Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AleksandarTomic22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1463-1580[edit]

This time period of Bosnian history is not covered at all. Please discuss in Talk:History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1463–1878)#1463-1580. Mukadderat (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1535 or 1527 instead of 1463[edit]

I'd like to propose changing the date of the "end" of Bosnian Kingdom, from 1463 to either 1527 or 1535. The former is the date of the execution of the last king, and 1535 is the date the Ottomans executed the last Crown-Prince Stjepan Berislavić (see for references). 1527 is when the Ottomans were able to form their first administration, called the Eyalet of Bosnia (check for dates). So 1463 has no relevance -- its either 1527 or 1535, but I opted for 1535 hoping that emotional types won't suffer a heart attack that way, an execution is an execution is... Regionlegion (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The year 1463 is generally (actually always) considered the year when the Kingdom of Bosnia disappeared. The sources say that the Kingdom of Bosnia disappeared in 1463 and Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. For example, The Ottoman Empire: its record and legacy , Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time (by the respected historian Franz Babinger) and many others unambigiously say that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. The last king was deposed and executed in 1463, which meant the fall of the kingdom itself. There was never a crown prince of Bosnia; not only was such title non-existant (and unused by any reliable source), the Kingdom of Bosnia was an elective monarchy meaning that there was never an heir to the crown and there was always vacancy between the death of one king (or queen) and the election of another.
Anyway, books that mention the Kingdom of Bosnia do not even mention the year 1535. Babinger does mention the year 1527 but states that the kingdom which was conquered in 1527 was "Hungarian Kingdom of Bosnia". The Hungarian Kingdom of Bosnia thus might be considered the successor state of the Kingdom and a predecessor of the Eyalet of Bosnia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You talk authoritatively about something you know very little about (it took you five attempts to write up that one paragraph above). I commented once before to your confusion with Bosnia having "elective" monarchy. You are making things up, such a monarchy type does not exist. Instead, Bosnia was an Agnatic type of monarchy, like other countries in the region. (Do check out this Wiki page, there is no mention of "elective" monarchy). Next, you call reliable only references available to you. How many other languages do you speak besides English? Very reliable references are listed on Berislavić page that are not in English (sorry if you can't find them on Google as your source), and that tell about the Crown-Prince Stjepan Berislavić. (Non-English references are perfectly OK as far as the English Wiki regulations are concerned -- please respect this before you try reverting again). By the way, your assertion that the title of "Crown-Prince" did not exist in Bosnia is unfounded: such a title never exists per se, unless there is a living person who happens to be the first in the line of succession, which is what Stjepan Berislavić was according to the mentioned references. The "Hungarian Kingdom of Bosnia" was due to an empty title and you know it, meaning the appointee (a Hungarian magnate Duke of Transylvania and Count of Srem Miklós Újlaki installed by King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary in 1471) never visiting Bosnia until his death in 1477. In response, the Sultan installed Matija Vojsalić from the House of Hrvatinić as the "King of Ottoman Bosnia", in 1472 until his removal due to conspiring with King Corvinus against the Sultan. He was the last from his House, and neither of the two pretends had actually assumed the throne, neither in Bosnia nor in exile. So Kingdom of Bosnia had become Princedom of Bosnia (read the definition, don't take my word for it) automatically on the execution of the last crowned king in 1463. But the Turkish ruler of Bosnia, who also happened to be the Sultan's grandson and understand what the line of succession meant, was not satisfied with Stjepan Berislavić's siding with the Ottomans in battle only; he wanted him also to convert to Islam so that the line of succession to a Christendom throne breaks. When Berislavić refused, the Sultan's personal guards murdered him in sleep, in 1535. It's clear there cannot be a gap between 1463 and 1527 as the empty appointees were without right to succession. When it comes to monarchies you should forget "elective" monarchies, there is only the thing called the line of succession. For all practical purposes (and an encyclopedia is certainly the most practical form of writing) Princedom of Bosnia is the same as Kingdom of Bosnia. Turks knew this very well, otherwise they would have created their first administration in 1463. Instead, they had to defeat the resistance up north led by Berislavićs first, and deal with breaking the Bloodline. Only then were they able to form their first Eyalet of Bosnia. Regionlegion (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not insulted you and you shouldn't insult me. Rude people insult others for no reason. It didn't take me five times to write what I wrote because I "know very little about " this. It took me five times to explain it to you and I still haven't succeeded, so the problem is obviously in you. Which Wikipedia are you talking about? By claiming that elective monarchies did not exist (though they still exist and have existed in Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Holy Roman Empire, etc), you prove that you have no idea what are you talking about (and that you either can't search Wikipedia or that you do not tell truth when you say that "there is no mention of "elective" monarchy" in this Wikipedia). If Bosnia had been hereditary monarchy that followed agnatic primogeniture (as you claim it was), Jelena Gruba would have never ascended the throne. Other rulers would have never ascended the throne either, as no rule was followed (the sovereign was once succeeded by his distant relative, once by his widow, twice by his illegitimate son, once by his illegitimate half-brother, etc). I refer to English language references because people who do not speak English may want to participate in this discussion. I speak Bosnian language and I can give you as many sources as you want that are in Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian. Please provide a link to the source you cite. It seems to me that your source is a mere magazine and as such it is certainly not as reliable as Franz Babinger's works are. Non-English references are OK as long as they are reliable. My assertion regarding the title of Crown Prince of Bosnia is not unfounded; no reliable source mentions the title, therefore it is safe to assume that the title never existed and should not be mentioned. It is well established that a claim that is not supported by any source must not be included in a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, there are no lines of successions in an elective monarchy - that is why it is elective. What is the line of succession to the Papacy? "The Kingdom of Bosnia became Princedom of Bosnia"? This is made up and makes no sense. Was the Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1946) a princedom? Certainly not. A princedom is a state ruled by a sovereign prince. Read the article. Don't tell me to forget about my knowledge. You get to tell me that when I tell you to learn something. Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're wasting your time trying to make it personal, as I'm not falling for that. Five times were as follows: @ 14:22 14:26 14:26 14:27 14:34. So do tell me about nervousness or agenda, if not ignorance. Second, please don't play the amnesia game either, because I talked about Bosnia and its monarchy being of the same (agnatic) type as the neighborhood. What do those outside countries have to do with this, not to mention that most of the examples of elective monarchy are outside Europe (see the page you cite), or should I say outside the Earth (Star Wars fiction). Third, the term "elective monarchy" refers mostly to the "tradition" known to men since the Roman Empire and before, of overturning the ruler by coup d'état. Fourth, the wiki page you cite says literally: "In a hereditary monarchy, election may occasionally be used to fill a vacant throne". So you shot yourself in the foot -- the Gruba example is precisely that, an example which confirms the rule. Fifth, don't put words in my mouth: I never said that "Kingdom of Hungary" was a Princedom, I said (repeat) the Kingdom of Bosnia became the Princedom of Bosnia automatically on the execution of its last crowned king. That's simply how it works in hereditary monarchies. If Stjepan Berislavić was not a sovereign, then the Ottomans would have most certainly ignored the post-1463 resistance, the Berislavićs, and would have established their first administration already in 1463, not in 1527. But they couldn't ignore all that, could they. Sixth: shame that you can read Bosnian yet you don't (read references in Bosnian, as shown on Berislavić page, to name a few). Seventh: "Mere magazine"? What's your point, that a scientific journal is worthless if it's a magazine? Nature journal is considered a magazine too: "Nature, first created in 1869, was not the first magazine of its kind." (read that page). Since you keep pushing an agenda, dismiss scientific references as if you're a Nature editor for history (if they had History section), acting as a "science judge" who tells what's reliable and what isn't, and refuse to use logics, I should not consider your contribution to this topic useful. You're way too emotional, which prevents you from thinking logically. The key here is the gap between 1463 and 1535 (1527). To make it easier for you: in chess moves it went like this:
Bosnia = Elective Monarchy;
Beheaded King = Crown-Prince;
Crown-Prince siding with the Ottomans = the first Ottoman Eyalet;
Crown-Prince go Muslim or beheaded = the end of royal bloodline = Christendom monarchy end.
Regionlegion (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make it personal? This discussion is our first interaction and the first thing you've said to me is that I "talk authoritatively about something" I "know very little about". Yet you claim that I am trying to make it personal. Unbelievable. Have you even seen what I changed in those 5 edits? Have I removed any sentence because I was insecure? No, I just kept adding. How can you interpret that as ignorance? What (save for lack of manners) gives you right to call me ignorant after my first comment? Anyway, you are the one who shouldn't play the "amnesia game", as you clearly linked the word agnatic to agnatic primogeniture article, thus claiming that the crown of Bosnia passed according to agnatic primogeniture. "What do those outside countries have to do with this" - those countries have been mentioned just to prove how little you know. Don't you remember when you claimed that "such a monarchy type [elective monarchy] does not exist" and that there is no mention of an elective monarchy in the whole Wikipedia? How can you pretend to be so naive? No, elective monarchy has nothing to do with depositions of monarchs. If you go read something, you will learn that the new sovereign of Vatican is elected after the death of his predecessor (or do you claim that the Bishops of Rome are deposed by Grim Reaper or whoever?), that the new monarch of the Holy Roman Empire was elected after the death of his predecessor, that the new monarch of Poland was elected after the death of his predecessor and that the new monarch of Bosnia was elected after the death of his predecessor. Now why do you only cite those parts of text that suit you and omit those that contradict you? Why, for example, have you omitted the reasons for electing a new monarch of a hereditary monarchy? The page clearly says that elections in hereditary monarchies occur only when the royal family becomes extinct or when the royal family is deposed. Are you claiming that the House of Kotromanić died out in 1395? Or are you claiming that Stephen Dabiša was deposed and that that is the reason why Jelena was elected? Regarding your fifth point, I have never said that you mentioned the Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1946); when you find me misquoting you, you may rightfully say that I am putting words into your mouth. Mentioning the Kingdom of Hungary (1920-1946) was my point and I raised it because you claim that the Kingdom of Bosnia became a princedom (?!) after the execution of its last king, which makes no sense, because other kingdoms (and Bosnia itself prior to 1463) were left without a king. That's not how it works in any hereditary monarchy; was Portugal a princedom during the 1383–1385 Crisis? No. Was England a princedom between 23 December 1688 and 13 February 1689? No. So what are you talking about? Please cite a source that says that Bosnia was a princedom after 1463. You can't expect anyone to take your word for such a dubious claim. The source you cite is undoubtly surpassed by the several sources I have cited and will cite if you want me to. I want you to cite more sources because one source is certainly not enough to change something that all the other sources agree on. Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You again don't address the topic but offer verbose instead. I'm talking dates in Bosnia's history, and you're going circles from Vatican to Roman Empire to Poland to Portugal to England... What does 1395 now has to do with the date when the Ottomans set up their first administration in Bosnia (1527)? Even if real, the cardboard-kingdom of "Hungarian Bosnia" lasted between 1471-1477 (see Wikipedia links above, related to that episode). So even if I grant you that, there is still a gap 1477-1527. That’s half a century minimum, man! So the gap must be filled, as the Ottomans obviously didn’t control whole Bosnia until 1527. I don't have to provide references to prove something which isn't, the burden of proof is with those who want to prove something which is. (If it were the other way around there would now be "pyramids in Bosnia" but luckily Mr. Sam Osmanagich's wild imagination alone didn't suffice). The same applies to you and to all sentimental 1463-types: forget the "elective monarchy" oxymoron. Symbolism of one king’s death is irrelevant: king is not the equivalent of kingdom as kings have heirs via whatever mysterious succession equation and bloodline. Virtually all Bosnian kings were dynasts, relatives of the previous monarch, so that they all are descendants from Ban Boril Borič. Kingdoms don’t end by death of their kings. So as a minimum for your contribution to the topic, please provide references which prove that the administration of the Kingdom of Bosnia was replaced in 1463 by the Ottoman Turkey occupying administration. Only then can we speak of end of Kingdom of Bosnia in 1463. If you can't come up with such references within say a week, then it seems you have nothing else to say on this topic. I really can't keep repeating myself; simply not interested in anybody’s sentimental feelings about 1463. Facts only. In history this means dates no matter how cold it may sound to anybody's feelings or whether you perceive some author as the authority who has final word (imagine that) on when a kingdom ended while ignoring historic dates. Regionlegion (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I address every silly argument you make. Mentioning Vatican, Holy Roman Empire (not Roman Empire, who mentioned Roman Empire?!), and others serves to show that elective monarchies do exist and have existed; you claim that elective monarchy does not exist, proving that you are the one who is ignorant (not me, like you said while offending me for no reason). You seem to be ignore my response whenever I prove that your argument makes no sense and accuse me of not addressing the topic; I guess personal attacks on another user are now considered staying on topic. Again, you do not even know the basic facts. You claim that virtually every Bosnian monarch was related to other Bosnian monarchs. Was Jelena Gruba a relative of any other Bosnian monarch? Certainly not, otherwise we would be talking about pedigree collapse which was not common in medieval Bosnia. If Bosnia had been a hereditary monarchy whose crown was hereditary among agnatic descendants of a certain ruler (as you claim), what was the succession rule? The succession did not follow agnatic primogeniture nor agnatic seniority, or rota system for that matter. Which rule allows the (probably illegitimate) cousin of a monarch to succeed when the monarch has legitimate and illegitimate sons and then allows the widow of that ilegitimate cousin to succeed and then asigns the crown to the illegitimate (not the legitimate) son of the first king and then (after several depositions) asigns the crown to that ruler's legitimate son and then to the first ruler's legitimate son and that to the younger (not the elder) illegitmate son of the illegitimate son of the first monarch and so on. The answer is: there was nor rule! A new monarch was elected. The powerful Bosnian nobility elected the monarch. "I don't have to provide references to prove something which isn't, the burden of proof is with those who want to prove something which is. " Oh, so you expect Wikipedia community to trust you even though you refuse to cite sources? For example, we are supposed to believe that elective monarchies have never existed (and that the term elective monarchy is an oxymoron) just because you say so? Are we supposed to ignore facts and the entire existance of the (Holy) Roman Empire and other elective monarchies just because you say that elective monarchies did not exist? Good luck with that. Kingdoms don’t end by death of their kings. They don't become princedoms either, which is what you claim they become. I am not going to lead this silly discussion with you. Your last sentences make so little sense (no sense actually) that they cause headaches. Anyway, sources say that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. Unless you provide enough reliable sources that say otherwise, the date will not be changed.

Here is a small number of sources that unambiguously state that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463:

  1. Glasnik Jugoslovenskog Profesorskog Drustva; 1933
  2. Bakir Tanović: Ko je vlasnik Bosne i Hercegovine?: historijski pregled; Eminex, 1995
  3. Mate Ujević: Gradišćanski Hrvati; Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Jeronima, 1934
  4. Senahid Halilović: Bosanski jezik; Biblioteka Ključanin, 1991
  5. Oton Knezović: Hrvatska povijest: od najstarijeg do godine 1918; Jeronimska knjižnica, 1936
  6. Hrvatsko kolo; Matica hrvatska, 1909
  7. Bošnjaštvo na vjetrometini; BiH kulturno-informativni centar, 2000
  8. Hazim Šabanović: Bosanski pašaluk: postanak i upravna podjela; Oslobođenje, 1959
  9. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije; Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod, 1980
  10. Ideološki i politološki aspekti propasti bosanskog kraljevstva 1463. godine; Sarajevo, 1985 - interesting, the name of the source itself says that the Kingdom of Bosnia was destroyed in 1463
  11. Mustafa Imamović: Historija države i prava Bosne i Hercegovine; 1999
  12. Pejo Ćošković: Crkva bosanska u XV. stoljeću; Institut za istoriju, 2005
  13. Vjekoslav Klaić: Poviest Bosne do propasti kraljevstva; Troškom piščevim, 1882
  14. L. von Südland, Fedor Pucek: Južnoslavensko pitanje: prikaz cjelokupnog pitanja; Hrvatska Demokratska Stranka, 1990
  15. Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu: Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju; Institut, 2004
  16. Dominik Mandić: Herceg-Bosna 1 Hrvatska: prigodom 500-godisnjice pada Bosne (1463-1963); Hrvatske Revije, 1963
  17. Mladen Lorković: Narod i zemlja Hrvata; DoNeHa, 1996
  18. Croatica Christiana Periodica; Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1985
  19. Džemal Čelić, Mehmed Mujezinović: Stari mostovi u Bosni i Hercegovini; Sarajevo-Publishing, 1998
  20. Sveučilište u Zagrebu. Institut za hrvatsku povijest: Radovi; 1995
  21. Matica; Matica iseljenika Hrvatske, 1983
  22. Enver Imamović, Ibrahim Tepić, Ibrahim Bušatlija: Neum i bosansko primorje; Press Centar Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, 1994
  23. Vjekoslav Klaić, Trpimir Macan: Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća; Nakladni zavod MH, 1981
  24. Sveučilište u Zagrebu. Institut za hrvatsku povijest: Radovi; 1995
  25. Ferdo Šišić: Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda; Matica hrvatska, 1962
  26. Danko Plevnik: Smisao Bosne‎, page 82; Naklada Jesenski i Turk, 1997
  27. Nijazija Koštović: Sarajevo između dobrotvorstva i zla; El-Kalem, 1995
  28. Dragutin Pavličević: Krbavska bitka i njezine posljedice; Hrvatska matica iseljenika, 1997
  29. Sabrana djela Dr. O. Dominika Mandića: Bosna i Hercegovina : Sv. 1. Državna i vjerska pripadnost sredovječne Bosne i Hercegovine; Ziral, 1978
  30. Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Ćirila i Metoda: Marulić; 1995
  31. Enver Imamović: Otoci Cres i Lošinj od ranog srednjeg vijeka do konca XVIII stoljeća; OK SSRN Cres-Lošinj, 1987
  32. Tadija Smičiklas: Dvijestogodišnjica oslobodjenja Slavonije; U knjižari Jugosl. akademije, 1891
  33. Ivo Smoljan: Neretva; 1970
  34. Radovi Centra Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru; 1983
  35. Madžida Bećirbegović: Džamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini; Veselin Masleša, 1990
  36. Smail Balić: Kultura bošnjaka: muslimanska komponenta; Universitätsbuchdrucker Adolf Holzhausens, 1973
  37. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini; Zemaljska štamparija, 1912
  38. Alija Isaković, Milosav Popadić: Pisana riječ u Bosni i Hercegovini od najstarijih vremena do 1918. godine; IRO "Veselin Masleša." OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost, 1982
  39. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini; Zemaljska štamparija, 1893
  40. Enver Imamović: Korijeni Bosne i bosanstva: izbor novinskih članaka, predavanja sa javnih tribina, referata sa znanstvenih skupova i posebnih priloga; Međunarodni centar za mir, 1995
  41. Safvet-beg Bašagić: Bošnjaci i Hercegovci u islamskoj književnosti: prilog kulturnoj historiji Bosne i Hercegovine; "Svjetlost," OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost, 1986
  42. Žarko Domljan, Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod "Miroslav Krleža": Likovna enciklopedija Jugoslavije; Zavod "Miroslav Krleža", 1984
  43. Branislav Đurđev: Kanuni i kanun-name za Bosanski, Hercegovački, Zvornički, Kliški, Crnogorski i Skadarski sandžak; Orijentalni Inst., 1957
  44. Hrvatska smotra: nacionalni, socijalni i knijževni mjesečnik; 1940
  45. Ivan Lovrenovič, Ammiel Alcalay: Unutarnja zemlja: kratki pregled kulturne povijesti Bosne i Hercegovine; Durieux, 2004
  46. Robert Holjevac: Ivan Stojković i njegovo doba: (u svjetlu borbe za jedinstvo Crkve i carigradske misije); Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2004
  47. Radoslav Lopašić: Bihać i Bihaćka Krajina: mjestopisne i poviestne crtice; Matica hrvatska, 1943
  48. Povijesno društvo Hrvatske: Historijski zbornik; Nakladni zavod Hrvatske, 1992
  49. Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti. Zavod za povijesne znanosti u Dubrovniku: Anali Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Dubrovniku; Akademija, 2002

If you need more, I'll be happy to cite more. At the moment, 49 sources say that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463 and one person (Regionlegion and Bosnipedian) says that the Kingdom of Bosnia did not cease to exist in 1463. Since the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, 1463 should remain. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Regionlegion. The side that merely cites data (here: dates) does not have to prove a thing, regardless of opinions even if someone published theirs (often: especially because someone publishes theirs). The side trying to turn an alleged (unsupported by data) state of matter into the factual one, must furnish a proof to that effect. In this case it means that if a source does not report on any administration existing on a territory between years X-Y, then it would be a legal precedent to accept that there was a gap. Regime transitions in history always have exact dates. This is because the new regime always keeps record of when it began, the replaced ones never keeps record of its end. The latter is then conventionally taken as the transition date. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using sockpuppets is strictly prohibited. Are you expecting me to believe that Bosnipedian and Regionlegion are not the same person? That would be hard because Regionlegion said that he had already commented to my "confusion with Bosnia having elective monarchy" - actually, the user who did this was Bosnipedian. See evidence. You cannot deceive me. Surtsicna (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are but you sound like frustrated after losing in a debate. You say you know Bosnian, should I now accuse you of actually being a Bosnian with an agenda? You lost; it's not 1463, so you should get over it. And I'm not regonlegion, so try to come up with something better. What a funny character my god. Bosnipedian (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sure have no idea who I am. If you did know, I would be worried for my safety. I am frustrated because you are trying to deceive people in order to achieve your goal. Other than that, I am quite happy because I have proven that all of your ignorant comments (the claim that elective monarchies have never existed being my favourite) make no sense. You call yourself Bosnipedian (well, on one account at least), should I accuse you of actually being a Bosnian with an agenda? Funny thing, Regionlegion also accused me of having an agenda - so far, Regionlegion and Bosnipedian are the only two accounts I know of that accuse people of having an agenda. Hmmm. If you are not a sockpuppet or sockmaster, can you explain to me when did Regionlegion comment on my "confusion with Bosnia having 'elective' monarchy"? He said he did so he either lied or you are his sockpuppet. Now, if I had lost, the article about the Kingdom of Bosnia now wouldn't say that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. Since it still correctly says that it ceased to exist in 1463, it is clear that I didn't lose. I hope you'll be able to get over it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew was that a threat? Amuzing. (Will you please stop making changes to your post every 2 minutes so there are no editing conflicts and I can write something too? Thanks). I just had a look at your "list of references", above. Most of them are really romantic. They lost their king! Oh my god, so sorry to hear that. The end of the world! Not. (That is if I too thought that science was done by weight of books, and not by weight of argument.) Often you can find examples where tons of books on a subject are all sentimental in that one specific regard, such as the issue of "1463 fall of Bosnia", especially in non-exact sciences (when you think about it, none of your references actually defines a fall). You seem to belong in that flock, stubborn and unshaken by reason. Look, science is not done by consensus, like democracy. It takes one person to knock down what thousands were saying before that. Just look at what is going on with climatology. (Are you like that guy who edited thousands of Wikipedia pages to fit the global warming alarmists' agenda, and was banned last month from Wikipedia permanently?) I do not think it is regionlegion's mistake that he/she pointed to you the obvious. I cannot but agree with him/her once again: there can be no legal/administrative gap between 1463 and 1535, and I as well as regonlegion do not care what 10 million (mostly local) references would want us to believe. End of the discussion, for me at least. Bosnipedian (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A threat? Where? I will make as many changes I want to make because I care about spelling, as I find it amusing. Yeah, sure, we should ignore 50 references that range from the 19th century to the 21st century, whose authors rarely agree on anything yet they agree that the Bosnian Kingdom disappeared in 1463, just because you believe they are romantic. If it only were that easy. BTW, history is not a science. For the last time: nobody will ignore what sources say in favour of what you say. Besides, how do you know what Regionlegion thinks about my references? Do you happen to share a brain? Seeing you getting trapped in the net of your own lies is so amusing. Too bad you didn't try to explain to me when did Regionlegion comment on my "confusion with Bosnia having 'elective' monarchy". Anyway, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Surtsicna (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The z was a game of words, a crossing between amusing and amazing. Not everyone gets every joke, all the time. But that is telling too. History is listed under Social sciences, unless you edit that one too. And so on... No time for you any more, sorry man. Bosnipedian (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your comment about elective monarchies being made-up by me was also a joke. If not, that is very telling. History is also listed under Humanities (first under Humanities and then under Social sciences). But weren't you done with this discussion? I mean, weren't you done with using that account in this discussion? Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also interesting that you mention 10 million (mostly local) references. It sounds as if you consider "local" references to be inferior to "foreign" references, even though your own (only) reference is a "local " reference. Anyway, I can provide more than enough English language references (and other "foreign" references) but you'll still tag them as "emotional", "sentimental" or whatever. For example, you would probably dismiss Halil İnalcık, aa leading Turkish historian of the Ottoman Empire, and his work (which says that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463) as "emotional" and "sentimental". Not to mention other works (this one being on the top of my head). But they are all too "emotional" and "sentimental", aren't they? Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked the source Bosnipedian/Regionlegion cited. It can be seen here. It never refers to anyone as Crown Prince of Bosnia, as Bosnipedian/Regionlegion claims. It does not even mention Bosnia when talking about Stjepan Berislavić. Furthermore, the source Bosnipedian/Regionlegion cites says that Stjepan Berislavić was executed in 1536, not in 1535 as Bosnipedian/Regionlegion claims. So, not only is Bosnipedian/Regionlegion saying that a source mentions what it does not mention, but he also unexplainably claims that Stjepan Berislavić died a year before the source claims he died. Does he care to explain to us why he made these false claims? Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chetniks are 'believed' to have collaborated?[edit]

An IP editor, (User:99.88.140.98) has edited this article describing the Chetniks as 'a Serb nationalist and royalist movement that is believed to have collaborated with the Nazis'. They collaborated with the Axis and NDH, and there is overwhelming evidence for this. See the Chetniks article for more information. I am reverting these edits. I have not edited this article before, but have been drawn here by the editing history of this IP editor, who also blanked a section of the Srebrenica massacre article in the last few days. Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/bosniaandherzegovina.html
    Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016 merge[edit]

There was a merge proposal since April 2016 to merge History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1918–41) to this article. I have added the tag here so that editors can discuss. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Too big to be merged--OddsBodkins (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this arguing over details, meanwhile nobody cares that there isn't even an introduction! Typical Wikinonsense.--OddsBodkins (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support merge; the History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1918–41) page is almost identical to the current 1918-41 page on the main section and should certainly be merged. Klbrain (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Klbrain (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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) 02:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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) 15:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=1194065404"