Talk:Vojislavljević dynasty

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

Usual Bias[edit]

Country: Serbia Nationality: Serb

Laughable, at the very least... Sideshow Bob 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Nemanyiden were (of) Vojislav(ljev)ics. The country is not Doclea (since it includes also Rascia, Bosnia, Travunia, Zachlumia, Canalites, Merania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Dalmatia, Arboria, Thessaly, Slavonia, Usora, Soli, Syrmia, Epirus, Serres, Bdyn, etc...). The collective name historically used for the region "Serbia" (name for the vast majority of these areas and historical name for the country) should be adopted. Pointing out "Duklja" is (somewhat) improper because its only a tiny portion of the Vojislavljevics' domain.
Nationality: "Dukljan (Montenegrin)". It seems too improper to prefer "Montenegrin" over "Serbian". And as for "Doclean", I don't see how one of the many lands this dynasty decides the ruling dynasty's nationality (were the Habsburgs of Neapolitan nationality?), and most especially the land upon which this family conquered and imposed its rule in the first place. You could also put: "Nationality: Bulgarian" according to that logic. --PaxEquilibrium 13:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In those times the term "montenegro" didn't exist, but neither did "serbia", so you can't call their country serbia at all, and they were doclean (today montenegrin) which was a catholic slav from doclea.

No, "Serbia" did.

Why don't we just put that they were of Doclean nationality since they were from Duklja and end this edit war. --CrnaGora 13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Terms Serbian realm and Serbian dinasty should be changed, if you want to have a serious article here. As Rascia was early Serbian state, the same goes for Doclea-Zeta, as an earlier name for Montenegro. Doclean rulers were NOT Serbs, they were catholics, and Nemanjic king of Serbia was called Stefan Prvovencani, which means Stephen -the first crowned- and he got his crown 140 years after Vojislavljevics, which shows that Serbs didn't count catholic dinasty from other country as theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Because of this:

Vojislavljevići - ethnic Dukljani (modern Montenegrin)[edit]

Check the links:

Sincerly, -- (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Montenegrina is not reliable source, but heavily political. Rv per other normal sources, but more are welcomed here on talk page. --WhiteWriter speaks 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

articles from Montenegrina ([edit]

I take articles from Montenegrina and put it to wikipedia. This is internationaly recognised cite (ISSN 1800 - 8046). Here are articles in English langugages:

Here is history of Duklja:

Thanks for recpect, -- (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

internationaly recognised cite? By whom? It looks like collection of nationalistic texts where Montenegrins existed 2000 years ago, etc. Also, several other editors removed it, as unreliable. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


The "proof" of Serbian identity is a contemporary geographical text based on political bias, which in itself even recognises a duality of opinions about the dynasty's ethnicity. How is this a reliable source? It just supports Serbian POV, is written by a Serbian author with limited knowledge of history. Sideshow Bob 11:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a secondary source which shows that contemporary sources viewed Stefan Vojislav and his descendants (the dynasty) as Serbs. On another note, the use of Doclea (Duklja) as a "state name" was only used by the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, to be widely used later in historiography — calling it "Doclean" is superficial. --Zoupan 12:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)