Talk:Lordship of Prilep

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


So, Serbian Kings ruling over Macedonia justify that the kingdom was Bulgarian? Mactruth (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the Name[edit]

No contemporary state named kingdom of Prilep existed, it's a modern term to describe the state of Vukašin and Marko. --Clanedstino (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


What exactly state located in Macedonia and ruled by Serbian dynasty has to do with Bulgaria, we should put China as well then when we are at it. Leave your nationalistic appetites home. --Clanedstino (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be brief. Stop with the personal attacks. Read the sources provided - they pretty much explain it. Do not remove sourced info without a really good reason. Do not change the meaning of sentences with a ref in the end. Do not act as though you are the single entity that has a say on this topic like you do when saying that the name is incorrect in the very first sentence. Thank you. --Laveol T 17:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Again: What exactly state located in Macedonia and ruled by Serbian dynasty has to do with Bulgaria? . Answer that and we'll have a discussion. --Clanedstino (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruled over Bulgarians. It's the name used in some sources when referring to it. And look, you're not an authority to say that the name used in sources about it is incorrect. It's what you think and this makes it Original research. --Laveol T 11:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They ruled over Serbs and Macedonian Slavs, not the Bulgarians. King Vukašin who ruled kingdom of Prilep called himself king of Serbs and Greeks, not the Bulgarians. Also I would like to see what contemporary source calls Vukašin's or Marko's subjects Bulgarians. --Clanedstino (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How about trying those that are in the article. Any more edits removing info that is sourced and the sources are provided will be considered vandalism. --Laveol T 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The same goes for adding the "this name is actually incorrect" part. It's the name used by contemporary scholars. What editors think of it is irrelevant. --Laveol T 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's NOT used: Jireček in History of the Serbs, Fine in The late mediaeval Balkans, Ćirković in The Serbs don't use this name at all, just as latest History of Serbian people wrote by most prominent historians of ex Yugoslavia. So the argument that it's used by contemporary scholars drops out. Just for fun I would like to see any contemporary source that calls this state kingdom of Prilep . For your information quotes that you put in are NOT sources, that's literature. --Clanedstino (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Cause it definitely looks like one. There's at least one History of Serbia that uses it - by Temperley Harold and William Vazeille + at least one Byzantine history book - "The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453" by Donald MacGillivray. + some other Serb scholars and most Bulgarian ones. As for the lesson in editing, you probably were trying to teach me, I have not put any sources or whatsoever in the article. Moreover, could you, please, provide me with an explanation of the differences between scientific literature and sources in the context of this article? If we're not aiming at such literature, what should we seek? Your opinion? --Laveol T 20:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And I pointed to the most relevant literature on mediaval Serbia which DOESN'T use this term . As a , I presume, Bulgarian, you should know who is Jireček and what his credentials are, if he doesn't use this term, and literally every word of his is based on sources, that means something, that means that no such term existed and that it's avreyrecent term and totally inappropriate one. As I said just for fun provide me a contemporary source ( if you know what is that ) which mentions Kingdom of Prilep by that name and I'll stop with vandalism . This is not a matter of my opinion this is matter of factographic reliability. If the term never existed in Middle ages I don't see what's wrong in putting modern and essentially incorrect name , the same thing is with Byzantine empire , modern science calls it that way but we know that that term never existed in the middle ages and that the empire was called simply Roman empire. Also quoting Temperley who dedicates entire 106 pages of his book to mediaeval Serbia and has absolutely no academic expertise in Serbian mediaeval history ( his field of expertise is modern diplomatic history ) doesn't prove anything, expect the lack of your arguments. --Clanedstino (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I feel that your vocabulary (or dictionary, I presume) rather fails you on the word contemporary. In wikipedia we rely on secondary sources if that'd help. We do not rely on texts from the Middle ages, but on their Modern interpretations. If you don't like it, go complain to Jimbo Whales and to all modern science. Oh, boy, how could I answer the rest of the stuff. If someone does not mention the term as such, that does not automatically mean that the term is not relevant. Are you suggesting that the term Byzantine Empire (If you do so, go battle it out on the article)? Is this all you have to say on the "lack of my arguments"? You didn't mention anything about the other source or any other one for the matter. If you're here just to tell everybody that they are totally incompetent only cause their work is based on the pillars of Wikipedia and you don't like it, just say so. --Laveol T 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Other sources ? I presume that you mean that random forum that you quoted and the book written by some Bulgarian nationalist who claims that all Serbian states that were created after the death of Stefan Dušan were , for some reason, in fact Bulgarian and that Vukašin was considered king of Bulgarians ? Indeed a truly objective and reliable source, even the title says so A history of the Balkans: a regional overview from a Bulgarian perspective. Laughable. As for the rest of the stuff, if the most prominent experts on this subject ( and that's who Jireček and Fine in fact are, unlike Temperley ), not to mention entire Serbian historiography, don't use this term it only proves that it's incorrect and inappropriate. As for the primary sources I don't insist to use it in article, I'm politely asking to provide one for people to see which one of us is right in this discussion. I have a primary source, a charter of king Vukašin to the city of Ragusa from 1370. where Vukašin (alleged king of Prilep according to our article ) calls him self as a lord of Serbian and Greek land and western parts. Surprisingly no mentions of Prilep in this, the only preserved one, charter of Vukašin. [1] The fact is that Vukašin and Marko were kings, but not kings of some imaginary kingdom of Prilep, but the kings of Serbs and Greeks as Vukašin's title says and as JIreček and Fine, just to mention two of the many, say. As for the Byzantine empire I mentioned it because of the fact that in the article about it it's clearly emphasized that the name Byzantium is modern term and that was never used in mediaeval time. Obviously this distinction is doable in the article about Byzantium but not in this one cause of your point of view which is obviously the ultimate thing around here. --Clanedstino (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Again. Stop putting words in my mouth. I have not added the sources in the article. To make it easier again since you obviously failed to notice this every single time I wrote it: I did not write the article as it was with the sources, names etc. The fact that you prefer one country's historiography to another (whatever a country's historiography should mean) speaks volumes and only adds up to your overall attitude. The same goes for calling Dimitar Rizoff a Bulgarian nationalist although you obviously know nothing of him. I'll repeat again, since you didn't pay any attention to this as well, this is how secondary sources describe it. I'll repeat again, Wikipedia works with secondary sources. Not liking wiki-policies is not an excuse to ignore them. If you, by any chance, have a scholar claiming that the name is actually wrong, quote him. If not, and if it is in use, then just quit with the nonsense.
The distinction might be doable in the Byzantine article for a reason. I do not intend to engage a debate on it, but it might be for a good reason. There is no reason for this in the article we're discussing. Other craps do exists and it means nothing. --Laveol T 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Bulgarian nationalist was aimed at Cvetkov while Rizoff is under the random forum part. To avoid discussion about sources, that you haven't put in the article in the first place but still continue to defend them, I'll put the reliable ones that don't contain name of Kingdom of Prilep in them. As for the your inability to provide a primary source about contemporary use of the disputed name I'll take it as a lack of arguments. As I showed the contemporary name of that state wasn't kingdom of Prilep and most relevant histories don't use it so my statement that's it modern name to describe the state of Vukašin and Marko is in the place and shouldn't be edited. --Clanedstino (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

nationalism, vandalism or what[edit]

Who have removed references from the first version of article and why? This medieval state is important for history of Bulgaria and Macedonia also, not only for Serbian history. So, stop vandalizing article and removing content, references and categories. Instead, use existing references to improve article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Third Reich was also important for history of Serbia but I don't put category History of Serbia in article about it.There is no reason for having History of Bulgaria category in this article, the state in question concerns solely Serbs and Macedonians. The deleted quoted authors were either biased, obsolete or unrelated to this subject.--Clanedstino (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
By its heritage, the Kingdom of Prilep should be categorized both with the history of Serbia and the history of Bulgaria. But, by its territory, the Kingdom of Prilep should be categorized only with the history of Macedonia. So, what is the criteria? Also, quoted author are related to this subject, presenting modern Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian perspective regarding the Kingdom of Prilep and you shouldn't delete it without prior discuss. --Mladifilozof (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, there are no historical perspectives about this issue, only the political and nationalistic, all neutral historians that studied this period of history of Balkan are unanimous about kingdom's nature and belonging, in fact this question is never raised outside Bulgaria and more recently Macedonia ( compare V A Fine and K. Jireček, both AUTHORITIES on middle age Balkan who doesn't mention this so called dispute even in the hint), and in both cases as simple plain political issue. The fact that some sharlatan in Bulgaria or Macedonia raised some issue to please it's nationalistic compatriots doesn't make it the dispute . Otherwise I can find some Serbian sharlatan who claims that everything around Serbia is Serbian and I'll start adding passages about heritage and disputes in every article that comes under this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clanedstino (talkcontribs) 13:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)