Talk:Stefan Dečanski/Archive 1

Archive 1

illegitimate

decanski was not born of any of the wedded wives of tsar Milutin, instead decanski (= Urosh III) was illegitimate, by Milutin's some early concubine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.234.211 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

His full title

I think his full title was "King of all the Serbian and the coastal lands" (Kralj svih srpskih i pomorskih zemalja). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.49.72 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

His mother

Stefan Dečanski is not son of Bulgarian princess. He is son of Serbian noblewoman Jelena, first wife of Stefan Uroš II Milutin. Could please somebody help with cite notes. Book is Веселиновић, Андрија, Љушић, Радош Српске династије. Платонеум, Нови Сад, Београд, 2001. ISBN 86-83639-01-0 --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Branivojevići

What is the "Branivojevići"? The term is referenced without explanation in the article. The best I can guess from reading other references on the internet is that it is a group of Serbian nobility, perhaps a family based in Hum. Why is this group of particular importance? Can someone with knowledge of this area provide more explanation?--Rpclod (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Serbia Stephan Dushan

Should that be Stefan Dušan? 99.238.74.216 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Name

Long name:

• "Stefan Uroš III Dečanski" (58)
• "Стефан Урош III Дечански" (32)
• "Stephan Uroš III Dečanski" (13)
• "Stephen Uroš III Dečanski" (6)

Short name:

• "Stefan Dečanski" (183)
• "Стефан Дечански" (163)
• "Stephan Dečanski" (46)
• "Stephen Dečanski" (43)
• "Stefan Dechanski" (35)
• "Stephen Dechanski" (18)
• "Stefan of Dečani" (16)
• "Stephen of Dečani" (15)
• "Stephan Dechanski" (14)

Gbook hits.--Zoupan 05:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: move requires admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Stefan Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia → Stefan Dečanski – As per common name. See above section. Zoupan 05:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any information available on how many WP readers go to the page directly versus how many hit the redirect first? 1bandsaw (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are twenty (20) redirects for this page:

• Stefan Decanski
• Stefan Decansky
• Stefan Dečanski
• Stefan Uros III Decanski of Serbia
• Stefan Uroš III
• Stefan Uroš III Dečanski
• Stefan of Dechani
• Stefan of Dečani
• Stepan Uros III
• Stephen Decanski
• Stephen IV of Serbia
• Stephen Uros III Decanski of Serbia
• Stephen Uroš III
• Stephen Uroš III Dečanski
• Stephen Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia
• Stephen Uroš III of Serbia
• Stephen of Dechani
• Stephen of Dečani
• Uros III of Serbia
• Uroš III of Serbia

which makes any title choice dubious. I prefer the English Stephen Decanski. One can use Wikipedia article traffic statistics to see how many readers come in from each redirect, but the statistics are skewed by the use of redirects in other artciles, such as the use of Stefan Dečanski is about fifty articles, and the use of Stephen Decanski in only one. --Bejnar (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Don't see why redirects make "any title choice dubious", and why "the statistics" are used for this move discussion. The common name is "Stefan Dečanski". Apart from the Google books hits that clearly favour "Stefan Dečanski", Google scholar has 204 hits for "Stefan Dečanski" and 14 hits for "Stephen Dečanski". I think this is as decisive as it gets.--Zoupan 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support Stefan Dečanski. 23 editor (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support common name, good proposal. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Manastir Visoki Dečani (Манастир Високи Дечани) - by Pudelek..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Explanation for POV tag

Many points made in the article come across as uncritically accepting mediaeval propaganda. For example, the assertion that the people rallied behind Stefan because of a seen miracle, which I'd expect to be a gross simplification of the political situation. Another would be the use of 'pretenders' when referring to his two rivals, thus lending credence to his claim to the throne, which imo isn't a NPOV. A lot/most of similar points rely on the same source, which leads me to expect that it's a source with a biased POV. FropFrop (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Fine is one of the leading specialists in the history of the Balkans in the Middle Ages and has no interest in promoting any POV. His book, which is used in this article, although a little old, remains a major reference and a must read for any graduate student in History who wants to do research on the medieval history of the area. The problem here is that the article does not use the source correctly. For example, the article indeed says that the people rallied behind Stefan because of a seen miracle, while Fine says that this was the case according to Church sources. That's a major difference. Krisitor (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Kristor on this one, the POV tag should be removed since Fine is leading expert in Balkan medieval history, if there are mistakes in the article they could be easily removedTheonewithreason (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the POV tag should be removed atm. Even though the source is of good quality, the article still doesn't describe the history in an unbiased manner. FropFrop (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough about Fine being a good source. I didn't have time at the time to investigate. Seems like the article needs some tidying up then, rather than a different source. I'll start some tidying up now.

FropFrop (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)