Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:17, 26 February 2015

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Hóman of Boris/Boric

Sevvyan, would you please verbatim cite Hóman's text which identifies Boris Kalamanos as the ruler of Bosnia? The claim that the two persons are the same is quite strange. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. A leading Yugoslav (today's Croatia) historian Nada Klaić quotes Hóman as having said that Hungarian rulers since Bela II had right over Bosnian principality, which king Geza gave to Boris. Sevvyan (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Are you sure that Homan's "Boris" is identical with Boris Kalamanos who tried to dethrone both Géza II and Géza II's father, Béla II? Géza II was only ten-year-old when he allegedly made his father's arch enemy ban of Bosnia. I assume that Hóman wrote of Boric, instead of Boris. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course I'm sure, because she even stresses "Boris" (quotation marks are hers). You can download her book in PDF, see p.48 for her stressing of Hóman's Boris not Borić. Sevvyan (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed something. Is there any reference that the two "Boris" are the same person? Klaic only emphasizes that Homan used the form "Boris" instead of "Boric" (which may have been a mispelling), but, if my understanding is correct, there is no sentence in the text which states that "Boris" who received Bosnia in 1141 was identical with "Boris", the alleged son of Coloman the Learned. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's alright, as you did miss something and misinterpreted Klaić. In the (paragraph's lead) sentence immediately preceding the one emphasizing Hóman talks about Boris and not Borić, she explicitly puts the whole paragraph in the context of Hóman's view on the Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right". So in order to correctly understand what she said, you mustn't take things out of the context as she outlined it. Finally, there's no other prince/duke from the Árpád dynasty by name of Boris from that era, but feel free to correct me. Note that she doesn't call it a misspelling at all. Instead, she uses quotation marks four times in the same paragraph to stress she accepts neither Árpáds' entitlements to Bosnia, nor calling Stephen and Ladislaus usurpers (whom Boris Kalamanos would have called usurpers), nor Boris as the Bosnia's ruler. She dedicated the whole paragraph to the royalty (who by the way had blood-right to fight over Bosnia!), and now you're saying that by "Boris" she meant a king's stable boy, a hand, a servant, a guard... without revealing or alleging his out-of-the-context-of-royalty identity explicitly? Get serious. Sevvyan (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. So, If my understanding is correct, she does not explicitly identify Boris who ruled Bosnia with Boris the son of Coloman the Learned. If I am wrong, would you please cite here (in English) her text about the identification of the two Borises? Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you can speak Hungarian, why don't you provide the Hóman's exact words (in English) and see if (s)he misspelled Borić? But I'm assuming you by now read it and found out that (s)he didn't, because now you're requesting a citation explicitly equating the Boris from (her citing of) Hóman with Boris Kalamanos. Based on the above-described way to reading scholarly references correctly, anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes the equating as true. Note that according to Jimbo Wales, synthesis of published work is part of the legitimate role of Misplaced Pages. Also, we're not supposed to be nitpicking about facts in social sciences. Sevvyan (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. If she does not identify "Boris of Bosnia" with "Boris Kalamanos", why do we identify the two people? Borsoka (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assess that your sticking to the nitpicking alone means you lost the argument. Sevvyan (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you answer the question: if she does not identify "Boris of Bosnia" with "Boris Kalamanos", why should we identify the two people? Please stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (FYI: I requested third opinion to resolve our content dispute . Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC))

Of course not. You will find answers above, as anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes the equating as true. Please stop the nitpicking on facts in social sciences. Please stop the edit war or I will report you. Sevvyan (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You suggest that Boris of Bosnia is identical with Boris Kalamanos, according to Nada Klaić, but you have not cited a simple sentence from her work, proving that she whenever identified the two persons. The WP policies you referred to above are not applicable in this case, because laypersons had no knowledge of the two Borises and not a scholarly POV is debated, but the verifiability of your own edit. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't suggest anything. I merely synthesized two published works, which according to Jimbo Wales is part of the legitimate role of Misplaced Pages. Besides nitpicking, your agenda is seen also from a bad-faith filing of this false report on "edit war". My argument is simple: Klaić speaks of "Boris" when discussing (Hóman's view on) Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right", and Boris Kalamanos is the only member of the Hungarian royal family by name Boris in that era. This synthesis obviously passes test of logics and is in accordance with WP rules and purpose. Sevvyan (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Per your request, note the second paragraph on the next page (p.49) in the above quoted Nada Klaić's book (PDF). In it, she explicitly states that by Boris she meant Boris Kalamanos: "Béla je u Borisu, nepriznatom Kolomanovu sinu (s Ruskinjom Eufemijom) imao jakog protivnika jer "je carigradski dvor Borisu Kolomanoviću priznao pravo na priesto, i čak ga je jače privezao uza se odličnom ženidbom"." Translation: "In Boris, unrecognized Koloman's son (to a Russian woman Euphemia), Béla had a strong opponent, because "the court at Constantinople recognized Boris Kalamanos his right to the throne, and tied him even stronger via an excellent marriage" Finally, in the first sentence on p.48, she quotes Hóman as saying "Banus Boris" not Borić... This settles it. Please remove the tag. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, nothing is settled. In the German text cited by Nada Klaić, Hóman wrote of "Banus Beloš", but when referring to Beloš for the first time, a scribal error was made ("Boris" instead of "Beloš"). Would you cite the text when Klaić identifies Borić with Boris Kalamanos? Borsoka (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just did: note right where she/Hóman equates Boris with Boris Kalamanos, she/Hóman also says Banus Boris. The Ban of Bosnia (of which she and Hóman speak) at that time was Borić. Can you cite Hóman admitting he made the typo? Otherwise it's just your original research since both Hóman and Klaić were esteemed historians, yet neither of them noticed the alleged typo. The case is settled, obviously. Please remove the tag, thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not so far cited any text proving that Klaić or Hóman identified Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos - you cited her text about Boris Kalamanos's origin (without any reference to Bosnia) and Hóman's text about one "Banus Boris" (without any reference to Bosnia), but you say that those texts prove that Boris Kalamanos was identical with Borić of Bosnia. Please read Klaić's text - she added "(!)" after the form "Boris" when she cited Hóman's text about Beloš. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I read Hóman's text in Hungarian: he actually writes of Boris of Bosnia, but he does not identify Boris of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos: the former is mentioned as "Banus Boris", the latter as "Duke Boris" or "Boris", . Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, her whole diatribe was directed at the Hóman's view on Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right". She states it once (at the outset), as that should be enough for a person with average IQ. So she obviously disagrees with Hóman (hence her cynically adding an "!"), but that doesn't mean we should take sides. Besides, it's him that is the esteemed Hungarian scholar on Hungary's royalty in their dispute, not her. So it's a mystery how she even dared fight him on Árpáds' right to Bosnia (or to any other land for that matter), but that's another topic. On the upside, she thus highlighted Hóman's as a most notable reference on the era. I am glad you finally admit that, even in Hungarian, obviously Hóman did write about Boris of Bosnia... Why this makes me happy? Because there has never, ever been a single leader by name of Boris in the entire Bosnian history (which is quite long mind you), and the name itself isn't Bosnian. I didn't say Hóman identified the Boris she talks about with Boris Kalamanos; I proved to you that she did. We're here only allowed to cite reliable reference, not do our own research, remember? Now please remove the tag, thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Hóman wrote of Boris of Bosnia, but he did not identified him with Boris Kalamanos. Neither did Klaić identify him with Boris Kalamanos (you have not cited a text) and she draw our attention to Hóman's mispelling. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In her discussion on p.48-49, Klaić uses Boris Kalamanos once and Boris as stand-alone several times. Since she doesn't define her stand-alone Boris, she means the same person. (Or are you now accusing even her book's reviewers, for missing that detail and allowing the book to print?) Advice: try slow reading, given your English ("did not identified" sic). I did cite her exact sentence on p.49 (second paragraph) where she equates Boris with Boris Kolomanović (Croatian for Kalamanos). Hóman's Boris of Bosnia too can only mean Boris Kalamanos as Boris is not a Bosnian name and there has never been a leader named Boris in that country's history; in fact, she didn't call it a misspelling and was instead infuriated with Hóman to cynicism so I go with emotions-free Hóman. Finally, Klaić on p.48 (second line), quotes Hóman as literally saying "Ban Boris". Are we done now? Sevvyan (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I try to summarize your argumentation. (1) You say that Boris Kalamanos, the alleged son of Coloman the Learned, was Ban of Bosnia. (2) You say that Bálint Hóman writes that Boris Kalamanos ruled Bosnia, because he referred to one "Ban Boris" whom Géza II of Hungary made ruler of Bosnia. (3) You say that Nadja Klaić does not write that Boris Kalamanos was Ban of Bosnia. Please correct me if my summary is wrong. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Here's a good summary, to which you're welcome to add "Klaić disagrees" or something along those lines in your own words:

According to the esteemed Hungarian historian and researcher of Hungarian royalty, Bálint Hóman, Hungarian rulers since Béla II had right over the Bosnian principality, which king Géza II gave to Boris Kolomanović (Croatian for Boris Kalamanos) to whom Hóman, when discussing Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right", refers also as Ban Boris and Boris of Bosnia.

Sevvyan (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So, it is Nadja Klaic who says that Bálint Hóman wrote that Boris Kalamanos was identical with one "Ban Boris" who ruled in Bosnia. Is this a correct summary? Borsoka (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Boris Kalamanović. Hence her so ferociously fighting Hóman's thesis on Árpád dynasty's "Bosnian right". Unless you think Boris Kalamanos was say, a Hapsburg, and not an Árpád? Sevvyan (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the above answer. Therefore, according to Nadja Klaic, Bálint Hóman wrote that Boris Kalamanos was identical with one "Ban Boris". Even if we forget that Hóman did not identify the two Boris (because Nada Klaić's POV of Hóman's POV may be relevant), there are several questions:

• Is Hóman's (alleged) POV, which was written before WWII, still significant in 2014?
• Are there any other scholars accepting Hóman's (alleged) POV?
• If it is only a POV, why is it mentioned in the article as a fact?
• Who identified Boris Kalamanos with Ban Borić (as it is claimed in the article)?
• Who wrote that Boris Kalamanos was granted Bosnia in 1141 (as it is claimed in the article)?
• Why is a primary source (Kinnamos) is cited without a reference to a scholarly work? (Please note that the standard translation of Kinnamos's chronicle makes a clear distinction between "Borić, ruler of Bosnia" and "Boris, son of king Kálmán of Hungary" - I refer to Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos (Translated by Charles M. Brand) (1976). Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04080-6, page 263). Borsoka (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're nitpicking again: be reminded then that these are facts in social sciences we're talking about. Not to mention that the topic is so rarely addressed that those two references are true rare jewels and we are all lucky to have them. Besides, the here discussed events happened nearly 1000 years ago, yet you're saying we should disqualify a rare reference on those events because it is mere 75 years old? (Given the specific circumstances here, I'd be interested in what court historians had said 200, 300, 500, or even 800 years ago.) Note also that I won't violate Misplaced Pages rules & policies and proceed to dissecting secondary sources written by two so esteemed historians as Hóman and Klaić (like you did by calling their published works a "POV"), as that would be my original research. I don't know about Kinnamos reference, but feel free to cite a secondary source that arrived at the same conclusion as you did about his collection of thirdhand sources (perhaps he wanted to stick to the original spelling as shown in the sources he had obtained?). Misplaced Pages is about stacking up facts backed up mainly by reliable secondary sources, in a reasonable way. Right now, judging by your arduous bullet-list above, you're neither being reasonable nor able to produce any new secondary sources to back up your persistent nitpicking. Sevvyan (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Of course, we could mention in the article, that "according to Nadja Klaic, Bálint Hóman wrote that Boris Kalamanos ruled in Bosnia before the year X", if there is a consensus that Hóman's (alleged) POV, which has not been accepted by other scholars, is significant. However, there is no reliable source which identifies Boris Kalamanos with Ban Borić (as it is claimed in the article). Furthermore, there is no reliable source which states that Bosnia was granted to Boris Kalamanos in 1141. If there are no reliable sources to substantiate those claims, we should delete them from the article (as per WP:NOR). Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't send you any messages?! Anyway, I wouldn't go that far as to claim there are no reliable sources, as I'm not a living encyclopedia and I'm sure you're not one either. I again urge you not to call the rare/precious works by the esteemed Hóman and Klaić a "POV" (alleged or not, makes you look anything but intelligent). There's no need for the "according to Nada Klaić" part, since we must put a proper reference to her work (in the Misplaced Pages format) anyway so that would be redundant. By the way, you keep writing her name as "Nadja" instead of Nada. That's a kind of spelling error which is expected exclusively from ethnic Serbs (đ transcribed as dj in Serbian), so I'm wondering: aren't you actually a Hungarian, as your profile claims and as you boasted (about being able to read original texts in Hungarian, such as the Hóman's)? Sevvyan (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

.

1. ^ Nada Klaić (1994) Srednjovjekovna Bosna: Politički položaj bosanskih vladara do Tvrtkove krunidbe (1377 g), Grafički Zavod Hrvatske, Zagreb, pp.275. ISBN 9536112051. (PDF; see p.48-49) Cite error: The named reference "Klaic" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles