Talk:Thomas of Bosnia

Wrong translation of : „Mi Stefan Tomaš po milosti Gospoda Boga kralj Srba, Bosne, Primorja..."

 * The full tittle: „U ime Oca i Sina i Svetoga Duha Amin. Mi Stefan Tomaš po milosti Gospoda Boga kralj Srba, Bosne, Primorja, Humske zemlje, Donjih Kraja, Usore, Soli, Podrinja i Zapadnih strana“.
 * Means: "In the name of the Father the son and the Holy Ghost, Amen. By the grace of God, We Stefan Thomas the king of Serbs of Bosnia, the Seaside, the Hum land, Dalmatia, Croatia, the Western Lands, the Lower Edges, Usora, Soli and the Drina".
 * Means: "In the name of the Father the son and the Holy Ghost, Amen. By the grace of God, We Stefan Thomas the king of Serbs of Bosnia, the Seaside, the Hum land, Dalmatia, Croatia, the Western Lands, the Lower Edges, Usora, Soli and the Drina".

Rascia, Doclea, Bosnia were autonomous Serb kingdoms which shared common bond to the royal dynasty of the Nemanjic. Without the kinship to that dynasty the rulers of the kingdoms couldn't obtain the tittle of the king.

It is understandable that the Bosnian Muslims are using the Bosnian rulers as a myth usefull for their nation building as well as common identity. Those rulers were Bosniaks that is true, but together with the Rascians and the Docleans the Bosniak people shared the same ethnos (origin, language, tradition, ruler dynasty) namely the Serb one.

After the fall of the Bosnian kingdom, the death of the Bosnian king and the last lord (despot) of the Serbs, some Bosniaks were converted together with the Rascians and the Docleans in the Islamic religion. Those converts are the first 'modern Bosniak muslims'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.182.141 (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Serbian lies! His name was Stipan no Stefan! He was roman catholic and Croat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.236.33 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits without substance
I made few of those, totally empty edits, but for the record, not erroneous or bad ones, just without substance, and fellow editor removed all of them. I mean all of it, one by one, and all at once? Eh, he/she's owning it, that's for sure. Anyway, methinks that his (Tomas) blazon is quite personal, hence appropriate. However, in this case maybe even more important is what is appropriate for Infobox according to Wikipedia norms, and what's not. For the purpose of familiarizing oneself of what sorts of images are used in kindred articles on the same subject of European medieval rulers across the Wikipedia, one should refer to articles on early dynasties, say, Merove or Carolingian's - the earlier date the more problematic is to find appropriate image for illustration in Infobox, so editors use all kinds of depictions, from imaginary (say, on Merovech) to realistic, modern and old, from busts and statues (again recently or long ago imagined and/or realistically depicted) to coins with simplistic portraits, or without portrait and instead with only monograms imprinted (exactly like in case of Tomas). Unless there is some standard which regulate and separates only Bosnian monarchs' Infoboxes, and requires realistic portrait only, I suggest leave the blazon, let it be - or, at least, until someone find better image, which is probably impossible. Moreover, Infobox doesn't get clogged with inclusion of "converted" along Roman Catholic and "since 1445", previously Bosnian Church|Bosnian Krstjanin" - actually, I think it is descriptive, maybe word or two more than usual, but just enough to withstand guideline pressures, especially if one choose to enable "subscript". Also on matter of archaism - how can word be archaic for encyclopaedia? But, actually, "Krstjanin" isn't archaic of "Christian", rather very distinct adjective, descriptive and defining as idiomatic expression, used exactly because of absolute existing difference, one which is adopted by probaly every academic researcher who ever touched on the subject - say, for example Pejo Coskovic who writes sometimes around 1995 about "Krstjanin Vlatko...", not on "Christian Vlatko...", in his comprehensive essay on guy's life and era. And therefor, all aforementioned aside, if it's not archaic for academic researchers it must be OK for Wikipedia article, isn't it. And lastly but not least, regarding "full name" - it is hard to find academic source where he was named in full at all, but if there is any doubt around his Kotromanic surname, well, than so be it, maybe he really should be called Stjepan Tomas Ostojic - although I never read anyone naming him that way, let alone Krstic.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  04:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I assure you that I do not claim any ownership over the article. Its content, however, has been thoroughly vetted by the Guild of Copy Editors, Good Article reviewers, and DYK reviewers. It would not have passed these if it included the same image twice for no reason or an ungrammatical construction such as "converted Roman Catholic since 1445". The image in the infobox need not be a realistic portrait but it should be a portrait, a depiction of the subject of the article. That depiction may be a bust or an effigy, or it may appear on a stained glass window, a coin, a canvas, or a piece of toast for all I care. The lead image in a biography should not be an image of a castle, a map, a flag, etc. Such images belong in the body of the article. Now, the word krstjanin means simply Christian. It is the precursor of the word kršćanin, having yet to undergo iotation and coarticulation. Writing in English, John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. defines krstjanin as "a Bosnian Church religious" (religious being a noun rather than a adjective, denoting a clergyman) and krstjani as "clergymen". He also emphasizes that the laity were not called krstjani, which is where things get rather complicated and confusing. I do not see the point in using a non-English term when its meaning is ambiguous even to experts. I suppose that the religion could be simply stated as "Bosnian Church until 1445, Roman Catholic Church from 1445", thus avoiding the issue altogether. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, for cryin' out loud, it's an idiom, and one almost always applied in positive context of ones taking certain stand or behave in certain manner, not a statement or claim. But since you are mentioning, it certainly feels as if you do: removing inconsequential edits (inconsequential for the article quality), than removing bracket or two to obscure and prevent "undo" option, claiming that something goes or not in certain way without strong reason, like this on "image" in Infobox - I looked everywhere and couldn't find rule only some guidelines, nowhere it says it can't be ruler's blazon - than, particularly this on "Krstjani" is major hot-air exemplification. How English speaking historians describe local word which define this local phenomenon is of no consequence how local historians see it and use it writing about adherents of Bosnian Church, how they regard its substance in creating difference between them and other two denomination crowd - should I include considerable number of outside links to collect some books and research papers? I just hope you won't resort to claim that there is some difference between English-speaking and local. And, why don't you use, than, his existing imaginary portrait from the article? You take an image from the body and place it into Infobox. So what if it's vetted, is that makes it somehow off-limits or that one should now restrain from editing?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  15:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Take a chill pill, Santasa99. Why does every discussion related to the Balkans, from Greece to Slovenia, have to trigger such outpours of anger? Poor grammar and repetitiveness are not inconsequential to article quality. John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. is not just an English-speaking historian but a world class expert on the subject. His native language being English has no bearing on the points he makes: that Christians not belonging to the Bosnian Church also called themselves "krstjani", while the Bosnian Church itself restricted the term to its clergy. We do not gain anything from using a medieval Slavic word in a 21st-century English encyclopedia article when the word itself has no meaning that cannot be conveyed with an English word. We may as well insist on describing Thomas as a kralj rather than king. The fantasy portrait is neither a likeness nor contemporary. It does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic. It has its place in the legacy section; if there were an historiography section, that would be an even better place. Sometimes it is better to have no lead image. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * What are you doing? I wanted to abandon this claptrap, didn't even try to read your last post, it would be better if my browser tab with this page didn't activate and load again today. My approach was to try and relax this exchange in the first place, but was met with defensive uptight respond. So, please, don't do that, don't impute something that's not even there. Why would you resort for such tactic anyway? One could infer that supposedly real, negative exclusivity of Balkan actually begins with editors radiating confidence in always having upper hand, and believing in superiority of their eloquence and ability (certainly willingness) as rhetoricians. But I wouldn't know, and I'm certainly not interested in your kind of characterizations of Balkan, or any other specific region for that matter, especially if it begins with rhetorical question that include vague racially loaded assumption. But than again, maybe you can find your answer in this reversal and dishonest imputation. I am also aware that you are free and very willing to express your expertise in linguistic, historiography, and even art criticism, but it is too overwhelming for me - so I hope you will cut me some slack in that regard too. Still, your ability to blast off my arguments and create a suspicion around my motives and "good faith" in just one sentence is mesmerizing, it simply threw me off balance and into the vortex of disquiet and concerns about "outpours of anger", so rather than just respond to your arguments I have to consider taking a Prozac. Only, I am not. Because, you are literally trying hard to explore lanes and angles to repel my effort with few, more-less meaningless, edits. What poor grammar? If abbreviated phrase, so that can fit the box, is poor why not make an improvement? No. Because of "repetitiveness", or "archaism"? Yet, everything included into Infobox can be labeled as repetition, in one way or another - who is going to decide what is and when enough, too much, insufficient? It feels like, really, just a way to take a stand against inconsequential edit, which is OK, it really doesn't bothers me, I make foul or unnecessary edits all the time, but it makes no sense to shoot-down 5, 6 empty unimportant edits point-blank and at once, with similarly empty reasoning (like your direction toward MOS:Lead image, which guidelines are in line with my edits). This could be another situation which may shed some light on your bewilderment with "Balkan" attitude/issue, or maybe even steer you toward realization that Balkan has nothing to do with it - people always react on perceived overreaching, or craftily created and/or exploited ambiguousness, being Balkanian, Indochinese, African, or American folks. Your argument on placing image into Infobox immediately went one way, but than you changed a lane and took another turn as soon as first stopped being sufficiently direct - first, it needed be something personal, I suggested monogram, you declined, instead it should be portrait, I suggested existing portrait, suddenly it should be "contemporary" portrait in his "likeness". For obscure medieval person - on whatever ground this explanation stands I can't say, I can say that painting by Horvat isn't "fantasy" portrait, there's no such a thing, there is only portrait in "fantasy art". However, there exist something called "imaginary portrait", like Shakespeare's, and myriad of other medieval portraits, or later portraits of medieval personalities, counting those included in high quality Wikipedia articles, say, Shakespeare's. Portrait of Tomas belongs into that category. Than "krstjanin"; beside needless elaboration on Fine's credentials and link to Google preview of his book, which I never disputed simply because that's beyond point in what I was saying in the first place - Fine's translation and explanation of the term to his English speaking reader doesn't make it less distinct and less proper noun used in research among local academics from "Greece to Slovenia". I can include many links pointing toward research papers to prove this point, too. It is not like writing "kralj" instead of "king", it's like writing a "knez", or "polje" to communicate "field" in "karst", with "karst" itself being another example. You see the problem, no? Your assertion of analogy is inappropriate and dishonest, to put it mildly. Moreover, nobody in academic circles calls them "Christians", or in Serbo-Croatian "kršćani", everyone use "krstjani" and "krstjanice". "Knez", "polje", "citadel", are these used in Wikipedia - of course. Do people use "imaginary portraits" of medieval personalities found on coins, illuminations, or paintings, in Infobox, sure they do. Do these portraits always appear in person's likeness, of course not, in case of coins and illuminations we can't even recognize human face often, let alone identify person, yet these are used across the Wikipedia, meanwhile, you also said coins are OK. Only there are no coins with Tomas face on them nor minted by him, now I suspect you now that. Have you looked what adorns beautifully "Featured" article on Shakespeare?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please forgive me for being this blunt, but I have read the first few lines and do not intend to read further. If you have a point to make related to the issues discussed here, please do it more succinctly. Surtsicna (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)