Talk:Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

The "excerpt from the document" is fake. It cannot be an original if it talks about original four copies. The man who added the last sentences was a Serb scribe that worked in Dubrovnika. I put it as a reference in tne article. Mak Dizdar wrote about it...--Emir Arven 17:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is slightly biased, but we have only two sources; a Serbian nationalist and a Bosniak nationalist propagandas, so it'll do. :) What can we do to take down the tag and make it a worthy article? --HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the source makes terrifying errors, and can hardly be considered as valuable. It notes Konstantin the Philosopher as a Byzantine (he wasn't, he was Bulgarian). Additionally, it's a little vague, compared to the other (Serbian) nationalist source since the other has a scanned picture. So don't expect that it'll pass "incognito" in the eyes of other wikipedians. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please clarify one thing. All four copies were lost, right? That means that there is no way for us to know, if the copies are fake, right? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some logic wouldnt hurt. In the transcript, there is a sentence that talks about original four documents not with Stjepan's words, but with the scribe's words, so it cannot be an original, because it wouldnt talk about the original documents. This source is more relevant than Serb sources (Mak Dizdar a relevant author of Bosnian medievel history). There you can find a complete anylisis. I ll put here a quote, we can also translate this part:

"Ban zavrsava biti govornik sa recenicom: Zato stavlju ja gospodin Ban Stefan svoju zlatu pecat, da je vjerovano,svaki da znajet i vidi istinu,a poslije toga,kroz tri posljednje recenice pisar postaje govornik i to ostaje do kraja Dubrovackog prijepisa Banove povelje,a te pisareve vlastite recenice glase:"A tomuj su cetiri povelje jednako, dvije latinsci,i dvi srpsci - a sve su pecacene zlatijemi pecati.Dvije sta povelje u gospodina Bana Stefana,a dvije povelje u Dubrovnici.A to je pisano pod gradom,pod Srebr`nikom".Iz ovoga slijedi da Ban nije uopste nista u povelji rekao o spornim nazivima pisama "na latinsci i na srpsci",nego su to rijeci Dubrovackog pisara! U svojoj knjizi "Antologija Starih Bosanskih Tekstova"(Alef,1997) ,Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar konstatuje da se termini "na latinsci" i "na srpsci" odnose na pisma,a ne jezik,odnosno na "latinicu i cirilicu"(mada je to na kraju krajeva,kao sto je vec receno, potpuno nevazno,jer te termine ne navodi Ban,nego pisar iz srbije).U nastavku, M.Dizdar kaze i sljedece:"...Na zalost,ni jedan od ovih originala nije sacuvan do danas,pa ni njihovi zlatni pecati.Vjerovatno je Dubrovacki pisar izmijenio znatno i jezik povelje,sto u izvjesnoj mjeri umanjuje njenu vrijednost u tom pogledu." --Emir Arven 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks; that clarifies quitte a bit. Although, you still haven't answere my most important question. Those are transcripts. The originals were not kept; meaning that the scribe could be correct (claiming him a Serb propagandist is just mean and POV, isn't it?) --HolyRomanEmperor 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt put in the article that he was a propagandist, I wrote that he was a Serb scribe. Also there is his sentence, that he wrote. Mak Dizdar explained that the script is not the same as a language, because there isn't a "serb" script. --Emir Arven 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to always look for third side sources. Mak Dizdar historian is a Bosniak. The other side's historian is Franz Miklosich, a noble Austrian-Slovenian historian; so isn't it better to pick him over Mak? Also, there is no proof the it was written by a Serb scribe; why not remove that part then? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Roman, be reasonable. Please. Reasonable. Don't be like some sort of nonhuman to ignore all other thoughts, read, be realistic. It is only confusion of terms. Let take things like this. How in the world would you know that Bosniaks are not descendets of mediveal Bosnjani?. Most Bosniaks consider themselves like that. And you are no factor with no real proves to change that fact. --HarisM 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I am referring to the lack of evidence that it was written by a Serb scribe. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen II of Kotroman's ethnicity[edit]

To end all problems here: he was a half-German, half-Serb. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a Serb, you are a Serb. He called his people Bosnjani (Bosniaks). --Emir Arven 15:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. He never called his people Bošnjani. There is no trace for that. 2. His father, Kotroman was a German knight and his mother a Serbian Princess. 3. There is no evidence that the transcript was written by a Serbian scribe.

Please bear in mind this when zou edit the page. Thanks you. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are you kidding me? His most famous chart shows that he called his people Bošnjani all the time. It is called: "Povelja bana Stjepana II Kotromanica Dubrovcanima" from 1332. Look here. I'will put it here in old Bosnian. It starts with the words "If Bošnjanin do this or that..." People in Bosnia in that days called themselves Bosnjani. It is well known historical fact: --Emir Arven 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(August 15th 1332)

Ako Bošnjanin bude duzan i pobjegne - da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina Bana.
Utvrdi zakon ko je prvi bio medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da zna vsaki chlovjek, koji je zakon bil: :Ako ima Dubrovcanin koju pravdu na Bošnjaninu - da ga pozove pred gospodina Bana ili pred njegova :vladaoca - roka da mu ne bude odgovoriti.
Ako Bošnjanin zapsi da nije duzan - da mu nareche priseci samoshestu, koje ljubo postavi Banj rod. :Ako bude podoban od Banova roda kto - da mu su porotnici od njegova plemena, koga mu hotenje. A toj :da se zna - da ne moze tehej pobjegnuti, a vece ne moze pred nikoga mu narechi.
A kto Dubrovcanin ubije ali posjece u Bosni ili Bošnjanin Dubrovcana - taj pravda da je pred :gospodinom Banom, a osud da grede Banu na njih.
Ako bude svadja Bošnjanina z Dubrovcaninom u Dubrovnici - da sudi knez dubrovacki i sudje, a globa :opcini.
Ako Bošnjanin uhiti Dubrovcanina za konja, a on bude ukraden ili uhushen, a pravi Dubrovcanin: "Moj :je konj vlasti" volja: "Ja sam ga kupio, ne znam od koga", volja povije od koga je kupljen, volja :priseze samoshest - cist duga da bude.
I ako Bošnjanin bude duzan, a pobjegne iz Bosne z dugom - da mu nije vjere ni ruke od gospodina :Bana. I ako Bošnjanin izme dobitak dubrovacki na vjeru, i knjiga bude u Dubrovnici, ako knez i :sudje poshlju da je knjiga prava - da je vjerovana, da plati Dubrovcaninu i bez prestavshtine.
Ako li tat ili husar uzme Dubrovchaninu u Banovu vladanju, kto se uvje - da plati Dubrovchaninu i :bez prostavshtine, a gospodinu Banu vsaki sest volova na svoju glavu - i da se ne vrate.
Ako rat bude, chesa Bog ulishi, medju Bosnom i Dubrovnikom, da gospodin Ban da rok Dubrovcanom sest :mjeseca, da si podju u Dubrovnik slobodno - na to im je vjera gospodina Bana Stjepana. A Dubrovcane :da zivu Humskom zemljom u njih' zakonu - u prvom.

2.His father was not a German knight. It was an assumption because of his name Kotroman. Some historians tried to connect his name with Germans, but it was never validated. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3.There is. Mak Dizdar presented his research in Antologija bosanskih tekstova. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Please bear in mind this when you try to spread Serb propaganda again. --Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. Due to above reasons, your articles should be reviewed. And you wanted to become an admin? --Emir Arven 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's exactly what we needed! Why not include that into the article?

I read the source and no where it points out how it found out that it was written by a Serbian scribe. How did they make that asumption could you explain?

Please note that I was nominate by a third party (an administrator), and not by myself.

Also, in favor of better communication, please decrease your beliigerence. --HolyRomanEmperor 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explaination on two Serbian and two Latin[edit]

Franc Miklošić and Vladimir Ćorović have prefectly explained that part. The first (Latin) was reffering to his father's lineage (Latin, but presumably German) and the latter his mother's (Serbian). --HolyRomanEmperor 12:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mak Dizdar explained it perfectly. Here is a part of that explanation. First, there is no Serbian script. Second, there are just Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. Third, in 1332 Cyrillic practicly didnt exist in Bosnia i.e. it was naturalized in 16th century. Bosančica was primarily used. And that is the reason why the scribe didnt use "cyrillic" instead of "Serbian". The above facts were all well known then. I mean Serb historians tryed to explain many things that doesnt make sense. We have seen even here that Serb Wikipedians made up some articles. You also wrote some nonsenses when you said that there were no trace that Stjepan called his people Bosnjani (and his chart is famous because of that he called his people Bosnjani), or when you wrote that Husein-kapetan Gradascevic was a Serb?! If you want to write articles about rulers of Bosnia or Croatia or Serbia, you should read more books and researches not just typical Serb mythology which only purpose is to prove that "people from Balkan are Serbs"...--Emir Arven 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being so agressive towards me or any other user, it is not in the spirit of wikipedia. All problems that you mentioned I have explained long ago; either on your talk page or elsewhere.

I viewed the source. It's heavily biased and incorrect; but acceptable due to lack of sources. For instance, it mentions that the scribes o Dubrovnik were Serbs and states that a Serbian scribe has written the edict. How did it conclude that? There is no evidence that a Serb scribe wrote that. Secondly, it talks of Constantine the Philosopher as a Byzantine (but not true :) So basicly, where is evidence to back up that article's claims.

You told me to look for foreign sources. I did. I looked at the noble Franz Mikloshich Austrian-Slovenian historian. He is neutral (and he is neither Bosnian nor Serb) compared to Bosniak Mak Dizdar who nurishes an anti-Serbian sentiment And now you take a Bosnian source? Explain yourself, please. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, Mak Dizdar made the most valuable research of medievel Bosnian documents, charts, epitaphs etc. He was the best expert in that area in former Yugoslavia. Noone never tried to deny that. Now you are trying. I am shocked. On the other hand you based your articles on "rastko" Serb sources (or other Serb sources) and you say that Mak Dizdar (allegedly anti-Serbian) research is not valid? I hope you are not serious. I mean, I have seen that you were pretty sure about Husein Gradascevic being a Serb? Yes, it is easy to say later, my mistake, but you made many mistakes and still trying to spread incorrect info. Please, read some books first. Thank you.--Emir Arven 16:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Husein three times. This way you are conducting propaganda agianst me :). I only mentioned about Constantine the Philosopher (who was not a Byzantine) and that I am wondered why you used a Bosniak source after I honored respectivly your decision, and provided you with Monumenta Serbica of Franz Mikloshich. Please bear in mind that Mak Dizdar called Bosnia's cultural heritage "..a fief of Serbia..". That's what I meant. Besides, the only problem is that he is a member of Bosniak-Serbian historical sources. You told me not to look for Bosniak or Serbian (or Croatian) sources; and yet after I point out a Slovenian-Austrian you present me with a Bosniak? Also, please take a look at that source that you pointed out. Almost every single sentence has grammatical errors. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Husein, because it was clear example of propaganda. Constantine the Philosopher is irrelevant for this discussion. Mak Dizdar is relevant not because of his ethnicity, but his research. --Emir Arven 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many times must I apologize and say that I didn't even notice that! It wasn't propaganda. Now, I have read myself numerious workd of Mak Dizdar, and francly, he is one of the rare historians that I respect. :) The source that you provided has thousands of grammatical errors and all sorts side-by-side "additions" that is insultive to the work of great historians like Mak Dizdar (sorry for the bold, I just wanted to make sure that you get me right this time ;). For instance, several things are actually not an exerpt from Mak, but rather strange rephrasels (totally losing context). I was opposing because you stated that we should always look for third-party sources. And over to the Austrian-Slovenian historian you chose a Bosniak one. It is simple as that. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources![edit]

The source is from http://www.zemljabosna.com/. Although I accept this source, it reminds be so much of the www.hecegbosna.org Croatian nationalist site, or that "Serb Land of Bosnia" Serbian nationalist website...

Pfft... The only difference is that this one is a Bosniak nationalist site. Why is there so much nationalism when regarding poor Bosnia? --HolyRomanEmperor 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZemljaBosna site just copied articles and researches. There is no proof it is Bosniak nationalist site (as you now, Bosniak nationalism is very disputed).
Why is there so much nationalism when regarding poor Bosnia? Unfortunately, our neighbours during the history always wanted to destroy/occupy it or at least decide what was the best for Bosnia and its people. Are you from Bosnia? Probably not. And that is the answer to your question. Always people outside Bosnia talks about Bosnian hstory, its people etc. --Emir Arven 10:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ZemljaBosna is a database of numerious biased and POV texts. It also makes great works like that of Mak Dizdar look like childhood playing. Not to mention the incorrect stuff (Constantin the Philosopher).
Yes, Bosnia is my state (as is Croatia, the Montenegro, Slovenia, Austria and Hungary; and a bit of Serbia (Vojvodina in presice); somewhat Italy and Romania too). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not from Bosnia. Am I right? --Emir Arven 21:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I conote "refering to to being from somewhere" as nationalism. If you are refering to the place of my birth; then, no, I am not from Bosnia. But like I said, all of those lands live in my heart. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Christian[edit]

I suppose that your "Serm nationalist" means "Serb nationalist". Why do you say so? Vladimir Ćorović is the greatest Serbian historian on earth. He is well-scholared and educated in Vienna. You can see his full works here: Istorija srpskoga naroda. If Vladimie Corovic was a Serbian nationalist - then what are Mak Dizdar & Mustafa Imamovic - Nazies? Please, control yourself.

I do know why did you acuse his works being nationalistic? Do you racisticly hate the entire Serbian people? See also Serbian Unity Congress --HolyRomanEmperor 15:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb sources (Now you showed me one more: "Serbian Unity") are mostly based on mythology and nationalism. That is just a pure fact. Wikipedia is not a place for collecting fairy tales. I have seen that you represent yourself as a historian. I dont believe you. Maybe you are a historian, but a bad one. Because historian should know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism. You go from article to article and put the term "Serb" where it should be and where it shouldnt be. You talked about Stjepan's chart, but just about the last sentece, added by some scribe. Why? Because you wanted to show or tried to connect Serb language with a script called by that scribe "Serb script" (That kind of script didnt even exist). Also, you wrote in the second sentece of Kulin ban article, that his sister was married to a Serb?! That implication showed me that this sick need to connect Serbs with every other Slav people is nothnig more then anachronism and nationalism. Not to mention your earlier lies about historical figures etc...--Emir Arven 16:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you presented [1] is Serb nationalistic site, that support war criminals. It says that Draza Mihajlovic, was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commieted in eastern Bosnia. He was nazi supporter and collaborator. This site also supports Slobodan Milosevic, accuesed for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. This is not serious source.--Emir Arven 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Arven, the way I understand NPOV is that all views are to be presented. I have reworded it now so as to say that Vladimir Ćorović says that about Stephen II and let the reader make up his or her own mind. This is completely within policy, so stop censoring information. --Latinus 16:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have look Vladimir Corovic's book and was not able to find that thesis. [2] Maybe you can help.--Emir Arven 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that talks about it was the one presented by Serbina Unity.--Emir Arven 16:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot read Serbian, so I'll be relying on Holy to locate it. --Latinus 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy, is this just ur another lie? I mean, you were ready to lie previously about my contribution. You said that I was edited some articles, which I never visited in order to get help from admins and to block me. You said that Husein Gradaščević was a Serb, according to crap material that you also posted in Mehmed pasha discussion written by a Serb nationalist, Vukicevic. Then you wrote that Stjepan II was a Bosnian Serb. That was the most stupid thing that I ever heard. It was not even anachronism, it was a crap. You go from article to article to write that someone is a Serb?! What the hell is wrong with you? And you are trying to show yourself as a neutral. Just dont be pathetic.--Emir Arven 11:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact on Husein is a long dispute and I am not going to get anywhere near it. For Mehmed Pasa - the entire world agrees that he is of Serbian origin. For Stephen II - he cannot be a Serb, since modern national affilation cannot be traced that far to the past. He indeed was an Orthodox Christian, because the Shubichs have pushed his mother to the Stefan Dragutin-held Usora and Soli - where he was baptised by an Orthodox Serb priest. You are the one that put Stephen II of Kotroman on the List of Bosniaks article, so I think that you ought to ask yourself that thing... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you cannot show me the section in the Vladimir Corovic book that allegedly supports the thesis that you put in the article about Stjepan II.--Emir Arven 14:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I cannot. But as you know, the Serbian Unity Congress based the research on Vladimir Chorovich's studies.
Now, we can reach a compromise here: Either delete the Bosniak history category, or keep the Orthodox Christianity info; since both facts come from unreliable sources. Agreed? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is now obvous that you lied again. I will ask you now politely, not to do that anymore. On the other hand ur need to remove category doesnt make sense, because Bosniak history is about Bosnia. Bosniaks are named after Bosnia and they learn about rulers of Bosnia. --Emir Arven 16:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn' lie.
Yes u did. Do you want me to show you history of edits on the article, when I asked u for the source.--Emir Arven 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you politly never to isnult openly other wikipedians again.

I tell the truth. Maybe it is sharp why to tell, but it is the truth.--Emir Arven 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if Bosniaks were named by Bosnia? Serbs and Croats also learn about Stephen Kotromanic, and by the looks of sources, they learn it far more thorrowly.

Bosniak history is about history of Bosnia as well as history of their ancestors. As I can see there were other cathegories: Croat history and Serb history.--Emir Arven 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your anti-Serb push is the same as my "anti-Bosniak". Present me with a valuable source why to put that category there; and we'll see. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont do anti-Serb push. I asked u for the source. You was not able to verify ur thesis by the book that you provided as a source. On the other hand, ur little revenge when you removed the Bosniak history cathegory showed me that u think in that "anti-Bosniak" way.--Emir Arven 17:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

I'll delay the discussion on your anti-Serbian and anti-Croatian POV pushes, so that we can solve the Categories problem.

The reason why there's a Serbian category is because it contains a plenty of info regarding Serbs. The medieval ruler fought the Serbs quitte a number of times - and he himself is an ethnic half-Serb.

According to whom? How did he called his people? He formed his identity on Bosnia. He identified himself with Bosnia and his people. He was Serb main enemy in that period.--Emir Arven 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the Croatian category is just as so - you'll notice that he spent half of his life mettled in Croatian political affairs around Knin (if you read the article). And the reason for the Bosniak category is...? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it well.--Emir Arven 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How he identified his people - has no conotations to how he identified himself. He was half-Serb, because his mother was a Serbian princess.

Where is this Bosniak history then; please tell me! --HolyRomanEmperor 19:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You spread incorrect info again. Stjepna II was not half-Serb because his mother Jelisaveta was not ethnic Serb but daughter of Dragutin and Katarina (daughter of Hungarian king). According to ur logic Vladislav II is not Serb, becuse his mother is Hungarian. Then all European nobility should be disputed.--Emir Arven 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me about history of Bosniaks. If you want to know more about Bosniaks read the article.--Emir Arven 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, not even Vladimir Corovic in his book denies that fact. He quotes Hrvoje Vukcic when he says: Prilično uplašen on se obraćao kraljici Varvari, ženi Sigismundovoj, da ga ne odbijaju i nevina ne osuđuju, i da ga ne gone u ogorčenje i krajnost, jer će, prisiljen, morati najzad da traži pomoć gde je bude mogao naći. U ostalom, "pretio ja ili ne", poručivao je on u Budim, "Bošnjaci hoće da se združe s Turcima". Ali njegova pisma i poruke nisu ni stizali do Sigismunda, niti su inače imali kakva dejstva. Sigismund je nekad davao čak Hrvojevim protivnicima, da ih oni čitaju i da na njih odgovaraju kako znaju. Njegova nemilost bila je potpuna...--Emir Arven 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see he also called his people Bosniaks, because that was common name for people that lived in Bosnia (that practice was used in letters, documents, charts from that period), people who has its own nobility, rulers, territory and sense for own identity. It is natural that Bosniaks who are descendants from those people have every right to learn about their homeland and ancestors. You have to understand that the time of Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic who denied Bosniaks right to their own identity is over. That right was not destroyed even during last genocide conduceted by Serbs. It is obvious proof that there is nothnig that can destroy someone's need for freedom, independence and identity.--Emir Arven 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosniaks was the standard usage for all citizens of Bosnia. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Emir Arven 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

You said

  • According to ur logic Vladislav II is not Serb, becuse his mother is Hungarian. Then all European nobility should be disputed.

No, no, no; Vladislav was a Serb, but was also a Hungarian. He was an adherent of the Hungarian branch of the Roman Catholic Church & attempted to be King (almost succeeded) of Hungary. And it can be applied to all the rest of us, not just nobility. You shouldn't put it blantly sayin "he is that, this one is this" like you enforced "Serbian nationality" on me and User:Millosh acusing us of being Serbs => Stephen was both a Bosnian and a Serb... --HolyRomanEmperor 15:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is culture and self-determination that matters far more that counting bloodcells, Emir. Stephen II's mother was Јелисавета Драгутина Немање, a Christian adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church, her mother tongue the Serbian redaction of the Church Slavonic. One of the two languages of Stephen II (birthname Stefan according to his edicts - the Serbian variation of the word 'Stephanus) of Kotroman was the Serbian redaction of the Church Slavonic. Stephen II was born baptised Christian, adherent of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Althogh I consider that "whome he ruled" should not be mistaken with his own nationality - a very large part of his population were Serbs - forming majority in the Hum (Bosnian coastline) and living also somewhat in various parts of Eastern Bosnia. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is mostly based on anachronism (sometimes on Serb mythology and lack of logic/common sense). You still keep counting bloodcells of those historical figures and writing false information. You go from article to article that are related to Slavs and write that someone is a Serb. When I ask you to provide sources, you cannot or you dont tell me the truth. You give me naive explanations. For instance Stjepan II ruler of Bosnia, called his people in his document/edicts Bosniaks, but you say: "well that is not a proof that he was a Bosniak"?! According to your "common sense" if president of USA, Bush calls his people Americans then that is not a proof that he is American?! It is not the matter of bloodcells it is about identification. He identified himself with Bosnia and Bosniaks. He fought against Serb rulers. After that you say that he was ethnic half-Serb (or which is really stupid, Bosnian Serb?!), which is false as I explained earlier. His grandmother was Hungarian. Then you still keep counting his bloodcells or trying to connect him with Serb Orthodox Church, but without proof. You offer me a book and say that that book supports your thesis, and when I check it, I find nothing there. And finally when you cannot prove your thesis you go and ask for help. That are your explanations. I think that you lost your credibility long time ago. Even in the nationalistic site that you provided there is nothnig that will support your original thesis. There is just sentence which says that he was born Orthodox and nothnig more.--Emir Arven 19:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I apply to your ideology - you spend all the time on wikipedia's Serbian-related articles, trying to destroy Serbian culture & history. But I am not going to use your logic - so I'm not going to claim that. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serb nationalist site?[edit]

Could we here see some proof that it is a Serb nationalistic site? I am not denying it - I would just like to see some explaination, please. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a proof or at least a descending opinion on the source [3]--Dado 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy, I have learned that Emir Arven was blocked because of the dicussion taking place on this article as you have urged admins to intervene against him. From discussion above I can see that dispute was based on sources that you have stubbornly pushed and that at least from the link that I have provided above is highly disputed. I advise you to use good faith in the future and spend as much time checking your sources as you do complaining about other users who end up unjustly banned from Wikipedia. Your tactics may turn against you if continue pursuing them --Dado 09:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've just opened a can of worms, my friend :-) --Latinus 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you meant: [4]. Ahm - the western media consider him a Hero - and blame Tito for the Communist reign and eventual break-up of Yugoslavia. He was supported by Winston Churchill - with whose relatives he fought side-by-side. I find it also strange that George Bush Senior would say commendable things about a war criminal.

The Columbia Encyclopedia doesn't show him as you present it. Additionally - I don't think that the United States of America would erect a commemorative monument to a Nazi collaborator. He indeed did colaborate - but with the fascist Italians - not the Nazi Germans. It was when the Italians were frightened of the horrific crimes committed by the Ustasas - so they put the Serbs & Bosniaks on the coastline under protection and funelled Chetnik military arsenal. Additionally - the Chetniks under Drazha did commit war crimes - but even less than Tito's partisans. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erection of Mihailović monument in US on January 25 1989 - as a reward for rescuing United States Airforce airmen. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the site Holy provided is hard-core Serb nationalistic site: Free Serbia Lobby.--Emir Arven 12:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I think it is sad for anyone who supports nazi-collaborator and convicted war criminal.--Emir Arven 12:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is too late, and too sad to seek for justification for his crimes 50 years later. As you can see Serbian Unity is a part of Serbian Lobby in the West. Cold war is also over. I know that anti-communists tried to support anyone who fought against communism. But Mihailovic was not fighting against it. He commited horrific war crimes against civilians. He was convicted and executed. It is too late for revisionism. I hoped that fascims was dead.--Emir Arven 12:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well - what you say is utterly truthful - but he himself didn't commit horrific crimes against civilians - men under him did (several Chetniks). It would POV to say that - because Tito's partisans (our liberators) commit much heavier and a lot more crimes against mankind - and it is they who sentenced him. Additionally - the Columbia Encyclopedia explains that it was a political execution: communists over monarchists.
Theodore Roosvelt and Winston Churchill committed (if you count leading a faction under that) much heavier crimes: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden - I do not intend to justify any crime whatsoever - but those claims are POV. If we count "horrific war criminals" by that logic - around 99,99% of the world's politicians in history are war criminals. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you've really, really disappointed me. I am not going to continue discussion with the man, who wants to justify convicted fascist and war criminal. This is a shame...No comment...--Emir Arven 16:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disappoint you? How about you disappoint 20% of wikipedia that saw it crucial to block you for thy aggressiveness.
Indeed - I give up discussing with you - I won't touch this article in User:Dado's name, since he's the one who reverted that. I wonder why don't you look up to Dado? He should be an exellent example. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I reverted the article to Dado's version per discussion.--Emir Arven 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't call "vandalism" just because you don't agree with something. The German origin is proven, and not incorrect as you put it. You also reverted the Trogit link back to the broken version. Try to improve article, than rather just reverting them to an even worse version. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the proof? I called it vandalism, because you again came back and put Serb fascistic source after discussion (not even quoted properly, because there is nothnig about his mother wishes), and as Dado showed (and I hoped that you respect Dado, because you said so) it was not a good source.--Emir Arven 10:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You again make a harsh-driven POV arguement calling it a fascistic source. Be warned, you're slowly building up again; you might be blocked again for aggressiveness & insults. Why did you then broke the Trogir link? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Origin[edit]

Mauro Orbini, a Ragusian historian about South Slavs and writer of 1601 Kraljevstvo Slavena wrote 'bout it:

In the Slavic language: Sada, kad je umro pomenuti Kulin ban, kralj koji je u to vreme bio u Ugarskoj odluči, iz ranije navedenih razloga, da zauzme Bosansko Kraljevstvo. Zbog toga je poslao s vojskom jednog svog velikaša po imenu Kotroman Nemac, na glasu ratnika. Kad je Kotroman došao u Bosnu i našao je bez gospodara, lako ju je zauzeo. Da bi ga za to nagradio, kralj ga je imenovao banom Bosne i hteo da se njegovi potomci večno smenjuju na tom položaju. Pošto je porodica Kotromana tokom vremena dobila veliko potomstvo, svi su se po Kotromanu nazivali Kotromanići.

Another mention from the Dubrovnik's archives is Cotrumano Goto - that same Kotroman's ancestor: see the Kotroman article for more details.

May I remove the citation needed? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a proof. I am surprised that you didnt read more books about this. This assumption was based on his name "Kotroman". Orbini tried to connect his name with a town in Germany. Of course, it was imposible, with no verification (no documents, charts, etc). There is a book called "Korijeni bosne i bosanstva" which explaines this Orbini attempt. Ex-Yu historians consider this false. --Emir Arven 10:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep up with aggressivness. Or do you now hate Dubrovnikers too? :D There is a chart. Cotrumano Goto is found as the King's witness after crushing Bosnia in Split, as one of the signatories of the accord. If you find it rather sceptical, I could search up and upload some screened versions (if you don't find that credible). However, the only problem is that no direct lineage can be traced between this Kotroman and Prijezda I. However - there was a Cotrumano Goto in Ban Borić's time and there was a Kotroman in Kulin's time. I think that Mauro's main asumption is logic. However, Mauro also states a source - a lost House of Kotroman genealogy.
Yugoslav historians think that the origin of the family is purely Bosnian - although, this is a historical dispute, since the current legend traces his origins even back to ancient Troy - a historical concotion compared to Mauro and other valuable historians! Yugoslav historians argue this simply because the House of Kotroman's genealogy - which Mauro used - was lost, like many documents on the rich Bosnian history. If you discredit Mauro's accords, you discredit around 70% of South Slavic Medieval history. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 12:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV. Serious historian wouldnt put false or unverified information in the article. I am surprised that you use articles to bargain as you offered me in Talk:Bosnian Serbs to remove smth in exchange for your removal?! For God's sake! I dont use a logic which is when you repeat false information for a few times, it will become truth.--Emir Arven 18:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, relevancy[edit]

Well, that opinion is just one, I don't think that it is really sufficient to judge the fact on the entire site. A neutralist-wikipedian linguist, User:Millosh, worked at the SUC, so I asked him to clarify this situation.

However, I wish to point something. http://www.hercegbosna.org/ - a Croatian nationalist site criticized by half of the world was used by me to source several facts. The site itself shows no sources for its population censi conducted in BiH and it constantly talks of "Serbian and Bosniak lies" rather that what is true. User:Dado - a great neutralist - himself added the sources to the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina article.

If this can be applied in that way, it would be illogical if we cannot apply the SUC here. Should I then go around and delete all the info found from that website found on Bosnian history-related articles? Ofcourse not. That's why it should be returned. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to discuss your frustrations or intentions. My goal is truth not bargain.--Emir Arven 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a bargain, but usage of common sence and logic. One must be applied everywhere, or nowhere. And if you're intent on spreading truth - what are you doind writing ridiculous incorrect edit summaries on the Bosnian Serbs article? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edit[edit]

...found here made by User:Emir_Arven is a little controversal. I rv this edit, but left out the part that Emir Arven demands to be left out, in good will; however, the other edits have to be discussed here. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected many false info and fixed grammatical errors. You should first read the article then discuss it. Dont just behave like a robot, reverting without reading. This is not your private thing.--Emir Arven 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I behave like a robot because that's the most porffessional way to do things. :)

Why I reverted your edits[edit]

  • You added extra spacing below every single title - a very confusing an unnecessary thing.
  • You removed the secondary version of Stjepan II Kotromanić's name - Stepan.
  • You changed Herzog to an incorrect Herzeg.
Corrected. --Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wrote the following bit in the intro: ..that made Bosnia an independent state. which is incorrect, he didn't make Bosnia independent.
De facto. Explanation added.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You removed the following: Throughought the 14th century, Stjepan ruled the lands from Sava to the Adriatic and from Cetina to Drina. He was a member of the House of Kotroman. i. e. the full description of the lands that Stjepan ruled from the intro, include the note to which dynasty he belongs.
So what is the problem? I simplified the intro.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it wasn't all Bosnia. Those were several lands ruled by Stjepan II. Just like there was no Serbia, but the Nemanjic Kings were Kings of Rascia, Travunia, Zachlumia, Doclea, ... so was (as you can see) Stjepan Ban of Bosnia, Usora and Zahumlje... --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section Exile and arrisal you did the following:
  • changed the Croatian to the old version Croatian.
  • changed the title of the ruler - Princeps to the oddly Prince
  • you placed the "quotations needed" to a sentence, even though the quotation has been provided
Grammar for this discussion is irrelevant.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to provide sources, but not false sources as you did before, regarding "German roots", becuse you often misuse this assumtion.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcees for what? For not changing disambiguations? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did the following in the Early Reign and other marriages section:
  • switched the "local nobility" to "Bosnien nobility" - not all of his nobility were Bosniens - like the Orthodox Serb Sankovići, or the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Serb Kosačas, the Hrvatinići were Roman Catholics too.
I think you dont understand terms. Religion is not nationality or ethnicity. It is linked to Slavs called Bošnjani, because Stjepan himself called his people like that.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first interpretation of Bosniens - by a Croatian historian; there are two main characteristics for Bosniens:
  • totally left out the following: sharing equal rule with him since 1326, although Stepan had, being Ban, the real rule. - the only clarification of his brother's role in Stjepan II's political life.
  • added another "citation needed" quitte oddly
Your POV.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come? Not mentioning his brother? --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You constantly changed the [Šubić]s to [Šubić|Šubićs]
Not a problem. You can fix it. I dont mind.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not fix your errors, simply don't make them. It's not standard wikipedia spirit. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You everywhere changed yet another disambig - [Monarch|King] to [King] - undoing all the work of the admins that attempted to deal with the disambiguation and clean-up of this article.
The same as above.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same as above. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completle rephrased the first paragraph of the War against the Serbs section, unsourcing and violating WP:POV.
I changed your earlier POV.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Define. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, in the same section, you added what Stefan Dusan attempted in 1350 - totally irrelevent, since it's mentioned again some 6 paragraphs later.
  • At the Ban's edicts section:
  • You noted an attempted forger, again violating WP:POV. Could you source it please? You also noted that it was written by a Serb scribe. As far as I learned in growing up in Croatia, calling the citizens of the Republic of Dubrovnik's POV.
  • At the image, you noted forged instead of scanned - it was scanned,
  • you changed the citation partially
  • You completly removed the entire part of the article which is dedicated to the study of the Edict; replacing it by a poorly-written POV sentence
  • You entirely removed the letter which mentions that Stjepan II Kotromanić's mother tongue was Croatian.
That section was based on false information. I just corrected it.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Religious tensions in Bosnia section, you removed yet another administrator fix of disambiguation: the [Bosnia (region}|Bosnia] to simply [Bosnia].
Wow.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You deleted totally the link 'Serbian Empire, and replaced it by the blant Serbian side.
Again, wow.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the succession box You changed the name of Tvrtko to Stephen Tvrtko I - a really incorrect thing, since Tvrtko asumed that version of his name after the crowning of 1377, so he could not have beared it when he succeeded Stjepan II.
  • You removed the Category [Category:History of the Serbs] - don't acuse me of conducting "nationalist propaganda", please, and that it is "obvious what I do", when you do this kind of things.
You are well know, as a person, who deny Bosniak history, and pushes History of Serbs in medieval Slav-related topics.--Emir Arven 15:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is because of this that your edits really altered the article into a version that has many, many errors and controversies. Please do not restore this version until the edits can be explained here. Thank you! Sincerely yours, --HolyRomanEmperor 13:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt read the article or at least you didnt read it properly. Sorry, read it again. The things you said above about my edits, are just not correct.--Emir Arven 15:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding grammar, that you mentioned, when you see something wrong, then fix it. I fixed many typoes. But the question here is not about grammar, but false info that you put from time to time in the article or very POV sentences. For instance, the controversial part that we discussed earlier was removed from the article because you gave false sources (a shame really). But after we finished the discussion you just came here, and put it again. What it is called? From my point of view it is propaganda. --Emir Arven 15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to discuss? I'm afraid then that the only way is to make you discuss - I'm requesting the article protected. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, first read the article. I made some fixes. --Emir Arven 15:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just made me read for the 7th time. :)))) I found nothing besides the changes that you made as I stated above. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

This user HRE pushes Serb POV in the article, and dont let other users to improve the article. I corrected typoes, corrected name mistakes, and added some parts to improve the article. On the other hand this user continue to put false information. When I asked his to provide the source he gave me false source, a book by Vladimir Ćorović, which didnt support his thesis. --Emir Arven 15:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pushing nothing, I just want to save the article from a mess that your changed did to him. You don't want even to discuss your edits! --HolyRomanEmperor 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my improvements. First, I corrected many typoes, I removed false information. You keep reverting my corrections even grammatical ones. It is obvious that you put that false translation of the forged sentence in Stjepan's edict just to show that it contains word "Serb". Btw, that sentence is totally irrelevant for Stjepan's biography as it is not his sentence, and it is about tehnical detailes of the edict written much later. That is well known example of the forgery by Serb historiography. --Emir Arven 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emir's Changes[edit]

1. You removed the fact that Stjepan was a titulary ruler from 1314 and the real ruler only since 1322

2. You removed the description of Stjepan's lands: Throughought the 14th century, Stepan ruled the lands from Sava to the Adriatic and from Cetina to Drina. He was a member of the House of Kotroman.

3. You removed the second version of Stjepan's name - Stepan.

4. You added an unnecessary spacing below every single title.

5. You removed the note when Stjepan implaced his brother as co-ruler entirely.

6. You changed the War against the Serbs section to an incorrect version - the Bogomils didn't lose majority in Bosnia, nor did Serbia complain.

7. Not to mention that you added Stefan Dusan's 1350 retaliation - it is mentioned 6 paragraphs later. Why enforce repetition?

8. You totally removed the occasions - now they are no longer chronological.

9. You rewrote the last bit of that section to something that's simply incorrect - and oddly POV; side-by-side removing numerious facts.

10. You removed the scientific research of Stepan's edicts and replaced it by a POV poorly-written sentence.

11. You removed that Stjepan's mother tongue was the Croatian language.

12. You changed Tvrtko's name to Stephen Tvrtko I - which he didn't bear until 1377, long after succeeding Stjepan as Ban of Bosnia

13. You entirely removed the "Category:History of the Serbs"

14. You changed the year of Elizabeth's marriage from 1339 to an incorrect 1329

15. You de-prioratized the external links; also, the external link to the SUC was removed.

16. A bunch of more minor edits that I cannot all write in here.

Sorry, but how can't you see that the edits are wrong? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm[edit]

Why not answer my questions, Emir? Now, you oppose the Serbian Unity Congress on the basis that it is nationalistic, but you want to use the Bosnian Land as a source. Not only that it is poorly written (as seen here), but it has numerious (following) errors:

It says: Bosanski jezik se kao razlicit jezik od Bugarskog,Slovenskog,srpskog,hrvatskog i Ceskog jezika spominje tokom Srednjovjekovne Bosne,krajem 14 stoljeca u djelu "Skazanie iziavljeno o pismenah",koje je napisao Bizantijski putopisac,Konstantin Filozof

which translates to: The Bosnian language is mentioned as a different language from Bulgarian,Slovenian,serbian,croatian and Czech language during medieval Bosnia,at the end of the 14th century in the work "Skazanie iziavljeno o pismenah",which was written by Byzantine writer,Constantine the Philosopher.

Now, not only that the Bosnian language did not exist then, or the Serbian & Croatian independently, but he calls Konstantin a Byzantine (when he's Bulgarian - and one of the most prominent early Serbian Medieval writers by the way).

And then: Naime,od 1174 godine,kada je srpski Veliki Župan Stevan Nemanja zauzeo Zahumlje,Travuniju i Duklju,pisari u Dubrovackoj Republici su bili Srbi.

or: Accordinly,since 1174,when serbian Grand Prince Stephen Nemanya took Zachlumia, Travunia and Doclea,writers in the Dubrovnik Republic were Serbs.

Firstly, Stefan Nemanja could not take something what is already his, except for Duklja, which he annexed in 1186-1189. See the Stefan Nemanja article for more detail. Also, I've heard numerious times that most writers in Dubrovnik were Serbs (as well as most traders, craftsmen, etc.) but I couldn't back it up.

Additionally, where's this main purpose to forge documents mentioned? Weirder things are there, but require more time to be assessed. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a how it looks like over at the Dubrovnik Archive[edit]

File:Stefan Kotromanić-1333.JPG

Here we go again...[edit]

1. Firstly, if something's POV - take the discussion to over here.

2. Secondly, stop inserting "facts needed" to where I provided sources.

3. Thirdly, stop removing sources - it's considered vandalism.

Can anyone provide a reason to keep the Bosniak history category? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pretending to be a dumb or what, because I answered to this question for n-th times? Bosniak history is history related to Bosnia, and Stjepan II was a Bosnian ban, a ruler of Bosnia.--Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you about your forgery here again:
Serb sources are mostly based on mythology and nationalism. That is just a pure fact. Wikipedia is not a place for collecting fairy tales. I have seen that you represent yourself as a historian. I dont believe you. Maybe you are a historian, but a bad one. Because historian should know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism. You go from article to article and put the term "Serb" where it should be and where it shouldnt be. You talked about Stjepan's chart, but just about the last sentece, added by some scribe. Why? Because you wanted to show or tried to connect Serb language with a script called by that scribe "Serb script" (That kind of script didnt even exist). The source that you presented [5] is Serb nationalistic site, that support war criminals. It says that Draza Mihajlovic, was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commited in eastern Bosnia. He was nazi supporter and collaborator. This site also supports Slobodan Milosevic, accuesed for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. This is not serious source. Also you are the one that put V. Corovic book as a source, and told us that that book supported your theses. When I checked it I found that you lied. Can you tell me why, my dear friend? So tell me how possible could I believe you anymore? --Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full explaination given here: Talk:Stephen I of Bosnia. Also, see User_talk:HolyRomanEmperor/Archive5#.22Serb.2FCroat.2FBosniak.22_History_Categories - it's relevant to the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy[edit]

Here, according to the Encyclopedia of the Nations. I don't see why there so mean arguments over his Over his Serbian Orthodox faith - it's sourced by primary sources. --PaxEquilibrium 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accordance with title[edit]

User:PaxEquilibrium has reverted my change with an argument "better this way" which is no argument at all. I think there can be no argument over whether the article's first paragraph should be in accordance with its title; therefore, if the article is entitled "Stephen II of Bosnia", then the article can't start with "Stjepan II of Bosnia ...". If English version of the name is accepted (which I naturally encourage in English encyclopedia), then the article must start in the same manner with the local versions in parenthesis (since it's argued whether he was a Serb or something else, multiple versions (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) are put together). This is common way in English wikipedia. --Ml01172 (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herceg and sources[edit]

I am sure that all "old" wikipedia editors of Balkan related articles are knowing that "obscure" books are not good enough source but that we need internet NPOV sources. It is sad to say that not 1 of sources in this article is good enough for wikipedia because sources are this books and only 1 internet link which is against wikipedia rules of reliability (tripod page which is created using data from forums ????)--Rjecina (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no understanding of "obscure" and really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's the quote from Zeljko Fajfric's brilliant book:


Is this what you wanted? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No but internet link, but we can even discuss that. If we take that this "povelja" is real then Stephen II is not ban but herceg because he is called herceg and not ban. If he is ban and herceg then in this document it will be writen "gospođu Mariju sestru Stjepana bana i hercega bosanskoga" but this is not writen.--Rjecina (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have long since given up the internet - for an obvious reason. It is for children. Childlish driven-out-of context websites and scarce but with a clear agenda are everywhere, and form a vast majority of the internet - including outright false things and infective propaganda. The good ol' library is the cure to this viral infection that turned the internet into a horrifying disease. But, if you insist so much (I believe you have no trust in me?), fine, I found a link to Fajfric's book: it's here.
Herzog was in a stylish way used for Bosnian Bans in Western sources quite often. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see Projekat Rastko writer has become serious NPOV source ?? This is really something new.
If statement about Herzog is true so what ?? Will we call monarch by his title or by stylish way used in Western sources. If that you statement is true then we you will not write ban and herzog but only herzog ?
Fajfric's is funny sources. He is clearly sayining in article about Tvrtko I that Stephen title is ban (and nothing else)
Please be real and end your changing of historical facts about which ulmost everybody in ex Yugoslavia agree. We are having so small number of this facts that it is really bad to create new problems --Rjecina (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project Rastko is a collection of sources. I'm not sure what you mean.
You are free to remove it, go ahead, but you are really (emotionally) making a big thing out of it. :-D
I personally think it is a necessity keep how he was called by his sovereign. Because of the same reason I was searching for a Latin version of the name to add it into the intro... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project Rastko is a collection of "sources" which are showing Serbian version of events. If Wikipedia is serious project we do not need Bosniak, Croatian or Serbian version of events.
French ambassador Baron Gros has called in diplomatic letters shogun Tokugawa Iesada civil emperor of Japan. In wikipedia article he is called shogun and nobody is calling him emperor. I think that this is ease to understand :)--Rjecina (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can point me point me any single work which is better and more dedicated to the Kotromanics - or point out a single part of the book which is not neutral...?
It was talking about letters, and shogun and emperor are (in English) two very different thing. The article with "Prince of Serbia" (e.g. Milos Obrenovic) should also include the Turkish version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_II,_Ban_of_Bosnia&oldid=1210553953"