic Serb heads of state" for reasons I have given already. The list of French monarchs does not include French people who reigned as monarchs of England, Scotland, Jerusalem, Naples, Sicily, Sweden, Norway, Spain, etc. There are numerous other examples which I can give you but I don't need to. For God's sake, we do not need rulers of Thessaly mentioned in this article!
- "Funny header." Indeed. I expected to find False Dmitry I here :P
- Anyway, I wouldn't oppose trimming the article down to include only the highest rulers (while excluding insignificant lords). Nobody can possibly argue that we need rulers of Nevesinje and Popovo Polje mentioned here! Surtsicna (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just wanted to voice my agreement with Surtsicna. I do think that the name format List of Xian monarchs leads to this kind of thing - these should really all be list of monarchs of X. john k (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- User:Surtsicna is destroying a rather complete article, are reverting aestethics and deleting several rulers, why? (see Comparison of edits) please tell me your thoughts --184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Others is plural, there is only one that says so: -john k. i suggest we revert to the most optimal and edit from there, and i also propose a renaming to "List of Serbian rulers" but you can continue your editing in other articles, it clearly says in the intro what this article is about. we discuss changes here. -220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ajdebre and John Kenney have agreed to the trimming, and Tadija hasn't opposed. "The most optimal" form is the one we have now - only rulers of the actual state of Serbia. The article must be consistent with similar articles. We do not have a list of rulers of every French fief in the list of French monarchs or anything like that! Stop edit-warring! Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, lets see. I reveted to the last stable version. I didnt understand that you will remove half of the article. Those rulers were Serbian, of the Serbian lands, and per those, that is Serbian monarchs. Please, give me better explanation, as per this, format of the article is coexistent with other "Monarchs" article. --Tadijaspeaks 12:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "This is a list of Serbian rulers, containing the sovereign leaders of the principalities and territories of Medieval Serbia and heads of state of modern Serbia."
- So, per this, article is ok. --Tadijaspeaks 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Being Serbian or being ruler of a "Serbian land" is not enough to be included in the list of Serbian monarchs! The list of Serbian monarchs should include only people who ruled the state of Serbia. The list of French monarchs does not include French people who ruled any state other than France, nor does it include rulers who ruled a French state that wasn't actually France. All other lists are based on this principle. So should this list be. Do not revert without discussion. We agreed that all the people who did not rule the state of Serbia should be removed. If you changed your mind now, please convince me and User:John Kenney that we (and the rest of Wikipedia) are wrong. And simply changing the lead sentence does not make it right. Surtsicna (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- And if you continue edit warring, I will have to report you and you will be blocked
(again). Surtsicna (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should then explain and fix this first:
- List of Albanian monarchs
- List of Mongolian monarchs
- List of German monarchs
- List of Russian rulers
- List of Sri Lankan monarchs
None of those are by your so called "rule". Where is that rule in wikipedia? Show me? Or maybe i should report you for being so rude and insolent to me. I dont have nor time or wish to convince anyone here about anything. I can propose, and agree, or dispute. Also, i reverted to the last stable version of the article, and you deleted numerous Serbian rulers, without overwhelming consensus. It looks like it's not me who is going to broke the wiki rules. From last 15 edits in article, 7 are yours. So it looks like you are edit warring, and all other are reverting your POV. And now, stop with that rude accusations. WP:BATTLE is quite wrong way to convince me, or anyone.
So, what do you want with this article? Something like this?
- List of Spanish monarchs - In the article lead there are other provinces, and their rulers. So we should create something similar? Raška is Serbia, as you may see. Rascia was medieval Serbian state.
- List of rulers od Duklja
- List of rulers of Rascia
- List of rulers of Zeta
- List of rulers of Syrmia
- something more... ?
We can have those, but you are not allowed to delete data, without moving them. Propose everything you want, but revert this article to the version prior your removal. And after we create all satellite articles, this can be cleared. NOT before. How can i create new articles, when you deleted material for those. And stop edit warring. All of us didn't approved your version, which is disputed for now. And propose what do you want, so we can agree like normal people. --Tadijaspeaks 13:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only lists you cited that resemble this list are the list of Albanian monarchs and the list of Sri Lankan monarchs. All lists of European monarchs, save for the Albanian one, are lists of rulers of one state only. As for my 7 edits, those were reversions of an IP's reversion. The IP seems to be someone who took part in the previous discussion. That is why the article is now protected; obviously the administrator did not think that I was edit warring.
- I have been proposing to arrange this article the way the list of Spanish monarchs is arranged for more than a month. I even created those articles, which you then redirected. Would you no accept to this solution? Surtsicna (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but i have to create all relevant articles. I will ask this:
- revert article until we create new version and satellite articles
- Propose some new separation (except those 4) if there are need
- write some more articles that are "Perfect" by that standard of yours, so i can see how are those created.
- Is this ok? --Tadijaspeaks 14:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, unfortunatly, that's not OK. When Ajdebre promised to edit the list, I waited for 20 days. He never edited it, so I did. I would not like to wait for 20 days again. Is it too much to ask you to create the "satellite articles" without reverting? It's certainly not impossible to accomplish and, in the end, the result would be the same. Surtsicna (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but i have to create all relevant articles. I will ask this:
This article was already the subject of a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive137#User:18.104.22.168 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semiprotected)
If reverts continue, blocks or full protection are possible. If the editors here cannot agree, one possibility is to open a WP:Request for comment. Since this problem must have occurred with the lists of monarchs of other European countries, there ought to be many precedents to look at regarding other countries. Collecting data is better than reverting. I notice that User:Surtsicna has given some examples regarding France. I have no idea whether his idea is the one to be followed, but surely the people here can find a related Wiki project where such matters are frequently discussed. One possibility is to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Ask me if anyone wants to open an WP:RFC but needs assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking interest in the dispute. I have asked for opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility as you suggested. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Zoupan added too many people that weren't even Serbs like Ljutovid, regarding whom I've told him repeatedly not to attribute modern ethnicities since none of the sources he's been using label him as anything else except for Slavic. In addition to that there are many Byzantine generals that Zoupan added in this list. Of the rest about 1/3 weren't even monarchs but local nobles of various areas. That being said the new section about definitions of Serb regions he adds is: i)not the topic of this article b)a content fork of his edits that are getting reverted in those articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Btw the infobox will either be corrected or removed as it's used for single entities and not for different locations that existed in different eras without any continuation.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest you see List of Albanian monarchs or List of rulers of Croatia etc, and if you havent understood, the Byzantine generals are mentioned in the "notes"-section. The continuation is undisputed of all rulers mentioned. Kind of double standard dont you think? --Zoupan (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am replying to Zoupan's comment ("The Byzantine generals are mentioned in the "notes" section, giving a description of the status during Byzantine rule, the rulers have their titles in the description clearly stating them being Byzantine and not Serbian rulers. --Zoupan (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)") here to centralize the discussion: yes, they were clearly denoted as Byzantine governors. But then you should a) rename the list to "List of rulers of Serbia" and not "Serbian monarchs" b) also include the Ottoman and Austrian governors, as well as the Yugoslav presidents etc up to today. "Serbian monarchs" means "independent/autonomous rulers of a Serbian state", and I fail to see how the Byzantine governors of Rascia can be held to this definition, or how they represent any continuity between independent Rascia and Dioclea-annexed Rascia. A simple not as the article stands now suffices. Constantine ✍ 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you support a renaming, we will certainly add all governors that had the title "X of Serbia", I think it would improve the information on this region of Serbian history. --Zoupan (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you mean to include everyone who held authority as prince or governor over Serbian lands, then you'll have to rename the article to fit the content. It is not a matter of votes, but of common sense and WP policy. It's up to you and the other editors of this list to determine what you want it to be :) Constantine ✍ 21:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Maria or her husband?
I doubt Maria herself was sovereign of Serbia. I have always assumed that women were barred from succeeding to the Serbian throne and that her husband was recognised as despot in his own right thanks to his marriage to Maria, which is why her uncle reigned as despot until her marriage. Had she been despoina regnant rather than despoina consort, she would have been referred to as despoina between her father's death and her marriage - a period of 14 months. Was she styled despoina during that time? Surtsicna (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)