Talk:Stephen (honorific)

Factual accuracy alternatively POV
I would like to see credible and independent sources used to corroborate that the medieval title in question would have been native to the Nemanjic dynasty. In its current state the article is completely unreferenced and alludes to the title as Serbian in origin, which is highly unlikely considering for example that the title was used by Hungarian regents hundreds of years prior to the emergence of the Nemanjic dynasty; see Stephen I of Hungary. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the list of royalties bearing the title provided in the article on Stephen: Stephen. There is a bunch of non-Serb rulers; if anything "Stefan" is merely a Serb spelling/variant of the title Stephen, which is also what the article should be renamed to. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added sources showing that the article's data relates to the Serbian dynastic tradition.--Z oupan 09:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Zoupan, thank you for your references. It is clear to me that the very origins of Stephen as a title cannot be Serbian, as also popes bore the title as early as in the 3rd century. The nature of the title is thus wide-spread and general, I presume Greek in origin(?). While not wrong as such (Stefan might be a variant of Stephen unique to Serb dynasties) I do believe that any specific "regional" usage of the title Stephen should be addressed in the form of subsections serving a main article foremost covering the general attributes and indeed ubiquitous nature of the title. My offer is to rename the present article into Stephen (honorific), underlining its wide-spread usage and possibly including the list or rulers and popes provided in the Stephen article, while on the other hand including the current text into a subsection specifically dealing with the matter of Serb dynasties. So far so good; that is until I come across the mentioning of Stephen Tvrtko I of Bosnia in the current text. As I have argued in the talk page of Kingdom of Bosnia, the title of Tvrtko I being Stephen is not the result of his pretensions on Serbian territories (the reason he also assumed the Serbian crown) nor his minor blood relation to the Nemanjic dynasty only through his paternal grandmother (which was the political pretext for the former). The House of Kotromanic had in fact used the title of Stephen for more than half a century before the conception of Tvrtko I, as initially through Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia who, being entirely unrelated to the Nemanjic, adopted the title by virtue of either serving as a vassal to the Kingdom of Hungary, or by simply wishing to emulate his power. It is therefore inaccurate and a far-stretched personal point of view to claim any association between the Stephen title of Tvrtko I and that of the house of Nemanjic (which were also spelled differently: Stjepan versus Stefan) If anything, Tvrtko is likely to have paid his Kotromanic roots tribute by assuming the title rather than any Nemanjic ones, which is also what the assigned reference of Basic is trying to say I suspect. It is for the best to exclude the issue of his title all together and strive to refrain from the extrapolation of deeper ethnopolitic meanings which will constitute the foundation of bias and original research obstructing the assumption of good faith in between editors. Thank you. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon proceeding to read Basic's work (cited by you) it becomes evident on page 165 that Basic is elaborating the very same points brought up by me here: the title of Stephen was of no novelty to the Bosnian cultural realm with the coronation of Tvrtko I, who did however tend to use the titular spelling Stefan, akin to the house of Nemanjic, more frequently than those of previous Kotromanic members, namely Stjepan, Stipan, Stepan; a transition most satisfactorily explained by the invitation of Serbian scribes by Tvrtko I to his court after including parts of Serbia into his realm (as opposed to some supposed form of sudden ethnic notion of "Serbhood" evoked in Tvrtko by his coronation). It is inconclusive to whether his title was truly Stefan or Stjepan/Stipan/Stepan, and if this had any relevance whatsoever, in essence he did not assume a principally different title than any of his ancestors had had prior to him. It is basically a futile attempt to gain any "ethnic" points by dwelling on his title. All that is sensibly said about Tvrtko I is that he was a powerful Bosnian ruler who successfully expanded his borders.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bašić source was egregiously misquoted in an apparent WP:SYNTH violation - Zoupan, you seemed to introduce this in this edit - you have been editing for a while and you must know that this is a clear WP:ARBMAC violation. Tread lightly! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not intended, I misread the quote regarding Tvrtko's royal title - not "Stephen", then you did, so I quoted it right this time and added that view of Serbian historiography. There is no fuzz about the spellings "Stefan/Stepan/Stjepan", just the origin of a tradition only followed by Nemanjić and Kotromanić. The article name should be changed to Stephen (title) or Stephen (royal name).--Z oupan 04:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To be actually neutral, you will want to mention the fact that in Croatian historiography, the tentative link to the Nemanjić through Stephanos is usually completely ignored, and instead Stephanus Tuertcho is translated as simply Stjepan Tvrtko. Bašić also mentions that interpretation, and how it stems from the simple fact his uncle and his great-uncle were both called Stjepan. IOW it's just one competing theory, and one that promotes a point of view. It's classic pan-Serbian dispute territory, really, just like Stjepan Vukčić Kosača and the title "Duke of Saint Sava". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of sources
It seems all of these sources are coming from a partial view and try to put claim on bosnian history. This article seem as well be created only to imply that the rules of Bosnia was serbs. There is already an article about this name and yet this article exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarmet (talk • contribs) 11:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we are again, some 4 years later.
Could someone explain to me how this little piece is not a Content/POV fork employed to hijack the historically widespread honorific/title Stephen in a showcase of historiographical Serbian megalomania? I love the sentence "according to Sima Ćirković, it had a special symbolical meaning to the Serbian state". Possible as it may be, it does not make Stephen by definition a Serbian honorific. As it stands, the honorific Stephen was used by members of the Kotromanić dynasty prior to Tvrtko I, namely by his paternal grandfather Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia. Still, it is implied that he derived it from the Nemanjićs. I would like a proper explanation. Could it be that others used it as a given name while the Nemanjics specifically used it as a title? Source on that? Could you please assist Joy and Surtsicna? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 19:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, a smattering of non-Serbian sources would be required for this not to fail WP:UNDUE. I find it supremely amusing that User:Zoupan has been editing here without fixing this issue, while at the same time he's been very diligently dissecting references to Croatian historiography's view of the Duchy of Lower Pannonia and Duchy of Croatia. Praxis, feel free to edit this article to make it clear that the Serbian historiography's view is a minority view, if that is indeed so. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input Joy. Quite frankly, my confidence in User:Zoupan's neutrality has taken one too many beatings through the years. I will await the opinion of Surtsicna whom I hold in great regard in the specific subject matter. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 20:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Praxis Icosahedron. The consensus among mainstream historians, including right-leaning Croat historians, appears to be that the honorific Stephen was indeed derived from the Nemanjić tradition. I cannot think of any notable historian arguing to the contrary. Tvrtko I's uncle and grandfather were both christened Stephen (Stipan, Stjepan), while Tvrtko only adopted the name when he started advancing his claim to the defunct Serbian throne. Kings following Tvrtko I also added "Stephen" to their name upon accession, all except for Stephen Ostojić and Stephen Tomašević (who were both christened as such). Tvrtko sought to imitate the Nemanjić in many aspects in order to be accepted as their heir, i.e. as King of Serbia, by Serbian noblemen. Adoption of a name name was only a part of that endeavor (and not an uncommon practice whenever a foreigner king wanted to appease his new subjects or emphasize connection to the previous dynasty). Here's what John Van Antwerp Fine says about the "title" Stephen in the introduction to The Late Medieval Balkans:

"Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? ... As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention. The only exception is Stephen (a name with various spellings in English as well as Slavic) whose significance on occasions went beyond that of a mere name. Its adoption by Serbian rulers came close to being part of a title, and its subsequent adoption by the Bosnian rulers — after Tvrtko's 1377 coronation — indicates the Serbian origin of Bosnia's kingship. Thus I have used the forms Stefan and Stjepan as they are appropriate."


 * That said, I do not find anything objectionable in the present content of the article, nor does the article strike me as a fork. I do, however, see a lot of room for improvement and will try to expand it while including more non-Serbian sources. Surtsicna (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful Surtsicna. I knew you would lay it down for me perfectly. I'm overwhelmed with the high-quality work you invest. So, what ultimately prompted Tvrtko I to have himself coronated were his pretenses on the Serbian throne and recently acquired Serbian lands, in effect imitating the rule of the Nemanjics. If these incentives had lacked he would have remained a ban by title? Fine, a ruler looking to expand his sphere of power is by no means a rarity for the era. Still so, I find the phrasing by Fine who is a scholar of impeccable character and in full recognition of Bosnian distinctiveness in the Middle Ages to be somewhat careless in stating that Bosnia's kingship is of "Serbian origin". Granted, I understand his rationale for expressing himself in such a manner (perfectly explained above by yourself) but I do at the same time realize how vulnerable such a phrasing is to abuse by Serb nationalist historiography. Tvrtko I was first and foremost a Bosnian ruler, notwithstanding his pretenses on other thrones and the measures he may have undertaken to acquire them. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 23:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ......? You are very inconsistent. Is the fact that the honorific was adopted by the Bosnian ruling family via the Serbian, ? Didn't you originally claim that ? So now you accept this "terrible" connection?--Z oupan 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only cited a small paragraph from the introduction; later on he explains Tvrtko's position in relation to Bosnia and Serbia in great detail. According to him (and Ćirković as well!), Tvrtko was indeed ruler of Bosnia and merely claimant to Serbia. Ćirković goes on to explain how Tvrtko's claim to Serbia lost whatever actual significance it had following the disaster at Kosovo, when independent Serbian lords (who may have recognized him as king but never as their suzerain) became Ottoman vassals. Yes, the commonly accepted view is that Tvrtko's coronation was prompted by the extinction of the Nemanjić, which is what is meant by "Serbian origin of Bosnia's kingship". Bosnia's kings adopted the name used by Serbia's kings upon accession, put Serbia ahead of Bosnia in their titulature, claimed income Ragusa had paid to Serbia's kings, upheld charters granted to Ragusa by the Nemanjić kings, introduced Serbian court titles to Bosnia, etc; Tvrtko even felt his Serbian kingship obliged him to take part in the Battle of Kosovo. Yet he laid claim to a "double crown" (sugubi vijenac), representing both Bosnia and Serbia, and was likely crowned in Bosnia rather than Serbia. I have never seen any historian refer to Tvrtko's state as "Kingdom of Serbia". As to whether he would have remained a ban if he had not claimed Serbia - it is difficult to say. Certainly, obtaining the crown of a new kingdom (Bosnia) from the papacy would have been a lot more difficult than claiming the crown of an already recognized and only recently disintegrated kingdom (Serbia). In any case, mentioning the "Serbian origin of Bosnia's kingship" without any explanation would be a sort of WP:SYNTH. Surtsicna (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, get over yourself Zoupan will you. I wrote that 4 years ago based on the absence of citations and your anyhow still problematic approach to neutrality. This once I clearly asked for the opinion of someone better informed seeing the high-quality work that was pitched in on Tvrtko I. I do not feel it is a "terrible connection" as it is, apparently, a matter of historic fact. What is terrible is having the complex field that historiography is twisted in a biased anachronistic frenzy of nationalism. On a somewhat related note, to answer your question of who is Denis Basic, he is an historian (Ph.D.) and lecturer of the University of Washington and had you truly taken the time to review his work you would have come to realize that it is of high neutrality and objectivity (if that interests you). The reference to him included earlier (since then questioned by you as substandard and later on completely removed as allegedly "unreliable") is in complete resonance with the comprehensive explanation offered by Surtsicna. I will not myself insist on restoring the reference to Basic (a highly reliable source) since the background to Tvrtko's honorific is perfectly explained in that article, but will instead leave it up to you to show good faith and neutrality. And to Surtsicna, thank you once again for your valuable input. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK )


 * Bašić is an Islamologist. I've restored the entry.--Z oupan 20:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Zoupan, thank you for your long-wished-for display of good faith. On the other hand, I did not per se insist on having the reference to Basic restored since the page in its current shape does not make any of the Serb nationalist claims that Basic rightfully repudiates. If you wish, you may remove the reference. I would, however, most definitely like to ask what it is that makes you gather this man to be an "islamologist"? The referenced work by Basic is largely a historiographic work of Bosnian and Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) history wherein differing views of mostly the regional scholarship are presented in a highly objective manner. The work was also his dissertation for the degree of Ph.D. from the Jackson school of International Studies of the University of Washington. The Ph.D. program | in question presents itself as a a paradigm shifting Ph.D. program combining a new cross-disciplinary approach with intensive area studies. The goal of the program is to advance problem focused graduate education in international studies in the face of contemporary global and local challenges. Since his dissertation Basic lectures in the | following selected courses and is described as a | Lecturer of International Studies. What on earth makes you pin him down as an "Islamologist"? I am trying hard to assume good faith, but I can't help to wonder if the "Islamologist" label is meant to diminish Basic's historiographic authority? Unless you have any hard evidence as to why he should be considered an "Islamologist" (I sure haven't) the label should clearly be the neutral scholar (that is if the reference remains). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ... You said that he was "a highly reliable source", a historian. I said Islamologist, which is the accurate "pin down". If you had cared to review his speciality, it is indeed Islamic Studies or Middle Eastern Studies, which is most often regarded the same.--Z oupan 09:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, that is a grave oversimplification. He holds a PhD in "Near and Middle Eastern Studies". In the context of the history of the Ottoman Empire to which they are associated, Balkans and Bosnia are both included in the Near East. Beyond doubt, studies of the kind postulate historiographic knowledge/training. The PhD program in question is described as cross-disciplinary and concerned with International studies which encompasses historiography. Basic himself among other lists "Ottoman history", "Yugoslav history" and "History of Bosnia and Herzegovina" as his specialties. "Islamology" is a reduction. As a relevant, contemporary, scholar of a respectable institution of higher education, Basic is indeed a "highly reliable source". The previously referenced work (a secondary source) delivers opposing views of the scholarship in a tangibly objective manner (a weakness of yours by the way), whilst clearly distinguishing Basic's own assertions and views. However, I'm suspecting his ethnicity might be troublesome to you? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Stefan" or "Stephen"
I believe the article title should be reverted back to its original, Stefan. The scope of the article is the Serbian(-Bosnian) honorific, which according to contemporary sources (documents signed by the rulers themselves) indeed was spellt Stefan. For those that refuse this spelling for Bosnian rulers, the original Cyrillic spelling of Stephen Tvrtko and Stephen Dabiša was Стєфань (i.e. ), as the Serbian rulers before them.--Z oupan 00:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, the naming convention dictates the most commonly used name in anglophone literature which, based on Surtsicna's comment above, appears to be Stephen. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 09:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no implication that Stephen is the common name for this title.--Z oupan 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Stefan
 * the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title
 * Stephen
 * the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title
 * Stephen
 * the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title
 * Stephen
 * the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title
 * Stephen
 * the royal name Stefan (as part of the hereditary royal title
 * Stephen
 * Stephen

This is the full quote from Fine on anglicization of names: "Personal names have presented an insoluble problem, at least to an author making an attempt at consistency. Originally I intended in all cases to use Slavic names; however, how could I say Ivan Alexander when his Greek counterpart was John Cantacuzenus? I then tried to make a distinction between ultimate rulers and nobles, so that I could at least retain the Slavic flavor with the nobility. However, should we then suddenly change the name of Djuradj Brankovic to George when he became the ruler? As a result I threw up my hands and anglicized all first names, merely providing the Slavic forms on first mention."

This is why I too prefere anglicizing the names of medieval rulers. We have Stephen Gabrielopoulos and his contemporary, neighbouring ruler Stefan Dušan; Stefan Dragutin and his father-in-law, Stephen V of Hungary, etc. Then again, titles of articles about Serbian kings are no longer in line with titles of articles about the rest of European kings anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, if we stay technical, the article name Stefan would be only right. The form was Stefan, right? As for Fine, he only explains his use; why should we follow Fine's anglicization?--Z oupan 23:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Images
Can we find any images of Nemanjić kings' charters or coins where the honorific is clearly visible? Having two images pertaining to the Kotromanić and none to the Nemanjić is a bit odd but I cannot find any on the Commons. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)