Talk:Boris Kalamanos/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 Wikipedia. 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 [1]. 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 Wikipedia. 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", [2]. 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 Wikipedia 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?). Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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/Croats (đ transcribed as dj in Serbian/Croatian), 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)? Or are we now past that point where you were nitpicking about what Hóman allegedly meant v. what Klaić actually said? Sevvyan (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your above remarks, because those remarks clearly demonstrate how problematic is your approach: based on an irrelevant fact, you create your own stories. Based on my mispelling, you think that I am a Serbian editor, and based on an exclamation mark in Klaić's work, you think that Hóman identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. You are wrong: I am a Hungarian editor and Hóman did not identify Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Please, try to answer my simple question: did Klaić state that Hóman had identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia? If she made such a statement, please copy the proper text from her work here, together with an English translation. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If Boris and Borić are not the same person, why do you think Klaić spent 3 pages fighting Hóman's thesis that Árpád dynasty had right to Bosnia? Are you saying that she was stupid and overlooked the "obvious", unlike you? That's fine, as long as you can support your view with sources you keep failing to produce. At any rate, both her sentence in Croatian and its English translation are given above, but you pretend like they don't exist. How can you say I create stories if it's me who is using secondary sources by esteemed historians, while you offer no countering references? I even continue in that spirit: per your request, here's a reference that Borić did rule since 1141. That is the year in which Geza came to power too, and, according to Hóman, gave Bosnia to Boris. The new reference also confirms independently that Boris and Borić are the same person, different spelling. But go ahead and proclaim this reference invalid too (because you say so, rather than some reliable source?). Or will you perhaps now claim that Bosnia in the same year had two separate Bans, both called Boris and Borić... Don't you see? To any fair editor you look like a joke. We fight sources using other sources, meaning you can keep your original research to yourself. I ask you again: any references, please? I didn't think so. Now, please remove the tag. A remark: you shouldn't be so emotional and overprotective about this article just because you wrote it. Sevvyan (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) No, she was not stupid, I have never stated this. Hóman stated that it was the king of Hungary who made one "Ban Boris" the governor of Bosnia, and she denied Hóman's claim. (2) No, the new reference does not prove any of your statement. You provided a source which states that Borić ruled since 1141. However, Hóman did not write that Boris had been granted Bosnia in 1141. You cannot mix Hóman's statement about "Boris of Bosnia" with a statement about Borić of Bosnia from an other (19th-century) book in an article about Boris Kalamanos, without proving (based on a reliable source) that the three persons (Boris of Bosnia, Borić of Bosnia and Boris Kalamanos) are identical. (3) As I mentioned Hóman did not identify "Ban Boris" with Boris Kalamanos. Please, try to answer my simple question: did Klaić state that Hóman had identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia? If she made such a statement, please copy the proper text from her work here, together with an English translation. If she did not make such a statement, the sentences which are allegedly based on Hóman's work, should be deleted as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you said she was stupid, I rhetorically asked if that was what you meant. Man, you really have problem with English comprehension, don't you. I thought you couldn't possibly be serious in insisting on "one sentence", but now that you keep insisting while not providing countering sources: just take a pick from her 3-page counterargument to Hóman's thesis; as any sentence will do. Remark: you're not here to demand, and I'm not here to obey you. We're editors; I contributed new references, you're welcome to contribute countering references, or seek consensus for removing my contributions. That's all. Until you comply with these basic Wikipedia rules, this final text will be added:

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

According to Catholic Church's sources, namely the friar-writer Ivan Franjo Jukić, Borić ruled as Ban of Bosnia from 1141 (the year Géza II came to power) until 1168."

Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, none of us here to demand or obey. However, we both should follow basic WP policies, including WP:NOR. Would you provide the original text as well, because there is no sentence on the pages you cited above which contains both names ("Hóman" and "Boris Kolomanović"), as it is suggested by the above "translation". Please try to follow WP rules. Borsoka (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Now read what you wrote. I'm the one who made sourced contributions. You're the one who can (A) provide countering sources, or (B) obtain delete-consensus. Sevvyan (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it is you who stated something, so you have to substantiate it. You stated that Boris Kalamanos was ban of Bosnia, citing a source (Bálint Hóman's work). However, Hóman wrote of one "Boris of Bosnia", but he did not identify him with Boris Kalamanos. Next you stated that Nada Klaić wrote that Hóman had identified "Boris of Bosnia" with Boris Kalamanos. I asked you to provide her text, instead you copied your own summary from here [3], pretending that it is a verbatim citation from Klaić's work. Nevertheless, I sought assistance on the Talk page of WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. Please remember that I have mentioned above that the standard English translation of John Kinnamos' chronicle makes a clear distinction between "Borić, ruler of Bosnia" and "Boris, son of king Kálmán of Hungary" (I referred 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). Even so, you cited John Kinnamos' text of "Borić, ruler of Bosnia" in an article about "Boris, son of king Kálmán of Hungary". You have been claiming, based on books written in the 19th century, that "Borić" ruled as Ban of Bosnia from 1141. In modern historiography, his rule is dated to the 1150s: Fine, John V. A (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth century. The University of Michigan Press. p. 288. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.; Rokay, Péter (1994). "Bosznia uralkodói [Rulers of Bosnia]". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)] (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 124. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.. Consequently, please provide Klaić's original text and its translation (not your summary) which proves that she wrote that Hóman had identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Borsoka (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

None of your above references dates the beginning/end of Borić's rule to an exact year, unlike the Jukić reference I just quoted. They're all vague with respect to the time Borić ruled. As to the equating Boris and Borić, your sources score even worse: none of them treats even the issue of Árpáds' right to Bosnia, so they don't even come close to being relevant here (in the context of Bosnia they're all about Borić of Bosnia, not Boris of Bosnia)! So they're irrelevant here (resembling the old impress-by-quantity trick). Which strengthens my argument that the Klaić, Hóman and now Jukić refs are true rare gems. As to your other remarks: I addressed those in the above, no need to repeat myself as you bring nothing new to the discussion; for example (and by your own standards): can you show in the Kinnamos ref the exact discussion on Árpáds' right to Bosnia? If not, then your reference can't be countered to either the Hóman or the Klaić ref. It seems all you've got is to try obtain the delete-consensus, though I'm not sure how you're going to accomplish that given that you haven't offered a single (relevant) source yet, and I've found 3. If I'd have to repeat myself, I'd say to you again: the topic here is the right of Árpád dynasty to Bosnia, as seen by Hóman and Klaić (and others if we find new refs that discuss the topic). Sevvyan (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) You have not cited a single sentence from from Klaić's work which proves that she wrote that Hóman had identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. The three "rare gems" (Klaić, Hóman and now Jukić) do not say that Borić of Bosnia and Boris Kalamanos were identical, as it is claimed in the article. Please, remember WP:NOR: all sentences that are not based on academic works should be deleted from WP articles. (2) You are wrong: one of the two cited (modern) reliable sources clearly writes, that Borić of Bosnia ruled from 1154 to 1163 (Rokay 1994, p. 124). According to the same encyclopedia, Boris Kalamanos died in 1153 or 1154 (Makk, Ferenc (1994). "Boris". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)] (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 120. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.). Consequently, Borić of Bosnia and Boris Kalamanos could not be identical. (3) Boris Kalamanos could not represent the right of Árpád dynasty to Bosnia, because he was not a member of that dynasty, according to Béla II of Hungary and Géza II of Hungary (who were members of the dynasty). Boris was the son of King Coloman the Learned's adulterous wife, Eufemia, and he spent his life fighting against Béla II and Géza II to acquire Hungary (I refer to Makk 1994, page 120, mentioned above). Yes, Klaić denied Hóman's claim that "Boris" (not Boris Kalamanos!) was made governor of Bosnia by the king of Hungary: she denied that the Árpádian kings of Hungary had any right/possibility to appoint officials to govern Bosnia in the 1140s and 1150s. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where she says Boris Kolomanović? Did you miss her intro, defining her target - Hóman's thesis on Árpáds' right to Bosnia? They are real rare gems because they are topical works (i.e., they explore the topic in detail), were written by esteemed historians, and were published by prestigious publishers, in peer-reviewed books. You can hardly beat that. Thanks for your POV as evident from your "Consequently,...". Regardless of his father and cousins banishing him, Boris Kalamanos was legally a member of the Árpád royal family, because in the 12th century Europe, "illegitimacy was of little if any account", and in continental Europe even less so than in, say, England. Thanks for the last sentence in the above - it truly made my day! Do you now realize that Klaić was fighting the Hóman's thesis - that Árpáds had right to Bosnia - and that Boris she talks in so much detail was precisely Boris of the Árpáds because no other member of that family from that era was named Boris? How difficult could that be, given that the whole family at that time had no more than 10ish or so members, and all are known, and only one was named Boris... Sevvyan (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) Again: you have not provided a single sentence from either Hóman's or Klaić's work which proves that either Hóman or Klaić identified "Boris of Bosnia" with "Boris Kalamanos", or which proves Klaić wrote that Hóman had identified them. Please stop OR. (2) Boris Kalamanos was the son of an Árpádian king's adulterous wife and the members of the Árpád dynasty (Béla II of Hungary and Géza II of Hungary) did not regard Boris Kalamanos as their kinsmen: they thought that Boris Kalamanos was the son of his mother's lover, not of Coloman the Learned (I refer to Makk 1994, page 120). Please stop OR. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop dodging references like the No.3 above (see below list of refs) that clearly and authoritatively says that at that time in Europe, bastardy was legally irrelevant. If that weren't the case, Hóman as an esteemed historian would have hardly postulated his thesis. Nor would so many Serbians and Croatians be fighting his thesis so fiercely. Please stop falsely accusing me of OR, as Klaić certainly is a sufficient source for building one's view, so I have no need for OR. Can you comment the fact that there was no other Boris in the Arpad family at that time, AND Klaić was, as you now admit it too, fighting the thesis that Árpáds had right to Bosnia (she was concerned with no other royal family!)? Make sure you familiarize yourself with the normal historic methodolgy, which defines that "majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis". Sevvyan (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) "Boris of Bosnia" was not a member of the Árpád dynasty, but a royal official appointed by an Árpádian king of Hungary (Géza II), according to Hóman. (2) Klaić denied that Árpádian kings appointed officials to govern Bosnia in the 1140s and 1150s. (3) Hóman described Boris Kalamanos as the principal opponent of both Béla II of Hungary and Géza II of Hungary, and he mentioned his death in the service of the Byzantine Emperors before referring to the appointment of the other Boris to rule Bosnia. (4) You are right textual analysis is highly important: that is why I have been asking you to provide the sentence from Klaić's work which proves that she think that Hóman identified Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos (as it is claimed in the article). You have not been able to provide such a sentence, but attempted to make us believe that your own text was written by Klaić. Please stop abusing scholars' names. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course he was a member of Árpád family, otherwise Klaić wouldn't be concerned with his appointment in the context of Homan's thesis that Árpáds had right to Bosnia. Note I quoted Klaić, not Hóman, so your citing Hóman misses the point and constitutes OR. Please read what textual analysis actually is; hint: it's not a sentence analysis. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 06:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) The Árpáds' "right" to Bosnia (if ever existed) between 1141 and 1162 was represented by King Géza II of Hungary himself. Hóman wrote that it was King Géza II made one Boris ban of Bosnia before cca. 1157. Boris was an official of the king of Hungary, not a member of the royal Árpád family. (2) You have not quoted Klaić: you quoted your own summary of Klaić's work, pretending that it is a verbatim citation. Please quote anything from her work which hints the possibility that she actually said that Hóman had identified "Boris Kalamanos" with "Borić of Bosnia". If your claim is not based on a scholarly work, it should be deleted from the article, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If all of you want to conclude one distant part of Bosnian history, just like that, in an instant, with one or few sources (more or less reliable), then you will never conclude it. In short, Ban Borić (c. 1100 - after 1167) was the first Ban of Bosnia, at the time was mentioned certain Boris Kalamanos (Kiev, c. 1114 - 1153/1154); Borić is possible as the common ancestor to most Bosnian rulers including reigning kings from the Kotromanić dynasty; they had a son Ban Kulin (founder of Kulinić noble family) and Constantine Kalamanos, but like in the case of their fathers, dates differ or are uncertain (Kulin 1163 – c. 1204; Constantine 1137/1145 - after 1173). As can bee seen, the chronology itself has defects or does not match.

The second problem is the etymology of rulers name, both Kulin and later Kotromanić; according the source, they indicate the presence of older Vlachian (ie. preslavic, romanized "Illyrian" population) linguistic culture in the territory of Bosnia. The name of Ban Kulin is mentioned as "kulin" or "koulin", in latin source "Culinus", and it has a rare name root "Kul-", also contained in the Illyrian cognomen "Culus", gentilicium "Culius", name "Culo", and later medieval Kotor and Dubrovnik surname "Culu (Culli)" and "Cul, Culo, Culio, Gulio". Also, Latin cognomen "Baculus" contains "-cul-" that is preserved in Bosnian language as contemporary Bosnian surname "Bakula", suffix "-ul" is common in Vlachian surnames, while "-in" indicates also possible Illyrian origin. As currently can't find the original document on Kotromanić, will translate an original sentence by the same author from another web source; "Name Kotroman is complex. The first composite was created from the Illyrian "Catarum", from which, in accordance with the voice changes caused Kotor. With metathesis "-or > ro" from Illyrian Kotor was created "Kotro-". For the formation of the suffix "-man" there are various possibilities", but would like to point out this document on "Kotor" complex origin, and that "-man" is also found among surnames of Vlachian origin).

With this would just like to say that if Boris or Borić was Hungarian nobleman, then he would have surname or name of Hungarian origin, and although "Koloman-Ko(t)roman" sound similar, it actually viceversa, could indicate Illyrian and Slavic influence and population in medieval Hungary, and that this subject is very complex and perhaps out of our reach.--Crovata (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how a proxy analysis like on surnames etymology constitutes a topical analysis like Hóman's and Klaić's? Looking at your profile, I can't help but ask: how come your profile states an officially non-existing "Serbo-Croat" language as your mother tongue? Could it be that you're a bit too emotional (obviously a Serbo-Croat patriot; no Bosnia in the equation) when it comes to discussions like this one, on Bosnia's deep history? I mean, it doesn't seem you accept that Bosnia should even exist, do you? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sevvyan, please stop insulting other editors. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how asking about editor's (self-declared) bias constitutes a personal attack. Please stop false accusations. Sevvyan (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied him in talk, yet he is not listening or trying to understand. The same edit-war began at Ban Kulin article.--Crovata (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Did you mean "I replied to his..."? Because I didn't receive any messages from you. An edit war? I once again don't know what you mean. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

References of the above discussion

Boris and Borić were not one and the same person

• "Boris never even saw Bosnia, neither did it ever come to his mind to set up a banate for himself there, but worked in Poland, Germany and Greece": Glasnik Srpskoga učenog društva ... Vol. 48. 1881. Борис Коломановић није никад ни видио Босне, нити му је кад на ум пало, да тамо саставља за се бановину, већ се врзао по Пољској, Немачкој и Грчкој царевини.--Zoupan 00:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• "It is clearly known that Boris died in 1154 while fighting Cumans, and that Borić was still alive in 1163": Milenko M. Vukićević; Stevo Ćosović (2005). Znamenite žene i vladarke srpske. Svet knjige. Али се јасно зна да је Борис Коломановић погинуо 1154. године у борби с Кумани- ма, а бан Борић помиње се још у животу 1 163. године..--Zoupan 00:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Are those supposed to be by esteemed historians? The first one doesn't seem to be (I couldn't locate the author's name, and you forgot to mention it). The second one is published by a non-academic publishing house (red alert) that seems to publish mostly nationalist editions. They have such "esteemed" titles as "Crimes against the Serbs..." (Which ones? Oh, all Serbs?), "Obilić in folk poetry...", and so on - we get the idea. Besides, that book is about "Famous women and female rulers of Serbia", yet it mentions Boris (is that a female name in Serbia?) in a by-the-way fashion but using categorical statements as if the authors knew the guy personally?! Quite what you'd expect from extremists... Thanks for nothing, and just as I was hoping that we've got more reliable references. Oh well, it's too bad as it's a very interesting topic imho. Can't help but notice though: isn't it interesting how, in pretty much all vague references on Borić/Boris, this guy Boris "dies" in 1154 while Borić is "mentioned for the first time" also in 1154? That's one great thing about being vague; one can interpret it in whichever way desired, even for countering a non-related topic like Árpád dynasty's right to Bosnia, which we're discussing here. Any real references (by esteemed historians and on the topic)? Sevvyan (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the fact remains that John Kinnamos knew of one Boris (Borizis) and one Borić (Boritsis). I indeed think that it is very interesting. The first journal was indeed contributed by esteemed historians (sr). Furthermore, we are discussing here, so I advice you to change your tone.--Zoupan 02:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that list of members of a society means - most are red-linked (no bio article) in that Serbian wiki page so they don't seem esteemed even within Serbia borders. But the main objection is: which one(s) authored the text you quoted? Any? All? None? Someone else did and they edited it? You lost me, sorry. I'd expect that Croatian and Serbian nationalist historians like the ones you quote would fight Hóman's thesis fiercely (Klaić's eruption of emotions is a good example, though one must give her credit for expertise), as Hóman and others like Jukić basically say that neither Croatia nor Serbia have any right whatsoever to Bosnia, since the 12th century at least. So it's not to any surprise that a publisher of nationalist pamphlets (no comment on that?) would be publishing attacks on Hóman's thesis too. How credible are those? Not much, to be honest. But even that is besides the point, as the point remains in the fact that you too fail to produce reliable references which examine the Hóman's thesis in detail, like Klaić did on 3+ pages of her book. Some fringe papers in nationalistic editions (on female(!) rulers, no less), or by anonymous author(s) that mention Boris/Borić in a by-the-way fashion and/or are vague, won't do it, sorry. How is Kinnamos' collection of thirdhand sources (is spelling inconsistent because he was leaving the original spelling? I know I would) relevant to Hóman or Klaić discussing the thesis that Árpád dynasty had a right to Bosnia? I take your allegations of my incivility extremely seriously, can you please point exactly where I was being uncivil? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the encyclopedia that summarizes the knowledge of Hungarian medievalists of the history of Hungary and the neighboring territories in the 9th-14th centuries, Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia were not identical: the former died in 1153 or 1154, and the latter ruled from 1154 to 1163 (Rokay, Péter (1994). "Bosznia uralkodói [Rulers of Bosnia]". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)] (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 124. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.; Makk, Ferenc (1994). "Boris". In Kristó, Gyula; Engel, Pál; Makk, Ferenc (eds.). Korai magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század) [Encyclopedia of the Early Hungarian History (9th–14th centuries)] (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó. p. 120. ISBN 963-05-6722-9.). Actually, as it is demonstrated during the debate under the previous subtitle, no academic works have been presented which say that Borić of Bosnia and Boris Kalamanos were the same. Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia too, and they say it is of a quality that approaches that of Britannica. Yet in Wikipedia, we don't rely on Wikipedia. Encyclopedias have a habit of beautifying and parroting (re-cycling) claims... I don't see how anything was "demonstrated during the previous debate under the previous subtitle"? You keep failing to produce reliable sources by esteemed historians on Árpáds' right to Bosnia, as Klaić and Hóman. Please stop listing references that have nothing to do with the topic, as quantity won't result in quality. Either find sources on the topic (like Zoupan tried above and failed) or admit defeat. I strongly advise you to take most seriously the fact that in historic science: "majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis". Only peer-reviewed topical works (no, not generalizing works like encyclopedias) by esteemed historians are a guarantee that the above historic methodology principle was probably followed. Sevvyan (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(1) You have not been able to produce a single sentence which substantiates your own claim that Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia were identical. (2) I referred to an encylopedia which proves that Boris Kalamanos (who died in 1153 and 1154) cannot be identical with Borić of Bosnia who started to rule in Bosnia in 1154. (3) Please stop abusing respected scholars' name to substantiate your own OR. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not been able to produce a single relevant, peer-reviewed, topical reference by esteemed historians on the Hóman's thesis that Árpáds had right to Bosnia. All you offered thus far concerns some dates (requires further OR, not in Wikipedia of course), but doesn't discuss the Hóman's thesis. Please stop misusing Wikipedia for your own OR/POV. Sevvyan (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never denied that Hóman said that the Árpádians had right to Bosnia. However, the subject of this debate whether Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia were the same persons. Hóman did not identify them. Klaić did not identify them either. Please stop abusing Hóman's and Klaić's names to substantiate your original research. The reliable source that I have cited several times was published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; it was written by the leading Hungarian medievalists of the 1990s. Borsoka (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Given your demonstrated weaknesses in English comprehension, please go through the above discussion carefully. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you cannot analyse texts, that is why you are convinced that your original research is based on a scholarly work. You claim that Hóman and Klaić identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. However, neither Hóman nor Klaić identified the two persons.Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. There is no consensus that these were one and the same person.--Zoupan 05:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus? I was joking when I said consensus is a way out for Borsoka. Is that why you joined the discussion? Borsoka keeps talking about Hóman, while I referred to Klaić, which is his own OR, all the references he piled up inclusive. Sevvyan (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not quoted a simple sentence from Klaić which proves that she (or Hóman?) identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sevvyan reported Ban Borić for full protection trying to continue his POV on that page.--Zoupan 07:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Many older and newer historians mix up (confuse) the Bosnian Ban Borić with Boris, the illegitimate son of King Coloman" Vjekoslav Klaić; Ivan von Bojničić Kninski (1885). Geschichte Bosniens von den ältesten zeiten bis zum verfalle des königreiches. W. Friedrich. p. 66. Viele ältere und neuere Historiker verwechseln den bosnischen Ban Borić mit Boris, dem unehelichen Sohne König Kolomans.--Zoupan 07:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• "According to my judgement there was indeed two persons with similar names" Hrvatski svjetozor. Milan Grlović. 1877. p. 339. Po mojem sudu blla su zaista dva čovjeka slična imena--Zoupan 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for strengthening my argument that it's mostly (if not only) Serbo-Croats who fiercely and categorically attack the thesis (that Árpáds had right to Bosnia as suppored by Hóman and others). The nationalist-editions publisher was a gem (not). Still waiting for reliable refs with topical analyses like Hóman's and Klaić's, not simply quotations of emotional/hand-waving 1-sentence statements. Textual analysis is the keyphrase when assessing historical sources, remember? Sevvyan (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So, books written in 1877 and 1885 stated that the similarity of the two names (Boris and Borić) had caused a confusion among scholars. However, those books does not state that the two persons (Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia) were identical. Sevvyan, would you demonstrate how the textual analysis of either Hóman's or Klaić's work proves your claim that Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia were the same? If you provided quotes from their books, you could demonstrate your analytical skills (if you had). Otherwise, other editors would think that you have only been making idle statements, and we should delete your original research from the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You again demonstrate poor English ("those books does not state" sic), so I'm beginning to wonder if you actually understand the discussion at all. Again: when assessing contradictory history material, the textual analysis approach is used, not a sentence analysis. For the former, you need to brush up your English. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please demonstrate your skills of textual analysis (if you have any at all). Your textual analysis based on Klaić's work could also demonstrate that your claim is not your own original research. Or have you realised that you misinterpeted Klaić's text? Borsoka (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "please demonstrate your skills..." Are you a professor? Am I your student? We're not assessing each other's skills (except the English, which are a minimum requirement in English Wikipedia, obviously), but sources on the topic of Árpáds' right to Bosnia, remember? Please try to focus. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You again misunderstand the situation - we are not talking about the Árpáds' right to Bosnia: if the Árpáds had right to Bosnia in the 1140s, that right was represented by the head of the family, Géza II of Hungary. However, you stated that Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia were the one and the same person. However, you have not been able to demonstrate that Hóman (or Klaić) identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. That is why I have been asking you to provide either a simple sentence or a longer text which proves that Klaić (or Hóman) identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. You may not know, but WP:NOR is a basic principle of our community. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That's (again) beside the point, which is: there's this perfectly legit thesis postulated who knows when, which says that Bosnia belonged to Arpads, and which still remains a legit thesis to this date - otherwise our contemporary Klaić wouldn't be spending 3+ pages trying to disprove it. There's no right or wrong here. You're welcome to stack up a million references next to mine, but you cannot delete the mention of the thesis itself. It exists as a thesis for centuries, and it attracts attention from most esteemed historians in practically every generation. And you now want to censor it because you or majority deems it incorrect? I don't think so; at least in non-exact sciences you can't. Sevvyan (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody wants to censor anything. Please feel free to dedicate a separate article to the Árpáds' right to Bosnia, based on reliable sources. However, this specific article is about Boris Kalamanos who was not identical with Borić of Bosnia. Your sentence will be deleted as per WP:NOR: you have not been able to demonstrate that either Hóman or Klaić identified Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Preventing editors from even mentioning one lasting topic in history, which is all about the person who is the topic of this bio article, and which has been studied in detail by esteemed scholars from practically every generation of historians, obviously would mean censorship. Please stop with the threatening/abusive behavior and with being uncivil. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Would you clarify what is that "lasting topic": the Árpáds' right to Bosnia or Boris Kalamanos's identification with Borić of Bosnia? Would you list those "esteemed scholars from practically every generations of historians" who studied that "lasting topic"? Borsoka (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've found two such sources (topical, detailed, peer-reviewed sole-authorship by esteemed historians, published in reputable editions) separated by half a century, as well as one sole-authorship Church source that gives exact dates unlike in other sources. You and Zoupan have found no comparably reliable sources, and several containing superficial (if any) discussion on the topic and vague/outright dismissing (therefore probably biased) statements. Thus I've found infinitely more reliable sources than you or Zoupan did. You basically contributed nothing of use, and are trying desperately (just look at the length of these Talk sections) to have removed my valuable contribution about the person who is the subject of this bio article. Sevvyan (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about Boris Kalamanos's identification with Borić of Bosnia, you are wrong again: you have not provided a single source to verify that claim. (1) Hóman did not identify them. (2) According to the Zgodnja danica, written in 1864, Borić (not Boris!) became the ruler of Bosnia in 1141. In that book, there is no reference to the identification of Borić with Boris Kalamanos, either. (3) We do not know what Klaić wrote of this topic, because you tried to present your own summary as a verbatim citation from her work. Consequently, the value of your contribution is zero, because your text has to be deleted as per WP:NOR. I do not want to be rude, but one may even say that the value of your contribution is below zero, because other editors are forced to vaste their time with discussing your original research on this Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say (if anything). My best guess would be that you're repeating the same-old, and offering no new sources of repute to add to my sources? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As I have mentioned several times you have not provided a single source to prove the validity of your claims. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Borsoka, with all regards to your patience, but when someone crosses every measure of respectful behaving he should be reported and blocked as his insistent insulting and accusations are not contributing anyhow to this discussion, and is just making it ridiclious and worse for other editors. Wasting everyone's time, yet could explain everything...

After re-reading it for the second time, and even checking the well known fact about Borić and Kulin in both official General Encyclopedia of the Yugoslav Lexicographical Institute, in which was included information from the studies done by generation of historians including Nada Klaić, and also modern Croatian Encyclopedia, he will never provide any evidence, because they're simply (non)existent, yet only second and teritary source point of view. Actually, most you Borsoka and Zoupan wrote, questioned, and sourced strongly suggest, for now, the opposite. The Hóman's point of view now we could describe outdated and as Hungarian nationalistic pretension, but as you stated above, if we prove that this theory is based on good foundation and was supported by several historians, then perhaps we could include, as you already stated, a statement how some scholars identified the mentioned Borić and Kulin with Boris and Constantine Kalamanos, or even merge (see below). On page 49 in the same PDF source cited above, Nada Klaić wrote (transl.) In addition, Bela in Boris, unrecognized son of Koloman (with Russian woman Euphemia) had a strong opponent as "the palace of Constantinople to Boris Kolomanović acknowledged the right to the throne, and even stronger tied up him with themselves with great marriage". Problem with this statement is that it can not be understood if that's Klaić POV or POV by historian György Györffy, she is mentioning and replying to in the paragraph, and what's the original source about his origin.

In section "3. Ban Borić - prvi poznati samostalni bosanski vladar" (Ban Borić - first known independent Bosnian ruler) she reviewed POV by historians Šišić, Sima Ćirković, Mihailo Dinić and Jovanka Kalić-Mijušković, on pg. 50 is mentioned how in 1154 (transl.) Whereas Serbs in the south fought, ban Borić joined with his troops the main Hungariran army..., and then listed four scarce original sources about Bosnia and Borić; two paragraphs by John Kinnamos, 1st Second march of tsar Manuel I against Raška (1150 y.), about Bosnia, and 2nd Fights around Braničevo and Beograd (1154-1155 y.), when tsar saw and found out that Borić Exarch of Dalmatae country of Bosnia, finding himself among the allies of Panonian ruler returns to his country, he choose the bravest part of his army and sent to go to fight Borić; this army was commanded by Vasilije); Borić in 1163 y. is on Hungarian palace, where in the charter among many high officials on the palace is mentioned Boricio bano; the fourth is historiographical fiction; while in the fifth in pg. 65-69 wrote about how Borić was close with Stephen III and received the hereditary title Župan of Požega and many estates (Villam quoque que Esdel vocatur, quam banus Boricius de Bozna pro remedio anime sue prefatedomui milicie templi ex concessione regis Stephani, quam eciam pater noster Bela rexsigilli sui munimine roboravit et in perpetuum contulit).

On pg. 71 Klaić clearly disaproves the thesis by Ferdo Šišić about Kulin origin: ... zaključuje "da je to bio i ban Kulin", što ga dovodi do nemoguće misli da je Ban Kulin bio ne samo nasljednik, nego možda i sin, a svakako bliži rođak bana Borića! (...concludes "that it also was ban Kulin", which leads him to the impossible thought that Ban Kulin was not only his heir, yet maybe a son, but surely a near cousin of ban Borić!). Then again, the statement in the article about his son "Boris was succeeded as viceroy of Bosnia by his son ("Banus Culinus, Borichii filius") Constantine Kalamanos who ruled Bosnia as Ban Kulin, after serving as a Byzantine governor of Cilicia", although am not expert in Latin and can't see how and where the source proves this claim, it points to work by priest István Katona from 1781, in which we find out: the source link first leads to pg. 48 about Borichii... Calamanum Borichii filium...Quae ex adulterio peperit filium, nomine Borich; Borich autem genuit Colomannm in A.C. 1163 during the reign of Stephen III (r. 1162-1172), but as both English and Hungarian Boris Kalamanos article suggest, he died around 1154 during the reign of Geza (r. 1141–1162), while Ban Borić ruled 1154–1163 and was last time mentioned in 1167 during Battle of Sirmium (Zemun). On pg. 216 A.C. 1173 is mentioned Boricius, banus, and we find out how there many versions of his name. Then it leads to pg. 581 about banus Culinus, Borichii filius in A.C. 1199 during the reign of Emeric (r. 1196-1204), and on pg. 582 Katona concludes Huius Culini breuicola genealogia haec eft: Borichius, Bofniae banus, Hungaris obnoxius → Culinus, Bofniae banus. Anonyma ("sister"), Miroslao ("of Hum"), comiti Chelmenfi, nupta.

This points out to:

(1) how the thesis of Ban Borić being Boris Kalamanos is plausible (1.1) problem is dating; Borić was allegedly born around 1000 (h. fiction) and died after 1167, while Boris was born around 1113/4 and according contemporary churchman and chronicler Otto of Freising died 1154/55 (1.2) problem is by being dead is considered last time mentioned

(2) how Ban Kulin and Constantine Kalamanos were (not) his/their (younger and/or elder) son/s is (not)plausible (1.1) problem is dating/source; the date of birth and death of Ban Kulin, 5 May 1163 – c. November 1204, are false historiographical fiction (especially day and month) as there is no original source or date information, his range of rule is also no exception, first mention is Charter of Ban Kulin from 1189, and we know he's not in vassal relationship with Hungary, and that had a heir Stephen Kulinić; Constantine was a Byzantine governor of Cilicia, allegedly born around 1137/45 and allegedly died in war with Mleh, Prince of Armenia around or after 1170/73.

(3) Conclusion: point out to mine reply above on etymological origin of names; this is a mess that lasts for centuries.--Crovata (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading your above outburst of emotions/personal attack on me, I'm now even more determined to blow away the above smokescreen you built to dodge the question about your true intentions here. I'm thus compelled to ask you for the third time: how come your profile states an officially non-existing "Serbo-Croat" language as your mother tongue? You're obviously a Serbo-Croat patriot/nationalist. By definition, Bosnia doesn't even enter the equation in your mind, and shouldn't exist as a nation in an equal right as Croatia/Serbia. How can we then assume that your contributions in this article (on Bosnia's deepest history) are being made in good faith? Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Crovata, thank you for your message. If my understanding is correct, we can conclude that there were 18th and 19th-century historians who identified Ban Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos because of the similarity of their names. However, in modern historiography this view does not exist. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Both Hóman and Klaić came after that. Which is all irrelevant anyway since the topic of my contribution (Klaić ref.) isn't whether the thesis on Árpád dynasty's right to Bosnia is correct or not, but whether the thesis exists as such in sci literature and is notable enough to occupy greatest minds of historical sciences across different periods until now. Pre-WW2 esteemed Hóman and our contemporary esteemed Klaić surely testify to that, so the topic (as they saw it - not us Wikipedia editors) deserves to be included in this bio article about the main character(s) of the thesis. Sevvyan (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sevvyan, you are kidding. (1) Please feel free to create a separate article of the Árpád dynasty's right to Bosnia, if you think there are relevant reliable sources. All Hungarian kings bore the title "King of Rama" in reference to their claim to Bosnia from the 1130s onward. (2) The Hungarian monarchs' claim to Bosnia is not connected to the identification of Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos, because neither Borić nor Boris were Hungarian monarchs. Consequently, please stop referring to that claim in connection with this article. (3) Hóman did not identify Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos. Therefore, please stop mentioning him in connection with that identification. (4) We do not know what Klaić wrote because you falsified her text: you presented your own summary, pretending that you provided a verbatim citation from her work. (5) Please feel free to provide reliable sources which proves that the identification of Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos is a theory which still exists in modern historiography. As soon as at least one proper reference was provided, this theory should be mentioned in the article. However, based on your (or any other editor's) original research, no information can be presented, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Again: I'm not doing OR here, so it's pointless for you to ask me to prove a historic thesis. All we can do is provide reliable refs by esteemed historians, and that's what I did using Klaić. As to the rest of your demands (you should really change your tone): we've already established in the above that Zoupan is a Serb, you're from either Serb or Croat ethnic minority living in Hungary (per your repeated writing of Klaić's name erroneously as "Nadja" instead of Nada, which only a Serb/Croat would do), and Crovata is a self-declared Serb-Croat nationalist (his user page states the officially non-existent "Serbo-Croat" language as his mother tongue). Since 3-of-3 can't be a miss, therefore there's no need to take seriously anything that such an attacking triplet says on the matter that concerns deepest history of Bosnia - a centuries-long target of the nationalistic ideology you three obviously share (again, 3-of-3, along with awful contribution and terrible behavior in the above, constitutes a sufficient proof of bad faith by all three). Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you have not provided a single reliable source, proving your own original thesis about the identification of Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Sorry, I must say: you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 07:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no my thesis here; that would be OR. Per Klaić, there's the "Árpáds' Bosnian right" thesis, and then a Klaić v. Hóman fight about that thesis. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

However, you have not been able to demonstrate that the "Árpáds' Bosnian right" thesis is connected to the identification of Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia. Hóman did not identify the two persons, so his thesis does not depend of that identification. Until you are unable to substantiate your claim that Boris Kalamanos and Borić of Bosnia are identical based on peer-reviewed academic works, your claim is to be regarded as an example of original research. Borsoka (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not interested in doing OR here; I trust Klaić. Again, it doesn't matter who is right/wrong or if the thesis itself is (in)correct, but that there is a thesis worth mentioning in the bio article of the subject of that thesis. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not been able to demonstrate that Klaić makes a connection between the "Árpáds' Bosnian right" thesis and the identification of Boris Kalamanos with Borić of Bosnia: that is why you attempted to present your own summary as a verbatim citation from her work. Please feel free to summarize all information of the Árpáds' right to Bosnia in the proper article ("King of Rama"). Borsoka (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said... Sevvyan (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat nationalists' orchestrated attack on a contributed reference and a historical thesis

It became apparent during this discussion, that of 3 editors who became involved over the past week, all 3 are Serbo-Croat nationalists. In summary: this bio article is on a person many historians regard the Bosnia's founding father. The orchestrated attack by the troika started when I contributed a reference by Nada Klaić, in which she first defines a long-time thesis that Hungary's founding Árpád dynasty had a right to Bosnia. She argues against the thesis, using an earlier (pro-thesis) work by Hungarian historian Bálint Hóman as her antithesis. The thesis, if correct, could probably jeopardize Serbo-Croat nationalists' aspirations to Bosnia that are continuous and bloody. The troika of editors include: Zoupan - a Serb, Borsoka - from either Serb or Croat ethnic minority living in Hungary (per his repeated writing of Klaić's name erroneously as "Nadja" instead of Nada, which only a Serb/Croat would do), and Crovata is a self-declared Serb-Croat nationalist (his user page states the officially non-existent "Serbo-Croat" language as his mother tongue). Since 3-of-3 can't be a miss, anything that such an attacking triplet says on the matter that concerns deepest history of Bosnia, cannot be taken seriously. Their awful contribution and terrible behavior in this discussion prove bad faith by all three. And as you can see, it's been only them during the past week here, as well as only them in the report they filed against me on the admin board. Quite a nationalistic orchestra playing the same old, boring tune that Europe has learned about way too well. By definition, Bosnia doesn't even enter the equation in those nationalists' minds, meaning it shouldn't exist as a nation in equal right as Croatia/Serbia. No way these people are in the right state of mind. Obviously, it's irrelevant here who is right/wrong (Klaić or whoever), what matters is that, cf. very existence of the Klaić v. her antithesis quarrel, there exists this mind-stretching thesis (on Árpáds' right to Bosnia; on a prince Boris Kolomanović (Kalamanos) from the House of Árpád as the first ruler of Bosnia under the name of Ban Borić). The Serb-Croat nationalists have been trying to discredit the thesis for obvious reasons, and for centuries now. The above troika are determined (just by sheer length of the above discussion alone) to not even allow mentioning of the thesis in Boris/Borić pages, instead offering us their own original research etc. I say such a long-enduring thesis, which occupies minds of most esteemed historians (regardless what side they take), simply ought to be mentioned in the article to which it obviously belongs. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sevvyan, please, remember that I have suggested several times that the theory of the "Árpáds' right to Bosnia" should be mentioned in either a separate article ([4], [5]) or in an existing article ([6]). You do not understand that the Árpáds' right/claim to Bosnia was represented by the kings of Hungary themselves who used the title "King of Rama" in token of that claim from the 1130s onward. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

No edit is fought so vehemently (false reports, bogus refs, etc.), for a whole week, and by 3 Serbo-Croat nationalists alone - if it was that simple. See above. Sevvyan (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• 'NOTE (Self-declared) Serbs/Croats/Bosniaks/Serbo-Croats or their associates are not permitted to edit the Bosnia country-article any longer. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above claim by an indef blocked user is not true.--Zoupan 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)