Talk:Bosnia (early medieval)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Bosnia (early medieval). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Requested move 21 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bosnia (early medieval polity). There was a rough consensus for a move to this title. The RM process is not the place to discuss mergers, and users are free to either merge the content boldly or to start a conversation on a merge. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Bosnia (Early Middle Ages) → Bosnia in the Early Middle Ages – The current disambiguator is not right. See WP:NCDAB. Natural disambiguation is preferred and the disambiguator is not a class to which Bosnia belongs. At best, it is the context, but in that case natural disambiguation is better. Srnec (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, this article is not about the Bosnia region in the early middle ages, but a polity far smaller than Bosnia which existed in the early middle ages (hence brackets).--Zoupan 00:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The brackets do nothing at all to clarify that. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

They do a lot more than your suggestion. See Romania in the Early Middle Ages and Banat in the Middle Ages.--Zoupan 02:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per User:Zoupan. This article is not about the medieval history of the modern state of Bosnia (& H) but about a small region that happened to be called Bosnia. If a move is required, something like Bosnia (early medieval polity) would work better. — AjaxSmack 01:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Better yet, as short as it is, why not merge it into ~~Bosnia in the Middle Ages~~ Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages? — AjaxSmack 01:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  - Disagree as per scope–Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Middle Ages. I am planning to expand this article anyways.--Zoupan 02:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
    - My bad. Corrected. — AjaxSmack 19:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Merge per AjaxSmack. The current title is really bad, it doesn't describe what the topic is. Something like Bosnia (early medieval polity) would be better, but given that this article is only a short stub, it may as well be contained within the general history article for the modern state, as part of the history of that area. — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Assuming this doesn't get merged, some kind of move needs to happen to make it clear this article is not about Bosnia in the middle ages, but about a quasi-state called Bosnia that existed in that time. I would be OK with Amakuru's suggestion of Bosnia (early medieval polity). Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja

Wikipedia article says about Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja this: Historians have largely discounted the work based on inaccuracies and fiction, nevertheless it contains some semi-mythological material on the early history of the Western South Slavs yet it is used as a source. Can somebody point me to official stance about this? Also, Ceha you just put up quote that isn't in English (?!). I will clean the mess. Mhare (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, Fine should be avoided, his historical POV has been critisized a lot https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 .

As for LJPD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_the_Priest_of_Duklja His chronicles from 10th century were never called inaccurate. I'll put back the source, but with english translation.

--Čeha (razgovor) 13:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will not contest it, but it is my duty to inform readers that it is a unreliable source (please check referenced claim on Wikipedia page about the Chronicle, where the first sentence is: Various inaccurate or simply wrong claims in the text make it an unreliable source.) as per my quote above. Furthermore, your statement is highly problematic, regarding John Van Antwerp Fine, as it is one of the most quoted authors on Medieval Balkans here on English Wikipedia. I will find appropriate place to address your unscientific approach as this disregards few of the core principles of Wikipedia. I am glad that you spilled it here, so everybody can see. Mhare (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not my statment, this is a an scientific paper of Neven Budak, have you read it? https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Fine is very bias in his book, he even suggests that medieval Croatia should be renamed in Velebitia, and is talking about 20th century nationalisms in medieval book. And Neven Budak is not a nationalis. --Čeha (razgovor) 18:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Just two things:

Bar's Chronicle is certainly a fable mixed with some folk-narratives, and few grains of truth and re-interpretation. Only authoritative scholar can parse through such fables and discern what can be seen as possibly connected to the reality and what not. However, important thing is that it can't be used as source in wikipedia by and on itself alone, because it's a WP:PRIMARY source - editors can only use its interpretation by credible authoritative scholars, because their interpretation is than for wikipedia a WP:SECONDARY source.
John A. Fine is mainstream historian, and his credibility for wikipedia is indisputable, and any editor who believe that Fine can be disputed as such is wrong and their argument unacceptable. All scientists and/or their individual work or entire opus, especially those working in social sciences, are peer-reviewed and criticized all the time. Just because Budak had some objections on one of Fines books isn't valid reason for dispute of author's credibility and usage of his work - by the way Budak review is actually positive, and only some aspect of that one book was critically commented as being shaky. If editor believe that Fine is disputable as source, than proper avenue exists for that - namely AN for sources or "Reliable sources Noticeboard" - and that's the only appropriate way, everything else is blatant disruption bordering on vandalism!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Just reply:

Bar's Chronicle is not a fairy tale, althouth it has some legendary parts. To my knowledge, there is no source which denies Croatian rule in Upper Bosnia (and Soli) territories, common border with Bulgaria (and later Byzantium), during Trpimirović Dynasty.--Čeha (razgovor) 19:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine's book When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans is according to Budak and Vdović;

Fineova knjiga ne može ni na koji način zaslužiti pozitivnu ocjenu. Fine's book cannot in any way merit a positive review. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

Bilo bi hvalevrijedno kada bi autor, upozoren na sve ove nedostatke, a pogotovo na stav prema Hrvatima i svoju neprikladnu metodologiju, našao snage javno se ograditi od ove knjige. It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

Vođen svojom nacionalističkom predrasudom, Fine je odlučio iskritizirati nekoliko hrvatskih historičarki i historičara, kao netko tko je „nepristran“, međutim, on to nije Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Zato i jest neobično što Fine olako donosi zaključke koji su gotovo nedokazivi, ali i sasvim nelogični. That's why it unusual that Fine easily reaches conclusions that are almost undetectable, but also completely illogical. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

Očigledno je negiranje hrvatskog imena kao nečega što je konstruirao nacionalizam. It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

How can you call that a mainstream historical book? --Čeha (razgovor) 19:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretty bold stuff. We will see how it holds up. You just said that Chronicle > John A. Fine. --Mhare (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

? That is a stance of Croatian historiografy to Fine's book... --Čeha (razgovor) 20:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You said it all. --Mhare (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

First, Ceha doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY source means, and he obviously has no intention to read wikipedia on primaries to learn, nor does he understand WP:SECONDARY either - these are to different categories. Chronicle is primary source and as such can be acceptable on wikipedia only under very specific circumstances, but rarely if ever without reliable secondary source.

Second, so what if you have found Neven Budak review of one Fine's book, do you really believe that that gives you, one of thousands of wikipedia editors, unique right to decide on Fine's credibility? I told you that Budak's review of that very book is mostly positive - but even if it wasn't, so what? One Croatian historian protesting on the fact that he, Fine, most prominent historian on Balkans in English language, thinks that Croatian as well as all other Balkan's ethnicities are political product/invention of late 19th century.

And now Ceha thinks that Neven Budak is one who will decide on Fine's fate alone - but here's various historians (first is of Croatian origins herself), peers of both Budak and Fine, complimenting and praising that very book as one of the best and most important works on the subject in recent times:

You are realy serious? Who is Emily Greble Balić? Who is James P. Krokar, or Cox, John K.? Is any of them even a historian?

I gave you a critisism from 2 (Budak and Vdović, and if you read the articles I gave, you can find others) from professional historians, which are specialised in medieval history. What have you gave? Opinions of whom?

Have you eaven read Fine? He claims nonexistance of Slav ethnics in medieval times. So, you don't even have Boshnians, just Slavs.

Do you know who is Neven Budak? Or Josip Vdović

Have you read who is in Vdović list? https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 Or what Budak has to say? https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

Be just little bit serious, please....

And as for LjPD, plese I'd like to hear why should Croatian rule over Upper Bosnia/Vrhbosna and Northeastern Bosnia/Soli in periods in 10th. and 11th century be disputed? Even Fine quotes this. Have you read the book?--Čeha (razgovor) 22:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The world is a big place, but although include Croatia it doesn't begins in Bjelovar and ends in Glina. You don't have to know every intellectual in the field of historical sciences, you don't even have to hear about all of them. How many people outside Croatia have ever heard of Buadak and Vidovic? Why would any of the 350 million Americans, and as many others across the world whose mother tongue is English, not to mention thousands of students who studied under Fine, even care what some Croatian anonymous like Vidovic and Budak have to say in their reviews about well known and respectable professor of Byzantium and Balkans, J.A. Fine - this is still a wikipedia in English, not in Croatian.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is in objectivity. Those are scientific critics. If a book (or a person) lacks objectivity it doesn't matter how many readers it has. Once again, had you read his book?

And do you realy think that that book is better than all of the historians who wrote before him? Because he contradicts mainstream history in his book. As Budak (and Vdović, and rest) clearly show.

What difference do a language has? Bad book is bad in any language.--Čeha (razgovor) 13:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you Ceha are not here to build encyclopedia. You are stubborn in claiming Fine as unreliable (which again, I will repeat, is very serious thing to say) but then, when you "reached" a compromise with me on Usora article, Fine as a source is OK. I am just thinking how to address this blatant disregard for core principles about Primary and Secondary sources, calling others vandals, and etc. Also, reverting to versions that has original research and seminar papers in it as references. --Mhare (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, I've given you sources which show stance of Croatian historiography towards Fine's book. If you have any problem with that source, I suggest you talk to the authors of those works.

As for Usora article, I didn't notice Fine's book there. Feel free to add the lable unreliable to his book. I gave you a few sources why it should be caled that. The book is very controversial, have you read it?

I'd like to know where is original research in my version of article?

Vandalism is by definition deleting sourced data. And "seminar papers" are scientific works, something that is core source of Wikipedia, what're you talking about? --Čeha (razgovor) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand Wikipedia as a project. --Mhare (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm here for more than 11 years, and you came this year. One of us is clearly wrong. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Great argument there. Keep on going. --Mhare (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Experience is always a good argument ;) Stick around, you might learn something. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As you have certainly learned something.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's your behaviour. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit war

User Santasa erased following sourced data, and here we agreed that he will try to explain it:
Santasa did the folowing:
1.erased the word vasal in the first paragraf (medival Bosnia was a vasal state, almost entire period of it's existance)
2.erased the reference to it's name and labels in DAI
3.erased the reference that it's medieval population is ancestor of todays 3 consitutive people; Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs
4.erased the mention of unreability to fine's book (by Croatian historiografy)
5.erased the mention that Martar was probable Konjic, as Mostar (and Blagaj) were in Zahumlje.
6.erased the mention that Bosnian Core (as today's Bosnia is much greater area, maybe 10 times), and not whole Bosnia was under Serbian rule
7.erased the mention of Croatian rule in 10th and 11th century, and sources about that.
--Čeha (razgovor) 19:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is my statement regarding this edit war, and my main concerns and in my view problematic trends. This is not a start of new discussion.

Presenting WP:PRIMARY sources that are largely discounted because inaccuracies and fiction as authoritative (that is this source, which was inserted in this edit)
Tagging without any argumentation book of John A. Fine as unreliable, which is WP:SECONDARY, and is peer-reviewed. (we have numerous claims on this talk page)
Calling historians as "not pro-Croatian" and "communist" (there)
Calling other editors vandals (history of this page is full of that, also here, here and here)
Putting Original research and Term papers into article(s) and reverting to that version (this version with less references, and with references that included Original research papers and Term papers of some students)

This is why I believe Ceha is WP:NOTHERE. Santasa versions always included proper references in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines and policy (he will probably present his case about that). And that to me is WP:HERE. --Mhare (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Another reason I believe this is WP:NOTHERE are latest Ceha "additions" to the encyclopedia here and here. Changes are comedical, like changing Bosnia to Banate, his lands, and other changes in similar pattern. --Mhare (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_the_Priest_of_Duklja that part of chronicle is deemed trustworthy. Mhare shows complite lack of good faith here.

2. Fine's book is unrealible, according to here qouted works of Croatian historiography: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957 https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847

3. Each person's CV talks of somebodies work. Unfortunately, some persons are unrealible, not anyone's book is deemed credencial.

4. Removing sourced work without explanation is called vandalism

5. ? I did not include those works in the article

Unfortunatley, users MHare and Santasa are showing gaming behavior, little or no interest in working collaboratevly with others, treating editing as battleground, and general pattern of disruptive behavior, as I could find on WP:NOTHERE. --Čeha (razgovor) 14:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

And that behaviour started at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_Croatia , unfortunately is just speeding up. Historical articles should not be place for someone's ideologies. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Two users haven't even bother to respond to edit war part of TP, it seems that the guys aren't interested in any discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare: I have some personal work to attend to, so I am going to quickly say that your summary is very good, but any additional inputs are welcomed too. I will try later during the day/night to get some direction on what avenues and other appropriate recourse are possible for situations like this - some could be RfC, ANI, and maybe meta RfC - so, if I get any informations and directions, I will leave a reply here on TP for everyone involved; if not I will leave reply nevertheless. I strongly believe that at this point ANI is only way out of this nightmarish situation, where nobody is allowed to contribute, while articles and even entire topic (Bosnian history) is quite obscure and lack decent number of involved editors. It is beyond obvious that content is not the only issue in case which binds several articles, all on topic of Bosnia and Herzegovina history. If approached with the strong feelings and POV from the perspective of Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian intellectual fringe, irredentism and nationalism, then, most likely, any effort to invoke policies and guidelines, such as basic ones on understanding and respect of WP:Primary sources, WP:Secondary sources, and WP:Tertiary sources, and related WP:Original research, understanding and respect of WP:Reliable sources and who and how is decided what are reliable source and what aren't, is doomed to failure. So, you are absolutely right - this, as it seem, falls under WP:NOTHERE, and I would dare to add WP:TENDENTIOUS and most likely WP:NAT. There are some other possible reasons for such conduct, and I tried to find how wikipedia deals with it, but I couldn't find much, so we have what we have at our disposal. I also expect that as soon as articles get unprotected involved editors will resume their reverts - this is simple statement of fact based on my recent experience on whole string of articles concerning history of Bosnia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC) (Sentence with "content is not the issue" rewritten to "content is not the only issue" on - 18:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC))

Unfortunately, yes. Begining with Turkish Croatia, you User:Santasa99, have begun change of historical articles, unvilligness for discussion, and bad faith. I realy hope there is some way to solve this. Because, after pages are unlocked, as both versions are consider equal, you will continue with your unsourced changes, and lack of will to discuss any of them.

I really tought Mhare was willing to participate in improving wikipedia articles, as we did cooperate in Usora and this article, however, all of that changed with your arrival. Look how many of the agreed changes were "trashed" with your arrival. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=928487426&oldid=928343917 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceha (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, why do you believe that Fine is an unreliable source? Has there been a broad discussion on this somewhere? – bradv🍁 19:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/75847 https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/249957

In uper discussion I added some qoutes from this works, I'll quote just english translation of them here:

Fine's book cannot in any way merit a positive review.

It would be commendable if the author, alert to all these shortcomings, and especially to his attitude towards the Croats and his inappropriate methodology, found strength to publicly distance himself from this book.

Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not.

That's why it unusual that Fine easily reaches conclusions that are almost undetectable, but also completely illogical.

It is obvious denial of the Croatian name as something constructed by nationalism.

His book goes against traditional mainstream historiography of the area, it's very "original" research.

That's why I added the label unreliable source and got such responce from MHare and Santasa, to my great suprise.

If you hadn't read the book, in it Fine suggest replacing the name of Croatian medieval state with Velebitia (area around Velebit mountain), as (according to him) majority of it's residents were not Croat (he sees Croats only as noble elite, so his response is to change state's name). --Čeha (razgovor) 19:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that my acctions caused such upvheal, but I don't see that I've done anything wrong, I just quoted opinion of some prominent Croatian historians of Fine's book, and got this... --Čeha (razgovor) 19:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, @Bradv:, there was no discussion on Fine, and it's highly unlikely that, even if some weird AN on sources gets opened on esteemed professor, that majority of editors on history would respond or allowed that Fine gets "unreliable source" label.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought that @Bradv: is asking about outside sources. If there is a need, we could (and should) make that discussion here on wikipedia. That should me more logical, than accusing other editors of not wikipedian behavior or assuming what others will do. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to open any discussion you want, but in your place I wouldn't bet on positive outcome of getting Fine labeled "unreliable" - it would be ten times easier to get labeled "unreliable" any of the Croatian and Serbian 19th and early 20th century historian than Fine. So, it's up to you. Oh, and by the way, you would need really hard evidence, not just "I think" and "I say", while two mixed (not negative) reviews by Croatians (regardless of their credentials and expertise) are hardly enough in face of so many totally positive reviews from international scientific community, including English and Croatian language intellectuals, who think that Fine's opus, including that one book, is essential and unexcelled readings on history of the Balkans.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It sounds to me like Fine is still a reliable source, but that several Croatian scholars disagree with his interpretations. Is this a fair assessment? If so, the way to handle this is to find additional sources to support or counter Fine's claims. And the place to discuss this is obviously on the talk page, not in tags or edit summaries. – bradv🍁 20:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:, the assessment Ceha is pushing isn't exactly completely accurate. I read one of the two reviews that Ceha has found long time ago, namely that of Neven Budak, who is one of the most prominent contemporary Croatian historians if not the most prominent (I didn't read that other person's review and I am not sure that I heard of him before). So, basically, Neven Budak's review is mixed, he criticize some things in that one book and praise other points made in the same work. But also many other Croatian intellectuals said how Fine is almost paid by Serbs, or that he is pro-Serbian - all that because Fine was highly critical of historical revisionism in Croatian historiography with political and ideological signature. So, that all depends on ideological background, because many other Croatians said that that Fine's book is his best on former Yugoslavia history with focus on modern history. Meanwhile, I couldn't find one non-Croatian review that is anything but praise.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't read the book, did you?

As for bold, please note the word revisionsim. How could something which belongs to revisionism be mainstream?

I asked concrete questions, if you can find any historian who would rename Croatian medieval state to Velebitia (other than Fine off course) and could argument that, than....

I'll just repeat that Fine's book is highly controversial, to say the (very) least.

Budak says that some of sources he lists in his book are very interesting, but critisize his conclusions. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem with Fine's book is that he does not achive this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , some parts of his work (as Budak quotes) are reliable, but most of his conclusions are biased (according to quotes of Croatian scholars).

This can be shown by a straight question. User talk:Santasa99 do you belive that no ethnicity exists in Bosnia and Herzegovina before 19th century? That all of it's inhabitans can be called Serbs or Croats in that time (or Hungarians, Italians, etc)? If you don't belive so, than Fine is wrong.

I don't have anything against the concrete claim, that western parts of today's Bosnia and Herzegovina belong to Croat, and eastern parts belong to Serbian stane (and ethnos). But I (as some Croatian scholars) think as Fine's is bias (Driven by his nationalist prejudice, Fine decided to criticize several Croatian historians and historians as someone who is 'impartial', however, he is not.), and I think that his book should be avoided, expecialy in quotes.

Do you know which course of actions should I initiate, to open discussion about that? I don't think that discussion here will be frutfull, User talk:Santasa99 has not shown will to involve serious discussion (at least in my experiance), and I'm afraid that User talk:Mhare is following his tracs. I would realy like to find somebody who would logical explain Fine's renaming Croat state to "Velebitia".

By expanding the number of editors, I don't doubt than there can be a majority in evaluating Fine's work as unreliable, but I do not want to start another war. After all, it seems that I'm the only one in this page who actualy read that book...

Any sugestions would be valuable, tnx in advance --Čeha (razgovor) 21:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, is there a claim in the article right now attributed to Fine that you find objectionable? – bradv🍁 21:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No. I find the whole book problematic (I explained why), but this sentance In the Early Middle Ages, Fine, Jr. believes that what is today western Bosnia and Herzegovina was part of Croatia, while the east was Serbian,^[1]

is perfectly ok. I added the tag because it refered to the book.

I would find problem with this sentence, if it was part of Fine's book, but it seems that is unsourced?

the harsh and usually inaccessible elevated terrains of Upper Bosnia was most likely never under direct control of either of the two Slavic states, but more under its own political rule.

if it's unsourced, than it should be removed from the article?

Sorry for to much reference to details, but I like to be elaborate.

I created new discussion here, which should (eventualy) take care of point 4. But what about, points 1-3 and 5-7? I thing that they are self evident, but the other persons are not willing even to discuss them. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Fine 1991, p. 53.

Ceha, I'm trying to start discussion on the issues in order to find consensus and compromise. It's helpful to address issues one at a time. But if there are no statements in the article attributed to Fine that you take issue with, we can move on. – bradv🍁 21:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, next question. The claim about the Bošnjani being "most likely the ancestors of modern-day Bosnians (Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks)" was removed from the article. Does this claim have a source? – bradv🍁 21:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Croats and Serbs are present in king's titles, and Bosniaks are sucessors from islamic population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Those three are regarded autohtonus, and constituve nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no Boshnian nation in todays Bosnia and Herzegovina. What source would it be required? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croats_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina --Čeha (razgovor) 21:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What I think about ethnic history of Bosnia or any other of the Balkan modern states is irrelevant, but for your information, I know that no ethnicity existed before 19th century in Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, that correspond to modern nationality in these countries - so, there are no Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, before 19th century. You are, on the other hand, absorbed by ethnic and national questions, especially regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, so you expressed your opinion on Bosnian ethnic history quite unequivocally - historically all Bosnians were Croats - and this downright betrays drive behind your persistance.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you going ad hominem, or you just want to be against? Is medieval population of Bosnia and Herzegovina direct predacesor of today's Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs? Those peoples haven't just apered there from nothing.

If I'ld thought that all Bosnians were Croats, than I wouldn't include Serbs and Bosniaks in sentence, right? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please stop with the ad hominem attacks. I asked a question whether there was a source for this assertion. Even if it's patently obvious to some people, it still needs a source. – bradv🍁 21:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This is for Bosnian Croats, are expect that similar sources exist and for the other 2 nations; http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=26386

Here is also a qoute for point 7. ;U to je doba područje prvotne Bosne nakratko bilo otpalo od hrvatske države, a bosanski je ban ovladao hrvatskim županijama u dolini Vrbasa. Kada je učvrstio svoju vlast u Hrvatskoj, Mihajlo Krešimir II. povratio je izgubljena područja i obnovio vojnu snagu države, If it's necessary, I'll translate to english--Čeha (razgovor) 22:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy of that statement isn't that much in question as it is its notability - it's irrelevant for the narrative. Of course that citizens of today Bosnia label themselves as Bosniaks, Croatians, Serbs, and more famous ones known as "and the rest", and it must be that they have some ancestral connection with people who lived there before them, namely so called "Bošnjani", but there is entire millennia in between, and there is no context it the prose itself, not to mention clumsiness of the sentence with three of them all listed in parenthesis except "and the rest". Bosnians are Bosnians, and wiki-link would suffice in any NPOV edit.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunatey, it is important. There exist a similarity in name between one of the 3 nations, and medieval name for whole population, so it is important to explain the difference. Ordinary user could mix up Bosniaks with Boshnians, and that would not be good. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Santasa is on point for this one. To my knowledge, it's close to impossible to reference that claim and really not relevant to the article. --Mhare (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you sugest that constitual nations are not autochtonus to Bosnia and Herzegovina? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ad-hominem would mean that I attacked editor on a personal level, there is nothing personal in pointing to editor expressed opinion (it's in some of the above discussions).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

You called me absorbed in etnicity, that's an insult. Stop. And also stop blocking the discussion. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow, maybe you need to read my post again? Me:"absorbed by ethnic and national questions" - You citing me: "You called me absorbed in etnicity".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a difference? You are again discussing me, and we should be discussing the article.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you for real? You expressed your opinion on ethnic background of medieval Bosnians so many times, and at one point you started assuring all involved that those people were Croats (?), majority of your edits is concerned with inserting Croatian name, Croatian rulers, attributing aspects of medieval Bosnia to Croats, and you think that I am attacking you personaly just because I am pointing to that facz - what do you think why English lang. wikipedia has WP:NAT, for decor, maybe? You should watch what you are saying around here because people "listening", and are allowed to use your opinions and arguments against you in discussions. I learned not use ad-hominem when I was a teenager, and I also know it is ineffective rhetorical strategy, not to mention impolite.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That is ad hominem. You are discussing me, and not the article, for a thousand and one-th time. Can you see how much is discussed and solved with BradV, before you arrived? Why are you blocking the discussion? --Čeha (razgovor) 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No it is not.

And, how much is solved, exactly ? I can't see one damn thing - please, enlighten me.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. So stop.

There are 7. points, one is fixed, and two other opened. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I left for an hour to make dinner, and we're back to insulting each other. That's discouraging. But it doesn't sound like there's consensus to put this statement back in, especially without a source, so we'll leave it out. – bradv🍁 23:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Santasa is not going to compromise in anything, and he doesn't got any arguments for this. --Čeha (razgovor) 23:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Next question: In item 1 above, Ceha wrote that the word "vasal" had been removed from the lead. I presume you mean "vassal", implying that Bosnia was subject to rule by another country at the time. The lead is supposed to summarize the article – is the term "vassal" adequately supported within the rest of the article? Should it be included? – bradv🍁 23:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Fixed ping. – bradv🍁 23:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia was subject to rule of Hungry/Hungarian king. I think it should be additionaly highlighted... --Čeha (razgovor) 23:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Right now the article doesn't mention anything about Hungarian rule. That seems like an important detail that should be included in the article, with a brief mention in the lead. Does someone want to write something up? – bradv🍁 23:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, we were exchanging some claims in antagonistic tone, but there are no insults - I am 50 years old person, with three grown up children, insults are not part of my vocabulary. And is this what is needed for reason to prevail - will I need admin to repeat same thing I am saying since March every time I encounter Ceha on article?

As for "vassalage" of Bosnia - of course not! This article has nothing with Hungary influence over Bosnia of the 10th century, not to mention that informations that we have on that period of country's history are really scarce, and they don't speak of such thing.... unless Ceha can point to some.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Who is speaking of 10th century?

In it, Bosnia was part of Croatian state under Trpimirovići.

http://www.enciklopedija.hr/natuknica.aspx?id=26386

U to je doba područje prvotne Bosne nakratko bilo otpalo od hrvatske države, a bosanski je ban ovladao hrvatskim županijama u dolini Vrbasa. Kada je učvrstio svoju vlast u Hrvatskoj, Mihajlo Krešimir II. povratio je izgubljena područja i obnovio vojnu snagu države,

'At that time, the territory of the original Bosnia briefly fell away from the Croatian state, and the Bosnian ban conquered Croatian counties in the Vrbas Valley. When he consolidated his rule in Croatia, Mihajlo Kresimir II. he reclaimed the lost areas and restored the country's military strength,

All the rulers of Bosnia(n states), were vassals to somebody. There is no mention of independent Bosnia in that time, and latter Bosnian Banate is vassal to Arpadovići dynasty, the Hungarian kings.

Also, the last sentence in the article is wrong. Bosnian Banate, was not an independent state. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

All we know is that bans ruled the country, after Serbian king Časlav died country emerged as independent, degree of that independence is unclear, with various influences in various periods - Byzantine and Hungarian influences are obvious candidates, but there are no informations on the extent and degree nor exact dating, we have no names for local rulers, if we had some primary sources there is no doubt that we would know names of the local elite and bans, but there are no primary sources beside Bar's Chronicles and Einhard and ubiquitous Porphyrogenitus; we have some information on the extent and geography of its territory, and we have some info on parishes included into the state.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No. There is no mention of bans in Bosnia before the end of the 12th century. The only mention of Bosnian Ban is that from LJPD/Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja which you and Mhare are so determinatly denining, right?

As for DAI, that's the time under Časlav, again no banate, just "zemljica". Bosnia in that time is the name of the province (upper Bosnia River). There is no sign or trace of any independent entity. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, that's not acceptable source - that's a WP:Tertiary source!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So, LJPD is not acceptable source, because it's WP:Primary source, enciklopedia.hr is not acceptable source, because it's WP:Tertiary source... Have you read the article? Primary and tertiary sources are not recomeded, but are acceptible. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, tell us about Croatian rule and Trpimirović little bit more, isn't that story of that Croatia of 100 thousands horsemen, in 9th century Dark Ages Europe?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Legends from DAI, WP:Primary source are not acceptable, but an independent entity without any source is? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence doesn't seem to jibe with the lead paragraph of Banate of Bosnia. Santasa99, you added this here – do you have a source? – bradv🍁 01:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Brad, I'll try to parse through your inquiry - last sentence of my edit there, as in preview linked: At the end of 12th century, the Banate of Bosnia emerged as independent state once more., doesn't correspond with the article Banate of Bosnia, am I on track here?

Lead in Banate of Bosnia: The Banate of Bosnia (...), was a medieval state (...) the Banate of Bosnia was a de facto independent state. It was founded in the mid-12th century and (...).

So, basically, after the early medieval state, which we call polity (I am not sure who chose "polity", but I guess it's sort of acceptable for the reason of information scarcity), which existed from at least time of death of Ćaslav 960 until mid-12th century, the Banate starting to appear in source as a stable and de-facto independent state, which restored statehood around at least 1150, after briefly switched hands between Bulgarians (not Hungarians) and Byzantines.~~--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)~~

The sources are in reference - I added Mrgić book and retained Dejan Bulić's one.

If you could be bit more precise I would be able to tell you more.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Santasa99, the Banate of Bosnia says it was part of Hungary. This article makes no mention of that. Hence my confusion. – bradv🍁 02:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It was part of the Hungary only in the eyes of the Hungarian court, but it was "de-facto" independent state regardless of Hungarian claim.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So then that sentence isn't entirely accurate, is it? It doesn't mention Hungary, and doesn't use the term "de facto". Not to mention it's unsourced. – bradv🍁 02:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure which sentence (in which article) but as I can see Banate of Bosnia mentions Hungarian claim and de-facto independence, while whatever it was before there is no way we can confirm anything, including claims, Hungarian or otherwise, except that Banate emerged sometimes around 1150 after short stints of Bulgarian then Byzantine rule. On source you have to be little bit more specific.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We do not have any primary sources which would speak about independent "polity" in upper Bosnia river basain. We have LJPD, which claims it was under Croatian rule, and DAI which claims that it was under Serbian rule, during Časlav times.

User:Santasa99 is quoting two secundary sources (which I haven't read) Mrgić and Bulić's one, which haven't got any primary sources to back them up. User:Mikola22 gave critisism of Mrgić, as unreliable source, and I think the same could go to Bulić too.

As for independence, again no. There is no source which would confirm independent policy in Bosnia. Bosnian Banate was de facto independent, but Hungarian kings chose it's rulers (although for majority of time from the same dinasty, and sometimes even with war), changed it borders few times (in the late 13th century Usora with Soli became separete banate connected with a banate in Mačva), and about a quoter of its existence (some 40 from 200 years) it was under Croatian governence (Šubić dynasty).

So no, Bosnian Banate was a vasal state, although it's ruller was de facto independent in local affairs, and sometimes even wared against it's king/sovereign. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to bring consensus about reliable sources i.e. book of John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. and Jelena Mrgic-Radojcic(possibly some other sources). That's what I suggested at Donji Kraji issue [1]. This is also necessary in this case, so I suggest that Čeha about this problem inform moderators and take necessary measures to resolve this matter. Mikola22 (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv: is here, and trying to help us in this article. I fully agree that some sources must be evaluated. Wikipedia should not be a place for fairy tales. But I don't think that even them quoted any enthity in Bosnia as independent. All of the states there were vassal (at least nominaly), to Hungary, Byzantium, etc... Or where just parts of their neighbours lands in that periods. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

About vassalage, @Bradv:, I am with Santasa on this. Banate of Bosnia was nominal vassal of Hungary, especially in the eyes of Hungarian king, but we have secondary sources (even though Mikola and Čeha like to point out that these are fairy tales without any merit, secondary sources from peer-reviewed authors can't be classified like that - these are concerning and disappointing statements) that proves otherwise, that indeed Bosnia was very much independent, like it says in the article. I will have another source for that, and that is Nada Klaić's book from 1994. Just to note, before this discussion Čeha have edited both Banate of Bosnia and Kingdom of Bosnia articles, changing wording for some reason (he stated that in edit summary, also removed my referenced input, this time from another Fine book). So please, be aware of that when checking for info in these articles. If I can answer anymore questions, please ping me, I might have missed something as discussion grew considerably while I was away. --Mhare (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, thanks for that - it's good to have more input on this. It sounds to me like Ceha has a point that the last sentence of this article is weak - at the very least it should be clarified and supported by references in order to eliminate nuance. – bradv🍁 15:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, the last sentence could be expanded for sure. I will offer my help and knowledge about the subject. References will be Secondary and Veriafable, and ideally, have Google books preview of cited reference. Mhare (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, what about periods of Croat rule in upper Bosnia in 10th and 11th century? --Čeha (razgovor) 19:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ceha, I am not interested in your opinion on mainstream credible scholars, who devoted their lives and careers investigating past through WP:PRIMARY - follow the link and read it again if you still have no right idea what it means. (Do you really need me to diff all of your key statements since March, across the articles on history of Bosnia and Herzegovina - you rejected all sources that you deem unfit for being, and following are your words, "not pro-Croatian"!?)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mhare:, so, Ceah is now roaming all over Bosnia and Herzegovina history articles related to this one (and Donji Kraji, Turkish Croatia, Usora, etc.), with single-minded devotion to readjust narrative from his own perspective, pushing "pro-Croatian" POV? That seem like a disruption, and If provable, such behavior should be reported on AN, every time, that's the only recourse at our disposal.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

rofl:A Again Ad hominem? I mentioned the term "pro-Croatian" only one time, when you said that Marko Vego is a Croat by nationality, I responed that his views are not "pro-Croat", and only in that context, because you alluded that he is what is not.

I also said that he is not credible, and mentioned some of his social positions, from membership in communist party to etc.

And I realy do not want to know about your intrests, have you read this? They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. I asked you where is primary source(s) from wich secondary is syntesied?

Your reply is Ad hominem.

Someone's personal opinion doesn't matter. He has to have some argument's for it. We can not speak fairy tales and invent something what hasn't existed. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators can check for themself as of what nature are those additions that are btw. more often than not misspelled and incorrectly formated. I provided helping hand and corrected many mistakes. I was awarded with revert of mine referenced addition. --Mhare (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert the article, I edited parts you changed. Some of the work was good, some was not. If you think I made an error somewhere, we can discuss it on TP. --Čeha (razgovor) 12:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You just deleted referenced text, along with two references. Please do not do that again, especially when the source is verifiable. Mhare (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen the talk page? The text is not referenced, in Fine's book doesn't write anything like that. I puted whole page 44 on TP. I also looked in the rest of the book, but there is none. Plese restore my version until you "fix up" your sources. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, the source is verifiable so everybody can check it up. Also, you deleted Nada Klaić reference. Mhare (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, have you read what have I write in article TP? You made an error. Check your sources. I gave a whole page from Fine and there is no mention of your reference. Or anything like that in the whole book.

Please, be more carefull. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

How is that ad-hominem if you just admitted that everything I said above you expressed in writing in various places - this can actually WP:BOOMERANG on your accusation, constantly and falsely crying "ad-hominem" where there is non.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC) And what on earth you are talking about, I can't parse through your sentences written in English, sometime at all. You are trying to reuse other editors' words, phrases, even ideas behind written statements, and you sometime completely lose yourself in it. This is impossible communication.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You are still discussing me, and not the article, and you are pinning on me all of your behavior. Please, for a thousandth time, stop. You were warned by moderators to stop in the past. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bradv:, could you please tell him to stop commenting me?

Edit war, part 2

This points are still not solved;
1.erased the word vasal in the first paragraf (medival Bosnia was a vasal state, almost entire period of it's existance)
2.erased the reference to it's name and labels in DAI
6.erased the mention that Bosnian Core (as today's Bosnia is much greater area, maybe 10 times), and not whole Bosnia was under Serbian rule
7.erased the mention of Croatian rule in 10th and 11th century, and sources about that.
And in the meantime new things. As I said here, this things should change.

@BradV: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=929253331&oldid=929252493
1. Mention of Bosnian Banate and unapropriate Fine quote about that latter period (Banate of Bosnia), and not early medieval policy; At the end of 12th century, the Banate of Bosnia emerged under its first ruler Ban Borić. After Ban Kulin Bosnia was by practical means a independent state, but that was constantly challenged by Hungary who tried to reestablish its authority.<ref>
Different period, different state.
2. small country, It's in DAI, and I just returned it. I could have been wrong there with references, maybe it should be qouted differently, but it shouldn't be removed. It's valid source, although there is no consensus, and till it's reached, I think it should stay.
3. As for vassalage, there is similar reasoning. We do not have consensus, but we do not have any sources which describe Bosnia as independent country. We have sources which claims (for example DAI) that it's under foreign soverenity (in DAI example, it's a Serbian one). My opinion was, till we reach consensus, that vassal state should remain. That's why I returned it.

Please fill free to change the article back to my version, or try to present arguments, why it should not be so.--Čeha (razgovor) 16:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Croatian part about the parishes deleted? Primary sources claim they were Croatian, and as Bosnia expanded, it expanded to something.

Why is "small country" deleted? Again, sourced data.

Kingdom of Rama is 12th century, that is not early medieval period. And how can that explain independent Bosnia, for god sake :rofl: Wishfull thinking at best.

Are you trying to prove that Mrgić is bad and nationalistic writer, or? --Čeha (razgovor) 02:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, the small country is mentioned just below. It's the same sentence repeated. That was a quote from book, I think you misread it somehow, he doesn't say the 12th century is Early Middle Ages, but that by the 12th century it was expanding its independence that started in the early medieval period. His, Anđelić and Fine argumentation that Slavs that settled upper Bosnia were in fact very much so independent from a very early period. As we have scarce sources about that period of history it is quite difficult for them. But we must go by historians that are authoritative sources when it comes to medieval Bosnia. They are not the only ones, for example Nada Klaić has whole book that mainly deals with that. Mhare (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and her book and work was critisied because it was done in communist system. Nada Klaić, which draws Croatia till the half of Albania https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/hr/7/75/Nada_Klai%C4%87_Crvena_Hrvatska.PNG ?

Klaić which draws Croatia till the river Bosna and Vranduk https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aukcije.hr%2Fpics%2F348%2F3484710%2F20171103162424609844.jpg.768x0px.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aukcije.hr%2Fprodaja%2FKnjige-i-tisak%2FZnanost-i-obrazovanje%2FZnanost%2FDrustvene-znanosti%2FPovijest-i-zemljopis%2F773%2Foglas%2FPovijest-Hrvata-u-srednjem-vijeku-I-II-Nada-Klai%25C4%2587%2F3484710%2F&docid=eNHhbYmNOD4pDM&tbnid=0mfpHLelI1euiM%3A&vet=1&w=768&h=548&bih=920&biw=1920&ved=2ahUKEwjTz-Lh1rzmAhVMuqQKHSBvBOAQxiAoBHoECAEQHA&iact=c&ictx=1#h=548&imgdii=xaIruu8k2yTbGM:&vet=1&w=768 ?

Why are you cherypicking?

Existence of Bosnia before the banate is unpruven hypotesis, and Nada Klaić (with all of her critics) writes about the society, tribal bonds, and not about state. She invented a term "no man's land", and they are authors which are basicly trying to "invent" states in that area. Have you read her books?

I gave you argumented critics. I expect that you respond to them (from Croat parishes to above), and not to qoute something you don't understand, such quotes would confuse the reader(s).--Čeha (razgovor) 12:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, please no, don't use communist to label established historians. I am not sure what do you expect of me, as I didn't revert your latest entry about Croatian parish. I am not trying to confuse the readers, as you may have noticed, I am more for an academic approach, i.e. using proper references, not editing the wording like you did on CW, where you have changed almost every article about Bosnia, and labeled it as some east-Croatian banate nad called Tvrtko II a Croatian noble. I don't do that, and if somebody would present me reliable references, I am ready to accept everything. Mhare (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually your "invasion" of Bosnian medieval articles have made them quite better in the long run. You forced me to obtain some high quality sources about Medieval Bosnia! Mhare (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare point of any discussion is to improve the articles. Unfortunatly this articles haven't yet come to that. I asked you a few question above, but you don't have the answers to them. A reader should obtain those answers when (s)he reads this article. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, well Banate of Bosnia before this had 7 references, now it has 51. And none of them quote dead links and kamenjar.com :D Mhare (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, quality is always more important than quantity. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

LJPD

Again, Santasa is removing things without the compromise. --Čeha (razgovor) 10:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

DAI

And now is even DAI debatable? Santasa, you are removing sourced data. --Čeha (razgovor) 01:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote removal

Which cp violation? You removed valid quotes.
Relja Novković is clear, he writes about eastern border of Croat kingdom. And what's wrong with Duklja expansion on Croatian account? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) As for contradiction, DAI is describing territorial border at the time of Časlav (shortlived Serbian expansion), and LJPD is describing some time after that (Krešim II (re)conquest of Bosnia). --Čeha (razgovor) 21:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You just copied the text and reference from here. Also, I may not have the energy to explain stuff about quoting, your interpretation of primary sources and etc. You intentions are quite questionable. Mhare (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And as such the text is in the book. What is the problem of CP here? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As for intentions, you are showing bad faith. Is there a reason why are you against mentioning Croatian parts in BiH history? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, translation is terrible. Secondly, the book you are referring deals with so many scenarios where the border was, and what was the status of Bosnia. If you could construct better prose, and source is properly, I'm up for it. I do not have bad faith per se, I do not have faith in you as you participated in one WP:Canvassing incident, and have all these unscientific changes (as in not accepted by historians, and you are serving that on Wikipedia servers) in Croatian Wikipedia, and over 10 blocks here. Having said that, please do not expect of me to have long discussions with you, maybe when some other editors join in, who were responsible for much of the articles of medieval Bosnia, as I hope they do. Mhare (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, above statments are ad hominem. Everything done on CW is sourced, and for blocks, it only shows you are new on wikipedia. I gave exact quote, and it should be preserved, as that is wikipedia policy. If you wish to rephrase it, I'm not against it. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I returned Džino (it's a qoute, and there are not much what could be translated), but two other quotes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=931961155&oldid=931870265 should also be returned. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ceha, don't make me laugh about sources. You have zero sources for some of the articles (yes, zero sources for the whole article, and no warning that it is unsourced). You have done so much damage, and skewed so many facts that go against the firmly established academic consensus. Mhare (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Mhare, again ad hominem? Please return this two qoutes, and Džino, which Santasa basicly vandalised. The same rule goes for all.--Čeha (razgovor) 16:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Name Bosnians / Bošnjani

The name Bošnjani or Bosnians, didn't happen to fall from the sky to Stephan II lap! The first political document which mention people's name in local Bosnian language is his Charter, and that is all that we can read in assertion that Pejo Ćošković tried to utter, so you shouldn't use that fact to promote disinformation in suggestive manner on name appearance, let alone on its etymology. The name is actually first mentioned as early as 12th c. in Venetian sources, according to Marko Šunjić, but even that doesn't mean that the name suddenly appeared from nowhere.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Population of medieval Bosnia

From time of Stephen II Slavs from medieval Bosnia are called [[Bošnjani] This citation says it all. Population of medieval Bosnia is beginning to be called Bošnjani from time of Stephen II. Written documents from that time mentione Bošnjani(good Bosnians) which is a very valuable fact for this article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mikola22, what were they before that? Mhare (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

In the upper course of Bosna river, settled by Slavs. They were probably Slavs, I do not know exactly. Mikola22 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting Ćošković assertion, and reason for that is obvious from your entire contribution together with your arguments in numerous statements given in discussions.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, your statement (F)rom time of Stephen II Slavs from medieval Bosnia are called Bošnjani is not true, as Ćošković never said or meant anything even close to what you are trying to assert here. Not to mention what researchers of likes of Vego, Rački, Lajos Thallóczy, Ivan Frano Jukić, and many others, have said on the origins of the name Bosna, you should check it yourself if you have stomach for sudden realization that historic Bosnians are as real as Croats and Serbs are.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

They could be called Bošnjani in the 5th century, this RS talk about written documents and name Bošnjani(Bosniaks) which occurs from time of Stephen II. And it is RS. Whether local peoples called themselves Bošnjani before that period I do not know. Mikola22 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Santasa, they were called Slavs, at least according to Fine, right? Name Bošnjani is regionality, and it comes from the river. You can't just make up something, without any source and than argue, that it should be older.

Stepen II is the main architect of state. He married his daughter to Hungarian king, made poverfull dynastic connections, and rounded up enough of the lands to became important. He basicly just repeated Šubić's ideas in the eastern half of his realm, and everything he done gave his succesor Tvrtko I a good start up (if we forget that majority of the lands tried to go in their own way, after Stephen II's death).

There was (unfortunately I can not find it now), also an interesting hypotesis, why the name Bošnjani apears in his time. By rulling over Donji Kraji (whic came out of Croatian Pliva Parish) and eastern parts of his state, which before belonged to Serbian state, there was a necesity for another identity to fuse this two ethnics, so a Bošnjani, by the name of the river was "found". Authors of that hypotesis called medieval Bosnia a "Yugoslavia" before Yugoslavia, which is consistent with SFRJ ideas of Tvrtko I, as the ruler which united most of the south Slavs lands (from Croatia to Serbia), at least for a short time under one ruler.

You can not have "forever" something, you need to have proofs, you can not make up something. --Čeha (razgovor) 02:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

According to historian Vladimir Ćorović, who is/was one of the greatest experts on Bosnian history, medieval Bosnians (Bošnjani) never became an independent ethnic group, different from Serbs or Croats. The main reason for it, according to Ćorović, was the Ottoman invasion. Furthermore, Dositej Obradović (who was a highly educated man) writes in Mezimica and other works that Bošnjani or Bošnjaci are a regional group (of Serbs, according to Obradović) and sides them with Herzegovinians and other regional groups. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, in first part, at least. Bosnia is a regional name, and population of it isn't different than the population of surrounding countries. As Noel Malcom said, they were Slavs in Bosnia, which means they were not ethnic Bosnians... --Čeha (razgovor) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Some of documents that indicates more about population in medieval Bosnia are edicts to Dubrovnik written in a first half of 13. century. These edicts were issued by Bosnian Ban Matej Ninoslav so they have some weight considering this "issue". You can check edicts on his wiki page. Shadow4ya (razgovor) 00:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not commenting onto what are the possible meanings of word Srblji, subjects, serves, the mode of writing of the writers, the most important part is that there doesn't exist mention of Bošnjani in those edicts... --Čeha (razgovor) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is a comment and it is noted. That is not the question here, but since you mentioned it, it is an old misconsception which came to life because of the meaning of the word in Latin, which was the language of culture. Sorbs are all the proof you need, if you care to look and understand. Plus, a little trivia is the fact that Sirbinda in Rigveda has pretty much the same meaning as modern-day meaning Srbenda for Serbs, which could mean that the words has deeper Indo-European roots (and I am not saying that is necessarily has something to do with the nation in question). The reason for such interpretation of origin of the name of Serbs by modern-day people is only pure ignorance and bias towards neighbours. Bošnjani is a regional name, another form of Bosnians. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not willing to lecture on the etymology and origins of the name of Bosnia and/or Bosnians to editors who are distraught by its very mention (as evident in rants like these in Croatian lang. wikipedia, embellished with racist (orientalist) tropes). Above mentioned nonexistent "hypothesis" from nonexistent someone, which nobody ever heard of, and which supposedly "explains" how people invented the name "Bosnians" for themselves, thus appearing from nowhere, and all because they needed (?!) another identity "to fuse [these] two ethnics" - I am guessing, two ethnic identities which are "Serb" and "Croat", as the only "true" existing ethnic groups - is just another iteration of world-view which is nationalistic, with particular animus for Bosnia and Bosnians. But, if anyone really want to inform themselves on the name(s) "Bosna" (Bosnia in English), for the river and the country, and "Bosnians" (also Bošnjani in Bosnian), for peoples of medieval times (and I am leaving out, intentionally, modern identity of Bosnians and Bosniaks, so that nobody dig itself in even deeper into this juggling with tropes on the name, existence and feelings of entire identity group, and their eventual negation), than start reading, from earliest to latest, Ovidius Naso (Ovidius et Illyricum), Ludovicus Cerva Tubero, Johannes de Thurocz, Sebastian Münster, Pierre Belon, Carlo of Vagria, Marvo Orbini, Johann Kaspar Zeuss, Ivan Frano Jukić, Lajos Thalloczy, end with Aleksandar Stipčević, Marko Vego and Hadžijahić two books used here as a source, and acquaint yourself, thesis by thesis, how name "Bosna" Bosnia(ns) (maybe or probably) came to be, and how it is true, ancient, real, mysterious, no-more-no-less than its neighbors' names "Serb" and "Croat".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no mention of Bosnians in that time. We've got mention of Bosnia (as small country) in DAI, and as area (re)conquered by Croatians in LjPD. Those are all primary sources we have. And removing documented ethnics and replacing it with something that did not exist at the time is nationalism, no matter how speculative it might be.

And connecting today's Bosnia (which is much greater area) and today's Bosniaks with medieval Bosnians, or Boshnyani is a bit bigger nationalism. I realy hope you are not starting some Illirian or Goth genealogy story. --Čeha (razgovor) 22:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

RS is deleted 2

@TU-nor: Here is the same case as in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Bosnia#RS_is_deleted RS_is_deleted. Why rule does not apply equally in every article?Mikola22 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

And it seems we have alternate history here.

1. Who is Ratimir?

2. Whose were Uskoplje, Pliva and Luka parishes?

3. What does Fine story has with early Bosnia? No name Slavs didn't call themselves Bosnians

4. Džino, and the rest of the qoutes are still removed?

Why double standards? --Čeha (razgovor) 22:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is Santasa just reverting my edits, deleting references, and starting edit war? --Čeha (razgovor) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Again

@TU-nor:, Santasa is deleteing Secondary sources.... --Čeha (razgovor) 12:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why I have been pinged twice (first by Mikola22 and now by Ceha) to the TP of an article I have never edited or shown interest in. Anyway, I will give the following comments:

The current edit war is disruptive and makes it impossible to improve the article.
Long block quotes are not in accordance with the usual Wiki style. It is better to give a short summary of the point the quote is supposed to support, and put the quotation itself in a note.

That is all from me, at least as long as the edit war continues. --T*U (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: As far as my case is concerned. I edit data from the book, and now other editors question claim of this historian and his book and delete my contribution. But it's RS. I cited the example of the Stokavian dialect and we still do not have a single document or historian talking about mass migration from eastern Herzegovina to 60% of Croatia, this includes Croats who speak Stokavian dialect so they must be Serbs origin too. But that information is still in the article Stokavian dialect and I can't delete it because it's RS, but my data is deleted even though they are also RS. I'm asking you what the problem is? Can you tell those editors what you said to me and that I can finally put the information in the article without deleting them because historian "thought wrong".Mikola22 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, tnx for your help, qoutes are rephrased. --Čeha (razgovor) 17:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is horrendous editing. Mikola is on verge of getting a AE-block, and maybe Čeha should be included too. With these disruptive edits, it is impossible to improve the article, as we have broken sentences, broken references, quotes without references, and some copy violations. Not sure where to go after this. Copying whole text to give a short summary of the long block quote was amazing, as the quote is telling something different than this "short summary" that he copied. Mhare (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 is not in any combination of AE-block. Focus on this article, therefore I asked him something not you.Mikola22 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I rephrased the qouotes, the new version should be good now. Please refrain from nationalistic edits (that ones which erase any mantion of Croatia and Croats in BiH, one of its constitutive nations). --Čeha (razgovor) 18:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Boshnyians were generaly closer to Croats in their religious and political history but it would be anachronistic to apply modern notion of Croat identity to medieval populus. More sources are needed for this sort of statement. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the same edit. Again, we have very bad editing at hand: Copy violations, broken references, broken quotes in references, conflicting references, typos and etc. Not sure what course of action to take, it is getting quite repetitive dealing with a user that has restrictions on these kinds of topics, that shows up, changes wording (for God knows what reason) and then after being warned to roll back his own actions, does it again, without rephrasing quotes and fixing issues, bringing back the same very bad editing to the article, severely lowering its quality. Mhare (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mhare:, what are exact problems with my edit? Mhare, you are against the exact quotes, and when someone rephrase yours you put them back?

@Sadko:, as for qoute, it's from Noel Malcolm.... --Čeha (razgovor) 13:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You could say - According to Noel Malcolm... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, part II

Mhare...
Emota, Pleba, Livno and Pset were never part of early medieval polity of Bosnia. Why are you deleting sourced data?
--Čeha (razgovor) 18:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Again... What is the disruption mhare? Čeha (razgovor) 01:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruption is showing up periodically and reverting the articles to versions that somehow fit your narrative. The same thing you did on the article Kingdom of Bosnia: [1], [2], [3]. Mhare (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You are deleting sourced quotes, and you are calling reverting those delition disturbance? Please stop. Čeha (razgovor) 03:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing and rants about alleged Bosnian mythomania

[2] This is a proper case of canvassing, unlike some other reports we had... Take notice. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sadko, can you please give us an English summary of what this post says? EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"It's the same story, editor Santasa99 changed the COA of the Hrvatinić family with something which resembles the Bosniak national symbol and he is breaking all the rules of medieval heraldry." ...He is transforming the Hrvatinić family (this surname has the word Croat in its core) to the Turković family (Turks).

"It's the same editor again. He is making up a new entity of Bosnia, which exists independently as of the 7th century, but there is no proof."

He continues to claim that "any Croatian citations" have been systematically removed and that Serbian sources are used. "Some weird conclusion have been cited."

Once again, the editor is alarming other Croatian Wikipedians that the Croatian name has been deleted and he makes several observations about the medieval borders and relations with other neighboring states, which have allegedly not been presented properly. He claims that other editors are trying to show medieval Bosnian borders in a way which corresponds to modern-day federation borders.

The editor states that somebody has a problem with the fact that king Tvrtko I of Bosnia took the Serbian crown in order to expand his lands etc.

In the last sentence we have: "Mythomania about eternal Bosnia which was only dependent of Hungarian (not Croatian-Hungarian) state. "The same editor, the same story."

This is just one out of tens of threads on that page made for canvassing only. There is another page for German Wikipedia only, where editors are dicussing about changes which present some notable Yugoslavs as Croats, Slovenians, Serbs etc.

That's it, more or less. I invite other editor to correct me if I am wrong about any part of my translation, as I am quite busy with ongoing projects. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Ceha. Can you acknowledge that this was you who posted on the Croatian Wikipedia? If you, can you comment on Sadko's canvassing complaint? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I have (kind of) documented Čeha's edits on Croatian Wikipedia here: 1. They have a whole page dedicated to "irregularities" on English wiki. There is currently RFC on meta regarding this whole situation of Right-wing bias on Croatian Wikipedia. Mhare (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

As I understand, user Sadko is accusing me of canvasing?

My edit discribed a list of irregularities which happened here. From the change of colors in Hrvatinić Coat of Arms to systematicall deletion of Croat name (article about Turkish Croatia is a god example of that).

I also wrote about nationalistic behaviour of some editors (which is obvious), and aspirations of some editors to show maxisimalistic borders of medieval Bosnia. I also listed those behavior. Sadko is wrong here, I did not write they were trying to mold todays Federation of BiH as "eternal entity", but the state of BiH, projecting it's current borders to medieval times. There is a history of article change here, and every such change is documented.

I don't see any new editor which has apeared on those articles as result of my listings. Nor that I asked anybody to do anything contrary to wikipedia rules.

It's interesting that user Mhare is following and stalking my edits on Croatian wikipedia (he didn't edit those pages, he is just "documenting" my behavior) and created a new page devoted to that, to which he called his coeditors, and he openly admits it, his add hominem behaviour. While critising my list of irregularities here.

So again, I'm pointing to irregularities, inconsistencies and nationalistic POV behavior on those articles. Mhare made adhominem page. And Sadko is questiong what exactly?

If you wish we can go through my list, point by point to see is it true, or not.

As for "Bosnian mythomania" this is a good example. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=936597778&oldid=936532341 for example, it qoutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicle_of_the_Priest_of_Duklja (through the work of Mrgić), in expansion of Bosnia to Parishes of Uskoplje, Pliva and Luka, but it deletes the mention that those Parishes are in the same work described as Croat, and that the final result of that expansion was Croatian "reconquista" of Bosnia...

And this behavior is very common (deletion of Croatian name), and results in bias articles.

--Čeha (razgovor) 23:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you or do you now believe that medieval Bosnia was some kind of east Croatian banate as you wrote there? Was Tvrtko II Croat ruler? I've made this page in my sandbox just to have a list of notable changes you have made that are going against any historical consensus. It's for my reference, but others can take a look too. You are breaking some of the core principles of Wikipedia with such edits and doing a lot of damage to the image of Wikipedia, and Wikimedia respectively. Mhare (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

And again, ad hominem. Are my beliefs important? I belive that medieval Bosnia was one of Croat lands, as Silesia was Polish, and Czech. As Serbs belive it was Serbian. Are Croats not one of its 3 constitutive nations? I do not have to think the same as you or anybody else. I try to be NPOV, and I haven't done nothing wrong.

But you did. In your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnia_%28early_medieval_polity%29&type=revision&diff=936597778&oldid=936532341 you deleted Croatian prefix of three Parishes in wich Bosnia expanded, why? Was that territory created ex nihil? What happened to Bosnia after that "expansion"? That's called bias, and nationalistic POV.

Do read all of the complains which Sadko dug up. You'll find them true, every one of them.

I'm trying to be objective, I'm trying to argument my changes, but I expect the same from the other editors. Unfortunately, your page is not done is wikipedia spirit, it's stalking and ad hominem. And again, if you have any troubles with Croatian wiki, do put your complaints there. Good example is also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Croatia , historical article about part of medieval Croatia under later otoman goverment is transformed into article about 20th century politics. Unfortunately, examples are numerous.--Čeha (razgovor) 15:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You can't write down your beliefs about history to Wikipedia articles. When you write that Tvrtko II was a Croatian noble, you are basically falsifying history, there is nothing "ad hominem" about that. Mhare (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Grandmother of Tvrtko II was Croat, his father was selfdeclared king of Croatia and Dalmatia... What was he?

Didn't we have this conversation before?

I didn't anywhere "write down my beliefs", I wrote arguments and qoutes about anything I wrote.

Also, you didn't explain why you deleted epithet Croat before those 3 parishes. --Čeha (razgovor) 20:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I really can't say anything more to that, I am dumbfounded by your interpretation and disregard for consensus achieved by authoritative historians of the field and their literature. Also, revert has nothing to do with Croatian prefix, rather with so many mistakes you brought with that edit, as I explained in the summary of that revert. I couldn't care less how do you name those parishes. Mhare (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff like that just happens by itself? You removed Croatian prefix, you removed periods of (main) Croatian rule over medieval Bosnia, but it happens by itself?

As for interpretation, I honestly recomed you to try to be more NPOV, and not to just quote nationalistic historians as Vego. Try to read more, and other historians. Then medieval Bosnia, Slavonia and Croatia won't be terra incognita to you... --Čeha (razgovor) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert was explained in the summary. I really don't see a point in further "debating" as there is nothing to debate. Stick to the recognized literature. Mhare (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You removed quotes, references. I realy can't see why your behavior is allowed.

It's interesting why things only happen, and any Croatian mention in BiH history (and Croats are one of it's 3 constitutive people) disapears by itself in your edits, but you don't have anything to do with it.

And you than have the nerves to comment on Croatian wiki or the list of irregularities which you done here? Good one. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ceha, I am not the one with restrictions to the Balkan articles, and 10 blocks or more. Try to move on, use respected literature, and follow the historical consensus. Mhare (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhare, the problem is that you should be. I don't have 10 blocks, and any block that I had (except the last one) is more than ten years old. This ad hominem behaviour repeats itself again and again.--Čeha (razgovor) 20:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Try to move on, use respected literature, and follow the historical consensus. It doesn't matter how old are the blocks or your restriction that is still valid Mhare (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:CANVASSING is bad. Mhare (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

So stop doing it. And stop lying, it would help also :) --Čeha (razgovor) 20:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Canvassing ! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

[FOOTNOTEFine199153-1] Fine 1991, p. 53.

[1]