Talk:Stjepan Ostoja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want I can repeat this as long as you ask this question. 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 was a Bosnian ruler. Bosniaks base their identity on Bosnia.--Emir Arven 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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. We could see that even recently, when Slobodan Milošević died. Serb public immediately said that he was killed by International community and Carla del Ponte. I have seen that you represent yourself as a historian. I don't 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 shouldn't be. You also deny Bosniak history in medieval ages. You talked about Stjepan's chart, but just about the last forged 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 didn't even exist). The source that you presented 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? This is just a good sign that many Serbs deny Bosniak identity as Serb war criminal Ratko Mladic did when he commited genocide.--Emir Arven 21:07, 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 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I accept the use of history of the serbs in this article but i have put up "bosniak history" too since he is a part of bosniak history.

As for the part where it says he is a Bosnian and SERBIAN king I have removed it because he was simple Bosnian king and nothing else. Hungarian kings declered themself king of serbs too, does that make them Serbian kings? No!

And you cant be a Serbian king if you have no power in Serbia. Pretty logical? Alkalada 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Austro-Hungarian Monarch Franz Joseph I was King of Jerusalem, and there's no reason to remove it.

In this case, where the actual crown was Sugubi Bosansko-srpski vijenac (the Bosnian-Serb crown) you cannot do that. --PaxEquilibrium 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, you agree to put both, but on the House of Kotromanic article you said that the Kotromanics are not of Serbian, nor of Croatian, but just Bosniak history?

I wanted to evade this all modernism, but is there any real strong reason to keep the Bosniak history category? --PaxEquilibrium 20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, since bosniak means bosnian! It meant the same thing as the modern day word "bosanac", "Bosnian" means today. First it was called bosnjanin then the name changed, not because of the turks but because the Bosnian language was changed, example... poljak, slovak and so on and bosnjanin then became bosnjak and bosnjak meant bosnian.

This means that bosniaks are bosnians while serbs and croats arent. They are simple serbs an croats. And because the word bosniak mean bosnian and since it is historically proved that the citizens of Bosnia was Bosnians then Tvrtko and all other BOSNIAN kings, bans and nobilities were and are part of Bosniak and Bosnian history.

Husein Gradascevic said to the turks that bosniaks have existed before you and if Allah wants even after you. I hope you understand now.

People have fully freedom to express thereself who and what they are but if someone says he is a croat or serb then he is not bosnian but croat or serb. If someone says he is bosniak then he is bosnian. Alkalada 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But "Bosniak" is a member of an ethnic group (one specific nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), while "Bosnian" can mean all Bosnians (even Herzegovinians), regionally. But the word "Bosniak" had existed in Turkish a lot before they conquered Bosnia, the more obvious thing would be as if they brought the name.

It's not quite correct to claim that. The Serbs and Croats too are constitutive peoples, nations, of Bosnia. In the end, the Bosniaks aren't the sole "successors" to the history of Bosnia, Serbs and Croats are too. What about the time that a relative of the Kotromanics, Bosnian Ban, called his subjects Serbs? Thus should we then say that only Serbs are the *successors* to the Medieval Bosniens, whereas Croats and Bosniaks are "foreign"?

That rule is applied only since the 20th century and the birth of nations; lol, not in the Medieval Ages (14th century!). --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bosnjak was just an development of the Bosnian language like the world slovak, poljak which was changed and believe me it wasnt the turks who forced us to change our language!

Yes, that is today. Because Bosnia is an country, then all 3 ethnicities are called Bosnians but there are Herzegovina too and croats in Herzegovina would much rather be called Herzegovinian than Bosnian. But what I am trying to say is that no serb or croat have the right to call themself Bosnian since we bosniaks have been called bosniaks (bosnians) for more than 900 years. There are stecaks in yea 1080 or something that is naming bosnjanin as a specific nation. Alkalada 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is historically documented that Bosnian Church was the state religion before the crusaders and before the arrival of franciscans and that this religion was the religon of the bosniak people (then called bosnjanins). However some were forced to convert to catholicism and some were so brainwashed that they accepted catholicism. Thoose who bravely kept their religion to the arrival of turks directly accepted Islam while those catholics who accepted Islam were simply Bosnian bogumils who earlier had converted to catholicism. Since Bosnia was and still is kind of isolated then there were no strong religion and people could change religion every week. That is why many Bosnians accepted Islam. Alkalada 22:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that might be one theory, but it most surely isn't the only one. That has nothing to do with "Poljak" as it did not come from (Ottoman) Turkish. A good example for it is that the very first mentions of "Bosniak" in our language come from the Devsirms (especially the famous "Janissary the Serb") and the first mentions come from Macedonia, Bulgaria and Serbia too. While on the other hand, in Croatia the usage of the word appears for the first time in the 17th century (and then in the 19th century was formalized internationally, as the Ottoman Empire was integrated as a normal European realm).

I think that goes for the Serbs in East Herzegovina too. I don't understand; you say that all three (Bosniacs, Serbs and Croats) are Bosnians - but then write that the Serbs & Croats have no right to call themselves Bosnians? But where is the logic in this? Please, explain it to me.

As for your third section, what are you trying to note by it? That has nothing to do with the subject of the discussion. --PaxEquilibrium 12:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)