Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Can anyone provide a reason to keep the Bosniak history category? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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 king, a ruler of Bosnia. Bosniaks base their identity on Bosnia. --Emir Arven 20:40, 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. 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? 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 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another question if anyone is interested?

Which lamebrain made this idiotic title: Stephen (first name in ENGLISH !?!) and Tomašević (last name in NATIVE tongue with š and ć as it should be !)

So he was an Englishman? Some one made a joke, a stupid and illiterate ridicule hoping it will pass unnoticed ? Leave your primitive, nationalistic feelings a side: you CAN'T write FIRST name in English, LAST in native tongue ! This is an English Wikipedia and I myself, for example or for fun, wish to read accurate writings by literate editor/contributor - not a primitive and illiterate. Go to Serbian Wikipedia and write what ever you people think its accurate, true or what ever you want !!!! This is a case study example of abuse, misuse, of deceitful and sick mind - and I am pissed, mad as hell !!!

Also, what this "HolyRomanEmperor" want ? He is some kind of joker ? What Serbian Stub doing here, and where is Bosnian Project ?--Sandy.Gill+Bosnia+Historian (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true! The name is very wrong. I added Bosnian Project. TheSilverArrow (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for "Name" section

Name section has only one source. It is "Hrvatski zmaj: glasilo Vitežkog reda hrvatskog zmaja, Hrvatska državna tiskara, 1944". A single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. The only source used in this case is published by NDH and is outdated. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of this section should be improved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The text of the article unnecessarily repeat "Stephen Tomašević" more than 50 times. Per WP:SURNAME "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only,..." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I took care of the over-usage of the first name. Yoninah (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
"Tomašević" is not a surname. Historians never refer to this man as anything but "Stephen Tomašević"/"Stjepan Tomašević"/"Stefan Tomašević". He is virtually never called just Stephen/Stjepan/Stefan, nor just Tomašević. The NDH-published source is certainly biased, but sources are not expected to be neutral. They almost never are anyway. See Wikipedia:BIASED#Biased or opinionated sources. The article itself should be neutral, obviously, and I am certain that it is; the name thing is not disputed by any historian. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed a couple of problematic sources and tagged them with better source needed tag. Then I noticed that works of Krunoslav Draganović and Dominik Mandić are cited eight times. Are there better sources to be used instead?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I believe I have addressed your concerns in the previous section. WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I think you haven't. Based on your rationale any source could be used in wikipedia articles. The sentence refers to reliable sources, which is not the case here. Also, the WP:BIASED explains that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In this case unreliable sources are not used to present different viewpoints. Please restore tags I added to the text of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If you don't think I have, you should have responded to my comment in the preceding section 11 months ago. You are missing the point of the policy. WP:BIASED: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." An elaboration of his name, for example, is a very specific context. The fact that one (or two) of these sources was published with the approval of facist authorities does not make them inherently unreliable. It is beyond dispute that the said authors strive to portray medieval Bosnia as a Croat state and its people (including its kings) as Croats. That ideology, however wrong it may be, is not in any way reflected in their treatise about the name of this man. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources: "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid." Their explanation of this man's name(s) has not been refuted or even challenged by any subsequent historian; there are no different viewpoints. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Your comment in the preceding section 11 months ago was based on similar "there are no unreliable sources" rationale. I simply don't think it can be seen as "addressing the concerns". Every guideline and quotation you presented until now refuted your position. Yes, a biased source " may be reliable in the specific context", i.e. "for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". If you are right that there are no different viewpoints here, that is additional reason to replace unreliable sources with reliable ones.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No, my comment was based on a core Wikipedia policy. Since the policy is sufficiently clear and warrants no interpretations, I will waste no more time citing it. If you have any questions about what the policy entails, I suggest a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. On the other hand, you have not even attempted to explain why Draganović and Mandić, both notable enough as historians to deserve Wikipedia articles, should not be considered reliable, or at the very least reliable enough to be cited when explaining something that has not been refuted or even challenged by any other historian. Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
It was you who said "The NDH-published source is certainly biased" (diff). All of your comments were actually based on WP:BIASED and your attempt to prove that even biased sources "may be reliable in the specific context". Yes, the policy is sufficiently clear. That is why I presented the rest of its text which explains possible usage of biased sources in "specific context" like presenting "different viewpoint" which does not exist here. Now when I explained that you actually successfully refuted your own position, you forgot your own basic point about certainly biased NDH-published sources and insist that I should prove it at RSN. I apologize if I am wrong here, but I do agree that this all discussion was complete waste of time. I don't have intention to continue with it. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've wasted your time arguing that the milk is black. Your premise is that a biased source is inherently an unreliable source, which is obviously not the case, as explained by WP:BIASED. A biased source is not inherently unreliable, nor is a neutral source (if such a thing exists) inherently reliable. Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That is blatant and no doubt deliberate misinterpretation of my position.
  1. You said "The NDH-published source is certainly biased"
  2. you pointed to WP:BIASED
  3. you presented a quote which says that biased source "may be reliable in the specific context"
  4. and you proved there is no specific context here by insisting there are no different viewpoints
You refuted your position here. You can have the last word too, but please don't try to misinterpret my position again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There has to be more than one viewpoint in order to speak of a "specific context"? That's just absurd. I can hardly believe we are even discussing something so plain and simple as the subject's mere name. And why? Not because of a doubt about the factual accuracy, but because you disagree with the authors on an entirely unrelated matter. It would be akin to questioning the general theory of relativity on the basis of Einstein's sympathy for Zionism. Surtsicna (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, if a significantly more reliable and more modern book is found, there can be no prejudice to the idea of switching to that. That's just business as usual.
I'd easily support a mass replacement of references to Draganović's 1942 work, that one's just pointlessly pushing the envelope. Nevertheless, it does seem that of those five references, three are immediately supported by other cited material, and the remaining two don't appear to be saying anything controversial. If you find a different source talking about those two things, just replace this and be done with it.
With regard to Mandić, he doesn't appear to be nearly as controversial as Draganović, so a blanket replacement doesn't seem necessary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Surtsicna, in order to avoid edit war here, will you please be so kind to restore better source tags your removed?
  • What is original date of publishing work of Vjekoslav Klajic?
  • Addition of page numbers of Klajic's work would be beneficial for this GA nominated article. Same goes for a couple of other sources without page numbers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think he responded to you. Yes different sources should be found. That is why I placed two "better source" tags that you removed. Why do you ignore my comment and refuse to restore those tags?
  • It would be good to present original year. Judging from the pages you presented I think you made mistake. It is not volume 4 of Klaic's work. Its volume 2, part 3, published in 1904 by Tisak i naklada knjižare L. Hartmana (St. Kugli). Can you please check in the source, if you have a copy? Here is a link to originally published work.
  • You presented Timothy S. Miller and John Nesbitt as authors of Peace and War in Byzantium: Essays in Honor of George T. Dennis, S.J.. They are editors (link). The authors are listed at the end of the link I provided. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not what Joy said. He said that if "a significantly more reliable and more modern book is found", we can use it instead. If such a reference is found, he would be in favour of removing Draganović altogether but not Mandić. That he responded to you rather than to me is also clear from the indentation.
This is the publication I used. It says volume 4; it might have to do with the original publication being 70 years older. I agree - it would be useful to present the year of the first publication, but I would not be able to provide page numbers.
By authors you mean the people listed as "contributors"? Surtsicna (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Now I see that because of the indentations you are probably right that he wrote a respond to me. That explains the tone ("just replace this and be done with it"). I don't understand why he instructed me to replace problematic sources contrary to your objections. Its not me who added/defended problematic sources. I only pointed to this issue and emphasized that I don't have intention to edit war with you over this. If you have changed your mind regarding 1942 and 1944 NDH published sources of (Draganovic and Hrvatski zmaj) please re-add better sources tags I placed.
  • Presenting additional information about the original year of publishing does not affect the page numbers.
  • Yes, I meant them. As far as I understood, they are not collective authors because this book is compilation of their texts. It is necessary to clarify that Miller and Nesbit are editors and, if possible, to check in the source who was author of text used as citation in this article and present that information in the references. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, if I find a more recent source that explains the matter in just as much detail and depth, i.e. one that supersedes the one presently used, I will gladly use it instead. I am still, however, not convinced that material published within the borders of the so-called Independent State of Croatia is inherently unreliable. In this particular case it is not used to assert anything extraordinary or in any way controversial.
Template:Cite book does not provide a parameter for "additional information about the original year of publishing". How do you propose we accomplish that? Surtsicna (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I never stated "material published within the borders of the so-called Independent State of Croatia is inherently unreliable". Wikipedia policies explain that reliability depends on the context. I pointed to couple of specific sources. You confirmed that "The NDH-published source is certainly biased". You pointed to WP:BIAS which explains that biased sources sometimes could be used in specific context. You continue to repeat there is nothing extraordinary or controversial although by doing that you refute your position and prove that no specific context exists to justify use of biased sources. You are not obliged to find better sources. Nor am I. Anybody can do it. That is why "better source needed" exists. I don't insist on it and I really think you can have your last word here, but please stop with misinterpretations of my position.
  • Yes it does, look for "origyear=". Template:Citation also provide it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Tomašević_of_Bosnia/Archive_1&oldid=954647255"