User talk:Verancin

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Raguseo (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation for evidence.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Verancin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houses[edit]

The House of Nemanjic had several successor-families - most notable being the House of Kotromanic. The only other such were the House of Brankovic and perhaps House of Petrovic-Njegos, but mostly basing on admiration. --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Kotromanic perhaps was a successor to Nemanjic's in a sense they claimed Serbian crown but they were not their cadet branch, a cadet branch is when a male line separates from the main line. For example there are two brothers, the older brother carries on the main line while the younger starts a new one. Kotromanic's are not direct descedants of Nemanjic's through the male line thought they had family relations with them through the female line because of intermarriage. If we follow your analogy we could say they are also Subic's cadet branch which they were not as well. --Verancin 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But that's bad because we have to remove the Brankovics and even Lazarevics then too. Why didn't you remove them too? --PaxEquilibrium 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought Brankovic's and Lazarevic's were of the main line of Nemanjic's...D'oh! :D Sorry for that, I didn't checked. --Verancin 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The predecessor of the House of Vojislavljevic (before Stefan Vojislav) was the House of Saint Vlaidimir, named after Jovan Vladimir. The family tree seems to be a product of original research, as we had a discussion about it a long time ago on wiki - it's mostly based on a single assumption regarding the controversial usage of a word "brother", if so. --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see it the family tree there is from "Regnum Sclavorum" or "Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina". If you are to be so persistant we can them make a compromise and write "House of St.Vladimir or House of Trpimirovic". Would that settle it? --Verancin 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked now and I don't get it. You are claiming that a person who was of the Vojislavljevic family in fact founded the House of St.Vladimir who was predecessor of his own family?!? Wtf? Your reasoning would work if you renamed the House of Vojislavljević page to House of St.Vladimir but this way it doesn't make any sense. --Verancin 22:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The family tree is an original invention, an improvisation based upon that which I already said.

The name of the family was "House of Saint Vladimir" before "Vojislavljevic" was affirmed with the descendents of Stefan Vojislav. And "Vojislavljevic" is far more notable than that name - hence, we won't rename it. --PaxEquilibrium 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, the tree may be an improvisation but I am sure the theory about Petar (Predimir) being a son of Trpimir came from "Regnum Sclavorum", unless of course you claim that is an improvisation too? So "House of St.Vladimir" was an earlier name for what we today call "House of Vojislavljevic"? But how does that approve your edits? Making "House of St.Vladimir" the parent house of "House of Vojislavljevic" would mean they are the parent hosue of themselves! My head spins in confusion now. :-P --Verancin 23:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it isn't there, and is a plain invention. Regnum Sclavorum, better known as (in its original in Italian, rather than Latin) Il Regno degli Slavi from 1601 written by the Ragusian/Dubrovniker historian Mauro Orbini has absolutely no mention of Predimir/Peter being son of Croatian ruler Trpimir. I believe that you're referring to another work, and I know which one - it also has no such mention at all.

As the answer to your second question - the first member of the House of Vojislavljevic was Stefan Vojislav's son, from the late 11th century. The House of Saint Vladimir predated that.

But this brings another thing to mind - why do you keep adding that the House of Tvrtkovic is a cadet branch of the House of Kotromanic and that the House of Kresimirovic is a cadet branch of the House of Trpimirovic? --PaxEquilibrium 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how is the theory of Petar (Predimir) coming from the House of Trpimirovic different from the theory he came from the House of Viseslavic? Both are just theories and both are likely to be true, isn't that right? So why favour one over the other? We do not have sources which are definite on this issue.

Your argument with the House of Vojislavljevic is valid, I see it now, so I concur with you on this matter. The parent house of House of Vojislavljevic should be the House of St.Vladimir, the parent house of House of St.Vladimir is either House of Viseslavic or House of Trpimirovic.

Your third question is easy to answer. House of Tvrtkovic is a cadet branch of House of Kotromanic because Tvrtko who inherited his uncle Stephen was obviously not of main line but was a son of Stephen's brother Vladislav. It was the line from Prijezda to Stephen who were the main line, the line of Tvrtko was the minor (cadet) line from a younger brother which inherited it. The issue with Trpimirovic family is a bit more complicated since both Svetoslavic and Kresimirovic could be considered main and cadet branch. It was first Svetoslav Suronja who was the oldest brother, heir and king. But he was dethroned and his son exiled to Venice (later to Slavonia) with Kresimir, his younger brother becoming a king, but later grandson (most likely) of Svetoslav Suronja, Dmitar Zvonimir becomes a king and restores this main line. So yes the issue is a bit complicated and I think both lines should be mentioned for historical reasons. --Verancin 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. Both aren't even theories, but products of simpleton invention without basis and are completely undoubtedly incorrect. I favor none. I delete(d) them both, because AFAIK there are none sources at all on this issue.

The House of Saint Vladimir is of descent from a Travunian local noble house, with doubtable links to the House of Trpimirovic and most surely no link to the House of Viseslavic.

However, I must object putting it as a separate line - Tvrtko asserted rule and his line (Tvrtkovic) is historically considered the main line of the Kotromanics. As for the Trpimirovic branches, I suggest following standard historical interpretation of the Svetoslavic being a cadet branch, whereas the other being the simple continuation of the standard Trpimirovic line (Kresimirovic)? --PaxEquilibrium 15:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are without basis how did they appear in first place? This means there must be some base for it, right? As for Tvrtko he definitely founded a cadet branch of Kotromanic's, not only is the fact he was not of main line but he also introduced new style of rule and new titles. I think you should take into consideration that Tvrtko wasn't the one who would succeed his uncle Stephen if not for Stephen's son dying in battle. Trpimirovic branches should stay for the reasons I already wrote about. In the situation they can both be considered the main and the cadet branch. --Verancin 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I don't know if you noticed something, it's connected with this matter but not directly. I have noticed there is mention of Archont in several articles related to the Serbian nobility, however in English language such word does not exists, the proper version is Archon. Perhaps you could look into that and correct it? --Verancin 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people add to the page of Montenegro that they "like" it. Why do people delete half of articles all the time? Why do people inflate the numbers on Croats and Serbs articles, which seems that you yourself noticed? All in bad faith either original research or plain vandalism.

Of course, its Archon - we have an article: Archon. --PaxEquilibrium 11:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, does Bosnia (Hungary), Croatia (Hungary) make more sense than Bosnia, Croatia (Hungary) to you? --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, being completely quite and then enforcing your version is not really a nice thing at all. I'm waiting. --PaxEquilibrium 22:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Polo[edit]

Hi Verancin, I'd like to ask you to have a look at the Marco Polo article since there appears to be a real problem there with several editors' POV editing. We have two equally valid theories concerning the birthplace and ethnicity of Polo: the Korčula theory and the Venetian theory.
They are supposed to be represented as equal in the text, but Users Giovanni Giove and Ghepeu insist on adding their own biased unsourced oppinion (see article). Could you help with the issue? DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]