Talk:Zeta under the Balšići

message: :Well, then, put sources. Register, sign your posts; and people will consider your edits. For now, they just seem unexplained POV-ised pushes and near-vandalism. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply  

message: are the followin:
1. Zeta was created from Serbia; therefore it means Serbian territories; why change it to Montenegrin?
2. It notes that Duklja is the first Slavic state in that part of Europe (incorrect), also through essaying
3. The English Kings inheriting parts of French soil part makes no sence
4. It notes that the Rascian domination (a 600 year period) as a brief period
5. Deleting the Mrnjavcevic's name? Why?
6. the title adding reformulation is senless
7. Why add the some part next to the Serbian rulers?
8. Why delete "orthodox"?
9. The sentence added in Line 21 is essay-like and unapropriate, rather
10. Why delete the two Nemanjic rulers that ruled Zeta?
11. Why delete Stefan Lazarevic?
12. Why delete the "History of Serbs" category?
I suggest the annon to answer all these questions before making rash changes, and see an article of mine: Duklja for further information. Thank you in advance. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the edits 

message: Why "independent"? Why not just "Principality of Zeta"? Adam Bishop 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: There is more infor per monarch here than at their respective articles! Srnec 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deficiencies

message: Quote:Zeta was the Serbian independent principality that replaced the ancient Kingdom of Duklja (Latin: Doclea) for the Serbian territories roughly encompassing present-day Republic of Montenegro. It was named after the river of Zeta.
This is obvious vandalism..Zeta seceeded from Serbia and had its own rulers,the Balsic dynasty.It did not take Serbian territories but only restored territories that previously belonged to it,then known by the name Duklja(Doclea}
Everyone knows that.Sideshow Bob 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crnojevics are Serbs that do not originate from Zeta. Both the Crnojevics and Balsics expanded their territories at the expense of the Imperial territories out of which they forged tiny statelets (that became a Principality afterwards). --PaxEquilibrium 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do not pay a lot of intention to Montenegrina. I've talked myself with their founding fathers. They're mostly one of those quasti-historians like Jovan I. Deretic from Serbia... no worth paying a lot of attention - primarily because they can't even falsify properly - for instance, they source the Matica Srpska, giving scanned documents of it's alleged documents dating before its foundation. ;) There are several other occasions as well, like the words of Petar I Petrovic after his death or other things that simply make me hilarious. :) --PaxEquilibrium 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct it yourself then. Be bold. --PaxEquilibrium 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is 100% true. After that the Vladikas took over and then in 1696, around 180 years later, the Petrović family takes over. Also, how is Zeta not the successor of the Kingdom of Duklja when it is. Well, during the time Duklja existed, it was beginning to be called Zeta in the mid-1100s and generally, why have been seing Zeta used a lot in the last few paragraphs in the history section in the Duklja article? Well? --Crna Gora 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not claim that - those were two states, but of course Montenegro inherited Zeta. It's plain fact. However, the current Republic of Montenegro cannot be the successor of the Principality of Montenegro for sure (just as the current Republic of Serbia isn't the successor of Rascia). --PaxEquilibrium 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbian principality???

message: It was succeeded by theocratic Montenegro (took most land) and Ottoman-ruled Montenegro (took some land but was later merged into theocratic Montenegro).
This part confused me, so I'd appreciate someone clarifying the sentence or explaining its meaning. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Principality was succeeded by a free Montenegro (as vassal to Venice, but de facto independent through the Serbian Church) and an Ottoman Montenegro, which was subsequently annexed to the Sanjak of Shkoder. --PaxEquilibrium 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Zeta was never a principality. Under the Balšići, it was a lordship. Under the Crnojevići, it was a dukedom. No where does it say that Zeta is a principality. --Montenegro 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's the common name for all the little realms. Besides, see the Principality article. --PaxEquilibrium 11:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principality? 

message: The table is really wrong - in almost every single way. What we should do is create a "Principality of Montenegro" (to differ from the modern "Princedom of Montenegro") for the Crnojevics' realm and then put a state table in there a detailed table, it's really wrong for t'is one. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Just out of curiosity, what happened to Đurađ III?  There are Đurađ I, Đurađ II, Đurađ IV & Đurađ V.
:JimCubb (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Đurađ III? 

message: Serbs try to retake back the coast of today montenegro and write history in their favor. Here is the link to croatian wikipedia, to see the other views on Zeta.
http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zetska_dr%C5%BEava
--188.230.177.200 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Serbia 

message: Various editors keep editing the wikipedia page to say that one of their capitals was Scutari/Shködra. The one source that both editors used only mention that the city was conquered by the Balšić dynasty. If you want to put Scutari as one of the capitals of this dynasty then at least provide a source which is valid. Petarrc13 (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I also want to add that the Balšić dynasty had no constant capital. They moved courts to favored residences or areas that needed their attention. The Balšić family spent more time around smaller villages around lake Scutari than they did in the cities. Petarrc13 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sources support it. Read them. I added a third source. Arguments based on WP:original research that contradict WP:reliable sources can't be used to remove WP:verified information. – Βατο (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital city