Talk:Trpimirović dynasty

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Croatia High‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seperation

Let's bring the whole matter to discussion here.

Is there any source, or any validation to this claim whatsoever? I thought that it's original research, so I rm it as per WP:NOR. --PaxEquilibrium 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell truth after first time looking to this claim I have started to laugh, but now when there is source [1] .....

I hope that we will all agree that Ljetopis popa Dukljanina and Konstantin Porfirogenet work is only historical source for history of Croats and Serbs in this early times ? They are having mistakes but they are only source--Rjecina 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? The first line on that page is "The text commonly known as the Ljetopis' Popa Dukljanina has often been dismissed out of hand by historians". How credible is that? Paulcicero 22:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again your POV editing. Full comment of this text is:"The text commonly known as the Ljetopis' Popa Dukljanina has often been dismissed out of hand by historians. It is preserved only in late and wildly divergent versions. However, it preserves unique information on the early history of the Southern Slavs, much of which is corroborated or complemented by independent Byzantine sources" --Rjecina 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"much of which is corroborated or complemented by independent Byzantine sources" thats not really credible enough for an encyclopedia. Paulcicero 09:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see direct data in the source. Could someone point it out? --PaxEquilibrium 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the dispute tag a little lower, as far as I can see the only disputed part of the whole article is the circumanstatial claim that the Jovan Vladimir was descendant of Trpimir II's brother. --Raguseo 19:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer on Pax question:"Afterwards, King Predimir sired four sons, who bore the following names: The first born was called Chlavimir, the second Boleslav, the third Dragislav, and the fourth Svevlad. He divided his kingdom between them in this way: to Chlavimir he gave the region of Zenta with its cities and these zupanias: Lusca, Podlugiae, Gorsca, Cupelnich, Obliquus, Prapratna, Cermenica, Budva with Cuceva and Gripuli; to Boleslav he gave these zupanias: Libomir, Vetanica, Rudina, Crusceviza, Vrmo, Rissena, Draceviza, Canali, Gernoviza; [327] to Dragislav he gave the region of Chelmania and these zupanias: Stantania, Papava, Yabsko, Luca, Vellica, Gorimita, Vecenike, Dubrava and Debre; to Svevlad he gave the region which the Slavs call Podgoria, in Latin "Submontana", and these zupanias: Onogost, Moratia, Comerniza, Piva, Gerico, Netusini, Guisemo, Com, Debreca, Neretva and Rama. He called these four territories Tetrarchies"

"King Predimir lived for many years and saw his sons' sons before he died at a ripe old age. He was entombed with great honour, reverence and glory in church of St. Peter in the episcopate of Rassa".

XXXI. "His brother Cresimir [Crescimir] had a son named Stephen. After his father's death he ruled White Croatia and Bosna, and after him they [his descendants ?] always reigned in Croatia. Cresimir's son had a son by his concubine who had two crippled legs, and for a long time was unable to walk. He was called Leghec. After the death of his father, Leghec was taken to Tribunia [328] to his cousin Boleslav. He [Leghec] was served by a girl named Lovizza, who delighted him so much that they married, and she bore him seven sons who grew up to be bellicose youths who were formidable with arms"--Rjecina 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cresimir from text is Krešimir II king of Croatia and his son Stephen is Stjepan Držislav king of Croatia. "King" Predimir is Archont Petar which is very clear because this archont has married Prechvala daughter of Serbian župan (sons of this župan are Plenus and Radigrad). In historical text Ljetopis popa Dukljanina this is very clear writen for Predimir. --Rjecina 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. bear in mind several things - this has been discussed before. One notion of the word "brother" which is indeed ambiguous, isn't quite for a source. If you read the whole book, you would notice that it considers all Slavic rulers "brothers" and "cousins". Moreover, this brings us to the conjunction that there is absolutely no other thing which would confirm it, had he really been his son. The only source we have which supposedly claims it (if we rely on the brother/cousin subject solely) is obviously, highly controversial - because it's founded in no other historical source (like the subject we're arguing about). Furthermore, only one of several versions, and whats more a newer one, includes this. If you ask me personally, it's silly and against Wikipedia's rules to use that as a source.

By the way, you'd also have to point out that there are no Croats and Serbs, but that they are one people (separated recently), of Germanic origin. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjecina, it's completely incorrect that the document is accepted in Montenegro. Also pointing out that Serbian historians, who use the source most of all others (practically solely) dispute it is fallacious, because neither do they do that in that manner - nor are they alone. The Chronicle is widely disputed, e.g. the 17th century writer Ivan Lucic from Tragurion implying that it's a fairy tale, mr Fine that did some many researches on the Balkans as well as the link you gave, Paul Stephenson, and many, many others. It cannot be compared to for example the "Of Ruling an Empire" of Byzantine Emperor Constantine. --PaxEquilibrium 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this statement about montenegrin historians is deleted. I do not see now what is under dispute in this version of article. Statement do not say that Archont Petar is brother of Croatian king but say that "according to the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja....." and "...This dynasty connection writen in chronicle is strongly disputed by serbian historian ..." I do not see anymore arguments for POV sign. With hope that you will agree how this version is more neutral of earlier version where is writen how Archont Petar is maybe son of Croatian king I will end my today comment. "--Rjecina 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat; what Serbian historian strongly disputes this? As far as I see the first thing the joint origin of the two families was first ever in the world mentioned on Wikipedia. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]