Talk:Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia/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)




 * 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 20:49, 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 BIASED. 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)