This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to see credible and independent sources used to corroborate that the medieval title in question would have been native to the Nemanjic dynasty. In its current state the article is completely unreferenced and alludes to the title as Serbian in origin, which is highly unlikely considering for example that the title was used by Hungarian regents hundreds of years prior to the emergence of the Nemanjic dynasty; see Stephen I of Hungary. Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 03:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bašić source was egregiously misquoted in an apparent WP:SYNTH violation - Zoupan, you seemed to introduce this in this edit - you have been editing for a while and you must know that this is a clear WP:ARBMAC violation. Tread lightly! -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems all of these sources are coming from a partial view and try to put claim on bosnian history. This article seem as well be created only to imply that the rules of Bosnia was serbs. There is already an article about this name and yet this article exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmet ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me how this little piece is not a Content/POV fork employed to hijack the historically widespread honorific/title Stephen in a showcase of historiographical Serbian megalomania? I love the sentence "according to Sima Ćirković, it had a special symbolical meaning to the Serbian state". Possible as it may be, it does not make Stephen by definition a Serbian honorific. As it stands, the honorific Stephen was used by members of the Kotromanić dynasty prior to Tvrtko I, namely by his paternal grandfather Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia. Still, it is implied that he derived it from the Nemanjićs. I would like a proper explanation. Could it be that others used it as a given name while the Nemanjics specifically used it as a title? Source on that? Could you please assist Joy and Surtsicna? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? ... As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention. The only exception is Stephen (a name with various spellings in English as well as Slavic) whose significance on occasions went beyond that of a mere name. Its adoption by Serbian rulers came close to being part of a title, and its subsequent adoption by the Bosnian rulers — after Tvrtko's 1377 coronation — indicates the Serbian origin of Bosnia's kingship. Thus I have used the forms Stefan and Stjepan as they are appropriate.
Wonderful Surtsicna. I knew you would lay it down for me perfectly. I'm overwhelmed with the high-quality work you invest. So, what ultimately prompted Tvrtko I to have himself coronated were his pretenses on the Serbian throne and recently acquired Serbian lands, in effect imitating the rule of the Nemanjics. If these incentives had lacked he would have remained a ban by title? Fine, a ruler looking to expand his sphere of power is by no means a rarity for the era. Still so, I find the phrasing by Fine who is a scholar of impeccable character and in full recognition of Bosnian distinctiveness in the Middle Ages to be somewhat careless in stating that Bosnia's kingship is of "Serbian origin". Granted, I understand his rationale for expressing himself in such a manner (perfectly explained above by yourself) but I do at the same time realize how vulnerable such a phrasing is to abuse by Serb nationalist historiography. Tvrtko I was first and foremost a Bosnian ruler, notwithstanding his pretenses on other thrones and the measures he may have undertaken to acquire them. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 23:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
historiographical Serbian megalomania...? You are very inconsistent. Is the fact that the honorific was adopted by the Bosnian ruling family via the Serbian,
Serb nationalist historiography? Didn't you originally claim that
It is therefore inaccurate and a far-stretched personal point of view to claim any association between the Stephen title of Tvrtko I and that of the house of Nemanjic? So now you accept this "terrible" connection?-- Zoupan 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, get over yourself Zoupan will you. I wrote that 4 years ago based on the absence of citations and your anyhow still problematic approach to neutrality. This once I clearly asked for the opinion of someone better informed seeing the high-quality work that was pitched in on Tvrtko I. I do not feel it is a "terrible connection" as it is, apparently, a matter of historic fact. What is terrible is having the complex field that historiography is twisted in a biased anachronistic frenzy of nationalism. On a somewhat related note, to answer your question of who is Denis Basic, he is an historian (Ph.D.) and lecturer of the University of Washington and had you truly taken the time to review his work you would have come to realize that it is of high neutrality and objectivity (if that interests you). The reference to him included earlier (since then questioned by you as substandard and later on completely removed as allegedly "unreliable") is in complete resonance with the comprehensive explanation offered by Surtsicna. I will not myself insist on restoring the reference to Basic (a highly reliable source) since the background to Tvrtko's honorific is perfectly explained in that article, but will instead leave it up to you to show good faith and neutrality. And to Surtsicna, thank you once again for your valuable input. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK)
I believe the article title should be reverted back to its original, Stefan. The scope of the article is the Serbian(-Bosnian) honorific, which according to contemporary sources (documents signed by the rulers themselves) indeed was spellt Stefan. For those that refuse this spelling for Bosnian rulers, the original Cyrillic spelling of Stephen Tvrtko and Stephen Dabiša was Стєфань (i.e. Стєфань Тврьткω ... Стєфань Дабиша), as the Serbian rulers before them.-- Zoupan 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no implication that Stephen is the common name for this title.-- Zoupan 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Stefan [the Serbian royal name] ... All successive Nemanjici rulers of Serbia whose names start with Stefan
Serbian rulers carried the name "Stefan"
After Stefan Nemanja had taken Stefan as his name, all the subsequent monarchs of the house used it as sort of title.
The Nemanjic' Dynasty lasted until 1371 and consisted often kings, all with the first name Stefan
the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title, from the Greek stephanos - crown, wreath) is used as a stereotyped name for all rulers of the Nemanjic dynasty.
Tvrtko also adopted the ruler's name of Stefan, which was borne by all later Bosnian kings
no one could prevent him from appropriating the ruler's prefix "Stefan" borne by the Nemanjics
the choice of name Stefan for the Serbian dynasty
Namely, the name "Stefan" was the first given name of all rulers from the Nemanjic dynasty
Serbias medieval kings after him took the additional royal name Stephen
This is the full quote from Fine on anglicization of names:
Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? I then tried to make a distinction between ultimate rulers and nobles, so that I could at least retain the Slavic flavor with the nobility. However, should we then suddenly change the name of Djuradj Brankovic to George when he became the ruler? As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention.
This is why I too prefere anglicizing the names of medieval rulers. We have Stephen Gabrielopoulos and his contemporary, neighbouring ruler Stefan Dušan; Stefan Dragutin and his father-in-law, Stephen V of Hungary, etc. Then again, titles of articles about Serbian kings are no longer in line with titles of articles about the rest of European kings anyway. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we find any images of Nemanjić kings' charters or coins where the honorific is clearly visible? Having two images pertaining to the Kotromanić and none to the Nemanjić is a bit odd but I cannot find any on the Commons. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to see credible and independent sources used to corroborate that the medieval title in question would have been native to the Nemanjic dynasty. In its current state the article is completely unreferenced and alludes to the title as Serbian in origin, which is highly unlikely considering for example that the title was used by Hungarian regents hundreds of years prior to the emergence of the Nemanjic dynasty; see Stephen I of Hungary. Praxis Icosahedron ( talk) 03:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The Bašić source was egregiously misquoted in an apparent WP:SYNTH violation - Zoupan, you seemed to introduce this in this edit - you have been editing for a while and you must know that this is a clear WP:ARBMAC violation. Tread lightly! -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems all of these sources are coming from a partial view and try to put claim on bosnian history. This article seem as well be created only to imply that the rules of Bosnia was serbs. There is already an article about this name and yet this article exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmet ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone explain to me how this little piece is not a Content/POV fork employed to hijack the historically widespread honorific/title Stephen in a showcase of historiographical Serbian megalomania? I love the sentence "according to Sima Ćirković, it had a special symbolical meaning to the Serbian state". Possible as it may be, it does not make Stephen by definition a Serbian honorific. As it stands, the honorific Stephen was used by members of the Kotromanić dynasty prior to Tvrtko I, namely by his paternal grandfather Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia. Still, it is implied that he derived it from the Nemanjićs. I would like a proper explanation. Could it be that others used it as a given name while the Nemanjics specifically used it as a title? Source on that? Could you please assist Joy and Surtsicna? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? ... As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention. The only exception is Stephen (a name with various spellings in English as well as Slavic) whose significance on occasions went beyond that of a mere name. Its adoption by Serbian rulers came close to being part of a title, and its subsequent adoption by the Bosnian rulers — after Tvrtko's 1377 coronation — indicates the Serbian origin of Bosnia's kingship. Thus I have used the forms Stefan and Stjepan as they are appropriate.
Wonderful Surtsicna. I knew you would lay it down for me perfectly. I'm overwhelmed with the high-quality work you invest. So, what ultimately prompted Tvrtko I to have himself coronated were his pretenses on the Serbian throne and recently acquired Serbian lands, in effect imitating the rule of the Nemanjics. If these incentives had lacked he would have remained a ban by title? Fine, a ruler looking to expand his sphere of power is by no means a rarity for the era. Still so, I find the phrasing by Fine who is a scholar of impeccable character and in full recognition of Bosnian distinctiveness in the Middle Ages to be somewhat careless in stating that Bosnia's kingship is of "Serbian origin". Granted, I understand his rationale for expressing himself in such a manner (perfectly explained above by yourself) but I do at the same time realize how vulnerable such a phrasing is to abuse by Serb nationalist historiography. Tvrtko I was first and foremost a Bosnian ruler, notwithstanding his pretenses on other thrones and the measures he may have undertaken to acquire them. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK) 23:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
historiographical Serbian megalomania...? You are very inconsistent. Is the fact that the honorific was adopted by the Bosnian ruling family via the Serbian,
Serb nationalist historiography? Didn't you originally claim that
It is therefore inaccurate and a far-stretched personal point of view to claim any association between the Stephen title of Tvrtko I and that of the house of Nemanjic? So now you accept this "terrible" connection?-- Zoupan 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, get over yourself Zoupan will you. I wrote that 4 years ago based on the absence of citations and your anyhow still problematic approach to neutrality. This once I clearly asked for the opinion of someone better informed seeing the high-quality work that was pitched in on Tvrtko I. I do not feel it is a "terrible connection" as it is, apparently, a matter of historic fact. What is terrible is having the complex field that historiography is twisted in a biased anachronistic frenzy of nationalism. On a somewhat related note, to answer your question of who is Denis Basic, he is an historian (Ph.D.) and lecturer of the University of Washington and had you truly taken the time to review his work you would have come to realize that it is of high neutrality and objectivity (if that interests you). The reference to him included earlier (since then questioned by you as substandard and later on completely removed as allegedly "unreliable") is in complete resonance with the comprehensive explanation offered by Surtsicna. I will not myself insist on restoring the reference to Basic (a highly reliable source) since the background to Tvrtko's honorific is perfectly explained in that article, but will instead leave it up to you to show good faith and neutrality. And to Surtsicna, thank you once again for your valuable input. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK)
I believe the article title should be reverted back to its original, Stefan. The scope of the article is the Serbian(-Bosnian) honorific, which according to contemporary sources (documents signed by the rulers themselves) indeed was spellt Stefan. For those that refuse this spelling for Bosnian rulers, the original Cyrillic spelling of Stephen Tvrtko and Stephen Dabiša was Стєфань (i.e. Стєфань Тврьткω ... Стєфань Дабиша), as the Serbian rulers before them.-- Zoupan 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no implication that Stephen is the common name for this title.-- Zoupan 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Stefan [the Serbian royal name] ... All successive Nemanjici rulers of Serbia whose names start with Stefan
Serbian rulers carried the name "Stefan"
After Stefan Nemanja had taken Stefan as his name, all the subsequent monarchs of the house used it as sort of title.
The Nemanjic' Dynasty lasted until 1371 and consisted often kings, all with the first name Stefan
the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title, from the Greek stephanos - crown, wreath) is used as a stereotyped name for all rulers of the Nemanjic dynasty.
Tvrtko also adopted the ruler's name of Stefan, which was borne by all later Bosnian kings
no one could prevent him from appropriating the ruler's prefix "Stefan" borne by the Nemanjics
the choice of name Stefan for the Serbian dynasty
Namely, the name "Stefan" was the first given name of all rulers from the Nemanjic dynasty
Serbias medieval kings after him took the additional royal name Stephen
This is the full quote from Fine on anglicization of names:
Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? I then tried to make a distinction between ultimate rulers and nobles, so that I could at least retain the Slavic flavor with the nobility. However, should we then suddenly change the name of Djuradj Brankovic to George when he became the ruler? As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention.
This is why I too prefere anglicizing the names of medieval rulers. We have Stephen Gabrielopoulos and his contemporary, neighbouring ruler Stefan Dušan; Stefan Dragutin and his father-in-law, Stephen V of Hungary, etc. Then again, titles of articles about Serbian kings are no longer in line with titles of articles about the rest of European kings anyway. Surtsicna ( talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Can we find any images of Nemanjić kings' charters or coins where the honorific is clearly visible? Having two images pertaining to the Kotromanić and none to the Nemanjić is a bit odd but I cannot find any on the Commons. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)