Talk:Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Bosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Please, do not put "allegedly" to something that's proven and obvious - Kotroman couldn't've been anything else from a Roman Catholic Christian. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you...

...provide a valuable reason why the Bosniak history category belongs here? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pretending to be a dumb or what, because I answered to this question for n-th times? Bosniak history is history related to Bosnia, and Stjepan I was a Bosnian ban, a ruler of Bosnia. Bosniak identify themselves with Bosnia. Is it so hard to understand? Why did you put History of Serbs cathegory, when Stjepan I was not a Serb?--Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you about your forgery again:

Serb sources are mostly based on mythology and nationalism. That is just a pure fact. Wikipedia is not a place for collecting fairy tales. I have seen that you represent yourself as a historian. I dont believe you. Maybe you are a historian, but a bad one. Because historian should know the difference between facts and anachronism or between facts and stories or facts and nationalism. You go from article to article and put the term "Serb" where it should be and where it shouldnt be. You talked about Stjepan's chart, but just about the last sentece, added by some scribe. Why? Because you wanted to show or tried to connect Serb language with a script called by that scribe "Serb script" (That kind of script didnt even exist). The source that you presented [1] is Serb nationalistic site, that support war criminals. It says that Draza Mihajlovic, was a WWII hero. Draža Mihailović was sentenced as a war criminal and was executed in former Yugoslavia for crimes that he commited in eastern Bosnia. He was nazi supporter and collaborator. This site also supports Slobodan Milosevic, accuesed for genocide. This site was even quoted by Slobodan Milosevic during the trial. This is not serious source. Also you are the one that put V. Corovic book as a source, and told us that that book supported your theses. When I checked it I found that you lied. Can you tell me why, my dear friend? So tell me how possible could I believe you anymore? --Emir Arven 20:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your second paragraph is just a reminder of what you do - now you continue to spread propaganda and harsh words like "Serb sources are mostly based on mythology and nationalism. That is just a pure fact." The source I presented maybe a Serb nationalist source in the eyes of some - who are most propably nationalists themselves. I tend to read everything and judge it over the course of time, not just discard something, simply because it wasn't written by a member of my nationality.

I fail to see your concept. Please re-read what you stated: "Bosniak history is history related to Bosnia, and Stjepan I was a Bosnian ban, a ruler of Bosnia. Bosniak identify themselves with Bosnia. Is it so hard to understand?" Very interesting logic... Let me use a comparison: "Serbian history is related to Serbia, and Murad I was a Serbian Monarch, a ruler of Serbia." The logic is invalid.

No, that logic is not invalid, you are not here to judge, because Bosniaks have other sense and understanding of identity/nation then Serbs. --Emir Arven 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to understand is that Stjepan I wasn't a Serb - or a Bosniak. Attaching nationalities to Medieval figures has always been - and will always be - highly errorous. Please read what I wise Bosniak wikipedian once said: User_talk:HolyRomanEmperor/Archive5#.22Serb.2FCroat.2FBosniak.22_History_Categories. I put the categories Croatian history and History of the Serbs because he was a Croatian and Serbian vassal. That's exactly why I'm now adding the Hungarian history category as well.

Then it is not History of Serbs, because he was not a Serb as you said.--Emir Arven 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly - you have also broken yet another of Wikipedia's policies: Wikipedia:NPA several lines to the up. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant: WP:PA. Additionally, you have completly misunderstood the policty Wikipedia:Vandalism and its factual meaning as statet in that edit summary of yours. --HolyRomanEmperor 19:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are too bureaucratic, and you missed the point. --Emir Arven 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Regardless of what Stephen I's ethnicity was (and bearing in mind that ethnicity then is really not the same concept as it is now), would it be fair to say that his actions affected both Serb and Bosniak regions?

And thus, we can include this article in both "Bosniak history" and "Serb history". And the only reason "Bosniak" comes before "Serb" is because of alphabetical order.

I know this won't settle everything, but I'd like to think that it will help a little bit. DS 21:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the problem is that HolyRoman keeps removing Bosniak history category and put History of Serbs category, where it should be and where it shouldnt be.--Emir Arven 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been trying to say - however, I will put the old out-of-date Category:History of Serbia in this place. Is that sufficient for a compromise?

To Emir Arven:

Could you please stop spreading nationalistic propaganda against me, the Serbs and "all your enemies"? You remind me of Vojislav Seselj who calls everyone standing in front of his way "Ustasas". Also, please stop spreading false accusations. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To HolyRomanEmperor:

I just wrote what you told us all here. And you told us that in Vladimir Corovic book is a source for you thesis that Stjepan was a Serb Orthodox?! That was false, I checked it, and everyone can check it for him/herself. So my dear friend, that was not spreading propaganda against you, that was just a simple truth.--Emir Arven 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean when I say your propaganda against me - it was verified in a source - and I did not tell anyone that it was said in Vladimir's book - nor there ever was my thesis in anything, good friend. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. Here is your lie my dear friend. Nothing can be hidden. [2] As you can see the source was (Istorija srpskog naroda/History of Serb people, by Vladimir Ćorović), and HRE was so self-confident that he said: this is a proof that you don't even care one bit about this article; if you did, you would've read it and noticed the source;. So I checked it and found that you lied in order to prove Stjepan's mother wishes?!. --Emir Arven 23:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was saying - I was sourcing nearly half of the article, and reacted to your removal of the valid source. On the other hand, you responded with "Serb nationalist vladimir Corovic... that book is crap". And indeed I was right - the only thing that mattered to you is the ethnicity of the writer - not its contents. However, this should be discussed elswhere - as it's not the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 12:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His name

WAs not Stjepan or Stefan. His name was Stipan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.238.12 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]