This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banate of Bosnia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Banate of Bosnia is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
1. The name of the state is Banate of Bosnia, right?
2. It's part of Hungarian kingdom, although it has de facto independent rulers.
3. It's vassal, not jus an ally to Hungary.
Feel free to discuss, I hope, we will solve this problems fast. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TU-nor:, I am not sure how well you understand this pushing of a version that has narrow support among Croatian nationalist. But they are just copying stuff from CW, where they like to quote portals and dead links. This is really wrong what they are doing, I hope that senior editors that worked on medieval Bosnian articles will come and put a stop to this Mikola and Čeha's unscientific pushing for wording. Mhare (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, I understand what you are saying. The problem is that this is given as a direct quotation, and in a direct quote we are not allowed to change the text. As long as the source is accepted as a WP:RS, we have no choice but to quote it verbatim (with a best possible translation). That was why I asked Mikola22 to put the original non-English text into the note.
There is, however, another point to consider. Wikipedia is not very fond of lengthy direct quotes, but prefers paraphrasing per MOS:QUOTE. Then the main points of the quotation can be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and the full quote with translation can be placed in the note. --T*U (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TU-nor, naming Hungarian king as Croat-Hungarian king is erroneous as Hungarian king had many other titles. I really don't like this, they are pushing it, and it reminds me of a quote on Serbian Wikipedia about Bosnia: The Kingdom of Bosnia represents the third period in the development of a Serbian feudal state called Bosnia, in the Middle Ages.
This is the same agenda. They will call the Hungarian king as Croatian-Hungarian king, so to some readers, it might seem that some Croatian king ruled vassal entity Bosnia. You already probably know that Mikola ended in quite a few edit wars and noticeboards, and Čeha was blocked for similar pushing (I think the guy has more than 10 blocks in his history) and I don't want to be in the same boat. This is wrong name for a Hungarian king and Hungarian kingdom. Hungary-Croatia is just the name they like to give to the Hungarian Kingdom, and it should not be translated like that, as I already said, then we can add all other domains to the name of the Kingdom which is ridiculous. Mhare (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare, I still understand, but as Wikipedia editors we have no choice in the matter. If a source is accepted as a reliable source, it is admissible, and if we quote it, we have no choice but to quote it correctly. I still think the paraphrasing option is the best way forward. --T*U (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mikola22, leave it sure, but don't push that terminology dude. If you want that, please go to Kingdom of Hungary and change its name to what you think is right. Maybe start another noticeboard, huh? Mhare (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mhare Take a book "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans" go to article about Croatia and start entering facts from that book and we see how that flies? Mikola22 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see my actions on any Croatian article!? I only see your pesty nationalistic editing across several articles. And of course, noticeboards, putting original research, etc. You unacademic bunch :)))) Mhare (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed book "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans" and this is according to majority RS, and I respect that, why don't you respect this source(Milko Brković)? As for "putting original research" original scientific article or izvorni znanstveni članak is not original research. It is important that an article was published in reviewed journals and when this is checked then we will know whether some source is original research. Mikola22 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was away for some hours and seem to have missed the fireworks. I will assume good faith and ignore the mutual hotspot comments. I have tried to balance the presentattion and have consolidated the note, including the English translation. Could we now please calm down and focus on content? --T*U (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just marvel at this sentence: as an Hungarian ally.[3] He was involved in offensives against the Byzantines as vassal of Hungary-Croatian King, in alliance with Hungary
At first, he is an ally, then vassal, then ally.
Hungary-Croatian King is just terminology that some scholars use to refer to Hungarian kings, who was also a King of Croatia and Dalmatia, hence the Hungary-Croatian king. But you can be sure, it was always a Hungarian king. He will push it as a "direct translation". Even Croatia in union with Hungary#Name article does not mention this terminology. I would like to ask Hungarian editors what they think about naming their kings in this way. This is Wikipedia that should correspond with a global overview, not a narrow and sometimes very problematic view (as in, claiming Bosnia was Croatian, Serbian and etc.) Mhare (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source I cited says Hungary-Croatian King not a kingdom. Otherwise English wikipedia says this "Borić (fl. 1154–63) was the first known Ban of Bosnia as a Hungarian vassal." In the books he is mentioned and as vassal what do we do now, hide that fact? We must respect book and source. Call Hungarian editors and let's see what they says about Ban Boric and Ban Ninoslav. "Siege of Szigetvár, army "2,300–3,000 Croats and Hungarians" "Habsburg Empire, Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Hungary[1]Nikola IV Zrinski was a Croatian-Hungarian nobleman and general, Ban of Croatia.[2]Mikola22 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikola22:, you should consider that you have reverted parts of the text more than four times at this point, and that your edits could and should be considered reverts even if you are masking them with additional prose per single edit. It is usual procedure to warn editor on such behavior prior to reporting at AN for 3RR situation, but I would like to try to make argument here first, before posting a warning on editor's TP on eventual drastic AN report - there is no consensus on choosing to call Hungarians in such an unusual manner. We could say that Hungarian kingdom is more than Hungarian-Croatian, after all it was a kingdom which royal intitulation included various other polities, peoples and entities.--౪ Santa ౪99°21:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's how you perceiving how wikipedia works. Also, you have fought tooth and nail here on this AN for RS, in attempt to discredit John Fine completely, and now brazenly calling him "legitimate" and "your historian".--౪ Santa ౪99°21:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly getting out of hand. What a sad turn of events. Mikola, about every article you touch ends up in DR and edit wars. Mhare (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikola22:, I have placed a warning message at your TP, but I would like to ask you if you would please revert your last edit, as you have no consensus on naming that entity in that manner?--౪ Santa ౪99°22:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm just a reader and have no experience editing wiki articles. I only noticed that there was a line in the article that is possibly mistaken: "John of Wildeshausen, then Master General of the Dominican Order and later declared a saint." I could not find confirmation of this bishop's canonization in the Catholic Church, and that is what the sentence appears to imply. He was thought saintly, but apparently he was not canonized (as far as I can see). The separate article on the bishop says as much, and after a cursory search I could not find other sources to indicate otherwise. Smolderingwick (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
