Talk:Duklja/Archive 1

Why...
.. is Doclea referred to as a SERBIAN medieval state in this article? Serbians weren't the only people that lived in it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.155.50.236 (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic
Not just Cyrillic. There are differences between Serbia or Russian Cyrillic script, so, coz of specific Serbian Cyrillic, add Serbian Cyrillic. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.180.210 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Principality of Zeta
Aren't these two the same? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and no. It becomes quite obvious why if you take time to actually read both articles, before asking such question. Sideshow Bob 19:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Crni26, 27 May 2011
❌

Crni26 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No request stated. Active Banana    (bananaphone  18:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crnogorac26, 29 May 2011
Crnogorac26 (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ and user blocked as another Vujacicm sock. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dukljanin26, 5 June 2011
Duklja was curently wrote on nacionalistic ideology. You will see that, Duklja is "Serbian" state. The country with name Serbia started in year 1345, when Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia change name of the country Rascia to name Serbia. How can Duklja was "serbian" state? Dukja started in 8. century, Serbia started in year 1345. This is diffrence about 525 years. I think, this is a lot???. So, this is reason, why I want to go to write Duklja in neutral apolitical history, without political termine "serbian" and "serbian state".

Sincerly, --Dukljanin26 (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * . Appears to be another sock. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Knez-Prince issue
I read that title Knez is explained as Prince.

Here: "...the last ruler to hold such a title in Duklja. He died a natural death in 1146, and was succeeded by his son Radoslav. Radoslav only bore the title Knez (Prince)."

The tittle Knez is not of the King/Queen/Prince level, it's a regional ruler who rules local counts, barons kind/level of titles. To be the king one must have claimed several duchies ( at least two ) to be able to proclaim himself as the king, and have a son prince. So the Tittle knez is a DUKE rank of nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlecat 2413 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

POV article
In this article it says that Duklja was part of Serbian realm and that Serbs lived there,but the reliable sources does not suggest that.DAI(De Administrando Imperio) only says that in Duklja live Slavs,while surrounding countries are inhabited by Serbs and Croats.In a letter from 1077, the Pope refers to ruler of Duklja Mihailo as "Michaeli Sclavorum Regi" or Mihailo,King of Slavs.In the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja,from which most data of the early history of Duklja is collected inhabitants of Duklja are called Slaves or Croats,depending on version,but never Serbs.So how can one conclude that Duklja was part of Serbian realm?!I am really trying to be neutral on this one and I think that only solution is to erase any nationalistic conotations from this article. Montenegro in my heart (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Also,in article it says that "According to the Royal Frankish Annals (821-822), the rebellious Duke of Pannonia Ljudevit Posavski fled, during the Frankish invasion, from his seat in Sisak to the Serbs in western Bosnia, who controlled a great part of Dalmatia ("Sorabos, quae natio magnam Dalmatiae partem obtinere dicitur")".I mean,what the hell western Bosnia has to do with Duklja? Montenegro in my heart (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Also in references number 2 and 3 it says:"The history of the Serbs in the 9th and 10th centuries is much better known thanks to the work of Emperor Constantine VII. He was rather precise in delineating the boundaries of the Serbian lands in the Littoral. According to him the Serbs lived in Duklja, Travunia and Konavle, Zahumlje, Pagania, and Serbia." In the work of Emperor Constantine VII(already mentioned DAI) it doesn't say that Serbs lived in Duklja.Anywhere!Even article itself confirms this by saying:"The De Administrando Imperio has been a widely used source in reconstructing the earliest histories of the South Slavic states. Porphyrogenitus wrote that Duklja had been made desolate by the Avars and "repopulated in the time of the Emperor Heraclius, just as were Croatia and Serbia" (i.e. in the first half of the 7th century).[7] Whilst he clearly states that the neighboring principalities of Serbia, Zahumlje, Travunia and Pagania had been settled by the 'unbaptised Serbs', he mentions Duklja simply as having been settled by 'Slavs'." Please help! I cant believe you protect article that is a pure example of nationalistic POV? Montenegro in my heart (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not correct. While the DAI does say "Slavs", experts treat this as Duklja having been a Byzantine fief longer than the rest of the Serbian lands. The first rulers of "Duklja", which might well have been called "Triballia" or "Travunia", were Serbs. Caslav's Serbia included Duklja. A group of Serbs were hosted at a Byzantine monastery in 992, presumably from Jovan Vladimir's Duklja. Also, a possible "Theme of Serbia" was established by the Byzantines, which had all of Vlastimirid Serbia, including Duklja. You choose to see beyond Stefan Vojislav, and what the contemporary sources say about him: Not even one mention him as "Doclean" (but as toparch of [the fort of] Duklja, along with other possesions), but as "archon of the Serbs". Mihailo was called a "Slavic king" as the rest of the notable Slav monarchs, but also as a "Serbian king". In Serbian historiography, Duklja and it's dynasty are treated as Serbs, and scholars from Montenegro are divided on the issue (crazy, right?). The Doclean Chronicle, written after 1300 AD, however, treat the "Doclean dynasty" as "non-Serbian" in the sense that it differentiates the "Rascian" and Dukljan histories, goes so far to say that the maritime principalities were "part of Red Croatia" which has been refuted by all major scholars. The entry about Dalmatia is perfectly understandable, as "Doclea" was called "Dalmatia" as well. Skylitzes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glykas, [Katakalon Kekaumenos, Anna Komnene, do have a good overview of the Early Medieval Balkans, and they did treat the "Triballians" and "Dalmatians" as "Serbs". Nonetheless, some Croats maintain the Red Croatia-view, even though it was postulated in a chronicle written at the initiative of the Subicci, who had just taken possession in Zahumlje (politically motivated). These views are present in the article. I think that claiming Duklja as Red Croatia is POV. I will expand the article when I have time. --Z oupan  19:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you very much,you gave me great argument for my case."Might been","presumably","possible"...These are all presumptions without any real evidence and I have nothing against putting these presumptions in article,but I do mind if it is to be center-piece of this article.Serbian historians claimed many things and were proven wrong many times.You have perfect example of that on this talk page and in references of this article,I highlighted it in my previous post and I am glad you agree with me.They clearly falsified DAI by saying that it mentions Dukljans as Serbs when it does not,so this whole article is based on falsified sources and references.Do I need to go further? But ok,thats even not the point.Lets get serious,Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool of the Serbian historiographic society,it is supposed to be NEUTRAL encyclopedia,so lets go and write a neutral article.People that lived in Duklja were nowhere specifically mentioned as Serbs,nor did Vojislavljevic dynasty and they were mentioned as Slavs and even Croats and yet you want to put them in Serbian and only Serbian national corpus?Well it does not work that way.I know that Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja is not of most reliable sources and I am not claiming that they were Croats.In fact I am Montenegrin and you can guess what my POV is and I am most definetly not pushing it.I just want a neutral article. Not to forget,you mentioned Montenegrin historians?I can immediately give you references that backs up my claims from "Istorijski leksikon Crne Gore"(Lexicon of Montenegrin history,2006,ISBN 86-7706-167-3) written by Profesor Doktor(not sure what title it is in English PHd I think?) Serbo Rastoder and Profesor Doktor Zivko Andrijasevic,both Professors at University of Montenegro(department of History)pages 585,586,587,588,589 and 590.Of course there are many more sources especially from Montenegrin or Croatian authors(most notable-Ivo Banac,professor at Yale university),but I dont have these books in my possession currently so I cant cite exact pages. Once more-Neutral article please! Montenegro in my heart (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin here, I'll suggest that you avoid rants like the one above that just say "I just want a neutral article" and "Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool." I strongly suggest that you make specific suggestions as to how and why to change the article with citations that will support the change to this talk page so that consensus can be reached and the article potentially modified.  Continuing to rant like above will find you subject to blocks and/or editing restrictions as this article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Toddst1 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Archaeology
There is online this publication on Roman Doclea. Keyboard warriors of the Balkans are requested to include it in the article.

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/10122858/Antiquarian-Researches-in-Illyricum-IIV-Sir-Arthur-John-Evans-18831885 Munro J.A.R. et al. (1896) On the Roman town of Doclea in Montenegro. Antiquarian Researches in Illyricum. (Page 292 of the scribd)]. Good work with ancient inscriptions, topographic plan etc.

The hellenized name Διόκλεια must be added, as it is found in many byzantine publications. For example, St. John Vladimir is "of Diocleia" (Διοκλείας). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.6.96.206 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

hr.wiki
100% corect http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.21.56 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

100% bullshit like most of croatian papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FloydBG (talk • contribs) 02:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2017
Duklja is Montenegrin heritage and this manipulations have obvious high tendency to fabricate history as this historians from Serbia suffer from some kind of nationalistic egoism through the decades. On the other hand History should be objective as much as it can and if you don't believe Montenegro resources then you could read Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian, Macedonian etc.. First war against Duklja was initiated from Serbia so why would Serbians attack them themselves? It is not question about objectivity it is question about common sense.

https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duklja https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukljansko_Kraljevstvo http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/dukljanska_drzava_i_povelje_dukljanskih_vladara_b_sekularac.html 62.4.55.147 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2018
"He was crowned King of Slavs and known as Ruler of Serbs and Tribals" - reference for this, page 399: https://archive.org/stream/JohnSkylitzes.ASynopsisOfByzantineHistorytrans.ByJ.Wortley2010/John%20Skylitzes.%20A%20Synopsis%20of%20Byzantine%20History%20%28trans.%20by%20J.Wortley%29%20%282010%29#page/n375/mode/2up 109.206.115.123 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to do this for you, but I'm not sure what to change. Could you be clearer in your proposed change and state your idea in "Please change X to Y" format? Thanks, L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Allow us to edit the article
You need to allow us to edit this article we have enough resources. Montegringo06 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

More sources for Montenegrin first state
https://web.archive.org/web/19970116032145/http://www.montenegro.org/duklja.html Montegringo06 (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2019
Duklja was not Serb state, but Montenegrin 213.133.7.112 (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Logical fallacy
It is nice that some editors selectively chose a few sources that claim that Duklja was inhabited by Serbs (since in medieval times nations were surely already existing entities, especially Serbian nation, which is according to some editors older than Earth itself). From this piece of information you conclude that it was a medieval Serb state and go on to make a nationalist rant of an article.

Let me point out just one little illogical thing in this little narrative that is being constructed - Duklja had a king (Mihailo I of Duklja) as early as 1055, but the first Serbian king is Stefan the First-Crowned (coronated in 1217). Even his title implies this, besides a plethora or sources. How come that Mihailo I of Duklja was not the "first-crowned" or "first Serbian king". Was he a time traveller? Can it be possible that Duklja was in fact not a Serbian nation state? Could it really be that nations are a 19th century inventions as it is a well-known historical fact? Please discuss. Sideshow Bob 07:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Duklja is Montenegrin history
Duklja is Montenegrin history, not Serbian! Read here: http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages_e/history/duklja_the_first_montenegrin_state_first_dinasty_Vojislavljevic.htm This is not what we learn in schools in Montenegro. Enough of Serbian propaganda! Montegringo06 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Montenegrina.net really ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.120.99 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding the Flag of Duklja
I think that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the red and yellow bicolor flag of Duklja from Wikimedia Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAstra (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020
Duklja was never a serb country 37.122.185.221 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: according to at least four reliable sources, Duklja most certainly was a Serb country in medieval times. Can you show reliable sources that prove it wasn't?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 14:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of the claim in the lead is contradicting and misleading (as well the references and quote with which was substantiated was cherry-picked). Yes, it was a Serb country, but it became in political (Serbian) rather than ethnic (Serb) sense. Historical primary sources don't give enough evidence for a claim to have been a Serbian principality or principality inhabited by Serbs since the Slavic migration in Early Middle Ages. The mention of the Serbian identity is related to the political expansion of the Serbian principality and military events, only then followed expansion of the Serbian ethnic identity. As such the statement was moved to a section which discusses the identity topic. Same thing can be seen at Pagania, Zachlumia, Travunia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock:  Crovata.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  22:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)