![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I also think this deserves a POV tag in the least. The site is clearly biased and has an agenda behind it. I mean, the core of the article revolves around one single documnet (out of dozens) that allegedly implies that Bosnia's population was Serb in the middle ages. First of all, why does this even matter? Why should this take up 90% of the page on a ruler? Surely there is more to say about his life than one document which some allege proves the ethnic composition of his state? And furthermore, the historiographical conclusions this article makes are ridiculeous. Live Forever 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you tell me what exactly is controversal about it? HolyRomanEmperor 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the unencyclopedic controversy part. I suggest that we work it on here first; and then include it in the article. HolyRomanEmperor 23:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reason to keep the Bosniak history category? -- HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want I can repeat this as long as you ask this question. 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 Matej was a Bosnian ban, a ruler of Bosnia. Bosniaks base their identity on Bosnia. -- Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Bosnian history : YES Bosniak history : NO , Bosniaks were born after the Turks invaded Balkans. Serbian history : YES
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I also think this deserves a POV tag in the least. The site is clearly biased and has an agenda behind it. I mean, the core of the article revolves around one single documnet (out of dozens) that allegedly implies that Bosnia's population was Serb in the middle ages. First of all, why does this even matter? Why should this take up 90% of the page on a ruler? Surely there is more to say about his life than one document which some allege proves the ethnic composition of his state? And furthermore, the historiographical conclusions this article makes are ridiculeous. Live Forever 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you tell me what exactly is controversal about it? HolyRomanEmperor 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the unencyclopedic controversy part. I suggest that we work it on here first; and then include it in the article. HolyRomanEmperor 23:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone provide a reason to keep the Bosniak history category? -- HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want I can repeat this as long as you ask this question. 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 Matej was a Bosnian ban, a ruler of Bosnia. Bosniaks base their identity on Bosnia. -- Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Bosnian history : YES Bosniak history : NO , Bosniaks were born after the Turks invaded Balkans. Serbian history : YES