Talk:Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Explaination on two Serbian and two Latin 

message: 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)
replies: text: I explained it well.--Emir Arven 18:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.--Emir Arven 19:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  ? 

message: :::I reverted the article to Dado's version per discussion.--Emir Arven 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: I am not going to discuss your frustrations or intentions. My goal is truth not bargain.--Emir Arven 18:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Sources, relevancy 

message: :::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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Note

message: 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)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_II_Kotromani%C4%87&diff=50637072&oldid=50511614 Emir's Changes] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  accordance with title