Talk:Ban (title)

Croatian title

If Croats had their bans before everyone else shouldn't we mark it as Croatian title? I mean it probably orgins from Croatia, even if it's borrowed word Croats used it FIRST!

Constantine Porphyrogenitus' book De Administrando Imperio as βο(ε)άνος, in a chapter dedicated to Croats and the organisation of their state, describing how their ban "has under his rule Krbava, Lika and Gacka" As far as i know it's the only mention of that title and it strictly points to Croatia. It's true that Bosnians used it as well but it's also the fact that they didn't use it before Croats. I don't want to start some "Croatophobia" and greater Croatia ideology but there is a completely normal explanation why Bosnians were catholic and why they had Croatian names, under "Croatian names" i mean names that are present among Croats only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.170.55 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please find a reliable source for your statement, then add it. Phrases such as "As far as I know" are speculation. --Jesuislafete (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Banat region's name from first half of 5-th century AD?

Hello folks, I need to ask you for a confirmation. In this romanian article from "Historia" http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/hidromelul-elixirul-tinere-ii regarding the mied/hidromel drink, the author presents a quoting from a text belonging to Priscus (aprox...410/420-470 AD) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus regarding the presence of this drink in the "plain of Banat".

This is the text in romanian language: "De acolo am cãlãtorit pe un drum neted, aşezat intr-o campie a Banatului şi am trecut peste mai multe râuri navigabile, dintre cele mai mari,dupa Istru,era aşa-numitul Drecon,apoi Tigas si Tifisas. Pe acestea le-am trecut in bãrcile de care se foloseau locuitorii de pe malurile râurilor ,iar pe celelalte le-am trecut pe plute, pe care barbarii le poarta in cãruțe, deoarece locurile sunt mlãştinoase.Prin sate ni se aducea de mâncare si anume in loc de grâu,mei,iar in loc de vin,mied dupa cum il numesc localnicii."

It's easy to search for this text in other languages because is the one about the rivers Drecon, Tigas and Tifisas, the names "Banat" apparently appears right before these in the sentence. Bigshotnews 21:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

What does this have to do with this article, again? If nothing, please move along, Wikipedia is not a forum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the article: "Other derivations of the word are present in toponyms such as Banovina, Banat and Banija, and common Croatian surnames such as Ban, Banac, Banić, Banović etc." So "Banat" is a derivation of "Ban" and might be attested as the name of the region in question in the V-th century AD according to this possible source presented by me. How can you say it has nothing to do with the article since it's said here that "Ban" title is originated in VII-th century AD? I've asked only for a confirmation of this possible source, nothing more, I have no intention to be involved in patriotard balkanic rants, but seems to me that you do. I only hope no one will dare to erase this section Bigshotnews 21:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, it is quite interesting and relevant to the article. However, we should check the original Greek or Latin text of Priscus to be sure that the word "Banat" is not simply a modern translation. Do we have access to the original script? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Priscus at the court of Attila"-Translation by J.B. Bury (Priscus, fr. 8 in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum) "We proceeded along a level road in a plain and met with navigable rivers--of which the greatest, next to the Danube, are the Drecon, Tigas, and Tiphesas--which we crossed in the Monoxyles, boats made of one piece, used by the dwellers on the banks: the smaller rivers we traversed on rafts which the barbarians carry about with them on carts, for the purpose of crossing morasses. In the villages we were supplied with food--millet instead of corn, and mead, as the natives call it, instead of wine." At least in this english translation that I've found at the english wikipage about Priscus presented by me at the beginning of this section, the name "Banat" does'n appear at all. Bigshotnews 19:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then, it is likely that "Banat" only appeared in the text that you have originally found as a modern explanatory translation. Of course, in this case it does not prove that the word existed in the 5th century. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So far from all the texts discovered on the net, I've found only 2 versions of the romanian translations, one with the "Banat" name in it and one without but the rest of the text is identical. Apparently the source is a book: "Maria Teodorescu,Bauturi si preparate din miere,Editura Tehnica Bucuresti,1977", so if any romanians are seeing this, maybe someone can confirm this source.Bigshotnews 16:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)

Borrowing from a Turkic language is by far the most common theory of origin, that can be verified in dozens of reliable sources (etymological dictionaries, comparative grammars, and so on). Please don't introduce fringe theories from obscure non-linguistic sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Origin of title

Before beginning the discussion, want to mention I have no wrong intentions, just there's a need that this topic is discussed, and would like anyone with the historical and linguistic knowledge, or source material, to be involved whatever the result. Recently edited a revised version of mine which included the etymology and historiography. It included an explaination of the situation about the origin of the title, what are linguistic opinions, historians opinions, and how went course of academic thinking. The edit was undone, without any real explanation. The commentary was how the "etymology is obsolete 19th century speculation" and the "Turkic etymology which is established in all of the dictionaries", as well on a previous discussion the same editor commented "Borrowing from a Turkic language is by far the most common theory of origin, that can be verified in dozens of reliable sources (etymological dictionaries, comparative grammars, and so on). Please don't introduce fringe theories from obscure non-linguistic sources".

Obviously, this one-side acceptance of the origin needs a reply. This is not a professional approach on writing an encyclopedia. You can't take one side, only one theory, thinking how it explained everything, while the topic by itself is obscure. There is no way such a old title to be rightly (with only one theory) explained in near future, or ever.

How is the etymology which includes both Persian and Turkic "obsolete 19th century speculation", while only Turkic not? The Turkic theory is older, cite: "prevailed the assumption by Slovak Slavist Pavel Jozef Šafárik from his book Slovanské starožitnosti (Slavonic Antiquities) in 1837. He propagated that the origin of the word ban among Croats, and other South Slavs, was a borrowing from a Turkic language, from the Eurasian Avars word bajan, actually personal name of 6th century Avar ruler (khagan) Bayan I".

Doesn't that make it also a "19th century speculation"?

Does being the "most common theory of origin" the only one, and the right one, and everything else unworthless mentioning? And even more, "that can be verified in dozens of reliable sources (etymological dictionaries, comparative grammars, and so on)", and yet there is only six references on the article? Where are this "dozens of reliable sources"? Who wrote them, what's the name of the author? Is he a historian, a linguistic?

How a word "ban" is linguistically by origin Turkic, when on several other articles, and sites, dictionaries, is not? Just two cites from Wikipedia:

(from Marzban): "Marzobān or Marzbān (Middle Persian transliteration: mlcpʾn', derived from marz "border, boundary" and the suffix -bān "guardian"; Modern Persian: مرزبان Marzbān)... The Persian word marz is derived from Avestan marəza "frontier"; bān is cognate with Avestan and Old Persian pat "protector."

(from Satrap): "In modern Persian the descendant of xšaθrapāvan is شهربان (shahrbān), but the components have undergone semantic shift so the word now means "town keeper" (شهر "shahr", meaning "town", بان "bān" meaning "keeper")."

How a word "ban" originates in Turkic words "bojan", "bajan", "bai", yet another two titles, Boyar and Boila, derive origin from them, cites:

(from Boyar): "The word is likely derived from the plural form of the Bulgarian title boila ("noble"), bolyare, which is attested in Bulgar inscriptions and rendered as boilades or boliades in the Greek of Byzantine documents.Its ultimate derivation is probably from the Turkic roots bai ("noble, rich"; cf. "bey") and är ("man, men").Another possible etymology of the term it may come from the Romanian word "boi" (bulls); a rich man is an owner of bulls or "boier". The title entered Old Russian as быля (bylya)."

(from Boila): "Boila (Bulgarian: боила или боил; Old Church Slavonic: бъɪля; Greek: βοιλα) was a title worn by some of the Bulgar aristocrats (mostly of regional governors and noble warriors) in First Bulgarian Empire (681-1018). For the linguists, the title "Boila" is predecessor or old form of the title Bolyar."

The Croatian Encyclopedia (http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=5627) cites this: "Drži se da naziv ban dolazi od mongolsko-turske riječi bajan: bogat, imućan. Vjerojatno je u hrvatski jezik ušla posredovanjem Avara, kod kojih je naslov označivao vojnoga zapovjednika (bajan: vladalac horde)." Basically is said what was already written in Turkic etymology, it is beleived to originate from word "bajan", and most possibly entered the Croatian language through Avars where was (bajan, not ban!) the title for "ruler of the horde".

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/51259/ban) cites this: "Originally a Persian word, ban was introduced into Europe by the Avars."

In the revisioned etymology was a sentence "the origin of the word in Slavic languages has been a theme of dispute among historians whose work also influenced the philologists", the historians are first mentioned because the first, Turkic, thesis was given by a historian, in 19th century, and later among them there was no clear consensus how originates among South Slavs. In the etymology section are also included cites from Persian dictionaries, which verify Persian origin.

What is even more a problem is the claim how the Sassanid Marzbans while maintained the provinces, trady routes, fought against nomadic tribes of Bedouin Arabs, White Huns and Oghuz Turks. This claim is disputable, but if was true, how then a Turkic tribe, Avars, or Bulgars, preserved an enemy war-class title? If they did, why there is no evidence they ever used word "ban", or title "ban", but only words "bojan", "bajan", "bai"? Why word and title "ban" is (originally) only known to South Slavs in Europe?

As seen, the topic is way more serious and complicated. Please, answer.--Crovata (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost all of your sources all obsolete. The original etymology already mentioned that the Turkic word is either of Iranian origin or inherited from Altaic. This Sassanid Marzbans/Boyar/Boila/Satrap connection is a product of your imagination. Tertiary sources like other encyclopedias are considered unreliable on Wikipedia and secondary sources (like the etymological dictionaries of Skok and Gluhak) take precedence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read the text and sources, and, I won't tolerate your constant judgement to be my fiction work, there's not a single word of mine. Besides, where is written in the original etymology that the "Turkic" word is of Iranian origin or inherited from Altaic?

All the text about etymology and historiography was sourced. It explained what throughout history linguistics and historians thought and theorized. The origin is about the historical records the title was mentioned. There is no real source or dictionary that supports Turkic origin of the word, in the most is said "presumed, kept, considered", even in Croatian Encyclopedia, to be from Turkic "bajan". That is only because academics previously lacked and never used dictionaries of Iranian language, and did not know about the "Marzban" title. There and in other sources is clear that the word "ban" was used before than in Turkic language. It is not a coincidence that there existed a title Marzbān or Merz-ban with the same role as South Slavic "ban". A title sequence Merz-ban-Bajan/Bojan-Ban is not possible, because the title bajan didn't exist and wasn't mentioned in any historical record, title "ban" never was mentioned in any connection with Avars, and is quiet doubtful a Turkic tribe took Persian war title. Previously in the 19th and 20th centuries the opinion about Slavs and Avars was such that Avars were the elite which ruled over Slavs, and that's why the historians beleived and thought they explained it with the Turkic word "bajan". That does not explain why the word and title "ban" is among Croats because it is quiet impossible they were in alliance or subordinates of Avars and yet were called by Franks or Byzantine Empire to fight and expel them from Dalmatia.

The two main problems with the "Tukic etymology" is that the word ban is of Avestan/Persian language origin and not Turkic, as well the existence of "Merz-ban" title in Sassanid Empire, while there never existed and was mentioned in any historical record title "bajan/bojan", specifically, among Avars or Turks, or the title was "created" from "bajan/bojan". There is no evidence for such a claim.--Crovata (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, nobody cares about your opinion of what is possible or not. We have the respective authorities (Petar Skok, Alemko Gluhak, Ranko Matasović - all established etymologists) sourcing ban to Turkic etymon. End of story. Find reliable sources claiming otherwise (note: century old works do not qualify as reliable) or else your personal interpretation that frankly stretches the boundaries of imagination will leave its mark as just another unsuccessful attempt to bend reality. The only reason I can imagine why Turkic etymology is not plausible in favor of Iranian source is that the latter somehow bestows more prestige to the fairy tale of Croats having Iranian origin. Same story as with Bulgarian (Bulgarian ethnicon itself is of Turkic source) and Serbian nationalists (See: Srbi - narod najstariji). Try Croatian Wiki, they are much more receptive to fringe theories (even though it's against the rules). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand, I'm glad there exist Croatian authorities, but that's not the point. It is explaining why is such a opinion about the word and the title in both linguistical and historical academic circles, connect it with the early mentions of the title, from whom and how it was used. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an etymological dictionary. If there exist text by other notable linguistics and historians who wrote about the word, its origin, and the title, there is no reason to not include it. It is not about Turkic being in favor, that's the official interpretation of the word among South Slavs, and must be included in the etymology. In the previsionized edit the Turkic etymology compromise the most part of the discussion. Yes, I agree the direct connection with the Marzban title is not established, and several sentences should be corrected, but not delete the whole revision. What you are talking about and doing is ignorance. Then what to do about the word "ban" in Avestan/Persian language? The title Marzban? Ignore it like it doesn't exist? What you're saying is nothing different then your constant false accusations. Just stop that, the topic need's work, sources, a collaboration and you're acting arrogant. If you want your own Wikipedia, then make it.--Crovata (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the direct connection with the Marzban title is not established - so you admit inserting your personal speculations into the article, i.e. violating Wikipedia rules of no original research. The rest of the content you added is also personal speculation or obsolete scholarship. Stop vandalizing the article or it will get protected. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I will not undo the edit, only because of one reason, I don't want to hear any commentary like "propaganda" along my name. I won't tolerate false accusations I have nothing to do with. There is no my speculation. All the text, all the words are sourced and cited from notable historians and linguistics. The text shows the opinion of current etymological society, the one from 19th and 20th century who gave the thesis, and the 19th and 20th century historians who gave the thesis and discussed how both the word and title were adopted by the Croats. The title Marzban was found and cited in the work by Croatian historian, and iranologist, Stjepan Krizin Sakač. There is found the information about the word "ban" in Persian dictionaries, as well the title merz-ban (Marzban). In the revision there was no sentence which told the title "ban" was derived from it, only the existence of a similar title.

There's an article on Iranian Encyclopedia which could further explain the word and title (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/banda-servant). The origin of the word sounds, and that's just mine subjective speculation for this discussion, more plausible from Banda (NPers.) and its precursors bandak/bandag (Mid. Pers.) and bandaka (OPers.) meant “henchman, (loyal) servant, vassal,”...thus OPers. bandaka is from banda (cf. the Old Indian masculine noun bandha “bond, fetter”) from the Indo-European root bhendh, also the source of English “bind, band, bond”. So the word or suffix-ban is really mentioned in Old Persian language. Etymologist the word among South Slavs derive from Turkic roots bai/j ("noble, rich"; cf.' "bey"), and further information is on the artlce Bey (bai/baj). The missing link of the thesis is the Bulgars and Eastern Slavs title Boyar which clearly derives from bai/baj/boj ("noble, rich"; cf.' "bey") and är ("man, men"), while the Western Slavic title is written as "ban". Another issue is the creation of the title, was it created from the word in Pannonia, or was the title already crated and South Slavs just adopted it. The problem is putting in favour the etymological explanation of the word which is clearly influenced by the explanation given by Slavist historians which is not mentioned. Further to say, so called title bajan is an opinion by historians and etymologists, yet the fact is that title can't be found in any historical record. I didn't know that topics about Balkan history are so controversal to be normally discussed. Please, review the last revision and sources (read them), and give your opinion about the matter.--Crovata (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sakač is a priest and not an etymologist, his theories are not mainstream and do not merit inclusion.

The historical scholarship on the etymology of ban that you added from the end of 19th and early 20th century is all obsolete. Toady, the Turkic origin is the most widely accepted theory.

Your personal speculations are of no interest to Wikipedia. Original research is forbidden. ban as a suffix and in bandha come from two completely unrelated PIE roots. It's kin of obvious that you're clutching at straws to replace the Turkic etymon with something more "Aryan". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Sakač was a historian, and pioneer of Iranian thesis of Croatian ethnic name. His work is still cited by academics when they write about it. However, there is no concensus on the Croatian name, and there is no consensus on the ethnogenic origin of the Croats. Its important to be given different academic opinion about the name, and so is about the title. The Turkic thesis is supported by Slavists, and that's just a thesis. It is important to be mentioned in the article there was no title "bajan" in historical records. It is important to be mentioned how, and when the etymologic thesis was influenced by historians opinion.

The etymology from 19th and 20th century is not obsolete at all, it says the same thing as curent etymology, and further explains it.

When there exist writings on the matter, they need to be cited. But obviously you're not aware of your behaving and what you're talking about. If Turkic origin is the most widely accepted, it doesn't make the Turkic etymology so much in favour to not include the work by etymologists and historians about it, there is no excuse for that. Sorry, but your constant unacceptable accusations and neglecting is more than suspicious.--Crovata (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's obsolete. Etymological science has advanced a great deal in the meantime. Obsolete theories are irrelevant and nobody references them today except for POV-pushers with a particular agenda in mind.

Sure we can include other theories as well - but it has to be put into context. Older theories = obsolete, scholarly consensus today = mentioned as such. We can't give equal credibility to all theories.

Your "it's just a hypothesis" argument reminds of of how certain sects dismiss evolution. "It's all theory anyway, and all theories are equally plausible, so there is no harm in placing stone-age mythology on the pedestal as well." Sorry, won't do.

Historians are not competent enough to etymologize words. Sakač doesn't see to have published any works in historical linguistics so his theories are fringe and hence not Wikipedia-worthy.

What I'm doing here is following Wikipedia rules. You're the one who inserted 10K of text of obsolete scholarship and personal speculations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the etymological science advanced, but in the case of this etymological thesis did not, it stayed the same from 19th century. It continued throughout Yugoslavia and Croatia, as attested by etymological dictionaries from 1988 and 2004, which are cited as source(!). So the work and thesis by 19th and 20th scientists is still the current scientific opinion, it's not obsolete. The historians point of view is more than important, as gave the thesis and until now sole wrote about it, discussed and tried to explicate the origin of the title, which became origin of the word, among South Slavs. The thesis was - adopted from Avars, but it was widely discussed, without any clear conclusion. The other opinion was given by historian Stjepan Krizin Sakač who pointed out the deficiencies of the theory given by fellow historians.

There is nothing wrong or controversal, or there's an justified excuse, to not be included in the article. The revision was added to my sandbox. The context was done with mentions of the title in historical records, the current etymology, as current is first, is followed by older etymology which shows from whom and when was given and how the idea remained the same for over a century, giving a historical line, and in historiography section the historians opinion is more widely explained. As the last historian mentioned is Ferdo Šišić who died in 1940, there needs a link with second-half 20th and current academic opinion on the topic, which as far searched, is unlikely to be found. But there is no reason, if, like Šišić died in 1940 makes that opinion outdated and too obsolete to not be mentioned, because the thesis is still the same. The only part, which obviously sounds to you problematic to make yourself neglect everything and accuse me with I have nothing to do, is in etymology section, about Persian dictionnaries where the word is listed, and the title merz-bân as well. Why is that so much controversial it cannot be mentioned in the article? But if we put that part aside, can we agree on other parts (mentions, 19th and 20th linguistics and historians opinion) that can be included?--Crovata (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• ..it was widely discussed, without any clear conclusion. - the conclusion has been reached. Three of the most comprehensive and most recent etymological works published in the last half of century exclusively endorse the Turkic origin theory. Those obsolete theories are no longer relevant just as your personal speculation on the connections to -bân, Boyar, Boila, banda and others. Unless you have verifiable, reliable sources supporting those theories, stop wasting everyone's time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Indeed, the discussion is not over, but there is no need discussing it with you any longer as you're contradicting yourself. This three comprehensive works you mention are dictionaires. Their use as source per Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources is not favored over primary, and secondary sources. Dictionaries have a obvious problem with, cite, defining a word according to its etymology is a frequent descriptivist error, precise definitions, dates etc. If you read the mentioned dictionaries from Yugoslavia until now, would know they have almost the same word order and no definition and explanation why is considered such an origin. While the statements given by linguistics and historians are primary, written by people who are directly involved, and secondary author's own thinking based on primary sources, sources explaining when and why such a thesis.--Crovata (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  Etymological dictionaries are secondary sources and tertiary sources (tertiary in case when they're merely compilations) - Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources is only applicable to definitions of terms. Their authors are themselves etymologists who provide commentary and select among competing theories. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Crovata, Ivan Štambuk is a competent linguist. He is correct that the explanation of ban as a borrowing from Turkic is the current one. All the sources given are reliable and from competent authors. However, the ultimate origin of the Turkic word may well be Iranian (compare Sanskrit bhaga "dispenser, (gracious) lord, patron"). The element -bān in marzbān and šahrbān is unrelated; it originates from Old Persian -pāvan- "protector", as in Old Persian xšaçapāvan- "satrap", whose Median (or other Old Northwest Iranian) cognate xšaθrapāvan- was borrowed into Persian and is the origin of šahrbān. The b is the result of the Middle Persian lenition after vowels: xšaθrapāvanam > Late Old Persian xšaθrapān- > xšaθr(a)βān- > Middle Persian šahrβān > Modern Persian šahrbān. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply, I couldn't know he was (nowhere is mentioned), and at least you explained something (which already learned), but again is missed the main point of the discussion - removal of sourced information about Ban from reliable sources from known historians and etymologist, and especially modern scholars as well (which is against Wikipedia policy). The topic has serious issues (etymology ie. historiographical thesis pointed out by sources, see below) about its historical origin on which historiography has no consensus, yet a specific thesis in specific time was accepted for granted by etymologist, who then again repeat the specific historiographical thesis as evidence for etymological conclusion in their dictionaries.

The thing about this subject is, when I researched and edited the etymology of the ethnonym Hrvat (Croat), in the same period of time came across the title Ban, precisely in the second edition of General Encyclopedia of Yugoslav Lexiographical Institute (1966-1969) pg. 296 "Naziv potiče od mong.-tur. riječi bajan (bogat, imućan)" (The name comes from mong.-tur. word bajan (rich, wealthy)), and the Croatian Encyclopedia link, "Drži se da naziv ban dolazi od mongolsko-turske riječi bajan: bogat, imućan. Vjerojatno je u hrvatski jezik ušla posredovanjem Avara, kod kojih je naslov označivao vojnoga zapovjednika (bajan: vladalac horde)." (Is considered... Probably entered in Croatian language through mediation of Avars, wherein the title signified military commander (bajan: ruler of the horde)). As an editor, logically the borrowing from Avars and Turkic language seemed plausible (by several authors like Walter Pohl, Otto Kronsteiner, Nada Klaić, Neven Budak (he later abandoned it) and Osman Karatay was considered the thesis of Croats not being an ethnic group, yet social category of boundary warriors within Avar Khaganate, with Ban along other titles and „evidence“ (assumptions which were dismissed by scholars) as support for the Turkic theory of the origin of Croats) but derivation from bajan (word bȃjan in Serbo-Croatian means wonderful, magical, bájānje magic incantation, bájati beautiful and special talk) somehow seemed missing, unexplained, and simply not self-explanatory.

When was searching for the source to find since when the thesis originates and on what foundation, came accros the work "Odkud Hrvatima Ban?" (From where Croatians Ban) by Stjepan Krizin Sakač, link. As it is written in the revision, in the work found the beginning of the thesis, and work on the subject by other known scholars. First who wrote about it and since when the thesis originates, was known Slavist historian Pavel Jozef Šafárik in Slovanské starožitnosti (Slavonic Antiquities) in 1837, and since then, besides several who pointed the Persian origin of the word (even Šafárik itself noted that bajan, wrongly for ban, in Persian was Herzog) and mitilary title use among other more serious flaws, can be seen the constant repeating of Šafárik thesis, actually his suppositions, based on literal reading of the 30th head, from the work which today scholars critically review and doubt the credibility, where is mentioned how some Avar descendants still existed in the 10th century in Croatia and they could be recognized as Avars, concluding how Constantine VII's βοάνος (Boanos) and βοέάνος (Boeanos) writing of Ban at the time "sounded" and actually "was" ßaїavός (Bayian). He derived it from the name of Avar khagan Bayan I, and also neglected that the Slavic name Bojan (word bȏj in Serbo-Croatian and Slavic *bojь means battle) has anything in common with "baan, bán". Later was also claimed "ruler of the horde" (see below under F. Šišić cite).

What's worse, the thesis, which is far-fetched as there's no real concrete evidence and is based on some assumptions, along what also concluded German Slavicist linguist Erich Berneker in 1924, "Postala je kontrakcijom iz bojan; posuđena od mong.-turskoga bajan, "bogat, imovit" (kod Mongola, Avara, Bugara, altajskih Tatara, Kirgiza također osobno ime.)" (Became by contraction from bojan; borrowed from mong.-turkic bajan, "rich, wealthy" (among Mongols, Avars, Bulgars, Altaic Tatars, Kirghiz also personal name.), not only was word by word copied in Yugoslavian and Croatian Enyclopedia (see above), but also by competent authors Skok (1971, note that was not edited by him and was posthumously released) and Gluhak (1993), who accepted the thesis for granted although there's no historians consensus on it (see below), in the reliable sources used for explanation (dictionaries at banъ(!); Skok literally said "Nestegnuti oblik potvrđen je kod cara Konstantina βο-(ε)άνος kod Hrvata u Lici, ali Kinnamos ima već stegnuti oblik μπάνος." (Unabbreviated form was confirmed by Constantine βο-(ε)άνος among Croats in Lika, but Kinnamos has already abbreviated form μπάνος), concluding "Postanje ovog neslavenskog naziva iz oblasti administracije utvrđeno je. To je avarska riječ bajan "vladalac horde". Sa slav. fonemom α > o: bojan potvrdio ju je kod Hrvata car Konstantin. Kod Mongola, Avara, Bugara, Tatara i Kirgizą dolazi i kao lično ime, a u Turaka u značenju "koji posjeduje dobra, bogat" i kao vlastito ime. Posuđenica potječe dakle iz vremena kada su Avari organizirali Slavene." (Existence of this non Slavic name from area of administration was found. It is Avar word bajan "ruler of the horde". With Slavic fonem α > o: bojan was confirmed among Croats by tsar Constantine. Among Mongols, Avars, Bulgars, Tatars, Kirghiz comes as personal name, while among Turks in the meaning "who possesses goods, rich" and as personal name. The borrowing therefore originates from times when Avars organized Slavs.);

Gluhak said "Od mlađeg praslavenskog *banъ, što je posuđenica iz avarskog bajan. - Turkijska riječ bajan (jezik Avara spada u turkijske) značila je "bogat; bogataš" te "uglednik", "gospodar" itd., a izvedena je od istoznačne riječi bāj. - Ta turkijska riječ ima usporednice u još mongolskim jezicima (gdje je to zapravo posuđenica iz turkijskih) i u tunguskima (v. i u bog). Turkijska riječ *bāj "bogat" posuđenica je iz iranskih jezika - iz srperz. bay "bogat gospodin", što je od iran. baga- "gospodin (bog); bog" (> stperz. baga-, av. baya, part. bay, sogd. βy itd.) Riječ bajan poznata je kao ime avarskoga kagana iz druge polovice VI. stoljeća (mislim da bi u ovom slučaju moglo biti da su suvremeni izvjestiljelji titulu razumijeli kao ime, kao što je to bilo npr. sa slavenskim *vodzь, v. u vođa. Riječ ban grčki je zapisana u X. stoljeću kao boeános, u XIII. kao mpános [bános]." (From younger Proto Slavic *banъ, which is a borrowing from Avaric bajan. - Turkic word bajan (language of Avars belongs among Turkic) meant "rich; rich man" and "nobleman", "lord/master" itd., and derives from synonymous bāj. - This Turkic word has parallels also in Mongolic languages (where actually is borrowing from Turkic) and in Tungusic (see also in/under "god"). Turkic word *bāj "rich" is borrowing from Iranic languages - from Middle Persian bay "rich sir", which is from Iranian baga- "sir (god); god" (> Old Persian baga-, Avestan baya, Parthian bay, Sogdian βy etc.) Word bajan is known as the name of Avar khagan from the second half of 6th century (I think that in this case could be that contemporary rapporteurs the title understood as name, as was in the case eg. with Slavic *vodzь, see in/under "leader". Word ban in Greek is written in 10th century as boeános, in 13th century as mpános [bános].")

Their certainty (1971, very early 1990s) can be understood, because it reflects the view of South Slavic historiography at the time, when Yugoslavian historiographical authority claimed; V. Klaić "transl. perhaps from Slavic word bojan (bojarin)", F. Šišić by historiographical tradition of the title origin and what Constantine VII said about Avar descendants (although Constantine VII is not specific about territory), connected the title Ban and Avars, and claimed how Avars lived in those three župas Lika, Krbava and Gacka which were under control of Ban, and "transl. where they had separate governor, whom they called bajan [another historiographical assumption which will be cited by etymologist], of which later - when Avars among Croats perished - became Croatian term ban", N. Klaić "transl. from the standpoint of today almost accepted theory [today not] that the župans and bans Avar officials and governors of their, Avar provinces gathered in the first Avar empire concluding all župas and bans lands of the first Avar Khanate could belong only to Avars".

Modern scholars completely differently and objectively look at those sources as well historians claims; in 2007 scholars E. Heršak and B. Nikšić in Croatian ethnogenesis: Review of Component Stages and Interpretations (with Emphasis on Eurasian / Nomadic contents) wrote "Ta tursko-bugarska teorija uskoro je asimilirana u avarsku teoriju hrvatskog podrijetla, nastalu na temelju bliske povezanosti Avara i Hrvata u povijesnim zapisima i pretpostavci da je specifični hrvatski naslov ban izveden iz imena avarskoga kagana Bajana" (The Turkish-Bulgarian theory was soon assimilated into Avar theory of Croatian origin, built on the basis of the close connections between the Avars and the Croats in the historical records and the assumption that a specific Croatian title ban derived from the name of Avar khagan Bayan), the same statement is attested in The Avars: A Review of Their Ethnogenesis and History (2002).

To not make this reply too long, important transl. And "Slavic migration", Turkic-Bulgarian or Avar and Iranian theories were used and elaborated in non-scientific terms. The first was emphasized in various pan-Slavic and South Slavic political contexts. In former Yugoslavia "Slavic migrations" practically was the official "truth". Turkic-Bulgarian or, more precisely, Avar theory revived decades ago by Otto Kronsteiner and Walter Pohl, and in Croatia accepted by Nada Klaic and Neven Budak (which he after some time rejected). It could be said that it was adopted by Nada Klaić from "iconoclastic" intention, which was useful for "grinding thoughts" and review of "accepted truth". Namely, if the Croats equal the Avars, the whole traditional "good-bad" imaginary of Croatian historiography completely was demolished. However, as Budak later pointed out, it is true that the Croats and Avars were often mentioned in the same texts, but regularly as enemies. Moreover, Turkic etymology of Croatian ethnonym, which for example offered Kronsteiner, was very problematic. The Iranian review is too long to translate, in short had similar ideological context.

The above mentioned historian Neven Budak, in "his" 1999 work Etnogeneza Hrvata where was editor and one of many writers of chapters, included both chapters Osnove hrvatske etnogeneze: Avari i Slaveni by Walter Pohl, where is stated pg. 94 "Istočna podrijetla je vjerojatno naslov hrvatskog vladara, ban, koji se najčešće povezuje s imenom (ili naslovom) Bajan" (Of eastern origin is probably title of Croatian ruler, ban, which is mostly associated with name (or title) Bajan), and Iranska teorija o podrijetlu Hrvata by Vladimir Košćak, where is stated pg. 114 "Mnogi istočni narodi poznaju ustanovu vladareva zamjenika, koji se u Turaka zvao vezir. Takav doglavnik kod Hrvata bio bi ban. Već su Šafarik, a zatim Rački i Jagić upozorili da je to perzijska riječ, dok je Sakač pokazao da ona u rječnicima perzijskog jezika dolazi s istim naglaskom i značenjem kao u hrvatskom jeziku" (Many eastern nations know the institution of the ruler's deputy, who is among the Turks called as vizier. Such a co-ruler among the Croats would be a ban. Already Šafarik, then Rački and Jagić warned that this is a Persian word, while Sakač showed that in the Persian language dictionaries comes with the same accent and meaning as in the Croatian language).

Besides this also exist Gothic and Illyrian thesis, first older by V. Klaić who pointed to word bandvjan (see bandwyan in A Gothic Etymological Dictionary by Winfred P. Lehmann and An Introduction to the Gothic Language by Thomas Oden Lambdin) and wrote transl. denotes executive power, or the right of public officer, that under the threat of punishment something command or prohibit. Isn't here the name of the grant transferred to the person, who implements it? (see article "Ban (medieval)"), while second more recent by academic I. Pašić who pointed to name Acra-banus, Acra-banis, Mala-banus, female name Cur-ban-ia, epigraph name Bani in Moesia, toponyms as castle Banez (Banes) in Dacia, Bantian, Scar(a)-bantia in Pannonia Superior, Arri-b*ntion in Dardania, in Bantia in Apulia, S. Maria di Banzi, ethnicon bantatai, also in the Celtic onomastic as name or constitutive composite in Banas, Banio(n), Ban-iu-s, Banna, Bannuu-s, Ban-ona, Bant-ius, Ban-uca. Pašalić also mentioned the loose thesis by M. Vidović who in Illyrian name Bato or Baton/Batun/Bando saw line Ban(do)-Ban(to)-Ba(to). See Bandon (Byzantine Empire), military and territorial unit.

The most recent work is 2012 De conversione Croatorum et Serborum, a lost source by historian Tibor Živković, where is written pg. 144-145 The title of ban is probably close to the personal name of Bayan (Avar) and should be of Turkic origin; cf. DAI II, 121. However, the title of ban among the Avars has never been attested to in historical sources, only qagan. It is probable that ban was a military commander of a high rank, similar to that of tudun mentioned in the ARF in 795, 796, 811; cf. ARF, 96, 98, 135. An Iranian origin of this word should not be ruled out – ban = keeper, guard; cf. H. G. Lunt, Old Church Slavonic Grammar, Berlin 2001, 256. Whether the Avars introduced this title into Europe, or the Croats and the Serbs (due to their highly probable Iranian origin) remains yet to be solved. In the mentioned work from 2001 by Horace Lunt, under note 64.3 about pán (lord) and župan is written Another early medieval ruler, chiefly in Croatia, was ban (*banъ?), perhaps from Avar *bojan "rich man", perhaps from Iranian ban "keeper, guard". I would note that Ali Nourai in 2013 An Etymological Dictionary of Persian, English and other Indo-European Languages Vol 2 on pg. 349 also mentions "bán: a suffix meaning protector" as derivation from "paiti, patiy, pavana, pâna: master, protector".

Besides two works Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie (1893) by Paul Horn, and Dictionnaire Persan-Français (1903) by J. J. P. Desmaison which are already cited and can be read in revision, would note work Origines Patriciae; or, deduction of European Titles of Nobility and dignified Offices, from their primitive sources (1846) by Robert Thomas Hampson, who extensively wrote; pg. 279 "ban", a lord or warden, pg. 280 Between this Asiatic title "ban" and the English "banner" or between the Gothic "fan" and A.-S. "fana" a standard also between "mark" or "march", a boundary, and the Icelandic "merki", a standard, there is a striking connection; but application of the terms is different the "banner" was the personal ensign of the "ban" or lord governor ... and its derivative "banner", pg. 285 The banner, called by the Germans "fahn" and "van", or "vahn", was manifestly named from "ban", a lord,

and extensively on pg. 280 under note "*", "This Oriental term has been widely circulated. "Ban" among Turks, Hungarians and other people eastward is the governor of a territory. From the Sanskrit root "Bha", to shine, came "bhanu", in Sanskrit, the sun, and "banu" in Persian, a prince; the Gothic "fan", used in the Gospels of Ulphilas, for lord, gives the A.-S. "fana", Germ. "fahn" and "vahn", and English "wane" now a weather cock, because it occupies the place of the ancient banner which is the meaning of the three preceding words. But "bhānu", a prince, and "bhanu", the sun, that is, the shiner, are also so connected, that without intending a pun, this may be said to be the most illustrious of titles. There is, however, another root, "Bhas", to shine, which also signifies threaten, and hence we see the peculiar force of the barbarous Latin words "bannum", an edict, "heribannum", a mulet of neglect of military duty, "bannire", to issue an edict, publish "banns", "banniri", to put under "bann", to "banish", and some others, which are commonly deduced from the old German "bann", a lord, without attempting to explain the manner in which "bann" came to bear that signification. The connection between "bhanu", the sun, and the deity, "Pan", affords an illustration of Dr. Grimm's law of transition, by which the classical P = Goth. F = Germ. V and B.".

In the article; (1) in the statement - The term was also borrowed from a Turkic source into Mongolian, where it is preserved in a basically identical form to this day as bajan "rich", bajan is wrongly written (most probably because of wiktionary баян yet see Bayan under Mongolian); (2) from the Avar word bajan meaning "ruler of the horde", as stated above, is just misinterpretation and assumption; (3) and which was probably also interpreted as a title, is wiki. editor pov and should be rewritten in the right context as Gluhak assumed (if that's true, then it makes no sense because Bayan was already a khagan and if ban was his another title, then what's his name?) etc.

After writing all this, I just can't understand how all this cited information from reliable sources can't be mentioned in the article. On what Wikipedia principle, how, as shown, flawed and obsolete yet today contemporary thesis by historian Šafárik from 1837 should be more relevant to the topic than the thesis by Hampson from 1846; why what all the notable historians wrote about the possible title origin from historiography point of view shouldn't be mentioned; and most important, what modern historians write about the title's origin and what's today scholars point of view also shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I know the mine old revision from over year ago must be further edited and updated, and can do it, but I can't understand ignorance.--Crovata (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR. Please don't post text walls like this; keep your replies concise and to the point. And finally, heed Ivan's advice and spare us 19th-century literature. @Ivan Štambuk: Any further comments? I'm out of my depth here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I had to write such a long, yet shortened review of quotes (information) what's written in reliable sources, because doubt anyone will understand the issue from the discussion between Štambuk and me almost a year ago. At the time, he accused the edit with "nationalist propaganda", "your etymology is obsolete 19th century speculation, Turkic origin is now established", which as can be seen, those two main sources, Skok in 1971 and Gluhak 1993, propagate the first and 19th century speculation (1837) by Šafárik etc., which we can understand why (as mentioned above), Turkic origin is not established (as mentioned above), and the (very late, but also notable) 19th century literature is minimal as the nearly most are from 20th century notable historians who tried to explain the origin of the title among Croats, yet it is important for them to be mentioned as are, not obsolete but contemporary (Šafárik thesis from 1837 etc.) or strongly relevant and they explain the topic. I at the time found his overly defensive reaction a bit suspicious, probably because his stand was strongly for Slavist thesis and clearly against Iranist thesis mention cite Sakač is a priest and not an etymologist, his theories are not mainstream and do not merit inclusion, while (he was a scholar and historian, and it doesn't matter he wasn't an etymologist, see above and below) by modern scholars it is mainstream (as mentioned above), because he pointed to the flaws Šafárik thesis which became mainstream, very important flaws as cite because the word "bajan" is never mentioned in historical sources as a title, there's no evidence that Avars and Turks ever used a title closely-related to the word "ban", and in historical sources regarding South Slavs "ban" is never mentioned in such a form. I believe every, in this reply mentioned, 19th century speculation should be mentioned because it gives, or as the historians and etymologist, it tries to explain the origin of the title from both historians and etymologist point of view (although the first strongly influenced the second, see above). I would like to re-edit the article, so, what specific 19th century literature for you shouldn't be cited? Although as you said, you're out of depth, but that doesn't provide that you can't give objective and neutral opinion, in fact just the opposite, and that's why I contacted you (as well said, "when you have time", to read and comprehend the issue, the problem is I lack any connection with someone to be able to discuss this and give me someone else advice).--Crovata (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read your sources and what you don't seem to get is: they are not relevant. We don't give a rat's ass about what every single historian speculated on the origin of origin of that word. What we care is what all of the established source generally agree on. Established sources = historical linguists, either recent papers or etymological dictionaries. The rest are irrelevant fringe theories. There is no modern source that connects ban to to the PIE root *peh2- "to protect", or it claims to be (LOL) of "native Croatian" origin. There is a reason why all of your sources are obsolete theories used in historical works. I'll now add even more modern sources to the article so that the likes you don't be tempted again. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: when you have a source that is not at least a century old, and written by a historical linguist as opposed to by a Croatian nationalist-historian on a government payroll that stakes his revenue stream on promoting the imaginary ancient Croatian-Iranian connections, let us know. Until that, stop wasting everyone's time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivan Štambuk: guess you actually didn't even bother to read (like a year ago) and logically comprehend the situation about the topic, if you did, you wouldn't act and write like this (which doesn't have anything to do with the sources), it just doesn't make sense, and if anything, I just wasted my time. If you're some kind of divine authority who's always right and everbody listen here, then I'm not willing to hit my head against the motionless wall, there other articles to work on. @Florian Blaschke: sorry I bothered you.--Crovata (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well somebody has to cut through BS otherwise all of the articles would be infested with government propaganda. In some cases it is inevitable due to its mass acceptance, but what you're pushing here is really just obscure fringe theories that are based on the argument "since there is no definite origin, all theories are equally valid". Sorry won't go. Submit it as an article to Hrvatsko slovo or sth. I'm sure they'd be delighted to read upon Ferdo Šišić's inspection of the 19th century Persian dictionaries and its connections to ancient Croatian tribes. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong to be passive and allow someone to play with my logic and information and especially to discredit modern academic scholars (!); on Wikipedia what we don't give, in your words a rat's ass, is editors point of view (your's), we are here to cite reliable sources (like mentioned above) and write it from neutral point of view, what you do is against Wikipedia principles. You constantly in the discussion intentionally go off topic, ignore and discredit what academic scholars wrote about the title origin (especially modern) simply because it doesn't go along your personal point of view. You discredit everything else and don't allow it to be mentioned (!), although the text about Turkic etymologoy wasn't and there's no intention to be removed (!), only because of one source and author (for what there is no reason to discredit!), Stjepan Krizin Sakač, who proposed Iranian, just one of many theories on the ethnogenesis origin of Croats and Croatian name, that obviously you personally have something against, but we don't give a rat's ass what's our personal point of view. You intentionally ignore that the etymologist all this centuries did not give a single original thesis, they took for granted the historian thesis what was mainstream at the time; that what historians then wrote about the origin of the title among medieval Croats in their work, and what historians now write about the title origin is actually more relevant than what's written in a dictionary which just reflected in short the mainstream historian thesis at the time (blindly using it for conclusion).

You ignore what's wrong in the article; (1) in the statement - where it is preserved in a basically identical form to this day as bajan "rich", bajan is wrongly written (most probably because of wiktionary баян yet see Bayan under Mongolian); (2) from the Avar word bajan meaning "ruler of the horde", as stated above, is just misinterpretation and assumption (read review above); (3) which was probably also interpreted as a title, it's not allowed to twist words and conclusion - Gluhak assumed (read review above, actually he just said what previously historians already did, and if that's true, then it makes no sense because Bayan was already a khagan and if ban was his another title, then what's his name, yet we know that Bayan indeed is a name - that's sourced pov).

Both historiography and etymology point of view (in sections) must be mentioned (as did in my old revision). And only because it is mainstream, obviously written as it is generally explained, it does not prohibits to mention other thesis from reliable sources. What's worse, not just you don't allow cited information about the title Ban to be mentioned, but you add information [1] which is not relevant to explain its origin, yet the word Bay/Bey and title Bey.--Crovata (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop Randying. Not all modern academic scholars are equally qualified to address specific problems. Etymological problems are addressed by historical linguists, not historians. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't defend mockery of academic scholars, defend mockery against me, but not against some of the most relevant modern academic scholars in ex-Yugoslavian countries. I wrote as simply as posible the review about the original quotes, and what's POV of contemporary historiography. Those are modern academic scholars (if we discredit and ridicule them, then science does not have any sense anymore) who are anthropologists and historians (even medieval historians by vocation), and if you read again what's written in those two dictionaries (cited in review above), you will see those etymology conclusions in dictionaries could even a laic write, they literally copied word by word what historians wrote at the time and has nothing to do with etymology itself, actually in all this discussion the etymology and etymologists are least relevant, what's relevant is what historians wrote about the topic. They propagated and influenced what etymologist wrote (and why, read in the review above to partially understand the political and ideological reason), they gave the thesis in 1837 (if that's not obsolete and everything else is fringe then I don't know what is and what is not hypocrisy) which historical records do not support, and that's at least the most important thing about Turkic thesis. Now the modern academic scholars in the 1990s and 2000s (Skok was 1971, Gluhak 1993) doubt it and say the origin is not solved and mention both or other historian hypothesis. I am not against mainstream etymology, but the other cited information have to be mentioned and put into context. I am just against hypocrisy, mockery and ignorance of modern science.--Crovata (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Stupid theories that fuel unsubstantiated myths should be mocked, along with those who propound them. For the umpteenth time: what historians and anthropologist think doesn't matter. They are ignorant of historical linguistics, and whether the established theories of origin of ban fit into some grand scheme pet theory of theirs is immaterial. They are fringe theories that shouldn't be mentioned because they are fringe. I'm sure that such theories give wet dreams to Croatian nationalists who fantasize of of some ancient Croatian-Iranian connections, but those theories are not on equal standing with respect to other, more established ones, and neither should be they presented as such. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you read at very least just one time the quotes review and start talking about those quotes, stop ignoring the facts, and stop repeating yourself.--Crovata (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivan Štambuk:@Florian Blaschke: if we continue like this the discussion will lose its purpose and lead to nowhere; can we read again the quotes review, but from neutral point of view, and analyze the issue about the topic and what's wrong about the quotes itself and those sources, but please take time.--Crovata (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides the quotes by Skok (1971) and Gluhak (1993), Matasović (2008, Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskoga jezika, pg. 55); "U većini je slučajeva vrlo teško utvrditi točan izvor i rekonstruirati praobilk takvih turkijskih riječi iz kojih su nastali npr. stsl. kniga, byserь, hrv. bán, hmềlj, hrền itd." (In the most cases it is very hard to determine exact source and reconstruct primal form of such Turkic words from which result eg. stsl. "kniga", "byserь", hrv. "bán", "hmềlj", "hrền" etc.)--Crovata (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's hard, if not impossible. But that doesn't mean that every theory of origin has equal credibility. Your argument is like creationism: "it's all just a theory!". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want to be constructive for this discussion, be total ignorant then just please restrain yourself and your personal POV about the Iranian and every other hypothesis of the origin of the ethnonym Hrvat. Stop going off topic, and calling academic scholars POV a creationism theory.--Crovata (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Creationsts and similarly mentally ill-equipped people often invoke "it's all just a theory" argument. Which is similar to your argument, namely that since there is no definite theory of origin, all theories are equally valid. I asked you to come up with a credible newer source, which you don't since it doesn't exist. All you can get is some obsolete 19th century works which were not even written by historical linguists. 19th century was an era of nation-building were myths were being created as a part of regime-sponsored propaganda, so just about anything from that era is garbage not worth the paper it was printed on (speaking in terms of historiography at the Balkans). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If you read the quotes review you would find that is the problem with the Turkic thesis wich was given by historian Šafárik in 1837. Stop impugn what modern academic scholars write only because they are not also historian linguists, you intentionally ignore that etymologist like Skok (who died 1956, while the dictionary was released 1971) and Gluhak just copied what was the historiography mainstream thesis at the time. And as said, the very most sources are by historians from 20th century.--Crovata (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you at all aware that you don't even know how to discuss without ignoring (also ignoring the issue and points of discussion) and mocking academic scholars, and just personally attacked me calling me "mentally ill-equipped"?--Crovata (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As far the linguists, who wrote about "ban" are: F. Miklošič in his vocabulary Etymolog. Wörterbuch der slaw. Sprachen (1886), wrote that word ban is of Croatian origin, and there is a possibility was expanded from Croats among Bulgars and Serbs, while if is Persian, than among Slavs is borrowed from the Turks. Erich Berneker in his work Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (1924) thought it was formed as a contraction from "bojan", which was borrowed from Mongolian-Turkisch "bajan" (rich, noble), which is also a personal name among Mongolians, Avars, Bulgars, Tatars, Kyrgyzs (quote already mentioned in review). Đuro Daničić in the Yugoslavian Academic Dictionary (1880-1882) decided for an intermediate solution; by origin is Avar or Persian from "bajan", duke.

--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

From here (let it be the upper for review discussion) discuss the new templates in the article.--Crovata (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Yugoslav historiography" lol. Removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[2] - Croatian National Encyclopedia only mentions the Skok's etymology of Avar origin, bajan "ruler of the horde" (vladalac horde). No trace of Ferdo. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In quotes review I wrote what F. Šišić in Povijest Hrvata (1925) wrote: by historiographical tradition of the title origin and what Constantine VII said about Avar descendants (although Constantine VII is not specific about territory), connected the title Ban and Avars, and claimed how Avars lived in those three župas Lika, Krbava and Gacka which were under control of Ban, and "transl. where they had separate governor, whom they called bajan [another historiographical assumption which will be cited by etymologist], of which later - when Avars among Croats perished - became Croatian term ban", N. Klaić "transl. from the standpoint of today almost accepted theory [today not] that the župans and bans Avar officials and governors of their, Avar provinces gathered in the first Avar empire concluding all župas and bans lands of the first Avar Khanate could belong only to Avars". What historiography at the time said, etymologist only reflected and blindly copied word-by-word, they are not original, historians are, they gave the thesis. And it contradicts what is written in the dictionary by Gluhak (1993) where such a statement (how it means ruler of the horde) would certainly be mentioned, yet it is not.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your deductive skill are apparently lacking. Etymologists didn't blindly "trust" historiographers - the word exist and is attested in Avar and other Turkic languages, and almost verbatim in DAI as a loanword, and the Slavic word can be derived from it. The word bajan by itself means nothing in Slavic. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

When they clearly did... word bȃjan in Serbo-Croatian means wonderful, magical, bájānje magic incantation, bájati beautiful and special talk.--Crovata (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

bȃjan as an etymologically unrelated adjective inherited from Proto-Slavic and synchronically derived from the verb bajati. See ESSJa I:138. It's unrelated to the ancestral form of ban. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What 21st century scholar endorses Šišić theory on the Persian origin of ban?

Šišić has nothing to do with Iranian theory actually Persian origin of ban, you don't read and neither know what individual historian wrote. Read the review.--Crovata (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with the article then? You c/p walls of text with little essence and tag article on an unrelated issue. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

All this walls of text is because you don't listen and we don't argue about the issue at all, thing is, after joined the discussion about Ban Borić and Boris Kalamanos remembered that had a almost a year old saved revision about the title itself in sandbox (22,034 bytes) with which don't know what to do because it is not worthless, and just needs to be corrected, edited and discussed. Essence of the "wall of text" is its conclusion about our almost year old discussion; (1) On what Wikipedia principle, how, as shown, flawed [for flaws, which if we're going to edit the article from neutral point of view think should be mentioned, see the review] and obsolete yet today contemporary thesis by historian Šafárik from 1837 should be more relevant to the topic than the thesis by Hampson from 1846 [here mentioned Hampson only because of dating] (2) why what all the notable historians wrote about the possible title origin from historiography point of view shouldn't be mentioned (3) and most important, what modern historians write about the title's origin and what's today scholars point of view also shouldn't be mentioned in the article (4) What I'm mostly talking about is not etymology, but how is not right to ignore what historiography has to say about the title origin (etymology of the word as being derivation from some language word root, is different from historiography of the political and administrative title especially if it is a borrowing [which is not yet solved by historians] between two politically relevant tribes, Croats and Avars).--Crovata (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see contradiction between Gluhak and Skok? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There three issues about current revision (reply under each number):

(1) In the "Skok" dictionary from 1971 it is said how it derives from "Slavic fonem α > o: bojan" [Yugoslavian editors of the dictionary obviously joint the thesis, see in follow-up], which earliear said in 1924 Erich Berneker "Became by contraction from bojan; borrowed from mong.-turkic bajan", and what and why mention "bojan" the late 19th and 20th century historians (and linguist Vatroslav Jagić) who thought that the title should not derive from "bajan", but from [name] "bojan" (based on the Greek writing boan and boean where and since when in historical records and South Slavic history is never mentioned and never began as βa like bayan), and just for mention, authority at the time, Šafarik, in his initially thesis wich began everything else neglected that it should be derived from the Slavic name Bojan. (1.1) This derivation and the word "bojan" itself is not even mentioned in the explanation of "ban" by Gluhak. (1.2) It can't derive from "bajan" and "bojan" in the same time, if yes, then it has to be put into right context.

(2) In the "Skok" dictionary from 1971 (which he did not edit) it is written "Existence of this non Slavic name from area of administration was found. It is Avar word bajan "ruler of the horde". ... The borrowing therefore originates from times when Avars organized Slavs.", this statement has nothing to do with etymology, that's the view of Yugoslavian historiogaphy at the time, which authorities like Ferdo Šišić (where they had separate governor, whom they called bajan - when Avars among Croats perished - became Croatian term ban) and Nada Klaić, and after those who propagate the Avar ie. Turkic theory of the ethnogenesis of Croats, claimed that titles župan and ban (among other far-fetched and mostly dismissed evidence) were Avar officials and governors, and as such, because those three župas Lika, Krbava, Gacka were under control of ban there lived those Constantine VII's Avar descendants in Croatia (although Constantine VII is not specific about territory, actually historians, toponymist and archaeologists negate this Avar theory thesis, yet interestingly, point out that the very most of those twelve nobile families which signed Pacta Conventa in 1102 and who allegedly had the right to become Župans and Bans, as well names of those mythological "five brothers and two sisters", lived and can be found in that exact territory.)

And especially read what modern historiography has to say about the Avar theory and why was partially propagated at the time (see review above).

(3) Only thing what etymologist "originally" added to the Turkic thesis is the origin of the root "*bāy", which further derivation is irrelevant to the be mentioned in the article about title "ban", but relevant in related articles Bey (Turkish title) and surnames Bey and Bay. However, it has meaning and helps to understand in first hand the issue about root "*bāy". Which is more irrelevant is the statement "The term was also borrowed from a Turkic source into Mongolian, where it is preserved in a basically identical form to this day as bayan rich" (how this statement about Bayan in Mongolian language anyhow helps readers to understand the title origin, it is related to the article Bayan, not Ban, it is enough that "Avar name Bayan" links to the article).--Crovata (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Derivation from the modern Serbo-Croatian name Bojan not accepted by anyone. bojan > ban is the same contraction as pojas > pas. The modern personal name Bojan is derived from boj, though according to some it possible reflects the old uncontracted form (and not the other way around!). At any case, the 10th century bojan was not a native Slavic name - it was a title in Avar that was borrowed as title, possibly later becoming a PN. bojan and bajan are in fact perfectly compatible: bajan [baja:n] (with the long second /a/) is an earlier form of [bojan]. /a/ > /o/ and /a:/ > /a/ are well-known sound changes in the history of Common Slavic language.

Nada Klarić, Pacta Conventa etc. it's all irrelevant. This is about the etymology of the word ban, not the nationalist fairy tales.

Yes the further derivation of the Proto-Turkikc *bāy- is relevant, because it has parallels in Mongolian and etymological dictionaries (which you obviously haven't read) do mention it, along with the theory of Iranian origin of the Proto-Turkic root.

The theory that it was a direct Iranian > Slavic borrowing is not support by any modern source. Find a source or stop wasting everyone's time with your useless walls of text that obscure the matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) Where and which known Avar ruler had a name "bojan"? Where is the evidence that "bojan" was a title? Why ignore the fact that such notable derivation wasn't even mentioned by Gluhak?

(2) The issue is about the statement ruler of the horde (historiographical assumtion and description); don't ignore that such a important description is not even mentioned by Gluhak. Yes, it is only partially relevant, but that is just another "evidence", but a real evidence in comparison to some assumptions from which they concluded how Avars highly influenced medieval Croats.

(3) It is enough which can be read in Skok and Gluhak dictionary and other sources. You didn't comment the statement inclusion "The term...".

(4) It is supported by many reliable modern sources which I already cited, but you're again acting like I did not.--Crovata (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Pan

Is Polish "pan" related to this word? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, see Proto-Slavic borrowings#Slavic and Iranian for the etymology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you thought about Pán (Lord, Master, Sir) in Poland and Ukraine, it could be, see An Etymological Dictionary of Persian, English and other Indo-European Languages Vol 2 (2013) on pg. 349 Persian "bán: a suffix meaning protector" derives from Avestan / Old Persian "paiti, patiy, pavana, pâna: master, protector", which derives from Avestan / Old Persian pa: to guard, which derives from Indo-European Pa. However, title Bán among medieval Croats is not yet solved, some derive from Turkic name Bayan, some from Iranian / Persian bán, while some propose Gothic (as Indo-European word root) and Illyrian origin.--Crovata (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, Polish pan cannot be from Persian, because of Old Czech hpan. That "etymological dictionary" is total garbage, by the way; it even ignores the laryngeal theory completely. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What's your view on Pán at pg. 257 note 64.3 in Old Church Slavonic Grammar (2001) by Horace Lunt?--Crovata (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's just a note can't you see. Lunt doesn't even try to investigate the exact origin, and he carefully hedges it with qualifiers such as perhaps. Etymological dictionaries that deal specifically with this word take precedence over such works with mention it with cursory remarks. Of course, since your whole intent is to push the retarded Iranian origin theory you're clutching at such straws attempting to present them as some grand evidence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I asked about Pán not Bán, and stop talking about your POV and be constructive to the discussion. At least he wrote that in 2001, has neutral point of view, and compared to Skok who in 1971 influenced by historians wrote about name bojan deriving from bajan, and Gluhak in 1993 who also wasn't immune to the tradition of the mainstream historiographical thesis.--Crovata (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your link highlights ban, Lunt is a male, and the book is from 1955 (2001 is a reprint). Again, this has nothing to do with historiography, so stop invoking that argument. Skok was a world-class etymologist, you can't really compare him to your sources. Gluhak is borderline notable and his dictionary is entirely compilation of other sources (with zero inline references). So Skok >> Lunt. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you stop connect this discussion with the discussion above, and that link was given as it is only because was copied from the discussion above (you don't know if the note about "ban" was mentioned in first edition from 1955), and as I said, that dictionary (1971) by Skok (died 1956) was not edited by him, it was post mortem released and just reflects mainstream historiographical hypothesis at the time (which fact you constantly ignore). @Florian Blaschke: Could you say your view on my remark about Pán.--Crovata (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No it doesn't reflect the "mainstream historiographical hypothesis". Skok was a world-class scholar, not like Šišić who is an obscure figure. You're simply to ignorant to even asses his work. FYI, word etymologies don't reflect historiographical hypothesis, it is usually the other way around - on the basis of established etymologies scholars fit historical theories, because word origins are order of magnitude more certain facts than garbage theories such as whether Croatians descended from a lost Iranian tribe. The reason why you believe that they do is because the nationalist mythology theories that you endorse do. The Avar theory of origin is even mentioned in the Croatian National Encyclopedia as well as Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik, both of which are recent publictions. Šišić's (a non-linguist) theory of Iranian theory is not mentioned in any recent work. As for the Lunt's grammar, as I said - it's a 1950s scholarship. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ferdo Šišić was the founding figure of the Croatian historiography of the 20th century. He made his most important contributions in the area of Croatian early Middle Ages, and was an authority in medieval field, as such his contribution highly influenced historians linguists. I do not support any theories, and if anything you can not separate your personal POV, while I just cite what scholars write (again you're accusing me and going off topic, is that how you work and discuss?).--Crovata (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure he was. And Archimedes and Euclid were the founders of math yet we don't care much today what they wrote. Historical linguists generally source their works, and Šišić is not one of them. We have half a dozen recent sources agreeing on Avar origin. All you have is some 19th century nonsense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

20th and 21th academic scholars are 19th century nonsense? Just answer me what is this 19th century nonsense? (in discussion above as this is about Pan not Ban)--Crovata (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah they are in Indo-European linguistics. Everything written in the 19th and early 20th century is pretty much useless today, except for historical purposes (for studying how it used to be in old times). If you don't trust me ask others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Research history" section

This lengthy section was written by User:Crovata and he keeps re-adding it after my repeated removals. It is very problematic for several reasons:

• It's unencyclopedic. The research history is relevant only for etymological dictionaries or papers where providing a historical context of the involved scholarship is a necessity. Nobody gives a shit about what obscure historians (i.e. not etymologists) like Sakač and Živković thought about the origin of the term. Modern theories in five sentences is all what is necessary, and that we have in the ==Etymology== section
• It's disproportionately lengthy. It gives prominence to the bullshit Aryan/Gothic/Iranian/blahblah theories that are today endorsed only by fringe Croatian nationalists. It's several times as lengthy as the ==Etymology== section which gives contemporary sources
• It's painfully obsolete. Just look at the names mentioned, and the years that the cited works were published - Miklošič, Šafárik, Šišić. Nobody today gives a shit what they thought. Slavic studies went through several generations since they were alive.
• It mixes history and etymology. Those two have nothing to do with one another. The section ==Origin of the term== relates to the origin of the term, not historical theories which are themselves fringe, according to which Croatians are a lost Iranian tribe. None of the article that deal with the origin of the term that the article is about attempt such a terminological butchery.

It's hopeless. I advise merciless extermination of this hopeless section. Just having it is a disgrace to Wikipedia standards. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I hardly have any energy to discuss about this topic again with I. Štambuk. I friendly invited him in March to discuss the revision at sandbox talk page, he didn't do anything, and during the all discussion at his talk page and here in March he shown mockery and almost no respect for an fellow editor and academic scholars. I. Štambuk has personal view according which a prominent and generally considered theory by academic scholars, like the Iranian-Caucasian theory on the origin of Croats (see Origin hypotheses of the Croats), and the now for years generally accepted that the Croatian ethnonym Hrvat (ie. Croat) derives from Iranian languages, are modern intellectual deceptions allegedly supported by some "nationalistic and political" intentions, and that those scholars are paid by the government to point out such considerations. Note that such a chauvinistic view has its roots in the time of communist Yugoslavia, when both, actually every theory which pointed out non-Slavic ethnogenetic elements during the Slavic migration, were publicly ridiculed and not mentioned in school books, while not considered by the Yugoslavian scholars. Thus, those theories were emphasized by renowned international academic scholars, and only rarely by native Yugoslavian. Today is totally different, and it is not problematic at all. So, to say it shortly:

The research history is very important to be mentioned because it very well explains since when and by who was the "Avar" origin theory considered, and what is considered. Note that the title origin, both etymologically and historically is totally uncertain. All scholars mentioned are well known, and their views have a weight, or when it is obsolete, that obsolete consideration had an important implication for further study (everything started from the wrong literal reading of the statement from Constantine VII's 30th chapter). The core "Avar" theory since the 19th century didn't changed almost at all. The history and etymology are very much related, especially in this case. The historians view is very important because it influenced and supported the view also considered by the etymologists (ie. in the 19th and 20th century some historians considered a "secure fact" that it was a Avar title, yet there's no proof for such a consideration). The dispraise and mockery of historians and certain scholars, and especially modern academic scholars, calling them nationalistic (even worse in previous discussions), is just ridiclious. The rules of WP:NPOV, like weight and balance, were totally respected.--Crovata (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Director: you're right, there's no other choice than having a consensus. However, until then the article cannot stay like this as sourced and relevant info is removed, both about general Avar-Turkic theory and other scholars considerations, especially the later which were related to the "Annotations", who furtherly or wholely explain other theories. Now without the context the article is most confusing and misleading.

What are your thoughts about the "Research history" section, and what are the reason (Wikipedia principles!) it cannot stay. Why sourced information cannot stay, due to some editor personal POV? That's violation of Wikipedia principles. Besides mentioned above, the reason it's too long is only an excuse to remove sourced and informative text. It is only too long in the comparison with the "Uses of the title" section which editing is not complete. At the time I worked on several articles, with more or less importance, and since then I didn't return to, although I had the literature to further cite.--Crovata (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bojan

The title word ban was also derived from the name Bojan

@User:Crovata: Bojan and Bayan is the same Slavic word, in two different chronologies. Bayan is the etymological predecessor of Bojan. If you knew anything about historical sound changes of Slavic you've of course conflated them, and not present them as two different theories. The name Bojan that you linked is etymologically completely unrelated. Stop embarassing yourself and undo your changes. Of course, this is already explained in Skok: Sa slav. fonemom a: > o: bojan potvrdio ju je kod Hrvata car Konstantin, but I guess that reading with comprehension is a bit too much. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No, why do you lie? There were separately considered personal names Bayan (Mongolian) and Bojan (Slavic). Many views by the title considered by Skok (1971) were not shared in the recent dictionary by Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mongolian word is a cognate of the Avar word (if not an outright borrowing if we discard Altaic) which is mentioned by Skok. The form /baja:n/ is explicitly mentioned by Skok as predecessor of the form /bojan/, which gave /ba:n/ after the contraction. The origin of the form /baja:n/ is ultimately the same as that of the Turkic-Mongolian personal names.. Those are not two "different" theories - it's the same word. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No, during the research history the personal names Bayan and Bojan were separately mentioned and considered, don't lie. The derivation of ban from bojan from bajan it's the Skok (or whatever scholar which edited his dictionary, as he died years before its release) personal derivation and totally another thing. It is strange that such a important derivation somehow was not mentioned in the recent dictionary by Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Think this was the problem about the issue, the Bojan had two harv, one of which the wrong harv with Skok dictionary where is not mentioned explicitly the name Bojan, yet his personal derivation cited above. However, as I. Štambuk constantly uses the term obsolete, then this derivation could be also considered obsolete as was first considered by Erich Berneker (1924), who being influental Slavist, was copied by Skok (or by those Yugoslavian scholars who edited the dictionary from 1971), but wasn't considered by modern Gluhak (1993).--Crovata (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"the title ban among the Avars has never been attested to in the historical sources"

Of course it fucking hasn't, since the sound change bojan > ban only occurred in Slavic languages, as a well-known contraction -oja- > /a:/ (also found in e.g. pojas > /pa:s/ which is taught in elementary schools in Croatia). This epic blunder renders the entire source Živković 2012 suspect - of course we're dealing with a historian from Serbia. It's funny how User:Crovata doesn't ignore Serbian sources when they fit him. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tibor Živković was a prominent academic historian who unfortunately recently died. In his work De conversione Croatorum et Serborum: a lost source (2012), about the De Administrando Imperio and reports on Croats and Serbs by Constantince VII, and where those "controveral" statements about Avars descendants in Croatian Kingdom, and the first mention of the title Ban among Croats occur, confirmed what many modern scholars already stated: the title ban among the Avars has never been attested to in the historical sources. Why such a important fact has to be removed? There have never been attested titles "Bayan" or "Boyan". And Štambuk, why again making every academic scholar whose against your personal belief has to be a suspect, suspicious and nationalistic, totally unreliable?--Crovata (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not an important fact, but a plainly wrong statement that is refuted directly in etymological dictionaries themselves. It couldn't have been attested in Avar-language sources since the related sound changes (contractions) only occurred in Slavic languages in the 10th/11th century. It's supposed to be an evidence in disfavor of Avar origin of the word, but Živković being a a historian, clueless on the history of Slavic languages, only digs himself further. Whether someone is a "prominent" in a gated academic communities of the Balkans that subsist on a regime's payroll (and really being dwarfs on a global scale) is irrelevant - any source can and should be challenged. The statement is simply misleading and stupid and should be removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not a wrong statement or misleading, that's a fact, and the historians (who more researched the title origin) consideration is equally relevant as etymologists. That he was "clueless" or "it couldn't have been attested in Avar-language sources since the related sound changes..." is your personal POV and OR without any weight and use for Wikipedia. It's all with your intention to find every possible little hole with fault to remove sourced information. Your continuous disrespect of academic scholars is just disgusting. --Crovata (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Then according your statement "Whether someone is a "prominent" in a gated academic communities of the Balkans that subsist on a regime's payroll (and really being dwarfs on a global scale) is irrelevant", aren't both etymologists Petar Skok and Alemko Gluhak, and every academic scholar mentioned in the research history irrelevant?! They were all on the government ie. Academy payroll!--Crovata (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Heavy Wikipedia:SYN violations

A closer scrutiny of the sources reveals an extensive synthesis. None of the sources themselves in any way actually involve relation with the term ban as it is discussed in this article. For example, the following part:

the title ba(n)daka (henchman, loyal servant, royal vassal),[28][29][30] a epithet of high rank in the Behistun Inscription used by Achaemenid king Darius I for his generals and satraps (Vidarna, Vindafarnā, Gaubaruva, Dādṛši, Vivāna, Taxmaspāda, Vaumisa, Artavardiya[31]),[28] and the bandag in the Paikuli inscription used by Sasanian king Narseh.[28] The Old Persian bandaka derives from banda, from Old Indian noun bandha, "bond, fetter", from Indo-European root bhendh, in Middle Iranian and Pahlavi bandag (bndk/g), Sogdian βantak, Turfan bannag.;[28] the name Artabanus of Persian and Parthian rulers; the Elam royal rulers name Hu(m)ban, carried in honour of god Khumban,[32] and the city Bunban; the title ubanus denoted to Prijezda I (1250–1287) by Pope Gregory IX.

The cited sources are articles in Encyclopedia Iranica (which is a top-notch source by itself) and even Behiston Inscription itself (which is a primary source and thus useless), but if you actually read them they don't have any references to the word ban as discussed in this article. The connection between Old Iranian terms that are phonetically superficially related is entirely made by Wikipedia editors, and not by any of the sources. This is of course forbidden to do. To an untrained layman it seems "natural" that phonetically similar words with related meanings are actually genetically related - but that's not how etymologies are drawn.

Of course, even cited connections coming from a book called "Indo-Iranian origins of Croats" (Marčinko 2000) are decidedly not Wikipedia-worthy since they are batshit insane fringe, but that's another topic altogether. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, why do you lie? All those considerations are mentioned in the book by academic scholar Mato Marčinko in 2000. There's no original research! They are not mentioned in the article text, yet separatelly in the annotations where are furtherly explained opinions by the "Iranian" and "Gothic" theory. That does not infringe NPOV. The honorific titles ba(n)daka and bandag are mentioned in the book in relation with the title ban, and their etymology only further helps the students and readers to see their specific origin. And again, the last statement just for hundred time proves why all this mess. It is because of your personal intolerance of the Iranian-Caucasian theory. Your critical thinking about the academic scholars considerations is no supreme criterion we should anyhow take into account as an authority if certain scholars or statements should or should not be included.--Crovata (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If Marčinko mentions the connection with the word ban it's Marčinko's connection not that of the authors in Encyclopedia Iranica.

If person A has a theory, and concludes that evidence B is in support of theory C, it doesn't mean that B is in favor of C per se. It's just A's theory.

You've deliberately misrepresented sources, as if far more credible sources somehow supported the mental diarrhea concocted by Marčinko. Either way, since it's wither SYN or misrepresentation not supported by sources, it has to be removed. I admit, I have a personal intolerance toward garbage in any form. The cited Old Iranian word can help "make the connection" only to persons thoroughly clueless on the subject. Since Wikipedia should not serve as a tool of propaganda of agenda-driven nationalists who imagine things, those citations either have to be removed since they are misleading (they do not support the statements that they tag), or attributed back to Marčinko, after which we can discuss the credibility of the author itself. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yours reasoning is a total nonsense. All you try is to remove something you do not agree with, which is not fringe, yet something you do not agree with, and you personally admitted. They are not misleading, they explain the etymology of those two honorific titles.--Crovata (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, it's not direct Marčinko consideration as the book is a collection of considerations.--Crovata (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)