Talk:Serbian Empire

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

Imbris' re-insertion of an incorrect flag[edit]

Imbris, please stop inserting the incorrect flag. That is not the Serbian Empire's flag. It was (and only partially) used in the Serbian Kingdom. Despite the fact that I have explained it to you, you again returned. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained anything. You have pushed for the change from the day before. Both flags :Image:Serbian Empire flag.svg and this one which you push for should be deleted as unsourced. I do not know why do you think we should let you change something just to make your image un-orphaned. -- Imbris (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I put it here not as a Flag (Flags in common sense were invented only with the passing of the Industrial Age), but as a symbol of the Nemanyiden - what do you mean not sourced? I have posted sources to you for how many times I don't even remember, but you constantly ignore them and very aggressively push to delete them. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC) that site gives Imbris' flag as the correct one. What is the source for the white on red flag? Rcduggan (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Teritories of Serbian Empire[edit]

I have one objection. I am from Romania, town Ovidiu near Constanţa and I am historic. I know that Dobruja (Constanţa County and Tulcea County) was part of Serbian Empire (actually Bulgarian Empire which was vassal). So, Serbian Empire was twice times long than your map say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar (talkcontribs) 12:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So, you are either no historian or have been misled by a book or a person because the Bulgarian Empire was never a vassal of Serbia. --Gligan (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

TERÖRİST SIRPLAR KASAPLAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Bulgaria was a Serbian vassalage at that timr, even more, because of the Bulgarians that supported him as their ruler, Tsar Dusan the Mighty became a Tsar, and Serbia an Empire. Bulgarian Slavs and Serbs are more or less the same people, just that Serbs call themselves by their native name, while Bulgarians adopted a denomination by proto-Bulgars that ruled them, in the course of the history they had a great mutual relationship, between culture, churches, tradition. From a Bulgarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire and Serbian Empire[edit]

The Byzantine Empire was neither a predecessor nor a successor of the Serbian Empire, so I will remove that now. --Gligan (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire with Serbian Empire as its succesor was recognized by all nations during the period, so I restore the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:9A0:7:751:14E3:98C3:264:FD9D (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia and Serbian Empire[edit]

Which part of Croatia was under the rule of the Serbian Empire because I can't see well on the map? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Southernmost Dalmatia.--Zoupan 22:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

This coat of arms is a joke, it has nothing to do with the medieval Serbian Empire. It's probably a product of national romanticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Jordan (talkcontribs) 02:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Be WP:BOLD remove such nonsense when you see it.
The flag also seems a bit too "stylish", for the period. That shape of the two-headed eagle is actually based on the modern-day flag of the Greek Orthodox Church. The kind of two-headed eagle from the present-day Serbian coat of arms would probably be more accurate. But we know that the flag was a red two-headed eagle on yellow, and that's all, so I'm fine with this. -- Director (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Correction: there is an actual 14th century flag (wow). We probably shouldn't replace it with the Greek Orthodox Church version. That said, I suppose we could use a stylized version. -- Director (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That COA was removed from this article 100 times... We should probably add a hidden notice not to re-add it again... --WhiteWriterspeaks 12:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
What's your position on the Greek Orthodox Church flag vs the medieval blotch? -- Director (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that original "flag" is way to simply drawn to be used here... It was only a minor detail on that original map. And we have a link to Flags of Serbia article below it, where everything is explained and marked. I am also for current version. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
What we really need is an .SVG flag with a two-headed eagle that resembles the medieval Rorschach. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone put in Nemanjic flag as the empire flag. It is a difference between a family weapon and empire flag. If the user does not give me a source, I will replace it with the Byzantine flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:9A0:7:751:14E3:98C3:264:FD9D (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Bulgaria and maps[edit]

Bulgaria was Serbian vassal state between 1331 and 1365, a fact completely ignored both in the article (I just added it) and in most of the maps. There are just some maps showing this reality: or FkpCascais (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about that information? It sounds too much like a fringe view. I noticed you have added a single source, but how does it support the 1331-1365 claim? Ivan Alexander was not considered a vassal and a royal marriage is hardly proof for such a thing. --Laveol T 04:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't said that the marriage was the reason for the vassal relationship, just that the marriage of Dushan with Helena extended the influence of Serbia at Second Bulgarian Empire aerticle (maybe that part can be reworded, no problem). But the main issue, the vassal relationship, is blacked by this source, which says: "But in 1330, the Serbs... ...stretching from the Danube to the gulf of Arta, and including Bulgaria as a vassal state, 1331-1365." something that would mean that Bulgaria became vassal shortly after the Battle of Velbazhd, and this source, which says (pag. 35 by the middle): "Bulgarias tsar, whose sister Dushan had married, became his vassal." Tomorrow I will try to see more of this and make different searches. FkpCascais (talk) 04:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that Bulgarian state become vassal its simply the bulgarian king will not be TSAR if he is vassal.... This is way never serb has the title TSAR exsept Dusan... In this time the title, the yerarchi are from absolute importance and the people care about them.... Its imposibel a monarch to be TSAR and vassal in same time...


  • The historical name of the state wasn't "Serbian Empire", but rather "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks". Hence the infobox should be headed with that name per convention. "Serbian Empire" is the commonname.
  • The "native_name=" entry should not be filled with modern-day names, but with "native names" used at the time. I very much doubt there are any contemporary attestations to the name in the Medieval Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) language. The only thing that should be found in that entry is the name "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" in Byzantine Greek (I don't know what that looks like, so I left the entry blank).

-- Director (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. Historical name: Template:Infobox former country does not mention historical names so it should be removed.
  2. Native name: Template:Infobox former country says about native name: "Name in a modern syntax of native language(s)"--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I invite you to have a basic look around wiki and see how the entry is properly filled [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], etc. etc...
  • Do you know what "syntax" is?
-- Director (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. It is Template:Infobox former country that explains how this infobox is properly filled. It does not mention "historical name". It says "conventional_long_name". Your addition is challenged. Per WP:BURDEN you should either present proof (reliable source) for your addition or to remove it.
  2. I quoted Template:Infobox former country regarding native name. Do you think something is wrong with it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal; it's more accurate and more consistent. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure director for your changes? Arent you mixing the title Dusan had with the name of the country? What sources do you have for the name you introduced and the point you are making regarding the language? FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Removed "long name" as this was his title rather than appellation of his state (according to historiography).--Zoupan 23:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The appellation is the only contemporary name. "Serbian Empire" is a modern term that belongs in the title and lead - not the former country infobox. -- Director (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Antid. #1 This obviously has nothing to do with reliable sourcing or WP:BURDEN, please spare me the stock nonsense. The {{Infobox former country}} template states that the entry in question is to be filled with the "full name". I've told you what that means and presented evidence as to the accuracy of my interpretation, showing that it is shared by everyone on this project. #2 Modern syntax means we won't write it like they would in the Middle Ages. Not that we wouldn't use the contemporary name. That's why I asked you whether you knew the meaning of what you're quoting... it seems you didn't. -- Director (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Director. Incorrect.#1 Take a better look at Template:Infobox former country. At the top of infobox it says that full name in English should be {{{conventional_long_name}}}. Not "historical name" as you insist. Your opinion that that "historical name" = conventional_long_name = "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" is challenged. So yes, per WP:BURDEN you should present proof (reliable source) for your position. Wp:BURDEN says "All content must be verifiable." That includes infoboxes. #2 When you insisted on the " contemporary attestations to the name in the Medieval Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) language" I quoted what Template:Infobox former country says about native name ("Name in a modern syntax of native language") and I don't see any reason to continue (unnecessarily personalized by you) discussion about this point. Especially after you confirmed that "Modern syntax means we won't write it like they would in the Middle Ages.". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Stop telling me what the entry's htlm code is - and start figuring out the fact that you have no idea how to fill it. It is not filled with the commonname - "conventional_long_name" refers to the full contemporary name of the entity: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] ET CAETERA. Our job is to inform, not to take care Dusan's historical glory isn't diminished by the mention of Greeks.
Antidiskriminator, you've been posting on Wikipedia for too long now to still be annoying people with a lack of understanding of basic policy. This is not a question of sourcing, of burden, or of verifiability. There is nothing to source. Its a strictly Wikipedia-related question regarding infobox use. Get that straight. I'm getting far too old to deal with that brand of bull. As for syntax, that means we won't write "Imperium Romanum" "IMPERIUMROMANUM". I'm sure you can figure out the meaning of the word "syntax" if you really really try... -- Director (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Director, you can't find "name in a modern syntax of native language(s)" in the " contemporary attestations to the name in the Medieval Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) language". Not because I say so, but because it is simply impossible. All editors are, of course, expected to follow wikipedia policies, including you and WP:V policy. I think I gave fairly clear explanation for my position and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect me to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well then I must point out that WP:NAME equally clearly supports my position, and that you must now produce a scholarly source or are wrong... bah
You have no idea what "syntax" is or what policies apply where. I'll say this one last time:
  • WP:V!??? WP:V refers to the verifiability of sources. Like, say, some book or other. There is no information that needs sourcing here. This is an issue that pertains solely to the use of a Wikipedia template. It is not up to sources, it is up to Wikipedia itself to decide what goes where in its infoboxes. Period.
  • "Syntax" means "way words are put together". You may rest assured that if any name is introduced in the "native_name=" entry, it will be introduced in modern syntax, whether you know what that means or not. There is no issue here. Period #2.
Now please go bother Peacemaker or some other poor soul. Your posts, as always, are not arguments, they do not constitute discussion - they are disruptive. I am amazed you are still going on like this, and should this continue input from WP:AE will become both warranted and worthwhile. Take a hike, please. -- Director (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Director#1 Multiple editors challenged your addition. You failed to respect WP:V (its WP:BURDEN section) and to present proof (citation to reliable sources) that historical name you found ("Empire of the Serbs and Greeks") is conventional_long_name per Template:Infobox former country. You pointed to other articles and actually refuted yourself. Those articles do not present any historical name with a couple of GBS hits (like the name you added - link to 3 GBS hits for "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks") as conventional_long_name. The conventional_long_names presented in the infoboxes of the articles you pointed to have 5,060,000 hits, 1,740,000 hits, 3.430.000 hits, 4,070,000 hits, 9,490 hits, 717,000, 4,600 hits 23,800 hits .... Who knows how many historical names those countries had, but only conventional are presented in the infobox, per Template:Infobox former country. It is not enough to find any historical name and to put it in the infobox just because it is historical. Especially if it is supported with only 3 GBS hits. That is my honest opinion which is grounded in common sense and wikipedia policies and guidelines. #2 Please believe me, it is impossible to find "name in a modern syntax of native language(s)" in the " contemporary attestations to the name in the Medieval Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) language".
  • To avoid your repeated unnecessarily harsh comments to me this will be my last comment in this discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The long name is still unsourced. I am not aware, but was that really the official name of the empire? I am realy asking, without any taking of sides. FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
There were no "official names" then, states were personal domains. The only thing we know is that Dusan himself assumed the title "Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks", the state itself had no name as far as I can tell. Probably if you asked them they'd say they were in the Roman Empire, ruled in this part by its rightful Emperor, Stephen. "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" directly corresponds to said title and is certainly attested in sources... -- Director (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not that simple. Louis of Hungary proclaimed himself ruler of Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, etc. but that doesn't mean the kingdom he ruled was named by his title. I guess it is possible to see how the state was refered in the documents, seals, and other written forms. Don't take me wrong, but for time being we don't have even one source for your edit, let it be by now. If we find that it was really the name of the state I will be the first to support you for its inclusion in the article in the proper places. FkpCascais (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It is that simple. As I said, none of these states actually had formal names in and of themselves, and were defined by their ruler. Hence, if we had an article about the entity ruled by Louis I(?) of Hungary, we'd name it by its most common name in scholarship (probably just "Hungary"), and have "Kingdom of Hungary and Dalmatia" or something up in the infobox... I gave you a source up there, I think.
All I'm trying to do is bring this article up to standard. This informs the reader as to the "actual", contemporary (as opposed to common historiographic) name of the entity.. that's why its used everywhere. Commonname applies only to the title.
P.s. My suggestion to improve this article would be to try and figure out the original name used for Dusan's titles in Byzantine sources. Like Kingdom of Croatia has "Regnum Croatiae", etc.. Finding out that bit of obscure info, in Byzantine Greek, would really be interesting. Tried myself for an hour or so, couldn't uncover it. -- Director (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Louis the Great I was referring. Anyway, I am perfectly fine with your intention, I myself am also interested in the issue of knowing the name of the state. I haven't seen any mention of the name in any places I looked, but I only looked at English-language sources, will search further. FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I had a look in Volume III of the excellent Le monde byzantin series (L. Maksimovic, chapter "La Serbie", pages 334-336), and found some interesting stuff, although not a direct answer to the discussion above. There is no reference to a state title, which is to be expected, as Director explained, because Dushan's empire was a) pretty much a personal creation, like the "Empire of Alexander the Great", and b) because it did not differentiate itself from the ecumenical Roman empire of the Byzantines, but claimed to be a direct successor. Dushan's law code explicitly places him in the line of succession from Constantine the Great. The imperial title of Stefan Dushan was "[blagoverni] car' srbliem i gr'kom" ("Tsar of the Serbs and the Greeks", Greeks being habitually used by the Serbs for the "Romans" of Byzantium) in Serbian, and "en Christo to Theo pistos basileus kai autokrator Serbias kai Romanias" ("in Christ the God faithful emperor and autocrat of Serbia and Romania") in Greek. In the Greek formula, the only notable change in comparison to the usual Byzantine formula, apart from the addition of "Serbias", is the use of "Romanias" instead of "Romaion", i.e. "of Romania" instead of "of the Romans", which Maksimovic explains as a deliberate differentiation, since the only legitimate emperor "of the Romans" had to control Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The contemporary Byzantine writers also clearly distinguished between the ancestral Serbian lands, where Stefan Urosh ruled as king, and the conquered lands "in Romania", which Dushan (and Stefan Milutin before him) continued to administer on the Byzantine model. How clear this duality was in practice is open to question, however it should be noted that (in contrast to modern Serbian nationalism) Dushan's proclamation of empire was not well received in Serbia proper, which is also one of the reasons he was never sanctified by the Serbian Church, or why his biography, alone among the medieval Serbian rulers, was never completed. Also, when the Byzantines came around to recognizing Dushan's imperial title, it was only for Serbia proper, pretty much as they had done with the Bulgarian Empire 400 years earlier. Constantine 21:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, Cplakidas. So far as I can gather, then, we have "Carstvo Srblia i Grka" (Царство Срблиа и Грка) for Medieval Serbo-Croatian in modern syntax, and "Autokratia Serbias kai Romanias" (Αθτοκρατια Σερβιασ και Ρομανιασ), correct me if I'm wrong, its all Greek to me :). -- Director (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It would be "Basileia Serbias kai Romanias" (Βασιλεία Σερβίας καὶ Ῥωμανίας), but this is very much ahistorical AFAIK. To the Byzantines under Constantinople, Dushan was and remained "Emperor of Serbia"; to the Byzantines under Dushan's rule, he was a dual monarch, king of Serbia and emperor in the "lands of Romania"; Dushan himself considered himself to be "Emperor of Serbs and the Romans" even though he did not use the latter part too officially. Unless we can find a chancery document with a contemporary name, I don't see a reason in not using the established historiographical term, " Serbian Empire". Constantine 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Either way the historical full name in English is more customary for the top of the infobox. What we're concerned with is what he himself, i.e. his state, considered his titles to be. If he considered himself basileos, then we should refer to his state as "basileia", I don't think that's ahistorical at all. Its certainly more accurate than the commonname at any rate. The Byzantines in what little remained of the Empire certainly did not recognize anyone as "baslieos", but that should not factor into our considerations.
What I would do is have "Basileia Serbias kai Romanias" and "Carstvo Srblia i Grka" up there. I don't think it would be an error to translate into contemporary parlance a name that is sourced as being the more accurate, contemporary variant - even if we do not have explicit attestation of the name in that form. In either case, I think "Empire of the Serbs and Greeks" ought to be the English name in the infobox. -- Director (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Direktor, for time being you are just doing OR. If I am not wrong, Constantine suggests using the "Serbian Empire" term as it is the only certain by now, and until we have a confirmation by some RS we should not go into OR and name the Empire by the title Dushan had. FkpCascais (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes FkpCascais, that's my opinion. The issue is rather complex and "plausible" extrapolation is not what we are here for. I'll have a further look in some other sources over the next few days, but I don't really expect to find something like what Direktor has in mind. Constantine 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor diff seems to have problems differentiating between the Czar Dushan titles and the name of the empire. FkpCascais (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


I have been watching several articles of other nations and I noticed that when they have a sort of "maximum extent" map, or sometimes they don't even mention that, that they add the vassal states in the map as well, sometimes in a different color. I have found several sources claiming Bulgaria became vassal state of Serbia in this period. It would be good to have it in a map.


  • The Balkans: A History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey by Clarendon Press: "From 1331 to 1365 Bulgaria was under one John Alexander, a noble of Tatar origin, whose sister became the wife of Serbias greatest ruler, Stephen Dusan; John Alexander moreover recognized Stephen as his suzerain, and from thenceforward Bulgaria was a vassal-state of Serbia."
  • Churches Of Eastern Christendom by B. J. Kidd: "But in 1330, the Serbs... ...stretching from the Danube to the gulf of Arta, and including Bulgaria as a vassal state, 1331-1365."

These are just some sources found on this and all in English from neutral authors, and the search is not easy because of the amount of results which are provided for Serbia and Bulgaria becoming vassals of Ottomans soon after this period. It also seems that the fact that Dushan was crowned, among others, by Bulgarian Patriarch Simeon, was not an act of almost help or favour like it is written in Bulgarian articles, but actually a sign of recognition of Dushans suvereignity over Bugaria.

Now, regarding the map, I will like to confirm this vassal issue and create consensus, and see what other territories might have been also vassal, and then create a map which would properly indicate Dushans Serbia and its vassal territories just as many other maps about other neighbouring nations do. Historical maps like this one make a good distinction between Dushan Serbia and vassal states shown in brighter color. FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. Are there any more recent maps that can be used as source for your proposal?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I haven't find any at commons, at least not here. I am also facing some opposition at Talk:Second_Bulgarian_Empire#Vassal_of_Dushan. FkpCascais (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If maps of SE presented in modern contemporary sources (preferrably 21st century) do not present Bulgaria as SE vassal territory I don't think wikipedia shuold do it, though a note with indicated period of vassalage might be informative.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

State insignia[edit]

  • Should there be a flag used in the infobox, and if so, which one? There are several variants on commons (seen here).--Zoupan 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If instead, an emblem should be used (which I support), I only see that a faithful reconstruction be made of the eagle depicted on Emperor Dušan's plate (seen here).--Zoupan 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a good point, but: I think that treating historic banners and emblems like modern flags is an anachronism. A feudal empire would have many "flags", flown by different people and in different places and under different circumstances. Worse, they are often poorly sourced, based on notoriously shaky contemporary sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think an image like this is suitable for an infobox. However, I think it's reasonable to explain various flag images in the body of the article, explaining the nuances of uses and sources and their weaknesses. You have done great work on that. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate map without context and explanation[edit]

Inaccurate map without context and explanation shouldn't be allowed to stand. Map from late XIX century (Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas 1886), by Gustav Droysen is obsolete and inaccurate - why would anyone use this map, anyway?! Even file description acknowledge that this map is inaccurate & doesn't comply with worldwide view! WP:SPS Also read: Wikipedia:Using_maps_and_similar_sources_in_Wikipedia_articles It's very simple - this map, with present article format and context shouldn't be allowed to stand because it is misleading piece of (dis)information ! This is particularly interesting problem when other, more accurate & reliable, maps exists.--Santasa99 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I replaced the map for time being while a consensus is established here. The problem is not as serios as you put it, since at the begining of the article we have the infobox that includes a map, and that one ends up being the most representative of the article. The map you are disputing is a map which was included here to show how at different periods the view over the exact extent and the relation with Bulgaria was different. What is called "modern historiography" on the description of the German map is basically the map which was being presented and lectured during the Yugoslav period, and that map has been copied over and over. It contans some open questions, like, the inconsistency regarding Bulgaria and the extenssion limits, speciially in the South-East where we know by the narrative that Dušan had its troops stationed in areas not included in the modern maps. Also, there has been a tendency in the articles of some other European continental Empires to include maps indicating maximal extent and/or include vassal states, however Serbian Empire clearly lacks more quality maps. FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Ruler title[edit]

I changed the ruler title from "Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks" to "Emperor of the Serbs and Romans" it is how it was. Romans originally used "Bασιλεὺς καὶ αὐτoκράτωρ Σερβίας καὶ Pωμανίας" and whoever can read Greek (as I can) can clearly see that it is not Greeks but Pωμανίας (Romanias - Romans).--Aryanprince (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Aryanprince: I don't think you can read/understand Greek. Romania is used for the Byzantine Empire. The other styles, in Serbian, include Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks.--Zoupan 03:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"The construction of Dusan's empire opened the door for later subjugation of Serbia by the Turks"[edit]

The exceptional claim from the title of this section is added by Ktrimi991 with this diff and sourced with non-exceptional source whose author was not specialized in the topic. Based on WP:EXCEPTIONAL I propose to either provide exceptional source or delete the above assertion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

He is using a book from a very criticized author for strong bias. It can all be reverted without problem and replced by neutral scholar authors. FkpCascais (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, wrong usage of sources, i also agree to remove this, its just factically wrong. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, as with Ktrimi's other edits, I have no problem with including the hypothesis as long as it is attributed properly and devoid of the POV-ish tone that usually accompanies his contributions. 23 editor (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Serbian Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)