Jump to content

Talk:Ottoman Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

1463-1580

[edit]

This time period of Bosnian history is not covered at all. Mukadderat (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now with the introduction of the article Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most of the editors supporting the move are likely sockpuppets of Bosnipedian [1]. The dispute hinges on whether the Kingdom of Bosnia ended in 1463 or around 1530; sources have been provided for the former, but not the latter date. Ucucha 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1463–1878) → History of Bosnia and Herzegovina (1535–1878) — Change 1463 to 1535 for better accuracy.— Marek.69 talk 02:44, 17 January 2010 (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) 02:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The discussion which taking place here has not come to any consensus. No serious historian disputes the fact that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. 49 sources that contradict Regionlegion's claim have been cited (along with links to their digitalized versions). Surtsicna (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it was already explained on that page that there can be no gap between the end of an administration and the beginning of a subsequent one, let alone a half a century+ gap. The last Bosnian king was executed in 1463. Bosnians moan this, and that is fine. It is called nationalist sentiment, and it is reflected in references you cited. Many of those poetically say that "Bosnia fell by the whisper", whatever that vague prose meant. The resistance continued long past 1463, and lasted for almost a century. Authors of your references did not live in those times. The Ottomans did so they created their own first administration at the earliest time possible, called Eyalet of Bosnia. Nobody cares what references have to say other than facts. The end of a regime is defined by the start of the subsequent regime, not by word of mouth or peoples' memory, or twenty pounds of references. Only facts in references count, sentiments do not. No one questions your references in the part where they say the last king was executed in 1463. It is a fact. The problem is when they delve into prose and romantic nationalist feelings unsupported by data. Anyway, it seems that the consensus has thus been established for the support to the renaming and moving of the pages (3 yeah, 1 neigh). Bosnipedian Bosnipedian (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see only two users who support this move: one who said that they don't care about this discussion anymore, and you. The user who proposed this move did not propose it because he supports it and did not say that he supports it. He proposed it because he wanted to help you. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Consensus is not achieved by polling. Over 50 sources are against this move and I can find over 50 more sources that contradict you. You are aware of that, which is why you said you don't need a consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bear in mind that everything written above is merely original research by an editor who is suspected of using a sock puppet called User:Regionlegion. The editor dismisses over 50 sources simply because he doesn't trust them. He insists that his source says that the Kingdom of Bosnia disappeared in 1535, when Stjepan Berislavić ("Crown Prince of Bosnia", as he calls him, claiming that the source calls him that way too) was executed. However, the source he cites (you can read it here) doesn't refer to anyone as Crown Prince of Bosnia and says that Stjepan Berislavić died in 1536. Therefore, this move request is based on no source whatsoever. It is based only on POV and OR of a user who says that a source says what the source doesn't say. Surtsicna (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification. When I said "3" I obviously meant the first IP-user who gave his/her conditional consent, which was obviously accepted as he did not know that Marek69 had already crated the page the IP-user required as a condition for his consent. Then user Innotata also consented (unless that's another of my "sockets" -- quick, you should report it). So it is 3:1. Finally, what you call "my own research" is actually now a new page Bosnian Royal Family, which indeed took me a month of work to finish. By the way, it uses more references than your 40 (again, if references would be taken by pound of mass), including local ones that however operate over facts, not national sentiment. Please be polite on that page: place your suggestions on the Discussion therein, as hasty edits will be understood as hostile. Cheers Bosnipedian (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, User:Innotata said that they don't care anymore, meaning that their vote is irrelevant. I am curious; where did you see the number 40, which you keep mentioning? I have mentioned the number 50+. Anyway, you lied about a source once; I don't see why you wouldn't lie more. Unlike you, I have provided evidence that all of c. 55 sources unambigiously contradict you. The article you created includes conspiracy theory and claims that England has always been a foe of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that the UK discriminates the Catholics, etc. There is much more evidence that Bosnian Royal Family article is a hoax which has no place in Wikipedia and I have listed those evidence at Talk:Bosnian Royal Family. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Producer from Holywood? Must be. Or a Serbian, as the profile says. And Surtsicna's socketpuppy :) Anyway, curious as to what "arguments" would those be? Though somehow I feel I'm not going to get that response. Say, arguments of the there can be no gap in adminstration between 1463-1527(1535) type? Hopefully some senior admin of Wikipedia reads this and realizes that logics is not subject to democracy. Despite the 3:2 in Support. So, Surtsicna, are you a Serb? You can tell us, I mean Serbs can speak Bosnian rigth? As you said, plus you didn't say you were a Bosnian, you just said you can speak (or understand, who remembers) Bosnian. It all boils to that in the Balkans, doesn't it. Who cares about the facts, logics, dates... Regionlegion (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clever comment but please focus on the content and not the user. If you wish to open a sockpuppet investigation yourself then by all means do so. I'm not going to reiterate all of Surstsicna's arguments for you, but they are far more compelling than the ones you've brought forth (which apparently contradict you). P.S. I've been called a Croat by Serbian editors, a Bosniak by Croatian editors, and now a Serb by an apparent Bosniak editor. ◅ P  R  O  D  U  C  E  R (TALK) 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clever comment but please focus on the content and not the user. P.S. That applies to your countryman Surtsicna too. Besides your and your countryman's inability to address the only question here (of a gap between 1463-1527(1535)), hostility revealed your/his position. Regionlegion (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You started with personal attacks, and now you are posing as a victim. Not even funny. What's the problem, besides that you run away from the topic of this page: GAP BETWEEN 1463-1527 (1535) Regionlegion (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see you really have no shame. How can you lie so much? Everyone can see that you attacked me the first time you wrote anything to me, calling me ignorant, and the reason for this was my talking too authoritatively. You can deceive the Wikipedia community. Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look up definition of insult. Regionlegion (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, regarding nationality and nationalism; I must be a nationalistic Serb, as I revert edits like these. Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said it. You revert all sorts of stuff, daily, hundreds of times, out of habit or what have you. So that could have been one of your ad hoc reverts too, who knows what a nationalist thinks. I never had such an agenda. I only posed a simple question, to which neither you nor anyone else of many whose help you solicited, haven't answered yet: GAP. Regionlegion (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to everyone: please note that so far no one has offered an alternative explanation as to the gap 1463-1527 as regionlegion noted. Voting result on the issue is 0. So six days later I motion that the Wikipedia articles on Ottoman conquest and establishing of administration List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29 and Eyalet#Eyalets_in_1609 , be used as the final word. I second that the pages be moved and renamed as proposed, on the account of lack of verifiability for the gap, in a situation where at least two other Wikipedia resources resolve this gap. We can not allow for a discrepancy between two independent Wikipedia sources based on the Ottoman historians, and romantic literature in the local language from the lands once occupied by the Ottomans. Bosnipedian (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to everyone: please note that over 50 sources (which you can check yourself; note that I can cite over 100 sources if neccessary) oppose this move, unambigiously stating that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. Among these authors are reputable historian such as Halil İnalcık, a leading Turkish historian of the Ottoman Empire - as Encyclopædia Britannica calls him. No source has been cited to support this move, only one person's "logic". Most of the sources are in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian because Bosnipedian/Regionlegion demanded those but I can provide English language sources. Here are the sources that speak against the move:
  1. Halil İnalcik: An economic and social history of the Ottoman Empire; Cambridge University Press, 1997
  2. Frank Ronald Charles Bagley, Hans Joachim Kissling: The last great Muslim empires: history of the Muslim world; Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996
  3. Glasnik Jugoslovenskog Profesorskog Drustva; 1933
  4. Bakir Tanović: Ko je vlasnik Bosne i Hercegovine?: historijski pregled; Eminex, 1995
  5. Mate Ujević: Gradišćanski Hrvati; Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Jeronima, 1934
  6. Senahid Halilović: Bosanski jezik; Biblioteka Ključanin, 1991
  7. Oton Knezović: Hrvatska povijest: od najstarijeg do godine 1918; Jeronimska knjižnica, 1936
  8. Hrvatsko kolo; Matica hrvatska, 1909
  9. Bošnjaštvo na vjetrometini; BiH kulturno-informativni centar, 2000
  10. Hazim Šabanović: Bosanski pašaluk: postanak i upravna podjela; Oslobođenje, 1959
  11. Enciklopedija Jugoslavije; Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod, 1980
  12. Wayne S. Vucinich: The Ottoman Empire: its record and legacy; Van Nostrand, 1965
  13. 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
  14. Mustafa Imamović: Historija države i prava Bosne i Hercegovine; 1999
  15. Pejo Ćošković: Crkva bosanska u XV. stoljeću; Institut za istoriju, 2005
  16. Vjekoslav Klaić: Poviest Bosne do propasti kraljevstva; Troškom piščevim, 1882
  17. L. von Südland, Fedor Pucek: Južnoslavensko pitanje: prikaz cjelokupnog pitanja; Hrvatska Demokratska Stranka, 1990
  18. Orijentalni institut u Sarajevu: Prilozi za orijentalnu filologiju; Institut, 2004
  19. Dominik Mandić: Herceg-Bosna 1 Hrvatska: prigodom 500-godisnjice pada Bosne (1463-1963); Hrvatske Revije, 1963
  20. Mladen Lorković: Narod i zemlja Hrvata; DoNeHa, 1996
  21. Croatica Christiana Periodica; Kršćanska sadašnjost, 1985
  22. Džemal Čelić, Mehmed Mujezinović: Stari mostovi u Bosni i Hercegovini; Sarajevo-Publishing, 1998
  23. Sveučilište u Zagrebu. Institut za hrvatsku povijest: Radovi; 1995
  24. Matica; Matica iseljenika Hrvatske, 1983
  25. Enver Imamović, Ibrahim Tepić, Ibrahim Bušatlija: Neum i bosansko primorje; Press Centar Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine, 1994
  26. Vjekoslav Klaić, Trpimir Macan: Povijest Hrvata od najstarijih vremena do svršetka XIX stoljeća; Nakladni zavod MH, 1981
  27. Sveučilište u Zagrebu. Institut za hrvatsku povijest: Radovi; 1995
  28. Ferdo Šišić: Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda; Matica hrvatska, 1962
  29. Danko Plevnik: Smisao Bosne‎, page 82; Naklada Jesenski i Turk, 1997
  30. Nijazija Koštović: Sarajevo između dobrotvorstva i zla; El-Kalem, 1995
  31. Dragutin Pavličević: Krbavska bitka i njezine posljedice; Hrvatska matica iseljenika, 1997
  32. Sabrana djela Dr. O. Dominika Mandića: Bosna i Hercegovina : Sv. 1. Državna i vjerska pripadnost sredovječne Bosne i Hercegovine; Ziral, 1978
  33. Hrvatsko književno društvo sv. Ćirila i Metoda: Marulić; 1995
  34. Enver Imamović: Otoci Cres i Lošinj od ranog srednjeg vijeka do konca XVIII stoljeća; OK SSRN Cres-Lošinj, 1987
  35. Tadija Smičiklas: Dvijestogodišnjica oslobodjenja Slavonije; U knjižari Jugosl. akademije, 1891
  36. Ivo Smoljan: Neretva; 1970
  37. Radovi Centra Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru; 1983
  38. Madžida Bećirbegović: Džamije sa drvenom munarom u Bosni i Hercegovini; Veselin Masleša, 1990
  39. Smail Balić: Kultura bošnjaka: muslimanska komponenta; Universitätsbuchdrucker Adolf Holzhausens, 1973
  40. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini; Zemaljska štamparija, 1912
  41. Alija Isaković, Milosav Popadić: Pisana riječ u Bosni i Hercegovini od najstarijih vremena do 1918. godine; IRO "Veselin Masleša." OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost, 1982
  42. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini; Zemaljska štamparija, 1893
  43. 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
  44. Safvet-beg Bašagić: Bošnjaci i Hercegovci u islamskoj književnosti: prilog kulturnoj historiji Bosne i Hercegovine; "Svjetlost," OOUR Izdavačka djelatnost, 1986
  45. Žarko Domljan, Jugoslavenski leksikografski zavod "Miroslav Krleža": Likovna enciklopedija Jugoslavije; Zavod "Miroslav Krleža", 1984
  46. Branislav Đurđev: Kanuni i kanun-name za Bosanski, Hercegovački, Zvornički, Kliški, Crnogorski i Skadarski sandžak; Orijentalni Inst., 1957
  47. Hrvatska smotra: nacionalni, socijalni i knijževni mjesečnik; 1940
  48. Ivan Lovrenovič, Ammiel Alcalay: Unutarnja zemlja: kratki pregled kulturne povijesti Bosne i Hercegovine; Durieux, 2004
  49. Robert Holjevac: Ivan Stojković i njegovo doba: (u svjetlu borbe za jedinstvo Crkve i carigradske misije); Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2004
  50. Radoslav Lopašić: Bihać i Bihaćka Krajina: mjestopisne i poviestne crtice; Matica hrvatska, 1943
  51. Povijesno društvo Hrvatske: Historijski zbornik; Nakladni zavod Hrvatske, 1992
  52. 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

I think it is now obvious why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with this person. He refers to authors of arbitrarily selected references -- as participants in this discussion. Want to subpoena them, perhaps? In that case I would like to subpoena the authors of my 60 references, some notable British professors amongst those (to match his Turkish author, I suppose?) Oh, boy. What a delusion of royal proportions (pun intended). Of course, he fails yet again to say anything about the gap 1463-1527 or to define a "fall" (which he readily changes into "collapse", a synonim or...?), or to explain how could the Ottomans be so mistaken as to "forget" to establish their first administration in Bosnia in 1463. Etc. Bosnipedian (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite any source you have which unambigiously say that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in 1463. We are not going to discuss what you consider logical, per Wikipedia:No original research. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again manipulating the facts, now the Wikipedia regulations: according to Wikipedia:Verifiability: Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Of course, you somehow forgot the latter. So I took a look, and bingo! Here is what the part you "forgot" to mention says among other things: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias: Bias: Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired. How long do you plan on manipulating Wikipedia regulations, and keep only your and your arbitrary references' biased view of the "1463 fall of Bosnia". Why are you fighting the fact that there is an obvious conflict between your opinionated references and the Wikipedia information on first Ottoman administration in Bosnia: List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29 & Eyalet#Eyalets_in_1609 References are not without bias, and this conflict with other Wikipedia articles is an example of that. Why is it so hard for you to understand? Beats me... Bosnipedian (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said what I though was relevant. You are obviously so desperate to accuse me, having failed accusing me of being a nationalist. That's just pathetic. As a note to other users, please read the sentence which Bosnipedian put in his "neutral" article about the so-called Bosnian Royal Family: "England's main motivation to act towards Bosnia as a foe... is in her old animosity towards the Catholic Church..."; "England's infamous persecutions of Catholics throughout history, which are now part of common knowledge, then occupations of Ireland and Scotland..."; "For the past 300 years, English monarchs violate human rights of Catholics so openly that the The Act of Settlement of 1701 bans a Catholic or anyone even marries a Catholic from becoming England's monarch."; "England's rulers have enabled distruction which creates permanent instability in the region as well as continental Europe overall..." and other silly claims. That is what this user who considers to be neutral.
"Why are you fighting the fact that there is an obvious conflict between your opinionated references and the Wikipedia information on first Ottoman administration in Bosnia?" WIt is well established that Wikipedia and sites that mirror Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia itself. I can't even understand how you can compare a Wikipeda article (which can be edited by everyone) and 55 scholars? Anyway, how exactly are my references biased? In whose favour are they biased? In favour of the year 1463? Don't you see how ridiculous all your arguments sound? Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So funny to see you resorting to cherry-picking of article's particular part (which is actually common knowledge, from Rome to London and back), after having been exposed as a manipulator of Wikipedia regulations. Instead of withdrawing from the discussion altogether, you actually have guts to keep on, now asking how your references are biased? OK, let's finish with your disputing this Talk's topic, for good. Here is the relevant part from the article's Talk page, on the Nobilo reference, demonstrating why your references are biased (to say the least), while answering your crucial question in this Talk: the Nobilo reference actually says when the "fall" of Bosnia happened (again, whatever that meant): ...krajem 15. ili početkom 16. st., nakon pada Bosne. (p.776) Translation: ...at the end of the 15th or at the beginning of the 16th century, after the fall of Bosnia. Now what? Or will you ask for more references as to the "fall"? Because you requested "at least one"... If you only knew what it is that you want. Bias, neutrality, verifiability, all big words for you, it seems. Which brings me back to the gap between 1463-1527(1535), now that you have a reference in addition to the Ottoman pages on Wikipedia. No explanation yet? Thought so. Bosnipedian (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After having been exposed as a manipulator of Wikipedia regulations" - this is the most ridiculous thing you've written so far. I am manipulating Wikipedia regulations? How can that be done anyway? Do you know what manipulation is? Anyway, why do you pretend to be so naive? The reference does not say that the Kingdom of Bosnia did not cease to exist in 1463 and it does not say that it ceased to exist in 1527/1535/1536 (whichever year you imagined). Or is "the end of the 15th century/beggining of the 16th century" suddenly a synonym for 1527/1535/1536? Also, who is Nobilo? You have been referring to Nadilo so far. Surtsicna (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will explain it to you. The reference demonstrates the bias of your idea and the references you selected (as such), and calls for neutrality check to say the least. Is it 1463? Is it 1527? Is it 1535? Who knows? You don't. Your references don't, because mine don't. I don't. But the Ottomans sure as heck knew! Trusting only your references when running a date-related event throughout Wikipedia, without bothering to achieve neutrality, is by definition a manipulation, just as your partial citation of Wikipedia regulations above was. Bosnipedian (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. Now everyone can see that you have no idea what you are talking about. I did not ignore any reference that said that the Kingdom of Bosnia did not cease to exist in 1463. You haven't cited any reference that says that the Kingdom of Bosnia did not cease to exist in 1463. What did the Ottomans know? Please note that Wikipedia cannot interpretate primary sources. "Trusting only your references" - there are no other references to trust or to not trust. So, let me get this straight: trusting my references is a manipulation? That's what you said. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Don't you understand that I have the right to cite only those Wikipedia policies that are related to the issue? Or do you expect me to cite every Wikipedia policy for every issue? Surtsicna (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will neither resort to insults nor put any words in the opponent's mouth like you just did. Instead, I will stick to the point. The matter of fact is, you cited regulations only partially, leaving out the regulation that warns about bias. It says (interpreted) that all authors and all sources are by definition biased, until filtered through neutrality checks and balances. So stop raising references alone to the pedestal of all--mightiness. They alone are insufficient to establish that there is no bias (in them and otherwise). They must have an outside check. In historical science the check is called primary historical document and it supersedes all references ever written on history. In this case it is the Ottoman military records, used to create List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29 and Eyalet#Eyalets_in_1609. Learn to distinguish primary and secondary historic sources. References in historical sciences are secondary sources and when they off-hand wild guesses such as "Bosnia fell in xxxx" they are called tertiary sources. Man, do I have to teach you the basics here? Bosnipedian (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that nobody can read what you wrote? Do you really believe that nobody can read how you insult me continuously (for which actions you were warned by the administrators)? Anyway, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Besides, you haven't even cited any primary source that says that the Kingdom of Bosnia ceased to exist in any year other than 1463, making you entire previous comment unnecessary. Surtsicna (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on playing cat and mouse for as long as you like. Wikipedia articles on the Ottoman conquest were too based on SECONDARY SOURCES that were based on PRIMARY SOURCES (the Ottoman military records). Your references are also SECONDARY sources but you are cherry-picking their TERTIARY analyses, estimates and cultural sentiment of an occupied people ("And thus Bosnia fell to the whisper" -- oh, mine). Which group of secondary sources should we trust? Western historians (unaffected by the Ottoman conquest) will without exception trust the former. Are you done, finally? (As for the insults, you just added word "idiot" to your vocabulary). Bosnipedian (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word idiot was not directed at you, nor at anyone else. The question I asked was: "I know that you think that I am an idiot, but do you consider all the other users idiots as well?" The comment above is just an evidence that you are desperately trying to discredit me. Nothing else you wrote is worth commenting. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support I just noticed what this guy above was saying. Is it possible? Wikipedia is now taking secondary sources that are based on tertiary sources, over secondary sources that are based on primary sources (and which Wikipedia itself lists on its pages on Ottoman conquest of Europe)??? Did I understand this correctly, how can this be? Oh mine, this is really sweet. A primer. Wikigate has just got a new spin! Wait until I pass this one around. Ha! 78.46.117.146 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count me in -- MOVE The guy who throws in references by pound, which he chose by himself and that are not based on Turkish data, as an argument, is hilarious. I noticed something else too: no hassle over any other history topic on Wikipedia. But Bosnia seems to be the problem for both Serbs and English hawks. Wonder why that is. Oh wait, Mr. Simms explained it nicely (it's one of the references in this great Bosnia article, if someone cared to read). 173.212.236.30 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT Definitely move this and all other pages that contain the same factual error. More than one Wiki page says that Turks conquered Bosnia in 1527, not 1463. Obviously it was well and kicking in the mean-time. What occupying force wouldn't take a chance and proclaim a victory on the first chance they got, instead of waiting for half a century? 1463 sounds like a myth, but also as a conspiracy theory. Go facts - 1535! 99.198.121.199 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After carefully reading the discussion and checking out all of the pages presented, I think that this proposal is OK. According to primary historic sources (Turkish military records) used in secondary sources that have been already referenced widely across Wikipedia, the first Turkish administration Eyalet of Bosnia has started when old Bosnia ended. That is, in 1527 according to: List_of_Ottoman_sieges_and_landings#Growth_.281453.E2.80.931683.29. Secondary sources based on primary sources must be given priority over the secondary sources based on tertiary sources, no matter how many references existed in the latter secondary sources. All references can be biased as per WP:V as verifiability is checked together with both WP:NOR and WP:NPV. 173.212.236.30 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ottoman era in the history of Saudi Arabia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Languages and religion of Bosnian Janissaries

[edit]

How can orthodox be first in the sentence when catholic is alphabetically first, and there were more Catholics then orthodox in Bosnia prior to the conquest? Also they were taught Serbian? Really? Modern Serbian has 10000+ words of Turkish origin not the other way around. People in Bosnia spoke old Croatian at the time, and also muslim population spoke schakavian ikavian, exclusive Croatian dialect until second Yugoslavia imposed modern "Serbo Croatian" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.243.29 (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


addressing the large number of Serbs in Bosnia

[edit]

it's near impossible to find any objective history of the Serb population in Bosnia during the Ottoman period. there are some views that the ottomans forcibly relocated Christian communities from its southern lands into Bosnia and/or that Serbs et al fled north and settled in Bosnia before migrating again into the Austrian military border. I have no interest in subjective views as for this region of the world they are useless in developing any understanding of the complexity of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. thank you

events leading to the Ottoman withdrawal by 1878 when Bosnia was annexed by the Austrians

[edit]

again there seems to be little info about the circumstances leading to the retreat of the Ottomans. I have to assume that many Turks as well as Slavic Muslims fled south and into Turkey. After Austrian annexation, many Serbs moved from the defunct Austrian military border into Bosnia. a review of the Lika population in 1915 (Grujic) bemoans the number of empty farmsteads in Lika near the Bosnia border. I'm currently reading 'the Ottoman Empire and the Bosnian Uprising' by Fatma Sel Turhan which is in English. while not exactly to this point I was hoping to find some tangential information that could explain the Ottoman withdrawal from Bosnia. thank you

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&oldid=1213625435"