Talk:Matej Ninoslav

Untitled
I also think this deserves a POV tag in the least. The site is clearly biased and has an agenda behind it. I mean, the core of the article revolves around one single documnet (out of dozens) that allegedly implies that Bosnia's population was Serb in the middle ages. First of all, why does this even matter? Why should this take up 90% of the page on a ruler? Surely there is more to say about his life than one document which some allege proves the ethnic composition of his state? And furthermore, the historiographical conclusions this article makes are ridiculeous. Live Forever 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is the only preserved document of Matej Ninoslav. And there are other sources if you don't like that one; all pointing out that part (actually, that's because of the 1990s nationalism is that it is being pointed out; but nonetheless, it's true). I removed the Tag unless someone has a dispute opened. Objections? HolyRomanEmperor 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I stand by my objection. You can't remove the tag merely by providing links to sites called "Serbdom" and "Serb Bosnia". The nature of the charter in question is heavily disputed, and the current article clearly takes one side without even mentioning any controversy or why this view is contested. Live Forever 22:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try to rewrite the article to confirm to NPOV sometime later. Live Forever 22:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In the mean-time, how about a POV than totally disputed? HolyRomanEmperor 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell me what exactly is controversal about it? HolyRomanEmperor 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Serbs and Vlachs
I have removed the unencyclopedic controversy part. I suggest that we work it on here first; and then include it in the article. HolyRomanEmperor 23:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the explanation was POV, but either way that section is fine by me as it is right now. However, I believe that Bogumil is a POV term since there is much debate and controversy about the Bosnian church. Many historains have argued in recent years that the Bosnian church had no connection to Bogumilism so I don't think the article should stick to such a specific term - especially when synonyms exist. Live Forever 05:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that you're right. But I took the sources from the exact quotes of the ruler and the Pope; and they clearly wrote "...Bogumil...". I will not rv your edits without your aproval (or could you do it; in case you agree?) HolyRomanEmperor 12:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
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 Matej was a Bosnian ban, 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 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 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Full explaination given here: Talk:Stephen I of Bosnia. Also, see User_talk:HolyRomanEmperor/Archive5 - it's relevant to the subject. --HolyRomanEmperor 20:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosnian history : YES Bosniak history : NO, Bosniaks were born after the Turks invaded Balkans. Serbian history : YES