Talk:Kingdom of Bosnia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eastern orthodoxy?[edit]

There is not a SHRED of archeological evidence or any hard evidence of a single ONE church or monastrey of eastern orthodoxy existing in Bosnia before the Ottoman conquest. So why write about something in Bosnia that didnt even exist in that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.14.231 (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I edited out the eastern orthodoxy until someone can prove that a single one Monastrey or church existed in Bosnia before the arrival of ottomans, and dont link to opinions of serb historians but rather har evidence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.6.19 (talk • contribs) [reply]

What about Dobrićevo Monastery, Sase Monastery, Stuplje Monastery, Tavna Monastery, etc.?--Zoupan 21:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hum was part of Bosnian Kingdom and Hum was orthodox and also the north of Bosnia which was part of Srem Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.129.177 (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and citations[edit]

This is a relatively long article and I would expect that there exist a number of sources and in-line citations which can support it. Can someone help? SV1XV (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen (title)[edit]

1. Stephen as a title is not by any means exclusive to the Nemanjic dynasty, and nor is it the reason Tvrtko I wore the title. See Stephen#Royalty; the title was notably used by rulers of various medieval entities including Croat, Bosnian, and Hungarian such. The title was even used by Roman popes as early as in the 3rd century, see Pope Stephen I.

2. Tvrtko I of Bosnia was the maternal grand grandson of Serbian king Stephen Dragutin as opposed to "paternal grandson" previously written. Stephen Dragutin's daughter, Elizabeth of Serbia, was married to Stephen I, Ban of Bosnia (a title that he may have received by serving as a vassal to the kingdom of Hungary, or by simply wishing to emulate his power); the two were in turn the parents of Vladislaus of Bosnia which would father Tvrtko I of Bosnia, the - by other words - maternal grand grandson of king Dragutin.

3. Hence the title Stephen occurs already with the rule of Tvrtko I's grandfather, Stephen I ban of Bosnia, after which the title is continued by Tvrtko I's uncle Stephen II, Ban of Bosnia whom Tvrtko would succeed as Stephen Tvrtko I. To insinuate that Tvrtko took on the title of Stephen as part of some sort of ruling "continuity" with the house of Nemanjic on account of him being maternally one fourth a Nemanjic is incorrect and at best a very far stretch. What is more, the title Stephen as used by the house of Kotromanic is spelled Stjepan as opposed to the spelling Stefan characteristic of the house of Nemanjic.

I choose to assume good faith and believe this was a misunderstanding and not a premeditated attempt to overemphasize the house of Nemanjic only so to impose a Serb ethnicity on Tvrtko I of Bosnia Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary monarchy[edit]

In period of Kingdom of Bosnia king was electing in Parliament - "Sabor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.32.39 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Can anyone explain to me why the Croatian and Serbian languages are used on the Kingdom of BOSNIA wiki?--Sabahudin9 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was going to open a same exact section here regarding the languages in infobox after appearing this edit on my watchlist. Obviously it was a wrong edit by piping another language to the article of Bosnian language. However, I was thinking, and I do question what language(s) should stay in the infobox. Do we have any realible sources regarding this issue? FkpCascais (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Serbo-Croatian" is the most widely accepted name of the language spoken by Bosnians. During the existence of the Kingdom of Bosnia, that language was called "Bosnian" - much like it was called Slavonian, Dalmatian, Croatian, etc, elsewhere. If we pretend that this isn't an issue of competing ethnic nationalisms, we are left with deciding whether to use the most widely accepted name or the contemporary name. Of course, there are a number of intermediary options, such as "Serbo-Croatian (Bosnian)" or not using the parameter at all. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that is exactly the issue; you say - "During the existence of the Kingdom of Bosnia, that language was called "Bosnian" - what evidence do we have for that claim? FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take me wrong, but it just that I am having a feeling that we are trying to be more diplomatic and "politically correct" here than being really encyclopedic and applying verifiability. FkpCascais (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source. I am sorry, I did not realize that this was a matter of any dispute. Serbo-Croatian has had a variety of names throughout history, including "Bosnian" (and, interestingly, "Serbo-Bosnian" in the late 19th century). Surtsicna (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as my 30-minutes research went and my general knowlege on langauges, until this day, all this concept of languages in the non Macedonian/Slovenian post Yugoslavia is kinda bullsh.. Most of those "languages", including Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are even less then dialects and mostly are concepts based on religion (Since most Croats are Roman Catholic, most Serbs are Serbian Eastern Orthodox and most Bosnians/Bosniaks are Islamic.. Even the Serbs of Bosnia call them Serbs giving the fact their entity's name is "Serpska"=Serbia). According to this refernced map, most of Bosnia including it's core spoke Shutokavian and Chakavian dialects of the same language and that's was before the 16th century. According Serbo-Croatian article, "Prior to the 19th century, they were collectively called "Illyric", "Slavic", "Slavonian", "Bosnian", "Dalmatian", "Serbian" or "Croatian"" so you could (vaguely) say that "Bosnian" was the language but the link would be to Serbo-Croatian. The language by the way, was Serbo-Croatian, since all the dialects and forms are just variaties of Serbo-Croatian, the issue is just the name, and Serbo-Croatian is the commonly accepted name today for that same language people mightve localy called "Bosnian" in the 14th century --Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Error in template[edit]

In the "History" section at this moment I see the following raw text:

{{ Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar "Stari bosanski tekstovi, SA 1969, str 118-119, link scan -
https://postimg.org/image/5ix5tlwxf/ }}. By having done so, he became a ruler of the newly proclaimed Kingdom of Bosnia, a state that followed the Banate of Bosnia. At its peak the Kingdom became one of the most influential and powerful states in the Balkan peninsula prior to Ottoman conquest.

which appears as:

{{ Mehmedalija Mak Dizdar "Stari bosanski tekstovi, SA 1969, str 118-119, link scan -
https://postimg.org/image/5ix5tlwxf/ }}. By having done so, he became a ruler of the newly proclaimed Kingdom of Bosnia, a state that followed the Banate of Bosnia. At its peak the Kingdom became one of the most influential and powerful states in the Balkan peninsula prior to Ottoman conquest.

It seems that someone intended to use a template but it got corrupted. Does anyone see how to fix it? Zaslav (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Bosnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Bosnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


MHare edit[edit]

I reverted MHare edit, for folowing reasons.

1. In 1290, Bosnia was not independent, it was under goverment of Croatian ban. 2. Referece is wrong, on Fine's book, page 44. there is no sign of quote.
Fine's book, page 44; beginning of the eleventh century a Benedictine reformer, Romuald of Ravenna, spent three years in Istria. According to the “Acta Sanctorum,” his suite included the son of a “Slavonic” king named Budislav (Sclavonici regis Alius).51 It is not clear who Budislav was, or what he ruled over, but in any case the author saw his realm simply as “Slavonia.” Croatia Itself in the Ninth Century If we have found nothing about Croats in foreign sources from the time of their alleged arrival in the second quarter of the seventh century until the tenth century, what about their own sources? First, from the Dalmatian cities, we have nothing contemporary; later material about the early period exists, and we shall turn to it momentarily. As far as people calling themselves “Croat” are concerned, we have nothing prior to the mid–ninth century. However, we have three sources from the ninth century that use the Croat name, two Latin-language charters and a Latin inscription. The charters are of dubious authenticity, but purport to be from that century. The Arst is dated 852 and issued by Trpimir and the second, dated 892, was issued by Mutimir; both refer to the grantor as Duke of the Croats (Dux Chroatorum).52 Both charters exist in copies from 1568. Our third source is the inscription, mentioned earlier, referring to Branimir by the same title. We also noted above that though one inscription did call Branimir “Duke of the Croats,” two others had him calling himself “Duke of the Slavs.”53 Though it would be nice to have the two charters in the original, most scholars believe that the copies are more or less accurate. Though the chances that the charters are forgeries or at least contain interpolations are strong, I


Also, Tvrtko selfcoronated himself, he didn't get the crown from the pope... --Čeha (razgovor) 18:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

again, Mhare, please read this. Your sources and quote are in error. Try fixing them first.
I'd like to see how is Bosnian Banate strong in 1290, when it's the time of it's disapearence. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to this link and check for yourself what is written in page 44. Mhare (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the text? In 1192.... What does that year has to do with 1290? If you have something to quote, quote precisley. I'll clear the text, and you add references after. It would be good that you back up them with quotes, if not in the article, than here... --Čeha (razgovor) 09:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop using selfconoration, that isn't even a word. Please use some kind of spell checker. Mhare (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Self-coronation is the apropriate form.--Čeha (razgovor) 10:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is using "Crowned himself" others just "crowned". Again, please use spell checker. Also, I won't be going after you and finding sources, especially if you use poorly written sentences full of spelling mistakes. I am not a native speaker of English, but I try my best not to look funny. Mhare (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not a native speaker. Tvrtko's Crown is that from Serbia (although he tried to take a Crown of Dalmatia & Croatia, too). His coronation was not aproved by the pope (or the Byzantine emperor), and only he had the ability to crown somebody. There is a theory that his coronation is instigated by his soverign, Hungarian king, Louis the Great of Anjou to have vassals (and cousins) of "higher statuss". Similar thing happened in Portugal, and could have happened with Burgundy, maybe with Austria or Prussia too. It all include inforcing of border territory, and expanding it towards neighbouring countries (in this case to Serbia).
Things worked fine, while his cousins where near the power (Louis I was married with his cousin, Elizabeth of Bosnia, daughter to the previous Ban of Bosnia, and Tvrtko's uncle, as Elizabeth of Bosnia was also latter regent of Hungary, for their daugher), even during the war for the Hungarian throne, but fell apart shortly after Tvrtko's coronation as king of Croatia and Dalmatia. There is even a theory that Tvrtko may have been murderded by Sigismund, Mary's husband and Hungarian monarch, because of that.
The next cca 80 years where marked with feudal anarchy, and ultimate Ottoman-Hungary division of the kingdom, one year after it recived crown from the pope. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhare: this situation should be moved to meta with RfC there, and if we could raise the number of involved editors, especially history buffs, would really benefit attempt to resolve this unprecedented disruption across the "medieval Bosnia" topics, but it would also help expend on and improve existing articles on the topic. Have you ever used meta Rfc? Maybe that failing DRN will also end with wikipedia RfC, so we should wait to see what happens, I don't know anymore. All I know at this point is that this is an agenda driven editing and WP:NOTHERE.--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that you'll get the same answer im Meta, which you got here. I'ld called you to stop, to try to study the sources, and cooperate. Doing things in this way you are just hurting yourself and the articles you wish to enhance. You can not ban everybody who doesn't think as you. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Santasa99:, I am afraid Ceha will just continue pushing his desired POV. It is unprecedented, and is done along with other user Mikola22, where they canvas various articles regarding Bosnia, and some other subjects, mainly "changing wording", and some extreme examples of POV pushing. Many articles are now protected where they operated. Mhare (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, starting with Turkish Croatia, which is nothing more than nationalist trope, invented term that has very narrow and very specific meaning and political and irredentist purpose, and which they attempted to squeeze into English language wikipedia as an article on supposedly genuine polity or entity of some sorts. I encountered this method there, when trying to inject some sense into that clap-trap. It's now protected for the next three months, and even in this current and protected text-version, which actually I edited and referenced, it's existence as a stand-alone piece is still completely unwarranted on both notability and verifiabilty grounds. I tried to merge that piece into Bosanska Krajina as a new section, and they resorted to WP:CANVASING at Croatian language wikipedia, so that they can influence decision and repel my merger proposal. I was fool back then not to pursue this clear-cut case of "canvasing" outside the English lang.wikipedia, but incident is nevertheless registered. (By the way, you also mentioned "canvas(s)ing" above - avoid that word when you are describing scope of the disruption across the "medieval Bosnian history" topic, because it may be misinterpreted as false claim and accusation, since it has very specific different meaning and policy WP:CANVASING against seeking and soliciting help among uninvolved editors or outside websites, like forums, Facebook, or Croatian/Bosnian/Serbian or any other lang. wikipedia, etc.)--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you two go and talk on your talk pages? Your content (and let's forget that is unwikipedial, and offensive) realy doesn't have anything to the with the disscusion about this article.
Tnx in advance.
Of course, data connected to the article should be discussed here. Please stay focus on the article, and not on the editors. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have problems with some sources so I ask Čeha to try somehow stimulate debate(moderators etc) about whether or not disputable sources can be used as RC. No one loses anything but then we will know exactly. Things as this will be repeated until this is clarified.Mikola22 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try --Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa99, Thanks, noted about canvasing. Mhare (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, stick around.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceha, the last thing on my mind is to invoke ban/block of any kind or degree for the fellow editor. But you need to know this: your engagements in these last couple of months(!) was so wrong that it sickens me every time I see wikipedia logo, or links in search engine pages, or web-address in browser address-bar - that's the result of your interaction with me.--౪ Santa ౪99° 21:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Santasa, wikipedia is not a place for political ideology, and unfortunately you are not accustomed than not everybody thinks as you. If you stick around on wikipedia, I realy hope your behavior will change. That "thing" you done on Turkish Croatia is probably the worst case of political bias I found ever on the net. Worse than the program of SANU. Horrible in every possible way.
But again, this pages are not for my opinion of you.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a place for politicial ideology" and than a few seconds later "worse than the program of SANU". I took the time to read the famous memorandum (did you?) and learn the fact that it was only the opinion of one small group of academics (maybe 5% of the Academy) and it was never the official program. Stop lecturing other editors and stop canvassing. Not to mention the fact that several editors you are plotting with have discussed my editing on en.Wiki or "the rotten system" as somebody on hr.wiki called it. I will pay close attention. good day Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Person actions always speaks about themselves, and if you are willing to advocate SANU program as something which just a few academics proposed, neglecting it was the main politc of that side in the whole war, you said everything about yourself. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

It's about this changes.
1. Hungarian king is the de facto Bosnian soverign, right
2. Ban's in Bosnia are his vassals, with obligations to him (more and more independent, but vassals). As can be see in reference of =Lucijana Lasić
3. Tvrtko self-proclaimed himself as a king, he had not recived the crown from the pope or imperor.
4. Tvrtko's state was larger than Bosnia, he proclaimed himself and king of neighbourhoud countries, and Naples and Hungary were, at least on paper were his soverens.
5. Bosnian nobility replaced Ostoja, not peoplee
6. Smederevo was not part of Bosnian Kingdom, it was just in Stephen's possesion.
Please, feel free to discuss the changes. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha, This is disruptive, I have provided 20 or more references, and you come and change the wording - without discussion and providing any reliable source whatsoever. I will now revert your changes, and furthermore reference the article, and I will advise not to change referenced prose unless you have some evidence. One question before that: Why didn't you change Tvrtko II article, and state that he is Croat noble, like you did on Croatian Wikipedia? Mhare (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, I didn't know you were qouting them. Are those qoutes? :

1. First reference is Vego, pages 34, 42, 55, 58, 71, 76, 105, 116, 119, 169, 172, 173, 181, 183, 186, 221, of three sentances, paragraph begining with It's rulers experienced de facto independence...
2. Second reference is Fine (which page?) and Klaić pages 34, 42, 55, 58, 71, 76, 105, 116, 119, 169, 172, 173, 181, 183, 186, 221, one sentance begining with After Kulin...
3. Paragraph begining with King Tvrtko I (r. 1353–91) should have be more emphasiss on the ruller, that's why; he briefly created not Bosnia briefly became
4. Third reference is again Fine pages 44, 148, paragraph beggining with The Banate of Bosnia was a medieval state ....
5. Forth reference is Companion to Seals in the Middle Ages, page 264, at the end of the above paragraph.
6. Difference between officialy and self-coronated?
7. The sentece about the Stanak should be in above paragraph, where there is mention of a state, not about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača
8. Fifth reference is Ćirković, page 165, paragraph begining with In the last months of his reign...
9. Is the paragraph begining with While the Kingdom of Bosnia... where should be explanation why does Tvrtko has to answer Naples and Hungary (his sovereigns from), and of his realm in Bosnia
10. Why is nesecesary to mention Bosnia here? The latter part of his reign, however, saw the ascent of magnates and considerable loss of Bosnia's territory and influence., article has it's name, by repeating the same word over and over....
11. Sixt reference is again Ćirković, page 174, paragraph begining with Despite an auspicious start...
12. Did Sigismund marched to or from Syrmia? Syrmia is area in his rule, north of Bosnia (Usora)?
13. Seventh reference is again Ćirković, page 184, paragraph begining with By March 1398
14. Eight reference is again Fine, pages 463-464, paragraph begining with Ostoja was brought to power by the forces
15. Ninth reference is again Živković, page 72, paragraph begining with First Turkish troops
16. Again naming, paragraph begining with Throughout his reign
17. Again naming, paragraph begining with Stephen Tomašević succeeded his father on the throne

As for the nation of Stephen Tomas, I do not want to argue, and I belive that you (or someone else) would object of mentioning of his ancestors from Šubić family. Is there a problem with that? --Čeha (razgovor) 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the wrong pages that were accidently copied from Klaić to Vego reference.
I am not sure what nation Stephen Thomas was. I don't have any reference of what nation he was. So I won't speculate about it.
Also, why didn't you enter in Banate of Bosnia article that Bosnia was "east-croatian banate" as you did on CW?
I will continue with referenced entries from Vego, Klaić, Fine, Anđelić and others, you are free to add to the article, but I find it very disruptive when you change my sentences with "wording", especially when I reference stuff. Mhare (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have exact quotes? If they are quotes, than anything shouldn't be changed. If they are not, than better wording should be apropriate. For example, for point 4. you list that The Banate of Bosnia was a medieval state and that is on the pages 44. and 148. Hower, on page 44. there is a title Croatia Itself in the Ninth Century, and on pages 148. the titles are Slavonia in the Fifteenth Century from previous page and The Turkish Threat (1493–1526) no mention of The banate... Could you check the pages?
I'll write the changes here, and you can discuss/change it latter. Ofcourse, exact quotes should not be changed.
As for adjective easter-croatian, explanations of that are obvious in Croatian historiography, it's claimes for Bosnia as one of Croatian lands. Yet again, I am not here to argue, or start an edit war. It's prety obvious that we wouldn't agree about that, and there doesn't exist consensus regarding the issue or the sources, as there exist in CW. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequently inserted comment:The last paragraph (in above post) is valuable piece of evidence, as it is an expression and obvious instance of nationalistic POV which is behind entire assortment of edits regarding medieval history of Bosnia and Bosnians! However, behind of such nationalistic POV there are no serious contemporary Croatian historian, working within mainstream historiography, who would hold or support such a ludicrous idea - of course, beside those on the scientific fringes of the day, and those 19th century masterminds of romanticized historiography, including Vjekoslav Klajić, Ferdo Šišić, fra Dominik Mandić etc., some of which were supporters or affiliated with pro-Nazi Ustaše ideology. In short, it's you and your ilk who would very much like to claim Bosnia and Herzegovina for Croatia and/or Croats, historically or otherwise, not the majority of Croats, not the contemporary Croatian mainstream historiography, and certainly not the English language wikipedia.--౪ Santa ౪99° 02:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one which denied that Bihać was in medieval Croatia, right? And you speak of nationalism? :) --Čeha (razgovor) 23:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceha: Regarding the page numbers 44 and 148, you seem to be looking in the wrong book. The headlines you quote seem to be from When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans. The book that is references here, is an earlier book by Fine Jr.: The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (1994). You will find that the page numbers are correct. --T*U (talk) 07:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx, my mistake. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceha:, your edits here are just continuation of your "East-croatian banate in Bosnia", just a lot more subtle, as you have editors here who respect reliable references. You've ended up in multiple noticeboards in span of 15 days. We can't use exact quotes, that would be copy violation, so we are trying to sum up things in encyclopedic way using multiple reliable sources. Changing wording that you don't like and minimising mentioning of Bosnia by changing it to "the land", "the area", "banate in Bosnia", etc, is unacceptable. Mhare (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MHare:If we can't use exact quotes, than we can discuss wording.
As for the names, what are you talking about? Article has a name, and it should be obvious to which substitutes refere. Article in which every other word is the same is not a serious article.
I listed all the wordings which should be changed. If you have any remarks on them, please discuss them, I tried to document them well.
If you have any problems with my edits on CW, do report them there.
I stand by my edits, which problems do you have with them? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, a lot of your changes of "wording" get sentences to look very awkward. So please, do not talk about seriousness of the article. Furthermore, in the beginning, you were trying to force the construction "Banate in Bosnia" into articles. It is important to note what have you done at the CW, as it is the same thing you want to do here. Please then, visit all the Good Articles such as Tvrtko I and Stephen Thomas and change there wording as well, as some sentences are copied from there to this article. Mhare (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare Quite the oposite. Read the sentances, and my sugestions of change. There is no need to repetion of the same word, over and over. As for Tvrtko I and Stephen Thomas articles if sentances are like this, there should be changed also. However, as the titles of the articles are different, perhaps the sentances should be different too.
This is an encyclopedia, not c/p web page. I would ask you to read my changes and change the sentances according to them. Or explain why is that a bad formulation. My basic argument is simple, to much repetition.
As for Bosnian Banate, it was the name of the state, what's wrong with that? The same goes for Bosnian Kingdom. I don't see any problems in CW. If you see them, place a complaint there. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, Please, go to the articles and change them. "Sentances" are the same. Mhare (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, you wish that I change the differences 1-17, as discussed above? Please, affirm this, and I'll do it.
As for this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=930755096&oldid=930440903 , this is not correct.
Tvrtko elevated his rank, and tried to elevate his rule in Bosnia (as he did not write himself as King of Serbia na Ban of Bosnia, but as King of Bosnia), but he did not get external recognition of that. Stephen Thomas did that a year before the fall of Bosnia.
Hungarian kings show themselves as Bosnian kings (after the fall they retook Usora with Soli and Donje Kraje), and their vassals in Bosnia as Bans, but Bans who were also kings of Serbia, so their (hungarian) domination could be expanded more (to Serbia). The position of Bosnian ruler was de facto negotiated with any change of ruler, and with changes in local politics (positions of great houses), and in some ways the unrecognized Kingdom was weaker than previous Banate, as it was more dependent of the will of Hungary (and Ottoman empire), and that due to it's enlargment it contained more (semi)independent areas, local headstrong rulers, etc... --Čeha (razgovor) 20:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, yeah, go to Tvrtko I of Bosnia and Thomas of Bosnia articles and change the wording to your liking. Please do. That entry was an attempt to end your nonsense about self-crowning and not recognizing of Kingdom. This reference is just one of many that will come. Mhare (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, I'll probably do that but after I'm finished here.
As for edit, do we need another DR? This is not correct, why are you doing that here?
I gave you 17th points but you are stil holding your ground, and are unviling to cooperate, or even discus it? Those are not quotes, so the words are yours.
As for coronation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-proclaimed_monarchy A self-proclaimed monarchy is established when a person claims a monarchy without any historical ties to a previous dynasty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_deposing_power . If Bosnia was a kingdom, than it would not need to receive a crown from a pope.
Try to be constructive. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, sure, I have added about 5-6 new references. Mhare (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, it should be rewriten in more objecitve way.
This should be in it's place;
Tvrtko had the strongest claim to the royal title at that time, and even if he had no practical means to rule Serbia, it was a perfect opportunity for him to elevate his rule in Bosnia to the kingdom, as such would mean more formal independance[9]. Tvrtko thus proclaimed himself the first King of Bosnia, claiming full legitimacy as the crown he took was sent from Pope Honorius III to Stefan the First-Crowned in 1217.[10]
A Serbian logothete named Blagoje,[11] having found refuge at Tvrtko's court, attributed to Tvrtko the right to a "double crown": one for Bosnia, and the other for the Serbian lands of his Nemanjić ancestors.[12] As he was also King of Serbia, and in that way, legal basis for crowning was achieved, which was promoted by his formal sovereign Louis I., as means to expanding his doiman by means of expansion of rule and honor of his vassals [10]. Tvrtko's title as a king was also approved by Louis successor, and Tvrtko's cousin Mary.
Venice and Ragusa consistently referred to Tvrtko as king of Rascia, Ragusa even complaining, in 1378, about Tvrtko's preoccupation with his new kingdom.[13]
Hungarian kings still claimed title as Bosnian kings (rex Ramae), but the process ended when Stephen Tomas in 1461. got the crown from pope in Rome, thus finaly gaining status of a kingdom for Bosnian state. However this could also be the reason why Hungarian king Mathias Corvinus didn't rush to aid during the fall of Bosnia to the Ottomans, as he did not want to lose the title or had to much independent state on his borders. He later reconquered north and west of the kingdom; Usoru (with Soli) and Donje Kraje, and gave the existent title of Bosnian king to his vassal Nikola Iločki.
Otoman Turks also created vassal kingdom for the last Kotromanić and later Hrvatinić in Lašva, but they were not to loyal. With the death of those (even just nominal) kings, the title ended.
After the fall of the kingdom (or teritorial partion between Ottomans and Hungary) Queen mother Katarina excaped to the Rome, and left the (fallen) kingdom and crown in pope's hands.
This should have more sense and meaning, right? --Čeha (razgovor) 11:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not much more sense and meaning. Ceha, sure you can publish your opinions that Kingdom was created in 1461... but not on an encyclopedia. You view Bosnia as some east Croat state and that alright... but not for an encyclopedia. Hungarian may have claimed the title all the time, sure, but almost all relevant historians have concluded what is in the article already. Also, you may have to change sentences in Tvrtko article, as most of them more or less the same there. I have added Vego reference, and there is a lot more in his book about the nature of the Kingdom and its recognition abroad. I paraphrased only tiny bit and referenced it. Mhare (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. After we end the story of Donj Kraji, it's quite probable that we will have to do DR also here. Why?
Because Kingdom in Bosnia was not recognised, and for a greater part it was in the state of civil wars or conficts between the nobles and Hungarians (and Turks from time to time) as who would be it's ruler.
You are not NPOV, nor you even try to explain or prove your changes.--Čeha (razgovor) 21:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, prove my changes? References are there buddy. There is a lot more if you want, 4-5 pages in Vego's book are dedicated to international recognition of the Bosnian Kingdom. And also, there is Fine, Čirković and etc. I may, and probably will double down on references, as this is truly getting out of hand with you. There is a reason why you have been blocked 10 times, and have restrictions. These articles don't have many editors, so you are under the radar for now, but that may change soon. Mhare (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, it realy seems that this will be another DR or RfC. I explained to you abowe what's wrong with those qoutes. What is the reason for the second crown if the first is valid? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Half the time I am not sure what is your argumentation, and what is wrong with the quotes, as they are copied and altered from Wiki articles about Bosnian kings. They are very well referenced. The validity of the crown was never questioned, and surely I will try to find more references about that, as I am really only interested in references, and adhering to some basic principles of Wikipedia (you know, everything opposite of CW). About Stephen Thomas, I think you have everything you need in the article about him, it's actually a Good Article here. Mhare (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CW articles are a lot better than this here. You said those are not quotes. There are points 1-17. what is unclear about them? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wording 2[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&type=revision&diff=931944870&oldid=931902289
1. ok, try to find the references. To my knowledge, 1461. is the year of the begining of the kingdom.
2. capital, ok.
3. terrritories and Bosnian rulers, ok
4. he created should be prefered version. The name of the state is shown from the article name, and Tvrtko should be the subject of the sentance.
5. this is problematic. Bosnia was vassal to Hungary. Although for most of its existence Bosnia was vassal to Kingdom of Hungary, it was a de facto independent state with independent rulers. should be more apropriate.
6. coronation is still a problem. There should be a self reference in it. You can not just take the crown for yourself, and Tvrtko's taking of Serbian crown don't Bosnia a kingdom. Please try to find some reference about this.
7. Line about Louis should be preserved. It's normal medieval behaviour
8. Your new definition of Hungarian claims is not bad, but I would suggest further change;
Hungarian kings still claimed title as Rama kings, title used by the monarchs of Hungary to provide a legal basis for their claims of supremacy over Bosnia, but the process ended when Stephen Tomas in 1461 got the crown from the Pope in Rome, thus formaly ending Hungarian claims to the kingdom.
I think, this should be better?
9. I think that the state should be better word, although there is no big difference.
10. If you say Bosnians, that means whole of the people, and it's rare occasion in medieval times. Nobles is a better word.
--Čeha (razgovor) 13:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha,
1. You will need to fabricate the reference, its common knowledge that Kingdom existed from 1377. You are trying to rewrite something that has consensus in academic circles.
5. I am not sure you understand the word nominal. You want to sum up in one word the position of the Kingdom towards Hungary.
6. What?! There are numerous references, not even enciklopedija.hr uses your term "self-coronated"
8. When I do catch time, I could rephrase it further, but again, it's to much time and effort to accommodate to your wording wishes (a majority of them not widely accepted in academic circles anywhere) while you consistently bring so much spelling errors and poor formatting of text and references.
9. Of course, there is no big difference, but you insist for a month now to have Bosnia converted to "state", "land", etc.
10. I am not sure what you want to imply Mhare (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Common knowledge" is not a valid source. Kingdom got a crown in 1461., before it used a Serbian one, and had styled itself, but was not recognised as such. In medieval europe, only emperors and popes had the means to make something in a kingdom.
5. Nominal is a quote from Fine. In reality things were not such simple, have you read Ančić? Hungarian kings interveened in any change on the throne, removed some bans (and kings) from the office, and pursued acctive policy in Bosnia. State in Bosnia had a growing power (and independence), but it was always a vassal of Hungarian king. Even after 1461. kings in Bosnia were vassals to Hungarian kings. Lilliacs in Kotromanić CoA came from Anjou dinasty, are stilisied crosses (and symbol of divine trinity), and they were intermeried (daughter of Stjepan II, which was Tvrtko's Uncle, was Louis wife).
I think that my phrase is more correct. De facto and nominal mirror the status of Kosača estates in Herzegovina. These are middle ages, after all, time of feudal, and no national states.
6. http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=62877 enciklopedija.hr is succesor of yugoslavia enciklopedia, are you saying they are bias?
Idući korak bila je krunidba dvostrukom krunom (sugubi vijenac) i uzimanje naslova »kralj Srbljem, Bosni, Primorju, Humskoj zemlji, Donjim Krajem, Zapadnim Stranam, Usori i Podrinjuhttp://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=58179 Pošto se okrunio krunom koju mu je poslao papa, priznao je 1462. vrhovnu vlast Ugarske i odbio plaćanje danka sultanu, nadajući se pomoći Zapada.
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/250173 Do dolaska nove krune, koju je trebao poslati papa Pio II., pokušavalo se pripremiti teren za postizanje formalne samostalnosti. Tako je tokom 15. stoljeća iz grbova bosanskih kraljeva nestalo ugarskih elementa, te je nakon toga zatražena nova kruna „koja bi simbolizirala uzdizanje Bosanskog Kraljevstva u isti rang s Ugarsko-hrvatskim Kraljevstvom“.
Kada je Stjepan Tomašević novom krunom izazvao bijes Matije Korvina istovremeno odbivši svoje vazalne dužnosti prema ugarsko-hrvatskom kralju i one prema sultanu, osmanski „udar u proljeće/ljeto 1463. godine, a zatim i jesenski pohod Matije Korvina, (će) pretvoriti neizravni kondominij u punu, stvarnu i formalnu podjelu bosanskog kraljevstva, uz potpuno poništenje svih oblika njegove političke zasebnosti“.--Čeha (razgovor) 17:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has it's consequences.
8. Till then I think my phrasing should be apropriate.
9. Styling. There is no sense in endless repetition.
10. Simple. Bosnians is not proper name, it would include much greater list. Bosnian nobles would be. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha,
1. Almost every reliable source will tell Kingdom existed from 1377.
5. For sure circumstances were not stable in those times, but the term nominal that is used across several sources explains the situation and de-facto state. You and I are way out of our league to conclude anything, as for sure none of us is trained historian, and even if you were, you can't avoid established academic consensus and secondary modern sources. The article has plenty of information when Bosnia was subjugated to Hungary by various means and when it was not and the whole nature of that relationship.
6. As I said, even enciklopedija.hr don't use your terms "self-conorated". I am not sure why you have cited all that, as I already looked it up, to see if anything you were entering in CW and here has merit. They use "krunidba" (coronation), there is no mention of Tvrtko being Croatian noble, etc.
9. Please, avoid talking about styling, as you brake sentences with that changes almost regularly. Mhare (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Then give me a quote.
5. No. Read Ančić. Medieval Bosnia had two poles, one in which local ruler needs full backing from it's soverign, for example Tvrtko when dealing with insurection, and another when the same Tvrtko interveens in Hungarian civil war, and self-crowns himself as king of Croatia and Dalmatia.
Medieval Bosnia wasn't ever fully independent, but it did have various traces of local independence. Quoting Fine, who disaproves traditional historiography is not going to lead us anywhere. Medieval Bosnia is a state, like Dubrovnik, but medieval states had it cycluses. Medieval Bosnia is not a simple story about expansion, but is a more interesting story with lots of changes. And it's not a national state, but a feudal one. Donji Kraji, which grew out of Pliva Parish, or Usora which was connected with Slavonian Banate, or Herzegovina, which grew from Hum/Paganija, Zahumlje, Travunja (and Podrinje) are probably good example of this.
6. http://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=249
Tim činom dovršio je teritorijalno širenje svoje države, pa je u jesen, vjerojatno 26. listopada, uzeo kraljevski naslov i okrunio se za kralja »Srbljem i Bosni i Pomorju i Zapadnim stranama«. Translation would be, he crowned himself....
9. And again. This should be a scientific article, and style is important here. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha,
1. Already did.
5. Nobody claims that Bosnia is a simple story. The article is very long now, it deals with every aspect of it.
6. Yes, and?
9. Look who's talking. You have gone further on Croatian Wikipedia and renamed every Bosnian king and noble to Croatian one. Talking bout scientific, eh? Mhare (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare,
1. Where?
5. Repetition, and simple phrases do make an article look like that. I think that my above combination Although for most of its existence Bosnia was vassal to Kingdom of Hungary, it was a de facto independent state with independent rulers. should be more apropriate.
6. That's the point. Self-coronation. Ok, we can use a different word, but it the article it should be noted that it created a discord with Hungarian kings and that it played a role in the downfall of the state. Hungarian kings never viewed Bosnia as an independent kingdom, there is a good quote for Usora, which is paralel to this. . Čak i za vrijeme srpskog kralja Dragutina, koji kao zet ugarskog kralja Ladislava IV. dobiva po mirazu vladu u Solima, Usori, Srijemu i Mačvi (1282.-1314.) spominju se prva dva predjela kao zemlja "bosanskaja i ugr'skaja", a nipošto kao "serbskaja".
9. If you have any troubles about CW, that should be adressed there, right? Do you think this is the place for opening discussion about ethnicity of Bosnian rulers, which had ancestors and estates in Croatia (and Dalmatia, and Slavonia) in medieval times? --Čeha (razgovor) 10:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha,
1. Reference is in the infobox
9. You have a very unique view on the medieval history of Bosnia, and you have made systematic edits where you changed Bosnian to Croatian wherever you could (lands, rulers, queens, banate) without any references. Can you please confirm that you really mean all the thing you rewrote? Mhare (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. This? https://books.google.ba/books?id=rMfSCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kingdom+of+bosnia+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif7IzEw8vmAhUUu3EKHUt5D-gQ6AEIJzAA#v=snippet&q=in%201377%20Bosnia%20then%20became%20a%20kingdom&f=false This is incorect. Bosnian capital was not Jajce in that time.
9. ? I belive that medieval Bosnia was one of Croatian lands, but what does it have to do with this discussion? --Čeha (razgovor) 14:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. That is just one. I can add 5-6 more that claim the same. I was quoting when kingdom started, not what its capital was.
9. It does have, a great deal. Mhare (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Erronous sources has no purpose. I asked you for a good source, you offered none.
9. Not realy. You just need to stick to the facts. Nothing more.
Also, why are all of ours comprises deleted? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 sources for the year when kingdom was established, and 1377 is widely accepted date for the start of Bosnian Kingdom. Later, you will have two more, so four in total.

Your contributions don't deal with facts but with your very controversial POV, as you already said, you believe Bosnia was some kind of Croatian medieval state. There is no meaningful contribution other than to support that POV. You even tried to solitice help from Croatian Wikipedia regarding this. Mhare (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and again, ad hominem. Please give me sources, you have given none, at least for the time being. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1461. is the year in which Bosnia is given Crown from the pope, and 1377. is the year in which it's ruler, ban, has declared himself king, by taking the Serbian crown, and remaining in (at least nominal) vassalage to hungorian king. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, 4 references about when Kingdom started and ended isn't enough now? Buddy, you are going against widely accepted consensus regarding medieval history of Bosnia. I have no further comments. Mhare (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where are the sources?
As for change we have; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Bosnia&oldid=prev&diff=933717376
1. Country, it's a synonime, not every other word should be Bosnia
2. Kingdom, it's obvious of what kingdom we are talking about
3. Jajce was recaptured by Hungarians, as they (or their king) held formal soverignty over BK. Also, they named Nikola Iločki as Bosnian king. Better phrase should be recaptured by Hungarian king.
4. Bosnia was vassal of KH, at least in name.
5. King Louis gave Tvrtko the (serbian) crown, with new sybols (lyliacs), and it's service was in extension of his estates (through his vassals)
6. HK wanted supremacy over Bosnia, not just pretence. What kind of sentence is that?
7. Again, state, no every other word should be Bosnia.
8. Nobles, Bosnans would be the people, and just the nobles fought.
9. BiH was majority christian, before the Turks.
10. Bosnian was the name of citizen of that kingdom, not adheretance to some religion. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, I won't even comment first two and 7 and 8. You have 4 references in the infobox about the years...
Try to find some mainstream references for claims of recapture, against seizing. Hungary may have held formal sovereignty and whatnot, but recapture is your way of saying the Kingdom was never really anything but an integral part of Hungary (in your view, Croatia-Hungary, or whatever you call it). Golden Lillies, I have no clue about that, if you have, please then add a proper reference (it was not deleted from the article). Last two, again, changing something for God knows what reason, as both have no sense whatsoever. Mhare (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1,2,7,8 stayling.
3. http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?ID=28530, reconquered, cause even Bosnian kings where vassals of Hungarian ones. Reclaimed may be also a good word.
As for liliacs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis https://novi.ba/clanak/62485/ljiljan-mnogi-dozivljaju-kao-simbol-bosanske-drzavnosti-no-znate-li-njegovo-pravo-znacenje https://casopisslovo.com/2019/01/problematika-ljiljana-kao-heraldickog-simbola-srednjovjekovne-evrope/
You did not comment anything and I thought that over the majority of issues (as that BiH was majority Christian, any heresy was a Christian one) we discused and agreed. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just stick to the recognized literature, and we're good. A lot of the sentences are referenced, you can't just change the wording to your liking. Bosnian religion was a mix of Christian religions that are mentioned, so your change has no sense whatsoever, and I am not obliged to comment on every point of yours. Mhare (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are obliged to comment and discus your changes. "Bosnian" religion was accused of a christian heresy, but was a christian one. Majority of the population before the Turks was catholic, with ortodox minority in the east. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again[edit]

You are obliged to comment on your edits, you can't just rw thing what you don't like. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceha, you are doing quite disruptive edits with you "wording changes". Who is questioning that Bosnian Church wasn't Christian heresy!? It is really really difficult to understand your arguments. Why do you insist on this kind of changes is beyond me, and wastes everybody's energy. Mhare (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you removed that majority of BiH population was christian before the Turks? Please return it back. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ceha, are you serious!? What on earth are you talking about, that part is just saying that religious composition of the Kingdom was mixed, and consisted of three Christian faiths - Bosnian Church, Orthodox, and Catholic. You know what mixed means? Mhare (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare mixed also implies non christian religions. Please change that (and the rest). --Čeha (razgovor) 02:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Church in Donji Kraji or any other part of the medieval Bosnian state[edit]

The source for editor's Ceha sentence is polemical article (actually in form of an longer essay) by prominent Bosnian Croat medievalist, Srečko Džaja, not a research. However, it is based on some of his previous researches so it is a good piece of writing, although Džaja, like many other prominent academics and researchers, himself took side based on identity politics of war-torn Yugoslavia, and found himself in the midst of many polemics with mostly Bosniak historians. But, since we are able community, we can parse through ideological bias if expressed in scholarship that could be found and read on all "sides", whether of Croatian, or Serbian, or Bosnian, or Montenegrin scholars - so, Džaja is excellent source on Bosnian Church, if such term (excellent) could be applied at all on any research and any one's understanding of something that is quite mysterious to even most able among contemporary researchers on the subject. Trouble here, in this particular case, is that Džaja doesn't claim anything in such a categorical terms, as the edit in this article tries to express. And how could he, if duke himself, together with many of his family members, was Bosnian Church member! And if duke was a member of Bosnian Church, than his court must have had a prominent leader of that church on it with him. On this you can refer to Sisic work "Vojvoda Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic i njegovo doba. (1350-1416)", but is advisable to use contemporary work, such as Dubravko Lovrenović and his "Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i splitska komuna" (Prilozi Instituta za istoriju XXII/23, Sarajevo, 1987, pg. 37-45).--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic Vitez Herceg i Pataren" by Dubravko Lovrenovic
  • "Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić i splitska komuna" by Dubravko Lovrenovic (Prilozi Instituta za istoriju XXII/23, Sarajevo, 1987, pg. 37-45)
  • "Istočni Jadran u odnosima između Hrvoja Vukčića Sandalja Hranića na prelazu iz XIV. u XV. stoljeće" by Dubravko Lovrenovic (Glasnik arhiva i društava arhivsk)
  • "O familijarima Hrvoja Vukčića Hrvatinića u Splitu 1403-1413" by Neven Isailovic (Istorijski časopis (Historical Review) 58 (2009))--౪ Santa ౪99° 11:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikola22, you are entering conflicting information. You are not even trying to acknowledge the information presented here. Why? Mhare (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mhare You two delete everything, someday you will probably stop with this practice. In the parts of medieval Bosnia Donji Kraji and Tropolje there is no information on the presence and activity of the Bosnian Church within medieval Bosnian establishment only Catholic church is present there. Very valuable and significant information, this is from book of historian and RS. What you are doing is not in good faith and we will see what happens. Greeting and Merry Christmas. Mikola22 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikola22, I am not sure why are you responding in that manner. Wasn't the Grand Duke a Bosnian Church follower? It seems the faith have penetrated Donji Kraji in some ways, but as you know, religious situation in medieval Bosnia was far from simple as you want to present it for god knows what reasons. Can you at least tell us your argumentation? Mhare (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Srećko M. Džaja I quote: "The terminology of medieval Bosnia has been one of the less explored aspects of the Bosnian Middle Ages." Therefore we do not know much about that part of history and every conclusion(of historian) is welcome. Džaja, Srećko Matko 1971 completed his doctoral thesis on Bosnian Catholics in the 18th and 19th century. He was explor history of Bosnia at the eastern and southeastern European History Department of the University of Munich. He completed his studies in Munich in 1983 with a doctorate in philosophy with a dissertation on religious and national issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which received the Südosteuropa-Gesellschaft Award. Let's respect this historian's claim i.e. RS which is significant. Mikola22 (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am failing to see why is it valuable information, as we have few other sources that are in conflict with the source you presented, that as Santasa said, is a polemical article. I have checked Fine and Pejo Čošković, and it seems Bosnian Church had some presence in Donji Kraji (even going up to 1437, when country experienced extensive catholicization). Why do you think it is so important to categorically say there is no Bosnian Church is beyond me, as the Duke himself was prominent krstjanin. If you care to explain why, I am ready to listen Mhare (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What should be explained? This historian deals with religious issues in Bosnia and Herzegovina(through his professional career) and he made conclusion or clame. In those parts of Bosnia was not present Bosnian Church. Which is a very significant information about history of the Bosnian church in territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mikola22 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikola22, it is really hard to understand you, as you are just repeating the same mantra over again but not telling us anything. Can you please answer me with a yes or no?
    Was Hrvoje Vukčić a member of the Bosnian Church?
    Please, yes or no. Mhare (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the parts of medieval Bosnia Donji Kraji and Tropolje there is no information on the presence and activity of the Bosnian Church within medieval Bosnian establishment only Catholic church is present there. Historian Srećko M. Džaja answered instead of me. Mikola22 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikola22, I will ask once again.
    Was Hrvoje Vukčić ever a member of the Bosnian Church? Mhare (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In protection, as the only Catholic among the Bosnian nobles, Hrvoja Vukćića Hrvatinića also took and Eugeov successor Pope Nikola V.[1] I know this information. Mikola22 (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mikola22, it's clear you don't want to answer it. Can I please ask you another question, and the answer is in your latest source.
    Was Vukoslav Hrvatinić of Donji Kraji ever in any way been connected with the Bosnian Church? Mhare (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bosnian church was not a massive organisation, it was "something" which had influence in it's nobility, and has (more or less) disapeared before The fall. It's succesor of previous, catholic bishopy which removed it's center in Slavonia, in Đakovo, and had traces of local superstitions, as papal legates found. Interesting is it's connection whith Croatian glagolitic pristhood.
    Ideas that belonging to the church in medieval times ment nationality are a bit streched. And for the qoutes, I fully suport Mikola. You can't remove any quote which does not support your thesis. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I have slight reservations about your theories now that you basically changed any Bosnian who lived during medieval time to Croatians. You know what I am talking about ;)
    Firstly, we do not make thesis here on Wikipedia, so I will once again ask a quetion: Was any Hrvatinić of Donji Kraji, in any way, connected with Bosnian Church? Mhare (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know what are you talking about, and why are you discussing me, and not the article. And the question is meangless. Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić was the facto real king of Bosnia (and Croatia and Dalmatia) for a time, do you realy think that he had not any conection with it? The quote is about it's population, not it rulers. One person out of hundred thousands is a statistical error, no matter which rank it would held.
    Moreover, Donji Kraji and Usora (with Soli) were territories which Hungarian kings requonquered, after the fall of Bosnia. Ottomans were previously present in eastern Bosnia and Sarajevo, and in Fall and requonquest basicly just eastern domain of Bosnian kings/bans changed hands, area around Bobovac, as Bosnia was de facto partioned between Ottomans and Hungarians. Western domain of Bosnian kings/bans were for a while a Ottoman vassal state, and Herzegovina was de facto independent. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Fall_of_Bosnia.png
    If you look this from a century and half difference, it makes sense https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/e/ef/Hrvatska_Pavla_%C5%A0ubi%C4%87a.jpg
    It has more sense that a heresy would be present in eastern BiH hills than in it major communication centers. But again, all of Bosnian rulers denien heresy, so :D --Čeha (razgovor) 14:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceha, sure you don't know what I am talking about...
    Look, you are again wandering off, not sticking to the point. I am really not interested in your lectures regarding the past. Please be aware of that in our further discussions.
    I just tried to see why it was so important to include a statement that the Bosnian Church was nonexistent in Donji Kraji when we have one reference that it had penetrated Donji Kraji and that Duke himself (and Vukosav) was a follower/supporter at one point in time. Aren't they Croatian rulers in Bosnia? Stick to your arguments, man. Mhare (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Only purpose would be to show religious map of the state, nothing more. As for wandering, be more clearer in what you are talking about, so I will not have to gues your thoughts. What reference do we have of heresy in Lower Ends? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)--Čeha (razgovor) 17:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ceha, Fine is one reference, but he just mentions it in one sentence, then Ćošković in his book Crkva Bosanska U XV Stoljeću, and finally even the Mikola's source mentions that even Vukosav Hrvatinić had some connections to Bosnian Church (page 55) Mhare (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quotes? --Čeha (razgovor) 20:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the quotes, but I am lacking energy to discuss it endlessly. So, I am going to actually add them to the article as references. Mhare (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ Amer Sulejmanagić, 2012, Coins of Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_clanak_jezik=280467#page=60


RS is deleted[edit]

@TU-nor: The article is about the Shtokavian dialect. I deleted this quote: "By far the most numerous, mobile and expansionist migrations were those of Ijekavian-Shtokavian speakers of eastern Herzegovina, who have spread into most of Western Serbia, many areas of eastern and western Bosnia, large swathes of Croatia (Banovina, Kordun, Lika, parts of Gorski kotar, continental parts of northern Dalmatia, some places north of Kupa, parts of Slavonia, southeastern Baranya etc.)" with the reason that there are no historians and books that speak about this migration (in most of Croatia and Bosnia) i.e. there are no original historical documents wich prove this migration. The answer is as follows I quote: "I find it just a bit boring to have to repeat the same things over and over again. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you need to be familiar with the basics, in this case WP:V and WP:RS. I do not know if you have not read it, or if you have read it and not understood it. If we have concluded that a source is reliable, we cannot choose to accept some statements from the source and reject other parts because we think the author is wrong. "Source X says so-and-so, but that is wrong". If we have other sources saying otherwise, we can say things like "Source A says this, while source B says that", provided both sources are reliable." I didn't know it and i accepted this answer and rule. In the articles on Bosnia I have included more significant information from the books of historians but they are being changed or deleted, now is situation that clame of historian and RS is questioned. I don't know where are you now to react? You are not here at all(but you were there when I deleted data from Shtokavian article) and you saw earlier that some citations i.e. RS is deleted here. Whether someone here is joking with me or where is problem? Mine RS is deleted here and discusses whether some historian is right or wrong. I criticized book of John V. A. Fine Jr.(When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans) and Croatian historians also wrote critically about that book but it's RS and I have to respect that. Why my sources are not respected and this rule ("Source A says this, while source B says that")?Mikola22 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements[edit]

@Mhare:, we went through all of this before. The point of the article isn't that every second word is the same. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the improvement of the article. Mhare (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and everything. Try reading it... --Čeha (razgovor) 19:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article was copy-edited[edit]

Please refrain from changing the wording if you do not have good grasp of English language and Wikipedia policies and style requirements. A version of this article was copy edited by Tdslk, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 February 2020. He has brought so much needed consistency to the article that any changing of the wording is basically breaking the article. Introducing grammar and spelling errors, along with silly changing of the word Bosnia to state is not acceptable. If needed, I will ask one of the administrators to consider further actions after you have obliterated copy-edited article. Mhare (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? What are you talking about? You broke the wikipedia rules, I disscused any of my changes here, and you just flipped them over. And you talk about the sanctions? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just stop. Article was copy-edited by a native speaker that has a strong grasp of its fundamentals, but also knows good practices and rules of English Wikipedia. I won't go further into the discussion. Mhare (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have done a requested copy edit of the article, I do not mind that other editors make additional changes. That is the nature of Wikipedia! In particular, it does not matter for informational edits, especially since I am not an expert on this subject. If you have questions about style, including why I made the edits I did, I would be happy to discuss them here. Regards, Tdslk (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course additional changes are welcome, but I am afraid this edit has nothing to do with adding content. I hope you understand, as this is recurring theme where fellow editor just changes the wording, and more often than not, breaks sentences and style. He is insisting that Bosnia needs to be changed to state, small kingdom, his state, etc. Mhare (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, please stop. You are just embarising yourself. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Bosnian Kingdom[edit]

The current (entirely blue flag with crosses within CoA bend) of Bosnian Kingdom is utterly incorrect. This is a Serb romanticization and bastardization of the real flag. Often this false CoA with crosses instead of original wine is depicted at Serbian tricolor flag (Serb ultranationalists trying to present Bosnia as a Serb dominion).

https://www.facebook.com/Serbian-lands-of-Bosnia-and-Herzegovina-1716334588583532/

There were no (especially Ortodox) crosses on Bosnian Kingdom flag, but instead there was a wine (which symbolizes Christ's blood) within the bend in the CoA. Additionally, the real flag of Bosnian Kingdom is white with the CoA within, as shown on the seal of Bosnian kings, such as seal of Tvrtko I:

https://antidayton.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/pecat-kralja-tvrtka.jpg

The correct flag reconstruction based on the authentic seal is:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/bs/7/7f/Kraljevina_Bosna_zastava.png

PS: The imaginary file (entirely blue flag with crosses in bend) should be urgently replaced in this article in all languages, since it falsely represents Kingdom of Bosnia. Alenmahovic (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the flag with ones based on my own observations from seals Sci Show With Moh (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common language[edit]

Croatian is, together with Bosnian, listed as a common language. It has 5 sources referring to it, the sources being unbiased and dating from 1586 to 1727 The given sources are: -Fistule Ievanyelya po sfe godischie Harvatschim yazichom stumacena, 1586., Olovo, Venice -S. Ljubic. Ogledalo književne poviesti jugoslavjanske na podučavanje mladeži. 1864. p. 225., -Lovro Šitović, Grammatica latino-illyrica, 1713., Venice, -Lovro Šitović, Pismo od pakla, 1727., Venice, -Ivan Tomko Mrnavić, Iztumacenje obilnije nauka krstjanskoga od g. R. Bellarmina prineseno u jezik hrvatski, 1627.

Still Croatian (and Bosnian) as a common language is being removed and replaced by unfounded (no sources) languages over and over again. There is, in my opinion, no problem with adding a certain language IF THERE IS RELIABLE SOURCES supporting the thesis, but I would ask NOT to REMOVE or REPLACE existing ones, especially not if there are, like in this case, 5 sources to it. StjepanGr. (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, those are primary sources. We need secondary sources. Secondly, the topic of this article is the Kingdom of Bosnia, a medieval polity that collapsed in 1463. The 1586-1727 period is out of scope of this article. And finally, Bosnian and Croatian are just two of a number of names by which Serbo-Croatian was known in the Middle Ages. Listing Croatian and Bosnian as separate languages is misleading to our readers. Surtsicna (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Surtsicna said, we should use secondary sources, not primary sources as those you cited. Since you are a new editor, take a look at those two links first. Tezwoo (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As per Surtsicna. Just leave it alone until some good source comes along and defines what dialect/standard of the same language they spoke. Mhare (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serbocoratian is a misleading term created in the 19th century. The sources clearly indicate that Croatian was a language used. I will add secondary sources for both Bosnian and Croatian if needed. I would rather add Serbian and have all three versions of "Serbocroatian" then remove Bosnian and Croatian. If we want to be specific it should say Western Shtokavian and Chakavian, but I think thats even more misleading then "Serbocroatian". Are there any sources for "Serbocroatian"?StjepanGr. (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misleading about the term Serbo-Croatian; it is the common designation of the language in English-language literature on the subject. Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are modern standard languages. Implying that medieval Bosnian people used languages standardized in 20th-century Zagreb, Sarajevo, and Belgrade is wrong on all levels. Why not add Montenegrin then as well, seeing as how the king ruled half the modern-day Montenegro? It's an absurd projection of modern-day political squabbles into a medieval topic. An English-speaking historian explicitly using the term Serbo-Croatian to designate the language spoken in medieval Bosnia is John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr., cited extensively in this article. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Serbo-Croatian" contains a serbian aspect which is, language wise, commonly accepted to be non existent in the Bosnian kingdom and for which we yet do not have sources. Serbo-Croatian has been created by the "process of linguistic standardization" of Serbian and Croatian "in the mid-19th-century Vienna Literary Agreement". If I understood it correctly, you do not want to implicate that a by Zagreb and Belgrade standardized language was used in medieval Bosnia. Using the term Serbo-Croatian, regarding the previously mentioned process of its creation, does exactly that. I have neverthless added secondary sources for both, one of them being by Bosnian-born prof. dr. Ivo Pranjkovic, a well known linguist. As the term "croatian" has been used at that time referring to the language that was spoken in medieval Bosnia (see primary sources) it isn`t a "projection of modern-day political squabbles". The opinion that the language used in medieval Bosnia should and can still be called like that is widespread amongst linguists, as you can see from the secondary sources. My idea would be not to disregard historical circumstances and list Serbo-Croatian as common language, but having Bosnian and Croatian with their matching sources below it as a sub-item (Similar to how for example the Bosnian language is listed under "Language family" on its wikipedia article) I think that this would neither confuse the reader nor ignore the opinion of given linguists and primary sources. StjepanGr. (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:AGE MATTERS, as we don't use sources that are hundreds of years old. Tezwoo (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, we should concentrate on further improving the article, and maybe have it nominated for Good Article. Guild of Copy Editors helped (many thanks again Tdslk) and made the article coherent, but it can be still improved. Bickering about language is a non-issue and waste of our time. Mhare (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The language can only be a non-issue if the parameter is removed altogether. Using this article to promote modern-day ideas of language, ethnicity, and nationality is definitely an issue, however. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not sure what to do with these persistent disruptions though. Mhare (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best to remove the language parameter from the infobox for now, it's not even covered in the article body anyway. Tezwoo (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, no Serbian aspect is commonly accepted to have been non-existent in the Kingdom of Bosnia. Which respectable historian could possibly make such an argument when the kingdom encompassed vast areas of modern-day Serbia and Montenegro? Again, we do not use primary sources. Having two names is unavoidably confusing because it suggests the existence of two different languages when, in fact, it is merely the case of that being two out of a multitude of names for the same language. It is also wildly anachronistic to refer to modern-day standard varieties (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and why not Montenegrin too) instead of the abstand language (Serbo-Croatian) in the context of medieval Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Bosnia&oldid=1212562972"