Talk:Sermon (duke)

Samuil

Please stick to international recognized terminology. The empire of Samuil is called Bulgarian Empire. This place is far from the region of Macedonia, and the history and language links are bad taste. Mr. Neutron 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is Bulgarian Empire only for nationalist Bulgarians and nationalist Greeks, but for all Yugoslavs, it is Macedonian Empire, see sources: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=macedonian+empire+samuil&btnG=Google+Search In another words, if both terms, Bulgarian Empire and Macedonian Empire are used in sources, both should be mentioned in Wikipedia. I would like that you mention any valid reason to remove name Macedonian Empire (any reason instead Greek nationalism). Also, I will change category to "History of Republic of Macedonia" because it is rather history of country than of region. Regarding languages, they were added to reflect modern usage in modern literature, not usage in the past because neither Bulgarian neither Macedonian existed as official languages in that time. PANONIAN 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

People, please stop citing the darn internet!

• Check Google scholar for reflecion. And since two edits pop up, see the context for the one that is available online: [1]
• Now check by contrast the other search, and just browse the texts to see the clear context.

I really can't believe what has been fed, and the extent that it has been fed! Please try to get over it. NikoSilver 16:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN, please do not insert POV! Samuil was tsar of Bulgaria, and that is a well established fact. Do not insert such "Macedonian" nonsese. Mr. Neutron 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That is only your point of view. Here is another one: http://elchem.ihtm.bg.ac.yu/HtDocs/AD/Mitrovica/CivitasStDemetrii.htm Quote: "Sirmium entered also the State of Macedonian Slavs under Samuel and in it Sermon, probably one of Samuel's noblemen, giving time resistance to the Byzantine rule." It is relevant what you think about this source, it exist (and many other similar) and purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect such sources, not to reflect your personal opinions. This article is related to Serbia and therefore your attempts to ignore what Serbian historiography say about the subject cannot be regarded as good faith. PANONIAN 14:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said again, read Samuil of Bulgaria and make your case there. Changing it here is pointless and you are destroying the consistency of Wikipedia. Mr. Neutron 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

First: you cannot use Wikipedia article written by you as reference. Second: as I said this is article related to Serbia and therefore view of Serbian historiography about the subject should be reflected somehow. Please tell me any valid reason why view of Serbian historiography cannot be mentioned. Also, why you revert my grammatical changes in this article? PANONIAN 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Am not citing other articles, I am preventing Wikipedia:POV fork. Serbian historiography is a fringe view. As a compromise, I suggest there be a sentence which refers to the "Other theories" in the Samuil of Bulgaria article. Mr. Neutron 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you see at all what you wrotte in your version of page. You wrotte "vassal Samuil of Bulgaria" implying that Samuil was vassal... PANONIAN 14:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I corrected it. Mr. Neutron 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But you did not corrected other grammatical errors that are corrected in my version. Also, we both know that it is not truth that it is view "held by a single historian", but an entire historical school held by most historians in former Yugoslavia. Therefore, you cannot call an entire historiographic school a "fork". Also, I am not interested in the Samuil of Bulgaria article, only in this one, and I have a minimum compromise demand here: 1. to writte correctly name of Samuil without "of Bulgaria" sufix because he did not had that sufix in his name, which could be seen even on Bulgarian Wikipedia: http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Самуил and 2. this article is related to Serbia and therefore the view of Serbian historiography have to be reflected somehow. PANONIAN 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the compromise sentence. Do not revert. The English wikipedia has different naming standards than the Bulgarian and Serbian ones, and he was crowned as tsar of Bulgaria, a documented fact, so Samuil of Bulgaria he is indeed. Mr. Neutron 14:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue that Samuil of Bulgaria should be written as Samuil, I suggest you make your case first at Napoleon I of France, Peter I of Serbia and any other king you like. Mr. Neutron 14:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the Wikipedia naming standard conventions and they say that if article speak about one territory the LOCAL NAMES used for it should be used. Therefore, if article speak about territory of modern Serbia names used in Serbian historiography should be used - please tell me any valid reason why name Macedonian Empire should not be used in this article. Also, the name of emperor Samuil was not "Samuil of Bulgaria" but simply Samuil - we discuss here about him not about Napoleon I or Peter I, so please stick to the subject and please say why we should use "of Bulgaria" sufix when he originally did not had that sufix in his name? It is very disputed whether he was tsar of Bulgaria or of Macedonia and therefore this is very controversial subject where we simply have to find neutral solution. PANONIAN 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And once again (I hope it's for the last) the topic is not controversial outside Serbia and the republic of Macedonia. This was not a Macedonian empire (see Britannica or Encarta if you want), but a Bulgarian one. There was never such thing as a Macedonian empire apart from that of Alexander the Great, who on his term was Greek. The "of Bulgarian" part is there to distinguish him from other people with the same name (see Samuil of the Britons and to emphasize on the fact that this was in fact the Bulgarian empire. If you, as I see you do, have some problem with the naming and with the character of Samuil's empire, take it to the article itself. And if you succeed (which I highly doubt) then you'll have the full right to change the name here. I know all this is against your wishes, but this here is not about the wishes, but about the facts. --Laveol ^T 11:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong: your claim that "topic is not controversial outside Serbia and the republic of Macedonia" is not correct because term "Macedonian Empire" is used in all countries of former Yugoslavia including Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Montenegro - it was a generally accepted view of entire Yugoslav historiography (See Bosnian Wikipedia: http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuilo See Croatian Wikipedia: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuilovo_carstvo) Also, the fact that topic "is not controversial outside of these countries" does not mean that "it is not controversial at all" and therefore at least if we speak about territory of Serbia the view of Serbian historiography have to be mentioned - please tell me a valid reason why this view should not be mentioned here? Also, we do not discuss whether this "really" was a Bulgarian or Macedonian empire, we discuss about fact that there are different views about the subject and that since aim of Wikipedia is to collect all human knowledge, I do not see a reason not to mentrion the other view about sunject. Regarding name of Samuil, the one question is wheter sufix "of Bulgaria" would be used in article about him and another question is whether it will be used in other articles. In this article there is a link to "Samuil of Bulgaria" article so nobody would confuse him with "Samuil of the Britons". You mentioned Napoleon I of France as similar example, but you can see that, for example, in First French Empire article, he is mentioned just as "Napoleon I", not as "Napoleon I of France" - in articles and English texts, names are usually used in their original form. Also, I am not interested to edit article about Samuil, so why should I "take it there"? I want to ensure that we have good articles about Sermon and Ahtum and therefore I am only interested to implement common Wikipedia policies here. PANONIAN 09:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we have proofs that Sermon produced golden coins? That statement sounds strange to me. --Gligan 14:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I quoted a sources that say that he produced coins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_(ruler)#Literature PANONIAN 09:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"Forgery name"? Panonian, are you out of your mind? Do you even know anything about Samuil? Even your historians admit he was at the very least crowned as "king of all Bulgarians". Mr. Neutron 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What I know is that sources mention him simply as "Samuil" (or you want to deny that?). Also, the term "Bulgarians" in the Middle Ages was simply another name for "Slavs". PANONIAN 09:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And one more question (again): if you do not agree only with names used, why you revert my grammatical changes (including comma and parenthesis)? - I would really want to know answer to this. PANONIAN 09:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on, just reat this your version of the article: "Sermon (Bulgarian, and Serbian Cyrillic: Сермон) was an 11th century voivode (duke) of Syrmia (and a local governor in the First Bulgarian Empire[1], vassal of Samuil of Bulgaria. His residence was probably in Sirmium (today Sremska Mitrovica), where he produced his own golden coins." - so tell my why is this comma between "Bulgarian, and Serbian Cyrillic" and where is the end of parenthesis that starts in "(and a local governor in the First Bulgarian Empire[1],"? - It is really not nice that you revert even my edits with which you agree with... PANONIAN 09:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said "Samuil of Bulgaria" it will be and if you continue removing you I will report an incident at the administrators. You are edit warring persistently and pushing blatant minority-view POV on several articles. Mr. Neutron 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Samuil's contemporary chronographers have *much* more weight that some 19th century Serbian interpretation. Mr. Neutron 13:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I already asked an admin to help here with dispute and I will remind you again to example of Napoleon I of France and First French Empire article, where he is mentioned just as "Napoleon I", not as "Napoleon I of France". Please provide arguments why we should use name of Samuil differently in this article. Also, I did not removed the point of view of "Samuil's contemporary chronographers" (who ever they might be) that you speak about, but I only added view of of Serbian historians as second opinion (and I added it in parenthessis and after "your" opinion), so please tell me a reson why that second opinion cannot be here? PANONIAN 13:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, your statements that "it will be Samuil of Bulgaria if you say so" will not really help you proving your point of view here. PANONIAN 13:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, actually I have nothing against having the "minority view" in brackets as it is now. It would look better being at the bottom as a note, but that's just cosmetic stuff. The problem is with the name of Samuil. Any naming other than Samuil of Bulgaria would show inclination to this minor view. As you have said a number of times this is not the article about Samuil where the title is the thing that points this out so we need this full title to help a reader that is not familiar with the matter orientate. The "of Bulgaria" part puts the emphasis right where it should be: on the fact that he was a Bulgarian ruler and nothing else. And again as an example I point out the article about Samuil - it is named this way to avoid any confusion and any speculations about the nature of his empire. I see what compromise you're aiming to (as I saw what you intended when creating the whole former states stuff and accepted it - I know it took me some time, but it needed imagining what the other side was thinking) but in this particular case there's no compromise to get to. Samuil was ruler of Bulgaria and any, even the slightest inclination that he might not be considered as such by any scholar other than Serbian/ethnic Macedonian is not acceptable. You say that this is an encyclopedia and that's why we need all views - but where have you heard about an encyclopedia which turns its back on a majority of 15 to 1 (that's pure mathematics calculated by the hits in your beloved Google) and represents the view of this 1 part (not to mention that neither of these hits and neither of the scholars supporting this view are outside Serbia and the Republic of Macedonia).

Pfuuu, it's getting too long now, I'll add the other stuff later. --Laveol ^T 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, seems that we now have problem only with name of Samuil. I hope that you are aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not political but scientific project and therefore the solutions implemented here should serve science, not political goals such is the goal of imposing name "Bulgarian" to everything related to Republic of Macedonia. Anyway, grammatically, it is more correct to writte "Bulgarian emperor Samuil" than "emperor Samuil of Bulgaria" - meaning is same, but this version is more in accordance with other articles on Wikipedia. Regarding your other claims, I really do not understand why Bulgarians and Greeks want so desperate to steal history of their Macedonian neighbours. Of course, the basic problem here is the way how Wikipedia is edited and simple fact that there are more Greek and Bulgarian users in Wikipedia than Macedonian ones is very big problem and very big disruption for neutrality of articles related to Republic of Macedonia. Also, I would not agree that Yugoslav historians are "in minority" about this question (you certainly have no single proof for this claim). The fact is that what Macedonians say about their country and their history is always more correct than what their not very friendly neighbours say about it. Very big problem for Macedonia is also the fact that only friendly neighbours to Macedonians are Serbs and therefore with 3/4 neighbours who hate them, there is very big problem for Macedonians to tell to the World truth about themselves. PANONIAN 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, What's going on now? I see a lot of edit warring now, but no explanations why. I don't think this needs reporting, but just further discussing. I see no problem with the PANONIAN way of saying it - "Bulgarian emperor Samuil". It's the same as "Emperor Samuil of Bulgaria". It is in fact the same thing, so why are you reverting each other on this? --Laveol ^T 22:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He has gone too far. POV redirects will not be linked. Mr. Neutron 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But, Mr. Neutron, I explained to you that names in English texts are usually used in original form and user Laveol also said that meaning of the two sentences is same. So, really, why you reverting? PANONIAN 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the one pushing POV links, you tell me. Mr. Neutron 22:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What POV links? PANONIAN 22:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Samuil is a POV, the name of the article is Samuil of Bulgaria, quite justly as he was crowned as king of the country, Mr. Neutron 22:30. Samuil is a product of yugoslav alternative theories. 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to say that link to Napoleon I of France in the First French Empire article is also POV because he is mentioned just as "Napoleon I", not as "Napoleon I of France? The "|" sign is there exactly because of that reason (that we use it). Also, I wrote that he was "ruler of the country", but I wrotte his name in its original form. And how exacly name "Samuil" could be product of "Yugoslav alternative theories"? Can you quote any historical document that mention him under any other name than Samuil? PANONIAN 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said make your case for every other king on Wikipedia, then come worry about Samuil. It is a guideline to name kings with the country they ruled. Period. Mr. Neutron 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an original document - I asked you for original sources (the ones dating from the time of Samuil) that mention him under any other name than Samuil? By the way, you just violated Wikipedia 3 revert rule policy and I reported you to the admins.PANONIAN 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And I showed you multiple articles conforming to guidelines which are not contradictory with the real names of the kings. I saw it, and I believe I have not violated. Mr. Neutron 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But "Samuil of Bulgaria" was not the "real name of the king" - that is the problem. And what articles you showed to me? - I do not remember that you done this. PANONIAN 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Samuil (again)

See this for relevant discussion about which map should be included into article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahtum#Empire_of_Samuil 212.69.12.165 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)