Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:58, 23 November 2011 [1].

---

Jovan Vladimir

Jovan Vladimir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Jovan Vladimir/archive2

Nominator(s): Vladimir (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Jovan Vladimir was an 11th-century prince whose reign took place during a long war between two great empires of his time. Besides the war, however, there is also a love story in his biography. After he was deceitfully murdered in his late twenties by an emperor, he was recognized as a saint. His cult is still present in some parts of the Balkans. I tried to represent in this article both Prince and Saint Jovan Vladimir, though there is not much historical data about him. Chronologically speaking, he is the first Serb saint. Vladimir (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, not assessing reliability or comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - ex. [4][16] instead of [16][4]
• Why not include both authors for citations to Milović?
• Some authors/editors appear to be missing first names
• Some of your locations need country names to assist non-specialists. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Corrected consecutive footnotes, included Milović—Mustafić, added countries. As for those authors/editors, they were Orthodox monks. They change their given names into new monastic ones, and they dismiss their surnames. So those are in fact their first names. Though Rudger was a 13th-century Catholic archbishop, but he is known only by that name, Rudger. Vladimir (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Media Review - File:Rumija from Stari Bar 2 (cropped).jpg should have an English caption. Assuming that OTRS tickets are valid, which I cannot personally verify, everything else appears fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Added caption. Vladimir (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Good show. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions by nominator - Nikkimaria, have those points been addressed? Also, do you have concerns regarding reliability and comprehensiveness of this article? Vladimir (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Don't use dashes for multi-author citations- either commas or semicolons. Other than that, my comments have been addressed. As to reliability, I don't feel I have the subject or language knowledge to comment on those issues - I'm hoping another reviewer does. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Corrected. Vladimir (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• "the town's inhabitants deceitfully killed him": I don't know what that means.
• "by her will": I guessed that will meant "wishes" and reworded.
• So far so good in roughly the first half, down to Cross of Vladimir. Very easy to follow; good work. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and copyedits. I hope the article is not too much out of your scope of interest. As for "the town's inhabitants deceitfully killed him", this is the story behind it:
    When Dragimir came to Kotor, the town's inhabitants prepared a banquet for him on a small island in the Bay of Kotor. He went there with only a handful of his men, who could not defend him against the Kotorans who had in fact decided to kill him. Dragimir ran away into a church, but the Kotorans opened its roof and killed him by throwing beams and stones on him.
    I didn't want to include the whole story in this article, so I shortened it to that phrase. Which would be a better way to do it? Vladimir (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks that helps, I changed it to something like "invited him to a banquet, where they ambushed and killed him". I'd like to see a support or two before I copyedit the second half. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I suppose "ambushed" could be used here, though the Kotorans didn't attack him and his men as soon as they arrived at the banquet, but after they all had been sitting at the table for some time and drinking wine [according to the chronicle; Živković (2009) argues that the story is generally credible]. Well, I've left a notice at the WikiProject Saints, so we'll see if any editor involved there would be interested to review the article. There seems to be some reluctance to review the subject not broadly covered in English language sources. Or is it something else? Vladimir (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        • There aren't a lot of people who review articles that are out of their subject area, and some articles stay up at FAC for a couple of months trying to attract reviewers. For future articles, it helps if you're part of some group of people who like to work on each other's articles. - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Thanks for the explanation. And the "ambushed" wording is OK now. Vladimir (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Continuing. "They have kept it as their greatest treasure, protecting it with their lives.": Do your books give evidence that all, some, or none of the family members have risked their lives?
  • The relevant sentence in the book could also mean that they were ready to give their lives for the cross. There is, however, an event described by Ilija Andrović, the oldest man in the family: "I will never forget the year 1991. We had been told that a capture of the cross was prepared, and everyone knows what it [the cross] means to us. We would give our heads for it, without any thinking. Our whole brotherhood [extended family of the Androvićs] was promptly organized to defend our svetinja ('sacred thing') with arms." Then he described how their Muslim neighbors joined their ranks to defend the cross. It appears that eventually nothing happened. The potential raiders were probably deterred by the resolve and preparedness of the brotherhood.
• "On its way there and back, the cross was guarded by a group of men." This doesn't add a lot. Did you want to say something specific about the men?
  • I wanted to say that the cross was not sent to Venice like an ordinary thing, but that it had a guard. However, there is also a story behind this. According to Ilija Andrović, it was originally planned that the cross be plated with gold, but there were so many men in that guard and their provisions cost so much money, that they could eventually pay only for a silver plating.
• "kept it as a great sanctity": I don't doubt the word, but only the plural form means "sacred things" according to M-W. How about "kept it as sacred"?
  • OK. I translated the Serbian svetinja "something sacred" with "sanctity".
    • Okay, taking everything together, I'm not comfortable with this material I've talked about, because it only comes from the Androvićs ... the tone isn't appropriate for FAC, and obviously, they have a conflict of interest. I'll make the edit; feel free to argue or revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• "The participants in this celebration gather at the village the day before" is more or less implied by "The procession is preceded by a midnight liturgy ...".
  • I wanted to say that people from a broader area gather at the village for the celebration, that it is not quite a local thing.
• "There was a custom to pick up a stone ...": When (in rough terms) was this a custom?
  • Until the church at the summit was consecrated in 2005. An ethnographer argues that the custom is of a pre-Christian origin, a form of sacrifice. I heard on a TV program that there were other places in that region where people traditionally carried stones on a pile on certain days of the year (but nothing more specific).
• "On the day that the church was consecrated, 31 July 2005, a Frenchman was baptized there, embracing Orthodox Christianity. He chose Jean-Vladimir as his christened name.": This may not be significant enough to mention, at least by FAC standards.
  • Originally I included that as a footnote (I thought it was interesting to mention, and had something to do with Jovan Vladimir, or, in French, Jean-Vladimir), but a copyeditor has recently put it in the main text. What do you suggest, delete it?
• "archbishop of Bar": uppercase, per Jim below. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It occurred to me too.
• "pope": Chicago supports lowercasing it, but since we're talking about a particular pope, most Wikipedians prefer to uppercase it. Take your pick. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll fix it. Vladimir (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Note: some edits were just made by User:Futbollisti, in wikicode: "In 1368 Dyrrhachium was taken from the [[Angevins]] by [[Karlo Thopia]], an [[Albanians|Albanian]] lord.<ref>Van Antwerp Fine 1994, p. 372</ref> In 1381 Thopia rebuilt an old church in [[Shijon]], a small settlement near the town of [[Elbasan]], and gave it the name of Jovan Vladimir, thereby transforming it into [[St. Jovan Vladimir's Church]]. Shijon is in the narrow valley of the stream Kusha, a tributary of the [[Shkumbin]] river. The church was built in a Byzantine style and ...". The link for "Albanian" was a good idea, because Albanian itself is a disambiguation page. The rest of it isn't as good; unsourced information was added, and redundant phrases are inserted. He's a new user; I've left a message on his talk page welcoming him, explaining the problem, and inviting him to comment here. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: This was my full edit. Actually everything in this paragraph is well sourced. The only thing I did was some rewording, wikifying the church built in his name, which is now an important place for yearly pilgrimage, in honor of the saint, and I also took away the Elbasan Gospel Manuscript part, which is not directly related to Jovan Vladimir, but inserted it in the church's article where it's relevant see edit. Hope that makes sense and Danke will agree with me. Futbollisti (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment ... you said on my user talk page that you'd like to be more involved here, and that would be great. I want to be clear that I'm only concerned with FAC rules and how they apply here; I'm not interested so much in what should or shouldn't be in the article, that's up to whoever wants to edit the article, and feel free to discuss that. The part I quoted above has some problems, at least, according to the rules we follow at FAC. Is the name and description of Shijon in the Novaković reference? Do you have that reference? Also, this is redundant: "gave it the name of Jovan Vladimir, thereby transforming it into St. Jovan Vladimir's Church." Also, you lowercased "river", and it needs to be "River" there. None of these is a big deal at all ... but it's hard to get articles through FAC successfully if things are changing quickly without a lot of discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that a Serbian should verify if Novakovic says "Shijon" or "Shingjon" because I don't know Serbian and the current reference is in Serbian, but I have read a translation in English of Novakovic in the past, and he supports fully what's in the paragraph. I believe that the settlement used to be called "Shingjon", just because of Saint John Vladimir" (it's "Shen Gjon" or "Shin Gjon" in Albanian), but today's official name is Shijon. The description of Shijon as a place close to river, was not done by me: that is already in Novakovic. Removed "gave the name and so on". Also made Shkumbin a "River".Futbollisti (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That deals with all my objections, thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

While linking Albanian, Prespa, and St. Jovan Vladimir's Church, and removing "Van Antwerp" from citations (which I was just about to do) is OK, and I could also agree with removing the Elbasan Gospel Manuscript, the rest is just adding unsourced material and removing some sourced material. What that user added is not present in the cited sources. He also removed the sentence "An Orthodox monastery grew around it...", which made the following sentence "In more recent times the monastery fell into disrepair..." nonsensical. Now he/she is even messing up the "Life" section. The user should have first discussed here before making such changes in the article. I implemented those acceptable changes he made, and reverted the others. Vladimir (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's go one thing at a time. I'm not trying to ruin this article, but to improve those little things which can bring it to FA, and I voted support.

1. I don't think you understood my edit in the paragraph on the St. Jovan Vladimir's Church. With this edit you are taking away information, present in Novakovic, that Thopia brought the relics from Dyrrachium to Shijon. After you made that edit, there is no information as to how the relics made it to Shijon (it was because of Thopia).
2. The beginning is poor. The first paragraph talks about Duklja. If you really want to keep it that way, that will be fine, but the title is "Life", so either you should accept my change, or should make the title of that first paragraph "background", because you're not mentioning Jovan Vladimir at all there. Makes sense?
3. I accept that removing "An Orthodox monastery grew around it" made the flow more difficult, so on that piece I agree with your edit.Futbollisti (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging in the discussion. Re no. 1, I have that book right in front of me (do you?) and I can assure you that Novakovic never claimed something like that. He speculated (without asserting that firmly) that Vladimir was from the beginning interred in that church near Elbasan. He even asked himself what could have happened with Vladimir's relics when that church was ruined in an earthquake. The idea of the relics having been for some time in Dyrrachium was first proposed by Jirecek.
Re no. 2, I think that that short introductory paragraph about the immediate pre-history of Duklja before Vladimir's time, its rise to power, is a good introduction. The article was copyedited by several editors, contributors of FAs, and they didn't find anything wrong in it. Though we can discuss it if you insist.
Re no. 3 ... well, I'm glad you agree :) Vladimir (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1. If you have Jirecek, it would be a great idea to source him, so that the relics route makes sense to the reader. It doesn't make any sense that first they are in Dyrrachium and then in Shijon. Some clarity is needed. If you don't have Jirecek, then leave it as it is, but probably it would be best to also assert Novakovic's thought that he may have been buried in Shijon. It would be great if you gave both scholars and confront their views in the article, in order to fully give a NPOV version to the article (which is already a well researched piece, but it can get even better).
2. I still have doubts about the beginning of the article (although it may have been reviewed by better wikipedians than me). The lede should be considered separate from the rest of the article, being only its summary, and the article itself on Jovan Vladimir cannot start with a paragraph that doesn't even mention Jovan Vladimir, don't you think? We can say that he grew up in Duklja in the first sentence or in the second, but not mentioning Vladimir in the very first paragraph doesn't render him justice. This is an article about him after all. Futbollisti (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See the part that begins with "In around 1215..." and ends with "the patron saint of Dyrrhachium in a Greek liturgical text." That part is referenced with the book of Jirecek in which he proposes that idea of the relics having been in Dyrr (ref 17). Then the next paragraph begins with "In 1368 Dyrrhachium was taken from the Angevins by Karlo Thopia, an Albanian lord.[28] In 1381 he rebuilt, in Byzantine style, a ruined church near the town of Elbasan..." I think that that sufficiently suggests the idea that Thopia could have been instrumental in transferring the relics from Dyrr to the Elbasan church, without any need for us to resort to OR and write something that is not present in the sources. As I said, Novakovic only speculated, and I think it would only damage the flow of the text to include his speculation. Regarding the beginning, I said what I think, and if any reviewer share your opinion, he or she is free to post it here. And we'll see. Vladimir (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1. That is a hint that there may have been a transfer of the relics, but the reader shouldn't have hints, rather supported claims, hence why not fully quote the authors and say that Novakovic said this and Jirecek said that? That's how you get a well balanced article: confronting all the views and presenting them clearly.
2. It's the second time that you claim that no one but me has had complaints for the flow of the first two paragraphs and the lack of Jovan in the first one. Is there any particular reason why you insist in keeping the article that way and do you really believe that my suggestion doesn't make any sense? If so, you can tell me, I won't take any offense. I just want a logical explanation as to how you find it better to start the article about Jovan Vladimir talking about Duklja. I understand that you want to introduce a background about his country, and that's fine, but you should smoothly introduce him into his own territory in the very first paragraph in my opinion. This is an encyclopaedic piece, and it should be focused around Vladimir, not a secondary source about him, but a tertiary one, so focus is important. Futbollisti (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, you gave your argumentation, and I gave my argumentation. Maybe it's time to see what other reviewers think (if they're willing to join the discussion). For now, good night. Vladimir (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've squeezed in a sentence on Novaković's hypothesis. Happy? Vladimir (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please understand that my main worry is that this article never gets downgraded from FA, that's why I make suggestions. In order to do that, you've got to get it right the first time, so that the little star shines for many yeas to come. I am happy with your edit by the way, and even though you are not entering Jirecek's reference, I think that can seal it for the paragraph on the relics. I'll wait for other people's input on the beginning two paragraphs in "Life". Futbollisti (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you please explain what do you mean by "entering Jirecek's reference"? There are currently 5 references to Jireček in the article. Vladimir (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Jirecek is referenced, but not for the idea of the relics having been for some time in Dyrrachium was first proposed by Jirecek as you mentioned earlier. I didn't know that at all before you brought it up, so I thought that presenting that idea would enrich the article. Futbollisti (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Pay attention to "... the relics were presumably removed from this church and transported to Dyrrhachium by the troops of Michael I..." That is followed by ref 17, i.e., Jireček. Vladimir (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but I was looking for content that would describe the process of relics being brought from Dyrrachium to Shijon. If Jirecek has not said that, because he can't know if that route was direct or indirect, and we risk to be in WP:OR territory, then don't put anything, and I am satisfied with the paragraph. Futbollisti (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I doubt that any reviewer here would share your opinion on the first paragraph of the "Life" section. So I wanted to propose to you to support or oppose the FAC as it was, but I see that you've been blocked as a sockpuppet (believe it or not, I expected that to happen). Nevertheless, I'll make a comment or two. The article "itself" starts with the first sentence of the lead, and and not with the first sentence after the lead, as you wrote above, so your concern that the article does not start with "Jovan Vladimir" is unfounded. As Dank stated below, one paragraph generally isn't enough for a section (and something like that certainly cannot be accepted in an FA), so your proposal to make the title of that first paragraph "background" is unacceptable. Have a nice day. Vladimir (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the suggestion to rename the Life section to Background, because readers who are looking for a description of his life will be disappointed. Of course, we don't usually have a reliable biography on anyone from this period ... still, the readers may be confused. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to rename only the first paragraph, as Futbolist suggested, or the whole section? And what would make the readers disappointed? Vladimir (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see the suggestion now ... okay, two or three paragraphs of Background would be fine, one paragraph generally isn't enough for a section. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my note in Futbollisti's section below. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. Now that we included Novaković's theories (which probably bear some relevance) I felt that one sentence wouldn't be enough, and expanded it to a short paragraph. Please see if it needs some fixing or clarifying. Vladimir (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all with that paragraph, and the Life section seems fine as is now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, with comments. I found no major issues in this article, but noticed a few things that could be revised.

• "As soon as he arrived, he went into a church to pray. When he exited the church, he was struck down by Vladislav's soldiers and beheaded;[20] it was 22 May 1016. Skylitzes relates that Vladimir believed Vladislav's pledge given to him through the Bulgarian archbishop David, and gave himself into the hands of Vladislav, who then had him executed." The date might be mentioned earlier, and the second sentence was a little confusing. I don't mean that it sounds bad at all, but I think it is a little too wordy. Something like this might be better: "According to Skylitzes, Vladimir believed Vladislav's pledge, told to him by the Bulgarian archbishop David. He then allowed himself to fall into Vladislav's hands, and was executed."
• "The Greek text beneath the illustration names the saint as Jovan Vladimir, the pious Emperor of all Albania and Bulgaria, the graceful Wonderworker and Great Martyr, and true Myrrh-gusher." I think that this would look better quoted on the article.
• Other than these things, I found the article to be exceptionally well done, and far better than anything I've written. There were no grammatical errors that I noticed. I would double-check sentences on major events to make sure that they are not too wordy, but, other than that, the article flowed along nicely. DCItalk 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and comments. I like the wording you suggested and I copied it in the text (it's free license :)). Also moved the date. Sorry, but I don't understand the "quoted on the article" part. To quote the original Greek text? Feel free to double-check, or even triple-check :) Vladimir (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I should have mentioned that Diannaa copyedited the text, so compliments to her. Vladimir (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Now I see that you wrote "I would double-check...", but I read it "I will double-check", so I thought that you want to do it. That's why I wrote "Feel free..." Sorry. Vladimir (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear on quoting. I thought that you could put that statement in quotes. It isn't necessary, though.:) DCItalk 22:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments I'm close to supporting, just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• He was soon recognized as a martyr and saint; his feast day is celebrated on 22 May. — not sure why semicolon is preferred to "and"
  • Do you have a US style or usage guide that discourages a semicolon here? And wouldn't bother me here, but some would read more meaning into an and than a semicolon. - Dank (push to talk) The semicolon is slightly better in AmEng, Jim, although I know it's slightly confusing for some Brits, who read something of the sense of (what I think of as) a colon into it. I wouldn't object to "and" if you're pretty sure the semicolon doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• archbishop of Ohrid — cap archbishop here I think, like Archbishop of Canterbury
  • Chicago and most US style guides tout what they call the "down style", and there's an argument for lowercasing per that style (because of the comma between the title and the person's name, in this case) ... however, a few years of experience on Wikipedia has taught me that that style is not going to fly on Wikipedia for certain titles, including religious titles such as this one. So, yes, I agree, uppercase.
• The use of the US spelling of "metre" and "kilometre" seems odd in a European context
  • BritEng is influential across Europe, but so are AmEng and German, both of which spell it "kilometer". That is, on this issue, I'm not aware of a "European" (or Serbian) exception to WP:ENGVAR (and the correlate at WP:TITLE). There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that use -er in AmEng and plenty of otherwise AmEng articles that use -re; take your pick.
    • Re-thinking this; why don't we just avoid the whole ENGVAR issue by using "km", "cm", etc.? I've made the edit; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Conversely, if you're using AE, should you give conversions to US units?
  • Absolutely ... for instance, "1593-meter-high" should be "{{convert|1593|m|ft|abbr=on}}", and "20 kilometers" should be "{{convert|20|km|mi|abbr=on}}". - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC) tweaked to add "abbr=on"
• Your book refs consistently give year only, whereas the on-line sources are given as a mixture of d/m/y, m/y and year only. Unless you have a source like a newspaper, where the exact date is important, make them all year only for consistency
  • • Thank you very much for your comments. Fixed by trying to find some kind of intersection of suggestions by both reviewers. Please check if you both agree with my changes. (Also made all on-line sources year only.) Vladimir (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm happy with the explanations/changes, now supporting above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support with a comment. I'm pretty sure John Van Antwerp Fine's last name is just Fine, not Van Antwerp Fine. This is from his numerous publications (usually like John V.A. Fine) and how he introduced himself (he was one of my professors). Also perhaps akolouthia should be explained in like a line in a similar way to how you explain the kontakion is a hymn. I made a few edits, which you can feel free to revert if you felt they were incorrect. This was a fairly interesting article for a less renowned figure in history. DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I'll include an explanation of akolouthia, as short as possible. I think "Van Antwerp" is not part of the professor's given name. Or should be we put it in the "References" section as Fine, John Van Antwerp? Then it would be Fine 1991, pp. 193, 202, etc., in the "Citations". Vladimir (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that Van Antwerp probably isn't a given name, but probably middle name taken from a parent's last name or something. Still, I think Fine by itself is fine. DemonicInfluence (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Fine is the last name as largely sourced in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Futbollisti (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• On hold Support: Pending some concerns above. Futbollisti (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Futbollisti, I see you've just been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Sulmuesi and User:Sulmues. But I note from the comments on your (Sulmues's) talk page that you seem to be one of our most respected editors of articles on Albanian history. I'm not experienced in sock puppet matters, but it would be nice if you could find a way to participate "legally" at FAC ... perhaps we could get Skanderbeg's Italian expedition through FAC. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "respected" (his talkpage is deceiving, because he erased all the blocks, warning, and sanctions), but this user has a history of disruption [2]. He has also never raised an article to FA, despite trying. Please don't encourage him to sock, it's not cool. Athenean (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When a reviewer has been blocked, the FAC delegates need to know about it, but in cases where we're talking about an established editor, it's better to add something positive so that it doesn't come across as a put-down. I've seen the history of User talk:Sulmues and User talk:Sulmuesi, and he doesn't seem to be inventing the nice things that have been said about him ... on the other hand, there's a long block log and other problems. Fortunately, this isn't WP:ANI :) Thanks for alerting us about the block log. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by File:MapSerbiaX-XIcentury-cs.png, since the caption claims that Duklja bordered the Bulgarian Empire, but the map seems to show it bordering the Byzantine Empire only to the east. Also, it would be good if the map were in English instead of Czech, and what does the green line represent? Ucucha (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The text on the map to east of Duklja says in Czech: "Byzantine Empire (approximately from 1018)". In 1018 Byzantium terminated and absorbed the First Bulgarian Empire, which was until that year to the east of Duklja (including the year 1000 which is indicated in the caption). To the north of that text it is written (with large characters): "Bulgaria (until 1018)". It would be probably more consistent if the author of the map joined those two text into one, "Bulgaria (until 1018)". However, I haven't found a better map of Duklja for this period on the Commons. The green line represents the maximum expansion of Duklja (later a.k.a. Zeta) in 1084, during the reign of King Konstantin Bodin (File:Zeta in 1084 pl.png). Vladimir (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made a derivative map from that one, with English terms; also deleted the green line and added "Dyrrachium". Is it better? Vladimir (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearer. Ucucha (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Have there been spotchecks to look at close paraphrasing and sentences that adhere to the sources? Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I can see. I'll put it on this week's list of FAC todo's at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• It seems like a lot of the sources are non-English, which makes this pretty difficult =/ DemonicInfluence (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • English sources are: Elsie (1995), Fine (1991), Fine (1994), Ostrogorsky (1956), Yanich & Hankey (1921), Koti (2006), and Rudger (2010). Regarding the Serbian sources, Vojvodaen could be contacted, as he is a historian knowledgeable in the subject and familiar with the sources. He wrote this article about Jovan Vladimir on his web site. Vladimir (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Are we stuck with the spotchecks? Vladimir (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would prefer to see some spotchecks to confirm that the sources are used correctly and that there is no close paraphrasing. Have you asked Vojvodaen to take a look? Ucucha (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes I have, and he's said that he will do it soon. Vladimir (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks English Online and one English book, concerns 3/27 sources 9/52 citations. Note, I am a modernist, not a medievalist my only language is English. Support the above regarding non-English languages. In particular support a spot check in light of the below wrt the Fine 1991 judgement also cited against Živković 2006 if possible. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • English: Koti (1/52 cites) supports claim; not plagiarised; not copyvio. Not historical, only a modern context source.
  • English: Rudger (4/52 cites) Quotes match text. Close paraphrase?: 20a: "When he exited the church, he was struck down by Vladislav's soldiers and beheaded." with the source "Immediately before the doors of the church he was struck down by the soldiers; he was beheaded on the 22nd May." Compare for unacceptable close paraphrase of the translator?
  • English: Fine 1991 (4/52 cites): p.202 clear. fn1 partially demonstrated supported (Google preview limitation); fn2 clear. fn4 can't test due to preview. 19a no mention of a heart attack (also cited against another source); 19b Fine 1991 explicitly refutes the academic conclusion of the sentence however this is also cited against Živković 2006 66–72 who may provide more modern research than Fine 1991. 19c fully supported.
    • Thanks for spotchecks. Re Rudger, really, is that too close a paraphrase? He was beheaded by the soldiers and that's a fact that must be stated in that sentence. Maybe "was struck down" could be rephrased not to look too close... though I'm not sure if that is really needed.
      • Identical sentence structures, identical verb clauses, "he was struck down". Fifelfoo (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • When he exited the church, Vladislav's soldiers smote down and beheaded him? Vladimir (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Re 19a, Ostrogorsky 1956 mentions it. Re 19b, I wouldn't agree that Fine 1991 explicitly refutes the academic conclusion of the sentence. The sentence is: "Since Samuel's defeat in 1014, the Bulgarians had been losing battle after battle, and Vladislav probably suspected or was informed that Vladimir planned to restore Duklja's alliance with Byzantium." Fine 1991, p. 198, says the following: "Possibly John Vladislav [i.e., Ivan Vladislav] felt that such an unreliable (at least unsupportive) figure could be counted on to assist the Byzantines now that their victory seemed assured. Thus to prevent a second front against himself, he murdered him. The saint's life does not suggest any such intent by the murdered prince and makes him a man of peace who did not like war. But, of course, reality could have been considerably different." Doesn't look like an explicit refutation to me, would like to hear other reviewers on this. Vladimir (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • You snipped four alternate prevarications by Fine about murder motives, and Fine never commits himself. You commit yourself instantly to a single cause. Fine imputes the cause of Vladislav's evaluation of what a reasonable man could do in a situation of assured victory. You impute this this to Vladislav's actual knowledge. This seems like a vast interpretive gulf to me, particularly because Fine extensively prevaricates the point, offering alternate explanations. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Now that I've located my copy. Wikipedia: "Vladislav probably suspected or was informed that Vladimir planned to restore Duklja's alliance with Byzantium." Fine: "The motivation behind the murder is not clear: was it John Vladislav's ambition to annex Duklja? Was John Vladimir…another victim in the feud between the two branches of Count Nicholas's family? Or if John Vladimir had been neutral throughout the war and had not supported the Bulgarians…was he possibly being punished for failing to help? Possibly John Vladislav felt that such an unreliable (at least nonsupportive) figure could be counted on to assist the Byzantines now that their victory seemed assured. Thus to prevent a second front against himself, he murdered him." That's four hypothesised causes, put in an extremely hesitant case. None of it relates to the definite knowledge held by Vladislav "was informed" that you note. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Haven't I worded it as "Vladislav probably suspected or was informed"? I think that "probably" does not convey anything definite. Regarding "or was informed", it comes from Živković 2006, ref 6h (which is cited along with Fine 1991, 19b). I've included that hypothesis of Fine's because it is the one which is also proposed by Živković. He is less hesitant than Fine regarding the hypothesis, and he gives more probability to "was informed" than to "suspected". Vladimir (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Of Fine's hypothesised motivations, 1 and 2 don't relate to external information at all, they relate to normative moral codes that Vladislav felt; 3 relates to external information, but to an absence of action rather than a positive action in relation to Byzantines; 4 may or may not relate to information, and is the only case where Vladimir is directly connected to a Byzantine alliance. Unless Živković 2006 demolishes Fine's methodology, evidence or conclusion on this point; it misrepresents the state of research to characterise the point in this way, "Vladislav murdered Vladimir for political reasons; Živković's recent scholarship shows that Vladislav's awareness of Vladimir's connection to the Byzantines was central to the murder."? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • The fourth hypothesis is common to both Živković and Fine, and that's why I included it. I did not include it as a definite fact (pay attention to the word "probably"), as none of the two scholars represent it as such, though, as I already said, Živković is less hesitant regarding it. He also gives more arguments why the assumption is quite probable, including which in the article could be beyond the summary style. This is the current state of research on this point. Are you proposing to include all the hypotheses by Fine? Vladimir (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm trying to conclusively sound your understanding of the current state of research, and why your phrase represents it. I feel that I've done it, in that you esteem Živković's research as fundamentally superior; and, I see no reason why 15 years shouldn't mean superior research. I'm striking any concern in relation to this. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                • OK. Indeed, for the most part I esteem Živković's research as you described it. Vladimir (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spotchecks Serbian sources. I checked Novaković 1893, Ostrogorsky 1998, Živković 2002, Živković 2006, Živković 2009, Velimirović Stefanović 2000, Milović Mustafić 2001, and Jovićević 1922. I found that sources back claims; no literal translations.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 22:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.