![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This time period of Bosnian history is not covered at all. Mukadderat ( talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 poÄetkom 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This time period of Bosnian history is not covered at all. Mukadderat ( talk) 19:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 poÄetkom 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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