Talk:Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia

Orthodoxy

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)

accordance with title

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)

Herceg and sources

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)

I have no understanding of "obscure" and really have no idea what you're talking about. Here's the quote from Zeljko Fajfric's brilliant book:

“ 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. ”

Is this what you wanted? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No but internet link, but we can even discuss that. If we take that this "povelja" is real then Stephen II is not ban but herceg because he is called herceg and not ban. If he is ban and herceg then in this document it will be writen "gospođu Mariju sestru Stjepana bana i hercega bosanskoga" but this is not writen.--Rjecina (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have long since given up the internet - for an obvious reason. It is for children. Childlish driven-out-of context websites and scarce but with a clear agenda are everywhere, and form a vast majority of the internet - including outright false things and infective propaganda. The good ol' library is the cure to this viral infection that turned the internet into a horrifying disease. But, if you insist so much (I believe you have no trust in me?), fine, I found a link to Fajfric's book: it's here.

Herzog was in a stylish way used for Bosnian Bans in Western sources quite often. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me see Projekat Rastko writer has become serious NPOV source ?? This is really something new.

If statement about Herzog is true so what ?? Will we call monarch by his title or by stylish way used in Western sources. If that you statement is true then we you will not write ban and herzog but only herzog ?

Fajfric's is funny sources. He is clearly sayining in article about Tvrtko I that Stephen title is ban (and nothing else)

Please be real and end your changing of historical facts about which ulmost everybody in ex Yugoslavia agree. We are having so small number of this facts that it is really bad to create new problems --Rjecina (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Rastko is a collection of sources. I'm not sure what you mean.

You are free to remove it, go ahead, but you are really (emotionally) making a big thing out of it. :-D

I personally think it is a necessity keep how he was called by his sovereign. Because of the same reason I was searching for a Latin version of the name to add it into the intro... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Rastko is a collection of "sources" which are showing Serbian version of events. If Wikipedia is serious project we do not need Bosniak, Croatian or Serbian version of events.

French ambassador Baron Gros has called in diplomatic letters shogun Tokugawa Iesada civil emperor of Japan. In wikipedia article he is called shogun and nobody is calling him emperor. I think that this is ease to understand :)--Rjecina (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can point me point me any single work which is better and more dedicated to the Kotromanics - or point out a single part of the book which is not neutral...?

It was talking about letters, and shogun and emperor are (in English) two very different thing. The article with "Prince of Serbia" (e.g. Milos Obrenovic) should also include the Turkish version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)