![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
To end all problems here: he was a half- German, half- Serb. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(August 15th 1332)
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)
3.There is. Mak Dizdar presented his research in Antologija bosanskih tekstova. -- Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Please bear in mind this when you try to spread Serb propaganda again. -- Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unfortunately, I cannot read Serbian, so I'll be relying on Holy to locate it. -- Latinus 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I would ask you politly never to isnult openly other wikipedians again.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bosniaks was the standard usage for all citizens of Bosnia. -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You said
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)
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)
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)
You asked for a proof or at least a descending opinion on the source [3]-- Dado 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
... 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)
I behave like a robot because that's the most porffessional way to do things. :)
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
File:Stefan Kotromanić-1333.JPG
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | Daljnja vladavina Stjepana II Kotromanića je bila uglavnom mirna, bez nekih posebnih dejstava. Povremene rasprave sa Dubrovnikom i Venecijom oko nekog opljačkanog trgovačkog karavana nisu mogli taj mir da ometu. Interesantno je to da su se i verske netrpeljivosti u to vreme primirile, a ban je uspeo da svoga čoveka, fra Peregrina, proturi na upražnjeno mesto bosanskog biskupa. Osim toga uspeo je da svoje rođačke veze još više proširi tako što je svoju ćerku Mariju udao za grofa Ulrika od Helfenštajna. Oko ove Marije postoji mala nedoumica. Ima mišljenja da je ona zapravo njegova sestra, a to je poduprto jednom poveljom kralja Ludviga iz 1352. godine gde on navodi: "gospođu Mariju sestru Stjepana hercega bosanskoga, našu predragu rođaku, udatu za gospodina Helfenštajna". Ćerku Katarinu je udao za grofa Hermana I Celjskog. | ” |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
To end all problems here: he was a half- German, half- Serb. -- HolyRomanEmperor 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
(August 15th 1332)
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)
3.There is. Mak Dizdar presented his research in Antologija bosanskih tekstova. -- Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Please bear in mind this when you try to spread Serb propaganda again. -- Emir Arven 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Unfortunately, I cannot read Serbian, so I'll be relying on Holy to locate it. -- Latinus 16:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I would ask you politly never to isnult openly other wikipedians again.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bosniaks was the standard usage for all citizens of Bosnia. -- HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You said
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)
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)
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)
You asked for a proof or at least a descending opinion on the source [3]-- Dado 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
... 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)
I behave like a robot because that's the most porffessional way to do things. :)
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)
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.
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
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.
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)
File:Stefan Kotromanić-1333.JPG
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | Daljnja vladavina Stjepana II Kotromanića je bila uglavnom mirna, bez nekih posebnih dejstava. Povremene rasprave sa Dubrovnikom i Venecijom oko nekog opljačkanog trgovačkog karavana nisu mogli taj mir da ometu. Interesantno je to da su se i verske netrpeljivosti u to vreme primirile, a ban je uspeo da svoga čoveka, fra Peregrina, proturi na upražnjeno mesto bosanskog biskupa. Osim toga uspeo je da svoje rođačke veze još više proširi tako što je svoju ćerku Mariju udao za grofa Ulrika od Helfenštajna. Oko ove Marije postoji mala nedoumica. Ima mišljenja da je ona zapravo njegova sestra, a to je poduprto jednom poveljom kralja Ludviga iz 1352. godine gde on navodi: "gospođu Mariju sestru Stjepana hercega bosanskoga, našu predragu rođaku, udatu za gospodina Helfenštajna". Ćerku Katarinu je udao za grofa Hermana I Celjskog. | ” |