Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 17 August 2007

Dear HRE, all of a sudden, Stjepan isn't enough "Serb name" for you anymore?
Again, I'm putting the name into neutral version. Sooner or later, you'll have discussion with other users from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina about Tvrtko's first/second name.
Noble houses were abroad called according to the language of speakers, just like today we call the Pope with our national names.
Just like Iohannes Paulus II was John Paul in English, Ivan Pavao in Croatian, Jovan Pavle in Serbian. Peter the Great is Peter here, although he's originally Pyotr.
This is english wiki, so let's stick to english version .I'm not pushing in here the Croat version, neither I am against Serb versions by default. On Croat wiki he's Stjepan, on Serb wiki, Serbs'll call him Stefan of Stevan. But here let's stay to english version.
We really don't need any edit wars. At least we can avoid them here. Kubura 14:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear HRE, all of a sudden, Stjepan isn't enough "Serb name" for you anymore?

Hmm, "Stjepan" and its variants are certainly not Serbian - nor Croatian for that matter. They're Christian. I'm saying that you cannot alter names of people according to your will. Tell me, is it Michael Voislav? No, it's Mihailo Voislav. Let's say "Stephen II Kotromanic". But what if someone translates that as "Stefan" - entirely incorrect. Why shouldn't you put then "Stephen Ostoya" instead of "Stephen Ostoja" or "Ostojich"; or what about Hellen Gruba? The English language stopped altering names 'long ago'. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Stjepan is not Croatian name?" Come on, get serious. Wake up. Live a life. Michael Voislav instead of Mihailo Voislav? Personally, it should be that way. Just like Stephen Drzislav or Stephen Dusan (in English literature). Anjou house is being called Angevins. With Hellen... what if the name comes from "jelen"? Then, if English grammar/historiography officially accepts Ostoya instead of Ostoja, I don't have anything against that.Kubura 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant not solely Croatian. I am awake - and I'm living a life for years by now, thank you. ;) I oppose your suggestions, since simple google search reports it as so - your suggestions are either lower in search results or non-existent. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Serbs do not and should not call Stephen II Kotromanic "Stefan" or "Stevan". They call him with his standard name - Stepan or Stijepan.

Why then Stefan? Kubura 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He is not called Stefan. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sooner or later... I've had discussions with a user from BiH claiming that it should be Stjepan - and the arguement was finished by confirming Tvrtko Stefan, just as the Bosniaks officially accept. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to give up from something that is not yours. Kubura 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely trust that you stopped pushing the Croat version, if you say so (like you were doing (this moment).

Yes, I've put the comment about the surname among Croats. Kubura 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, although it is very possibly true, could you back it up? For instance - through irony - the name Tvrtko appeared for the first time with the Serbs - and Tvrtko was most probably named that way to conote him with the Bosnian branch of the House of Nemanjic. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, Encyclopedia Britannica favours Stjepan over Stephen... --HolyRomanEmperor 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

In the same way, Croats should call Stefan Nemanja "Stijepan Nemanja". --HolyRomanEmperor 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

- an incorrect concotion as you can see. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in older Croatian literature (I don't mean the one from 14th century), emperor Dušan was called Stjepan or even Stipan Dušan. I'll tell you the source later. Problem is with those reprinted books, even with those from late 20th century, that many had no "index pages" at the end of the book. So searching for a few words in a 400 pages book is a terrible work here. Kubura 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

...as he is called Stjepan in the Serbian Epic poem I presented to you. What did you want to say? --HolyRomanEmperor 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The House of Kotromanić had german ansestors

Stop dicking around with the names

And simply find out what they actually were, geniuses. estavisti 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah; they were all called "Stefan"s except for the very first Kotroman, whose real name I can't source anywhere. --PaxEquilibrium 18:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to the people who were insisting on Stjepan, which is also Serbian, so I don't really see what they were trying to achieve...--estavisti 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there are slightly more google search results for some of the Kotromanics. Although errorously, they are refered to "Stjepan" to an extent more than "Stefan"s. Regardless of the fact of their true name (it is stated in the article) the article's title should be whatever is most notable. --PaxEquilibrium 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, I don't claim to be an expert, so I'll leave it to those who are. --estavisti 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

I don't really know a lot about the House of Kotromanic, so I'm asking this; why is "German" listed as a nationality of the House? —KingIvan 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, no idea. I suppose it's because the dynasty's of German origin, but it's stupid to plainly put it "German" just because of that. --PaxEquilibrium 20:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If the house is of German origin, why isn't there anything written about that in the article? If no one objects to removing "German" from the infobox within a few days, I'm gonna remove it - it just doesn't seem to "fit". —KingIvan 07:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it's written already in the Kotromanics' respective articles. Naturally, remove it. --PaxEquilibrium 16:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Pax:

The reason Tvrtko crowned himself king of Serbia wasnt because he had plans to take the serbian crown nor because he was serb. The reason was because he wanted to get recognized as the Bosnian king by the Vatican and to get recognized he took not only the serbian crown, he took also the croatian crown, crown of the seaside, usora, and podrinje.

This clearly states that the crowns were not IMPORTANT and also there are clear evidence that Tvrtko later on REJECTED the serbian crown which also testifies of the little importance of this event. And Tvrtko was not a serb, he attacked serbian land and conquered them and made them Bosnian land and he clearly stated in his letters the difference between BOSNIAN and SERBIAN land.

Do you understand now?

And Tvrtko doesnt belong neither to the serbian nor croatian history, the king Tvrtko belongs to BOSNIAN and BOSNIAK history. Alkalada 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No one says he was Serb. And in the end that's all not important. What's important is that his crown was double "Bosnian" and "Serbian" - for the other lands (including Croatia) he only had titles and nothing else.

Tvtko never ever rejected the Serbian crown. The "Bosnian-Serbian Crown" stood up to the very end in 1463. Also, he made alliances with major Serbian dynasties to remove dissidents (Nikola Altomanovic) that did not recognize his rule, in the course of restoring the Serbian realm.

Also Tvrtko belongs by great part to both the Serbian and Croatian history; it's highly fallacious to claim that. How could especially then he belong to the Bosniak history?

Also please stop removing the "Serb" and "Croat" histories, (many of) the Kotromanics considered themselves Serbs and there's also a Croatian version of the story. --PaxEquilibrium 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody of the Bosnian monarch or nobilities EVER considered themself to be either croat or serb. They were simply bosnians, which by then was called bosnjanin and there were not a single serb or croat in bosnia at that time. And Tvrtko belongs to Bosniak history since he was a bosniak like all Bosnian rulers at that time. I will as I said on my talk page provide more evidence and sources later. Alkalada 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any called itself "Bosnian" or even "Bosnien" for that matter - AFAIK I don't remember any single moment any Monarch in the South Slavic lands during the medieval times ever calling himself "Serb", "Bosnian" or "Croat", except perhaps for Prince Lazar who called himself a Serb at the Battle of Amsfeld in 1389 (the sole occasion) so it does not really tell much. However they did indirectly imply that they're Serbs, Croats, etc... Such is the case with most rulers from Tvrtko onwards, and is especially the case with the Sankovics, Pavlovics and Kosacas (although neither of them was really Bosnian).

Such claiming would be fallacious - for instance, one Bosnian ruler referred to the inhabitants of Bosnia (i.e. his subjects) Serbs.

"since he was a bosniak like all Bosnian rulers at that time." How come? Why? When? --PaxEquilibrium 21:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is historically proved that we bosniaks are a mix of slav settlers (not croats, or sebs) and Ilyrians, avars and kelts and this mix provided the establishmen of a separate nation under the name bosnians. This name was taken from the country Bosnia which itself was an Ilyrian word for river Bosna.

Unlike serbs or croats who named their countries after themself the bosnian people named themself after the country Bosnia and the country Bosnia was named after the river Bosna which itself was an Ilyrian name Bosona which meant running water.

And the word ban is an avarian word which only was used in Bosnia and this clearly shows the mix of 1 wave slav settlers and local tribes in Bosnia. After the arrival of slavs the croats and serbs arrived around 100 years later. They could never reach bosnia because of its isolation and Bosnia had own leaders like Ratimir, Silimir, Budimir and so on.

First after king Tomislav crowned himself in Croatia not Bosnia, then he attacked and occupied Bosnia, as Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantine empire and Hungaria did. Both Ban Kulin, Matej Ninoslav, Stjepan Kotromanic, Tvrtko Kotromanic, Stjepan Tomas, Kraljica Katarina declared the people of Bosnia as Bosnians, bosnjanin.

I hope you get it now. Alkalada 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, the word bosniak means bosnian and there is no difference between bosnian and bosniak. Since the world bosniak was an word for Bosnians during middle ages, this means that all Bosnian leaders were bosniaks only that they were called bosnjanin then. When the language was changed and -ak replacen -anin then we become bosniaks. Alkalada 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that was proven. So far I see that as a theory. Just like there are numerous theories (including that all Bosniacs are Serbs, Croats or both/between) on the origins. There are countless theories on the Serbs' origin, and we have a whole article dedicated to that subject (according to it they're of Persian origins; Croats too).

No, no, no. Serbia and Croatia were named by its peoples => but Bosnia wasn't (it's vice versa). The Bosnian people was named by the state (just like with the case of Macedonians and Montenegrins). Also, don't shall not mix "Bosnian" and "Bosniac".

There were no waves of Slavic settlers. All kinds of Slavs populated the entire Balkan peninsular gradually, in a 200+ year period (first Slavs arrived in the 5th century). It is just the Croats and Serbs who came in waves, because they already had organized civilizations. There were Bans in Croatia and Hungary too (and even Serbia), it does not say much I'm afraid. And not a single ruler of Bosnia before the 12th century is known (except the very few Serbian viceroys), from where did you get those names?

Tomislav was crowned in 924 (or 925) in Duvno (which is in modern-day Bosnia-Herzegovina). I know Tomislav introduced reforms to centralize the Croatian Kingdom, in which Bosnia was entirely and fully centralized under his rule - but he already ruled Bosnia when he came to power. And since then Bosnia meant simply a valley around the river of Bosnia, I don't see what he could attack. History records that he was invaded by Bulgaria in 927, when Tsar Samuil conquered by 928 from him the area between Drina and Bosnia and returned it to its Serbian vassals. As far as I see, Matej Ninoslav noted that the people of Bosnia were Serbs.

However there is a huge difference - "Bosnians" are not an ethnic group, which "Bosnians" are, and only some Bosnians are Bosniaks (others are Croats and Serbs). And no, the word "Bosniak" was not a word for bosnians in the Medieval Ages. --PaxEquilibrium 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You obviously like all serbs, sadly there is no exception, all serbs, reject truth and evidence and doesnt listen to what other wants to say. Insteed you are acting like the entire world have wrong and you serbs have right (remember Milosevic?), and sadly for you but very good for me you are loosing Kosovo now because of your arrogans.

Lets keep us to some facts that cannot be neither rejected or denied:

1. The only reason Bosnian kings declared themself kings over Serbia was because they wanted the Vatican to recognize them easily as kings, and they also took Croatian crown, crown over the seaside, podrinje, usora and other parts. An since Bosnia was an independent kingdom he could only rule one kingdom and not a completely different like Tvrtko was even a serbian king. Haha!

2. Even Hungarians declared themself kings over Serbia because of the same reason.

3. Bosnians was a name for the people of the geographical region called Bosnia, later Banate Bosnia and later Kingdom of Bosnia. It was only so that the word Bosnian in Bosnian language was Bosnjanin and then later changed to bosnjak. Which means that only we bosniaks are bosnians in Bosnia, serbs and croats are strangers.

4. Bosnian church was a state religion and the only reason the Bosnian kings accepted catholicism was because they didnt want Bosnia to be attacked by evil crusaders. As for the people they got simple brainwashed by the franciscans. This clearly shows that the current day so called Bosnian croats are not croats but bosniaks that both betrayed their ancient religion and betrayed their people.

5. There were practically no orthodox in Bosnia before the arrival of turks and no one of the bosnian kings ever converted or accepted orthodox since they were either bogumils or catholics.

The reality is hard, Zivjela Kosova! Alkalada 15:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what does Kosovo have to do with this? What arrogance?

1. Not really. He only took the title; these two crowns (or better, a single *double* one, sugubi vijenac) were only ones with whom he was crowned.

2. Well they held the title (or better, self-proclaimed), but were never crowned - legitimately or otherwise.

3. No it doesn't. From where do you base that conclusion? And there was no Bosnian language back then (it was formed in 1993, established in 1995).

4. "Betrayal" is not inheritable. The age of Curses is long over.

5. The first Kotromanics (Stephen and Stephen II) were Orthodoxes. Orthodox Serbs lived in eastern Bosnia in the Drina area. However most didn't live in Bosnia itself, butr in Herzegovina, where they formed majority. There were evidently major Orthodox noble families in Bosnia, too (Zlatonosici e.g.). --PaxEquilibrium 22:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No need to keep feeding the troll --Hadžija 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kosovo comments show the bias and pure anti-Serbism by these "bosniaks". To say that Tvrtko and the Kotrmanici were bosniaks, a word that did not even exist until recently, is beyond academically laughable! To say that Serbs and Croats in BiH are strangers is ridiculous to the extreme. Bosnia and Herzegovina has always been a geographical region, nothing more. No ethnicity could come out of it. The Kotromanici spoke Serbian and wrote in Serbian Cyrillic! (all prominent linguists have stated that the 'bosancica' was only a branch of Serbian Cyrillic and not its own alphabet) Tvrtko had strong blood ties to Serbs, he took the Serbian crown, his title was king of Serbs and Bosnia not King of Serbs and Bosnians or Bosniacs or Bosnjanins or whatever you call yourselves. Many primary documents have stated that mideival Bosnia was populated by Serbs and was Serb land. The way these people cloud the facts and attempt to falsify history is shocking, the kind of academic crimes these people are capable of scares me... --24.150.77.3 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

Why is someone changing the nationality to Serbian? He was from Bosnia and was a king in BOSNIA not Serbia. If he was king in Serbia his nationality would have been Serbian but that is not the case.

However, that is the case - he was a Bosnian-Serbian King. --PaxEquilibrium 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Still only having Serbian is inacurate. So stop removing Bosnian (Whoever is doing that). Also writing Serb is not correct because that refers to an ethnicity whereas Serbian refers to a nationality and seeing as how the Kotromanics ethnicity is disputed writing serb is not right.

That has nothing to do with me. I reverted to the original version myself. --19:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I opened a new section, called "disputes". There're subchapters.
Put your "pro and contra" theories there, please. Leave the line "nationality" in the template empty.
We aren't getting anywhere with those edit wars.
I've also completed the title of this royal house, as it states in the template (it's not fair to mention just a few royal possessions). Kubura 12:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, Revolucija, explain your changes.
Pax, abstain from removing the paragraphs. You know very well that there're other theories.
This is the only way to avoid further editwars. Kubura 09:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. If constructive edits are to be made, do so professionally - here at the talk page, instead of leaving rump articles that look bad for ages. I'll revert to the neutral original version, and you two work it out here filling it completely, so that I can include it into the article when you're done. --PaxEquilibrium 21:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking rump or not, but that way it'll divert negative edit energy. So all contributors, even those with attitude "only mine version is true one"'ll try to give as much as possible into their section. We have to make those "empty" sections; you build the crossroad before the car. Otherwise, you're driving in wilderness.
Third, the title had to be in original form (at least, this should be clear). Kubura 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any negative edit energy - save for the one you're right now inserting. ;) But they haven't done it so far - so please, try to handle it within one month (so far I only see the Serb theory, and that Serb POV). I'd rather cars don't pass in the green and beautiful grass, still untamed by nationalistic fumes. The better question is - is that wilderness at all? :P

I think you missed the Second bit.

And what original form? --PaxEquilibrium 21:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left an empty subsection, for others to fullfill it. I'm busy on other areas. I don't have to work on every article on this world.
So I'll disengage from this edit explanating war.
On the other hand, don't play dumb, you know very well how many theories are written. Now you even try to remove the traces of any other theories. Kubura 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)