Talk:Jovan Vladimir

Name change

CrnaGora, there is 1 searh result for "Prince Vladimir Dukljanski" and nearly 1,800 for "Jovan Vladimir". --PaxEquilibrium 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rulerbox

Why not adding it at the beginning of the article, like elsewhere? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the dual character of Jovan Vladimir: on one hand he was a ruler, on the other hand he is a saint. So we have two sections, one for his reign (including the rulerbox), and the other for his sainthood (including the saintbox). And I wouldn't give primacy to Vladimir the ruler over Vladimir the saint. Less important, the picture of Prince Vladimir (obviously an artist's imagination of how he could've looked) is of a lesser value than the icon, which has a long established significance and meaning (and the icon is not appropriate for the rulerbox).

On the other hand, I'm aware that an infobox should be quickly available for readers who want most general information. So, I don't know. If you insist, do as you think is the best. VVVladimir (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Title ("King") & other

VVV, how about adding a bit on his title. He was only remembered and considered mythically "King" by the people, as oral tales and national tradition kept the tellings and legends about him (see the Presbyter's Chronicle). Only his descendant in 1077 will truly become King. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Better now? VVVladimir (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I have another suggestion. Why not include John Skylitzes (a Byzantine historian that lived just after Vladimir) as a source in the article, as he wrote about Vladimir. He also calls him "Ruler of Tribalia and Serbia". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How was Vladimir named "Jovan"? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Skylitzes's book, so I can't cite it. There is an assumption by some that Jovan was added by Karlo Thopia when he made that inscription on the rebuilt church in Elbasan, and that the original name is just Vladimir. This assumption seems to be especially dear to the followers of the unrecognized church in Montenegro (they seem to dislike the Jovan part for some reason). I'm not sure that this deserves to be included. Two names might have been in fashion in that time (Gavril Radomir, Ivan Vladislav, Teodora Kosara). You have some other information on this? VVVladimir (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In all my sources, both foreign and domestic, "John/Jovan" is also used. So no, that's nowhere outside it.

The reason why they like it because the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is more-of pro-Catholic and Papal, rather than Orthodox, and "Jovan" is a Serbian-Orthodox connotation. For example, in the several references to it, they even use the Ivan translation, rather than the original. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for the claim in specific? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They support their claim with the fact that the Priest of Duklja calls him only Vladimir. But he also calls Gavril Radomir just Radomir, and Ivan Vladislav just Vladislav, and nobody doubts because of this that these two men had two-part names. In all these names we see the same pattern: the first part is of a biblical or Greek origin, and the second is Slavic, and that was probably a custom in Vladimir's time. For some reason the Priest always uses only the Slavic part. And (for your question on the talk page), regrettably, I don't understand Old Greek, though I understand the alphabet, and know a few words and a little bit of the grammar. VVVladimir (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that there is no source at all whatsoever? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See this. Pay attention to this sentence: Jer, te godine Vladimir šalje izaslanike u Konstantinopolis ne bi li obezbijedio političku podršku tadašnje regionalne super-sile. These emissaries are mentioned in a charter of the Great Lavra Monastery from 993 as Serbian emissaries (see Ostrogorsky). The chronology and dates are helter-skelter. VVVladimir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(scrapped for unrelated)

So, if that's the only source - no; Montenegrina is not a reliable source. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Several examples of King of Serbia and similar titles used on websites:

Greek sites: [1] – ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Βλαδιμήρου βασιλέως τών Σέρβων (of Jovan Vladimir, the king of Serbs); [2] – Ιωάννου [Βλαδιμήρου] Σερβίας (Jovan [Vladimir] of Serbia). Bulgarian site: [3] – сръбският княз Иван Владимир (Serbian prince Ivan Vladimir). Albanian site (in English): [4] – ...St. John Vladimir. He was a king of Serbia... VVVladimir (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

MOC

V, should we include the MOC in the ..venerated in.. bit? Your thoughts? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're joking now, aren't you? :) They say that they are an Orthodox church, but since they are out of Orthodox communion, they are factually not an Orthodox church (as that article says, they are just self-styled as Orthodox). And I think that sects are not supposed to be included in that bit. VVVladimir (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your view? VVVladimir (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know...if they're non-notable they shouldn't be in the article, but on the other hand they should because they celebrate him too. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry to have misread your question above.) Okay, I agree with that, but there's still a problem – it seems that they, in fact, do not celebrate Saint Jovan Vladimir, because for them he is nepostojeći Jovan Vladimir ([5]), and Sv. Jovan Vladimir (potpuno izmišljena ličnost) koji se poistovjećuje sa Sv Vladimirom Dukljanskim ([6]). I don't know if this is an official standpoint (if the sect has something like that), but they probably wouldn't even like to be included in the bit (I wouldn't be surprised if someone starts a separate article with that name). VVVladimir (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mrkojevići, Androvići, the cross

I didn't pay attention to the statistics in Mrkojevići. I followed the link Paštrovići, and it turns out that Androvići belong to them. My source says that the cross is under the care of the Andrović family from Velji Mikulići, and at another place it says that Velji Mikulići belong to Mrkojevići, what led me to conclude that the Andrović family belonged to Mrkojevići. To avoid any incorrect designation, I reworded that sentence. VVVladimir (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not very familiar with the families in both Paštrovići and Mrkojevići, however, what I meant in my edit summary was that Mrkojevici is NOT a Serb clan, but rather a coastal clan like as stated in the Paštrovići article (even though the Paštrovići predominantly declare themselves Serb). And BTW, Velji Mikulić is not part of the Mrkojevići at all, nor part of Crmnica or Krajina, but rather somewhere near the City of Bar. --Prevalis (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I understood what you wrote in that summary about Mrkojevići, and the statistics show that only about 8% of them declared to be Serbs. So, I agree that it might be inappropriate to term them as a Serb clan, but as I said, I previously didn't pay attention to that statistics; and the article Mrkojevići has no coastal clan designation. If they are a coastal clan, that's okay with me! If you're right about Velji Mikulići, which I have no reason to doubt, than my book is wrong in this case.

But now that the sentence simply states that the family is from the village Velji Mikulići, both these topics are not related to this article any more. VVVladimir (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Un-related, yes, I think we should use "Serb clan" (next to the clans who mostly identify as Serb) only in historical subjects and context. By the way, "Serb clan" does not mean that Serbs are its members - it's a historical reference, and members of Serb clans were and are Vlachs, Croats, Muslims (Bosniacs), Albanians, Romanies and, well of course, Montenegrins. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: PASS

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A. Varying spellings: Cossara and Kosara; Samuil and Samuel. B. split long sentences "He apparently ruled in peace, evading involvement in the major conflict, which culminated with Samuil’s disastrous defeat by the Byzantines in 1014, shortly after which the Tsar died of heart attack"

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A. fact tag added in "Iconography and hagiography"

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Anything about Jovan Vladimir's life before he suceeded his father.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Is the Feast day June 4 -in text or May 22 - in infobox(both refered) or both????
• See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. If more English references are available, please use them.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Answers

1. A. Throughout the article Kosara and Samuil are used, as spelled in other wiki articles; Cossara and Samuel are used only in citations from Stephenson, as spelled in that source. B. Better now?

2. Fixed.

3. Regrettably, nothing in historical sources. There is something in hagiographies, but it is a panegyrical legend rather than historical facts.

• Some Orthodox churches use the international, Gregorian calendar, and some the Julian calendar (they keep the tradition from the times of Roman Empire). For all of them the Feast day is May 22, but in the case of those that use the Julian calendar, that day coincides with June 4 of the Gregorian calendar. That is the case with the Serbian and Albanian Orthodox Churches, which are relevant here. I thought that the note in infobox would explain it. Will the notes I added now do for the explanation? I'm not inclined to put it in the main text.
• I would be very glad to use them, but Jovan Vladimir hasn't been given a significant space in English texts. VVVladimir (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not include those legends? I hear Albanian and Macedonian epic mythology is rich on Jovan Vladimir. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If Legends exist in Albanian and Macedonian epic mythology, they must be added.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

PASS. I am adding the article in GA Phil and relig section rather than History section as Jovan Vladimir seems to be better known as a saint than a king.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)